APPEALS DECISIONS 1980-1981 1980 BOARD OF APPEAL CASES
STREETS NAMES PAGE
4 Aberdeen Street Raymond & Joan White 1.
10 Ames Street Stephen '& Madeline Bilodeau 2.
i
3 Barnes Circle Victor C. Pierro 3.
31 Boston Street Pardy Auto Body 4.
119 Boston Street S. & T. Korisianos 5.
Bridge & St. Peter Streets Salem Housing Authority (�s 6.
40 Bridge Street Pilgrim Motel, Inc. 7.
94 Bridge Street Michael J. Apostolos 8.
132 Bridge Street Mickey Benson 9.
140-142-144 Bridge Street Salem Bridge St. Realty Trust 10.
337 Bridge Street Robert Magarian 11.
16 Broadway J. Brown & H. Ablow (Salem Paper Co.) 12.
4 Brown Street Philip L. Frasca 13.
4-A Buffum Street Ext. Michael Bick 14.
120 Canal Street Benjamin J. Hernando 15.
266 Canal Street Charles P. Bertini 16.
266 Canal Street Charles P. Bertini 17.
314-330 Canal Street & 16-24 Adams Esther Realty Trust 18.-19.
6-6'k Cushing Street Paul & Elizabeth Hinchion 20.
1-3 East Collins Street Ward II Social Club 21.
35 Congress Street Shetland Properties 22.
105-107 Essex Street Phyl-Gerald Realty Trust 23.
384 Essex Street Mary L. Powers 24.
411-413 Essex Street Frank A. Bisegna 25.
Federal & Washington Sts. Redevelopment - Stern-Tise Salem Group 26.-27.
11 Gardner Street James Ahola 28.
1980 BOARD OF APPEAL CASES
STREETS NAMES PAGE
297 Highland Avenue Anarpet Realty Corp. 29.
481 Highland Avenue Walter Proodian 30.
40 Hillside Avenue Edward & Carol Stetson 31.
52 Howard Street Thomas Pelletier 32.
332 Lafayette Street Louis Goutzos 33.
417 Lafayette Street L. Kent Smith, M.D. 34.
20 Loring Avenue Annette I. Gagnon 35.
101 Loring Avenue Thomas A. Coppola 36.
14 Lynde Street Kenneth E. Lindauer & Carlin Gordon 37.
28-30 Lynde Street Lynde St.Realty Corp. 38.
60 Marlborough Road Hugh & Rosanna Mulligan 39.
1 Milk Street David Knight 40.
25 North Street Robert Balboni 41.-42.
72 North Street Harry M. Andrews 43.
96 North Street Arthur C. Chalifour 44.
190 North Street Salem Carpet Center =(Young-Owner) 45.
9-11 Ocean Terrace Martha B. Sanders 46.
36-38 Perkins Street John H. Hamilton 47.
Pierce Rd. Lots B, C, D, & E. Clayton Smith 48.
47 Summer Street Richard & Margaret Marchand 49.
37 Turner Street David L. Flaherty 50.
r
IIcIIEITty C�1c74�cli��LiSS i�'El�i-- e Y _
''L7:`.i�
c c , '80 AL 28 AT :OR
JULY 9, 1980
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SAL
S.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND T. WHITE AND JOAN E. WHITE FOR VARIANCE FOR
4 ABERDEEN STREET.
A hearing on the Petition was held on July 9, 1980, with the following
Board Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, LaBrecque,
Hacker and Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and a ___
notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on June 25 and
July 2, 1980, in accordance with Mass. General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners requested a variance to divide a parcel of land owned by them
situated on Aberdeen Avenue containing 15,000 square feet with 150 feet of street
;frontage into two parcels, one to contain 8,000 square feet with 80 feet of street
frontage and the other to contain 7,000 square feet with 70 feet of street frontage.
The property is within a R-1 District which requires 15,000 square feet and
100 feet of street frontage.
The Petitioners, through their attorney, George P. Vallis, presented a petition
-9y4ned by several abutters indicating their support of the Petition together with
an executed agreement for the sale of the proposed parcel which would contain
7,000 square feet.
The following facts were presented to the Board.
1. The Petitioners purchased the property on November 6, 1973, at which time
the density.regulations of the Zoning Ordinance required 60 feet of frontage with
minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet at which time Petitioners constructed a dwelling
2. Particular attention was given to conforming with then existing density,
regulations when the house was constructed so that the property subsequently could
oe- subdivided into two parcels.
3. On May 5, 1977, the Zoning Ordinance was changed requiring the present
,100 feet of street frontage with minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet.
4. The land abuts the Salem/Peabody boundary line and is situated in a built-up
area ,and substantially all neighboring lots contain 7,000 square feet of land or less,
The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter makes
he following findings of fact:
1. The proposed subdivision shall not be substantially more detrimental than
the existing non-conforming lots in the neighborhood as the use of the property is
r
jb harmony with the surrounding area.
S `F 4�� p`�.•� �Y
(rit" of28 A10 :0�
�xlrin,
JULY 9, 1980 - DECISION - 4 ABERDEEN STREET - MA C,44e, OFFICE
SA-Lt
2. A strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve practical
difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the Petitioner.
3. That the proposed use of the property will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City' s inhabitants.
Accordingly, the Board unanimously approves the variance to the Petitioner.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Douglas Hopper u
d
Acting Secretary, Bo„ard of Appeals
APP;^' FROM, THIS DEMI-ON, IF ANY, SHALL S`_ !,:=DE PUP.SUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
u -.,_v
G E3iE?AL LAWS. C : .. . ., Z02. AND SH:L' 5E PfLE^ 4YITH;':-23 CANS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF TP:IS DEC-S7dN i•`i THE 0, ICE '13.'- THE CITY CLERF-
P.:-_ _ .E,.. _ ? S__ �:i 1:. iu. WIZIA''�� ^. SPECIAL PER
rc i__� ..a:, .. . . . n_C-J_.,.r °_ .,., THS ..:RT-
1i 7.. .. _ ..1'i i u�., .. _. __ D.
CF .: A.`d riih H;aS �'' !LE, i.: . n r.. S',:iS- F _..'_D IS
Rt..,,i19E6 Iu
P. SOCiH ESSEX RE31STR1' OF C__..> AND OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE 04'f"QRS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
� 1
YQ ,
of c=�j��Pa1 �
w 81 JAS! -2 A9 :20
CITY C, Pj% 's CFi SCF
SAI F;1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN C & MADELEINE BILODEAU REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR 10 AMES STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on December 17, 1980, with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Hacker. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and
a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on December 3,
and December 10, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners are requesting a variance for thero ert at 10 Ames Street
P P Y
to permit construction of a two-car garage with a three-room apartment on the
second level and an 8 foot addition to the rear of the existing single family
dwelling at the site. A variance is required because the proposed construction
would violate density regulations in an R-2 district, as well as front, rear
and side yard restrictions.
. The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings
of fact:
1. . The property is in an R-2 district where the proposed use(i.e.two family
dwelling) is allowed.
2. The proposed use is unopposed by abutters.
3. The property in question is unique because of its peculiar shape and
size.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its size and shape.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the property in
question but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the building
is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but
not the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship: Unless
the requested variance is given, the property cannot be used in a manner consistent
with R-2 zoning.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good.
(litg of �nlem, � tts �zehu et#
crarcb of Appeal
DECEMBER 17, 1980
DECISION PAGE TWO - STEPHEN G. &.MADELINE BILODEAU - 10 AMES STREET
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of
granting the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the petitioners
on the following terms and conditions:
1. A variance is given from density requirements and front, rear and
side yard restrictions.
2. A certified plot plan and a set of drawings acceptable to the Building
Inspector shall be provided to the Building Inspector before any construction
commences.
GRANTED - WITH CONDITIONS c _
Anthony M. ' eeherry ly/
Secretary
AP?FAL FRG? T:�'S ":C S ^,p;Y, S!':IL P' „rp oUgSIHk.' TO SECTIOM 17 CF THE P ASS-
. ii ZJ Cr.N AF"" THE CATE OF FILIPIO
0. THIS ., 'Ci I.. E C C
CFRG
Hdo<.p:r� MED,
c p
-
OR SPOT, IF S.,' H .. hS O .. E„ �H P Fl,iE OF THE C4lNER
REGC2O°) IN THE S' �in ES
riP. r .._ ..
OF RECORD 02 IS RECORDED AND IID.cS O'il Th ,i'rIER'S CEFT, G4:E OF TITLE. _
- - - BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION.HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
.1 z orf of �3atem,
Nil
k - curb of Appal
'80 N107 24 Ail :11
NOVENBER 19, 1980 CITY CLERK-S OFFICE
SALEt ti; s's
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF VICTOR C. PIERRO CONCERNING PROPERTY AT 3 BARNES CIRCLE
LOCATED IN A R-1 DISTRICT
A ,hearing on the petition was held on November 19, 1980, with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Joseph Piemonte, Edward Luzinski and Arthur
LaBrecque.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing
was published in the Salem Evening News on November 5 and November 12, 1980, in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
Petitioner requested a variance to erect a single family dwelling house on a
parcel of land containing 50 feet of frontage and 5,000 square feet. Property is in
a.R-1 District which required 15,000 square feet and 100 feet of street frontage.
The Petitioner, through his attorney, George P. Vallis, presented a petition signed
• by several abutters indicating their support of the petition.
It was stated that the proposed construction would conform to all other density
regulations of the zoning ordinance, namely: front, side and rear yard setbacks. A
.portion of the assessor's map of the locus property, together with surrounding lots
was presented to the Board and it was shown that the subject lot is identical to
:many other lots in the neighborhood on which houses have been erected and, therefore,
would not affect the character of the neighborhood.
It was further stated that the hardship which existed was with the size of the
lot which cannot be enlarged by acquisition of adjacent land and would be valueless
without benefit of the variance, _.
The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter, makes
the following findings of fact:
1. The subject lot shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
nonconforming lots in the neighborhood as the use of the property is in harmony with
the surrounding area,
2. A strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would involve practical difficulty
or unnecessary hardship to the petitioner.
3. The proposed use of the property would promote the public health, safety,
and welfare of the city's inhabitants.
Accordingly, the Board unanimously approves the variance to the petitioner.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Anthony M. F erry
Secretary
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TD SECTION 17 OF THE 9A.= . - -
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 803, AND SHALL BE FILED 11IT141N 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE.OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERX, -
P'23;ANT TO -LASS. GENERA. LAWS, CHAPTE2. 8G3. SECT?SH 11, Till VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERJIIT
'"MelTED M.1EIN, SHALL HOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A "CCPY OF TliEO$✓;!SIC."±, SEA11N4 THE CERT..
i;A'FIOtt OF THE CFFY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED 1'I-, N1 *P`EAL HAS BEEN FILED, '
-3 THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILEJTHAT IT HAS BEEN DIS'GISSED OR DENIED IS
RECOROEO 1,11 THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF TH! O'BNZA
OF RECORD OR IS RECOROEO AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARR 0?APPM
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH.THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK_
of p` alPtit i c'I S�iC 1I E 5
3; II jrb Vf APP '80 MAY -5 A8 :40
•' St APRIL 23. 19so CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEI1 HASS.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RALPH S. PARDY d/b/a PARDY'S AUTO BODY FOR SPECIAL PEMTITS
FOR 31 BOSTON STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on April 23, 1980 with the following Board
Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr., Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, LaBrecque, and
Feeherry and Associate Member Piemonte. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters
and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on
April 9 and April 16, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested Special Permits (1) to construct an additional '
24 ft. by 24 ft. to the existing nonconforming structure at this location and
(2) to use the addition for the sales and service of previously owned automobiles.
-. The property is within a B-2 district.
The provision. of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to the petitioner's
request for a Special Permit to construct an addition to a.non-con forming structure is
Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
• - of Appeals may, in accordance with .the procedure and conditions set forth in
Section VIII F and IX D, grant SpecialPermits for alterations and reconstruction of
nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of
nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change,
extension, englargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than
the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood, nor shall this paragraph_ apply to
billboards, signs, or other advertising devices.
With respect to petitioner's request for a Special Permit to sell previously
owned automobiles at this locatioug this Board, in reviewing this request, is guided
by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a. finding by the Board
that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, . safety,. convenience
and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter, makes
the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed construction and use will not adversely affect traffic or parking
in this area.
2. The proposed construction at this property and use of the property are in
harmony with the surrounding area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
. public hearing, the Board of Appeals find (i) that the proposed construction on this
property and the proposed use of the property will not be substantially more detrimental
than the existing use to the neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed construction on this
BOARD OF APPEAL - DECISION - APRIL 23, 1980 - PARDY AUTO BODY - 31 BOSTON STREET
property and use of the property will promote the public health, safety, convenience,
and welfare of the City's inhabitants, and (iii) that the proposed construction on
this property and the proposed use of the property is in harmony with the Salem Zoning
Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board approves the granting of Special Permits to the
Petitioner. (4-0 with Chairman Boulger abstaining).
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following terms
and conditions:
1. All construction shall be in accordance with the plans on file with the
Board of Appeals.
2. There shall at no time be more than ten (10) used cars for sale on the premises.
3. Parking shall be provided as shown on the plans submitted to the Board. Ten
spaces shall be provided for used cars; three spaces shall be provided for employees.
All parking spaces shall be in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
4. Hours of operation for the sale of used cars will be limited to the hours
8 A.M, to 5 P.M. on weekdays and 8 A.M. to 1 P.M. on Saturdays. No selling will take
place on Sundays and legal holidays.
GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS
Anthony M. Ferry (/ zz
Acting Secretary
APPEAL FRO" THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE ViADE PURSUANT To SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. - -
GENERAL LAWS, CH KEP. 803, AND SHALL 3E FILEO I(THIN 27.DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING --'
OF THIS DECISION NI THE OFFICE OF THE CFFY CLERK. -
PUBSANT TO F..ASS. GENERAL LAIWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTIvf! 11, THE t A^IANC° CR S?EOL,L -
GRANTED HEREHI, SHALL NOF TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A C^_P4GF ihr-!UC1,"!r'!. GF!:1;3 T:,E C`i!T- _ -
FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 CAIS HAVE EUFSED AN-) NO APPEAL HAS fret!
-OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEP! F:LEATN' IT 4AS GEE l DIS;;ISSED C3 DENIED IS -
RECORDED IN THE SDUTH ESSEX GEGISTBY OF GE'_OS AND INDDEIED UNDER TBE RAWE CF THE UNNER - --OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE 0`iR!ER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL -
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
i
oarb of r`Fpml '80 JUL 28 AiC :DB
CITY CL=RK'S 0 FICE
JULY 9, 1980 S�LEh: ".':S
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SOTIRIOS AND THEOKUTOS KORISIANOS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR 119 BOSTON STREET.
A hearing on this Petition was held on July 9, 1980, with the following
Board Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, LaBrecque,
Hacker and Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and a
notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on June 25 and July 2,
1980, in accordance with Nass. General Laws, Chapter 40A,
The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to construct an addition
14' x 45' to the existing non-conforming structure at this location.
The property is within a B-2 District. The proposed addition will be attached
to an existing automobile service station and will meet all density regulations
except the rear yard setback.
• The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to the
Petitioner's request for a Special Permit to construct an addition to a non-conforming
structure is Section V-B, 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the
Board of Appeals may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in
Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction
of non-conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion
of non-conforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such
change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detri-
mental than the existing non-conforming use to the neighborhood, nor shall this
paragraph apply to billboards, signs, or other advertising devices.
With respect to Petitioner' s request for a Special Permit to sell previously
owned automobiles at this location, this Board, in reviewing this request, is
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by
the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety,
convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter, finds
that the proposed construction at this property and use of the property are in
harmony with the surrounding area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals finds (i) `that the proposed construction
. on this property and the proposed use of the property will not be substantially
more detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed
construction on this property and use of the property will promote the public health,
safety, convenience, and, welfare of the City' s inhabitants, and (iii) that the
f/
I —'
�itr�r cif
carb of yinal '80 sk 28 A10 :08
CITY CL ERK-� OFFICE
JULY 9, 1980 - DECISION - 119 BOSTON STREET PAGE TWO SALE! ''tkSS.
proposed construction on this property and the proposed use of the property is
in barmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Accordingly, the Board approves
the granting of Special Permits to the Petitioner. (4-0 with Chairman Boulger
abstaining)
The Special Permit is therefore granted.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Dougl a° Hopper, AcPpg Secretary
Board of Appeals
•
APPEAL FRC:: THIS OE::ISiC\.-L A."Y. SHA.L."SE i'iAL'E PLRSCANT TD SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
CENTRAL LAYS. CH;,PTER t,:. A%L SHAG RE c,==7. ;iTH'iG =D DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILINQ
Of 111 1, UClS:CP: lit THE CFG:C'_ GF THE CITY CLERF:. -
1L, TSE VAMANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
PURSA'c: TO ?:i:S, -JR.. L': Cr. .. THE CERT-
CRANIED F�REI'. SHALL N Pa E .d+C
u -" ;:.P i H S 8EEN FILED.
FIC'KiN OF THS.CII R: " '�
ORTh J. IF SUCH AN 1 rc., n. -E E Oj= .I>S"O OR DENIED IS
. v_ i • _ NIMME OF THE OWNER
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH LSSE>. REo!�TR1 CF '-:' �_ C
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE CtlNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE-
BOARD
ITLEBOARD OF APPEAL
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
'80 SEP -3 P3 _/
Cfituof n alem - aswtr4usett�
CITY CLEM'S S OF ICE
SAL E ' A
Aaarh of Appeal
. �- AUGUST 29, 1980
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY TREQUESTING VARIANCES FOR
CERTAIN PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF BRIDGE AND ST. PETER STREETS.
On August 29, 1980 a hearing was held before the Board of Appeals on the
Salem Housing Authority's request for variances relating to the property at the
corner of Bridge and St, Peter Streets.
The following Board Members were present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messers.
Piemonte, Feeherry, LaBrecque and Hacker. Notices of the hearing were sent to
abutters and others and notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening
News on August 15, 1980 and August 22, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested variances from front yard and side yard require-
ments for this property. The property in question is in a B-5 District.
The Board of Appeal after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing, and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of
fact:
1. The Petitioner proposes to construct 54 apartments for' the elderly at
• the location in question,
2. There is an established need for housing for the elderly in Salem at
the present time.
3. The Petitioner's proposed development .involves construction on a parcel
of land which, because of its location in the center of Salem is of
particular_importance_to_the.-continued redevelopment of Salem.
1. The proposed development will include 18 parking spaces,
5. The proposed development will not adversely affect traffic patterns
in the area.
6. The proposed development is strongly supported by the Salem Redevelopment
Authority and the Salem Housing Authority.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:.
(1) The specific location of the land in question is unique because of
its shape and location.
(2) The conditions described above especially affect the land in question
but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land is
located.
• (3) The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but
not the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship;
unless the requested variances are granted, the land will not be developed
in accordance with its most appropriate use.
.1
Q // yy1yy1yy�� y}tr �}CA �yf�f� f�ryy��y�r }yr (mac ('
�Ii SJ Vl (81Lra ;J assn LLIusetts (�[_ CE VVI
1
Aaarb d out 80 SEP -3 P 3 :47
A£Op IN F.
DECISIO - AUGUST 29, 1980 - SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY PAGE TIMTY CLERK'S OFFICE
. (4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good because the development will not adversely affect
traffic patterns or, parking, will significantly enhance the appearance
of the area, and will help to meet a recognized need for housing for
the elderly in Salem.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The- Board grants variances as requested by the petitioner
on the following terms and conditions.
1. A variance is granted from side yard restrictions for the Bridge Street
side of the property, to allow construction up to within 7 feet of the
street.
2. A variance is granted from the front yard restriction on the St. Peter
Street side of the property so .as to allow construction within 22 feet
of the street.
3. The Petitioner will be required to maintain eighteen (18) off-street
parking spaces as shown on the plan provided to the Board of Appeal.
• 4. No building permit shall be issued unless approval is given for the
project by the Fire Marshal David Goggin's Office, as outlined in a
letter on file from his office.
Anthony M. eeherry
Secretary
. A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
RECEIVct;
situ ofial�m,
'80 MAY 29 A9 :00 Pourb Vf Mtd
CITY C: "'K'S OFFICE
SALEM v r_,
MAY. 21, 1980
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PILGRIM MOTEL, INC. (ANDREW ABDO) REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FOR 40 BRIDGE STREET.
A hearing on this Petition was held on May 21, 1980 with. the following Board
Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr., Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, Feeherry and
Hacker and Associate Member Piemonte. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters
and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on
May 7, 1980 and May 14, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. -
The Petition of Pilgrim Motel, Inc. requests a variance to install sinks, cooking
• units and refrigerators in eight of the motel rooms at an existing motel at 40 Bridge
Street. A variance is required because the proposed changes at the petitioner' s motel
would in effect change the property into a multi-unit dwelling. The location in
question is in a B-2 zoning district where the multi-family dwellings are prohibited. '
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. Under the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, a motel is defined as follows:
e
"Hotel, Motel, or Inn -- a. building containing rooms rented or hired out,
or designed to be rented or hired out, for sleeping purposes by guests. A
general kitchen, dining room, drugstore, or newstand intended primarily
for serving the buildings' occupants and only incidentally the public may
be be provided within the building or in an accessory building."
2. The petitioner's proposal will, if allowed, change the petitioner' s motel
into a multi-family dwelling.
3. A multi-family dwelling is inappropriate in any B-2 zoning district,
' Moreover, such a use is particularly inappropriate in a congested area such as
the Bridge Street area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and other evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
• A. The Petitioner failed to establish circumstances relating to the land
or structure which affect that property but do not generally affect the
zoning district in which the property is located.
B. The Petitioner failed to establish that:a: literal enforcement bf the provisions
of. the Salem Zoning.-Ordinance as applied to 40 Bridge Street would .involve sub-
stantial hardship to the Petitioner.-
N RECEIVED
'.'PACE TWO — DECISION - PILGRIM MOTEL - 40 BRIDGE STREET
78U MAY 29 A 9 :00
C. The Petitioner failed. to establish tha zance could be
. granted without substantial detriment to t� ��},�ggoo and without
nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purposes of
the Salem Ordinance,
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals with Messrs. Boulger, Hopper and Hacker
voting in opposition to the granting of the requested relief, and Messrs. Feeherry
and Piemonte, voting present, denies a variance to the Petitioner.
DENIED
Anthony M. F herry �
Acting Secretary
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL PE is:ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. i
CENERAL LA'JiS, ChAPTER 303, P.?J S14X_ E� ! E€: t!r.. ; 23 DAYS A.'ER THE D1TE OF FILING
OF THIS OS,!S:iN I" ifl? ,0= -- OF THE CFFY CLER;. -
PURSANT TO ?,'.A S. 1 il. Tpc °A',WNCE PR SP' IAL PER";i1T -
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL k i-..,t .. .C..i L?:F!L 1. ' - t „_ ':i.3. nE ' rl. CERT- _ ..
FICATION OF THE CII( C;ERi Y9��:�_a _ .? r.. 1' ' . n P:AL HAS DEB, FILED. - -OR THAT, IF S G H AN APPEAL HAS c: FILE-1) `'A I I CP CEu'cD IS -
RECORDED 1:1 THE SOUTH ESSE; RE"WR, OF -_c., AN•j I.� : ED b..DER TH NAME OF THE 0:7NER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON TFIE OWNER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL. - - - - - -
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
of �cTbPST(y C�l��ucTL��aP�ia ,//C21 (i
=; Irivarb of c'Fpeal -
'80 OFC -3 A9 :02
NOVEMBER 19, 1980
CITY CCS:,/'S OFFICE
SAUFt; MAcc
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL J. APOSTOLOS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 94 BRIDGE
STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on October 29 and continued to November 19, c .
1980 with the following Board Members present on November 19, 1980 at which time
the Board took action on the petition: Mr. Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Piemonte
and LaBrecque, and Associate Member Luzinski. Notices of the hearing were sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 94 Bridge Street.
The property in question is currently used as a gas station, truck rental and
towing business. The variance is needed to construct an addition to the existing
non-conforming structure at the site. A variance is required because the building
is in an R-2 district where the proposed use would otherwise be prohibited. The
Petitioner did not request nor did the Board consider whether the requested relief
could have been granted by the issuance of a special permit for the extension of an
existing non-conforming use.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The structure on the property is, despite the fact that it is non-conforming,
attractive in appearance.
2. The area surrounding the property is a residential area with well maintained
single and multi-family homes.
3. The Petitioner's plans for this property will substantially reduce the visual
impact of the Petitioner's business on the surrounding neighborhood and will there-
fore be beneficial to the City.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the.
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
(1) The Petitioner's land is unique to the surrounding area.because of its
current use and its existing structure.
(2) These conditions affect the property in question but do not generally affect
the zoning district in which the property is located.
(3) The conditions described above, which affect th-e—land in question, but not
the zoning district generally, cause the following special hardship: Unless the
variance, with conditions, is granted the property will not be improved and the entire
• neighborhood will suffer.
(4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good because the proposed plan will in fact improve the appearance of the
property and will improve the appearance of the surrounding neighborhood.
• y..colo
of '�5'aIEmFZosal'412utfEi rN
'80 DEC -3 A9 :02
NOVEMBER 19, 1980
CITY CiE KS GF F ICE
IL .^;
PAGE TWO - DECISION - MICHAEL J. APOSTOLOS - 94 BRIDGE STREET S�=IL MY o
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting the
requested relief. A variance is therefore granted to the Petitioner on the follow-
ing terms and conditions:
1. Within three weeks from the date of this decision, the Petitioner shall
submit to the Building Inspector signed contracts for (a) the paving of the parking
area in the rear of the property, (b) the landscaping of the property in accordance
with the plan submitted to the Board, which plans include the planting of six foot
shrubs and trees in the rear of the property, and (c) the removal of a dead tree in
the rear of the property.
2. The first floor addition to the property shall be used exclusively for
storage,
3. The second floor addition shall be used exclusively as an office.
• 4. All landscaping, tree removal and paving shall be completed by June 30, 1981,
5. This variance is also extended to authorize a previously constructed 12 foot
by 18 foot addition to the property which was not previously approved by this Board.
6. This variance is expressly conditioned upon the completion of the above
described landscaping, pavingand tree removal. Any failure to complete this work
will constitute a violation of this variance which will nullify the granting of the
variance and subject the petitioner to appropriate sanctions including but not
limited to the fines and penalties outlined in Mass. General Laws, Chapter 40A,
Section 7.
VARIANCE GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS
Anthony M. eeherry 4
Secretary
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL EE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 208. AND SHALL SE FLED WIT41N 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING -OF THIS DECISVI Ii+ THE OFFICE OF TP,E CWe CLERK.
• PO 3A:IT TO MAS Lc IRAL SLR SCT:_-J it THE RI1 XE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
GRA-7E, IIPcl SHALL r T;, E -EC bl,"Ili A CnPY i(IF T` 51 I A2 .r. TK CLRT-
F.CATK-IN CF irlf. CIL CIER:. 11:A a- Ord" 4) ar t L HAS KEN FI ED,
CR THAT. IF SOi.H AN APPEAL IIAS 'h.EEN RLE. THAT IT rids EEE. OiS's SSED GR DEN;ED IS
RECORDED EN THE SOUTH ESSEX: REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INOE%ED UNDER THE NA�AE OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O'VINER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
.- BOARD OF APPEAL
A PnDT nV T TC nV/ TCTMT VAC 4V4 T T:TTT:TI TJTT TRA VT ANATTNC Rn&Un ANT TiSIS PTT l Vn,
of Sal= �Ittssac4usttks
., q
a T Gift yLt 1 . 'r!
. F a6€M, Paarb of AFF29
FEBRUARY 20, 1980
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICKEY BENSON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 132 BRIDGE ST.
A hearing on this petition was held on February 20, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman; Douglas Hopper; James Hacker;
Edward Luzinski and Joseph Piemonte. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters
and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on
February 6 and 13, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The petitioner is requesting a variance to use the property, which is in an
R-2 District for a bicycle sales and service business and a variance from the parking
requirements.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
(1) The petitioner is in the process. of buying the property at 132 Bridge
Street subject to the granting of the requested variances.
(2) Prior use of property was a grocesy store.
(3) Any off-street parking on the property would require backing on to Bridge
Street. Testimony from abutters stated that this is a dangerous inter-
section and the abutters would prefer that the off street parking require-
ments be waived.
• (4) Abutters and neighbors supported the petition provided that there are no
sales and servicing of motorized bikes. There was no opposition.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and other evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concluded the following (1) Due to
circumstances peculiar to the property, the use as a bicycle shop would,be appro-
priate and would not generally affect the zoning district in which the property is
located. (2) The requ_rement for off-street parking would create a hazardous
situation and that the waiving of the parking requirements would be in the best
interest of the neighborhood and the city.
The Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously to grant the variances requested
with the following conditions:
(1) The spaces on the property be used in a bike rack and not the parking of cars.
(2) There be no sales or servicing of motorized bikes.
GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS
Dougla Hopper
APPEAL c^f TH!S D-CI`I N, Ir ^( ,HA fi^ E PU.4S�3AiIT TO SECTIOIJ 17 OF THE MASE Acting Secretary
GEIIE? ' L C r7 " 033. A 'J a U DE 1 t V."U,I'i 2O DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILIN(I - - - -OF I:il3 'L'i:i:' iril !ii O.':'Cl- CiTi
FL ... .
TO i..,. .L �113. ._.,. Il, TIIE V 'iA.;`•:C:_ CR 2i=CIA', PFR711T - -
C"L'... cJ
D Lu Ik,E ESSE. r,_.,bT.17 OF r:!D ...Y.,O 1W iDER 1 I. :''.At° rr THE O',WHIR
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED /J!D RGTED ON THE G:'iRER'$-CERTIF!CW1E OF TITLE. - -
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK,
RECEM:D
'7 ,cover -
ell
Fvar t Df ( ppun, SALEM PASS.
AD MARCH 19, 1980
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM BRIDGE STREET REALTY TRUST (WILLIAM S..
HAWKES, TRUSTEE) REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 140-142-144 BRIDGE STREET
A hearing on this petition was initially held on February 20, 1980 at
which time the hearing was continued to March 19, 1980 in order to allow the
Salem Fire Marshall and the Salem Planning Board to comment on the petitioner's
request for a variance. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and
others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News
on February 6, 1980 and February 13, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
On March 19, 1980 the hearing on this petition was continued with the
following Board Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman, Messrs.
Hopper, LaBrecque, Feeherry and Hacker.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 140-142-
144 Bridge Street to place three existing multi-family dwellings located at
this property on separate lots thereby requiring variancesfrom minimum lot
area, minimum lot area per dwelling, minimum lot width, minimum lot coverage,
minimum front, side and rear yard set backs with respect to each newly
• created lot, in accordance with plans (as amended) on file with the Board.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings
of fact:
1. At the present time as shown on the plans (as amended) on file with
the Board, there are three im;lti-family dwellings at 140-142-144
Bridge Street, a three-family dwelling on Lot 1, a three-family
dwelling on Lot 2 and a two-family dwelling on Lot 3.
2. The Petitioner purchased these dwellings several months ago and has
since done
substantial work to repair and improve the appearance of
thero erties. The work
P P done by the petitioner has involved sub-
stantial expense.
3. For the Petitioner to sell the dwellings, they must be separated onto
individual lots; this is necessary in order to facilitate financing.
4. The Planning Board has expressed no opposition to the granting of
the variances requested by the Petitioner.
5. The Salem Fire Marshal has expressed no opposition to the granting
of the variances requested by the Petitioner.
6. The Petitioner has, as requested by the Board of Appeals, agreed to
deed a four foot right-of-way onto Bridge Street to the property
designated Lot 3, while reserving an easement in that four foot strip
for Lots 1 and 2.
. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
RcCF:IVI:D
\I (gt#u of al m, ayszat hjuttCMW ZII L 55 PH ID
' C ttu;'S O FICE
IIciTb Df � �7p CITrSALEM, MASS.
DECISION - PAGE TWO - BRIDGE ST. R ALTY TRUST - . 140-142-144 BRIDGE STREET
(1) The dwellings in question have existed on one lot on Bridge Street
since the early 1900's. The variances requested by the Petitioners
will in no way change the use of the structures. The dwellings in
question are, because they are currently located on. one lot, unique
to the area in question.
(2) The conditions described above especially affect the structures in
question, but do not generally affect the zoning district in-which
the buildings are located.
(3) The conditions described above which affect the land in question,
but not the zoning district generally cause the following hardship:
without the requested variances, the petitioner cannot separately
finance the dwellings.
(4) The requested variances may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good because the variances will not change the use
of the properties in question.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously votes in favor of
granting the requested variances to the petitioner.
In accordance with the plans (as amended) on file with the Board of
Appeals, variances are hereby granted from minimum lot area, minimum lot area
per dwelling, minimum lot width, minimum lot coverage, minimum front, side
and rear yard set backs with respect to each newly created lot as shown on
the plan (as amended) on file with the Board of Appeals.
c��
Anthony M. FrveeTerry
Acting Secretary
APPEAL FR .`d THIS D-CISIOPI, IF ANY. SHi;LL BE iIADE PJ.'SUA;;T TO SECTICN 17 OF THE MASS.
CENERAL U`,7S. CHAPTER 303, A:'1D SHALL BE FILED WlTHli4 20 DAPS AFTER TH° DATE OF FILIN.'
OF r1iiS CE::!S!ut:. !,4 T;i= 0MCE. OF THE CITY CLERK.
PU S.AN-i TO ''1 SS. CE?ERAL lA'i">, CSI;?TER -2, S'-CI!S.'i 11, THE VAr'.0CE C8 SPIMAL PERMIT
GRi-'..ED HE„9;
I. SHALL flb, IA'(E EFFECT US FIL A �_PY :F T;iEDECISIC:'i, 6EA.'.!NG THE
2 ce r-
FICAT!',N "F 'INE MY CLEF„ TI ;H 2u' DAYS HA-1E E i:P_Li% Ai2D NO APPEAL HAS BEER FILED,
OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEE:! FiLEPT': T IT FF,3 SEN R D-fB ED IS
.RECORDED IN THE SDOTH ESSEX REGISTI;Y 0 DEEDS ::`:L' CiDESED UNDER THE Nk-,!E OF THE W,,NER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND F LD ON THE C'C-LR S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD. OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
T. N Ti#u o$ 'Sttiem, assac4usettq ✓ �
'80 MAY 29 A 9 '01
Poarb of LA"tatl
CITY CLE°K'S OFFICE
LChI ,Y 21, 1980
SALEM rr
P11cJJ
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT MAGARIAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 337 BRIDGE ST.
A hearing on this Petition was held on May 21, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, Feeherry
and Hacker and Associate Member Piemonte. Notices of the hearing were sent to
abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening
News on May 7, 1980 and May 14, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A. _-
The Petitioner requests variances for the property at 337 Bridge Street
to construct a one-story addition to an existing commercial building. Variances
are required because the site is in an R-2 district where the proposed use is
_prohibited.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed use is an insubstantial extension of a .pre-existing,
• non-conforming use.
2. The proposed use will not constitute a detriment to the area.
On the basis of the abovefindingsof fact, and the evidence presented at,
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed use of this site is an appropriate one which will not
constitute a detriment to the neighborhood. Because of the size of the
location and its proximity to other commercial uses it cannot be
utilized for those uses which are.permitted as of right in an R-2
district.
(2) The conditions described above especially affect the area-in question
but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the site is
located.
(3) The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not
the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship: with-
out a variance the property cannot be utilized and is therefore valueless.
(4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial,detriment to the
public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief.
The following variances are therefore granted subject to the terms and
' conditions stated below;
. 1. .A variance is granted for the reduction of the rear yard from 30 feet
to 8 feet.
PAGE TWO - DECISION - ROBERT MAGARIAN - 337 BRIDGE STREET
- RECEIVED
• TO MAY 29 A9 :01
2. A variance is granted from lot coverage re(PT"lo°@M,S OFFICE
SALEM ?`!ASS.
3. A variance is granted from minimum lot area restrictions.
4. A variance is granted to use- the property as warehouse space. Al
of these variances are granted subject to approval of the Conservation Commission,
if that Commission determines that the area is within the jurisdiction of the
Conservation Commission.
5. All work shall be in accordance with the plans on file with the Board.
GRANTED -
•-fin ,
Anthony M. Feeh ry
Acting Secretary
•
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE MASS. - -
'NERAL LAV1S.-CHAf•TER 603, AND SHALL DE FILED V11THIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING - -
. 7tI1S DECISION IN THE OFFICE- OF THE CITY CLERK. - -
1T TD INASS. CE.Wi `,L L NS CHAPTER 5.;3, SECTId'1 11. THE Vr 1A! E OR SPECIAL PERl51T
-�1 HEREIN, „HALL Hi �AA.E 'a;LCT U-,TIL A CCPi OF THE -�m!0n. BEARMG THE CERT-
:F THE CTTY CLERK 1H.'iT 2D DAIS HAVE ELAPSED AF1D NO APPEAL HAS BEER FILED,
F SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN Fi LEVTHAT IT HAS BEEN 1)13idISSED OR DENIED IS -
9 THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF CEEDS AND VIDE.XED U;IxEi{ THE NAME OF THE OpNER - -
GF R_—i, uR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. -
BOARD OF APPEAL - - - - -
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH T11E PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
'4
Q' J Coln,- -
REr
� jl1 CTttg oaf S�tIQm, assttcpdis
Paurb of A ajAUG..14 A10 :39
JULY 9`, 19801TY CLERI 'a OFFICE
SALE1°
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF. JUNE. BROWN: AND HERBERT ABLOW,?`PARTNERS d/b/a J & H
ASSOCIATES FOR-A SPECIAL-PERMIT FOR 16 BROADWAY (Industrial District) .
A hearing on- this_Petition:was held. on- July-9;=,1980 with.- following'
Board Members' present;James H..Boulger;. Chairman,-Messrs. -Hopper, Hacker,
LaBrecque' and Associate.:Member-Luzinski.-, Notice:of the hearing was sent .to
abutters and others and a notice of .the hearing was.published. in the Salem
Evening News on June 25 and July 2, '1980, and notices were sent postpaid to
abutters and others in accordance with Mass General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to enlarge a non-conforming
structure. Relief is requested from maximum lot coverage, minimum width -
side yard, minimum depth - rear yard and off street parking facilities.
Atty. George Atkins, III, 59 Federal St. , Salem, represented the petitioners
before the Board.
• He stated that the company was founded in 1922, moved to this location in
1967 and were granted a Special Permit to enlarge the building to 57% of
coverage -and they are now requesting an addition which will cover 62% of the
property. The petitioners have entered into an agreement with their abutter
to.purchase an additional parcel which when added to the Salem Paper Co, land .
will give a combined area of 53,125 square feet. Previous petitions granted
allowed for a 5 foot side yard, and the new addition will extend on the same
line. He stated that there is a requirement of 30 feet on the side, they will
need a Special-Permit- for 29 feet, theyarewithin 5 feet of the rear line.
Atty. Atkins stated that they meet the number of parking spaces needed but
there may be a problem when a truck is at the loading bay, cars would have
to back up and turn around to get out. They have 2 company vehicles and 22
employees. There-are -10 existing parking spaces in the front for customers.
Mr. Kenneth Brown spoke in favor. He stated that they have been there
since 1967 and have no parking problems. The Lafayette Club across the street
is empty during the day and Salem Paper parking is available at night, so
they use each others parking as needed. They have the same arrangement with
the bowling alley on the side. There was no opposition.
The Board voted unanimously to grant the Special Permit to enlarge the
present non-conforming structure, as shown on submitted drawings. The Special
Permit shall include relief from side yard, rear yard and lot coverage, not
exceed 627.
• The Board found it unnecessary to grant relief from the off street
parking requirements. The Board found that it could grant the Special Permit
without substantially derogating from the intent of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,
�µcovo/ri too
Cgifu ofIEm, �zss >rf�usP##s
attrb of 'AppM AUG 14 A10 :39
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION = PAGE TWO - '16 BROADWAY - JULY 9, 1980 $ALztI
and that the-enlarging. of the present. non-conforming 5::_z� ure would not
be more -detrimental. to the neighborhood. - —
SPECIAL''PERMIT GRANTED
C� / %Z
Douglas/ oPPer
Acting Secretary `
APPEAL FROM S.THIS DEC(SIC;{, I A!IY, SHALL BE MADE Pp?SU NT Tp SECTION 17 OF THE MASS,
OF THIS DE0!S CHAPTER Erg, i:rlU $BALL BR F,;.EU ,Y7TRla 77 DAYS AFTER THE PATE OF FILING
OF iH15 PURSAW o i,IA ON lir THE 0`r:p„E FF THE CITY CLCrl..
GRANTED HEFaIN m d' ti ` i ” ,2 7'' S . .�.CE 01,
FICATIDN CF 'i,l� Llil {L_R r + ./. i ❑ .i;l A C IP It uTuc +J�.I._ " SPECIAL PEP,MIi
. I --9'4 fii�THE CERT-
OR- THAT, IF SUCH AN AP c ' > +r ;1 _
RECORD ?_d } !A I _ - H^,S BEEti FILED, - -
ED IN THE SyOiN ESQ + 6LoPr, yr rEiS NO
( ,+ /� I CR DENIED IS
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED Of! Tnt O'ilNtR S CERTIFICATE TITLE.
!AI lE OF THE OIYNER -
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
ReCi:lYla /3
MAR 11 5,9 nf
CITY LL= FICE
rs SALEM. MASSPoarb o �VpvA
FEBRUARY 20, 1980
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHILIP L. FRASCA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 4 BROWN STREET.
A hearing on this petition was held on February 20, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman; Douglas Hopper; James Hacker;
Edward Luzinski and Joseph Piemonte. Mr. Boulger stepped down from the Board and
appointed Douglas Hopper as Acting Chairman. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening
News on February 6 and 13, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws,
Chapter 40A,
The petitioner is requesting a variance to divide the three story structure
which is located in a R-2 District into five studio apartments and provide five off-
street parking spaces.
The Board of Appeals after consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
(1) The locus consists of a three story, one half house, which has been in its
. present location prior to the adoption of the Salem Zoning ByLaw.
(2) A copy of the Land Court Plan dated March 29, 1924 was presented to the Baard.
(3) The structure itself is totally empty inside (a shell) having sustained sub-
stantial damage by fire.
(4) A similar variance was granted by the Board of November 29, 1977 to the
previous owners. Due to financial difficulties, the conversion was not
completed within the one year period allowed by the City of Salem,
(5) Letters from the Salem Fire Marshal and the owner of the other side of the
duplex in favor of the petition were submitted to the Board.
(6) A letter was received from the Planning Board suggesting that the variance
be denied.
(7) Due to the ams of work necessary to restore the building, 5 apartment units
are required to make the project economically feasible.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and other evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals found that it could grant the variance requested
because of the unique nature of the building and property in question, and to deny
the variance would cause hardship to the petitioners. The Board also found that it
could grant the petition without any detriment to the neighborhood, or without derogat-
ing from the intent of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The vote to grant the variance was -
unanimous.
VARIANCE GRANTED
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PU SUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE WASS.
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER E03, AND SF`.A" B° RLED '''PTI"N 20 DAYS A.7 TER THE DATE OF FILIN(Dougla�(J �s
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFi:'E OF THE CITY CLERK. Acting Secretary
PURSAiNT TO II ASS. GENERAL LAMS, CHAPTER 30,, SECTIL';N 11, THE V94iAP.CE. OR SPECIAL FERMIT
,J&N ED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TASE EFFECT UNTIL A CCPV 0, THE c. - E 'f'a THE CPRT- . .
JO::-Di THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HNVt ELAPSED P.7:0 .^.0 A ?_.! !;.AS EEE>. FILED,
OR THAT, IF SUCH A.(I APPEAL HAS BEEN FILEJTHAT IT HAS EEE1i DiSiMED OR DENIED IS -
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UidDER THE NkIE OF THE C77PIER -
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. -
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
P 6i� o$ i>?m, yrs
i s,
L73 $ttl - Ji,H i ci. I I TUU
CIT'r riICE
JANUARY 16, 1980 SALEH, MASS.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MR. AND MRS..MICHAEL BICK FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR 4A BUFFUM STREET EXTENSION
A hearing on this Petition was held on January 16, 1980 with the
following Board Members present: Acting Chairman, Mr. Hopper, Messrs.
LaBrecque, Feeherry and Associate Members Lusinski and Piemonte. Notice
of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing
was published in the Salem Evening News on January 2, 1980 and January 9,
1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to extend the existing
non-conforming use of the structure at 4A Buffum Street Ext. by the addition
of a third floor apartment.
The property is within an Industrial district; however, the property,
like others in the neighborhood, has for many years been used as a residence.
• The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to
this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeals may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions
set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for altera-
tions and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes,
enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures,
and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or
expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
nonconforming use to the neighborhood, nor shall this paragraph apply to
billboards, signs, or other advertising devices,
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will not injure the public
health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter,
;:lakes the following findings of fact:
1. The petitioners purchased this property recently at a time when it
was in need of major repairs.
2. The petitioners have made a substantial investment in the property.
3. The neighborhood surrounding this property has a number of residences
• despite the fact that the area is zoned Industrial.
4. . The of£-street parking at the propertv' in. question is adequate .for
the proposed use.
M
a
• lrr dIHT�i Ub � 7P2TY j. L i 1, 27 MID
CITY rIGE
SALEM, MASS.
PAGE TWO - DECISION - MR. AND MRS. MICHAEL BICK, 4A BUFFUM STREET EXTENSION
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented "
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals finds (i) that the proposed use
of the property will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
use to the neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed use of the property will
not adversely affect the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare
of the City's inhabitants, and (iii) that the proposed use of the property
is generally in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly,
the Board approves the granting of a Special Permit to the Petitioners.
Messrs. Hopper, Feeherry, 'Piemonte and Lusinski voted in favor of the
Special Permit. Mr. LaBrecque opposed the grant of the Special Permit.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the
following terms and conditions:
1. The property may hereafter be used as a three family dwelling.
2. All work must be in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board.
3. The paved parking area which exists at the property and provides
• at least four parking spaces must be maintained as off-street
parking.
GRANTED - WITH CONDITIONS
Anthony M. Feeherry
Acting Secretary `
APPEAL F.RTI THIS DECISIOt:, it ANY. SHALL BE MADE PH^n"OAIT PJ SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
G E..EinL LAF75, C'ti:;P(Eii503. Ai?D SH 'L DE FIL.S".D WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF .ria �..;i i!J';d i �.ic CFr CE CF 7`155 CIT! Ci_EF i.
P'.
f .._ f ..• .. '1 v.. . f . L c.1'. ..f ('ID H".i LEL,
!I_ra'! G „�_ _ A .J I ...._.. -.l'_ ;HS I„ � LY �_� C =° .
OF F jt . L'FTlE L .Jn E.' •. I _ Ls'. S C IiF:f 0 'LLE. -
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS- BEEN,FILED-WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
R
nn 1� '
R C I f- Uri l i
: . �it of alim, asear4usetts
�- 1
3 '80 MAY 29 A-',:01
Puxrb ,of A"MI
CITY CLEWS OFFICE
SALEM MASS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BENJAMIN J. HERNANDO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 120 CANAL ST.
A hearing on this Petition was held on May 21, 1980 with the following Board
.Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, Feeherry and Hacker
and Associate Members Piemonte. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and
others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on May 7,
1980 and May 14, 1980, in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 120 Canal Street to
use the property as a Karate Center. A variance is required because the proposed use
is not specifically provided for in any zoning district in Salem. The property in
question is in an Industrial district.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the neighborhood.
2. The location has ample parking.
• On the basis of the above findings of .fact, and the evidence presented at .the
public hearin the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
P ._ hearing, PP
(1) The proposed use of the location is not specifically provided for in the
Salem Zoning Ordinance. Thus, without a variance the Petitioner could not
relocate his business anywhere in Salem.
(2) The conditions described above especially affect the proposed location for
the Petitioner's Karate Center, but do not generally affect the zoning
. district in which the building is located.
(3) The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but riot
the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship: Without
a variance the Petitioner cannot relocate his business anywhere in Salem.
(4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the .
public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief.. A variance is granted to the Petitioner on the following
terms and conditions:
1. Hours of operation - Monday through Friday .- 6 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. Saturday -
8:00 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. No classes on Sunday.
2. Classes limited to 25.
3. 'A thirty foot entrance will be provided for at the site, which will be delineat-
ed with concrete barriers to restrict traffic at the site.
4. No signs to be erected without proper approval.
GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS
Anthony M. F herry �
only }1ALL C: ' A c P'' ,:itIANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. Acting Secretary — ..
FrP'At `'.0 1 Irni �. 0 ur naiE OF FILING .
ER d..?. nV0 SHALL BE FILED -NI;I '10 DAr5 A�iEn L..
OF THE C'T7 Ct FEW.IIT - .. .
.-5fiALL 5 ..r i 0
CRY "' _.... .. 1) Vs IS -
L
OF `_w AN APPEAL HAS D_
IE - - -
IE SOUTH ESSEX
EX RECISTRl OF G" {,•1D 1?1U` J U"IOEt THE flA51fi OF THE O'ilNER ..
S RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OIYNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARR OF APPEAL; - - -
Py OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY_CLERK.
3
„v J .4.IF.,RI) `9.S - �Y'�:✓K -iY. �4 SF X'i"$7�p 9
4�M!
Citta of �5z alPm, f tta a Ij
'8081 DE093-2A A9 819
DECEMBER 17, 1980
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES P. BERTINI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
266 CANAL STREET
A hearing on this petition was held on December 17, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Hacker. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and
a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on December 3,
and December 10, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to allow the premises at
266 Canal Street to be used for a roller skating or ice skating rink.
• The building at 266 Canal Street is in a B=2 and RC Zoning district.
However, by virtue of a prior variance, the building may be used for all purposes
permitted in a B-2 district, A special permit is now requested to allow use of
the premises for a recreational facility, a use permitted by special permit in
a B-2 zoning district. The Special Permit which has been requested may be granted
upon a finding by the Board of Appeals, that the grant of the. Special Permit will .
promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's in-
habitants,
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after r viewing the property, makesthe following findings of fact:
1. The proposed facility was unopposed by abutters.
2. The proposed use will result in an improvement -in the appearance of
the property.
3. The proposed facility will have adequate parking and willnot adversely
affect the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes unanimously that the
proposed use will promote the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the
• City`s inhabitants and that the proposed use is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance.
Accordingly, the Board votes in favor of granting a Special Permit to the Petition-
ers.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following terms
and conditions:
1
of
PaarD of Appeal
DECEMBER 17, 1980
DECISION - PAGE TWO - CHARLES P. BERTINI - 266 CANAL STREET
1. There will be no filling or any other construction behind the existing
fence at the site.
2. The proposed facility will be confined to the existing fenced in area
at the site and the existing fence at the site will be maintained.
3. No alcohol will be served in the facility.
4. Hours of operation shall be limited to 11 P.M. on Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday and 12 o'clock midnight on Friday.and Saturday.
5. Lighting in the parking lot shall be constructed so as to shield the
light from the surrounding neighborhood.
• 6. One hundred and forty one parking spaces shall be maintained in the
existing fenced in area.
7. The configuration on the driveway entrance and exit shall be subject
to the approval of the City Engineer.
GRANTED - WITH CONDITIONS a
Anthony M. Fry 4,
Secretary
APPEAL FRO'd THIS CECISICH, IF ANY, SHALL BE !ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS, -
CENCRAL LAYS, CHAP7ER SGS. A:iD D
SHALL - FiLED F!!T.`^ii 20 DA'iS AFTER THE DATE Of FILING - -
_..
OF TF > tC'S h THE ` OF T' '! CLEII.K.
P 'A.NL u .n..o. _V YY?: t 6:".P " ,.a,, S_._. i_`: 11, THE VAMANCE C� SPECIAL PERMIT -
L n ,' ._ �F--._il L C 2i o T..Ir •1 LE.ARHNG THE CERT-
_
GR.'1NTE) hE%ZIP S„ -
FICATL;, OF THE CL5 el ,. ,. 2'` + .`. ! \'.. ."' j '�! N APP,- 1 HAS T•�YI FILCD, -
OR THAT,
IF SU.'H A APF*1 i 3 BS'N ROTC �1 IT H ii t'i J :.' 'C'IIEJ IS ..
RECORDED RI THE SOUTH ESSEX REa ISTRY OF DEEDS C ) 13_^EDL ER fHE NAME OF THE OPINER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O67NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. -
BOARD. OF APPEAL:
• AND PLANS -
A COPY OF THIS DECISION/HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
t� Paarb of ,�ppexl 080 Nov _7 PK
OCTOBER 29, 1980
carrc+_Ep,;•; OF
Sr,!t P1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES P. BERTINI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR
266 CANAL STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on October 29, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: Mr. Piemonte (Vice Chairman) , Acting Chairman; Messrs.
Feeherry, Hacker and Associate Member Luzinski. Notices of the hearing were
sent to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the
Salem Evening News on October 15, 1980 and October 22, 1980, in accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for that portion of property
at 266 Canal Street which is in an R-C zoning district so as to permit that
portion of the land to be used in conjunction with the permitted B-2 uses
on another portion of the land in question.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings
• of fact:
1. Plans were submitted showing the premises at 266 Canal Street
consisting of approximately 3 acres with an existing building structure
approximately 350 feet long and 70 feet wide.
2. The plan submitted to the Board also showed that the zoning line
divided the building as well as the land into a B-2 and R-C zone..
3. The Petitioner advised the Board that the premises in question had
been used for a variety of manufacturing and industrial purposes as well as a
warehouse prior to a 1969 zoning change. The zoning change in 1969 resulted in
a portion of the land and building being zoned for business purposes and
designated B-2 and the balance of the land and building being designated R-C.
4. The division of the building into B-2 and R-C zoning districts makes
it virtually impossible to use the existing building as a whole and imposes
a hardship on the petitioner.
5. The Planning Board of the City of Salem has recommended approval of
the requested variance for the. existing building.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings
of fact:
• 1. The particular»condition affecting the petitioner's property (i.e..
divided by a zoning line) presents a unique and onerous condition for the
owner of the property..
__ .._._., _--- ._•a- _,_.---- __-.... ._,.,.,_..- , `-._-__,_.ate._._...__ ...__ ._ ,:. '....._..-- -�._,_:___��.--. _,
�It J � as5urr4IIsEtts
��ttr� of c�3�3�Ptt1
•\p\IDL ice"
OCTOBER 29, 1980 - DECISION - CHARLES P. BERTINI - PAGE TWO
2. The condition described above especially affects the structure in
question but does not generally affect the zoning district in which the
building is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but
not the zoning district generally cause special hardship to the petitioner.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals, unanimously voted in favor of
granting the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the petitioner
on the following .terms and conditions:
A variance is granted so as to permit the portion of the existing build-
ing on this property not presently zoned B-2 to be used for permitted uses
in a B-2 zone, provided however, that the use of the property as a research
and development facility or as a laboratory facility will require prior approval
of the Board of Appeals.
GRANTED
Anthony M. Fee rry TF
Secretary
APPEAL FROM TH!S O=QS }:, IF .AW. SPALL BE G:F;DE PUPMANT.TO SECTION 17 Cr'THE MASS, .. -
8EF2E".'.L d.':D S.;ALL GE p7E; 4.55;fj ZO CAYS AFTER THE GATE OF FILING
OF Tn L L i,..i I.i Iii
.rsT T e-t .._.. P. IFiE l7 ,CE 02 SPECIAL PER':11T -
`tD hE. ... _ iL ._. �t....� . THE CERT-
,i_ fi'S B"ctl FILED.
OR TP I Sora r- .. ''r L :O CRC -11=D IS
fi ^
IN L _ S-NII N-MIE OF THE O':9NER
OF REG366 CR IS n- uRJ6O,i,: 020 Gii L-/;I;S
BOARD. OF APPEAL
•
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
�,� RECr.71VFp $
< ` a (ffitg of Salem, cmtt stul u e ks
0 MAY 29 A9 :00 Pourb of (�ppvd
=1M�4
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM APRIL 23, 1980
ASS.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ESTHER REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 314-330
CANAL STREET and 16-24 ADAMS STREET.
A hearing on this petition was held on April 23, 1980 with the following Board
Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, La$recque,
Feeherry and Associate Member Piemonte. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters
and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on
April 9, 1980 and April 16, 1980. ia accordance with Massachusetts General Laws,
Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance and Special Permit for the property at
314-330 Canal Street and 16-24 Adams Street to permit the construction of a ree-
reation facility at this site. A variance is required because a portion of the land
is in an R-1 district where the proposed use is prohibited without a variance. A-
Special Permit is required as to that portion of the property which is in a B-2
zone to permit the use of that property for a recreational facility.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
• public hearing. and after viewing the property concludes as follows:
1. The Petitioner presented evidence covering the following areas. The land
in question has a peculiar shape and configuration marked in the rear by substantial
changes in elevation and with large outcroppings of ledge. Evidence was also
introduced that the zoning line divides the.Petitioner's land so that the front portion
lies in a B-2 district and comprises the substantial part of the Petitioner's property
as is shown on the plans submitted with the petition. The rear portion is located
in an R-1 zone and it is this portion that contains the difficult physical terrain
and problems with access which literally make this portion of the land of the petitioner
useless for development purposes permitted in R-1 zones. The situation is not true
of lots in the general neighborhood. The land in question is composed of extreme
elevations such that access to the rear portion can only be obtained over the
commercial portion. Accordingly, the R-1 portion has special characteristics not
attributable to other R-1 districts in. the area.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land in question but
do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not the
zoning district generally cause the following special. hardship. Without a variance
this parcel of land cannot be developed as a single parcel. Further, without a
variance the rear portion of the Petitioner's land is unbuildable and hence valueless.
•
PAGE TWO - DECISION - ESTHER REALTY TRUST - 314-330 CANAL ST. & 16-24 ADAMS ST.
S4. The desired variance and special permit may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good because the proposed construction is in harmony with the
commercial uses and business establishments in the general area. Furthermore, the
proposed construction is supported by the neighborhood.
Therefore, the.Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board grants a variance and Special Permit as requested
by the Petitioner to use the Petitioner's land for the construction of. a recreational
facility as shown on plans filed with this Board. .
All construction shall be in accordance with the terms of a prior decision by
this Board on May 17, 1979.
GRANTED /
Anthony M. F eherry ca
Acting Seer tary
O W
Lam.
LLI ¢ Ov
LV N _ -
U >- LUl
LL1 g JJ
APPEAL FRW,c:jHIS GE�I,,J. IF ANY, SHALL BC I'ADE PLMSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. -
GENERAL LA.9 CHAPV SCS. AND SHALL D° ' D SI'.T:��":-20 DAYS AFTER THE LATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECiS(GN IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY C ER(,.
PURSANT TO 65ASS. GENERAL IA-J C L+',E' 3,,.g,,S •I ' 11; THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERNUT
GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL Vui 1 .E EFFE4r WML A C:
/9
`« RECEIVED) D
s 1 (�« of �$ttlem, ttmcl Setts
'80 MAY -5 A8 :39
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM MASS
APRIL 23, 1980
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ESTHER REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 314-330
CANAL STREET and 16-24 ADAMS STREET.
A hearing on this Petition was held on April 23, 1980 with the following Board
Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Associate Member Piemonte. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters
and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on
April 9, 1980 and April 16, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a variance for the property at 314-330 Canal Street
and 16-24 Adams Street to permit the construction of a recreation facility at this
site A variance is required because a portion of the land is in an R-1 district
where the proposed use is prohibited without a variance.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property concludes as follows:
• 1. The petitioner presented evidence covering the following areas. The land
in question has a peculiar shape and configuration marked in the rear by substantial
changes in elevation and with large outcroppings of ledge. Evidence was also intro-
duced that the zoning line divides the petitioner's land so that the front portion
lies in a B-2 district and comprises the substantial part of the petitioner's property,
as is shown on the plans submitted with the petition. The rear portion is located
in an R-1 zone and it is this portion that contains the difficult physical terrain
and problems with access which literally make this portion of the land of the petitioner
useless for development purposes permitted in R-1 zones. The situation is not true
of lots in the general neighborhood. The land in question is composed of extreme
elevations such that access to the rear portion can only be obtained over the
commercial portion. Accordingly the R-1 portion has special characteristics not
attributable to other R-1 districts in the area.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land in question but
do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not
the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship. Without a
variance this parcel of land cannot be developed as a single parcel. Further, with-
out a variance the rear portion of the petitioner's land is unbuildable and hence
valueless.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
• public good because the proposed construction is in harmony with the commercial
uses and businesses established in the general area. Furthermore the proposed
construction is supported by the neighborhood.
PAGE 2
BOARD OF APPEAL DECISION - ESTHER REALTY TRUST - 314-330 CANAL ST & 16-24 ADAMS ST.
.� Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board grants a variance as requested by the petitioner
to use the rear portion of the petitioner's land for the construction of a recreational
facility as shown on plans filed with this Board.
All construction shall be in accordance with the terms of a prior decision
by this Board on May 17, 1979.
GRANTED
/J
Anthony M. Veherry, Acting Weretary
APPEAL FRO!A THIS Dc ISIGN, IF Aid`!, SHALL BE !;.ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE A7ASS.
• GENERAL LAY-1S. CHAPTER E,3, AND 11fILL EE Ft
ii! LED V ITii:H 29 CAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILUM
OF 'tEiiS UEO;S;;;H T:ie OFFif:E OF THE CITY CLERK.
LA:V�, Ci:P.i'i rR '^
CiS:i1T HEiia•. •. SCS• S? NJd 11, THE VA-n!AACE 0� - o.
tD ,,. SdOLL NN T.gr'E i SPEML PER.91T
ct,-;T UNT:L A COP( CF TH,?�E,f^....•
FICATiSH OF THE CIT7 SER:. ',y _ . �••! DEARI:'sv' THE CERT•
C-_ 1 ;.T [P i•:;:5 S."VE :. ::S?U A D .v7 f,:=?_6L FL4S D=_'FI F;teD,
OR TrAT. IF SiiCH C,dl APPEAL HAS ::EEC! F;tEDT.t:::',�IT r,.9S 3EEi1 i4;i.iiSSED GR DErIiED IS
RECORDED 1.1 THE SCUTH ESSE% REGISLTY Cr D_E.S A':U iif
OF RECDDEi;EC UNDER THE NM;.- OF THE Ci')i:ER
,TD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED Gd THE C''.:CI$R'S CERTIFICATE CF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
•
1
�6
i.YL, .Q-� �C�{- »� Y� ����C�a�G����'l�J'���l�J [\T'.�:E''4r�-jl
L yFK� \tl 9 -
'80 SEP 16 P3 :
SEPTEMBER 10, 1980 CITY CLUIS"S. OFF
DECISION ON THE PETITIO`i OF PAUL, A. AND ELIZABETH H. HINCHION FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR 6-6z CUSHING STREET.
A hearing on this petition was held on September 10, 1980 with the
following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, `
LaBrecque, Feeherry and Associate Member Martineau. Notice of the hearing was
sent to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the
Salem, Evening News on August 27, 1980 and September 3, 1980, in accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to add a third floor
apartment to their existing two-family dwelling at 6-6.2 Cushing Street. The
property in question is in an R-2 zoning district. The Special Permit which
has been requested may therefore be granted upon a finding by the Board of Appeals,
that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety,
convenience and welfare of the City' s inhabitants.
• The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the property, makes- the following findings of fact:
1. There will be no exterior work required at the location to add
a third floor apartment to this property.
2. _ Adequate -parking is available at the location.
3. The property is in a neighborhood with several other three-family
dwellings.
4. There was no opposition to the petitioner's proposal.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes unanimously that the
proposed use will promote the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare
of the City's inhabitants and that the proposed use is in harmony with the
Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board votes in favor of granting a Special
Permit to the Petitioners.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
1. The Petitioners may add a third apartment to the property in acco;-dance
• with the plan provided to the Board.
'80 SEP 16 P3 :21
CITY CLERK
-5 CrFICE
SEPTEMBER 10, 1950 SALEti ,._ C^
PAGE T140 - 6-6? CUSHING STREET - PAUL A S ELIZABETH HINCHION
2. The use of this property as a three-family dwelling shall be
conditioned upon both the continued ownership and the continued
occupancy.of the premises by the petitioners as their residence.
3. In the event that the petitioners move from the property, or in
the event that the property is sold, the property will revert to
its former use as a two-family dwelling.
4. Such parking as exists at the property shall .be available exclusively
for the use of tenants at the property and shall not be made
available to others.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
• Anthony M, reeherry, Secretary
APPEAL FR'Ji:i THIS PEC00N, IF MY,SHALL G' !,:ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF TIE MASS. -
GEItlEiiA.L Lrfid$, CiIT•,P'i Eft 508, A(d0 SFIALL BE FILED Vi"!H'N 20 DAB'S AFTER, THE DATE OF flLRlG
..
OF T"16 G C:S:GiJ I:! Tii_ iii'!i.E CF 'li!L C!TY CLu:i(. -
Pa Vh .-.!'.C`_ C' S?EC!tL . .':IT
C- f itJ 4E!C .hLL ( �i• ,; ! 0 ,'r.E ' �' -.. 5'_ inL CLi.T- -
FiCt B.F, CF ';', 1.! f . 1 .-.1.. ' , i. , 1 I.1';-FD,
C' 1{I1 IF (- f1,FF 11 � n ,
,.....:.`J u u:� 1..eOF M-- 01"VER
OF REGGRD OR IS RECOPDED AND NGiED ON P"E 0.ii;tt`S CERFIFiG;4TE OF TITLE. -
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED [KITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
•
��tl� ' T1pr "al-ml
r y Aly�r ry y' �j t
?tri o ia.t-ml �-N�tLiJ�tsbSF�i�7t�l�X'1 CI
, au�cr f cZ ruo�I '80 "17P 16 P3 :
SEPTEMBER 10, 1980 CITY r'`RK'S OFF
>>
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE WARD TWO SOCIAL CLUB ON SALEM, INC. REQUEST!',,TG
A VARIANCE FOR 1-3 EAST COLLINS STREET.
A hearing on this Petition was held on September 10, 1980 with the follow-
ing Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Associate Member 'Martineau. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening
News on August 27, and September 3, 1950, in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws, Chapter 40A.
This petition requests a variance to construct an eight foot fence to enclose
a portion of the rear yard at this property._. A variance is required because the
property in question is in an R-2 district where the proposed fenc;. would be.
prohibited.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following finding of fact: '
Petitioner has advanced no facts to the Board to establish a special hardship
caused by enforcement of the zoning ordinance or to establish any other basis
for the requested variance.
On the basis of the above finding of fact, and other evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
A. The Petitioner failed to establish circumstances relating to the land
or structure which affect that property but do not generally affect the zoning
district in which the property is located.
B. The Petiti.onr failed to establish that a literal enforcement of the
pr.>;isions of the Saleta, Zoning Ordinance as applied to its property would involve
substantial hardship to the Petitioner.
C. _The Petitioner failed to establish that the requested variance could be
granted without substantial detrinent to the public good and without nullifying
or substantially derogating from the intent and purposes of the Salem Ordinance.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously opposed the granting of
the. requested relief and denied a variance to the Petitioner.
• VARIANCE DENIEDv --
r'r
Anthony M. $eeherry, Secretary,
FR06: TL'LS DH'BIOf.• IF A Y. SHALL BE VADE PURSJ4:{T TO SECTMI 17 OF THE fIkSS.
FD DAYS AFTE' THE DATE OF FILING
;I. .1 SiIE t A10E C %R'el( -
_ 1 ^ 't:": _„t
RLI 4 CH "�
C i u UiR
,a SEAL HAS v c _
rT
qlc ( IT 'i GI 1 a D C:. D t li
'J J I d 1h Or InE
eU it 'c3� i E r:14( t. A::')
. . J U.,.C.^. 1 :- d�uL wnc,.
CORD CR U (.k1AROE0. AND NWIED 0 THE 0111 P C :���•IC�VE OF TITLE.
yDARD OF pPP6`4k _
OPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN PILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
?' � I Nv':,II ., �CJc'I Plat �TuS�TC tSE n P,ECE; V' n
P� n 7 ' '
Puarb_ ,Orf. AFFeal 'Rn unit a� •c
OCTOBER 29, 1980 CITY CLEC-;•y OF. (
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SHETLAND PROPERTIES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR
35 CONGRESS STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on October 29, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: Mr. Piemonte,(Vice Chairman) , Acting Chairman; Messrs.
Feeherry, Hacker and Associate Member Luzinski. Notices of the hearing were
sent to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the
Salem Evening News on October 15 and October 22, 1980 in accordance with Massa-
chusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner is requesting a variance for the property at 35 Congress
Street to construct a waterfront marina consisting of floats with slips to
accommodate 75 boats with a car parking area to accommodate 100 vehicles. A
variance is required because the site is an Industrial district where the
proposed use in prohibited without a variance..
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of, the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the .property makes the following findings
• of fact:
1. The proposed Marina will benefit the City of Salem by upgrading the
site in question as well as the surrounding area.
2. The proposed Marina compliments both the Pickering Wharf property and
the Proposed Nathanial Bowditch Park area.
3. The proposed Marina will not adversely affect parking or traffic' in
the area,
4. The site is unique to the City of Salem because of its access to a
channel which, when dredged, will be able to provide a safe harbor for pleasure
boats.
5. No opposition was registered to the proposed marina.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The area in question is a unique site which is appropriate for use as
a marina.. However, the Salem Zoning Ordinance permits boat sales and service
in an Industrial District but does not specifically permit the operation of a
marina.
• 2. The conditions described above especially affect the site in question
but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but
not the zoning district generally cause a special hardship to the petitioner
by preventing him from utilizing this unique property to its full potential.
r T�� of %zallent, - ���crlu�e�f�
Poars d Appeal
OCTOBER 29, 1980 - DECISION - SHETLAND INDUSTP.IES - PAGE TAO
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of
granting the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the petitioner
on the following terms and conditions:
1. The property may be used as the site of a marina as shown on the
plan provided to the Board consisting of floats with slips to accommodate
75 pleasure boats.
2. This variance is conditioned upon the maintenance of parking to
accommodate 100 vehicles at the site.
3. No structures other than floats can be constructed at the site with-
out prior approval by the Board.
4. This variance is further conditioned upon the execution of an agree-
ment between the peititioner and the City of Salem, in a form satisfactory
to the City Solicitor's Office, acknowledging 'the public's right to continue
to use the existing public landing, off of the Congress Street Bridge.
GRANTED
Anthony M. F erry 4
Secretary
APPEAL FRTA TH'S DECISICN. IF ANY. SH AI L G "SDE P'RSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GE1 RAL LATS. v"- "J l 4 _`: 20 DAYS A,-TPR THE DATE OF FILING _ . ...
P,JO ;a ,_ . .__. . _3, $_. '� .� T4� n. .CE Oo ?°C!1L PERMIT
THE CURT-
-AL HAS t '1 FILED. -
OR
R
I'' fir_ D:•C:H ° . . L NA.*Jr, OF THE OSYNER -
CF R. 1.101 OR S ° NRDEJ AIND "O-Ea � i:i CERTIFICA(E OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL -
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AND THE PLANNING BOARD '
N.CD.DIq, ;it f. tv, i'
Li1it 1
f l l "��itu of , 2atem, �IS�t�$L�Y%L'ttb
_CL 'm FEBRUARY 20, 1980
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHYL-GERALD REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR
105-107 ESSEX STREET.
A hearing on this petition was held on February 20, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman; Douglas Hopper; James Hacker;
Edward Luzinski and Joseph Piemonte, Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters
and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on
February 6 and 13, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 4OA.
The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow the premises, which is zoned
R-2, to be used permanently for the conducting of retail businesses.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
(1) The owners of the property have ,requested,and received Special Permits
from to Board of Appeals for the use of the property for various retailing
businesses.
(2) There are 7 apartments on the upper floors of the building and 3 retail
spaces on the first floor which fronts on Essex Street.
• (3) There is ample parking in the Hawthorne Hotel lot and at street meters.
(4) The petitioners have owned the property for one year.
(5) Mr. Mansur, Asst. Building Inspector requested that if the variances were
to be granted that there be some indication as to the types of business per-
mitted.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and other evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals finds that although some retail businesses are
" an appropriate use for the property, the variance requested is too broad in scope
and that if the Board were to grant the variance it would be derogating its responsi-
bilities and to do so would be a disservice to the community. The Board discussed,
but could not agree on a method of defining appropriate. "retail businesses" for this
piece of property.
The Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny the variance requested. - Chairman
Boulger and Messrs. Hacker, Luzinski and Piemonte voted to deny; Mr. Hopper voted
to grant.
VARIANCE DENIED1 a
APPEAL Fa.,., i „ ,,r S HP..LL Ec 'TAD PU,SMIT 70 SECTION 17 OF THE MASMouglas nbpper a.
GEREP,dt Ld;,S, C9:.P E" SD3, l..1 cy1L! Df LLS. , 20 DAYS AFTER TRE DATE OF FILIP&ting Secretary
OF THIS DEG,S'•Di1 tN T8E Cr.1E CF Tti.'Ci'If ^LE.'. . -
PURSAU i0 .., ... ,, 11, TH. VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERYR -
TED c !$' •! EcA+ 'S Tiff CERT- - -
lila Cr Tip Gci 2;u Al2-AL H, tl :"i Fi!ED,OR THAT. It ,j .v' :,PPE,\L '":�;.6zeN R+„pU i'?P" +QS(i _ cl.,'ri!5_fD OR. DEN;E7 IS - -
RECORDED III THE SOUTH ESSEX REni3:` SS ii.,.:[:: ,:'�.� ii...-::ED UNDER THE NAME OF THE O'diPlER -
OF RECORD UR IS RECORDED A11D h0i ED ON THE CaN'_-R'S CBR;MCATE OF TITLE.
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FIIIIDLltddSPE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK,
o Salem,
C17Y
SALEMMASS.
MARCH 19, 1980
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY L. ,POWERS, ET AL. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 384
ESSEX STREET
A hearing on this petition was held on March 19, 1980 with the following Board
Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr.?, Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Hacker. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and a
notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on March 5, 1980 and
March 12, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to operate an antique shop
in a portion of the first floor at 384 Essex Street. The building at 384 Essex
Street is in an R-2 district. Under the Salem Zoning Ordinance a Special Permit .
may only be granted upon a finding by the Board of Appeals, that the grantof the
Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of
the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question has inadequate off-street parking for an antique
shop under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. A commercial use of the property in question (as an antique shop) is not
in keeping with the uses allowed in an R-2 district and is particularly
. inappropriate in this area of Salem,
3. The use of the property as an antique shop will increase traffic and parking
problems in the area,
4. The use of the property as an antique shop is strongly opposed by the Salem
Planning Board and by certain neighbors.
On t basis he b sis o£ the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes unanimously that the proposed use will
not promote the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City's inhabi-
tants. Accordingly, the Board votes unanimously to deny the granting of a Special
Permit to the Petitioners.
In addition, the Board expresses the opinion that the use of the property in
question as an antique shop could only be allowed throught the grant of a variance
rather than a special permit.
7 FL 40 ' TWS DECISTI,.-4 I XiY : 1 rL C= t A^°
. Pj. T TO c'TT17 rFC ?SS.Chr 1c^ a�. Anthony l.1
$49.�1/itf
eehrys
CF T a ' �.5,�,r , , i C:F._E T ;c Ci cftuK - c?.�E 0' nll}?i Acting Secretary
v C -
NKcjG(f0.T
Cr' THP 1 (T-
( Aii y}dT.lcgh Y;
rOR THAT 1� ib S!" n -rlec 7N.?T/Tr,Py
LECCRDED IN T !i oL)J .'ISrR)'
.c r
_ e/-CCrO:> /fn n7n vc nW/J
OF PtCCRO OR IS 8_CpRD`J A.iJ :i[ _R Tc...D Cil Tl+e G.d+/e'pS i�RLOF TITLE.'
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN PILED i:ITH THE PD%.NNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
Qjll � L11 0.,,��Ps1?9 L.J.�sU,.�ad 1Xm1,.a f;F ., �.IV...R
`S 4 pwirb of Appeal o .
_ '80 SEP 16 P , •21
SEPTEMBER 10, 1980
CITY
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANK A. BISEGNA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 411-413
ESSEX STREET.
A hearing on this Petition was held on September 10, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Associate Member Martineau. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters
and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on
August 27, and September 3, 1980, in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws,
Chapter 40A,
The Petitioner has requested a variance to construct 2 restaurant at 411-413
Essex Street. A variance is required because the proposed building does not meet
front and side yard restrictions in a B-1 District.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented. at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of
• :fact:
1. The Petitioner proposes to locate his restaurant at a site on the
property which would violate front and side yard restrictions.
2. The Petitioner' s purpose in so locating the proposed restaurant is
to take advantage of foundation walls which exist as the result of
the..demolition_of a building which. previously stood at the location.
3. Petitioner failed to establish that there is anything unique about the
property in question which requires a variance from the literal enforce-
ment of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
On the basis of these findings of fact, and other evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board concludes as. follows:
A. The Petitioner failed to establish a circumstance relating to his land
or the proposed structure which affect that property but do not generally affect
the coning district in which the property is located.
B. The Petitioner failed to establish that a literal enforcement of the
provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance as applied would involve substantial
hardship to the Petitioner.
C. The Petitioner failed to establish that the requester? variance could be
.fie, xittr I of AFettl '80 SEP 16 P3 :21
SEPTEMBER 10, 1980 CITY CLc.WS G;FILE
SALE i
PAGE TWO - 411-413 ESSEX STREET - FRANK A. BISEGNA
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullify-
ing or substantially derogating from the intent and purposes of the Salem
Ordinance. -
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in opposition to
the granting the requested relief and denied a variance to the Petitioner.
VARIANCE DENIED
Anthony M. Feeherry, Secretary
APPEAL Ming THIS EiM-113I, IF I.W. SHALL BE !e:'.DE PURSUA;IT TO F,"f:rjN I% OF THE-MIFSS.
EivE 'iEn F)o. APiO SHIAU ME Fi!.._ lY.;i;hl 20 DAYS A.-TER THE DATE Or FILING
OF 111IS UU:ISIIiiI IN 1NE 0.`F'CE Gr T:;Z CIT'i CLERK.
fG-.'.1.1. ,.�.I rrt,. ';t- ° r L' .,.ii P.. INE O "ECIAL PER'11T
RAN 116t✓ It .f'.. Sr': t ... r . ': ..7;Ct Y U'- t .NRi-
Nt, Tt.1! .f N.. CG.: E;(', t'i... wA 'rl, FAL SEE.,N FILED,
_ V 1!ii. IT SG:!; A,. r 'F ri'.o I �!' i4E' t. It S'E'! Dt$:i1Sa J UR IS
REi;;t >ED 11' TI!_ Si6't1 ESS,., QCiS71Rf OF - > AND iNDEf E'D UNDEit Ti;: ;'Iv,iiE OF THE MW!Et
OF REC08U OR IS RECORDED AND H-170 Oi` DIE C.W ER'S CERTIFIOATE OF IITLE.
BOARD Or APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
Ctv O c'S. rm, c`i�a�FTrdI�$�iZ� MAR L, L at; f1 UU
SALEM, MASS.
• MARCH 19, 1980 �✓ F r UCY
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (OUNERS) ANT)
STERN-TISE SALEM GROUP, ILIC. (PETITIONERS) REQUESTING VAPIANCES FOR CERTAIN
PROPERTY AT THE INTERSECTION OF FEDERAL STREET AND WASHINGTON STREET
On February 20, 1980, a hearing was held before the Board of Appeals at
which time the Board denied Petitioners' request for variance relating to
this property. The Petitioners have however, in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A Section 17 made specific and material changes in
their petition, thus allowing the Board to hear this matter.
A hearing on this revised Petition was held on March 19, 1980 with
the following Board Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman, Messrs.
Hopper, LaBrecque, Feeherry and Hacker. Notices of the hearing were sent
to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the
Salem Evening News on March 5, 1980 and March 12, 1980 in accordance with
.Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,
The Petitioners have requested variances from rear yard and side yard
setback requirements for property at Washington and Federal Streets to
construct residential units and a commercial office building. he property
in question is in a B-5 Zoning district.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented
at the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following
findings of fact:
1. The Petitioners propose to construct 12 residential units and a
commercial office building at the property in question. The proposed
construction represents the continuation (or Phase II). of the re-
development of this general area of Salem.
2. The Petitioners' proposed development involves construction on, a
parcel of land which, because of its location in the center of Salem,
isofparticular importance to the continued redevelopment of Salem.
3. The Plans submitted to the Board by the Petitioners shows an attractive
development of the highest quality, the design of which demonstrates
a careful effort to integrate the proposed project into the area in
question.
4. The proposed development will include 20 off-street parking spaces.
5. The proposed development will not adversely affect traffic patterns or
parking in the area.
6. The proposed development is strongly supported by the Salem Redevelop-
ment.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented .
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
•
>. *� Tito LYS Mrom, nnachse-ItINAR "4 Z_ 9s PH '60
'a R CITY Ct_ :.n S Gr 1C-t
psarb of cAy SALEHt HASS.
PAGE TWO - DECISION - SALEM REDEVELOPMENT RUTH. & STERN-TISE
(1) The specific location of the land in question is unique because
of its shape and location,'at two different intersections. In
addition to the uniqueness of the land in question the property
is also unique because of limitations on the development of this
parcel arising from the impact of the Salem Urban Renewal Plan,
(2) The conditions described above especially affect the land.in
question but do not generally affect the zoning district in which
the land is located.
(3) The conditions described above which affect the land in question,
but not the zoning district generally cause the following special
hardship: unless the requested variances are granted, the land
will not be developed in accordance with its most appropriate use
as--determined-by -theSalem Urban-Renewal-Plan:
(4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good because the development will not adversely affect
traffic patterns or parking and will significantly enhance the appear-
ance of the area,
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of
•, granting the requested relief, The Board grants variances as requested by the
petitioners on the following terms and conditions,
1. A variance is granted from the 30 foot side yard restrictionrfor the
westerly side of the_res dentia l. uni,ts-at-the-specific location-of-- -
tha-party wall between the residential units and the conme'rcial officet
building. No side yard set back whatsoever will be required at that
location.
2. A variance is granted from the 30 foot minimum rear yard requirement
for no more than two of the residential units may encroach into the
rear yard area to within 16 feet of the rear property line.
3. - Subject to further action by the Salem Redevelopment Authority and
the Salem Design Review Board the petitioners are directed to utilize
dense plantings at a minimum height of eight feet to shield the parking
area from view along Washington Street and including the Bridge Street
intersection.
4. The petitioners are, with respect to barriers proposed for the Federal
Street-Washin.-ton Street intersection, directed to comply with all
applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance relating to visability at
intersections, Section VII-G.
5. The petitioners are. directed to maintain twenty parking spaces at the
location and to maintain a single 20 foot access to the parking area
from Rust Street. /J
• Anthony M Feeherry
Acting secretary
L" X11 -� '• lig U. , .- `IT
L hO 1' r4 °rc. l i L A
. . . [ -i
1:1A,
70
�r V E -S A"19i
• <LOiov A.!JD }'L ftD O.i 1' G,G 7Er',> CL dTl t,t,ifl OF 11,L�. is C,.,,�E
BOARD Of APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLA1NING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
.. _.
A�
�ITr :�,- `� :?F41H€ attrD of rg
5A.LEM, MASS, FEBRUARY 20, 1980
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STERN-TISE' SALEM GROUP, INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE .TO
PROPERTY OWNED BY THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AT THE CORNER OF FEDERAL STREET
AND WASHINGTON STREET.
A hearing on this petition was held on February 20, 1980 with the following Board
Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr., Chairman; Douglas Hopper; James Hacker; Edward
Luzinski and Joseph Piemonte. Notice of the hearing was sent .to abutters and others and
a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on February 6 and 13,
1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The petitioners are requesting variances from the required side yard and rear
yard requirements for the construction of a three level structure for multi-family
residential use. The proposed plans call for the construction of 16 condominium units
and parking for 19 cars.
Mr. Christopher Olney, Project Administrator of the Salem Redevelopment Authority
represented the petitioners before the Board. He presented a letter from W. Gregory .
Senko, City Planner in favor of the petition. He stated that 18 months ago the Phase I
of this Redevelopment area was started and the 18 units have been all sold. He stated
they are before the Board due to technical problems with the Zoning Ordinance. They
have a decrease in the parking ratio in order to have greater density. He stated the
burden of parking in the residential units is at night when there is plenty of parking
,• in the down town area. Mr. Steven Tise of the Stern-Tise Salem Group, Inc. , stated
that this is a unique type of housing which they find is very successful in cities. The
project will be of the highest quality, but these will be smaller units than Phase 1.
Mr. Olney informed the Board that the Redevelopment Authority has accepted the
introduction of small office space at the corner of Washington Street. Mrs. Morse,
Trustee of the Universalist Church appeared in favor. Mr. Charles Phipps former
Trustee of the church appeared in favor.
Jan Robins, 7 Ash Street appeared, and stated she was not in opposition to the
petition, she had to disagree with the statements that the parking was not a problem.
She stated that Ash Street is a very narrow street with no parking on either side, and
she has had to have cars moved to get out of the street because of the overflow of
parkers from the constructed condominiums. There was no opposition.
In rebuttal the petitioner stated that not all the units of the existing con-
dominiums are occupied, and that the spaces are being occupied by shoppers and workers.
The parking will be controled by the residents association shortly. In Phase II the
reduced bedroom count should make the parking adequate. Mrs. Robins stated that she
works in Boston during the day, and her complaints are about early evening and night-
time parking.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and other evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes the following:
_. 1. The parking is not in compliance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance and to.
vary this requirement will further aggrivate the existing parking problem
and would be a detriment to the public good.
L . _U
RH
MAK I '@i#U of Duan,, , & ttssarjTUSpjts
DECISION - PAGE TWO
FEBRUARY 20, 1980
STERN-TISE SALEM GROUP
SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2. The o feet setback at Washington Street side of the property should be
15 feet so as to comply with Salem's Zoning Ordinance and create more
open spaces in a residential development.
The Board voted to deny the variance requested. Chairman Boulger and Messrs.
Luzinski, and Piemonte voted to deny and Messrs. Hopper and Hacker voted not to
deny.
VARIANCES DENIED
Douglas opper
Acting Secretary
•
"PPEA; M,2- THIS OCCiSIO:`!. IF At.y cu(,, J
L O A„ FURSC'ANT TO SECTIO.'! 17 OF TAc_ 1.ASS.
rES:+& —1!�!11,C R. 1:P c. ;LL 'O DAYS AF E2 THE CA7E
T.-.._ Gr-.i F T6 "( CiE_X. -
PlicSs H
CcsT-
RZAIt Gr =T
r, 7. -
I+.ECCd..0 -
l;aZ6rC..js7:�
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNRiG BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK,
•
RFCFIV,E
L (9ito of aalem, Assadpoetts a
'80 MAY 29 A 9 :01
.. _ Pmra of AppA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
{ HrrASS
MAY 21, 1980
:'DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES .AHOLA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 11 GARDNER, STREET.
A hearing on this Petition was held on May 21, 1980, with the following
Board Members present: James H. .Boulger, Jr. , Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, Feeherry, .
and Hacker and Associate Member Piemonte. Notices of the hearing were sent to
. abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening
News on May 7, 1980 and May 14, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws,
Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner is requesting a variance for the property at 11 Gardner Street
(R-2 District) to construct an. addition to an existing three-family dwelling. A
variance is required because the proposed construction will increase the site
coverage to 38%. The Salem Zoning Ordinance allows 35% as a maximum site coverage
in an R-2 District.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of
fact:
• 1. The proposed construction will not adversely affect the neighborhood.
2. Many lots in the immediate area have greater lot coverage than that
provided for in the Petitioner's plan.,
On the basis- of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
(1) . The proposed construction is consistent with other dwellings in the
neighborhood. Moreover, the site coverage problem presented by the
Petitioner exists because of a 5 car garage at the rear of the property
which provides off-street parking.
(2) The conditions described above especially affect the area in question
but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the building`
is located.
(3) The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but
not the zoning district generally cause a special hardship to the
petitioner.
(4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good.
Therefore the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting ,.
the requested variance. A variance from maximum lot coverage requirements is
granted to the Petitioner on the following terms and conditions:
1. All work shall be in accordance with the plans on file with the Board.
PAGE T140 - .DECISION - JAMES AHOLA 11 GARDNER- STREET E C F IV E D
x
'80 MAY 29 A 9 :01
• 2. Site coverage shall not exceed 38%. IIFr
3. At no time in the future may the Petit iog t�K
q 6g iSa to convert
this 3-family dwelling into a 4-family dwellii g r ,A,
GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS
Anthony M. F herry
Acting Secretary
PPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS
-
ID tA'NS, CHAPTER� 93, fdID SHALL BE FILED VIM.T,N 20 DAYS AFTER TRE DATE OF FILING
OF TII!S DELIS:Otd IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
RSAN: TO E.'A;S 1 - A: I:+tIS, CH,MiER E23. S:s,.3-
.10N 11 WE V r to Or. SP:C!?L PM.,3T _
CPvv.�EO P' iERi. SHALL Ii::i 'ipF.E EFFECT ll"I TIL A COPY Of �'•�^ THC CERT-
PLL .
FICATION OF 1HE CITY CLEP!: T:IAT 20 DAYS HAVE nLAi' EO '10 PD r ' L O B- i FILED,
OR THAT. IF SJLH APPEAL HIw" EEE.: FItE f-THAT IT FAS E ..ti D S IS° D OP. DE'UO IS ..
RECOP.00D IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED ULL�i, THE tn!aE OF THE GINNER
- OF RECORD OR IS RECORDF,D AND NOTED ON THE OVIN;R'S CERTIFICAtE OF -TITLE. -
. - BOARD OF APPEAL - - - -
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERIC.
q.ttyyr``//�� .y♦ 0 MAY -5 A8 :39
APRIL 23, 19.80 CITY CLERIC' �\S DFFIC N
,,,.• SALEi? t?.ASS. ! �_ Q� ;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANARPET REALTY CORP. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 297
HIGHLAND AVENUE
A hearing on this Petition was held on April 23, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Associate Member Piemonte. Notices of the hearing were sent to
abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening
News on April 9, 1980 and April 16, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested variances for the property at 297 Highland
Avenue to construct a building 60 feet by 150 feet at the location for the sale
and storage of building supplies. Variances are required because the building
is in a B-2 district where the proposed use is prohibited without a variance.
Variances are also required because the proposed building will not meet the easterly
.side yard requirement of 10 feet and Because the building will exceed maximum lot
coverage by 9.6%.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed use is appropriate in the area in question.
2. The parcdl of land in question has a peculiar configuration with very narrow
frontage. Also, there-is a considerable amount of ledge on the parcel.
These peculiarities present special circumstances which limit the manner in
which this property can be developed and thus present a special hardship
to the petitioners.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of A-il'peals concludes as follows:
- 1. The land in question has a peculiar configuration; in addition, its narrow
frontage and the presence of a substantial amount of ledge present special
problems in the development of this parcel.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land in question but
do not generally affect the zoning district in which the building is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not
the zoning district generally cause special hardship to the petitioners
relating to-.the limited manner in which the land can be developed.
4. The desired variances may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good.
1
,OAP,D OF APPEAL - DECISION - APRIL 23, 1980 - ANARPET REALTY CORP. - 297 HIGIU.A D-AVENUE
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the above requested relief. The Board grants the variances requested by the petitioners
on the following terms and conditions:
• 1. All construction shall be in accordance with the plans on file with this Board.
2. Twenty-two parking spaces will be maintained at the site.
3. A fence or barrier will, for safety reasons, be constructed along Highland
Avenue and the easterly side of the parking lot at the property.
GRANTED FTITH CONDITIONS
Anthony M. V,�herry, Acting Se etary
S3At
IF !,?:Y. SHsti1 £_ LAE P9R IT TO SE07i^Y 17 OF 74E .'9S,^-
1',� -
APPFAI FRD'.1 _MS DEOeS19:t• �., i3 CITE OFa-7:3E iLtttS
't0 Sc,;t — Sass ,;;'dLi 2O sS AE
OF —,-:IS
_
nx.,.ED -
FICRTi'i: c : D t .
F, V^SSEE'! D -ls ^ cs
:I ft:, r F:, s' ��
DR :i'.i:F. IF S:� gC"" +:Y -
RECOCJH US
OF RECORD 03 IS RECORDED AND :vO:cD 0;1 TP_ On..cR'S CcCTiRC.A:c OF TIFLE.
£OARO OF APPFAL -
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK .
��I u
t; i# of alem aesar settz
L : WVI9
CITY _
��
�96gEd1 M���• uxrb arf rzsl
• Jam` �4 FEBRUARY 20, 1980
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WALTER PROODIAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 481 HIGHLAND AVE,
A hearing on this petition was held on February 20, 1980 with the following Board
Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman; Douglas Hopper; James Hacker; Edward
Luzinski and Joseph Piemonte. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and
a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on February 6 and 13,
1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The petitioner is requesting a variance to place a- 24 foot by 24 foot prefab-
ricated garage on the undersized lot, said lot to be used for the sale of cars. The
property is zoned B-2.
The Board of Appeals after consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
(1) The lot contains 5,898 square feet. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum
of 12,000 square feet in a B-2 District.
(2) Auto sales is not a permitted use in a B-2 District.
(3) The Proodian family has owned the lot and two adjacent lots for many years.
(4) The adjacent property has been recently up-graded and is leased to Mr. Saunders
Tuxedo.
(5) The lot in question is presently used in storage by an equipment company and
this will be moved off and improved if the petition is granted.
(6) There are other lots in the area which are similar in size. Mr. Saunders
Tuxedo is built on two lots.
(7) The petitioner has a potential agreement with Mr. Luke Vaggaais of Lynn for
the use of the property for the sale of cars.
(8) There is a highway cut to the lot.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and other evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes the following:
(1) The petitioner failed to establish circumstances relating to the land at
481 Highland Avenue which affect that property but do not generally affect
the zoning district in which the property is located.
(2) The granting of the variance would set a precedence for similar properties
in the area on Highland Avenue resulting in a density higher than intended.
by the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
(3) The petitioners failed to establish that the requested variance could be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullify-
ing or substantially derogating from the intent and purposes of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance.
The Board of Appeals voted unanimously to deny the variance requested,
APPEAL FRO-TARMIlECiDENIE'D 7NALL 5: ,'.:ADE PURSU.A lT TO SECTION 17 OF THE !.7ASS.
GENERAL LA1::S, CHAPTE(i EDS. A:;D SF[';il 3Z i?'.f:;: i'/i'.H;!; ZO DAYS AFTER THE CATE OF FILING
OF TH'S DECISiO I' THE GI-M-17 CJ is
INT TO r.ASS. GE IF A lt•Af.�7f j/7.� t::L ��/ �; ( .F ARiP CE OR SPECIAL PER`UT
FED HERS i SHALL NE..!7-,'?te Er Caxh a:..acfy �. ��- 'r c. .�r., THE CERT- DOngla Hopper
FICAT130 OF IM CITY CLERK�µa t",7.P:y>.iRJLtr,��cCPi� Ac CGPEh.L H::S KEN FILED,
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL FrS{', 6N paECT/'1RT iLl+AiL'4 c:i Olp;;,iISSED CR DEN;ED IS Acting Secretary - -
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX U!^.DER THE ?;A!:E OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND !Oi D Oi -,HE�0'."i iiER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FIff9DV V_ PTqE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
' L c
r s V �� GuU of Am, flmsz :.l ue' !SHO1ti � >8r 31
Poarb of Appel VI`) i 10E
.0
MARCH 19, 1980
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD AND CAROL STETSON. REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FOR 40 HILLSIDE AVENUE
A hearing on this Petition was held on March 19, 1980, with the
following Board Members present. James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman, Messrs.
Hopper, LaBrecque, Feeherry and Hacker. Notices of the hearing were sent
to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the
Salem Evening News on March 5, 1980 and March 12, 1980 in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a variance for the lot at 40 Hillside
Avenue to construct a single-family residence. A variance is requested
because the lot is in a R-1 district but does not comply with minimum lot
area, minimum lot width and minimum lot frontage requirements.
The Board of Appeals,. after consideration of the evidence presented
at the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following
findings of fact:
1. The property has been owned by the Petitioners for 31 years.
2. The property was, under prior lawa', adequate in most if not
all respects for the construction of a single-family dwelling.
However, recent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance rendered the
lot unbuildable without a variance.
3. The property is surrounded by lots of similar size on which
single-family dwellings have been built.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, .the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
(1) The property in question cannot be built upon without a variance.
The property is surrounded by single family dwellings on lots of
similar size.
(2) The conditions described above especially affect the land in question,
but not the zoning district generally, cause the following special
hardship: without a variance the land is valueless because it cannot
be built upon.
(4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good because the construction of a single-family
residence on the property is consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood.
•
d
MAA - � ;ii 'v OY� dYl �$IPXST' �t`IS$�XL $a:r" L4 _ 5� IF I-
rT
s
CITl �.:r, ,`c FFIGE
,s -,�.r Dt7SD II{ PcYI CITY :: ,`:; GFxiGE
h - ' �; -
<�„�4.�- SALEM, MASS. SALE;i> MASS.
PAGE TWO - DECISION - EDWARD & CAROL STETSON - 40 HILLSIDE AVENUE.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of
granting the requested relief. A variance is therefore granted to the
Petitioners on the following terms and conditions.
1. A variance is granted from minimum lot area, lot width and
lot frontage requirements.
Anthony M, eeherry. -rFz--
Acting Secretary
APPEAL FRC;; THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL DE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. - -
GENERAL LAGS. CIi:,PTER 82. AND SHALL Dc F:LEu WITlIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF TH;S DECISION. IN THE CFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. -
PURSANT TO ^S. .SEN :^•,A! L�.?... C'Y ?T:R 484. .'.:i'Y: 11, THE VARA'E OR S?ECiAL FE7'AIT
-„-.r cy, . .._ A '^P'( TNc,_Ci..v."L. 'd:il;i.i _ CERT-
. GRANTED f u.c..t. ::J L ti7f Y°. -- F FFZCT � , SF -� 5._ r TH.
FiCATION, Cr '.. "i E.',r. t. t3 S:1 _ __�.r..._, ") N APP>A HAS (3-4M FILED.
OR tH`T. IF ... APFE:: -_: D=Ef '.EU'ii:, FP 1i::;; EE DSii:fS3ZD DR 02;iJ'D IS
ED I'! TH= SJJ H ESSEX ..=Ji?e'! „E AN, L'!_E%E' .. E
2.iCRD _ _ i. U':v`_ tH8 i11;riE Ut T'r; AP/PIkS
Dr iZLa) GR IS RECGRDID OOv 3iO ED Gli�Tiic O,i'IERS MINFICiWZ OF TITLE,
BOARD OF A?Pu1L
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
A
eP ) r1
A3�h 3 Parab Df Appeal
on w,
•so 140V -z F12 :52
OCTOBER 29, 198TITY CLEfi%'.'; OFFICE
SALPc -'
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MR. THOMAS PELLETIER REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 52 HOWARD STREET
A hearing on .this Petition was held on October 29, 1980 with the follow-
ing Board Members present: Mr. Piemonte (Vice Chairman) Acting Chairman; .
Messrs: Feeherry, Hacker and Associate Member Piemonte. Notices of the hearing
were sent to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was. published in
the Salem Evening News on October 15, 1980 and October 22, 1980, in accordance
. with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance and special permit for the property
at 52 Howard Street to construct an addition to an existing furniture repair
shop. The variance and special permit are required because the proposed con-
struction will encroach upon front, rear and side yard lot restrictions. The
property is in an Industrial Zoning District.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of
• fact:
1. The proposed construction will not adversely affect the area because
there are no structures on abutting property.
2. The proposed construction is not opposed by abutters.
3. The proposed construction will not create additional traffic problems
in the area.
4. The proposed addition will be used for storage and as a place for tools.
The existing building on the property presently encroaches upon the front
and rear yard lot restriction. Accordingly, as to the portion of the proposed
construction which will encroach upon front and rear yard lot restrictions, the
provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
is Section V-B-10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeals may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions
set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations
and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlarge-
ment, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and
uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or ex-
pansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
• nonconforming use to the neighborhood, nor shall this paragraph apply to
billboards, signs , or other advertising devices.
-
�F tri ref 2 alvra,
z ` V
:r Pourb of �yyral
OCTOBER 29, 1980 - DECISION - THOMAS PELLETIER - PAGE WO
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public hEalth,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes (i) that the proposed
use of the property will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
use to the neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed use of the property will promote
the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City's inhabitants,
and (iii) that the proposed use of the property is in harmony with the Salem
Zoning Ordinance.
In addition, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The proposed construction is an appropriate use of a uniquely shaped
piece of property.
• 2. The unique configuration of the property especially affects the land and
existing structure in question but does not generally affect .the zoning district
in which the land and building is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but
not the zoning district generally cause a special hardship to the petitioner
who cannot expand his business without the requested variance.
4. The desired variance and special permit may be granted without sub
stantial detriment to the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of grant-
ing the requested relief. The Board grants a variance and a special permit to
the petitioner on the following terms and conditions:
1. All construction shall be in accordance with the plans submitted to
the Board.
2. The proposed construction will be permitted to within 5 feet of the
lot line abutting the Parker Bros. property; to within 29 feet of the front lot
line of the property; and to within a minimum of 2 feet and a maximum of 6 feet
from the .rear lot line as shown on the plans submitted to the Board,
FRO:,? VIS DcCSICPi, IF :rdY. SHALL 2E NADE PD?SJ;;7T TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
Cr' kTBAY ED'0 -° l
;;'1;! u DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
, TFE£nthany M. Feeherxy �
I r ,.Iry Pr ! HAS K=_Ng@hketa
ry
... .. 0 CR DENIED IJ '
P--C:- .g9 IN NE SCii FH ESSE: r- UNn E2 ii'_ NA'LE OF THE OWNER
Or RLOORD On IS RECORDEDANDNCiED ON THE OCINEFCS,CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. .
BOARD OF APPEAL -
.A n Tr nT. TTo T.n nTCTn1T_T AC "_VVVM VTTVn -T.TTTV._TTIC-DTANATTWtI Un&DT_.ANn TCTr ('TTV-.('i FAV__. _.';
4ti 0
.�� FEB I. 4c �� '80
fggtg of �aLm fflasmr4uzetts
CITY v_ ...: :. arr'ICE
Paarb of A"VA SALEM, MASS.
JANUARY 16, 1980
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LOUIS GOUTZOS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
332 LAFAYETTE STREET.
A hearing on this Petition was held on January 16, 1980, with the
following Board Members present. Douglas Hopper, Acting Chairman, Arthur
LaBrecque, Edward Luzinski and Joseph Piemonte. Notices of the hearing
were sent to abutters and others and a notice_ of the hearing was published
in the Salem Evening News on January 2, 1980 and January 10, 1980 in
accordance with Mass General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The petitioner requested a Special Permit which will allow him to
utilize certain rooms within the dwelling house situated on the premises
to carry on his profession as a photographer while also using the premises
as his residence. The premises are situated within a two-family residential
district and a Special Permit may be granted for home occupations as an
accessory use, provided the Special Permit use is in harmony with the purpose
and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.10 .
Mr. Roger Estella, an abutter, appeared to express his concern over
the proposed parking which would abut his yard where his children play.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented
at the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following
findings of fact.
1. The Petitioner is a professional photographer with over 20 years
of experience.
2. The property in question is located in an area where many property
owners carry on their professional offices within their properties. _
3. The occupation will be operated entirely within the dwelling house
with no display visible from the street. .
4. The occupation will be operated only by the resident of. the dwelling
house.
5. The occupation will not occupy more than 257 of the gross floor
area of the dwelling unit.
6. The proposed use of the property will not result in any diminution
in the value of surrounding properties.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
With proper conditions and safeguards a Special Permit may be granted
t without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or
substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance
and the proposed occupational use is in harmony with the ordinance.
t �� a r lw I'hi 'BU TRU of "atem, fflassadpadis
"./ TY i _ r:,, + urP'ICE Poarb IIf Aypvd CIT; _ J:IICE
SALEM. MASS. SALEM, HASS.
DECISION - PAGE TWO
LOUIS GOUTZOS - 332'LAFAYETTE STREET
Therefore, The Board of Appeals votes unanimously in favor of granting
the requested relief on the following conditions:
1. That a six (6) foot high stockade fence or equivalent be erected
on the Westerly property line between the locus property and the abutting
property at 29 Wisteria Street. _.
2. That the trees located in the 7 foot buffer zone at the rear of
the dwelling house not be destroyed.
3. That the parking area at the rear of the dwelling house provide
for not more than four vehicles and that it be set back a distance of at
least seven feet from the Westerly boundary line.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS.
e,
Dougla opper, Ac i g Chairman
APPEAL FROM.TH IS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. - - -
GENERAL LA9!S. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING .
OF THIS DELI "1 1'r: T'.+:E OFF-CE "_ CTf CLERK.
PURSANT TO ...ASS ° _ W::-i: _ .. - �.. _. T,E x OR sPECIA^L.PcRMIT - . -.. . .. -
. GRANT c h?_rl.. S.:LL d_. T::.'-Z. _r .i L-7:1 .Y OF i4_ E �!'Y ,EV.T.:9 THc CIE RT- - - -
FICAThON OF THE CITY CL-R.S THAT .._ _�. 7 1 v-Til�' HAS FHA FILED, .
. OR THAT. IF SJCH AN AP?0.,; HAS == 1;l^ % ^- I A "7 C:S":S3E0 CR DZMED IS . . -
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REG;STR7 1^, _cS AN U;JE^E"u U+:CER THE NAME OF THE OWBER -OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED Oil THIE C'tlNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
. . BOARD OF APPEAL - ..
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Xt� Q11tu of ��I��c, ta���t�s�a������ �iaK � � � �b N '60
r �
, IIttTI1 D{ � 1£ GtTY u Iro
� 1.k'S irriCE
°A « SALEM, MA/S//S
MARCH 19, 1980 J
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF L. KENT SMITH, M.D. REQUESTINC A VARIANCE FOR
417 LAFAYETTE STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on March 19, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman, Messrs. Hopper,
LaBrecque, Feeherry and Hacker. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters
and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening
News on March 5, 1980 and March 12, 1980, in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A,
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 417 Lafayette
Street to reduce the minimum lot area below the minimum requirements for an
R-1 district. The property is in an R-1 district where the minimum lot area
is now 15,000 square feet.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings
of fact:
1. The Petitioner wishes to sell approximately 1,875 square feet of his
property to the owner of adjacent property in order to enlarge the
rear yard of the adjacent property.
2. The proposed sale will reduce the size of the Petitioner' s property
to below the minimum lot size in an R-1 district.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed sale of 1,875 square feet of the Petitioner' s property
involves land which, because of its topography, should be properly
added to the property of the adjacent owner in order to be fully
utilized.
(2) The conditions described above especially affect the land in question
but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land is
located.
(3) The conditions described above affect .the land in question, but not
the zoning district generally.
(4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the Petitioner on the
following terms: and conditions:
1. The Petitioner is granted a variance from minimum lot size in a R-1
district.
2. No structures can be constructed on the 1,875 square feet of land sold
�. to the adjacent owner.
Anthony /�eherry G,
Acting Secretary
iii S.0
... .., .,D: . .1 O!f- A %ERT-
i.. :ail lyi-.,
i2 H;NE) IS -
-D Iii T:;E SDU'.H ESSEX. RESSI"; OF GE_:) rS'D :..JF;(_Ei Oi:98' TfIE RS''.1C GF PE G'i.FPIER
D OR IS RECORDED A.:iD NOTED ON TiiE 6}.a ER'S CERiGICATE OF TITLE. -
ODARD. OF APPEAL -
.A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
RECEIVE
�i#g of Salem,
. tzss�ttzse## 3S
80 MAY 29 A9 :00 uxrb rrfO
iA"vA
• �� � CITY CHU'S OFFICE
SAE_EH NASS.
MAY 21: 1980
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANNETTE I. .GAGNON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 20 LORING AVE.
A hearing on this petition was held on May 21, 1980 with the following Board
Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, Feeherry, and
Hacker and Associate Member Piemonte. . Notice of the hearing was published in the Salem
Evening News on May 7, 1980 and May 14, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to use the basement at 20 Loring
Avenue in order to operate a class in ceramics. The building at 20 Loring Avenue is
in a R-2 district. The Special Permit which has been requested involves the use of
this property for a "home occupation." A Special Permit for such a use may be ,granted
upon a finding by the Board of Appeals, that the grant of the Special Permit will
promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of fact:
• 1. The proposed use of the property fits the definition of a home occupation
under the zoning ordinance.
2. The proposed use will .not adversely affect the neighborhood.
On the basis .of the above findings of. fact and on the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes unanimously that the proposed use will
promote the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City's inhabitants
and that the proposed use is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, .
the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting a Special Permit to the Petitioner. .
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following terms_
and conditions:
1. A portion of the basement at 20 Loring Avenue may be used by the -Petitioner
to teach a class in ceramics.
2. This Special Permit is granted exclusively to this Petitioner. In the
event that she moves from this location, the Special Permit terminates.
3. The Petitioner may have no more than nine (9) students in her class. . The
Petitioner may teach class only one night per week. The class may not be
longer than two and one half hours.
4. The Petitioner's use of this property to teach ceramics is conditioned upon
the approval of the location by the Building Inspector and the Fire Department.
` RECEIVED
• PAGE TWO - DECISION - ANNETTE GAGNON 20 LORING AVENUE `SO MAY 29 A9 :00
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
fit E"i iHA c
h t
5. Any sign at the premises must be in accordance wit � fol'�owing
provision in the.Zoning Ordinance:
"(4) The location shall display not more than one non-electric
announcement sign of an area not greater than 1' square feet
and attached against the building and not protruding therefrom."
Alternatively, the Petitioner may obtain the approval of the Planning
Department for any other sign at the location.
GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS
Anthony M, eeherry ez
Acting Secretary
•
APPEAL Mn THIS OECISI-33. IF ANY. SHALL.DC ',.:ACE PU S'JA''T TO SECTIM 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LS".'S, C'r.APi:R 2.3 A2ID SH?LL of p'D VWF.IN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISIC`l Ii4 T& "' G_ CF THE CITY CLE°R i -
PUia""ANT iC Jc- rc..c l 1 r r ?,
11, T c l .-Ir^Ge` OR SPEC!
AL CER'iiT _ -
GRdiRED HEN..1... S'.1_L 1 a i f .:U A F { 'i r. G- H6 C°iT. -
FICATIOP! OF THE Cil l' CLr cti 1-"•i 'l� _ S ,., ,.7 r0 A2 `AL HAS
OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL 1".S P c . 1 p7i- CR 1i 1i S D` ' P >.' S D D� -1ED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEY. RELI_tnt uF CE ` F['C I d' E OF THE OWNER
^ T DEFE GF TITLE.
ud.�•
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED Oil THE NWER'S BE
RJr1CA -
BOARD. OF APPEAL -
1
A COPY .OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
HT
/, 1\ \. Y! II� `' 2sT k+ CiacaCiZL1Q� v Ri O
'80 SEP 16 P3 :21
SEPTEMBER 10, 1980 CITY CLERK'S O F10E
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS A. COPPOLA (PETITIONER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR 101 LORING AVENUE.
A hearing on this petition was held on September 10, 1980 with the follow-
ing Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, La
Brecque, Feeherry and Associate Member Martineau. Notice of the hearing was sent
to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem
Evening News on August 27, and September 3, 1980, in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The -Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to allow the use of the premises
at 101 Loring Avenue as an office and storage area for his landscaping business.
The property at 101 Loring Avenue is in an R-2 zoning district. The Special
Permit which has been requested may therefore be granted upon a finding by the
• Board of Appeals that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public
health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1. Petitioner' s use of the property will have virtually no impact on
thesurrounding areaasit will principally involve the storage of
3 vehicles in the rear yard of what is currently a small variety
store.
2. The Petitioner has agreed to restrict the hours of his operation.
3. There was no opposition presented to the Petitioner's proposed use
of the property.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes unanimously that the proposed
use will promote the public health, safety,convenience,and welfare of the City's
inhabitants and that the proposed use is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance..
Accordingly, the Board votes in favor of granting a Special Permit to the Petitioner.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
1. The Petitioner will be allowed to store 2 pickup trucks (lettered) , a
dump truck (lettered) and lawnmowing equipment at the location.
2. This s .tial permit will expire in 2 years unless renewed by the Board.
1
-ty fC 1 t
rC I`'r
'
80 SEP 16 P 3 :21
CITY CLE :"S OFFICE
SALE ,i
PAGE TWO - 101 LORING AVENUE - THOMAS A. COPPOLA
3. The property may be used as an office and storage area for petitioner' s
landscaping business only during the hours 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday-Saturday.
4. There will be absolutely no selling of nursery stock from the
location.
5. The Petitioner may store no more than one cord of wood at the location
and such wood shall be neatly stacked-at the site.
6. Any sign at the location must be approved by the Planning Department.
SPECIAL PEMUT GRANTED
Anthony M. Vbeherry, Secretary 4—.
v'
APPEAL MOM TH!S D CI'!Oi`I, IF ANY, S:MU 13- N:2.1.1Au?T TO S[C'i'011 17 OF'THE BASS.
C-E71 fif L!.�5, C� iii. c;3 P -) _ - :.v '0 D"y A=PC, T T!�E DnT"t GF FI!IiIC
POP. r
BRAN FED F - �. cl I T E _ F*.—;AL L 'ERi.11T
FIC?i
OR HAS, 11 Si f., F � .. . " c t T d .� FILM, -
P.Ei:iYEO IiJ fit 5 'in ESSE ' ..i:r� r y i.i� -�cD i$PfG�2D OR IS RECOROM AND f"M O I Tu ur I c�-.°�C � •` ! OF THE Qil.-,'=R -
c.S C.i iI, ,fe OF TITLE.
COAPW OF APKAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION &9S BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
M. C c 55c�t LtSPi CErdFD
� �IIt`Lit'i tlI `�£ul 180
AUG —1 P2 :01
• CITY CLEC*;•S OFFICE
JULY 9, 1980 SALEM "q:S,
DECISION ON _Tlm'_ PETITION OF KENNETH E. LINDAUER AND CARIN GORDON FOR
VARIANCES FOR-FOURTEEN LYIDE STREET.
A hearing on the petition was held on July 9, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr., Chairman; Messrs. Hopper,
LaBrecque, Hacker and Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and
others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on
June 25, 1980 and July 2, 1980, in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws,
Chapter 40A.
The petitioners requested two variances with regard to the locus. The
first request included a variance to change the use of the locus from a
multi-family dwelling to a mixed use (professional office space and residential)
building. The second variance concerned parking. The property is within an
R-3 district.
y.
Kenneth E. Lindauer represented himself and Miss Gordon and spoke on
behalf of the petition. Letters in favor of the petition were forwarded to
Chairman Boulger by W. Gregory Senko, City Planner; Robert Curran, owner of
the Witch Dungeon Museum, 16 Lynde Street; Leonard A. Berkal of the law firm
• of Berkal, Stelman and Davern, 26 Lynde Street and Attorney William H. K.
Donaldson of Donaldson and Smith, 6 Lynde Street. The following facts were
presented to the Board:
I�
1. The petitioners have entered into a purchase and sale agreement
with Steven Kipuros, the present owner of the locus.. Said purchase
is contingent upon zoning-approval by the City of Salem.
k
2. The petitioners intend to completely renovate and rehabilitate the
locus. The locus was built in-1803 and is the former home of
Massachusetts Attorney General, Rufus Choate. The petitioners intend
to gut the interior of the premises and redesign said space as first
class office space. The petitioners also intend to renovate the
exterior of the building so that its facade fits more in character
with the historical and architectural character of the building.
3. The petitioners stated that they had met with the Salem Redevelopment
Authority as to the approval of the facade design and the petitioner
stated that he was agreeable to getting the approval of the Historic
Commission in connection with the facade.
4. Mr. Charles Tseckares of Childs, Bertman, Tseckares and Casendino
Association, Inc. , the architect of the project, discussed with the
Board the architectural significance of the building and showed to
the Board plans for both the facade and the interior of the building.
5. Mr. Robert Gauthier, the Building Inspector for the City of Salem,
spoke in favor of the variance. He stated that the building is presently
occupied by eight persons and that everyone would be happy to see this
building restored as planned by the petitioners.
Of ' 'WPM, C aSSUchi-SgMrEIVEED
_
� garb af �A AUG -1 P2 :02
DECISION - JULY 9, 1980 - 14 LYNDE STREET - PAGE TWOCITY CLF RK*S OFFICE
SALt:A TwJS
The Board after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter,
makes the following finding of fact.
1. The proposed use of the building shall not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing buildings in the neighborhood, as the
use of the property is in harmony with the surrounding area. : -
2. A strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would involve practical—
difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the petitioner. = 4 -
3. That the ,proposed use of the property will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
Accordingly, the Board unanimously approves the variances to the petitioner
with the following conditions:
1. That the petitioner get the approval of the Historic Commission on
the facade design.
• 2. The petitioner enter into an agreement with the Witch Dungeon Museum,
Inc. so that no fence is erected between the properties.
i
VARIANCES GRANTED
Douglas Hopper
Acting Secretary
Board of Appeals
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE AMASS.
GENERAL LA1.9S. CHAPTER BOB. AND SHALL DE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS CECIS!OY IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - -
PURSAST TO '•ASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER BDB, SECTIC;1 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER?-IT — - - -
CP.ANTED HEEEIN. SHALL .40T IA�E EFF CT UNTIL A COPY OF THED-CISI-M. S[A-;Ni THE CERT-
FICATIJN GF TH7 CIT CLERii THAT 2C DAYS I"'VE ELAPSE: %:NO RD APPEAL HAS KEN FILED. -
0 "THAT. IF5;:1.`1 AN APPEAL HAS KEEN FILE. TH=i I, FiaH CIS::iiSSEO OR CEHIED IS
RcC;JE_ED 1'i in= SOOTH ESSE% P.EZiSTRY a- D"-EDS Ai43 in DEZED UNCEC THE NA TE OF THE OWNER
DF RwDRD OR IS BE�;ORDED A1:0 NOTED ON TtiE Ct:N3'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. _
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION :LAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE CITY CLERK
s 4�
ty 5P
.\ t< '80 NOV —7 '77 ' nttrbi cxfZQttI 080 NOV 7
CITY CLERK'S
;°£�`?�ER�� 29. 19$0 CITY CLF tK' Oi
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LYNDE STREET REALTY CORP. REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FOR 28-30 LYNDE STREET.
L.
A hearing on this Petition was held on October 29, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: Mr. Piemonte (Vice Chairman) , Acting Chairman; Messrs.
Feeherry and Hacker and Associate Member Luzinski. Notices of the hearing
were sent to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published
in the Salem Evening News on October 15, 1980 and October 22, 1980, in accord-
ance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 28-30 Lynde
Street to construct an exterior stairway to provide a second means of egress
from the second and third floors of the property. A variance is required
because the proposed construction will encroach upon the side yard restrictions
at the property. The property is in an R-3 Zoning district.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at
• the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings
of fact:
1. This property was previously a 10 unit apartment building. he proposed
use of the property will reduce the property to a six-unit building. .
2. The proposed use of the property will enhance the surrounding neighbor-
hood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals, concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of the location of the
existing building on the property which makes it virtually impossible to provide
a second means of egress from the second and third floors of the property without
a variance from side yard restriction.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land and structure
in question but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the building
is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land and structure in
question, but not the zoning district generally cause a special hardship to the
petitioners inasmuch as the property cannot be upgraded without the requested
variance.
S4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The,Board grants a variance to the petitioner on the
. ' following terms and conditions:
3LL f FO(TI f0
�L Pours of Ayrt I
OCTOBER 29, 1980 - DECISION - LYNDE ST. REALTY CORP - PAGE TWO
1. The property will have a maximum of 6 dwelling units.
2.. The proposed construction will be in accordance with the plans provided
the Board.
3. A variance is granted to allow the proposed construction to within
5 feet of the lot line on the east side of the property and to within 8 feet
of the lot line. of the west side of the property.
4. The two parking spaces at the property must be maintained.
GRANTED
6-5
ANTHONY M. FEE RRY �—
SECRETARY
APPEALFRO'':1 4:S Dc:.IS?0.9. TO SECTION 17 Of THE MASS. _.
G.\ERAL L' it D. �.-:.�' S 2. A`d S- i HLL 3E � , I-"N C. D,,"S AFTER THE DATE OF RLR{G
I �� I r. CF H
OF T;-'`S P R, IT - ..
O4 H!J r .. r. " L h.E r
UR T
R`C.,RL I TCS 4 m r ( f= c S r ' -FO c'C� It' NAMc Ci THE O'iJNER _
OF RECORD OP, 13 R_C; D D AND 110-,ED ui 1 ..., sc2 S CER RCATE OF TITLE.
- BOARD OF AMAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
`C( CLER'K'S OFFICE �ifu of 5aleT T,
;
;� ALEPH MASS.., Poarb of Meat 3
• APRIL 23, 1980
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HUGH AND ROSANNA MULLIGAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOIZ
60 MARLBOROUGH ROAD.
A hearing on this Petition was held on April 23, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr., Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Associate Member Piemonte. Notices of the hearing were sent to
abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening
News on April 9, 1980 and April 16, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a variance for the property at 60 Marlborough
Road to combine three existing lots into two lots for the construction of : single-._ -
family homes. One of the lots will contain 19,858 square feet and the other
14,388 square feet. A variance is required because the building is in a R-C
district where the proposed lots would be prohibited without a variance.
The Board of Appeals, -after consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings
of fact:
(1) The proposed. combination of three lots into two lots is consistent
with the size of the lots in the area.
(2) Without a variance this property is not buildable.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
(1) The property in question is bounded by a playground on one side and
is surrounded by single-family homes with lots of approximately_
10,000 sq. ft. Without a variance this property is unbuildable
2 The conditions described above especially affect the .land in
O P Y
question, but do'ndt generally affect the zoning,district in which
the land is located. _ -
(3) The conditions described above which affect the land in question,
but not the zoning district generally cause a special hardship to
the petitioners. Without a variance their land is valueless.
(4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good because the proposed lots are consistent with
other lots in the neighborhood.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of
granting the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the petitioners on
the following terms and conditions:
• 1
OF APPEAL - DECISION - HUGH & ROSANNA . .. . BORO HI
MULLIGAN - 60 PIARLBOROUGH RD.
RECFIVEC
1, In accordance with the plans submitted with the Board this property will
be divided into two lots, one containing 19,858 square feet and the other
• 14,388 square feet.
2. Any future construction on these lots shall conform to the requirements
of an R-1 district for density and setback requirements, but frontage,
lot width requirements and lot area requirements shall be as provided in
the petitioner's plans.
3. The Board's action on this variance is subject to any approval needed from
the Planning Board.
GRANTED
. fi
Anthony M. eherry, Actin SdKcretary
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY. S E PURSUANT� - - -
HALL 6_ l.1AOE PJ.wL .1
A 7 TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. _
GENERAL LA'IVS, CHAPTER BOZ, F.ND SHALL BE FILED 'WITHIN 26 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION INiflGr.le_ ve THE E OFFICE -
_ CITY CLERK.
P,.R_ANT TO MASS. GE-ekL W:.'., rhLo;.-R 953, S. r.�:. 11, THE VAR:...CE C7 SPECIAL PERtdR
GRANTEO HEREIN. SHALL Ra T S: UKILT UNTIL A CGPY OF 7HE 9Ei:IS!:;1. Bral."M THE CERT - -
FICATION OF THE CfiY CLER:S .!M:r 23 'JAY'S HAVE EL::?SS (AD NO APPEAL HAS BEEN.FILED,
OR THAT, IF SUCH AM APPEAL HAS. BEEN FILE07HAT IF SEM CLiy11SSED V DEMED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX P.EOI-M OF DEEDS AND IND„XEO UNDER THE NAME OF THE DINNER
OF RECORD-OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OV;NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE -
. BOARD OF APPEAL - .• .-
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
L
of
PT
yrs '` Fuxr� f Ent '80 .MAY —5
A8 :39
P ��
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
APRIL 23, 1980 SALEM MASS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID KNIGHT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 017E MILK STREET.
A hearing on this petition was held on April 23, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr., Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Associate Member Piemonte. Notices of the hearing were sent to
abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening
News on April 9, 1980 and April 16, 1980.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to convert an existing two-
family dwelling to a three-family dwelling. The existing structure is in an
-R-2 district. . The Special Permit which has been requested may therefore be
granted only upon a finding by the Board of Appeals, that the grant of the
Special Permit will promote the-health,-safety, convenience and welfare of the
City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of -fact:
1. The general area in question has significant parking and traffic
congestion problems.
2. The property in question cannot comply with the off-street parking
regulations in the Salem Zoning Ordinance for a three-family dwelling.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes by a vote of 4 to 0 (Mr. Feeherry
voted present) that the proposed use will not promote the health, safety,: con-
venience, and welfare of the City's inhabitants and that the proposed use -is not
in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board votes to deny the
granting of the Special Permit ,requested by the Petitioner: '
SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED
APPEAL fr`.^-". "> ^:.';Slop!, IF ANY. SHALL BE L1ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. -
'0`i' 503. A-"D SHALL BE FILED.WITUI 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING - -
o P•tTlr.> VS4I-Ssam. PiHE OFFICE CF THE CITY CLERK.
PVRSANYra %t.,AL LA4Y3. CHAPTER ZOS, SECTION 11, THE VR!ANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
G49✓7SD(ie2'R8>'MDNMIiGT TA KE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF P.:_''.=CISIJp!. D`_Ai"i':i CERT- iz
P)GAOs+.p7NEh1Y4EnK TIlAT 20 DAYS H;XE ELAPSED A;t7 Na APPEAL RAS B`KiLthoIny M. Feeher , Acting Secretafy
GRTNf'r lPSI+s "XIPEEAL HAS BEEN FILE&THU IT HAS CEEFi DiSri!SS`C CR D:!IiEO IS
RECOADtW 1JV)I44%-N ESSEX RE�ASTiYi CF CEEPiS A'!D I;lDE%EJ CIDER THE NA:{E OF THE OVIi:ER
OF r_CUADeRI.$AESC$JED AIID NOTED CFI THE &.4NER'S CERTIFICArZ OF Y!TLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
K+
of=t ��W.
varb of ,ion
�7 rt1 a0
CITY • -FICE
JANUARY 16, 1980 SALEM, HASS.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH BACHOROWSKI, ROBERT PECK AND STERLING ROWE
REQUESTING-A VARIANCE FOR 25 NORTH STREET (ROBERT BA.LBONI - PETITIONER)
A hearing on this Petition was held on January 16, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Associate Member Lusinski. Notices of the Hearing were sent to
abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening
News on January 2, 1980 and January 9, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a variance for the property at 25 North Street
to use the premises as an insurance office. A variance is required because the
building is in an R-2 district where the proposed use is prohibited without a -
variance.
Previously, the Board of Appeals granted a variance to use this property as
a law office. A copy of that decision, dated January 18, 1979, is attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
G • The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question is in close proximity to a B-3 district where the
proposed use is permitted.
2. The property in question has several abutters who use their properties
for various business uses including professional offices.
3. The petitioners have made a substantial investment in the property since
the issuance of the January 18, 1979 variance for the property.
4. The proposed use of the property will not result in any diminution in the
value of the surrounding properties but will enhance their values.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
(1) ir. vies; of the work done on this property since the granting of a
variance in January of 1979 it would not be economically feasible to
limit the use of the building only to law offices. Any such restriction
would constitute an unnecessary and substantial hardship to the petitioners
and would not benefit the public interest.
(2) The condition§ described above. especially affect the structure iii question
• but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the building is
located.
Of IIP-TI AnSSM4US2ftel aF, v 0
� P �ypial i_ zy PN '89
PITT L_� 1 c -tlCt
SA�EM( MESS.
PAGE TWO - DECISION - 25 NORTH STREET - JANUARY 16, 1980
(3) The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but
not the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship: '
without a new variance the property in question cannot be utilized for
its highest and best use,
(4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good because it will enhance the value of surrounding
properties and provide a-public service.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals votes unanimously in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the petitioners on the follow-
ing terms and conditions:
The property in question may be used either as a law office or as an
insurance office. The property cannot, however, be used as both a law
• office and an insurance office.
GRANTED WITH CONDITION
' `."i7..[�![�C✓�r.�;//i� ��.� Gam_/Z.'�?/-.i -
Anthony M.,/Peeherry <<
Acting Secretary
-
APPEAL rc..t? THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE- ".DE P'URISUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE "LASS:
Pi LAPTER SCS, A�:) SHALL EC FPED idiTHiN 20 DA''S A IER TiE DATE Or FILING - - -
CF THiS. i>o-�-1.SrG7j": T,.E CFi°;CE. 0= ❑i' Ci:Y GFER:S.- -
P �4 MrvSs.Cr':Y L-...: r Nn ;E`2 K3 S- I:GN 11. THE 2:"'n, f
L:P'. O. ..i:'.::: s 1? 4 .: CE'T.
-
r i�l�7�N3c:4r d,v.'JPc/It HAS 1 '11.i12 - }i4F :f? (:..,,-., „
i" -—L OF T;'E v.;i-._P
ON THE Ci:71ER'S CEPJJFi.:..r: OF-TITLE
. - BOARS OF APPEAL -
�. A COPY OF .THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK,
uj�, vf
CCG is rill jy PrstT� Ll
SALEM, HASSJANUARY 18, 1979
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH BACHOROWShI AND STERLING P.OWE, TRUSTEES OF
25 NORTH STREET REALTY TRUST CONCERNING PROPERTY AT 25 NORTH STREET. LOCATED IN AN
R-2 DISTRICT
A hearing on this Petition was held on January 18, 1979, with the following
Board Members present. Jane Lundregan, Douglas Hopper, John Nutting, Joseph Piemonte
and James Boulger. Notices were sent to abutters and others in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners requested a Variance which would permit them to use the
. premises for the purpose of conducting law offices therein and a Variance from the
parking requirements.
Attorney George P. Vallis represented the Petitioners before the Board. It was
explained to the Board that the building situated on the premises had been vacant
for approximately eight years and had fallen into serious disrepair. It was
previously used as a two-family dwelling house and contained a laundry business on
the first floor. The property is within close proximity to a B-3 District where the
proposed use is permitted. It was also shown to the Board that many abutting
properties to the premises were used for business purposes including the offices of
the Salem Parks Commission at 9 North Street.
Although the plans submitted showed four parking• p spaces, it was submitted that
it would be adequate for the Petitioners' purposes.
Letters from abutters were submitted to the Board stating their support in favor
of the Petition. No one appeared in opposition.
The Board voted unanimously to grant the Variance permiting the purposed use and
the number of parking spaces shown on the plans. It found that it would be difficult
and economically unfeasible to restore the building to its prior use as dwelling
units and the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance c7ould involve unnecessary hardship
to the Petitioners since the proposed use as a law office building would be the
highest and best use for this property. The Board also found that relief in this
case could be granted since the immediate area is presently used for business purposes
and that the proposed use of the property would not result in any diminution in the
values of the surrounding properties but would in fact enhance their values. The
Board also found that the proposed use would further provide a public service and
would benefit the public interest.
VARIANCE GRANTED
-
t
�'J an- T. Lundregan "l
C v c. G . . � _'Secretary
naLc IHE i.
�0-1 .7 C.IS RZCb11 ]LD f.J N' 09 01 i '. „`ill" C..,urI^ ,.c Or ,;ILE,
. EOARO OF APPEAL .
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLi: :I\C BOARD AND Trs Cii1 CLi:f,,:<
a Chit of ttlPm, rxSS C USMS
7J `r•
14 A1O :39
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
JULY 9, 1980 S41L.EM, i" Ac:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HARRY M. ANDREWS FOR VARIANCE OF SIGN ORDINANCE FOR
72 NORTH STREET, (R-2 DISTRICT) ,
A hearing on- the Petition was held on July 9, 1980, with the following Board
Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr., Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, LaBrecque,
Hacker and Luzinski. Notice of the Hearing was sent to abutters and others and a
notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on June 25 and
July 2, 1980, in accordance with Mass. General Laws, Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting permission to erect a free standing sign with-a
total area of 192 square feet. - The present sign ordinance allows only 64 square
feet on a free standing sign.
Letters were received from the Planning Board - recommending"thit'Mr. Andrews
be.allowed a sign of 160 square feet if the remaining small signs are eliminated;
from the City Planner, Greg Senko recommending that the Board grant a variance which
would allow Mr. Andrews to erect a second free standing sign not to exceed 125 square
• feet in addition to the existing free standing sign, which contains 65 sq, feet.
Mr. Andrews represented himself before the Board. He stated that he has removed
920 sq, feet of sign, and that this free standing sign would be located at the site
of the old Burger-Chef sign. He stated that the sign is critical to his business
because of its location. He presented pictures of before and after, showing the
signs that have been taken down, and those that will be taken down if this variance
is granted.
The Board voted unanimously to grant a variance for two free standing signs,
the existing sign containing 65 sq, feet to remain as is and the new one to contain
125 sq.feet of signage, on: the existing sign post, with the restriction that no
other signs be allowed on the site. The Board find that there is hardship for the
petitioner and. that it could grant the variance without substantially derogating
from the intent of the ordinance.
VARIANCE GRANTED-
Douglas H pper yL y w.
Acting Secretary, Board of Appeals
APPEAL FROM THIS DECIS[ON, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAWS, ChAPTER SOS, AND SHALL BE FLED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE CF THE CITY CLERK.
RSANT TO :r:ASS. CE9--AAL !AWS, CHA,17ER EO3, SzCI i}i 11, THE VAR:ANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL Nr' 7:11 EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION. BEARING TH?: CCITT.
FICATION OF THE CIPI CLERI ;iir,. 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED V0 aO APPEAL HAS BEEN '!LED,
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS b'CN NLE, THAI IT HAS BEEF! DISMISSED OR DENIED IS - -
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NV4E OF THE OVINER
DE RECORD AR IS RECORDED. AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
60ARD OF. AP_P.FAR - -
•
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
Tit� of
PnarN of '1}yyra1
• AMENDED DECISION - ARTHUR C. CHALIFOUR - 96 NORTH STREET - PAGE TWO
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board grants the requested variances to the petitioner
on the following terms and conditions:
1. The 8' x 12' and 5' x 12' additions in the rear of the property shall
immediately be brought into compliance with the State Building Code.
2. No later than January 6,.1981 the existing entrance and stairs on the side
of the building shall be removed.
3. A new entrance will be added to the front of the building in accordance with
the plans provided to the Board.
4. Release deeds shall be exchanged by the Petitioner and his abutter in order
to resolve existing boundary dispute.
5. A variance is also granted from side yard restrictions for a loading dock
to be built at the side in accordance with plans submitted by the Board. The
Loading Dock shall conform to all requirements in the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
6. The petitioner will not use the second floor of this property to expand his
• operation without further review by this Board.
7. The stairway shown on the plans submitted to the Board, to the second floor
of this property will not be constructed without further approval by this Board,
Anthony M. Feeh erry, Secretary"— z'
APP-AL i R
r' ,.:' 70 SC17 OF THE "fiASS:
DATE OF FILING
is
� a
OF A-CF 7YE
AND My-i) On i �_„ iFiCAi� OF TITLE
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
•
�:f051IT.1. � 1
Titu of
Poarb of c'Appva1
'81 FEP -2 A9 :49
DECEMBER 17 14$0 1 C i c-nCE
SAL! .
AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR C. CHALIFOUR REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FOR 96 NORTH STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on December 17,1980 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Hacker. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others
and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on December 3,
and December 10, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 96 North Street
to obtain the Board's approval for two existing and unauthorized additions pre-
viously added to the property as well as to authorize the proposed construction of
a loading dock and a proposed extension of a nonconforming front-yard setback.
The Building is in a B-1 district.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of
fact:
• 1. The property in question currently has two unauthorized additions in the
rear of the property. Neither of these additions is constructed in accordance
with terms of the State Building Code.
2. . The property in question currently has an existing entrance which is an
unauthorized encroachment on sideline requirements.
3. The requested variances will clear up existing zoning violations as well
as reslove a boundary dispute with an abutter.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its peculiar configuration
and the manner in which the existing building (a non conforming structure) is located
on the site. The property is also unique because of the existing zoning violations
at the site.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the structure and land in
question but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the building is
located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not
the zoning district generally cause a special hardship to the petitioner; unless the
requested variances are granted the existing zoningtiolations at the site cannot be
remedied.
4. The desired variances may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good.
iii ofIPm � zs�f#
All
Appeal
I� p CI I WY
'81 JAN —2 A 9 :2.0
DECEMBER 17, 19$0, ri LRr."S O'FiCE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR C. CHALIFOUR REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR
96 NORTH STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held. on December 17, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrecque,
Feeher-y and Hacker. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others
and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on December 3,
and December 10, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 96 North Street
to obtain the Board's approval for two existing and unauthorized additions pre-
viously added to the property as well as to authorize the proposed construction
of a loading dock and a proposed extension of a nonconforming front-yard setback.
The building is in a B-1 district.
• The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of
fact:
1. The property in question currently has two unauthorized additions in
the rear of the property. Neither of these additions is constructed in accordance
with terms of the State Building Code.
2. The property in question currently has an existing entrance which is an
unauthorized encroachment on sideline requirements.
3. The requested variances will clear up existing zoning violations as well
as resolve a boundary dispute with an abutter.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its peculiar configuration
and the manner in which the existing building (a non conforming structure) is located
on the site. The property is also unique because of the existing zoning violations
at the site.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the structure and land
in question but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the building
• is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not
the zoning district generally cause a special hardship to the petitioner; unless the
requested variances are granted the existing zoning violations at the site cannot be
remedied.
'} Cott of �aIera, �r �ttl�zz E
Puttr4 of �1Ayyeal
DECEMBER 17, 1980
DECISION - PAGE TWO - ARTHUR C. CHALIFOUR - 96 NORTH STREET
4. The desired variances may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board grants the requested variances to the petitioner
on the following terms and conditions:
1. The 8' x12' and 5' x 12' additions in the rear of the property shall
immediately be brought into compliance with the State Building Code.
2. No later than January 6, 1981 the existing entrance and stairs on the
side of the building shall be removed.
3. A new entrance will be added to the front of the building in accordance
with the plans provided to the Board.
' 4. Release deeds shall be exchanged by the Petitioner and his abutter in
order to resolve existing boundary dispute.
5. A variance is also granted from side yard restrictions for a loading
dock to be built at the side in accordance with plans submitted by the Board.
The Loading Dock shall conform to all requirements in the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
�I
GRANTED - WITH CONDITIONS
Anthony M. F herry 4
Secretary
APPAL `c .:ACCP T:IT TO S`CT.V4 17 OF THE MASS. -
` .L c'. 0;73 ArlC2 L'.c Ci,T:E OF FLUNG
- OF T:"3 h.. t- .: f v . :i.
11. T 1c % VE f., P 1' PE^?AIT
P CERT.
'
( CPP _ n .i F-. -'! FILED.
L IT
OR I
RECORD L] : i i!: i o.:. yr -
Al" ,,;.0 U � k is AME OF THE OWNER -
RECORD OR IS RZCORDED NOTED Oil THE ONNSR'S LERTIRCATE Of TITLE.
- BOARD? OF APPPIIC -
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
CIA r. n l tIn DL ` ?LIQ �?, � £inac Ct aL'aLf"s
'80 SEP 16 P 3 :21
SEPTEMBER 10 1980 CITY CLERft� OFFICE
SP,LE11 ?SAS;.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM CARPET CENTER, INC. (PETITIONER) REQUEST'_:;1G
A VARIANCE FOR 190 NORTH STREET.
A hearing on this Petition was held on September 10, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrec;ue,
Feeherry and Associate Member Martineau. Notice of the hearing was publis'�ed
in the Salem Evening News on August 27, 1980 and September 3, 1980, in aco,rd-
ance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
This Petition requests a variance to use the rear portion of the building
at 190 North Street for the purpose of storing carpets and rugs and holding
occasional warehouse sales ca the premises. A variance is required because
the property in question is in an R-2 district where the proposed conrDercial
use is prohibited.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings
of fact:
1. Although the rear portion of the property in question was formerly
used for a commercial purpose that use was abandoned several years
ago: the front portion of the property is still used for a commes7:_ia1
purpose.
2. The proposed use of the property would increase traffic in the area
and would have a substantial adverse impact on residences in the
immediate vicinity.
3. The Petition failed to establish that a substantial hardship would be
caused by a literal enforcement of. the zoning ordinance.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and other evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
A. The Petitioner failed to establish circumstances relating to the land
or structure which affect that property but do not generally affect the zoning
district in which the property is located..
B. The Petitioner failed to establish that a literal enforcement of the
provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance as applied would involve substantial
hardship to the Petitioner.
C. The Petitioner failed to establish that the requested variance could
be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullify-
ing or substantially derogating from the intent and purposes of the Salem Ordinance.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals denies a variance to the Petitioners.
Messrs. Hopper, Piemonte and LaBrecque voted in favor of granting the variance.
Messrs. Feeherry and Martineau voted against the granting of the variance.
VARIANCE DENIED �' �7
Anthony M. Feeherry, Secretary ' z7
IF ANY. cunE, -
n S}{nli 5° FI P1n T Tn C.'.':Oti 17 OF THEVSs.
3.)b,I PI I it Or WE OF THE Cl.r t D;IS sr�_3 THE D.7r, Or 'ILItl:➢ .
G6
'CE Cl! SPMAI PCRbiIT
TH_ OERf-
i ' t ! - ' :U Ii4S u
L,�ii ^t iE .l riL 1T.ii ,:,'rc:. �E❑ 11�EU.
III Tfi_ 9 i! - I.S.. _� UR GtmIEO
EbS': - blfil' GI 4r,37f!;
OR I$ PW- F USO AND f'GIEO Oii fri: `,';'S riAME OF THE OVIUERC M:CATE OF RILE -
COARQ OF APP9r1C
OPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
"El D -
��ife ��y;' `' rrttL� D� �i1Kt22S1
'$0 SEP 16 P3 :21
SEPTEMBER 10, 1980 CITY CLER!"%'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARTHA B. SANDERS FOP. A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 9-11
OCEAN TERRACE.
A hearing on this Petition was held on September 10, 1980 with the
following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte,
LaBrecque, Feeherry and Associate Member Martineau. Notice of the hearing was
sent to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the
Salem Evening News on August 27, and September 3, 1980, in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to convert the existing-
two-family
xistingtwo-family dwelling-at -9-11 Ocean-Terrace into a three-family dwelling.
The property is within an R-1 district; however, the property has for,
many years been u;;cd as a two-family dwelling (a non-conforming use) .
• The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable. to this
request for a Special Permit is Section V"B 10, which provides as follo-ls:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeals may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions
set fort;: in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for altera-
tions and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes,
--enlargement:,-extension-or-expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures,
and uses, provided, however, that suc1- change, extension , enlargement or
expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the e__isting
nonconforming use to the neighborhood, nor shall this paragraph apply to
billboards, signs, or other advertising devices.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit
requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted
upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote
the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter,
makes the following findings of fact:
1. The Petitioner has made substantial improvements in the property
over the last year and has made a significant investment in the
property.-
2. The property is a very large structure which. can be easily converted
to a three-family dwelling and which is uneconomical as a two-family.
dwelling.
SEPTEMBER 10, 1980. SAa:c?"i
Y
PACE WO - 9-11 OCEAN TERP.ACE - MARTIM B. SANDERS
3. The property is surrounded by other three and four family dwellings
in the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals finds (i) that the proposed use
of the property will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing use
to the neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed use of the property will promote
the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City' s inhabitants,
and (iii) that the proposed use of the property is °in harmony with the Salem
Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board unanimously approves the granting
of a Special Permit to the Petitioner.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
1. The use of this structure as a three-family dwelling is conditioned
upon the continued ownership of the property and the continued occupancy of
the property by the Petitioner.
2. In the event that the property is sold or in the event that the
Petitioner ceases to use the property as her principal place of residence, the
property shall revert to its former status as a two-family dwelling.
• 3. At no time shall more than a total of seven (7) persons use this
property as a residence or the property shall revert to its former status as a
two-family dwelling.
4. At no time shall those persons occupying this property own, lease,
or have available to them for general use more than a combined total of four
(4) vehicles or the property shall revert to its former status as a two-family
dwelling.
5. The conversion of the third floor of this property shall be done in
accordance with the plans filed with the Board showing a three-room (one bedroom)
apartment.
6. No further work shall be done at the property without a valid building
permit.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Anthony M. E�eherry, Secretary Or Q-
jr;' t= :.`:'!. Ga.1 ,., .40- f- 1u.:L",V 1) OF :I:
'7AB cU5. n'!':D PIALL FF.F DAi3. '41£'( M_
it "ME 7f ICE OF Tr: CIT'r GER:{.
-'l a! UiP. Li-.:.Pi F .1. T4 'r IA';CE C'( S AJ_ Pt-%1;r
- -
+.1 1 i -L i ..i + E C -cll it 8EA 1 IG i L ^;
pEril
L-f' IY �1 �1 :i'n n' C Ie ' fl G .! Ti :isl :: :<. cDL ill: ILDt3
Iln Id Ill 0JUM ESSi1 OF TtIL 4'i{I{'eR
H IN UD Oil IS r(ECORDEO !d!D I1,mn 0(9 TC;. 0'1;P1cP,'S CtRTIFiCFTE CE TITLE.
- BOARD OF APPr,Ap - -
1> Gifu laf 'alvra, assa juutts
I I '80 DEC -3 A 9 :0
NOVEMBER 19, 1930
CITY Cr`RK'S OFFIC
SALEM MASS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN H. HAMILTON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 36-38
PERKINS STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on November 19, 1980 with the follow-
ing Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Piemonte and
LaBrecque, and Associate Member Luzinski. Notices of the hearing were sent
to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were published in the Salem
Evening News on November 5 and November 12 in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested variances for the two buildings at 36-38
Perkins Street to convert the present first floors of the buildings at this
site from two three-bedroom apartments each to four one-bedroom apartments each.
A variance is required because the building is in an R-3 district where the
proposed use is prohibited without variances from use, density and parking
requirements.
• The Board of Appeals, after consideration *of the evidence presented at .
the public hearing and after viewing the -property makes the following findings
of fact:
1. The property in question is currently vacant and in disrepair having
previously been condemned because of state sanitary code violations.
2. The requested variances are needed in order to make it financially
possible for the building to be rehabilitated.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
(1) The property is in a state of disrepair and is an eyesore to the
neighborhood. It is therefore in the best interests of the City to have the
building rehabilitated. However, such rehabilitation is impossible without
the granting of the requested variances.
(2) The conditions described above, which affect the land in question,
but not the zoning district generally, cause the following special hardship:
unless the variances are granted, the building will continue to deteriorate
and will have to be torn down:
(3) The conditions described above, which affect the land in question,
but not the zoning district generally, cause the following special hardship:
unless the variances are granted, the building will continue to deteriorate
• and will have to be torn down.
(4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good because the proposed use of the buildings will substantially
improve the appearance of the neighborhood.
a
'}y CJiJU of ` a em, 4 as5ar4u6etts
11
Rr.r 1 ,
Puarb of AJ pat
NOVEMBER 19, 1980
'80 DEC -3 A9 :02
PAGE TWO DECISION - JOHN H. HAMILTON - 36-38 PERKINS STREET CITY CURK'j OFFICE
SAL E, ..,,ACS
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of
granting the requested relief. A variance is therefore granted to the Petitioner
on the following terms and conditions:
1. The first floors of each of the buildings at the site may each be
converted into four one-bedroom apartments.
2. Variances are granted from the applicable parking and density
regulations.
3. The variances are conditioned upon the participation of the Salem UDAG
program in this project. Without the participation of the Salem UDAG program
in this project, this variance is a nullity.
VARIANCES GRANTED
strc/ _ ✓ _ hc ,, ��
Anthony M. Feeherry rt
Secretary
AMAL FRO,'A TMS DECISION, IF ANY. SHAD BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE 67ASS.
CENERAL LAPIS, CHAPT_R .AND SHALL B_ rit.ED V.!TH'N 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING -
OF TWS C_OISION IN THE OFFICE C; TY.E CITY CUP,(.
PU`;S"',J O '.'ASS 1_ !'cAi.. ; C i. R ^„, r.. 11. TH- VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PEWAT ... ...
B X,:I THE CERT-
.. nJ APPAL<AL HAS F,EEN FILED,
OR THAT. IF S�ai AN A.PF., L rr.., e__T r.__. il-'Si IT ... : E .i D 13:95s>w OR JEIGED IS
RECORDED HI THE "'Vil ESS,` A"D ii.D_ EO UNDER Til: NAME OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED ARO NGTED ON TiIE O:SNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
a � ; —
Wvarb of
• '81 JAN -2 A 9 :20 '80 DEC, 33 A9 :18
DECEMBER 17, 1980
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY CLERK` OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLAYTON V. SMITH REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR LOTS B,
C, D AND E, PIERCE ROAD.
A hearing on this Petition was held on December 17, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Hacker. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others
and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on Dec-
ember 3, and December 10, 1980, in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance from the Salem Wetlands and Flood
Hazard District Restrictions for the property identified as Lots B, C, D and E,
Pierce Road to combine these lots and construct a single family residence at the
location. A variance is required because/3
Wetlands and Flood Hazard District
the proposed use is prohibited without a variance.
The Board of. Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of
fact:
1. The property in question is in an R-1 district where construction of
a single-family house is permitted; however, because the property is in a
Wetland and Flood Hazard District use of the property for this purpose can be allowed
only through the grant of a variance.
2. The proposed. use of this property has been reviewed by the Conservation
Commission which approved the proposed use with conditions.
3. Without a variance, this property will be essentially valueless.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its size (i.e. in excess
of 20,000 square feet) and because of its location.
2. The failure to grant a variance will render the property in question
valueless.
3. The granting of the requested variance will not result in increased
flood hazard, additional threats to public safety or public expense.
4. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but
not the zoning district generally cause a special and extraordinary hardship to '
the petitioner. The proposed use of the property is compatible with the surround-
ing neighborhood; however, if a variance is not granted the petitioner's land
will have no financial value.
(11itU ofWem, �� �Inac4uu#f
ey
nurb of ett1
. DECEMBER 17, 1980
DECISION - PAGE T140 - CLAYTON V. SMITH- PIERCE ROAD
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals with Messrs, Hopper, Hacker,
LaBrecque, and Feeherry voting in favor of granting the requested relief, i,
and Mr. Piemonte voting against, grants a variance to the petitioners on the
following terms and conditions:
1. Lots B, C, D and E shall be combined into a single lot for the
construction of one single-family home.
2. All construction at the site shall be in accordance with the Order
of Conditions issued by the Conservation Commission.
3. All construction shall be in accordance with the terms of the City
Engineer's letter to the Board which letter will be maintained in the Board's
b files.
4. The single family home to be constructed at. this site will be surrounded
with an appropriate perimeter drain.
• 5. No construction shall be allowed unless, the petitioner applies for
and is granted a variance from frontage requirements.
GRANTED - WITH CONDITIONS
Anthony M. Fe erry
Secretary
APPEAL FRO?A-THIS D=CIClO.`J, IF ANY, S!!AU. EE i.... PC"-1"P JT TO SECTION 17 Or THE F SS.
C 119fZfiL U.iYJ. �l,t:G ., i, Ai.IJ ia�.L o_ . ."r!iIJ 2D C.AYo tiLTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF 'Iilis OEOIS,)N 1N iii_ C`P;C_ OF Cil`!
wOR S. .„ ..L Pc:ST
L. .ii.O h. i' ,...�!_ i. - ': :.E TF :!.?L. P �'f r l• r - :.. illE .'L"L
Fi d,.,,i CF T . ..rt ... 21 _. _ L: A r .. _ ! F;1 U),
OR NiAT, h° .'� , i=D w:, [;E ,!:1G: . i C:_` C ..., D .T .:CD IS
RECo'DED
IN U.�_ o,U H Lo_.. , NA
'.IE OF THE C'TINER
OF RECORD ORIS R*cCOROED XiD NDTED ON Ta'c C;RTJFICXfE OF TITLE
BOARD OF APPEAL'
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Allfi r of at2m, ; as
�ti 55 rH '80
Pnarb of (4m. l e�rY
„ � SALEM. MASS.
MARCH 19, 1980
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & MARGARET MARCHAND REQUESTING A ARiANCE
FOR 47 SUMMER STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on March 19, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman, Messrs. Hopper,
LaBrecque, Feeherry, and Hacker. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters
and others and a notice of the hearing was published on the Salem Evening News .
on March 5, 1980 and March 12, 1980.
The Petitioners have requested a variance for the property at 47 Summer
Street to permit the construction of a 17 foot by 20 foot family room. A variance
is required because the proposed construction will encroach upon rear yard set
back requirements,
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following f...ndin gs
of fact:
1. The petitioners have made substantial improvements in this property
since purchasing it 3 years ago.
2. The proposed construction will replace and extend an .existing room
which itself encroached upon rear yard set back requirements.
3. The proposed construction is not opposed by any neighbors.
�1
_ On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed construction represents a minimal extension of a pre-
existing non conforming structure. The proposed work would therefore
be allowed under Mass. General Laws, Chapter 40A Sec. 6. The pre-
existing structure makes the property unique.
(2) The conditions described above especially affect the land in question
but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land .
is located.
(3) The conditions described above which affect the land in question,
but not the zoning district generally cause the following special
hardship: unless a variance is granted, the pre-existing structure
cannot be repaired and reconstructed.
(4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good.
r�
'<t1 tv of Salem, 56 PH 80
CITY L:_ : „'5 )Ff ICE
Jam' pearb of AmA SALEM, HASS.
PAGE TWO - DECISION - RICHARD & MARGARET MARCHANT - 47 SUMMER STREET
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of
granting therequested relief. The Board grants a variance to the Petitioners .
on the following terms and conditions:
1. A variance is granted from density requirements in regard to lot
area and from side yard and rear yard requirements.
2. All work must be done in accordance with plans on file with the
Board of Appeals.
Anthony M. reeherry V
Acting Secretary
�MPEA.L FRO.") THIS DECISION, IF A.HY, SHALL EE :,ADE PURSUUT TO KGTION 17 OF THE L?ASS. -
URRAL LAUiS. CHAPTER EC3. AND SiAU LE FILED MTHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
CF T6N1S GEC!SiON M THE OFFICE OF Tri`_ GITY CLERK.
Fi a i0 F.iA S. U.N.-r,AL 1,-1.4G. I?4';=1 E3 °J3, Stf(-l1:'N 11. THE VAMANCE OR S?cG!4U PERi91T -
$RANTF HERci'':. SHALL P01 'id':E _r.cel U'..F;! R Cl- OF 1 (i.J.:!S'Y•I. 8FAM i% Th' CERT- -
FIGAT:G CS THE CITY GER;( 11..,li _G' DAIS LL.?PSED 1.sl,,) N, APPEAL HAS BEEN MED,
C-R;H=T s SUCH AN APPEAL H HLE.F A IT i E4': Dlf :'SSD OR D-NKU IS
Y' .-GRL"-3;'k TliE SOOTH ESSE.'; ?E..._' 'i G A 7u I?i"_`EX_D Ui:DcR ;"H'c NAN,E OF THE G':1NER
:S RECORDED AN" .�;ED Ca Tia ONNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD. OF APPEAL - - -
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
e
o
�tx1�m, � tts��cl��sEtt�
r?9uarb of Appeal
- - _ '81 JAN -2 A9 :,'_0
DECEMBER 17, 1980
CITY CLERF."S QFFICF
SALE'S ,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF D&VID L. FLAHERTY REQUESTING A VARIMCE FOR 37 TURNER
STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on December 17, 1980 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs.. Piemonte, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Hacker. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on December 3,
and December 10, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petition of David L. Flaherty requests a variance to allow him to
satisfy the parking requirements for a third apartment at 37 Turner Street,
by leasing parking spaces on another lot. The building at 37 Turner Street is
in a B-3 district. A variance is required because a third apartment at this site
requires at least two additional offstreet parking spaces on the same lot or on
a lot owned by the same persons within four hundred. feet of the site. The
Petitioner cannot meet this parking requirement.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question currently has 2 apartments and a 400 square foot
commercial use.
2. The petitioner proposes to provide parking for a third apartment at this.
site by leasing parking spaces elsewhere in the neighborhood.
3. There was considerable opposition from the neighbors to the petitioner's
proposed plan.
On. the basis of the above findings of fact, and other evidence presented ata
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The Petitioner has failed to provide adequate parking for a third apart-
ment at 37 Turner Street in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
2. The Petitioner's plan to lease parking spaces does not give adequate
protection to guarantee that parking will be provided in this extremely congested
area. .
3. The Petitioner failed to establish circumstances relating to his land
or structure which affect that property but do not generally affect the zoning
district in which the property is located.
e
Attu oafIem, tscl�us #
r.-' .y �IIFIYL� II'f C��T�JPftI
_DECEMBER 17, 1980
DECISIO:q - PAGE TWO DAVID L. FLAHERTY - 37 TURNER STREET
4. The Petitioner failed to establish that a literal enforcement of the
provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance as applied to 37 Turner Street would
involve substantial hardship to the Petitioner. x.
5. The Petitioner failed to establish that the requested variance could
be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullify-
ing or substantially derogating from the intent and purposes of the Salem Ordinance.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals with voting in opposition to the
granting of the requested relief, denies a variance to the Petitioner, Messrs.
Hopper, Hacker, LaBrecque and Feeherry voting to deny the variance; Mr. Piemonte
in favor of granting the variance.
DENIED
Anthony M. Pgeeherry
Secretary
APPEAL FROM THIS C CISITI, IF A`IY. SPALL BE MADE PJ"S'JA^IT TO SECTIOPI 17 OF THE h.
CEN.'AL LAN° CiPAPHR 303, AMD SH I L E` F"-D ii'IH!id 20 CAPS AFTE3 THE 1) OF FFILINILING
OF THIS CL.,IS!C., IH 71:E CFI ICC U; I:i_ ITS C •.I, Tv- 1,.�^,A';"[ C S'C"�! Pc *.'.IT
T�
Ci `TED HEPEF4, S„a :._i i', t_ A C PY vF irr r.r i :' .: r F"ED.
1
FICAVCC-! OF IX'. CIT-( CE"C"
1 i. �(S `iT LIT i.S ? _ ^ C lc- IS
OR 5H:\i IF S- -ri o Ff o r d i ._� - r..•'J I�tJ-'-L J l .. �:n,: CY yi1E C'IIPiER - -
R cDRDED r+ THE.
e E \
. . OF ACCORD OR IS RECUROED Aid] tIm ED CH T, C,h.ER'SCG,iIr L.1iC OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPE41_ - -
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
198,E BOARD OF APPEALS CASES j
STREETS NAMES PAGE
16-18 Andrew Robert Bramble, Trustee of Allyn Realty 1
102 Bayview Ave. John H. Hamilton 2
5 Beckett Ave. & 74 Derby St. Richard E. Savickey 3
26 Becket Street David Clark 4
22 Beckford St. William & Elizabeth Burns 5
12 Boston St. John Boris 6
i
15-17 Boston St. Kenneth T. Deschene 7
i
131-135 Boston St. Peter Copelas1 8
165A Boston St. Joseph & Irene Fazio 1 9
29 Bridge St. Hared's Inc. 10
92 Bridge St. James B. O'Neil 11
96 Bridge St. Elwood W. Mooney 12
157 Bridge St. Julianne Kallas 13
28-2811 Broad St. Peter Conway 14
Lots 11187 & 179 Brooks St. Lionel Pelletier 15
i
Lots 11187 & 179 Brooks St. Lionel Pelletier 16
I
18 Brown St. Karen Lawrence 17
18 Brown St. !Andrew Hingson 18
4
12 Buchanan Road Richard W. Stafford 19
14 Chestnut St. Thorvald G. Lauritsen 20
7 Churchill St. Frederick Mattei 21
14 Commercial St. Joarn Realty Trust 22
10-12 Crombie St. Landmark Realty Trust, David Jacquith 23
Lot. 43 Crosby St. Richard F. & Anne M. St. Pierre 24
35,Dearborn St. Robert F. & Joan A. Cummings 25
35 Dearborn St. Robert F. & Joan A. Cummings 26
48 Essex St. Robert Metzger 27
1
r
-2-
STREETS NAMES PAGE
98 Essex St. Charlotte S. Post 28
129 Essex St. Moses Alpers 29'
288 Essex St. Salem Housing Authority 30
1 Essex St. Ext. H & H Propeller Shop Inc. 31
95-97 Federal St. Mr. & Mrs. David Preman 32
171 Federal St. Gregory & Susan Andrews 33
4 Florence St. Saul Tanzer Realty Trust 34
9-11 Forest Ave. Virginia Carson 35
217 Fort Ave. Robert & Bettejane Sweeney 36
10 Gardner St. Mr. Terrance Neylon 37
23 Glendale St. Frederick J. Atkins 38
11 Goodhue St. James Weener 39
;1*'1
Lots 46-52 Greenlawn Ave. Edward Morgani 40
18 Hawthorne Blvd. John & Joy Fisher 41
13-15 Herbert Street J & S Realty Trust 42
72 Highland Ave. Ayres T. D'Souza 43
81 Highland Ave. Salem Hospital Inc. 44
269 Highland Ave. Consolidated Capital Properties II 45
167 Lafayette St. Paul Levesque 46
Lots 473, 475, 477, 479, 481
Highland Ave. Rent-All Automotive, Inc. 47
418 Lafayette St. Montigue Morris 48
95&99 Lawrence St. Napoleon R. LeBlanc & Raymond Pinault 49 & 50
71 Leach St. Martin A. Fox 51
4 Looney Ave. Robert Fouhey 52
>14-16 Mall St. Robert Bramble 53
Norman St. & Barton Sq. Harbortown Dev.. Corp. 54
Norman St. & Barton Sq. Gerald Baizen 55
-3-
STREETS NAMES PAGE
28 Norman St. Salem Redevelopment Authority 56
73 North St. O'Rourke Bros. Inc. 57
169 North St. Donald:& Tina Tucker 58
181 North St. Crowninshield Corp. 59
190 North St. James.Cashman 60
5 Nursery St. J. Norman & M. Norma Panall 61
20 Oakland St. Katherine Photos & Eunie Delpero 62
3 Ocean Terr. Stuart Comer 63
20-22 Orne St. Arthur J. Jannell 64
20 Perkins St. Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Nadeau 65
36-38 Perkins St. John Hamilton 66
Lots B-E Pierce Rd. Clayton 'Smith _ 67
34 Prince St. Salem Planning Dept. 68
4R South Pine St. Robert Dionne 69
3-5 Spring St. Richard E. Savickey 70
7 Summit Ave. Mary Jennings 71
24 Turner St. Robertson-Corinthian Ltd. , Inc. 72
7 Wall St. Lydia King 73
Washington, Federal, North
Walkway Stern Tise Salem Group, Inc. 74
Washington St. , Bridge St.
& North Walkway Stern Tise Salem Group, Inc. 75
Winter Island Winter Island Commission 76
of >9alera,
' uttr� of ttI
P AppP '81 NOV 23 A10 :45
.DECISIQN ON THE PETITION Of ROBERT C. BRAMBLE, TRUSTEE OF ALLYtff*Tp.'£1tWgffFF �g
A SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT 16-18 ANDREWS STREET INTO A 5 UNIT CON,DAIFDJIIJM'„S
A hearing on 'this Petition was held on November 18, 1981 with the following Board
Members present:. Mr. Joseph Piemonte, Acting Chairman; Messrs. Hacker and Feeherry and
Associate Member Lusinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A
This proposed condominium conversion is covered by the terms of the City of Salem's
condominium conversion ordinance. The Special Permit that has been requested may there-
fore be, granted only upon a finding by the Board of Appeals that (1) the grant of the
Special Permit will not adversely impact upon the city's existing stock of rental units
for low and moderate income families and elderly people on fixed incomes, (2) that the
grant of -the Special Permit is not contrary to the City's Master Plan, and (3) the.
grant of the Special Permit will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
—The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence at the hearing, and after
viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The owner has made a large financial investment in this property and will
make capitalimprovementsin what was previously.:a building which was in need of
substantial repairs.
2. ' The proposed conversion of this property to five condominium units in no way
conflicts with the Master Plan of the City of Salem.
3. The conversion of the property to a condominium will have negligible impact
on the existing stock. of rental units in the City of Salem for the elderly and for
families of low and moderate income.
4. The property is vacant. Thus, no hardship is caused by the proposed condominium
conversion to any tenants.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the.evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals by a unanimous vote concluded that the proposed
condominium conversion is in harmony with the condominium conversion ordinance of the
City of Salem. Accordingly, the Board voted in favor of granting the requested Special
Permit in accordance with the following terms and conditions:
Aim
- -
DECISION/ROBERTvZ. BRAMBLE, TRUSTEE OF ALLYN REALTY TRUST November 18, 1981
16-1.8 ANDRE14S STREET
-PACE"2 RECEWDD
'81 NOV 23 A10 :45
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE =
SALE-"i MASS
- I
I. Five parking spaces as shown on the plan submitted to the Board shall be main
tained at the site.
2. Landscaping at the sit
Board. of Appeals. e shall be in accordance with an the Plan filed with the'•
,
3. The parking area at the site shall be paved prior to June 30, 1982.
4. Because the building was vacant at the time this petition was filed, the
Petitioner will;.not be required to alloco. six months to elapse before commencing work in
furtherance of the condominium conversion. The Petitioner may commence such work 20 days
after the date of the filing of this decision.
Anthony M. Feeh rr , Secreta y
rLIZ
17 CC THE b'•r59_ - .
'%ppML FRO.! r.' , +:. ::
ZtIAL PE.'LIL
S r
-.Y ra +£CrS+
POF ck , -
C;f Tit x
APPEAL FRG., THIS OECIS{CN. 1F A +T. SHALL C 4'ADr F+ rSUAT"ViD .^. TO SEC?:^?! I7 OF THE s.,Sg,
GENERAL LA-S C,�� CF. E.
... . T7!!S DEC:S'.;J V{ THE - F ZD C•n�S TY. C;TE -
F:7.Scr{i - Cf: .,. G TP?
V6a '�!. rt + - C.
GS Y' }r!EI S .' +r SC + i'. T:c l• �:^c x
A COPY OF THIS DECISFON+AND: i'LANS HAS BEE I F�LFDr IJITti'THE'-PLANN.INC B40RD A14D+THE CITY CLERK -
O$ APr; ..
P.ECCP -D iO 7Nr S 1H _. o 1 r 7 + .T `�.. .cL.`: C +r IA
C +5C• -
QF RCORD O:, ISR - ''
RDGJ h, ! - 9 C& 7H: C.'l:lER'$ (• vF TRE C7Pi=$
EAiL C.cE Ci TI=LE.
BOARD OF APPEAL .
OOVy.
�r QTitu of 5alem, CCttstttu # �"`�,
Puttrb of � 081 AUG -6 P3 :41
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN H. HAMILTON FOR A SPECIAL 1WM(rLT0KCOPE
102'' BAYVIEW AVENUE INTO THREE CONDOMINIUM UNITS SALEM'?L!;' C
A hearing on this petition was held on July 29, 1981 with the
following Board Members present: Mr. Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker
and Feeherry, Associate Member Lusinski and Martineau. Notice of the hearing was
sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to convert the existing
three-family dwelling at this property into three condominium units.
This proposed condominium conversion is covered by the terms of the
City of Salem's condominium conversion ordinance. The Special Permit that has been
requested may therefore be granted only upon a finding by the Board of Appeals
that (1) the grant. of the Special Permit will not adversely impact upon the city's
existing stock of rental units for low and moderate income families and elderly
4 :�p �;p!� ;�£n.,fixed incomes, (2) that the grant of the Special Permit is not contrary
wa:City's Master Plan, and (3) the grant of the Special Permit will not have an
adverse effect on the neighborhood.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence at the hearing,
and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The owner has made a large financial investment in this property and
has made capital improvements in what-was previously a building which was in need
of substantial repairs.
2. The proposed conversion of this property to three condominium units in no
way, conflicts with the Master Plan of the City of Salem.
3. The conversion of the property to a condominium will.have negligible
impact on the existing stock of rental units in the City of Salem for the elderly and
for .families of low and moderate income.
4. The property is vacant. .Thus, no hardship is caused by the proposed
condominium conversion to any tenants.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals by a 4 to l vote (Mr. Lusinski opposed)
concluded that the proposed condominium conversion is in harmony with the condominium
conversion ordinance of the City of Salem. Accordingly, the Board voted in favor
of L ming the requested Special Permit in accordance with the following terms and
1. Parking will not be allowed in the area in the front of this building;
that area shall be maintained as a lawn or landscaped area.
2. The passageway to .the sea on the southwesterly side of the property
RECEIN,"F`
DECISION - JOHN H. HAMILTON - Page 2
'81 AUG -6 P3 :41
shall not be obstructed by any physical .barrier. However, "C❑ p��� 11iceJCthat
this requirement is not intended to grant or modify the legal r' g$ s;' f'any
',
of any person to use this passageway.
3. Because the building was vacant at the time this petition was filed,
the Petitioner will not be required to allow six months to elapse before commencing
any work in furtherance of the condominium conversion. The Petitioner may commence such
work 20 days after the date of the filing of this decision.
i
Ax�tg
ony M. Feehe ry, Vcreta
APPEAL FRTA THIS CECIS:O:1, I.'- ANY, MAU SE 7,'.ADE PL'A3L'.MT TO Stoic 17 Di THE LASS.
3:'. L L F= :Yi:'n':!i 29 DMS ARM THE ^AT: of FILL`:.
I:! ,u^Fr!CE GF Ti!E CITY - _
CL2?:C.
PJ:?2?Sii TG ".�.,_. CEL_.., _ U'.:!S, C- T'>_! M. SEMJi1 11, TBE 'JA.".!rV?CE GR SPECIAL PERS!IT
EF. SED HTRM,". °.:..LL F:OT TA;E EFFKCI U14TL A CO'''i CF TY.E�E.:..,.,.... BEA?,,.� TY.E CETT.O : .,I) :A^ :;w KEN AILED, -
DF F£L.M. aa LS ..!ilia i.:;J iic:Ei: ,v�: liiE Gl elER S �EuiFiCnT"c 06 TiTiE.
BOARD OF APPEAL .
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
I
%CU..'.Yl`�b
(gity of O'% n
Ije , zrs c z E# s REcFlVr
200ttrb of '81 SEP 14 P4:2
CITY CLERK'S OFFU
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD E. SAVICKEY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO SALE;^ ~IL S.
CONVERT 5 BECKETT AVENUE AND 74 DERBY STREET INTO TWO CONDOMINIUM UNITS
i
A hearing on this Petition was held on September 9, 1981 with the
following Board Members present: Mr. Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker,
Piemonte and Feeherry and Associate Member Martineau. Notice of the hearing
was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly
published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A.
This proposed condominium conversion is covered by the terms of the City
. of Salem's condominium conversion ordinance. The Special Permit that has been
requested may therefore be granted only upon a finding by the Board of Appeals that
(1) the grant of .the Special Permit will not adversely impact upon the city's existing
stock of rental units for low and moderate income families and elderly people on
fixed incomes, (2) that the grant of the Special Permit is not contrary to the
• City's Master Plan, and (3) the grant of the Special Permit will not have an adverse
effect on the neighborhood.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence at the hearing,
and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The owner has made a large financial investment in this property and
has made capital improvements in what was previously a building which was in need
of substantial repairs.
2. The proposed conversion of this property to three condominium units in
no way conflicts with the Master Plan of the City of Salem.
3. The conversion of the property to a condominium will have negligible
impact on the existing stock of rental units in the City of Salem for the elderly
and for families of low and moderate income.
4. The property is vacant. Thus, no hardhip is caused by the proposed
condominium conversion to any tenants.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals by a unanimous vote concluded that the
,proposed condominium conversion is in harmony with the condominium conversion
REOPW'r)
'81 SEP 14 P4 :28
DECISION/.RICHARD E. SAVICKEY CITY CLERf'i'S OFFICE
5 BECKETT AVENUE and 74 DERBY STREET SALE:^ fir C�'
Page 2 September 9, 1981
ordinance of the City of Salem. Accordingly, the Board voted in favor of
granting the requested Special Permit in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
1. Four parking spaces as shown on the plan submitted to the
Board shall be maintained at the site.
2. The Petitioner shall meet all requirements for this property
that are stated in the Salem Fire Marshall's September 9, 1981 letter to
the Board.
3. Because the building was vacant at the time this petition was
filed, the Petitioner will not be required to allow six months to elapse before
G::- • commencing work in furtherance of the condominium conversion. The Petitioner
may commence such work 20 days after the date of the filing of this decision.
thong M. Fe erry, 'Secret kry,
Z.
:.- ...,
-._•
.._
.:dam.. L
ECARD Or APPEAL ..
A (MY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND I THE CITY CLERK
b� ('gitg of -$UlPm, Anseachusetts RECEPIED
1
Poarb of Appol 081 OCT 19 P4 :22
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID CLARK FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT SALEM MD.f:S.
26 BECKET STREET INTO THREE CONDOMINIUM UNITS
A hearing on this petition was held on October 14, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Mr. Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Hacker
and Feeherry, and Associate Member Lusinski. Notice of the hearing was sent
to abutters and others and notices of the hearing.-were.:properly published in
the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to convert the existing three-
family dwelling at this property into three condominium units.
This proposed condominium conversion is covered by the terms of the City
of Salem's condominium conversion ordinance. The Special Permit that has been
requested may therefore be granted only upon a finding by the Board of Appeals
that (1) the grant of the Special Permit will not adversely impact upon the
city's existing stack of rental units for low and moderate income families
and elderly people on fixed incomes, (2) that the grant of the Special Permit
is not contrary to the City's Master Plan, and (3) the grant of the Special
• Permit will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence at the hearing,
and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The owner proposes to make a large' financial investment in this property
which,prior to petitioner's ownership, was partially gutted by a fire in May
of 1981. The property is currently an eye sore and a source of
concern to neighbors.
2. The proposed conversion of this property to three condominium units in
no way conflicts with the Master Plan of the City of Salem.
3. The conversion of the property to a condominium will have negligible
impact on the existing stock of rental units in the City of Salem for the
elderly and for families of low and moderate income.
4. The property is vacant. Thus, no hardship is caused by the proposed
condominium conversion to any tenants.
5. Petitioner's plan for this property will have a beneficial effect on
the entire area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals by a 5 to 0 vote concluded that ,
the proposed condominium conversion is in harmony with the condominium conversion
ordinance of the City of Salem. Accordingly, the Board voted in favor of granting
the requested Special Permit ;'.in accordance with the following terms and coriditions:
1. Five parking spaces shall be maintained at the site in accordance
with the plans submitted to the Board.
REM%frr7
DECISION - DAVID CLARK - Page 2 OCT 19 P4 :22
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
2. Adequate landscaping shall be provided between the proposed
area and the next-.door abutter.
3. The parking area at the site shall be paved by June 30, 1982.
4. Because the building was vacant at the time this petition was filed,
the Petitioner will not be required to allow six months to elapse before commencing
any work in furtherance of the condominium conversion. The Petitioner may
commence such work 20 days after the date of the filing of this decision.
'Anthony M. F eli'erry
-. APPEAL FR^,L THIS DKCI .i. :F ANY. SHALL FS PU.",SUn'T TO "cCT O.11 17 CF THE SASS. .
GENERAL L5C1S, CHs?IF, Z:3. A[:D SHALL DS il:.I:D WNTHR: 20 DAYS A.7ER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DEC!S;N.' M 'i:iS CiF ISE OF THE CITY CLERK. - - -
POR?k-;T :0 :'dSS. C ._:'�. L'"1S. C ��.. _� E.,. SECMifi 11, THS
GR;!NXD P.:REL.I. 5:: 1- U'O ',Al EFFECT Quid A QPY OF !:1._". ...._ C.rai�1 T'i'c CERT-
. FIi ts;01 CF TBE Cii[ C':k.; ili.":f 2J-GA;S HSsz EV.F£=D.A � !: A.-rc L H°i C__.'7 FILED.on VIAL IF SuCH .", Ar'F_.A!. H'•S 87S:1 'i c, TY.AT IT EAS CUE" :$ O%.l ED IS -
- -RECCIRDLD SN THE SCJiH ESSZX Kl:STRY CF DZ'SM AND INDEXED O:iC=Z T;i- N.A::.. CF THE 0 7NER
OF REM20 OR IS GECu^DED AiiD NOTED ON Tic O'NNER'S CER MICSTE OF TITLE
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
74�1
�2 fgitg of 'Salem, cmassadjusetto RECEIV
29ourb of LA"eal '81 OCT 19 P4 :22
p�0(NIMY IpiTs% ,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & ELIZABETH BURNS FOR A SPECLALCITY CLERK'S OFFICE
PERMIT FOR 22 BECKFORD STREET SALEM t-AS
S.
A hearing on this Petition was held on October 14, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Hacker
and Feeherry and Associate Member Lusinski Notice of the hearing was
sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were published in
the Salem E.;ening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to extend the existing
non-conforming structure at 22 Beckford Street by constructing a 12' x 12"
addition on the rear of the.property. The property is within an R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this
request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides
as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing inthis Ordinance,
the Board of Appeals may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions
• set forth in Section VIII F and IX D;:.grant Special Permits: for alterations -
and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes,
enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures
and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement
or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. -
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that' the grant of the'Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare.
The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing .on this matter,
makes the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed addition to the property has been approved by and endorsed
by the Salem Historical Commission.. .
2. The proposed addition was unopposed by any neighbors.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals finds (i) that the proposed use
of the property will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
structure to the neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed addition to the property
. is in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board unanimously
approved the granting of a Special Permit to the Petitioners.
-81 OCT 19 P4 :22
DECISION - OCTOBER 14, 1981 - WILLIAM & ELIZABETH BURNS -CpWtVKR. S OFFICE
SAL_.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the
following terms and conditions:
1) All work shall be in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board.
2) The Petitioners shall apply to the Salem Fire Marshall for approval of
all plans.
r
Anthony M. Feeher'ry, Secretary
Auml:FROId TH'S Dte!210N Ir A'!y, SH1LL BE L°ADE PURSUAiIT TO SECTIDl7 17 OF THE PASS.
MMgAL.IM,S, Cr' P-I r SCSI AND SHALL Be FILED '- HiN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
O F 71115 DECISiOiJ. Il! THE CFFWg GF THE CITY' CLE::if. -
&'iTo.rT TO fiASo C 'sERAL L.. , Ci'RPTER &i7. SEM304 11. THE 'lRti'F. �C GR °ER.'.ilT
TRA e'O HE2EM' "'LL fr^- 'e of .CT Ui;TiL A CG ( GF Tl,.,-:),-
WnTIOR OF THE CIT GLC iS T AT v0 r.,{1'S H:.VE i t-"C<, TiiE CERT-
- 0R SHAT, IF SUCH AN f,Ph_A' L' r E`� O 0 `,D PPrc.L HIS BEE:! FILED,
MMKOED IN THE $y- 1 a C_:,! FEE, Tri�T IT `IT.S $EC! DIS."IMS=9.CR C2t[!ED IS
LH ESSEX RE01Si$Y O.'- 9'EDS f:;i0 I;CEXED UNDER THE HA.'41 OF THE VINER
�lKC030OR.IS RECORDED AHD NOTED Ori THE "INER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL -
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK.
ti
RECEIVE
01itV of $njem, effin use f
.
.,w>
uttrb of p ettl "081 NOV 23 Mom(
DECISION. ON THE PETITION .OF JOHN BORIS, TRUSTEE OF DPJ REALTY TRUST, P.EQUESPPRY CLER}CS OFFICI
A. VARIANCE FOR 12 BOSTON-STREET - SALEM MAS;
x
-
A hearing on this Petition was held on November 18, 1981 with the followingY
Board Members present: Joseph Piemonte, Acting Chairman, Messrs. Hacker and no
and Associate Member Lusinski. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and
others and a notice of
the
hear
•
in
g wasublished in the Salem Evening vening News in accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner. has requested a variance for the property at 12 Boston Street
to utilize the first floor of the property as a sales office. A variance is required
because the property is in an R-2 district where the proposed use is prohibited• Wlthogt
-
a variance.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public. hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed use of the property as a sales office for Essex Office Associates
will not have an adverse effect on the surrounding area which although zoned R-2
has numerous non-conforming commercial uses.
2. The proposed use of the property was unopposed by abutters.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its location in an area
which is surrounded by non-conforming commercial uses.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the property in
question but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the building is located.
:3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not' the
zoning district generally cause special financial hardship to the Petitioner. Restrittions
. on the use of the property for only residential purposes are inappropriate limitations
in light of the location of the property. _
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good.
Th+refore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the reVested relief. The Board grants a variance to the petitioner on the following
conditions:
ti:
."DECISION - JOHN BORIS, TRUSTEE OF DPJ REALTY TRUST RECE!V -r
12vBOSTON STREET
Page 2
November 18, 1981 '81 NOV 23_ RIO :46
• - CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM MAS
1. .The first floor of. the property may be used as a sales office for
Essex Office Associates. However, the property may not be used for over-the-counter
sales of merchandise.
2. The property may also be used for no more than one residential dwelling uni>!.-
hony M. Feeher y, ecret r
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PCP.SL'A;R TO SE0T10'1 17 OF THE 61ASS.
GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 898, AND Sv.l! BE FILEU-t• LH-J! 23 DRYS AT? THE CATE OF FILING -
_ OF THIS OECIS:OH IN THE. O.-F.-CE CF TH Cil' CLERK, -
c C' E 8?^ ! 11. THE ti�<^1d':f C4 'P_CIA, PERMIT
PU:<EAYi TO *.43S. ££N_RA! LAMS. PT 3 v. SMIO:
GCANiEJ H;N. SHALL NUI IALE EFFECT U?!T'.! A COPY O� B id:'1 THE CERT- -
FICAT13% CF THC CFi"i CLERX THAT 20 DAYS H?Vc h�a i --%1 F'.ED;
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL H7a BEE)! FILE. THAI IT H:.S °" ';`:.9 t3 D..t:!ED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX P.EGI>7:".Y OF DEEDS AND Ii:Da_D 611.:3 TH_ NAI.11 OF THE DINNER '
-
OF RECORD OR I$ RECORDED AieO NOT
ON THE OWNER'S CERTMCA7E OF TITLE "
BOARD OF APPEAL:
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLEI
M /�
?,. 7
>y 40 ( itg of "k5alem, MBSMt4tS9tt5 RErF!u F n
Pourb of �yyvg $1 SEP 14 P4:27
A`011llli6 SP;L -
CITY SCLER'S OFFICE
SA
LEC ON THE `PETITION OF KENNETH T. DESCHENE 1t - IGir:
REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 15-17 BOSTON STREET
- A hearing on this Petition was held on September 9, 1981 with the
following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs.
Piemonte, Hacker and Feeherry and Associate Member Martineau. Notice
of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petition of Kenneth T. Deschene requests a Special Permit to
enlarge an existing nonconforming structure at the site by the addition
of a four-room apartment in the attic area at 15--17 Boston Street.
A Special Permit is required because the building at this site is in .
a B-2 business district; however, the property has for many years been-
• used as a four-family dwelling.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to
this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides
as follows: .
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing
in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeals may, in
accordance with the procedure and conditions set
forth in Section VIII F and IB D, grant Special
Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non-
conforming structures, and for changes, enlargements,
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land,
structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change,
extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substan-
tially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming
use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit
requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted
upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will
promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this
matter, makes the following findings of fact:
. 1) . The property is currently nonconforming as it is a four-family
dwelling within a business district.
2) The surrounding area is heavily congested and has well documented
parking and traffic problems.
DECISION/KENNETH T. DESCHENE September 9, 1981
15-17 BOSTON STREET
Page 2 RECE1'/cr'
•
881 SEP 14 P4 :27
3) The Petitioner does noxhaE
off-street parking
for even the four-dwelling uniCEs1 2. '
L
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence
presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals finds (i) that
the proposed use of the property will be substantially more detrimental
than the existing use to the neigbborhood, (ii) that the proposed
use of the property will not-promote- the health, safety, convenience.
and welfare of the City's inhabitants, and (iii) that the proposed
use of the property is not in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
Accordingly, the Board denies 5-0 the granting of a Special Permit
to the Petitioner.
thony M. Feeh rry, Sec r tary
_ _ TZ
TMM
— —
VE
CY zao C" u .W ;_:a s4.J•'C�l �LLnp��,�_ ��.T�+��
EVAM� tLM
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
situ of Salem, misa r4metts
Rei E IVP' I
A _ Pnarh of ,Appeal
'81 JUN -1 P9 :55
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER COPELAS CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM ;11A
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 131-135 bUSTON STREET
A hearing on this petition was held on May 27, 1981 with the following
Board Members ?resent: Mr. -Douglas Hopper, Chairman; _`essrs. La3recque, Feeh>rry,
a:nonte and _sacker. Notices O.` the hearing ..ere sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in tine Salem Zvening News
in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 131-135 Boston
Street to construct a two-story structure consisting of four stores on the first
floor and four apartments on the second floor. A variance is required because the
property is in a B-2 district where the use of the property for apartments is
prohibited without a variance. Additionally, variances are needed from density and reaiyal
set-back requirements.
• The Board of Appeals, after cons ideration`of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed use of the property will improve the overall appearance
of the property and the surrounding area.
2. The proposed use of the property is supported by abutters.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its peculiar shape, because
of the poor condition of certain of the structures on the property and because of the
topography of the site.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land in question but
do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not the
zoning district generally cause the following special hardship: unless a variance
is granted, the Petitioner will have no incentive to upgrade the property.
•
R
EI:_,>-r
• DECISION PETER COPELAS
PAGE TWO juti -I P 9 :55
CITY CLEWS OFFICE
SALEM i:A�;S
A. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good because the proposed use of the property will improve the area.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the Petitioner on the follow—
ing terms and conditions:
1- The Petitioner r2ust. renove the `our structures on rhe easterly side of,
the existing laundry at: the site.
2. The Petitioner shall erect and maintain an 8' . stockade fence on his
rear property line from the land currently shown as the 'McKinnon property to the easterly
boundary of the Petitioner's property.
3. The Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the appropriate fire
codes.
4. The Petitioner may construct on the property no more than 4 commercial
' stores and no more than four apartments as shown on the plans submitted to the
Board.
5. The proposed construction may encroach to within 5' of the rear property line.
6. The Petitioner shall provide to the Board by June 10, 1981 an appropriate
plan showing the location of landscaping and parking at the site.
7. This variance does not authorize the subsequent use of this property
as e.g. a restaurant or any other use which would require more parking than can
be provided at the site under the applicable provisions of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance.
.G
DATE: May 29, 1981 LtIZ,;.-' `:i
Anthony M. Feeh�rry, Secretary
v ne I" • Sti+L'. ..° P': SART TO S= 'I'i; 17 :F THE :'A.S. '
APPE'r tP ^ THIS CE r.i_ .. r. -
1.4 r• -
Perp- TO
rile C;R;ER
OF F.,.,.7%7 CR L, R... -
£OABH OF APPEAL
A COPY OF TRIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CL
JANUARY 21, 1981
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH A. AND IRENE FAZIO REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR
165A BOSTON STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on January 21, 1981, with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Feeherry, Hacker, and
Associate Member Luzinski. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others
and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on January 7,
1481 and January 14, 1981 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws chapter
40A.
The Petitioners have requested a variance for the property at 165A Boston Street
to construct an addition to the existing Boston Street Auto Body Garage. A
variance is required because the proposed garage would otherwise violate rear yard
{Aborn Street) and side yard restrictions as well as density requirements in a
• B-2 district.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed use was not opposed by any neighbors,
2. The proposed construction will be used only to store autos and not
to expand the auto body repair shop.
3. The proposed construction will provide a neater and quieter operation of
the property and will benefit the surrounding area.
On .the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1.- The proposed construction will enable the petitioner to keep cars under
a roof protected from vandalism and loss. The proposed construction will
also reduce unsightly storage in the area.
2. The conditions described above affect the land in question but not the
zoning district generally in which the property is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not
the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship: unless
the. variance is granted an improvement to the neighborhood will not go
forward
co"
,
Qlat� of �alem' �)Tjas5aC4u5PttEj
Pn7rD of Appeal
DECISION - JOSEPH A. & IRENE FAZIO - PAGE T(40
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the petitioners on the
following terms and conditions:
1. The variance is granted from side yard and rear yard restrictions and
density regulations.
2. The proposed addition to the property may only be used as a garage and
not as an extension of the auto body operation at the property.
3.. The fire marshal will approve all plans before construction.
Anthony M. Feetierry, Secretary
APPEAL FSG TTIS 0.._''.i ! A'IY. SHALL SF i .Pr P-RSUfOT TO Sri,..—IOY 17 OF THE "-CSS
o,4a ir.E Chic Cr F+_tC:G - -
OF
ii is - .n 8r.i+..E.
BOABC OF APPEAL -
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE
CITY CLERK. -
d
(11i#u of Salera, as iactjuutfb,-� r
Pvurb of APF '81 AUG 24 P 3:21 .
CITY CLFR 'S OFFICE ,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HARED' S, INC. SA.LEc; `E:c`.
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 29 BRIDGE STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on August 19, 1981 with
the following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman;
Messrs. Hacker,, Piemonte, Feeherry and Associate Member
Martineau. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem
Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner requests. a variance for 29 Bridge Street to
construct an addition to the existing restaurant/lounge at this .
site. A variance is required because the building at 29 Bridge
Street is in a B-2 district where the proposed addition would
violate maximum lot coaerage requirements, parking requirements
and front yard set back requirements.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence
presented at the public hearing and after viewing the property
makes the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question is currently non-conforming.
2. . The property has substantially fewer parking spaces
than required for a restaurant/lounge of its current .
size.
3. There are .substantial traffic and parking problems in
this area which will be exacerbated if the requested
variance is granted.
4 . The Salem Fire Marshal has cited deficiencies. in the
existing structure.
5. 1 The Petitioner' s request, while supported by some
abutters, was opposed by many others.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and other evidence
presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes
as follows:
1. The Petitioner failed to establish circumstances rela—
ting to the land or structure which affect that property
but do not generally affect the zoning district in which
the property is located.
, 4
t _ 2
2. The Petitioner failed to establish that a literal en
• forccment of the provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordi-
nance as applied to this property would involve sub-
stantial hardship to the Petitioner.
3. The Petitioner failed to establish that the requested
variance could be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good and without nullifying or substantially
derogating from the intent and purposes of the Salem .
Ordinance... "
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in
opposition to the granting of the requested relief. The Board
denies a variance to the Petitioner.
In so ruling the Board also notes that if the Petitioner had
requested a special permit rather than a variance, the Board would
have found on the basis of the above facts that the proposed
addition to the property would be substantially more detrimental
to the area than the existing non-conforming use. Accordingly,
A special permit would also have been denied.
t
Vthony M. teeherry
: _ • w Secretary
N U
CL
U.l
C W
6 UJ
(r }rn
U
- -7
TO
-
sa' rE
Il
OF
BQ?.i) OF P.nr�I _
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AND THE
• PLANNING BOARD.
,a
of aS�ML�LiSE���
uttr of c�3r PSC `81 AUG 24 P 3 21
CITY Ct PR,4,s�OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SAME:' B. O'NEIL
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 92 BRIDGE STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on August 19, 1981 with
the following Board Members .present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman;
Messrs. Hacker, Piemonte, Feeherry, and Associate Member
Martineau. . Notices of the hearing were properly published in the_ `
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts. .General Laws
Chapter 40A. .
The Petitioner is requesting a variance for the property at
92 Bridge St. to allow it to be used for eight residential units.
A variance is required because the building is in a R-2 district
where the proposed use is prohibited without a variance.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence pre-
sented at the public hearing and after viewing the property makes
the following findings of fact:
1. When the property was purchased by the Petitioner several
• years ago, it had eight tenants. Since that time the
property has been continuously used as an eight unit
dwelling.
2. The property is listed by the City Assessor's Office as
a six unit a7_-:artment with a pottery shop as an additional
allowed use.
3. The Petitioner' s request to clarify the use of the pro-
perty was neither supported nor opposed by any abutters.
On the basis of the. above findings of fact, and the evidence
presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as
follows:
1. This property is unique because of its peculiar past
history and its current non-conforming status .
2. The conditions described . above especially affect the
structure in question but do not generally affect the
zoning district in which the building is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in
question, but not the zoning distri'ct. generally cause
the following special hardship: unless the variance is
granted, the Petitioner may have to evict two current
tenants'.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial
. detr?ment to the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in
favor of granting the requested relief; the Board grants a variance
to the Petitioner -on the following terms and conditions:
1. The property may hereafter be used for eight dwelling
units-: provided that the City Building .Tnspector confirms
that the property is currently in compliance with appli-
cable fire and building codes.
- 2. The property may not be used for any-commercial-purposes.
3. The existing parking at the site shall be maintained
w
w Anthony M. F her
`r' C::r Secretar
CL_ o-% y
ww
W >-N
EO Z3
• `-
fiiY. _ .r:. .' T'' 17 Gr ':E ?.'.A$$.
.. !C., r^.•. .-.ia. 'r'_.. ,. J "_.. .. . - . 't7! 29 1
t-A.a A -.2 , �
11:E2 Air OF F:LI!dG
iI poi r: . .._; . .-..Cil. SRV,IT
.i:i cdR -
- . . _J ... °. . .. __:i
It
11",
.. 1 7 _ 1 :i. :°:ilE.i -
OF ULJRO VZ li {.....• CV I.:..1 .. J.. �..- ..1-.\i ��til ... ... Vf 1� LC. .
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AND THE
. PLANNING BOARD. .
0
.c.v:y.,
Ap
�e�I '81 JUL -2 All :27
p'ouuvr.N%"
.TUNE 24; 1981 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM ;ir5
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ELWOOD W. MOONEY
REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 96 BRIDGE STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on June 24, 1981 ,with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker, Piemonte,
Feeherry and Associate Member Lusinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance and a Special Permit to allow him
to construct a 44' x 55' addition to an existing structure at 96 Bridge Street.
The Petitioner proposes to then use this structure as a laundromat. A variance
is required because this property is in an. R-2 district where the proposed use
is for various reasons prohibited without a variance.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of
fact:
1) The proposed use will substantially increase traffic in the area and
therefore adversely affect the neighborhood.
2) The proposed use will violate density requirements in an R-2
zoning district.
3) .The proposed use will provide substantially less parking than is required
for such a commercial use.
4) The Petitioner failed to establish that there was any substantial
hardship caused by the current use of this property.
5) The proposed use of this property would be substantially more detrimental
to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming use.
6)The proposed use of this property was strongly opposed by neighbors.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and other evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
DECISION - NNE 24, 1981 - ELWOOD W. MOONEY - PACE TWO
A. The Petitioner failed to establish circumstances relating to
this property which affect the property but do not generally affect the
zoning district in which the property is located.
B. The Petitioner failed to establish that a literal enforcement of the
provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the
Petitioner.
C. The Petitioner'. failed to establish that the requested variance could
be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying
or substantially derogating from the intent and purposes of the Salem Ordinance.
Quite to the contrary, the evidence established that the proposed use of this property
will increase noise and traffic in the area, create parking problems, and have an
adverse impact on the surrounding residents. _
Accordingly, the Board unanimously voted to deny the requested relief.
Anthony M. Fe h rry
APPEAL F@3:! T!i!S D ...,, ?. i. ,'!L SC;CL ..: :!ADE Pit RS......T TO ".G;: 17 OF THE SASS.
CENE36._ I,An,. C:ii.P A?;: ..'�n!L F;if�i '. �„ UYS n.-ic TriE CnTE OF RLl-iG
OF f,i:3 DZB�S:.'; : I:I iil'_G F:C;E G; THE C!.i
PJPSf i.. T7 ,�. ._.��:;', SHAT td K3, S;. 'L2 TT, T4 J- .._ . -"LL PER':9T
CF,f.i ED H,..... .....,_L i E.;Z_T "NiNL A f'Pr L. ,il .- . . . H, 1.c!, -
F!CiP(i:: OF 'i:5 . .i CL`_-it; T9,ii 2'J DAYS ...�i E. A. n t t�. ;".L U3 �ZLN
OR T','".T, V SG.".i: 1i. fpPE!,L .H?S ['^.❑ r _c.
RECORDED IN THz S,U:H ESSEX RE3!ST?.f O C'EEGS A!D WD`_Y.ED UNI!EP THE OF THE 0;'; ER
OF RECORD OR 1S RcCOROED WP D NOTED U'r7 TIIE U.,,NER'S CERTINCATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
of
• s i aj �r.� . . ._
Pourb
G� tT tFit.i
;
`81 APR -2 A 8 'S'-p ICE
rvARCH l3, 1931
CITY . ,
DECIS16 bfd THE PETITION OF JULIANNB IZALLAS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 151 ERIDGE
STREET
A hearing on this petition was held on March 18, 1931 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte and Hacker
and Associate Member Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was "sent to abutters
and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News
on March 4, 1981 and March 11, 1981 in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to change the existing
third floor of a two-family house at 151 Bridge Street into a third apartment
unit. The property in question is in an R-2 district. The Special Permit
which has been requested may therefore be granted upon a finding by the Board
Of Appeals, that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of facia
1. The requested Special Permit is supported by the Salem Planning Depart-
ment and was unopposed by abutters.
2. The use of the property in question as a three-family dwelling is
consistent with the surrounding area,
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes unanimously that the
proposed use is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board
votes in favor of granting a Special Permit to the Petitioner,
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
1. The property may bealtered to change the third floor of the existing
"two-family house into a third apartment.
2. All work will be in accordance with plans provided to the Board,
r&!AL FRO31 THIS DECISIO`I; IF ANY, SHALL BE ir`ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE M.A.SS. -
G:%5RAL UVWS CHAPTER 808, AND SHAUL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DMSION IN THE OFFICE OF TH CITY CLERK.
PMAIT TO MASS. GENMAI. LA-711S, GH ,c' 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PE.
G? T 0 HER�'I'',, SHALL NO' 'A' FF l 'LC °v "- iHE I I', , 6 ARING THE Ui . glas Hipper, Chaioln
FIS r sH CITY:CLE2 1 +� 9C o I A A ' ,IP?-AC HAS "uEEN FILED, -
O I, :�, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS OEEn. FILE, i-:, . I. : EEN MSOR DENIED IS
'RECORD:-D IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF OEEDS"AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR J� RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE,
- ]BOW 9F APPZAI -
A ITY CLERK
COPY OF THIS DECISION AND ANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH TILE. PLANNING BOARD AND THE C
PL
i ��..co.ert4b\ �• l /
of 'Sa em, RSC
�
Peart of Appeal •g1 SEP 14 P4:28
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM , :;;.,,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER CONWAY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT
28 - 28-1/2 BROAD STREET INTO THREE CONDOMINIUM UNITS
A hearing on this Petition was held on September 9, 1981 with the
following Board Members present: Mr. Douglas Hopper, Chairman; and Messrs.
Hacker, Piemonte, LaBreque, and Feeherry. Notices of the hearing were sent
to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in
the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to convert the existing three-
family dwelling at this property into three condominium units. '
This proposed condominium conversion is coverdd by the terms of the City
of Salem's condominium conversion ordinance. The Special Permit that has been .requested
may therefore be granted only upon a finding by the Board of Appeals that (1) the
grant of the Special Permit will not adversely impact upon the City's existing stock
of rental units for low and moderate income families and elderly people on fixed incomes,
.(2) that the grant of the Special Permit is not contrary to the City's Master Plan,
and (3) the grant of the Special Permit will not have an adverse effect on the
neighborhood.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence at .the hearing, and after
viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The conversion of this property into condominiums was not opposed by
any neighbors and was supported by the existing tenants at the property.
2. The proposed conversion of this property to three condominium units in no
way conflicts with the Master Plan of the City of Salem.
3. The conversion of the property into condominiums will have negligible impact
on the existing stock of rental units in the. City of Salem for the elderly and for
tfamilies of low and moderate income.
4. One of these three units is vacant and no hardship is caused by the
proposed condominium conversion to the current tenants in the other two units..
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals by a 4 to 1 vote (Mr. Piemonte voted present)
concluded that the proposed condominium conversion is in harmony with the condominium
conversion ordinance of the City of Salem. Accordingly, the Board voted in favor of
granting the requested Special Permit in accordance with the following terms and
conditions: ,
H RI'CCl VE LD -
. DECISION / PETER CONWAY '81 SEP 14 P4 :28
28 - 28-1/2 BROAD STREET
Page-2 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE September 9, 1981
SAL EN v '
1. The three parking spaces at the property shall be maintained.
2. The requirements set forth in the Salem Fire Marshall's Septem-
ber 9, 1981 letter to this Board are hereby incorporated into this decision.
3. Because the dwelling unit designated as Unit No. 3 on the Plan
submitted to the Board was vacant at the time this petition was filed, the
Petitioner will not be required to allow six months to elapse before commencing
any work in furtherance of the condominium conversion on this unit. The
Petitioner may commence such work 20 days after the date of the filing of
this decision. This waiver applies only to Unit No. 3.
4. There shall be no structural changes in the exterior of the
building in connection with this condominium conversion.
thony M. Fee er y, Se jetary
A?PEA!ROM THIS �tC(".^..,'J, rF .4;Y. S'? '!. CE :"...,,. PU.7SUANT TO SECT!OH 17 OF THE MASS.
I GJ ..- J . I:i.. t\Tt YP CILIii11
Cr'
OF THE OVINE-12 --
Or F...COBU OR IS Ru:OI:JED Filo NZ C'I Tii-- W.'"-R'S C_.Tui.'WE CF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY .OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
�' l.l.t# L11 `��SIPttT, fI$SftL�LiGP##$
J q!'
`Pattrb of AppinI
•'�A101.VLVG UAI ..
'81 JUN -1 P9 :54
rr�T � . ��:5 nF�
DECISION ON THE PETITION 1� Q �$3 MLETIER
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR I8 and 179 BROOKS STREET
A hearing on this petition was held on May 27, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Mr. Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. LaBrecque, Feeherry,
Piemonte and Hacker. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News
in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner requests a variance to combine lots 187 and 179 Brooks Street
which total 24,750 square feet and then divide the parcel into four lots.
A variance is required because the four lots to be created will all be non-
conforming because of their area and frontage. The property is in an R-2
district.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings
of fact:
• 1. The Petitioner's request involves a substantial variance from the
provisions of the City's Zoning by-laws and amounts to a miniature subdivision.
2. The Petitioner's request is strongly opposed by the Planning Board.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and other evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The proposal would create four non-conforming lots.
2. The property in question is currently not in conformance with the
zoning by-laws.
3. There is nothing unique about the topography or configuration of
the property.
Accordingly, the Board concludes as follows:
A. The Petitioner failed to establish circumstances relating to the land
in question which affect that property but do not generally affect the zoning
district in which the property is located.
B. The Petitioner failed to establish that a literal enforcement of
• the provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance as applied to him would involve,
substantial hardship.
C. The Petitioner failed to establish that the requested variance could
be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying
or substantially derogating from the intent and purposes of the Salem Ordinance.
DECISION - LIONAL R. PELLETIER RrCEIV ED
PAGE TWO
081 JUN -1 P9 :55
CITY CLERh'S OFFICE
SALEil MAS1
Therefore,, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in opposition to
the granting of: the requested relief. The Board denies a variance to the
Petitioner.
DATE May 29, 1981 a'Eti� Ct I v�
Anthony M. Feeherr� , Secrletary
A?P£O,L FROM THIS M:7.7.1, 17 ;•=4l, S!f.'+LL RE LUM PL':I1SAt1T TO SE�.1O,Y V OF VE MX",
Gu'TM& EA?3, CHA71ro^. Vu . L ..;::;,L ii'-. 2' ',*!P- it ,".J U.`i$ AiiEa Ti:; VAM OF FIU113
OF T1ii5 VZtI';VJ T f:"t;tE C:= C CG` C '.:f. -
IIF:.:L�{.. ale: .�- l• -
.. - FI:c71:•:1 (1: Tei: M. ...... ..:.:. aJ 1','.._ ,....�J ° � 1,J
i -.f g r-r,. 10:E f•+ r c;A� U?cN 0:51:1:.`Z) :iii 11,,'-• u 1e -
0f7 7HrrT, IF S14'd R:'f iif :,,_ 1-3 i.o-..r r1,... 7L,.: f -.
RECOROEO M THE SPUTH EE.."c( Cf° EiEVJ AHO 'i'ZXeO U':7 :5 !:I-- i.L'zE CF 1,11E O:'1MiM
9f RFGOiO.01<15, REC030 DIuYO tGwo Oil TifE O,MER'$ CLTIIMATE OF TIl-E
EOAR0.OF&MAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLER1
CON
oaf 'Sttlmm �"It tts�ttc�usett3.
,.: Pima, d 4A"e .I '81 AUG 24 P 3 :21
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LIONEL PELLETIER CITYSA
ER1':c OFFICE
SALE
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR #187 AND #179 BROOKS STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on August 19, 1981 with
the following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman;
Messrs. Hacker, Piemonte, Feeherry and Associate Member
Martineau. Notices of the hearing were sent -to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem
Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at
#187 and #179 Brooks Street to combine the existing two lots and
then divide them into three new lots. A variance is required be-
cause the lots to be created will all be non-conforming. The pro-
posed use is prohibited without a variance.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence
presented at the public hearing and after viewing the property
makes the following findings of fact:
• 1. The two existing lots total- 24, 750 square feet - there
are two houses on these lots.
2. Petitioner proposes to construct a single family house
on the vacant Lot #2 which will be created when the
existing lots are combined and then divided.
3. Lots in the area have approximately 50 feet of frontage.
4. No opposition was raised by the Planning Board or by
neighbors.
On the basis of the above findings of fact; and the evidence
presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes
as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its peculiar
configuration and because of the large vacant area that
exists because of the location of the two homes on the
existing lots.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land
in question but do not generally affect the zoning district
• in which the land is located.
2 -
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in
question, but not the zoning district generally cause
special financial hardship to the Petitioner.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial
detriment- to the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals voted four in favor, - -
one (Mr. Hopper) voting present, to approve they grant of the re-
quested relief. The Board grants a variance to the Petiticaer on
the following terms and conditions :
1. Pet-tioner may combine Lots #187 and #179 Brooks Street
inFo three lots - Lot #1 to contain 13, 500 square feet
wii 75 feet of frontage, Lot #2 to contain 6, 210 square
feet with 69 feet of frontage and Lot #3 to contain 5,040
square feet with 56 feet of frontage.
2. Construction on Lot #3 shall be restricted to the con-
struction of a single family home.
nthony M. Feeherry
Secretary _
•' w
n: - U_
W
4w. Cl- L_
J�
F.
14r . �. F .. ! r .. P r ,_.i 17 't THC •i^.85.
m ikc0,.
r . t
- - BjM", OF ?PEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AND THE
PLANNING BOARD
9
RE Or, rA
II{ ��TIPtIt� 'I�S���SC�IIfiE���
�:.
.. '81 DEC 22, A10 :'LO Pourh of AypPal
9�Ob1IF5�
CITY CLERK':, OFFICE
SALE!" "'
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KAREN LAWRENCE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 18 BROWN STREET
A hearing on this petition was held or. December 16, 1981 with the following
Board Members'present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte,: Hacker and
Feeherry. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of
the hearing were published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter. 40A.
The Petitioner. ,has,, requested a Special Permit to operate a professional
business throughout the entire property. Presently, only the first and second floors
of the property may be used for professional offices. The property is in an R-3
zoning district. The Special Permit which,has been requested may therefore be
granted upon a finding by the Board of Appeals, that the grant of the Special
Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's
inhabitants.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
and after viewing the property,. makes the following findings of fact:
. 1) The proposed use of this property is appropriate .in this area which is suitable
for some commercial uses.
2) The proposed use of this property will preserve its unique. architectural
features.
3) Petitioner's proposed use of the property was not opposed by abutters.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the. Board of Appeals concluded that the proposed use will promote
the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City's inhabitants and
that the proposed use is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the
Board voted unanimously in favor of granting a Special. Permit to the Petitioner.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following terms
and conditions:
1. The property maybe used in its entirety by Spectrum Training Corp. (Spectrum)
as professional offices in connection with Spectrum's work in writing and designing,
training manuals for the information processing industry.-
z
�
Ai. ..
a.
P � T-
OF F.Eco?,D u . I., PZt;N.D ) &ND i' 'LD Gl in: r
BOARD OF AP FAL.
4,
RECEIVE[
DECISION .- KAREN, LAWRENCE - 18 BROWN STREET •81 DEC 22 A10 :20)
December 16, :198.1`
Page 2 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALE;
2. No other commercial use of this property shall be allowed without the
prior approval of this Board.
3. The property can no longer be used for two residential units.
4. The petitioner shall improve the parking area surface and definetthe
nineteen spaces there.
5. An occupancy permit must be obtained by the petitioner for the use of
the entire building by Spectrum.
6. No more than 20 persons (including principals) shall be employed at
the property.
Anthony M. Fe herry, Secretar}
is
j.
i
c« ._ ... .. - ss.
,.
OR
KE1:n:f D F4 7, .:L:., _M"- O.-"a
a?'c C'.7i1�R
OF BEC:;R-3Op is @cCC':5 A- u G,: , :E i7iE.
BOARD, OF AP?UVV
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN,FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
9
z (�i of `Utem, tt c sE##s
RECE'!
�'Ei
RYi
pr�lflnlyW?% .
APRIL 22, 1981 '81 APR 29 All :25
DECISON ON THE PETITION OF ANDREW HINGSON FOR A SPECIAL PERMrTTM TAKB�C6* EET
S 1
A hearing on this Petition was held on April 22, 1981 with the following Board
Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrecque and Feeherry.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing
was published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to use two floors of the property at
18 Brown Street for professional offices together with two residential units on the
other two floors of the building. The property is in an R-3 district. The Special
Permit which has been requested may therefore be granted upon a finding by the Board
of Appeals, that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1.. The property at issue has substantial architectural significance and its
preservation is of concern to the City.:
2. The proposed .use of the property is appropriate for the existing structure and will
upgrade the property from its prior use as a rooming house.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the public
hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes unanimously that the proposed use will promote
the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare and that the proposed use is in
harmony with the City's Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board votes in favor of
granting a Special Permit to the Petitioner. -
The Special Permit is threfore granted in accordance with the following terms and
conditions:
1. The first and second floors of the property may be used for professional offices.
2. The lower level and the third floor of the property may each be used for one
residential unit.
3. Nineteen parking spaces shall be maintained at the site.
4. There will be no modification of the exterior of.the building beyond those
shown on the plans submitted to the Board.
of �snjpm, � tt �xc �tse is
PIIMrb of '4pPul
DECISION - APRIL 22, 1981 - ANDREW HINGSON - PACE TWO
5. Any subsequent facade alterations of the building must be approved by
the Salem Historical Commission.
6. All work must be approved by the Salem Fire Marshall.
i�7
Ari(tbony M. FeelF rzsy, Se etary
APPEAL FRO THIS C CIC, , IF A:!Y, SHALL 5 P , \ - .
CE ci- -L Li. S C!i/p- ? ✓� '�•T TO SECTIO 17 Cc PI"c MASS.
.+ J SF L _1, i , .0 uA'S AFTER TIE ..,..c U FiLflilG
OF THIS G i IN THT CF T':' ;Y C °
cF'
;;, PE IT
L Ta Ti _ 11'r.:is
r-.
=L
f ! _ ) }i i.....,t OF THE OWUr
RCC''7q OR ,S �.YCC;'U U A...) .,DYED Oi LSE C ! S CER iFiCA?E OF Ti E.
- BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
J
.�
Titu ofCPmttt uef F ,r►v ;
Pnnr3 of Appeal '81 NOY 23 A10 :46
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD W. STAFFORD FOR A SPECIAL ALr S P " F M
OFFICE
�, FIEE
12 BUCHANAN ROAD �17 SE
SALEMr
A hearing on this Petition was held on November 18, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Joseph Piemonte, Acting Chairman, Messrs. Hacker,
Feeherry and Associate Member Lusinski. Notice of the .hearing was sent to
abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem
Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to construct a first floor
addition to the property at 12 Buchanan Road. The proposed addition involves
an extension of an existing non-conforming structure. The structure at this
site encroaches into the minimum sideyard. The proposed addition will extend this
non-conformity.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this
request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeals may, in accordance with the procedure and
_.• conditions set forth in Section VIII F. and IX D, grant Special Permits
for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and
for changes, enlargement extension or expansion of nonconforming lots,
land, sttucturs, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension,
enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than
the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. .
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the
Board that the grant of the Special Permit will not have an adverse impact on the publi
health, safety, and convenience.
The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter, makes
the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed addition to the property is a relatively small addition which
will enlarge a room at the property.
2. As shown on the plans submitted to the Board, the proposed addition will
have no adverse impact on any abutter or on the surrounding neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals finds (i) that the proposed addition to the
property will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing use to the
neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed addition to the property will not adversely
affect public health, safety, convenience, and welfare, and (iii) that the proposed
use of the property is in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the
Board unanimously approved the granting of a Special Permit to the Petitioner.
RECEIV' ri
DECISION - RICHARD W. STAFFORD 081 NOV 23 A10 :46
12 BUCHANAN ROAD
Page 2 _ CITY CLERKS OFFICE "s
November 18, 1981
SALE-I-I
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
1. The work shall be in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board.
.2. The Petitioner shall comply with all applicable fire safety codes.
thony M. Fee er , Secr tary
1 _
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY SHALL BE MADE PL'RSOA"IT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LA:IS, CHAPTC. 803, AND SHALL DE FILED 20 DAYS AFTER IXE DATE OF FILING - -
OF THIS GEC!SIOI! I.! THE OFFICE OF THE CM CLCRY,.
PURSAI:T TO L`:A.SS. GEOVAL L"i'M C!IAPTHR M. S_";ISN IL THE FASIA`;CE OR SPECIAL P:'7dIT
_ ::c Ci F_i.i C:
Y �t# of "Mem, MaeeZIC see##s RECEIVED
Puxrb of �ppvd
'81 AUG -7 P2:58
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THORVALD G. LAURITSEN FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT THE EXISTING TWO FAMILY HOUSE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
AT 14 CHESTNUT STREET INTO TWO CONDOMINIUM UNITS SALE�1t1Acg
A hearing on this petition was held on July 29, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Mr. Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker and
Feeherry and Associate Members Lusinski and Martineau. Notice of the hearing
was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published
in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to convert the existing.
two-family dwelling at 14 Chestnut Street to a two-unit condominium.
This proposed condominium conversion is covered by the terms of the
City of Salem's condominium conversion ordinance. The Special Permit that has
been requested maytherefore be granted only upon a finding by the Board of Appeals
that (1) the grant of the Special Permit will not adversely impact upon the
City's existing stock of rental units for low and moderate income families and
• elderly people on fixed incomes; (2) the grant of the Special Permit is not contrary
to the Salem Master Plan; and (3) the grant of the Special Permit will not adversely
impact on the neighborhood.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the 'evidence at the hearing, and after
viewing the property voted 3-2 in favor of the requested Special Permit (Messrs.
Hopper, Feeherry and Martineau in favor; Messrs. Hacker and Lusinski opposed).
However, because a request for a Special Permit requires the affirmative vote of
four members of this Board, the Petitioner's request for a Special Permit.was denied.
In support of their vote to deny the requested Special Permit, Messrs. Hacker
and Lusinski concluded as follows:
1) Chestnut Street is a location which has received national recognition for its
unique architecture and for the fact that the interiors and exteriors of the historic
homes on the street have been preserved.
2) The proposed division of this property into condominium units with the
inherent problem of dispute resolution which is present in a small condominium
development presentr a threat to the stability of the area and specifically to the pre-
servation of this unique example of Greek Revival architecture.
3) The increase in the number of owners of this property increases the
likelihood that this property might be used for professional offices or for other
non-residential purposes.
. 4) The conversion of this property into two condominiums will have an adverse
RECEIVED
• DECISION - THORVALD G. LAURITSEN - PAGE 2 '81 AUG -7 P2 :58
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM el.-VIS -
impact on the availability of rental units for people with moderate
incomes.
5) There was substantial oppos' 'on by the Chestnust St. Association and
abutters to the condominium convey o
ony M. Fe herry, jecretary
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PUI SLANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAYS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED 4Vi-F1,N 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. -
PUBSANT TO MASS GE`.iE;'.At 11, THE VARIANCE OR SP:f,:Al PEtif.^,IT
GRANTED HtRE CH.LL K_ �.,.� EFECI UN;:L A C'�v O;TNEt FART r i HE 4ERT. .
FjCAT10a CF THF i �;'•rR l t.! DAYS 1iA'1E r:LA x t -.:-1 i;ll APPEAL HAS o,-,N FILED.
D3 TP,f. jr.S'r t A.: APPEAL HA- FILL. 7ilAT 1-1 HDL.7%: 'IC .ISC'',
OR ';EFJfD IS
RECORDED iN IfiE SCG;H. ESSEX REUISIRY OF 'iEECS AND DEAED WIDE- T1:E NAME OF THE 07JNER
OF RECORDOR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE ONNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. -
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLE
X r TUU o
\ '81 APR -2 A8 :53
CITY CLER;;'S Crf ICE MARCII 18, 1981
DECISION ON TILE PETITION OF FREDERICK MATTEL REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 7 CHURCHILL
STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on March 18, 1981, with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper., Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Backer
and Associate Member Luzinski. Notices of the hearing was published in the
Salem Evening News on March 4, 1981 and March 11, 1981 in accordance with
Massachusetts General, Laws, Chapter 40A. _
The Petitioners have requested a variance for the property at 7 Churchill
Street to construct an addition approximately 2.4 feet by 25 feet which would
1, extend an existing encroachment into the side yard and 2. reduce the rear
• yard to 20 feet. A variance is required because the proposed construction
violates minimum side and rear yard restrictions.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings
of fact:
1. The existing structure on the property is unique in that its peculiar
location on the land in question makes it virtually impossible to modify the
structure without a variance,
2. The requested variance is supported by the neighbors,
3. The proposed construction will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows-
(1) The petitioner's property is unique because of the size and shape
of the lot and the location of the existing structure on the lot.
(2) The conditions described above especially affect the land and structure
in question but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the property
is located. .
(3) The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but
• not the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship: unless.
the requested variance is granted petitioner will not be able to improve the
appearance of his property.
(4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good because the proposed construction will enhance the surrounding
neighb:;rhood.
5 S'
081 APR -2 A8 :53
DECISION - MARCH 18, 1981 - i2',TTEI - PACE TWO
CITY C' cR':"D OFFICE
SALE`. ":ASK
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of
granting the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the petitioner
on the following terms and conditions:
1. A variance is granted from minimum side and rear yard requirements
to allow construction of the proposed addition up to 5 feet from the side
property line and up to 20 feet from the rear property line.
2. All construction will be in accordance with plans submitted to the
Board.
.i
/L
Douglas Hopper, Chairiian
$zitF.�S FRJIi ?HS Df_CSSV.;.1, If kS"Y, ±?Ait �E ii:,iE PL`RSdAFiT FO SELT[C:V k7 C'r TkE; IYb'1.S$,
-.
IIAYS PrtER 7HE 1?A� OF „uNG
G.iEl a!
LA !e'" UA 10 n
,zea,! t� JF .t L;. T::E F?,:A':Cg.(` °i iSAt ?zR`•11T . .
10 e.
(•i�6t0.{ J � 6 ' _' r DLR I, rG`D 1,4
Or iH^. o I"F
7 �t7�
1?: TITLE.OF
Cfn9LD iii Trl- -
vF t�.riCRD OR IS Ht,bUdD:D fflJ JJ,cD Lit ft O'A1E4 a L'cRfffICATE BOARGOF APP�AI -
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PIANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BARD AND THE CITY CLERK
�a Ctv of '57alem, tt$s�zrl�u s Ell!
1
Pjandr of Meg 981 AUG -6 P 3 :41
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOARN REALTY TRUST REQUESTING 'A VARWWELk`R 4''COMMERCIAL-STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on July 29, 1981 with the following Board Members
present: Mr. Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Hacker and Feeherry and Associate
MembersLusinski and Martineau. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 14 Commercial Street,
which is in an Industrial District; to construct a 24' x 32' addition to one of the
existing buildings on the property. A variance has been requested because the proposed,
construction will encroach into the minimum side yard requirements and may exceed the maxi—
mum lot coverage for an Industrial District.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact: -
1. The proposed addition is appropriate for the location and will improve the
.ppearance of the site.
2. The proposed addition was not opposed by any abutters.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and the evidence presented at the public
hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. This site is unique because of its peculiar size, shape, topographical conditions
and because of the location of existing buildings on the site, all of which make it
impossible to locate the proposed addition other than where Petitioner has requested.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the property in question but
do not generally affect the zoning district in which the property is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the property in question, but not the
zoning district generally cause special financial hardship to the Petitioner.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good.
In granting the requested variance, the Board notes that had the 7Petltioner, instead
of requesting a variance, requested a Special Permit to extend an existing nonconforming
structure at this site, the Board would have voted favorably on that request.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting the
•requested relief to the Petitioner on the following terms and conditions:
'81 AUG -6 P3 :41
DECISION - JOARN REALTY TRUST - PAGE 2 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALE" IASL
1. Variances from side lot requirements and maximum lot coverage are hereby
granted to allow Petitioner to construct a 24' x 32' addition to the existing building
on this site as shown on Plans submitted to this Board;
2) All plans must be approved by the Salem Building Inspector and the Salem
Fire Marshall.
A
Anthony M. Fee e , Sec etary
Tii!C CCr rs j LA h[ / S �.',1! Es r � r., ..
.
EUMU �. D- r ':.. E= F( F �:u TO SECTiC: 17 OF THt flASS-
U'r Dili is i- ;dE GrriC_ }. L:• 2G �A}S P:i TEi: - DATE OF FILENG
rr rnrrLnL PER.-IT CE
-R;_a, r� r.i SEt, .8[ CEP,T.
n •.L r r .tr rr r..I ;:CED•
OF rcCGRD CFfI� n `. E.c > ! .` r •.
�:.6�cJ wtD 1J D C.J O ,c2(rSiCE nF CA:c OF TIRE. OF T.4, ClYMER
BOARD OF APFEAL
AOOPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
>` \ (gitg of Salem, gas5arilmidts
r
I Ali
APRIL 22 1981 '81 APR 29 All :25
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LANDMARK REALTY TRUST, DAVID F. CKYWE,RK UP.Mj EREQUES TING
A VARIANCE FOR 10-12 CROMBIE STREET SAL: `
A hearing on this Petition was held on April 22, 1981 with the following Board Members
present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrecque' and Feeherry. Notices
of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was properly
published twice in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 10-12 Crombie Street to
construct two residential units. A variance is required because the building is in a
B-3 district where the proposed use is prohibited without a variance.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question is being sold by the City of Salem subject to
certain restrictions including a restriction requiring that the property
be used for a maximum of two residential units.
2. The proposed use is an attractive structure which will be compatible to the
area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the public
hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
(1) The property in question has a peculiar configuration and size. These factors
make it impossible to use the property for any use which is permitted as a matter of
right in a B-3 district.
(2) The conditions described above especially affect the property in question but
do not generally affect the zoning district in which the property is located.
(3) The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not the
zoning district generally cause the following special hardship: if the requested variance
is not granted, the property is valuless and cannot be devel/ped in a manner consistent
with the terms of the City of Salem's restrictions for the property.
(4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously votes in favor of granting the
�equested relief. The Board grants a variance to the Petitioner on the following terms
and conditions:
1. The property may be used for the construction of not more than two residential units.
2. Four parking spaces must be maintained at the site.
z
(Iitu of ! 'alem, fflasmdjusetts
a Pnarb of Appeal
JgfohI—R66r�'/
DECISION - APRIL 22, 1981"LANDMARKREALTY TRUST - PAGE 2
3. This variance is conditioned upon the Petitioner's compliance with the
terms of the City of Salem's deed which include the granting of a 15' easement
to an abutter.
4. The construction will be done as shown on the plan presented to the Board.
5. All work must meet the approval of the City's-Fire Marshall.
1
6 1.
APPEALTr'!;
_ 0 'iE .r t ".,"�. ( <• .. r . : : i T.^ 5 t f! 17 OF ME 'AASS.
DA"s /.;f_� THE CUE Or FL!I"
!1. THE t F C^ �?.C!AL Pte.
F7;:
Fed? C 1 ' r f .."i F HE -� -
IT
s r r! 'H" CRT,
0?
TH-111 ,I c - +1 F LED,
Pcvv Ocr R! 7F!i r! co is fc J: i _ri N ' C:/ C' -; --ED C2 C-iiED IS
/Jf PkCO°J CP i" G T"'D I �'YEO `' O ' THE NAME OF THE EYMER
.a RECORD A Ai D NOTED Ofr THE OWNERS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE,
- BOARD OF APPFgI,
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
RF CF
!? DtZCt� d C`° faZt�
'81 APR -2 A 8 :53
MARCH 18, 1981
CITY CLER'. S OFFICE
SALV M:,, t ;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICIARD F. AND RINE M, ST. PIERRE REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR LOT 43, MAP 8, ASSESSOR'S MAPS (CROSBY STREET)
A hearing on this Petition was held on March 18, 1.981 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Hacker
and Associate Member Luzinski. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters
and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening
News on March 4, 1981 and March 11, 1981 in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a variance for the property at Lot 43,
Map 8, Assessors' Map (Crosby Street) . A variance is required because without
it the two new lots will violate minimum frontage and minimum lot area require-
ments of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings
of fact:
1. The property in question was purchased in 1965 as three separate Lots;
under the zoning laws in effect at that time three homes could have been built
on the lots. By operation of law, the lots were in effect combined into one
lot thereafter.
2. The peculiar conditions effecting the land in question substantially
reduce the value of the petitioner' s land unless a variance is granted.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The petitioner' s land is unique because of the manner in which the
Salem Zoning Ordinance applies to him as opposed to the effect of the Salem
` Zoning Ordinance would have had on 3 separate owners of the property in question.
In addition, the lots are unique because of their size and configuration.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land in question
but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question,
but not the zoning district generally cause substantial financial hardship
to the petitioners. .
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
1; nsat uut
, r4', 6, `
`81 AN -2 A 8 :53
DECISION - MhRCH 18, 1981 - ST. PIERRE - PACE '1WO CITY CLFFIS OFFICE
to the public good because the proposed use of the petitioners' land is
consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of
granting the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the petitioner
on the following terms and conditions:
1. A variance is granted from lot area requirements and frontage re-
quirements to allow the petitioner to divide the property in question into
two lots one containing 11,850 square feet and the other containing 10,969
square feet, both of which will have 75 feet of frontage.
2. This variance is subject to the further approval of the Planning Board,
Douglas Hopper, Chairmk
APPEAL FROM THIS DIr,ISION, IF ANY, S!IALL RF. MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. -
GENERAL LAVAS, UK .R 273 ,D e ;:!_ U f '�= , -I.'1 20 Dlfa +' IE°, THE DATE OF FILING .
OF PIIS OECIo I' TiiE
N
AL PERNHT
CPA IL.'J Hfr ci SH.—L i,. _., : I ., ,
i'.I' 1 �- OEM.
FI�,VIiuN OF 71 - Ii .EP HAS
r .I hED,
OR THAT, IF JIJ-_ ^ Al," !_. is
- RECORDED IM 7�e �J N `caJ C 1 ,,.,DE.. M; NAME OF THE OWNER.
OF RECORD OR IS R,CORDEO AHD IID ED ON TtiE OVKiDWS OERUICATE OF TITLE. -
BOARD. OF APPEAL
JWP Y OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
J
�y..co:un4.b
Tit#u of 'Salem' fflassac4ueiptts
A: 1;
Pour-b of '1Fpett[ DEC 22 A10 :20
a4p.B Plv
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT F. AND JOAN A. CUMMINGS REQUESTINGaLEMirnc
A,VARIANCE FOR 35 DEARBORN STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on December 16, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Joseph Piemonte, Acting Chairman; Messrs. Hacker, LaBrecque
and Feeherry. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners are requesting a variance for the property at 35 Dearborn
Street to convert the property into a two-family dwelling. A variance is
required because the building is in an R-1 district where the proposed use is
prohibited without a variance.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1) Until four years ago this building was used as a nursing home.
2) The petitioners have remodeled the property. However, the property is
a very large house with 15 rooms and four baths. It is therefore not practical to
use the house as a single family dwelling.
3) The property has adequate parking as a two-family.
4) The property is close proximity to a number of other two-
family houses.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at
. the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1) The property in question is unique because of its size and its past use
as a nursing home.
2) The conditions described above especially affect the structure in question
but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the building is located.
\ 3) The conditions described above which affect the property in question,. but
not the zoning district generally cause special financial hardship to the petitioners.
4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good because the proposed use of the property is in conformity with the uses
that prevail in the neighborhood.
• Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted (4-0) in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to. the petitioners on the following
terms and conditions:
i REQ. .{V r r�
DECISION - ROBERT F. and JOAN A. CUMMINGS - 35 DEARBORN STREET -81 DEC 22 A10 :20
iDecember 16, 1981
Page 2 CITY CLER 3 OFFICE
S fALEt 1
1) Petitioners shall maintain existing parking at the property.
2) The property may be used as a two-family in accordance with the,
terms of this decision.
3) The use of the property as a two-family is conditional. The property
must be owner occupied. In the event that the property ceases to be owner occupied
it shall revert back to a single family dwelling.
zJ
Cthony _ F berry, Sect tary
N
j
f
F Tc r n t 17 C•E THE GLASS.
P.,..'�
F t
1 ,v c�...
C..:.,, ... .. O .S
OF T'r:E Ol
CP. in t
pS
OF cGut J OR 2 `..CO
- - BOARD OF APPEAL
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
4 fling of "5aIem,Paurb of
J��a�ums M"t
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & JOAN CUMMINGSQys
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 35 DEARBORN STREET
pcS t3. 10 i� AM's,
A hearingFtQtithis Peti3ras held on October 21, 1981, with the following
Board Members present: 1- . 14 iemonte, Acting Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, LaBrecque
r4 '� "
and Feeherry, and dklt&Ciate Member Martineau. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a variance to convert the existing dwelling at
35 Dearborn Street to a two-family dwelling. A variance is required because this
property is in an R-1 district where the proposed use is prohibited.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of
fact:
1) The property in question is the former site of a nursing home. The
0 property was converted to its current single-family use by the petitioners.
• 2) The property in question is unusual because of its size and past use,
(the property currently has fifteen rooms and four baths); however, there are other large
s ingle family homes in the area.
3) The property in question is close to an R-2 zone. .
4) The proposed use of the property was opposed by a neighbor.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and other evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
A. The Petitioners failed to establish circumstances relating to the land or
structure which affect that property but do not generally affect the zoning district
in which the property is located.
B. The Petitioners failed to establish that a literal enforcement of the provisions
of the Salem Zoning Ordinance as applied to this property would involve substantial
hardship to the Petitioners.
C. The Petitioners failed to establish that the variance in the form requested,
could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without!:?substautial
detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogat�ig fa h
• the intent and purposes of the Salem Ordinance. o
A ate.
a
by ab
03
DECISION - 35 DEARBORN STREET - ROBERT & JOAN CUMMINGS - OCTOBER 21, 1981
Page Two
OCT 23 10 17 AM '81
FILE;#
D. CjM L'.eftti'6&*Aah�Aled to establish that there were not other possible
plans for use of this property which might be less offensive to the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance than this request to irrevocably change the property into a two-
family dwelling.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in opp sition to
granting the requested relief. The Board denies a variance to the Pe tioners.
Anthony M. Feeher y, lSecretayy
l'
A R IM"'Ll :r 17 . ..;'! 1� -'S$
.F, 17, �.,`
EF-__'T M ;
IS o,..,: All Lit. 17 ':: A -
RCC_.,,;'O it lig $_:.,IN ES;_X ME:'I -u U.- 1- .C. irE G'!NIT? - -
Q RE .O D ORIS. A40 NOTED ON THE OWNER'S Gu2TIFICA"i is GF 1FLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL .
A�+1 Cb
n,r p o
o Cb
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOA$p AND CITIMERK
n
y
7
e � RECEIVE['
r, ('gi#u of -'5- nlem, 'Massachusetts
081 OCT 19 P4 :21
•J9j�INIli6 L�fs/^ - Pourb of jAMVVA
11 CITY CLERMS OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT METZGER FOR A SPECIAL PERMI� ' '
AFb1 ` `'
CONVERT 48 ESSEX STREET INTO TEN CONDOMINIUM UNITS
A hearing on this petition was held on October 14, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Mr. Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte,
Hacker and Feeherry, and Associate Member Lusinski. Notice of the hearing
. .was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly
published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to convert the existing ten—
unit dwelling at this property into ten condominium units.
This proposed condominium conversion is covered by the terms of the City
of Salem's condominium conversion ordinance. The Special Permit that has been
requested may therefore be granted only upon a finding by the Board of Appeals
that (1) the grant of the Special Permit will not adversely impact upon the
City's existing stock of rental units for low and moderate income families
and elderly people on fixed incomes, (2) that the grant of the Special Permit
• is not contrary to the City's Master Plan, and (3) the grant of the Special
Permit will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence at the hearing,
and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. . The owner has already made a large financial investment to upgrade this
property over the last threw. years and has made capital improvements in this building.
He proposes to do additional work to upgrade the property.
2. The proposed conversion of this property to ten condominium units in
noway conflicts with the Master Plan of the City of Salem.
3. The conversion of the property to gondominiums will have negligible
impact on the existing stock of rental units in the City of Salem for the elderly
and for families of low and moderate income.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public .hearing, the Board of Appeals by a 4 to 1 vote (Mr. Lusinski opposed)
concluded tht the proposed condominium conversion is in harmony with the condominium
.conversion ordinance of the City of Salem. Accordingly, the Board voted in
favor of granting the requested Special Permit in accordance with the following
• terms and conditions:
1. Ten parking spaces shall be maintained at the site.
RFrP!VF
�. . DECISION - OCTOBER 14, 1981 - PAGE 2 - ROBERT METZGER
'81 OCT 19 P4 :22
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE .
SAL-
2.
AL 2. Because the building is not vacant, the Petitioner will be required
to allow six months to elapse before commencing any work in furtherance
of the condominium conversion, provided, however, that three months after the
date of this decision petitioner may commence such work on any then vacant
units.
YiL� t
;/Anthony M. ee erry, ecretary
j
11 17,�E^? 7 .E ?iCSS.
FEF
Yv 0fa 4 .._.. . _ _ LF
PCr£LDT TCtet:':L... ...:a. .F'i_.t ....:d. H. THE
GRA?:TED HEMN, "ti..L _%TIL A I.F THE`
FICATIOrl OF THE MY CLERK TMT 20 DAYS HAVE r. ED At Z) "'i"U�.H
OR THAT, IF SUCH All APPEAL HAS a. RLE. T-';F i HAS n—;
RECORDED IN, Pit SOUTH ESSEN REGISTRY OF GEECS AND INDEX, -P.E . .,1:E OF THE OYJNER
.(IF.$ECORA OR IS WORM A140 NOTED Oti THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE, -
. - POARD. OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
fu�ti ,
,yt , PIIarb of Appr�
'81 FEB 26 P12 :02
FEBRUARY 18, 1981 CITY Cl R .`c urFiCE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLOTTE S. POST FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR 98 ESSEX STREET.
A hearing on this petition was held on February 18,1981 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Hacker.- Notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening
News on February 4, 1981 and February 11, 1981, in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws, .Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to convert an existing single
family home at 98 Essex Street to a Tourist Home with four guest rooms. The
property is in an R-2 Zoning District which allows tourist homes by Special Permit.
• The Special Permit which has been requested may therefore be granted upon a finding
by the Board of Appeals, that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the
health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
In addition, Petitioner has requested a variance from parking requirements
for a Tourist Home.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1. There was no opposition to the proposed use by any abutters or neighbors.
2. The Petition currently has, as a matter of right, the ability to use the
property in question as a two-family home.
3. The Petitioner will, in connection with the grant of the requested Special
Permit and variance lose the right to use this property as a two-family
home while this Special Permit remains in effect.
4. The property in question is unique because of the configuration and size of
the property and its location in a Historic District. Any alteration of
the site to accommodate parking would have. a negative aesthetic impact
on the surrounding area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
• public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes unanimously that the proposed use of
the property as a Tourist Home will promote the health, safety, convenience, and
welfare of the City's inhabitants and that the proposed use is in harmony with the
Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board votes in favor of granting a Special Permit
to the Petitioners.
1
fr \
QuF. II �tIETtT� FS Sc�CI L�EtP to
� Pnarb of &Ayyeal
PAGE TWO - DECISION - FEBRUARY '18, 1981 - 98 ESSEX STREET
A Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following terms
and conditions:
1. The property shall remain a single-family residence while this Special
Permit remains in effect.
2. The property may also be, used as a Tourist Home with no more than four (4)
guest rooms.
3. There will be no site or facade alterations at the property without the
prior approval of the Salem Historical Commission.
4. Any sign at the property shall comply with all applicable city ordinances.
¢ 5. There will be no kitchen facilities in any of the guest rooms.
6, This Special Permit shall remain in effect for three years from the effective
date of this decision. At the expiration of this Special Permit the Petitioner shall
be required to appear before this Board again for an extension of the Special Permit,
It is the intention of this Board to grant such further extension of this Special
Permit as is then requested unless there are substantial changes in the surrounding
area or other circumstances which require termination of this Special Permit,
In addition, because of the uniqueness of the property in question and the
special hardship which would result to the Petitioner if the site were altered to
accommodate parking, the Board also votes unanimously in favor of a variance from
the parking requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,
Anthony M. ee erry, Secretat
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MME PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. -
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 1303, P.-ND SHALL BE F;LF-0 's:ffHM 20 DAYS AMR THE DATE OF FILING - -
OF THIS DECISION IN THE 0MCEE OF THE CI'! CLERii.
PuRSPNT 70 P::,SS. ^.E':LS.' THE VARIANCE P? SPECIAL PERMIT
GRANTED HEREI::. c'+q I Li;k: ' tn_:T "ri P ti J't -i ri?E'Ff. rE9.^.l4o THE C[RT- -
FICATiON OF THE Ci L_LRc: , Ai EI PE-1I. HAS -EEFILED,. - - -
OR THAT. IF SU;;H '.'!.APPEAL 't BEENHL - CF DENIED IS
RECCRDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX P SI5i IiY OF UZE 4';0 !;4D':ED U.NDEP ME NA;,.E OF THE OWNER -
.RECORD OR IS RECORDED A;10 NOTED ON THE OWNERS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - -
BOARD OF APPEAL - -
A COPY OF THIS DECISION, AND PLANS REFERRED TO HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD
AND CITY CLERK,
- J
(gitg of Salem, fflassar4uset yAY/
29axrh of Appeal '81 SEP 14 P4 :28
CITY CLERX'S OFFICE
SALEM n c.
PETITION OF MOSES ALPERS FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 129 ESSEX STREET
f
A hearing on this Petition was- held on September 9, 1981 with the
following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman;; Messrs. Hacker,
Piemonte and Feeherry and Associate Member Martineau. Notices of the hearing.
were sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published
in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts Cenral Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has. requested a variance and Special Permit for the property
at 129 Essex Street to permit residential use of the property for fourteen (14)
condominium units. Aa
v riance is required because the` building is is a B-3
district where the proposed use is prohibited without a variance.
The Board df Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1) This property which is the Father Matthews, Gideon Tucker House is a
vacant structure which is currently in a state of disrepair.
2) The property in question is an architecturally important structure to
Salem, having been designed in part by Samuel McIntyre.
3) Because of the location of this property, which is close to the downtown
area, and across the street from the Essex Institute, the present condition of the
property is a matter of special importance to the City..
4) "Petitioner proposes to restore the property and to create an attractive
condominium development at the site. The use of this site for condominiums is in
harmony with the City's Master Plan.
5) The proposed use of the property was supported by all of the neighbors
who appeared at the public hearing.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1) The property in question is unique because of its location, its prior
use, its architectural heritage and its current state of disrepair.
2) The conditions described above especially affect the structure in question
but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the building is located.
3) The conditions described above which affect the property in question, but ' '
not the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship: unless the
r F O
L E Lk iSr P r J4. F TO 31-071 7 OF THE MASS.
FILET^
DECISIQNf MOSES ALPERS 129 ES9EVSTREETt • T
Page 2F _ „ . .r , rrSeptember 9, 1981
IF
R=- �Eu ! ry r r u- G ,. ` 'al SEP: C •�
OF RECORD CR U 4t 3..DED r J NWED C , ME G ,._RS CEri�FICATE CF TI ' r rh_ OilncR
cE.
611A r"Ea.('s OFFICE
requested variance is granted, the property cannot be developed and will
fall further into disrepair.
4) The desired variance may be-granted without substantial detriment
to the public good. In fact, the proposed use of the property will enhance
the appearance of the area.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor
of granting the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the Petitioner
on the following terms and conditions:
1) The property may be used for fourteen condominium units.
2) No less than fourteen parking spaces shall be maintained at .the site.
3) The-Petitioner shall comply with all of the requirements set forth in
the Salem Fire Marshall's letter to the Board relating to his project.
4) The Petitioner shall submit his final plans for this project
to the Design Review Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority for approval_
and any .conditions imposed by the Design Review Board shall become a part of
this decision, provided, however, that the Design Review Board shall not unreasonably
withhold approval of the Petitioner's proposed design and provided further that
if an impasse develops between Petitioner and the Design Review Board, the
Petitioner may return to this Board for further relief.
Finally, although this Board doubts the need for a Special Permit under
the Salem Condominium Conversion Statute, since this property was not formerly
used as residential apartments, the Board concludes that:
1) . The proposed conversion of this property to fourteen condominium
- units is in harmony with the Master Plan of the City of Salem. - -
2) The conversion of the property to a condominium will have no
impact on the existing stock of rental units in the City of Salem for the
elderly and for families of low and moderate income.
3) The property is vacant. Thus, no hardship is caused by the proposed
condominium conversion to tenants.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at
the public hearing,' the Board of Appeals concludes that the proposed use of the
property for condominiums is".in.harmony .with_the.condominium.conwersion.ordinance of
the City of Salem. Further, since the property was vacant at the time that the Petition
was filed, the Petitioner will not be requir o allow six 6) months to elapse before
• commencing work on this project.
"iNfithony M. Fee erry, Se retary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLAVING BO AND THE CITY CLERK
REc(gi#u of 11��.r•
NOV
c �,.•,.,K c�P3� 23 R10 45
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR S1*EYIMlWPFjPvP10E _
TO CONVERT THE PROPERTY AT 288 ESSEX STREET INTO THREE CONOOHINf 4UN1T$
A hearing on this Petition was held on November 18, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Mr. Joseph Piemonte, Acting Chairman; Messrs. Hacker,
--_ and Feeherry and Associate Member Lusinski. Notice of the hearing was sent.- to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts .Ceneral Laws Chapter 40A
This proposed condominium conversion is covered by the terms of the City
of Salem's condominium conversion ordinance. The Special Permit that has been
requested may therefore be granted only upon a finding by the Board of Appeals
that (1) the grant of the Special Permit will not adversely impact upon the city's
existing stock of rental units for low and moderate income families and elderly
people on fixed incomes, (2) that the grant of the Special Permit is not contrary
to the City's Master Plan, and (3) the grant of the Special Permit will not have
an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence at the hearing, and
after-viewing the, property makes:the following findings of fact:
1. ..The property in question is the YMCA building. The proposed conversion
of this property, reduced to its simplest terms involves the conversion of the
property into three units and the sale of one of the units to the Salem Housing
Authority. That unit will itself be rehabilitated into 14 units of rental housing
for the elderly.:
2. The proposed conversion of this property to three condominium units in
no way conflicts with the Master Plan of the City of Salem.
3. The conversion of the property to a condominium will have a beneficial
effect on the existing stock of rental units in the City of Salem for the elderly.
4. The property is vacant of residential tenants. Thus, no hardship is
caused by the proposed condominium conversion to any residential tenants.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals by a unanimous vote concluded that the
proposed condominium conversion is in harmony with the condominium conversion
ordinance of the City of Salem. Accordingly, the Board voted in favor of granting
the requested Special Permit in accordance with the following terms and conditions:
1. The conversion shall be in accordance with the plans submitted to this
Board.
1
- t
DECISION SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY
RE 288 ESSEX STREET - CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION
PAGE 2 FFCEIVFI—)
November 18, 1981
'81 NOV 23 A10 :45
CITY¢¢�C�LIERK's OFFICE
2. Because the building was vacant of residential tenants aC
this petition was filed, the Petitioner will not be required to allow six months
to elapse before commencing work in furtherance of the condominium conversion.
The Petitioner may commence such work 20 days after the date of the filing of is
this decision.
ArXhony M.- Feehe y, Secreta,
J .
C � T
THIS v t.,i . vv: A. F Fr S '•le ! .? n_T!F c,pgg. -
c '+c� cr. • � .•. -n % F!:Y4 'ri l?i9: ?9 C:Lo . �._ G: .:=i:a - -
c�:�,�ti_
. . OF THIS DECISi N PI
. PURSAt7T TO f.AJ> CF _
GRANTED KROH, SVALL r ._... ...Tt'_ !. . �'. i:. . ^. t_..;.i"• •.!C ^_ ;?T• _
FICATICN OF THE C:T. CLC R, Y!1A. :O R'.J. h?t_ E_.?.._J .....a. .. a .- .c4.OR THAT. IF SUG! Xi APPEAL H'.0 SEE:; C!_:. TEAT IT hr,3 _?i
. RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX `Z-!3iRY CF DEEDS AiND DIDEXID L::6"4 1111= %A;. Or re..E O:.NER
OF RECORD OR IS RECCROED AHD tiO;ED OM THE OWNER'S CEMIFIC. FE O TITLE
_ - BOARD OF APPEAL' -
4
COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
f
_Ca9M4.�
a ° b
f�i#g of ent, Aass4djuseftgc
�> 25nttrh of c��� '81 AUG -6 P3 :41
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H&H PROPELLER SHOP, INC'. REQUESTINGC.ry[tI�IL F SCE -
ONE ESSEX STREET EXTENSION SALEM. MA, SS
A hearing on this Petition was held on July 29, 1981 with the following -
Board Members present: Mr. Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Hacker and Feeherry,
Associate Members Martineau and Lusinski. Notices of the hearing were sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at.One Essex
Street Extension to construct two dormers on the existing building. Petitioner
has requested a variance because the building is in an R-2 district.
The Board of Appeals after consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed construction will have a negligible impact on the
neighborhood but will assist the Petitioner to utilize the second floor of this
building for its business.
2. The proposed construction was not opposed by any neighboxs.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. This property is unique because of the size and shape of the
property and because of the existing building at the site.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the structure
in question but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the building is
located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but
not the zoning district generally cause special financial hardship to the Petitioner:
if the requested variance is not granted and Petitioner cannot properly utilize this site. .
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good.
The Board notes that if, instead of requesting a variance, the Petitioner
had requested a Special Permit to alter an existing nonconforming use, the Board would
have voted favorably on such a request.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor
0of granting the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the Petitioner on
the following condition:
The Petitioner may construct two dormers at this property; however all
4ECISION - H&H PROPELLER SHOP, INC. - PAGE 2 081 AUG -6 P3 :41
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM `14S5—
work must be approved by the Salem Building Inspector.
hony M. Fee/Arh r
ecretary
..O OF' F r-1E AIASS
- - 1 C r. OF Clc?K.. . F'_,• do DATE OF FiLtHC
0 6
L
t 1 It TNr ,rc
.c T-L. A Lr r'1E
s 1 nL.
:a -D•
C'w r JSJ OR is n[. J- bF .:3 i!J ( c.'c t n > > O C ^tr-tD is
2 c6 A,tJ t JTEJ it T�Z 0;.,;;-Ra L°n'i1F1 AtVTLE,r.:.¢ OF THE OWNER
BOARD OF APPEAL -
•
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
T
I jflUvoRA.,4
� C to of S�xlEztt, sett u E##
_d2J RErE'NU
r% Poarh of Appeal .
81 JUN -1 P9 :55
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MR. AND MRS. DAVID PREMAN
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT .FOR 95-97 FEDERAL STREET CITY CLERW S OFFICE
SALEM MAS';
A hearing on this Petition was'held on May 27, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Mr. Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. LaBrecque, Feeherry,
Piemonte and Hacker. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to convert the structure
at 95-97 Federal Street into a three-family dwelling.
.The property at 95-97 Federal Street is in an R-2 district. The Special
Permit which has been requested may therefore be granted upon a finding by the
Board of Appeals, thatthe grant of the Special Permit will promote the health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of A-peals, after considering the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of fact:
• 1. The property in question was formerly a nursing home and has approximately
25 rooms and 8 bathrooms.
2. The structure cannot be economically used as a two-family dwelling.
3. The proposed use of the property will involve no exterior changes
to the property.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals unanimously concluded that the proposed
use will promote the health, safetv, convenience, and welfare of the City's
inhabitants and that the proposed use is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance.
Accordingly, the Board voted in favor of granting a Special Permit to the Petitioners.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
1. The property may be used as a three-family dwelling as those terms are
specifically defined in the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
2. No exterior changes may be made to the structure in connection with
its conversion to a three-family structure.
3. The property may not be used'for boarders.
DECISION - MR. AND MRS. DAVID PR.EMAN '81 JUN -1 P9 :55
PAGE TWO CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM
4. The parking at the property must be maintained as it presently
exists.
5. The use of this property as a three-family dwelling shall be allowed
only so long as. the property is owned and occupied by the Petitioners. If
the Petitioners sell or vacate the property, this Special Permit shall cease,
provided, however, that any new owner of the property may make application to
this Board for a similar Special Permit.
DATE May 29, 1981
:'Anthony M. F ehlerry, S cretary
APPEAL FC r! 71413 GE(:i S:^'!, IF fW, E!Ca-L E- r:XDE. PL'"37,.0!7 TC. K-CMIN 17 OF TINE .!ASS.
=1'E OF hiM,.-
OF
OR 1"44i. IF !:-J::!; 1.. ... ._. r1 _ _.!S . .
—� RE0G;!1;D 1"4' Vic .._,.M E,S ...Ll:.h'. �._,> .•. J': :'_l ._ .. _ .:...
• 9NHk�:CRD 03 ly ?ECORJ40 A�q IGG'cG Oh ln. G.xa8. CE':•F:C.l;c G 11
- - - POARR OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLER
f (ri CONT
ofttlem, ttottt�iu �tFrT
uttrD of 9
��E�+ �Jz Put �/T pp/T CC SG pp
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GREGORY AND SUSAN ANDREWS FOR A SEG LLtP�RMf T( 10A �•
CONVERT 171 FEDERAL STREET INTO TWO CONDOMINIUM UNITS
A beaarigp, o�tji&P5 e ttion was held on October 21, 1981 with tae 4oWw4A Y12,
Board Mem esent: Mr. Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte 4 < 0
Hackerq y g ' Fes/ 9
La ue and Feeherr Notice of the hearing was sent to S`% � '
�` T
abutters a others an4Ejp4k 6-s of the hearing were properly published
in the Saleajv iffi g'�} ws in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapte& 40A.'
,P
The Petitioner's have requested a Special Permit to convert the existing three-
family dwelling at this property into two condominium units.
This proposed condominium conversion is regulated by the terms of the City
of Salem's condominium conversion ordinance. The Special Permit that has been
requested may therefore be granted only upon a finding by the Board-of Appeals that
(1) the grant of the Special Permit will not adversely impact upon the city's existing
stock of rental units for low and moderate income families and elderly people on
fixed incomes, (2) that the grant of the Special Permit is not contrary to the
City s Master Plan, and (3) the grant of the Special Permit will not have an adverse
effect on the neighborhood.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence at the hearing, and
after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The owners currently occupy one of the two units in this building
and propose to convert the property to condominiums to allow them to sell the
other unit.
2. The proposed conversion of this property to two condominium units in
no way conflicts with the Master Plan of the City of Salem.
3. The conversion of the property to condominiums will have negligible impact
on the existing stock of rental units in the City of Salem for the elderly
and for families of low and moderate income.
4. No hardship is caused by the proposed condominium conversion to the tenant in
the property. Indeed, the owners have offered the tenant the opportunity to to buy his
unit and he is currently considering that option.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals by a 5 to 0 vote concluded that the proposed
condominium conversion is in harmony with the condominium conversion ordinance of
the City of Salem. Accordingly, the Board voted in favor of granting the requested
Special Permit in accordance with the following terms and conditions:
1. Parking shall be maintained at the site as it exists presentlyI �o
! -c p
orn cam., nom.
con O
P7 C]
o c5 a
• DECISION - 171 FEDERAL STREET - PAGE TWO
2. Petitioner shall �,cuov y with all requirements of Chapter 148,
Section 26E ree�rd' �oig
caet tors.
bo AL1g
3. Because te property has a tenant at the present time, the
Petitioner wi11F tequired to jWw six months to elapse before commencing
any work in furP-�al"-,Wd condominium conversion.
thony M. Fee a ry, ctetary
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, h A.N, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS,
A&RERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
ME THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.• c v 21P.NCC OR SPECIAL PERMIT- RUBSANT TO MASS GENERAL EA:IS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 1.1,.Tit .
' WANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT WE E,FECT UNTIL A COPY OF THZ CI h'I. O'A41 THE CERT-
IRUTION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED ,ND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED,
04lITHAT, IF SUCH PA APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN. DISMISSED OR DENIED IS
R*F)RDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME-OF THE OWNE(Z
OI41RftORD OR IS RECORDED ANR NOTED ON THE 04V12 EWS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD Of APPEAL
i!
Cz
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH :THE PLANNING BOARD AND CTJY CLERK
':X m
of 'Sallorn,
9t°tuurc W::'
Pourb of *81 JUL -2 All -27
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
JUNE 24, 1981 SALEM !' 0:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SAUL TANZER REALTY TRUST FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 4 FLORENCE STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on June 24, 1981 with the following
Board Members o 1 0
present: D ua.gas per,H Chairman Messrs. Piemonte Hacker, LaBrecque
and Feeherry. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to extend the non-conforming
use of this property by leveling a portion of the existing building at this site
and constructing a new building.
The property is in both an R-2 and B-4 zoning district. The property has
for many years been used for commercial purposes which is a non-conforming use.
• The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this
request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the
Board of Appeals may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth
in Section VIII F and I% D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction
of non-conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion
of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such
change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental
than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood."
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit
requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a
finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the health,
safety convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter,
makes the following findings of fact:
DECISION - JUNE 24, 1981 SAUL. TANZER REALTY TRUST - PAGE TWO
1) The proposed use of this property will upgrade the neighborhood
by demolishing the existing structure on the .site and replacing it with a more
attractive structure.
2) The proposed renovation of this property will also upgrade existing
exhaust systems at this' property and thus reduce the discharge of exhaust fumes in the
area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals finds (i) that the proposed use of the
property will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing use to the
neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed use of the property will promote the health,
safety, convenience, and welfare of the City's inhabitants, and (iii) that the proposed
use of the property is in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly.,
the Board unanimously approves the granting of a Special Permit to the Petitioner.
The Special Permit is threfore granted in accordance with the following
.terms and conditions:
1) All construction is to proceed in accordance with the plans submitted
to the Board.
2) All work shall be in accordance with applicable fire codes.
• 3) The exhaust system at this property shall be upgraded so as to conform
to all applicable codes.
4) All rights of way shall be maintained at ,this property.
5) A specific condition of the grant of this Special Permit is
a requirement that the exterior of this property remain free of refuse, trash
and debris.
Anthony M. Feerry
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISIGN, IF Ai,Y. SHALL BE p;,AUE PURSUANT 0 EC 11111 I OF THE MASS.
CEPE,,RAL LAYlS, CHAPTER M. AND SHALL BE FILED k91T:i P'i 20 DS AFTER THE LATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECIS:Oid IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PI:[I"ili:T TO h?';SS. GENECAL LASYS, CHAPTER E'u3, SECilcrl 11. iFIE VA.•',I.Ai:CE C3 SPEC^IAL PER`AR
GRANIED IIEREi!I, SHALL Icor TACE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECIS!'J'<, BEAJZ;i1'u THE CERT•
FICATIOFI OF THE CITY CLERI; THAT 20 GAYS HAVE EL..F3 D MNO N] APPEAL HAS BEEN FLED,FICATION
OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAI IT HAS SEEN DISe:i$SED OR DE:`"ED IS
RECORDED IN THE „OJ rc
-�^;cTP7 OF DEECS AND INDE,`1D Uf1DER ME NA:r:E OF THE OVINER _
�• � ..
TN ESSEX .�
OF RECORD OR-IS-RECORDED AND NOTED 0;4 THE O'ilNER'S CER_IIFIOATE OF TIT!E. -
BOARD QF APPEAI,
,•)PY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
4 �it T of
' ._. uurb of
� cRFCE{L Er
DECISION ON THE PETITION' OF VIRGINIA CARSON, TRUSTEE OF THE PELHA IRE-A�Y-TRIP�.55
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 9-11 FOREST AVENUE
• CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEN MA
A hearing on this petition was held on May 27, 1981 with the
following Board Members present: Mr. Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. LaBrecque,
Feeherry, Piemonte and Hacker. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening,
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to convert the
existing two-family dwelling at this property to a two-unit condominium.. This
proposed condominium conversion is thus covered by the terms of the City of
Salem's condominium conversion ordinance.
The Special Permit that has been requested may therefore be granted
only upon a finding by the Board of Appeals that the grant of the Special Permit
is in accordance with the specific provisions of the condominium conversion
ordinance of the City of Salem.
• The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence at the
hearing, and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The owner proposes to convert an existing two-family house
into a two-unit condominium.
2. No structural alterations are proposed.
3. The proposed conversion of this property to a condominium
in no way conflicts with the Master Plan of the City of Salem.
4. The conversion of the property to a condominium will have
negligible impact on the existing stock of rental units in the City of Salem _
for the elderly and for families of low and moderate income.
5. The current owner occupies one of the dwelling units at the
site. The other unit is vacant. Thus, no hardship is caused by the proposed
condominium conversion to any tenants.
f.
f
RECEIVED
DECISION - VIRGINIA CARSON, TRUSTEE OF THE PELHAM REALTY TRUST
'8T JUN -T P9 :55
PAGE 2
CITY S�C'ERK"S�OFFICE
On the basis fo the above findings of fact and on t e evidence
presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals unanimously concluded that
the proposed condominium conversion is in harmony with the condominium conversion
ordinance of the City of Salem. Accordingly, the Board voted in favor of granting
the requested Special Permit in accordance with the following terms and conditions:
Because the building was vacant at the time that this petition
was filed, the Petitioners will not be required to allow six months ' to elapse `
before com encing any work in furtherance of the con.O.aminium conversion. Rather, the
Petitioners may coimnence such work 20 days after =eof s cision.
DATE May 29, 1981 ?
n�hony M. Feeherry, 5e�.eZary
APPEAL FRO; .il iS JE_I.:IC,i, SHi_L GE ::,105 PM-l" 'IT TO SECTIGti 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL Lk;IS, CHA.PF2f: 8:13, A.:0 SP.`LL EE F,:e6 Vl"H.V. 2.0,CAYS AFI F'. YHE DATE OF FILING OF THIS CECISiCH I\ THE 01I4Cc OF THE CITY CLERK. - -
PUP.SM.T TO :iR53. GEf:ERAL I_A'1S. CHA77CR BUS. S*CCTIC;If SI. WE VA'!A.i:CE CR SPECIAL PER :IT
_
GRANTED NJi TAU EFFEcr 111 TML A COPY CF THE'JECiS!ii'z. THF CM.
FICATION OF THE C{r'f CLERA THAT 2c DASS ^ASE ELAr'$EJ AFD i(0 APPEAL HAS 2E-Vi Fi:.ED,
.OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS EE-:i Fi LE. THAI IT iiAS 5 EPI C!,,"ISSEO JR DFMED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND ENDE:ED WIDER THE NA:,iE OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE.OVIHER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. -
BOARD OF APPEAL
*A COPY OF THIS DECISION ANTI I1LP,^7S HAS BEEN FILED ;:!ITH TIIi: PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
.ca.o
�a f�Lt T of Salem, Massa sefff r i
Pvn xrb of A"fal '81 SEP 14 P4 :27
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT AND BETTEJANE SWEENEY FORAY( CLEMt!OFFICE "
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 217 FORT AVENUE
A hearing on this Petition was held on September 9, 1981 with the
following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte,
Hacker, LaBrecque, and Feeherry. Notices of the hearing were sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published
in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to use a temporary
trailer during the months May through and including September'for a boat.
rental and gift shop at 217 Fort Avenue. The property in question is in .
an R-C District. The Special Permitwhichhas been requested may therefore be
granted upon a finding by the Board of Appeals, that the grant of the Special
Permit will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's
inhabitants. .
• The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented at
the hearing, and after viewing the property, makes the following findings
of fact:.
1) Mr. Sweeney has conducted a business at this location for
approximately forty years pursuant to a permit issued by the Park Department.
2) The Petitioner requires a trailer at the site because the blizzard
of 1978 destroyed the structure which previously existed at the site.
3) The Petitioner's business. provides security for this area of the
Salem Willows and for the boats at the location.
4) The Salem Park Department strongly supports the Petitioners'
request.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence
presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals unanimously concluded that
the proposed use will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the
City's inhabitants and that the proposed use is in harmony with the Salem
Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board voted 5-0 in favor of granting
a Special Permit to the Petitioners.
The Special Permit is granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
5
r
R-!Z
DECISION/ROBERT AND BETTEJANE SWEENEY '81 SEP 14 P4Sestember 9, 1981
• 217 FORT AVENUE
Page 2
CITY CLERICS PFFICE
SALEM M_-]
1) Petitioners may, if granted an appropriate permit by
the Salem Park Department conduct a boat rental business and gift
shop from a temporary trailer at the site for- three- years from the
effective date of thisJdecision.
2) The trailer shall be removed from the site each year at the
end of September.
3) A dry chemical 2A40BC type fire extinguisher, shall be provided
at the trailer.
Anthony M. F eherry, Secretary
APP U ?7:. I, �.._. : ' f c �c r!AD .e'A•. -r, -c-r',..! r F :uF r
1 P�� uT � S 7 0. ieA"uS.
CE MLE, 1 'ia,^i iG DAYS Ar . T(_ DPE OF FILING
P ' •• . ? ?. 3 11, n :IAL FCP.311T
i -'"Pd. ?. r ', i; - . .. .. INE CETM
=8 FILED.
IF V49 OMER
OF REC.:ND CR is F.£ ,.i:C D A::O "Ki ED :N Ti1E Gl[ii"c S GER',..=(CA:c
BOARD OF APML
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Ja Qb
2 C to of
Pourbi of dAppeal
^�abfl\E W-j
APRIL 22, 1981 '81 APR 29 all :25
CITY Cl1L1 = K'S ::".PEKE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MR. TERRANCE NEYLON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 10 GARDNER STREET
A hearing on this petition was held on April 22, 1981 with the following Board Members
present: Douglas. Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrecque and Feeherry. - Notice
of the hearing was properly sent to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing
was published twice in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to add a third apartment to the existing
two-family dwelling at 10 Gardner Street. The property in question is in an R-2 district.
The Special Permit which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by the
Board of Appeals that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing, and
after viewing the property, makes the following .findings of fact:
1. The property has adequate room for developing the third floor into a four (4)
room apartment. `
2. The property has adequate parking.
3. The proposed use will not result in a modification of the exterior of the
existing structure.
4. The proposed addition of a third apartment was unopposed by abutters.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the eyidence presented at -the -
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes unanimously that the proposed use will
promote the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare and that the proposed use is
in harmony with the City's Zoning.Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board votes in favor of
granting a Special Permit to the Petitioner.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following terms and
.conditions:
1. A third dwelling unit may be added to the third floor of the property.
2. This Special Permit shall terminate in the event of the sale of the property
by Mr. . and Mrs. Terrance Neylon or in the event that both Mr. and Mrs. Terrance Neylon
cease living at ,the premises.
-141�1 3. Five parking spaces shall be maintained at the property.
4. The exterior of the structure will not be altered in connection with the
addition of the apartment .to the third floor.
5. The Petitioner must comply with all applicable fire codes and must
1 Cffitu of �5rmlem � �x ttclj�t e#ts
JiY^
DECISION - APRIL 22, 1981 - MR. TERRANCE NEYLON - PAGE TWO
obtain the approval of the Fire Marshall for the pro osed work.
Anthony M. Feehe y, ,,Secrefa4y
j'
APPA F
^'1 17 OF THE BASS.
CF
S 17=; THE DATE OF Fla
u",r 'ic 11. THE
PE CERT-
F f.E t h OR rt-
".. O" cE G;- 7 n'EO IS
_ d o R L dOtC P..:O 1\-JEUI n 6A;;iE OF THE QVIUE?ii -` Or 'cP,-S .
CERTlFi ATE C; TITLE, - -
BO.A,R. OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS SEEN FILED WITH. THE PLANNING HOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
z
r ✓��l Foam of1pT?ttI
081 APR 29 All :25
APRIL 22, 1981
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FREDERICK J. ATKINS FOR A SPEcML�ITY -'OR 23 GLENDALE STREET
i,
A hearing on this petition was held on April 22, 1981 with the following Board
Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrecque and Feeherry.
A notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was
properly published twice in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to use the structure at 23 Glendale
Street as offices associated with the business known as Fred J. Dion Yacht Yard, Inc.
The property is in an R-1 district. The Special Permit which has been requested may
. therefore be granted upon a finding by the Board of Appeals, that the grant of the
Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of fact:
II� 1. , The structure in question has been partially used for storage for the
business;and the property also has been used previously for business-related activities.
2. No structural alteration of the building are needed to accommodate the
proposed use.
3. There was no neighborhood opposition to the proposal.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes unanimously that the proposed use will
promote the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare and that the proposed use
is in harmony with the City's Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board unanimously votes
in favor of granting a Special Permit to the Petitioner.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following terms and
conditions: -
1. The property at 23 Glendale Street may be used as offices associated with the
business known as Fred J. Dion Yacht Yard, Inc.
2. The trailer on the site will be removed.
3. The use of the property shall be in accordance with any res tric 'ons imposed
APPEAL O:t SS'aTein'•Fire Ma�rshaZl'.'= P-:'.�.i;.ili TO S=10:1 17 OF THE 10ASS.
. A&2nL IAt C.'. ,' = 5. J_C At$ AFTER T LATr0Q)
P c i. TO .. ' .. rr t Fx.. E ^' ;? / -
F; hMy M. Feehe ry, secreta !
OR T: -r c i.:Z2 IS
EEC_,I:cD i.:. ;;. :, cL.._j .. E: -,;'E %A:3E OF THE Oh7HER -
OF P.ECORD GR IS 4ci ,ZED A::D kW--;'D i-A' L:: C;:E:Ec'.S CUIIMn::pG, gTIITL�EC. e p- - - - -
A nnnv nn mrTTn TIRnTCTnM AWT "CT VnT AXIC VAC 4T1CM ALTS MU TUV VTxAATATTN!_ RnArn ANTI TAA rT'I'V rTFRTt-. -
)tl
<, ai#u of Allem, al gjlr4UStjt�ECEWL
m,
P=bl of AWA '81 AUG 24 P3 .20
CITY CLER,< OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES LdEENER SALEM. i-I.SS
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 11 GOODHUE STREET
A hearing. on this Petition was held on August 19, 1981 with
the following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman;
Messrs. Hacker, Peimonte, Feeherry, and Associate Member
Martineau. Notices of the hearing were sent to. abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in 'the '
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property
at 11 Goodhue Street to construct a 32 foot x 26 foot addition
to the existing structure. A variance is required because the
building is in an I district where the proposed construction
would be prohibited without a variance because it will exceed
requirements for maximum lot coverage, and will encroach into
side yard and rear yard set back requirements.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence
• presented at the public hearing and after viewing the property ,
makes the following findings of fact: ,-
1. The Petitioner has made a substantial investment in the
property over the last several years in connection
with its use as a restoration shop for classic motor .
vehicles .
2. The Petitioner' s request if approved, will improve
the appearance, of the area and will facilitate the
storage of motor vehicles.
3. Petitioner' s request is unopposed by neighbors.
On the— basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence
presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes
as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its
peculiar configuration and because of the existing
structure on the property.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the
land and structure in question but do not generally
affect the zoning district in which the land is located.
0
2 -
• 3. The conditions described above which affect the land .
in question, but not the zoning district generally
cause the following special hardship: unless the
variance is granted, the area will not be improved
and Petitioner' s business which is an appropriate
one in an Industrial district will suffer.
- 4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good.:
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in .
favor of granting the requested relief; the Board grants a vari-.
ante to the Petitioner on the following terms and conditions:
1. The Petitioner may construct a 32 foot x 26. foot addition
" to the existing structure on the site.
2. Variances are granted, as needed, from density require-
ments, maximum lot coverage restrictions and side and
rear yard set backs.
3. All plans shall be approved by the Building Inspector..
_• Agthony M. Feeherry
CZ) WSecretary
d C
LL
C U' �+=
>-Cn - - -
V
D-APPEAL .:ii Ic + '.. t. .'r`.U_ L� ..:C. PV?3'J.:T Tu Sr'. ;^: 17 CF THE MASI
T
CC ._._ 1:.. _. C.. ''I C.4;."L- 0i Fi::ii.',
F1L3-.0 ...,
I
: (
.. CF P-C..:.:1 ;:2. U 1 :\'i_1) -P, u'.jli
60A•".0 OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AND THE
PLANNING BOARD.
tcoN
^# vlatu of �' CEm, ttssFul Zsstt E r ��1�n
Putzrbr of LA"ettl 81 OCT 19 P4 :21
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD MORGANI CITY CLrPK'S OFFICE
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE SALEM i1ASS
A hearing on this Petition was held on October 14, 1981 with the
following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker,
Piemonte, Feeherry and Associate Member Lusinski. Notices of the hearing
were sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly
published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for Lots 46-52 Greenlawn Avenue
to combine the existing seven lots and then divide them into four new lots.
A variance is required because the lots to be created as shown on the plans
submitted to the Board will all be non-conforming.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented
at the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following
findings of fact:
1. The lots in the surrounding area are similar in size to
• those which petitioner wishes to create.
2. No substantive opposition was raised to petitioner's plan by
neighbors. .
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its peculiar configur-
ation and because of the ledge at the site and the manner in which the
property slopes up from Greenlawn Avenue. In addition, the
present configuration of the lots imposes a hardship on the
petitioner by restricting his development of these lots in a manner
which is consistent with the surrounding area.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land in question
but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land .
is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question,
but not the zoning district generally cause special financial hardship
to the Petitioner.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
. to the public good.
- RECE:i r: _
DECISION - OCTOBER 14, 1981 - EDWARD MORGANI - PAGE TWO
981 OCT 19 P4 :2,1
f Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted ir�TRe,,
r ,_
of approving the grant of the requested relief. The Boar SsF urFICE
a variance to 'the Petitioner on the following terms and cond9:mA.SS
1. Petitioner may combine Lots 46-52 Greenlawn Avenue into four single
family house lots as shown on the plan submitted to the Board.
2. This variance is conditioned upon the approval of the petitioner's
plan by the Planning Board and any conditions imposed upon petitioner
by the Planning Board .hall?.be incorporated into this decision.
3. Petitioner shall submit all plans to the City Engineer who may then
review these plans to determine whether they adequately deal with
drainage at the site. The City Engineer shall, in his sole discretion,
modify such plans as they relate to drainage if. he deems that to be
necessary.
- •
Anthony 4M. eeherry
APPEAL FRO THIS L-( �. - - -
GENERAL LAV/3, CroF1;., L c f��S>Pi! TO SE 7T;;'c iT OF THE Y=3S.
OF THIS GECiSIL''! C; THE ^� 4O O:i,'S PF:C2 cc." DATE CF FILING
PTHI GF THE 9'Y --r,
Z.
CRANTED E Sv ^ri i. L CPAPUP.P K ^. - . T il. T .T r _ fv..•p� n
GRAIRED HE.'tl1. S, ALL G'nf T.:E frF CT :T!I. A c;r, uF r "IT
FICATiO:J OF THE ui'y CLEM, TN-T- 20 DAYS HAVE ELA:S'C f rc•.C~Y E .:;T. .
- OR THAT, IF SUCH AH AFPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, T,iAT IT H',S c'EE! D 3'o:J � �.
,. RECORD.'D U! Ti:E SvU-H EScc REGISTRY OF DcECS G:uEl. J L ;OE; tic r iS -
_ OF UMjW OR W RkCOUZD MD MTED 011 THE Oihi ER•S LERTIFICkTE OF.TITLE. � OF THE 04'IiJER
MAN5 Of App At
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
.e 'f7 '
� �.COYgfi. `tee
°& Titg of galemi;, searfPselts RECEIVE-
23 `�ja.�♦/ 1 uarb of Wi '81 OCT 19 P 4 ,22
(IIM6� y{}.�}y .
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN AND JOY FISHER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR 18 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
A hearing on this Petition was held on October 14, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Hacker and
Feeherry and Associate Member Lusinski. Notice of :;the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were published in the Salem
Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to extend the existing non-
conforming structure at 18 Hawthorne Boulevard by constructing a 10' x 14' 3"
addition on the rear of the property. The property is within an R-3 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in
this Ordinance, the Board of Appeals may, in accordance
with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F.
and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction
- of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension
or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expan-
sion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, .when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on. this matter,
makes the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed addition was unopposed by any neighbors.
2. The proposed addition will not reduce the off-street parking
at the site.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals finds (i) that the proposed addition
to the property will not be substantially more detrimental than the .existing structure
to the neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed addition to the property will promote
the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare, and (iii) that the proposed
addition to the property is in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly,
the Board unanimously approved the granting of a Special Permit to the Petitioners.
1
RFC71v n
'81 OCT 19 P4 :22
• DECISION - OCTOBER 14, 1981 - JOHN AND JOY FISHER - Page 2
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALE,
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the
following terms and conditions:
1. Existing parking at the site shall be maintained.
2. All .work shall be in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board. ,
3. All plans must be submitted to the Salem Fire Marshall for 'stamped
approval.
Anthony M. Fe�hery, Se retary
'• -. AFPEA1 FRO'I T'11-
- -.
I fiY T "+ c.r 1��
GLP ALL b'{ r. r::� S!Iv, ' 17 LF THE
Or ,I b I Lb C_P1jD3r,;'T TO L Cl 'ASS.
n 7' F IhL If Cl Rt.' l a, 1.. fi'•:R TdE -.TE OF F:LI:;B
-
FICATI fI OF THE LL1 Gt 1 � - L A CGP, OF TLE
OR ;NA-', IF Sb" + o.• ' ` SCST'
Tr.A. .0 Da�S !:AVE E',.Pa n A'•
H 7 AP AL HAS OZu F T?r II F of ' t'rca H c - . nEE9,
CD IN, Tfr s H ESSEX RPJISThY Ci L'CEr> AND 'nc.cDL P`i - •:ED IS
IS RECORDED AiJD NOTED OBJ THE 0VlnER S t,Er^.i r CAIE OF TLLEIYS OF TrIE O:/F:ER
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLER
41
of
Po7rb of (�Fpsal
JANUARY 21, 1981
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF J & €,b REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 13-15
HERBERT STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on January 21, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Feeherry and Hacker
and Associate Member Luzinski. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters
and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News
on January 7, 1981 and January 14, 1981 in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 13-15 Herbert
Street to use the property as a parking lot. A variance is required because
the property is in an R-2 district where the proposed use is prohibited without a
variance.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing and after viewing .the property makes the following findings of fact:
(1) The property is particularly well suited for use as a residential parking
lot, and the neighborhood in question is in need of a residential parking
lot.
(2) The Salem Zoning Ordinance does not permit parking lots in R-2 districts.
A variance is thus necessary for this use.
(3) The proposed variance was strongly supported by the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
(1) The size and configuration of the lot in question make it virtually
impossible to use the property for a permitted use in an R-2 district.
(2) The conditions described above especially affect the land in question but
do not generally affect the zoning district in which the building is located.
(3) The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not
the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship: unless the
variance is granted a much needed parking lot will not be available to this neighbor-
hood.
(4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the petitioner on the follow-
ing terms and conditions:
' I
(.jit� of ` /ajem, 4
sf`
Pourb of Appeal
DECISION - J & H REALTY - PAGE TWO
(1) A maximum of 43 parking spaces will be allowed at the site,
(2) A buffer zone of 4 feet shall be maintained around the property for
landscaping.
(3) A four foot fence will be erected and maintained around the property.
(4) The City Engineer shall approve the plan for entry to and exit from
the property as well as drainage.
(5) Only monthly parking will be allowed at the site. There will be no
daily or hourly parking at the site at any time.
(6) A walk-through gate may be constructed to provide access to Hodges
Court.
(7) Dense plantings, shrubs, etc, at a height of 4 feet will be placed and
maintained in the buffer zone around the premises.
Anthony M. F&eherry, Secretary
77 ^i T!Jc MSS.
YJtARO Of AREAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION, AND PLANS REFERRED TO HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD
AND CITY CLERK.
0" T3
a f1�i IIf p`3aler T, assar4usilS 16
?, uarbr of t '81 AUG 24 P3 :21
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SAL"t MMnS':
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AYRES T. D'SOUZA M.D. -
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 72 HIGHLAND AVENUE
A hearing on this Petition was held on August 191 1981 with
the following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman;
Messrs. Hacker, Piemonte, Feeherry, and Associate Member
Martineau. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem .
Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter
40A.
The Petiti nerds requesting a variance for the property at
72 Highland Avenue to use the property for a professional office
for the practice of medicine. A variance is required because the
building is in a R-3 district where the proposed use is prohibited
without a variance.
The Board of Appeals,, af�sideration of the evidence
presented at the public hearing and after viewing the property
makes the following findings of fact:
1. The Petitioner and his colleague Dr. James Higgins are
well knows and respected physicians who specialize in
the practice of pediatric medicine ,in the Salem area.
2. The Petitioner' s practice has outgrown his current
location.
3. The proposed site for Petitioner' s office is a vacant
building which will be substantially improved.
4 . Petitioner' s request is supported by neighbors.
5. At least seventeen other medical offices are located
in this general area.
On the basis of .the above findings of fact, and the evidence
presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes
as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its current
state of disrepair and its peculiar location near the
Salem Hospital and surrounding medical offices.
2.. The conditions described above especially affect the land
and structure in question but dd not generally affect
the zoning district in which the property is located.
+ - 2 -
3. The conditions described above which affect the land
in question, but not the zoning district generally
cause the following special hardship: the property,
cannot be properly utilized unless a variance is
t
granted.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good.
Therefore, the. Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in
favor of granting the requested relief. . The Board grants a vari-
ance to the Petitioner on the following termsand conditions:
1. . The property may be used for medical offices for no more
than three physicians. However, this limitation is not
intended to prohibit. a subsequent request by the Petitioner
to enlarge his practice in the event of a change in cir-
cumstances.
2. The proposed construction at the side of the existing
structure as shown on plans submitted to the Board is
also approved.
3. Parking for seven patients shall be maintained at the
property.
_. 4. All plans shall be approved.,by the Building Inspector
and Fire Marshal.
_.N V -
W C%j ` ,." Anthony M. F eherry>
UJ- /Secretary
rr V)
C .::tJ ...-.... ... .•moi_. ... -
OF
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AND THE
PLANNING BOARD.
co
Irl Ctu of 'Salent, RECEf,V
23varD of A"VA '81 OCT -7 P3 :06
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL, INC. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 81 HIGHLAND AVENUE SALEM j%jrcc
A hearing on this petition was held on September 23, 1981, with
the following Board Members present: ,Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs.
Piemonte, LaBrecque and Hacker and Associate Member Lusinski. Notice of .
the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were
published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has. requested a Special.Permit to allow the Hospital
to maintain a 10' x 50' trailer on the Hospital property to use -for office
space. Previously, on February 14, 1979, this Board granted Petitioner a
Special Permit to maintain a temporary trailer at this site for two years.
This request is therefore a request for an extension of that Special Permit.
The Special Permit which has .been requested may, under the terms of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance, be granted upon a finding by the Board of Appeals,
that thegrant of the Special Permit is in.harmony with the terms of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance, and that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the
health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeals,. after considering the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1) The trailer at the site is intended to be a temporary office; as
soon as the Hospital's expansion of its operating room is completed, the trailer
will be removed,
2) The requested extension of this Special Permit was not opposed.
On the basis of the above findings .of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concluded unanimously that a
grant of the requested Special Permit will promote the health, safety,
convenience, and welfare of the City's inhabitants and that a grant of the
Special Permit is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the
Board voted in favor of granting a Special Permit to the Petitioner.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following .
terms and conditions:
1) This Special Permit is granted for a two-year period.
2) The trailer at the Hospital may be used only as an office.
3) The terms stated in the prior Speci Permit remain in effect.
O.I1i 1 1111VIA
,l 4. .•1..F •. -•�: T ... •• ,7 t:f 11 Mi f`\\,f
1
Ll Cr �1 1 ; -- ' '�� $ A. o t�lOny M. F sherry, ecretary
CCA(COPY GIF•THIS DEc ,sTbN 'HAS,'S7N F pT�t6J lila THE;:,G�WY CLERK AND THE PLANNING BOARD.
7 - Ili ; "f• IT n
Z TWIT. :` 1 ,:i i L Ilk" t I: OR C- -m. 171
CF 0; V�UkR T"_ vi.... C7 TnG G'i:3;.2
Lt gECCRO GC IS hsSDj;QEO A0 1:0 `0 Ott lig Viii WS C R Iil :Y OF TIME.
;'• .,_';,ter_ _ ., 7
Fz9 Gn OR`; rr,,��
�\ Titu of `5' nttalvC F�ssar41.i8EII8�!\%c ;-
utxr of � Ptcl '81 JUL -2 All :27
O11!\5
JUNE 24, 1981 CITY CLEWS OFFICE
SALEM tlA..SS.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES II
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 269 HIGHLAND AVENUE
1.
A hearing on this Petition was held on June 24, 1981 with the followirio
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker, Piemonte,
Feeherry and Associate Member Lusinski. Notices of the hearing were sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 269 Highland
Avenue to use the property for all purposes permitted in a B-2 zone. A variance
is required because the property is in both a B-2 and -1 district.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented. at
-_• the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings
of fact:
1) The 6-acne parcel in question is situated on land which
adjoins, the present shopping center owned by the Petitioner.
2) This parcel of land, by reason of topography and soil conditions,
is difficult to develop in that there is a very substantial outcropping of
ledge that runs the entire length of the parcel in heights ranging from 3' to 15' ,
and because of the topography and soil conditions, a great deal of blasting is
necessary which would make the said lot difficult and expensive to develop.
3) Because of its proximity to the existing buildings, a portion of the
parcel is zoned industrial and a portion near Highland Avenue is zoned for B-2
Highway Business. Access to theindustrial portion of this land, shown as
Lot 2 on the submitted plans, is had only by going through the B-2 portion of
the shopping center or over the B-2 portion of Lot 1 as shown on said plan.
Development of industrial land which requires access over property zoned for a
lesser use and adjacent to land zoned for lesser use, namely B-2, creates a hardship
peculiar to this particular land; this coupled with the topography and soil
conditions thus creates a substantial hardship, both in relation to the land
itself and financially in the development of said land.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concluded as follows:
1) This property is unique because of the reasons stated above.
2) The conditions described above especially affect the property
in question but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the
,property is located.
Rl
DECISION - JUNE 24, 1981 - CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES II - PAGE TWO
lb
3) The conditions described above which affect the land in question,
but not the zoning district generally cause a special hardship to the
Petitioner because if a variance is not granted, the land will have to be
developed as two lots rather than one lot.
4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of
the granting the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the Petitioners
on the following terms and conditions:
1) Lot I as shown on the plans submitted to the Board shall be
used for only one commercial or retail building with a single use.
2) Lot 2 may be developed for use as a retail/commercial shopping
center.
3) This variance is granted on condition that an integrated parking
plan be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer relative to both the
existing Shopping Center and the proposed addition.
Anthony M. Feeh r y 1.�
APPEAL FRWA THIS DECIS!^?I, IF ANY. SHALL DE !MADE PUSUA?IT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
CENERAL LA.13, CHAPTER M. A'ID SHALL BE FILED V;I i?i!D! 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILIWG
OF TN:S 02Ch!O"! lir' THE ^uFFICE OF THE CITY CLEP.n. -
PUR:J*.'iT TO "JS. G: UPAI Ui-1 CHV EcR Lai, SE ';'S.iI 11. THE V01A."ICE O4 SPECIAL F"RMIT
_ .', L N ::E EFF'-'CT L!"J11 A COPY Cr ME CERT-
FI..',',0If Cr 1"i:- (ATT C'EM: T11-.1 20 LAYS EAVE ELA!' c n5 t\0 A."E:L HIS ::ED, :
• CR THAT, IF SU,ri A'.1 APPEA_ H::S 6EEi! =1E. ir.AT I"i . ,-S 2E£Pi OIKL!I EED 03 D£::,ED IS
P,E:.OfijED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REfC:STR`, OF DEEDS AND Ii4DEXED � DE:? THE r:A:.:E C: THE OV IER -
OF RECORO OR IS RECORDED AND 1IOTED OtI THE 0'1'NERS CERTIFiCAN OF TITLE. - -
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
'CON .
" flit of �'�tlem, ttSS�SC Lt'�E RECEIVE
Pourb of c��i" '81 OCT 19 P4'21
s,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL LEVESQUE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CITY CLERKS OFFICE
167 LAFAYETTE STREET SALE MA S
A hearing on this Petition was held on October 14, 1481, with the
following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte,
Hacker, Feeherry and Associate Member Lusinski. Notice of the.hearing
was sent to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published
in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested what we interpret to be a Special Permit
to extend a nonconforming use at 167 Lafayette Street .so as to allow that
property, which has been non-conforming by virtue of its use as a doctor's
office to be used for additional parking for 163 Lafayette Street.:
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordi.annce which we deem to be
applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides
as follows: .
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this
Ordinance, the Board of Appeals may, in accordance with
—' the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIZI F and I% D,
grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of
nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension
or expansion shall not be nonconforming to the.neighborhood. -
In lore general terms, this Boari Is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare.
The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter,
makes the following findings of fact:
1. The funeral home at 163 Lafayette Street is in need of
additional parking;
2. The parking to be provided at 167 Lafayette Street will reduce congestion
and improve traffic flow, to the area. .
3. The petitioner';s request was unopposed by neighbors.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals finds (i) that the proposed use
of the property will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
w` use to the neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed use of the property will
promote the public health, ,safety, convenience, and welfare, and (iii) that the
proposed use of the property is in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
Accordingly, the Board unanimously approved the granting of a Special Permit
to the Petitioner;
RECEI�r
Y DECISION - OCTOBER 14, 1981 - PAUL LEVESQUE - PAGE 2 081 OCT 19 P 4;21
CITY CLE aK
SALN OFFICE
t1, , L,:,
The Special Permit is therefore granted in:.accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
1) Hereafter, 167 Lafayette Street may not be used as a doctor's
office. Its use will be limited to uses permitted in an R-3 district.
2) Petitioner shall maintain 10 spaces at this site. These spaces
shall be allotted between 163 and 167 Lafayette Street as follows:
(a) One and one-half parking spaces per dwelling unit
shall.be allotted to 167 Lafayette Street.
(b) The remaining parking spaces at 167 Lafayette Street
shall be allotted to 163 Lafayette Street.
3) Petitioner will be permitted to pave the parking area at 167 Lafayette
Street up to the property lines.
4) Petitioner shall pave the parking area at 167 Lafayette Street by
June 30, 1982.
thony M. Feeteriy, Sec r tary
APPEAL FROM THIS D C! n-1, IF p..-y. S!!'.,LL PE Q.'+ PUIPS A"T TO SEC-,.!1.,-,, 17 OFT E ,qA,,S.
GENERAL LA:,S, CRS P7-r L. F-7 c ALL L' F L-J [D DAYS rER THE DATE C. M:,Itu
OF U.'IS CECIS&I I!, �r r `��
PURSA,T TO ,r cS. C' vtf L i t- i ;; < °CL
fiC;1f, OF THE CI f CL cFr i; h',; q __ - .
,. OR IHf T, ,F SACH I Ai lcf.L Ht o_--
- ,!i 7°AT ICH .r. ;L !� a FI-ED.
BE URDED IN THE SOUTH ESS:: ti -. - r f CT U a-..,U I ri : iS - -
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND •w,ED Oil TK NINER'S CEPTTICA7E Cr TITLE.•~ CF TiIE Oti is&T
- - _BOARD OFAPPEAL
COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED.WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK. '
z
(fit#fir ofMIPzn, �zss�ael#us�##s
Pnurd of CAFFZal REcs 1i;
APRIL 22, 1981 .81 APR 29 A11 :25
CITY CGFRI•• t 11
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RENT-ALL AUTOMOTIVE, INC. (PETITIONER) ABA,R �f � t,FICE
INC. (OWNER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 473, 475, 477, 479, 481 HIGHLAND AV$NU1
A hearing on this petition was held on April 22, 1981 with the following Board
Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrecque and Feeherry.
Notice of the hearing was properly sent to abutters and others and a notice of the
hearing was published twice in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to utilize the above property for the
sale and service of a limited number (6) of used cars and also for the sale and rental
of trailers. The property in question is in a B-2 district where these uses are allowed
only by Special Permit. The Special Permit which has been requested may be granted upon
a finding by the Board of Appeals that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the
public health, safety, convenience and welfare.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing, and
after viewing the property, makes the following findings of fact:
�� 1. The property in question is in a high traffic area and the proposed use of
_- ,J.the -property will in all likelihood substantially Increase traffic; thus presenting
a potential hazard in the area. .
2. The proposed use of the property with its emphasis on the sale of used cars is
viewed by the Board as a detriment to the area particularly in light of the fact that the
Petitioner has proposed no facade improvements to the existing structure.
3. The Board is concerned that there is a very limited amount of parking available
for customers on this property at present and the proposed use of the property will
therefore adversely affect traffic patterns in the area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes unanimously that the proposed use
will not promote the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City's
inhabitants and that the proposed use is not in harmony with the City Zoning Ordinance.
Accordingly, the Board denies the Special Permit requested by the titioner.
/Anthony M. Feeterry, Selretary
- U[,PERL FRO THISI CE I°IOi IF A°IY SNAIL D !ADE P- S"AW TD S C_-i0il 11 OF THE .'.!ASS.
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND Yt A�I� FEN l�II ED �+T TI =TWIPLANNING•A-BOARD 1E,NDATHR ,t:;I;W CLERK.
, . 1HZ U:u.._ OF Tr. CITY C_E':1.
- --I � ! - t i tRT-
1i RLEOI
C ,
_P5 [�.: 0 i" Dr..:cJ IS
P,-6 1 - I E o_X I-:G -.,'r S f;lJ lllc RA.JE OF THE 0WNER
OF RECORD OR IS RcMRDZD ASD NOTED W1 OsIRER'S CERTIFICATE Or TITLE. - --
z c<, f1�it of �xlEm, ttclu$> its
nor of �jr e�L '81 JUL -2 All :27
Hne w.
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
June 24, 1981 SALEi4 m!j
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MONTIGUE MORRIS
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 418 LAFAYETTE STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on June 24, 1981, with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Hacker,
LaBrecque and Feeherry. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in,the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance to allow this property to be used
for a total of four dwelling units. A variance is required because the property
.in question is in a R-1 district where the proposed use is prohibited. Addition-
ally, Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to allow him to convert this
property into condominium units.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration -of the evidence rese
• p nted at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1) The property in question is surrounded by a neighborhood of single family
homes; use of this property as a four-family dwelling will have a negative impact
on the area as a whole.
2) Although Petitioner offered evidence to support his contention that this property
was previously used as a three-family dwelling, we conclude that the property was
never a legal three-family residence. Moreover, any non-conforming use of this
property has ceased because of the fact that the property has not been used as even
a two-family dwelling for over two years.
3) This area is well known as a location with substantial problems with traffic.
The proposed use of this property as a four-family dwelling will necessarily worsen
this problem.
4) Although the existing home on this property is a large one, it is not
unique to the area. There is nothing about this property which indicates that
it should not be subject to existing zoning.
5) The neighborhood is vehemently opposed to Petitioner's request.
6) Use of this property as a four-family dwelling will have a destabilizing
effect on the area.
• On the basis of the above findings of fact, and other evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
DECISION - juNE 24, 1981 - MONTIG'JE MORRIS - PAGE T140
A. The Petitioner failed to establish circumstances relating to this
property which affect that property but do not generally affect the zoning
district in which the property is located.
B. The Petitioner failed to establish that a literal enforcement of the
provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship
to the Petitioner.
C. The Petitioner failed to establish that the requested variance could be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or sub-
stantially derogating from the intent and purposes of the Salem Ordinance.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals voted 4 to 1 in opposition to the
granting the requested relief. The Board therefore denies a variance to the
Petitioner.
• Anthony M. Fe i e�ry
AP^CA.L FR:... TN:S D'cCIC,C'!, 1% ANY, SHELL F.E :..:_= PURSUA^T TO 17 OF THE MASS,
LA':''IS. CH.'PT ::a', AND S@ALL GE FILE. V!17":'!N ZO Di..YS l.S_2 THE OA-,E OF FILING
GE THIS DEMON IN T':E OFFICE 07 CiTY C'_E:':.
TO !dA a. C"_.dER.'L LkF.'S. 11. PER::11T
t'r-, EMHT UI—-i ;, :C': ip T.4 r ii.E CGii•
FiCATUN OF i9E CI'.Y CLER:. TEAT 70 v,.._ !:.:•OR, TFST• IF SUC.!. ,: .. � EEE?! RL.., T:' ' .i
C' DcNED .S
RECORDED IF TFiCSC•C'TH ESSEX SEGISi°:' OF CE6-S F.i:D I:•:DG:E: ?F T!:" C;'•IIE^n
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED HD PATED OH THE OWNcR S C'Eif ;F:.ATE•OF
BOARD OF APPEAL "
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLEF
OVMT,I�; _
(�z# of Salem, �zss c u P#t
� s: Pnttrb of
4jOblt��
'81 JUN 17 A10 :07
CITY CLERK'S OFFICFJuNE lo, i981
SALE"l
DECISION ON THE PETITIONS OF NAPOLEON R. LeBLANC and RAYMOND 0. PINAULT and
NANCY L. PINAULT REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR 95 and 99 LAWRENCE STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on June 10, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Feeherry and Hacker and
Associate Member Lusinski. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested variances to divide the property into two
distinct lots. Variances are required because this property is presently in both
a R-1 and R-2 district where the proposed division of the property would be prohibited
without the grant of variances from side yard restrictions as well as lot area require-
ments.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of
fact:
1. The property has since 1922 had the presently existing buildings on
this property.
2. The proposed division of this property into two lots will place a lot
line across the property which will cause the two lots to be in violation of the
Zoning Ordinance because of the absence of sufficient sideyards and lot area.
3. The proposed division of the property will not in any way involve an
alteration of the existing structures on this property.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is. unique because of the existing structure
on the property which structures make it impossible to divide this property into
two lots without in some way violating the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
• 2. The conditions described above especially affect the land in question
but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land is located.
• DECISION — JUNE 10, 1981 — LeBLANC & PINAULT — PAGE T140
'81 JUN 17 A10 :07
CITY CLEP.K's OFFICE
SALEM,
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but
not the zoning district generally cause a special hardship to the Petitioners
by complicating separate ownership of the two residences on the property.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
therequested relief. The Board grants a variance to the Petitioners on the following
terms and conditions:
The Petitioners are granted a variance from sideyard requirements
and lot area requirements to allow the division of this property into two lots
as described on the plans submitted to this Board.
• Anthony M. Feehe ry
APPESLF '.1 T:i:S DC..l.... 1,A.;". S!t„!L P: !:!ATE PL1.1..,v.tili TO I T:M 17 OF-THE MASS. -
GFi:T �• Li:'ii f'i:i. lC:D _.i ._:.. ...'.if•' 23 L11'tS :Fi En TP.- CATH OF FILING
OF ti!!3 �•L..a:1::\ I:i •1:: 't'i'p.' J! , . Ca i C�_��.
i i ` ♦ t ,• .5::.�:.:i L� O•� F ..rr _PF- 11 FZ. : IT
c .:.7 A c i_ c_Tr•
OR 1'itT LF ' {'...:ii .?.�^i. ., ... t .,...._.i`,Co C° ...1<ic� is!
•�..,iisvi C`= 6.y"> AND - ° C .::1E CF THE 01.1;MT
OF R{CORD OQ I$ KC 0-KI) ANN i1CIED. Cy THE Umll":ER'S CFRTIEI- E OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAR
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLAINS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLEF
ovwr,� '.
Ctg of �5 a, otos clpz e##s
w°4 RF! !:I\i
J Pondr of 1}s}rettl
9"�DlIFS��
881 JUN 17 A10 :07
CITY CLERKS OFFICEJUNE lo, 1981
SALE,-' ei;;SS
DECISION ON THE PETIT30NS OF NAPOLEON R. LeBLANC and RAYMOND 0. PINAULT and
NANCY L. PINAULT REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR 95 and 99 LAWRENCE STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on June 10, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Feeherry and Hacker and
Associate Member Lusinski. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested variances to divide the property into two
• distinct lots. Variances are required because this property is presently in both
a R-1 and R-2 district where the proposed division of the' property would be prohibited
without the grant of variances from side yard restrictions as well as lot area require-
ments.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of
fact:
1. The property has since 1922 had the presently existing buildings on
this property.
2. The proposed division of this property into two lots will place a lot
line across the property which will cause the two lots to be in violation of the
Zoning Ordinance because of the absence of sufficient sideyards and lot area.
3. The proposed division of the property will not in any way involve an
alteration of the existing structures on this property.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of the existing structure
on the property which structures make it impossible to divide this property into
two lots without in some way violating the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
• 2. The conditions described above especially affect the land in question
but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land,is located.
DECISION - JUNE 10, 1981 - LeBLANC & PINAULT - PAGE TWO
'81 JUN 17 A10 :07
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM iv*1A
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but
not the zoning district generally cause a special hardship to the Petitioners
by complicating separate ownership of the two residences on the property.
,
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the Petitioners on the following
terms and conditions:
The Petitioners are granted a variance from sideyard requirements
and lot area requirements to allow the division of this property into two lots
as described on the plans submitted to this Board.
t
• Anthony M. Feehe ry
APPEAL FI'J.:7 T:i!S K ... Pi.:.euA'.i TJ -cC i!G:`I 17 OF-THE OF-THEMASS.
ZJ G,T> Ari C TN C:iTC c Fiit tiu
Iii i:... C";;:-
S:.7::
ii. SCC:: A G ; .. __"._._ .N, CE:?'(•
CP, CI"1 I' '. ,ii F.; ?_L"!. I .n.cn C2 �Ea: J is
T:.E 'LL: . .SSiX F.Ef,i .i C: O^G AND °-ED C':._ i ..aE GF THE N.MER
OF REC01D. DR IS Ai'D MiED C:L T::d G:;'i7ER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL;
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLEF
z m�
of "'ttlem, ttssttcllxz$e##s
s Pourb of �pr�sPttl RECE1\!Eta
9"�IllliB
JUNE 10, 1981 '81 JUN 17 A10 :08
((;;i'( LERK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION ON MARTIN A. FOX FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT F01f 7 gtpg�sTnET
A hearing on this Petition was held on June 10, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Feeherry, Hacker and
Associate Member Lusiaski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News_ in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to conduct his business of
selling, repairing, servicing and storing steam cleaning equipment at the property.
The property at 71 Leach Street is in an R-2 district where the proposed use
i • is not generally Permitted, however, the property has for over 40 years been used
as a garage for the repair and maintenance of automobiles as well as for the sale
� ^ of automobile parts.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this
request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Nothwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this
Ordinance, the Board of Appeals may, in accordance with the
procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D,
grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of
nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension
or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, '
provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expan-
sion shall not be substantially .more detrimental than the existing
nonconforming use to the neighborhood.. .. (Emphasis added)
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the
Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety,
convenience and welfare.
The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter,
makes the following findings of fact:
1. This property has been used for commercial purposes for almost fifty
years.
2. The property which is, in essence a garage can only be used for
commercial purposes.
DECISION JUNE 10, 1981 - MARTIN A. FOX - PAGE TWO R E UIV E r'
• '81 JUN 17 A10 :08
CITY CLER ("S 0-FICE
SALE-1 M ASP :
3. The proposed use will create no noise- and virtually no
traffic.
4. The Petitioner's proposed use of the property will be
less detrimental to the area .than the prior use of the property.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals finds (i) that the proposed use of the
property will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing use to the
neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed use of the property will promote the health,
safety, convenience, and welfare of the City's inhabitants, and (iii) that the
proposed use of the property is in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
Accordingly, the Board unanimously approves the granting of a Special Permit
to the Petitioners.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
• terms and conditions:
1. The property may be used for the sale, storage, repair and maintenance
of, steam cleaning equipment.
2. The property shall be used for these purposes during the hours 8 a.m.
to 6:30 p.m. Mondays through and including Saturdays.
3. There will be no structural alterations of the property in connection
with this use of the property.
4. If it is necessary to vent steam from the property in connection with
the proposed use of this property, all such venting of steam will be through '
the roof of the building.
5. This use of the property may involve no more than four employees.
thony M. Fee erVy
. - Vrdl WP-?; GE:':' jr k:+f. S'-'M F= =r- .:,5 n U T.?r 17AM
t0:-Pt! t.'...... GSb;.:r.E. .',i, z'f7 Z� 1!i .._ :i -
•
6R .NIAT. IF SL'i: F.S RPr:11 NF_^ -
trp:::. T,•- .t cut• r -1,
�r T,.�r.� � r`pT:+� G'�rQ1lRD"FAND ffH CITY CLERK
A COPY OF THIS DECISIQ1 V - �� f ,, !e5 1, ( i a h'S �e r,r(
SWQ OF APPEAL
5Z
s -
IF, Titu of allnia,
IF
i\rl Fit r
-r Pjaar]4 -of Appeal
081 APR -2 A8 :53 Nm"CII 18, 1981
CITY Ci ER!i'� 'I F ICE
DECISIO" ON u§PIATI'iT�N OF ROBERT FOUHEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 4 LOONEY
AVENUE
A hearing on this Petition was held on March 18, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Hacker,
and Associate Member Luzinski. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters
and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News
on March 4, 1981, and March 11, 1981 in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 4 Looney
Avenue to construct a porch eight feet by eighteen feet. A variance is required
because the proposed construction would reduce the rear yard at the site to
• less than the minimum requirement of 'thirty feet. .
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings
of fact:
1. The property in question is unique because of its size and configuration
and because of the location of existing structures on the site.
2. The proposed construction is unopposed by abutters.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
(1) The property in question is unique because of its peculiar configuration
and because of the location of the existing structure on the lot.
(2) The conditions described above especially affect the land and zoning
district in which the property is located.
(3) The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but
not the zoning district generally caicse the following special hardship:
without the grant of a variance the property cannot be improved in
the manner which is most appropriate to the existing structure and to
the surrounding neighborhood.
(4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good because the proposed construction will improve the
appearance of the neighborhood.
rel : R, t
081 RPR -2 AS :5 3
DECISION - MARCH 1TpY'KL',,RF-' QT'�j FFOUHEY - PAGE TWO
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of
granting the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the petitioner
on the following terms and conditions:
1. A variance is granted to allow the proposed addition to encroach
to within 23 feet of the rearro ert line.
P P Y
2. All construction shall be in accordance with the plans submitted
to the Board.
DouglaFy opper, Chaj,i ( n "
•
- A7E<4 a'O LTHI> DEC ISIS I- ANY, SHA'_L P,; !1 JE PUSANT TO SE'T:O;! 17 OF THE MASS.
GEXJ R.L 4AiiS
CF Nr;
-j DF.YS AFTER [HE DATE OF FILING
a r :Fi_ _ CS ,F. C:"'( C_..;..(. -
Vj RS->fN" H° , > -':*r THC \f 4A E OR SPECIAL FER.";IIT
GRA1JfED N"HL", 4i - U r:, C i.� 4EC - -
VICAT O;Y FTN Ci i t'_R i - _H 'D THE CERT- -
DR Ti?A7. fF SJ 17 , Ai'Pc ,..,t ^ J f 7 P ,iL H'S BEEN FILED,
HN THE SOUTH ESS h ^. f� li ,� L2 OF" I) IS
$� GZT OR IS RECORDED Atl:J LIMED 0111 U' OWNEWS a CERiu'ICIuC OF TITLE iE OF THE 0'r'/MER
BOARD OF APPZAL
COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED 14ITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
Ctv of Salrm, �I 82It tSE##S
A q`alM 9 Paurb of &Appv 1 081 OCT 19 P4 :22
.
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT BRAMBLE, TRUSTEE OF ALLYN REALTY 9Sft64f"WS5
A SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT 14-16 MALL STREET INTO FOUR CONDOMINIUM WITS
A final hearing on this petition was held on October 14, 1981 with the
following Board Members present: Mr. Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker
and Piemonte and Associate Members Lusinski and Martineau. Notice of the hearing
was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published
in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to convert the existing four
family dwelling at this property into four condominium units.
This proposed condominium conversion is covered by the terms of the City of
Salem's condominium conversion ordinance. The Special Permit that has been
requested may therefore be granted only upon a finding by the Board of Appeals .
that (1) the grant of the Special Permit will not adversely impact upon the city's
existing stock of rental units for low and moderate income. families and elderly .
people on fixed income, (2) that the grant of the Special Permit -is not contrary
to the City's: Master Plan, and (3) the grantofthe Special Permit will not have
an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence at the hearing, and
after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The owner has .made a substantial financial. investment;an this property
and has made capital improvements .in what is:a building which
has historical significance and which was in need of repairs.
2. The proposed conversion of this property to four condominium units in
no way conflicts with the Master Plan of the City of Salem.
3. The conversion of the property to condominiums will have negligible.
impact on the existing stock of rental units in the City of Salem for the
elderly and for families of low and moderate income.
4. The property is vacant. Thus, no hardship is caused by the proposed
condominium conversion to any tenants.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals by a 4 to 1 vote (Mr. Hacker voted
present) concluded that the proposed condominium conversion is in harmony with
the condominium conversion ordinance of the City of Salem. Accordingly, the
Board voted in favor of granting the requested Special Permit in accordance
with the following terms and conditions:
\ 1. Four parking spaces shall be maintained at the site.
2. All construction, including landscaping and the fence at the site
shall be in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board.
Page 2 RECEIVE:,
DECISION — OCTOBER 14, 1981 — ROBERT BRAMBLE
081 OCT 19 P 4 :22
CIT'SALE AE1K'S SFFICE
3. Because the building was vacant at the time this petition was filed,
the Petitioner will not be required to allow six months to elapse before commencing
any work in furtherance of the condominium conversion. The Petitioner may
commence such work 20 days after the date ofIle
th of this decision.
Anthony M. Feeh� y
.. .. ^'r'":f:`. JcY ,�!L c,. �.,:.�,:n 19 Sc:T::3:i !i Ci '.c
APFEAL .r,;.. TRi3 . ._ -
G"cI:COf,L LAWS, C .. -J _n:._.. __ r .� .. 2� C.�rS F:IT I
• - CF T!IS D 1:1! t `I '; Cr E tr th
9C:d,al1 7? . ..w. . -! L C:. - ER i.,o, U.Ti:
UAi.T J HWE16, S'.!ALL 2' t .:L -.. ,T
!PI�rdG9,Cf-Ti!°_ CI75 �t-.'t.: Tal .i 24J _AY$ H " E:r%S J 4r. !vC F.iPE.4E�R'?S F't' :).
iTII:a1:1.; IF SU-10 AN P..'r5.'%L r,. a O'_-(! FILE. T11AT. if NS E.HN D SrIASSM :R - -&[v IS
IN.TEE S!:UTM EZSE� "il-N TFY OF CHOS F.-N-3 ! C_XZ"� J' CE:2 ili"c L.-.: E Ui THz GWRER
67FS's`Gu'TO)@ii l&RECGRDEII AUD i45TED OIL T:{c OViWER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE - -
.. BOARD OF APPEAL
AJWY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
of �5atem, REC"`'`
i
r
Pourb of A"ed '81 AUG -6 P3 :41
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HARBORTOWN DEVELOPMENT CORP. REQUESTING C+TYF&Iv,PIES]WIM
PROPERTY AT NORMAN STREET AND BARTON SQUARE SALEM ".;6S-
A hearing on this Petition was held on July 29, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman., Messrs. Hacker and Feeherry and ,
Associate Members Martineau and Lusinski. Notices of the hearing were sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has, by way of request for a variance for the property
at Norman Street and Barton Squares asked this Board to modify a prior decision
dated March 11, 1981 for this property.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presentdd
at the public hearing and after viewing the property hereby adopts the finding
of facts previously made in connection with our March 11, 1981 decision.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals unanimously grants the Petitioner's
request that our prior decision be amended to state that no less than 1-1/2
parking spaces per residential units shall be maintained at this site for no
more than 72 residential units. In all other respects, our prior decision
remains in full force.
i thony M. Feeherr�, Secretary
APPEAL FRO.M. THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SEAL L BE 'MADE PURSUANT TO S"71 OM 17 OF THE PASS..
GEMERA.L LA91S, CHAK'l 8'ti, AND SHILL BE FILED C':T?M 20 DAYS AFTEi THE DaiE OF FILING
OF THIS DECIS15H IN THE OFF!-; OF THE CITY CLERK.
PL2SAt!T TO (SASS. G:N.5,AL LAYS, C4."-.ITER 896, SECT!OH-11, THE VAR!AY.CE OR SPECIAL PERMIT.
CR:Gi:2D HERCiii, Si= R0"1 TAf.E EFFLCi UN-PI. A COPY OF THE DCCiSIY. GEAR!i:3 THE CERT-
TMI'10'r: OF TH2 CRY CLEF,,, TZ:;T 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND N4: WV1 HAS BEN FILED,
42 THAT, IF SO;1H AN APPEAL HP.S. 62EN FILE. T:iI.T IT HAS E_L! WS."IISSED OR LEMIED IS
&z-=:!DLD IN VE SOUTH ESSEX REG:STRY OF D=EJi AND INDEXED UNOER THE :b.F:iE OF THE OIVMER
9 RECULD OIL IS. RECORDED AND HOTM 0.1 THE O'VRER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
MARCH 11, 1981
} art ofS�sIPm, scusEt
•'� y` Pnara d Appeal
'81 MAR 16 P2 :30
DECISION ONL1 SFrr HEIRS OF JOHN DEERY (OS,TNER) AND GERALD BAIZEN,
(PETITIONER) kJ ,UE#?NG IRRYANCES FOR A PARCEL OF LAND AT NORMAN STREET AND BARTON
SQUARE, ASSESSORS NEAP 35, LOT 11 (B-3 DISTRICT) .
c.
A hearing on this Petition was held on March 11, 1981 with the following
Board Members present Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker, Piemonte, Luzinski
and Feeherry. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and a notice
of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on February 25, and March 4, .
1981, in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property described above to
construct no more than 72 residential condominium units at the site. A variance
is required because the building is in a B-3 district where the proposed use is
prohibited without. a variance.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
• public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed use of the property is supported by the Salem Redevelopment
Authority.
2. The proposed use of the property is consistent with the Salem Uniform
Renewal Plan.
3. The proposed use of the property will enhance the entire Heritage Plaza
West Urban Renewal Area,
4. .The petitioner and his architect are well knownthroughout the northeast
for the overall quality of their work.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique. It is one of the very few vacant`
parcels in the center of Salem and it is perhaps the only large vacant
parcel in the heart of the City. Because of its unique size and location,
the development of this parcel is a concern to the entire city.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land in question but
do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land is located.
• 3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not
the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship: if the
requested variance is not granted the property will have to be developed
in a manner which is not consistent with the Urban Renewal Plan and not
}yy�� ter
ffr �ZL at 5511 tt,
Puar3 of �NppeA
'81 MAR 16 P2 :30
DECISION - GERALD BAIZEN - PAGE TWOCITv U :,.'v is-^ CE
in keeping with the surrounding buildings thus resulting in harm
(including but not limited to financial harm) to the petitioner and
to the city as a whole.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good because the proposed use will benefit the entire city.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting .
the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the petitioner on the follow-
ing terms and conditions:
1. No more than 72 residential units (none larger than two bedrooms) may be
constructed on the site,
2. No more than 6,000 square feet of net leaseable commercial space may be
constructed at the site.
• 3. All commercial space shall be located on the first floor of the property
(on Norman Street) .
4. No less than 112 parking spaces shall be maintained at the site.
5. This variance is conditioned upon and is subject to final approval of the
proposed plans for this development by the Salem Redevelopment Authority.
The terms, and conditions, of any, of that final approval by the Salem
Redevelopment Authority are incorporated and made part of this variance.
GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS
Anthony M. .Feeherry, Secretary f
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL K MACE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAYiS, CHAPTER SO"s. AND SHALL O- Fi;-eu 1417XIi' 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING -OF THIS.DECISION IN THE 0;'FICE 7F THE ilY CLERK. - - -
PURaAN TO ;.SASS ,E-I.WIL R 1-1. A 11. THE VA^.!A.':CE CR SPECIAL PEW.11T -
GRANTED HERuM1: SHALL GC ..: L ;-oF F .liE . +'1: THE C'RT- -
FICATION OF INK CITY CLER'. .!. _-.,S _ -. , ".4L HAS DEEN FILED.
_ OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HSS Ricd! F'LE. Lig;...i .- .__ CR !,E•:'ED IS -
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX PE=C -i RY OF i!M)S AND 1NUL;:ED v ScR THE HAME OF THE OLYNER - -
• OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
- - - BOARD OF APPEAL "
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Aro,.,, ��:•.. Wuurb of CA"eA '81 RUG, 24 P3 :2(}
CbCLER" S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AjAga,T,i`,A=-_
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 28 NORMAN STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on August 19 , 1981 with.
the following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman;
Messrs. Hacker, Piemonte and Feeherry, and Associate Member
Martineau. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property
at 28 Norman Street to construct not more than 25 residential
units at the site. A variance is required because the building
is in a B-3 district where the proposed use is prohibited without
a variance.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence
presented at the public hearing and after viewing the property
• makes the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question is�'in a B-3 district and
therefore may be used as a matter of right for a
variety of commercial purposes which are not in
harmony with the Salem Master Plan.
2. The manner in which this property is developed is
of special signifiance to the City because of its
location in the center of the City and its proximity
to the Chestnut Street area.
3. The proposed use of the property for residential units
is strongly supported by the City Planning Department
as well as many residents.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence
presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes
as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its
peculiar configuration, its location and because of
the fact that it is a vacant parcel.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the
• land in question but do not generally affect the
zoning district in which the land is located.
_ 2 _
RFC
3. The conditions described above which affect the land .
• .81 AUG,%t gpjs16on, but not the zoning district generally
use special hardship because if the requested
variance is not granted, the property will be developed
CITY CUBA °•aQm�6Eer which is inconsistent with the City of
SAS rMaster Plan thus causing financial hardship
to the City and the Petitioner.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substan-
tial detriment. to the public good because the proposed
development would enhance the appearance of the area v
and provide much needed housing.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in
favor of granting the requested relief; the Board grants a vari-
ance to the Petitioner on the following terms and conditions:
1. The property may not be used for any commerical purposes.
2. No more than 25 residential units may be constructed .
on the site.
3. No less than 1 1/4 parking spaces per residential unit
actually constructed shall be maintained on the site.
4. This variance is .further conditioned upon and subject
• to final approval of the proposed development plans
by the Salem Redevelopment Authority and the Design
Review Board, The terms and conditions, if any, of
.that final approval by the Salem Redevelopment Authority,
are incorporated and made part of this variance. ,
-Anthony ML F eher y-
-""Secretary
Y7L ' i N. n_ ... r _ .,r TO
i
. A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AND THE
PLANNING BOARD.
�p "Tifg of 6:,alezn,
pp
Pvarb of Appeal .9 81 FEB 26 112 =02
FEBRUARY 18, 1981
CITY C, cp C"rFIGE
SAl E
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF O'ROURKE BROS. , INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR
73 NORTH STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on February 18, 1981 with the follow-
ing Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, La-
Brecque, Feeherry and Hacker. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters
and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News
on February 4, 1981 and February 11, 1981, in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 73 North
Street to allow him to divide the property which has a total area of in excess
of 53,000 square feet into two lots. A variance is required because after the
proposed division of the property, the existing business located on what will
become Lot A will be on a non-conforming lot because the lot will contain less
• than 40,000 square feet. The property in question is in an Industrial Zoning
District.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings
of fact:
1. The property in question is unique because of its peculiar configura-
tion and location and because of its prior business use which utilized only
a portion of the entire property.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented.
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The proposed division of the petitioner's property is consistent
with the past use of the property and is appropriate because of the unique
location and shape of the property.
2. The. conditions described above especially affect the property in
question but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the property
is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but
not the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship: Unless
• the land in question is divided as proposed in excess of 40,000 sq. ft. of land
which is zoned for industrial use, cannot be utilized by the petitioner.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good because the proposed division of the property is consistent
with the prior use of the property and is in no way injurious to the surrounding
area.
orel C� # of �xl�ztt, czE##�
,0-0
3` Puarb 1f A
.r p}settl
PAGE TWO - DECISION - FEBRUARY 18, 1981 - 73 NORTH STREET
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously votes in favor of
granting the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the petitioner
on the following terms and conditions:
1. The property may be divided into two lots, Lot A containing 10,789
square feet and Lot B containing 43,351 square feet, as shown on the plan pre-
sented to the Board.
2. This variance is conditioned upon the approval of the petitioner's
plan by any other minicipal board whose approval may be required for the
proposed division of the property in question.
L�
Anthony M. eherry, Secretary 4"
APPEAL FRO! THIS DEMSIO !, IF ANY. SH:1LL EE iCADE PURSUANT TO SECTIO:: 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAMS, CHAI'i ER 333, APID SHALL GE FLED N!THIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING -
OF THIS DECIS!ON IN TSE OFF!Cc OF 1!lE Clif CLEP.Y. - -
P URS dR S''.2, 11. THE J;.-,. NCE OR CF:CIAL PE?MIT - - -
GP.ANiED Ht4EM, SF711I _ _. - .I:T!L P ;',P'f r.F 'L._ _.;i..: �dE CEdT-
flCATIOi'7 Of THE C1:7 '.'LER;. ;..AA:) A=PEAL HAS 'E=N FILED.
OR THAT, IF S!h:H A2; UPEAL HAS B,-i1! F:'_E..TEA, IT 1145 REE;! OIS`t!SSED GR GE'rIIED IS
RECORDED 1?I THE SOJTP, ESSEX Rv!iT^,'i GF LE:uS AND 6.'=:.EU iJi:UER THE NA'
dE OF THE O':iNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND MED ON THE O:JNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. -
BOARD OF APPEAL -
A COPY OF THIS DECISION, AND PLANS REFERRED TO HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
CITY CLERK.
•
t
�kt tgitu of Salem, Anasar4metts
s� �aurb of P R�C�1�'E �
JUNE 10, 1981 181 JUN 17 A10 :07
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM F1 ;SS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD A. AND TINA TUCKER
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 169 NORTH STREET .
A hearing on this petition was held on June 10, 1981, with the following .
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Feeherry, Hacker
and Associate Member Lusinski. Notices of the hearing were properly published
in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A. Notices were also sent to abutters.
The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to conduct a home occupation
within the two-car garage at 109 North Street. Specifically, the Petitioners
propose to use the property to make small machine parts. The property is in
an R-2 district. . The Special Permit which has been requested may therefore be
granted upon a finding by the Board of Appeals, that the proposed use is in
harmony with the Zoning Ordinance and that the grant of the Special Permit will
promote the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed use of the property will involve only the garage at the
property, will result in no alterations to the property, and will have no effect
on traffic or noise in the neighborhood.
2. The proposed use will not be a permanent one.
3. The proposed use was not opposed by any neighbors.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concluded unanimously that the
proposed use will promote the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the
City`s inhabitants and that the proposed use is in harmony with the Zoning
Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board voted in favor of granting the requested
Special Permit to the Petitioners.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
1. The garage at the property may be used for the manufacture of small
machine parts for a period not to exceed two 'years from the date of this
decision.
2. The property may be used for the manufacture of small machine parts
�` six days a week (Monday-Saturday) 8 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
RFCFI
DECISION —,JUNE 10, 1981 - DONALD A. & TINA TURNER - PAGE TWI6J ;JUJU 17 A10 :07
CITY CLERKVS OFFICE
3. There will be no structural alterations of the pro �T27/ in
connection with this use of the property.
4. This use of the premises will involve no employees other than the
Petitioners.
5. The use of the premises shall be in accordance with any directions
of the Salem Fire Marshall.
6. There will be no signs erected at the property.
/Anthony M. Fee erry�
APPEAL FRO1 THIS DECt°iD'J. {F At(. SHALL G "' ^` P RSUA".T 70 SEC'!0'1 17 OF THE 61A83.
6E'TE?A! IrAS. C4!.7TL° F.OS, F.i:L` SH LL @E J D r:141H 2O
DAYS 6f.,?. iH'c DATE OF FlLlilb
1. Til= 6'TY CL° -K'91. F trrc 4� . cac -n!11T
n nr :d 3 r
P !ft{•
- rlrr f!t[ rJ ESC, f� i L r �tl
6ri.'.:11:D MUM, Srr 1: c Er rf r ILA L A.i . L h Ei n
GF iHf. C'T' [LER'.
�Hn. J J'i5 rl L_ 1 DIV r Cj Cc71iD {5
OR III AT. IF St"CH As A.o761L 0Z S:r i
RECOR!SED lH DIE SCUiH ESSEX i:EOl"r`!:'i CF c:-G> .
tb j":ULy.LD tit. _: Tr E rAt:.: GF 1N: G59PhR
OF RECORD OR IS P.ECORDED AND tiOTED ON WE OWNLRS CERTWCATt u'r TiiiE.
BOARD. OF APPAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
curb al CAFFeA
p�
DECISION ON THE PETM,ON1`QM�tp:'&JiIAIELD CORP. P.EQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 181 NORTH STREET.
CITY iiFFICE
A hearing on this Petition was held on March 11, 1981 with the following Board
Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Lusinski, Hacker and
Feeherry. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and a notice of
the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on February 25, and March 4, 1981
in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested variances for the property at 181 North Street, an
abandoned school building, to convert the property into 25 condominium units. Variances
are needed for use of the property as a multi-unit dwelling, and from density require-
ments for lot area per dwelling and building height. The building is in an R-2 District.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the. public
.hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question is a former school which is no longer in use.
2. The property is currently a blight on the surrounding area and a target
for vandals.
• 3. The proposed use of the property is strongly supported by neighbors and
the Planning Department.
4. The proposed plans for developing the parcel will provide much needed
residential housing and will improve the appearance of the entire area
without adversely affecting the area with a substantial increase in
traffic or parking problems.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of the configuration of the
lot and because of ledge which is, located on the site. In addition, the
.property is unique because of the existing structure on the site which
cannot be converted to any use other than multi-unit housing.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land and structure
in question but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the
land and building is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but
not the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship:
Unless the requested variances are granted, the property will deteriorate
and the petitioner will suffer substantial financial injury.
• 4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good because the proposed use of the property will improve the
surrounding area.
6
Otu of
'81 MAR 16 P 2 :31
DECISION - CROWINSHIELD CORP. - PAGE TWO
CITY `� i FFICE
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the petitioner on the follow-
ing terms and conditions:
1. The petitioner may convert the property to no more than 25 condominium
units, none of which will be larger than two bedrooms.
2. The petitioner will maintain no less than 39 parking spaces at the site.
3. The petitioner is granted a variance from density requirements for height _
restrictions and lot area per dwelling unit.
4. This variance is subject to and conditioned upon approval by the Salem
Design Review Board for the plans for proposed use of the property. In connection
with that Board's review of the proposed use of the property, this Board strongly
• recos-ends consideration of the following items which were identified as concerns
of the neighbors:
a. the construction of an appropriately designed fence
at the site
b. landscaping
C. refuse collection
GRANTED. WITH CONDITIONS
Anthony M. Feeherry, Secretar3�7 :7
APPEAL.FROIJ THIS D° 61 - = AN SiiP LL a 1Jc P.;TS 'ITT, SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
CEIlEP.AL LAvr S. CY. 'o A J a i,c t
OF 7A5 DLCIS.v".i yCA'i5 i,:TE3 TH,E CAiE OF FILPIG -
! ....n
G°A::T D Nc �. ..PURSA'.NIT f3
TSE �:. �{ 'PMAE PERMIT - -
FICATIOII OF SHE Clu- - -
OR THAT. IF SO:if Fi i . . ' ,•:'.'.AI. 4AS 6EZ-N FILED, -
RECORDED Its THE SJ ii E
SSEX Rt u!nr r' THEF7 ITh u-:1�CD IS
OF RECORD.'CR I$ RECORDED AND NOTED ON Til. 0\Li.R'S CERTIFIdt•E OF TITLE.n.fc OF THE D'NtiEP.
90ARD OF APP&U-
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY
• CLERK.
Qjjt
r = R
ourh ofp YaI
JANUARY 2MI 1cfH —2 A9 :49
CI
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATAGOULA AN YbUN4 017NER AND�7AMES CASHMluT
d/b/a BEWITCHING CERAMIC SUPPLIES, INC. , PETITIONER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR
190 NORTH STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on January 21, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Feeherry and Hacker
and Associate Member Luzinski. Notice, of the hearing was provided to abutters
and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News
on January 7, 1981 and January 14, 1981 in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 190 North Street
to use the premises for the purpose of selling ceramic supplies and conducting
classes in ceramics. A variance is required because the building" is in an
• R-2 district where the proposed use is prohibited without a variance.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of
fact:
(1) The premises had previously been used for the manufacture of coffee
during the period 1936-1973.
(2) The premises in its present condition is functional only for commercial
use.
(3) The proposed use will create little or no noise or traffic and will
not be .offensive in any way to the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
(1) The property in question, because of the structure on the property can
only be used as a commercial property.
(2) The condition described above especially affects the property in question
but does not generally affect the zoning district in which the 'property is located.
(3) The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but
• not the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship: unless
the property is used for a commercial use it cannot be utilized at all.
(4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good because the proposed use will create little or no noise and little
or no traffic and will not be offensive to the neighborhood.
n
of �Em, � scuP##s
L
'JF�
f curb of �Fpul
DECISION - 190 NORTH STREET - PAGE TWO
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board grants a variance ce to the petitioner on the follow-
ing terms and conditions:
(1) The property in question may be used for the sale and manufacture of
ceramics.
(2) The property may also be used to conduct classes in ceramics.
(3) Classes in ceramics shall be limited to a maximum of eighteen students.
(4) The hours of operation for the sale and manufacture of ceramics shall be
limited as follows: 9:30 a.m, to 4 p.m. on weekdays ; 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on
Saturdays; closed on Sunday.
(5) Ceramic classes may be conducted a maximum of three weekdays 6 p.m. to
9: 30 p.m.
(6) A floor plan for the use of this property must be submitted for approval
. by the Building Inspector.
(7) The Fire Marshal must also approve the proposed use of this property
and the location of kilns, etc.
Anthony M/-Feeherry, SecreEary
AP?EF.L C" 745A`!Y. SHALL BE M.ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
6E:i_2... L-.::<.. _:_P.? E":3. :.ri� 20 DAYS -U ER Tn DATE OFF FILING
._ ..Ci it C. r - .;MT-
IR
.:F THE OiViiER
OF :ED ON Td:. Vil F.ER'S LE?IiFiCATE OF TITLE. -
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
=f Coif of �9,alem, fflttssac4uutts
r Paarh of &Appeal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF J. NORMAN AND M. NORMA PANALL '81 JUN -1 P9 :55
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 5 NURSERY STREET
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEi•1 h.SS
A hearing on this petition was held on May 27, 1981 with the
following Board Members present: Mr. .Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. LaBrecque,
Feeherry, Piemonte and Hacker. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to convert
the property at 5 Nursery Street to a three-family dwelling by adding a studio
apartment to the third floor of the existing structure. The property is in
an R-2 district. The Special Permit which has been requested may therefore
be granted upon a finding by the Board of Appeals, that the grant of the Special
Permit will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's
inhabitants.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented
at the hearing,- and after viewing the property, makes the following findings
• of fact:
1. The construction of a studio apartment at this location
was started in 1979 and is 80% completed. However, the construction company which
did this work failed to apply for a building permit. These circumstances have
caused a financial hardship for the Petitioners.
2. The proposed use of the property is unopposed by the neighbors.
3. There is adequate parking .at this site for a third dwelling
unit.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence
presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals unanimously concluded that .
the proposed use will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the
City's inhabitants and that the proposed use is in harmony with the Zoning
Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board voted in favor of granting a Special Permit
to the Petitioners.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the ,
following terms and conditions:
1. The Petitioners may convert the existing structure at this
property into a three-family dwelling by the addition of a studio apartment
on the third floor.
2. All work shall comply with applicable fire codes.
3. The Petitioners shall apply for a building permit to complete
this work.
RFCF(V+=^
. DECISION - J. NORMAN AND M. NORMA PANALL
PAGE Two 281 JUN —1 P9 :55
4. In the event that the Petitioners sell t1WVr6fertY3WFICE
question it shall revert back to a two-family dwelling, providec54&'eveYq"
that any new purchaser of the property may apply to this Board for a similar
Special Permit.
i
� f
DATED: May 29, 1981
/Anthony M. Fee 'er , Secre ary
__,Ai rd _...JI! '7 U ii,: '1,A'1% -
-
OF Tri. -
FJ .,. 1J, T; ` _. _. 1
0", CF _f0i t3clTz
_.+ '1v .+. ,_ f v ^ :'.i'J .' �:-.M1L I•+�a �. -i1 Ilia,
OR 1I.T. IF i u .... ➢.+i �. H' F '_ ''i L- .T {. S 2-L:+ r -0 1-3
U�0:i AILD Ir E'1X J TME OVllKa _
OF !?EGO•"w^ 01.IS R_—.CRDED AKD r0liD OR DE OI'1t7EXS URrlr!rA11 OF TULL
BOAIP OF APPEU
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLE]
•
% ctu of FTIPItt� ! �ISnFIC 1TR� `�I V i li
'81 NOV 23 A10 :46
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHERINE L. PHOTOS, OWNER �� EUST gyp p� PETITIONER
REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR 20 OAKLAND STREET $QL"} t; =;j
A hearing on this Petition was held on November 18, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Mr. Joseph Piemonte, Acting Chairman, Messrs_ Hacker
and Feeherry, and Associate Member Lusinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem
Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner requests a variety of variances to construct a two-family
dwelling on a vacant lot at 20 Oakland Street. Variances are required because
the property in question is in a R-1 district where the proposed use is prohobited.
In addition, the lot is only 4,511 square feet and is therefore undersized.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed use of this property was opposed by many abutters because
of concerns about traffic problems which will be exacerbated by development of this cor
• lot. In addition, abutters opposed development of this undersized lot because of
parking concerns.
2. The property in question has problems with ledge, thus, concerns were raised ab
blasting in this densely populated area.
3. The Planning Board also strongly opposed the Petitioner's request. .
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and other evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
— A. The Petitioner failed to establish cficumstances relating to the land
.in question which affect that property but do not generally affect the zoning
district in which.the property is located.
B. The Petitioner failed to establish that a literal enforcement of
,the provisionsofthe Salem Zoning Ordinance as applied to the property would involve
substantial hardship to the Petitioner.
C. The Petitioner failed to establish.that the requested variance could be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying
;, or substantially derogating from the intent and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.
Indeed, the facts established, to the contrary, that the development of this
lot as a two-family in an R-1 zone would be contrary to the intent of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore,. the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in.opposition tothegrant
of the requested relief. The Board denied a v nce to the Petits ers.
Af�dhony M. Feeher4y, secretary
.A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN -FILED' WITH THE PLANNING BOARD A CITY CLERK
_ - APPEAL FRO':! TWS CECiS103, IF AV. SHLL C'_ '.SDE P'U7SIM71T TJ SECT!'0%1 17 OF WZ_ MASS.
• GEiEVAL LS4S C'_PiEr ow". itilrJ_ .. _ e ,. :
D_C.3C. E OF FILING _
CF THIS %,N int r.!4 C.S'G C+r! C._..:,.
P'::S:1;T T, w.v-. ct-1 ':{!. IA.:S. . .."^i "` ..: 31. t..,.
FICAT,�:! ... T.t_ C!,Y CLERK 1.. I G' - - - .• . .• ••
OP. 7riAi, IF S!i!;Y. A71 I.PPe.".L ,CS t..�•. i, !... :i Cl -oma IS r -.
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ME;( C.z OEEVS :?l0 uaOER THE ri&n:E OF THE (WINER - -
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND N07ED CN THE UYiNEn S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
..r'S<76xi' 5xt'*4?Jrs r�
'}, •r -r t ion
S� �..COY4pA.
" @tits of 'Salem, Ans-sar zset S
potcrb of cAppWI-81 AUG -6 P3 :41
CITY CL=R'K'S OFFICE
- ggpp'' .-e,�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STUART COMER FOR A SPECIAL PERPIIT OR 3 OCEAN TERRACE
A hearing on this Petition was held on July 29, 1981 with- the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker and Feeherry
and Associate Members Lusinski and Martineau. Notice of the hearing was sent
to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in
the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to divide the existing
four unit apartment building at the site into three units by combining the two
present units on the third floor into one dwelling unit.
The property is within an R-1 district; however, the property has for
many years been used as a four-family dwelling.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this
+ request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this
Ordinance, the Board of Appeals: may, in accordance with the
procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D,
grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non-
conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension of
expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or
expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood,
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter, makes
the following findings of fact:
1. Petitioner has made substantial capital improvements in this property
during ,his period of ownership.
2. Petitioner's proposed reduction in the total number of units at the
site will have a beneficial effect on the area by reducing traffic and by improving
parking problems.
3. Petitioner's proposed use of the property is not opposed by any neighbors_
RECcI
DECISION - STUART COMER - PAGE TWO '81 AUG'-6 P3 :41
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence 54 nCedf'
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals finds (i) that the proposed use
of the property will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
use to the neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed use of the property will promote
the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City's inhabitants,
and (iii) that the proposed use of the property is in harmony with the Salem
Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board unanimously approves the granting
of a Special Permit to the Petitioner.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
1. The building may be converted into a three—unit dwelling by remodeling
the third floor of the building in accordance with plans to be approved by
the Building Inspector.
2. The existing parking area at the site shall be maintained.
3. This Special Permit is conditioned upon the Petitioner's continued
ownership and occupancy of this building.
Anthony M. FeeTry
APPEAL.FP,CS: TH!S r-IMIOR, IF ANY, S!!ALL BE MADE RMSOANT TO SECTION a OF T:IE P.iASS. -
MK'..'.L Lk:: . f:;_-.._. . 3, A'iJ S�!'' E F!:EO ','flTNli! '[S C:iiS A:i .'. TS. C!.
.. ,.. .., .... ,
. EGF FILMI
Ciil Cl_.....
? !i . L7'::. .,:5 a)S SEai-H 11. TF.E V' r 02 :P_"i'1L PERMIT
L':T:L n' P?Y UF - ❑Ai...,. .2 t'M.
F Uj!i,i''. IF f (..C.� lr.. : Cl t _ ,f.,,___ V.
S .. :'. c!'.O. -
GR WW ' Z IS
E
OF k Gi::. U iS �. t... 0 UIN"'R S eE:2i t:1:AiC GF ?iTLE. .
DGARG OF A TEAL -
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLEM
4
z 4-
yy co nrr�by C t._.
A
Q1t# of �xlem, ttsstt> sQ##s
'81 DEC 22
111W&rb of �FyerzC
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM11
DECISION ON THE ,PETITION OF ARTHUR J. JANNELL FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT THE
PROPERTY AT-20-22 ORNE STREET TO TWO CONDOMINIUM UNITS
A hearing on this Petition was held on December 16, 1981, with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker, Piemonte,
LaBrecque and Feeherry. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General.Laws Chapter 40A.
This proposed condominium conversion is covered by the terms of the City of
Salem's condominium conversion ordinance. The Special Permit that has been requested
may therefore be granted only upon a finding by the Board of Appeals that (1) the grant
of the Special Permit will not adversely impact upon the city's existing stock of
rental units for low and moderate income families and elderly people on fixed
incomes, (2) that the grant of the Special Permit is not contrary to the City's Master
Plan, and (3) the grant of the Special Permit will not have an adverse effect on the
neighborhood.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence at the hearing, and after
_ •, viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question is particularly well suited for conversion into
two. condominium units.
2. The proposed conversion of this property to two - condominium units in no way
conflicts with the Master Plan of the City of Salem.
3. The proposed conversion of this property. into two condominium units was not
opposed by abutters or neighbors.
4. The property is vacant of residential tenants. Thus, no hardship is
caused by the proposed condominium conversion to any residential tenants.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals by a unanimous vote concluded that the proposed
condominium conversion is in harmony with the condominium conversion ordinance of the
City of Salem. Accordingly, the Board voted in favor of granting the requested
Special Permit in accordance with the following terms and conditions:
1. The conversion shall be in accordance with the plans submitted to this
Board.
2.. Four parking spaces shall be provided at the site.
i
3. Because the building was vacant of residential tenants at the time this petition
•
was filed, the Petitioner will not be required to allow six months to elapse before com- '
mencing work in furtherance of the condominium conversion. The Petitioner may commence
such work 20 days after the date of the filing of th �deci ion.
Anthony M. F herry, Secr tart' OVEF
;':A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED"WITH THE PLA -N
.1G BOARD AND CITY CLERK
BCARD 0: �i?E'V
(gitg ofREos
�alem, ttscusett
PuttrD of Apprttl
APRIL 22, 1981 '81 APR 29 A11 :25
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MR. AND MRS. KENNETH NADEAU REQUESTING CITY CL:Jzk,5 pc
A VARIANCE FOR 20 PERKINS STREET SAL�p� ,,!,0FF JCE
A hearing on this Petition was held on April 22, 1981 with the following Board
Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrecque and Feeherry.
Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing
was properly published twice in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a variance for the property at 20 Perkins Street
to construct a shed approximately 12 feet by 10 feet adjacent to the rear property line
and 12 inches from the side property line. A variance is required because the property
is in an R-3 district and the proposed construction violates rear and side yard restric-
tions.
The Board of Appeals,. after consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed shed will improve the appearance of the Petitioner's yard.
On the basis of the above finding of fact, and the evidence presented at the public _
hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its small size and peculiar config-
uration. Both of these factors make it impossible to construct a shed in any other
location.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the property in question but do
not generally affect the zoning district in which the property is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not the
zoning district generally cause the following special hardship: .unless the variance
is granted, the Petitioners will be unable to store their personal property at the
property.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously votes in favor of granting the request-
ed relief. The Board grants a variance to the Petitioners on the following terms and
conditions:
1. Variances are granted from rear and side yard set back requirements to allow
APPEAL r�e Yaniatac...ti,.o.n... o. Z_.,.., Lh.e�- ,x..cIed`!P4.e
4_.iO17 GF THE @.ASS.
GENERAL LA.VS, ONUF-11 C d. A:10 Sii LL D_ i'.L51E1 V..i Sia a LA)S AFTER IHE DATE OF FILING
D C!2QP,' IThe P�ti.-tian0fsC!muSt obtain a building permit from the Building Inspector. -
1i TO %c SS C .: 3 7c. 1 11 THE V% A!1C OR SPECIAL PERn11T
§N,IS
Ec t 3S `IM6 shed iRayl b" Lut;ed fir the sCofag�`dfC �i'morj77an one motorcycle.
RCAY;r,N OF TP -Y L 1 - ., _7 YS .i r D A J A '.L h 0.1N FIL /
OR THAT. IF SU.'04 Ri APPEAL o C _y E T!iATI I, HAS u N D-S I.aE'` CR C- VED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOJIM ESSEX CC_ TF, OF GEuS &1D INDEXED UDER iHc NA!tE OF T OV1jYE,R�fI _ %OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED A,1O NOTED ON THE OVINER'S CERTIFIC,liE OF
Anthony M. Feeh rry, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS0BMMFBff= WITH THE PLANkING BOARD AND LTY CLERK.
V+M`
r, ct if �tlsm, �c ;z�cclzse#
•'3., <?'
181 DEC 22 A10 :21pourb of Appen,
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEii 13 FSO,,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN HAMILTON, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR 36-38
P.MKINS STREET .
A hearing on this Petition was held on December 16, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Jr., Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrecque and
Feeherry. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and notices
of the hearing were published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested variances for the property at 36-38 Perkins
Street to divide the property into two separate parcels. Variances are required
because the proposed division of the property will result in the creation of .two
non-conforming lots. The property in question is in an R-3 zone.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. Presently there are two four unit dwellings on one lot at this site.
• 2. Petitioner has made a substantial investment in this property under the
terms of a UDAG grant.
3. The proposed division of the property will facilitate the sale of 8 condominium
units to low and moderate income families.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1) The property in question is currently.non-conforming and is unique as the
site of two separate four unit dwellings.
2) The conditions described above especially affect the land in question but do
not generally affect the zoning district in which the property is located.
3) The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not
the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship: unless the
requested variances are granted it will be more difficult to market these condominivas
to low and moderate income families.
4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted (4-0) in favor of grantL^.g
the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the petitioner on the following taria
and conditions:
e
RFCrr\rt i
'81 DEC 22 A10 :20
DECISION - JOHN HAMILTON,' TRUSTEE - 36-38 PARKINS STREET
DECEMBER 16, 1981 CITY C�Er!"� c OFFICE
EM
Cz
Page 2 SALLi'i MAS
1) Petitioner may divide the property into two lots in accordance with the
plan submitted to the Board.
2) All variances needed to divide the property, including variances- from minimum area
minimum width, front, side and rear yard restrictions are hereby granted.
Anthony M. Fee eriy, Se retary
V rt ME n1ASS.
FiLMG
VIS
GF
1 d0.
diE C
CR 'c� u t :Jin_..S rriCA .. GFi1TLE-
RC 1 U ii! T r +
OF P 3D GR IS
R •` .. _ - .
60AP.D 0: APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
Potzrb of Appeal �/
'81 FEB 26 P12 :02
3 2'
FEBRUARY 18, 1981
CITY C' nFFirF
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLAYTON W. SMITH REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR LOTS B,
C, D AND E, PIRECE ROAD.
A hearing on this Petition was held on February 18, 1981, with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Hacker. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and
a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on February 4, 1981,
and February 11, 1981, in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance from frontage requirements for the
property designated as Lots B, C, D .and E, Pierce Road. A variance is required
because the property, which is in an R-1 district, does not have 100 feet of
frontage on an improved road. The proposed use of the property for a single family
residence is thus prohibited without a variance.
• The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. This property was the subject of a prior variance granted by this Board.
2. The petitioner's proposed use of this property is consistent with the
surrounding neighborhood.
3. The property in question is unique because of its size and because of its
location between two improved roads.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
(1) The unique size, configuration and location of the Petitioner' s lot
renders it valuless without the grant of the requested variance.
(2) The conditions described above especially affect the land in question
but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land is
located.
(3) The. conditions described above which affect the land in question, but
not the zoning district generally, cause a special.hardship. to the
Petitioner because his land has no financial value without the requested
variance.
(4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good because the Petitioner's proposed use of. the property is
consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
f
T �\ (ITttu of ��Ulent, �t5�2tC�TSP���
; C`l Paara of Aypeal
AFc
PACE TWO -DECISION - FEBRUARY 18, 1981 - LOTS B, C, D, AND E PIRECE ROAD
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously votes in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the petitioner on the follow-
ing terms and conditions:
(1) All of the conditions stated in a prior variance granted by this Board
for the property in question shall remain in full force except that
in place of the driveway previously required by this Board; the Petitioner
will now be required to construct a portion of road from the present end
point of Pierce Road to the beginning of the Petitioner's property on
Pierce Road. This road shall be constructed in accordance with specifica-
tions provided by the City Engineers.
(2) The Petitioner shall be required to obtain the approval of all other City
Boards prior to any construction at the site.
(3) The portion of road to be constructed by the Petitioner shall be maintained
• by him or by any subsequent owner of the property in question.
(4) The portion of road to be constructed by the Petitioner shall remain open
to the public.
Anthony M. OPeeherry, Secret
APPEAL FROPd THIS DEC!SIOh7, IF .."N't. SHALL 6E NADE PURSUANT TO SECTIO{ 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL I.A'NS. CHAPTER :S"'3. A.:.D S'iA'L EE FiLEu 17! H j 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING -OF THIS DECISION I:'! 10: Or-iL"c OF THE CITY CLERK. -
PURSANi TO -.So - -iCit �', -. S__ ':l, THE J-'!AYO= 0? SPECIAL P°R`AIT . .
CRAN1=7 ❑C;ZE c L ,:. '. _ r-; fj .78E GIRT• -
FICAT!7N OF ...f.a., -. LAP...) -J •._ A,>PFAL HAS c'EEN FILM.
OR THAT,,IF SU"H AN APPEAL F L'S7:i 1, -.r .,
.:! !: .�� _'tl B�S-IjSSED OR -iHED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX P`"iS"ii?'Y C= GEEvS A:'iD 1P'CEXED J[IDER THE PLA!,,E OF THE OVINER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O'NNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. -
BOARD OF APPEAL -
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION, AND PLANSREFERREDTO HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD
AND CITY CLERK.
{
�—d— Qlztu of �atem, AJlassar:huutts
varb of Appeal
JANUARY 21, 1981
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SOUTH RIVER UDAG, FOR A
SPECIAL PER`IIT FOR 34 PRINCE STREET
A hearing on this petition was held on January 21, 1981, with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Feeherry and Hacker,
and Associate Member Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and
others,and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem evening News on
January 7, 1981 and January 14, 1981 in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A,
The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to locate a community based
non-profit Community Development Corporation professional office at the existing
building at 34 Prince Street. The existing building is in an R-3 district. The
Special Permit which has been requested may therefore be granted upon a finding
by the Board of Appeals, that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the
health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed use will benefit the entire neighborhood.
• 2. The proposed use was unopposed by abutters.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes unanimously that the proposed
use will promote the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City' s
inhabitants and that the proposed use is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance.
Accordingly, the Board votes unanimously in favor of granting a Special Permit
to the Petitioners.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following terms
and conditions:
.1. The special permit for the location of a non-profit community based
professional office at the site will expire 3 years from the effective
date of this decision.
Anthony M. Feeherey, Secretary
AP.P—L r3=:' ._.. C.;!.. TJ 37 rF THE -
v
OF `.Ce v' 1 - )DLJ X-)
BOARD Or APPEAL -
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
ry ,M..00eOn,��
a
Ctv of Salem, assachusetts RECEI�' `
punii of MW 081 OCT -7 P3 :06
J </
�elylliH TP/wl�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT DIONNE
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 4 R SOUTH PINE STREET CITY.CLERKVS OFFICE
SALEM MASS-
A hearing on this petition was held on September 23, 1981, with the
following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs.
Piemonte, LaBrecque, and Hacker and Associate Member Lusinski. Notice
of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing
were published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special.Permit to construct a 12' x 24'
above ground swimming pool at 4 R South Pine Street. The pool as proposed
would be constructed so that certain supports for the pool would be within
3' of the Petitioner's property line. Under the terms of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance, the Petitioner must obtain a Special Permit from this Board
because the proposed pool will be located less than six feet from the
Petitioner's side property line. (Salem Zoning Ordinance, Section 7J).
The Special Permit which has been requested may be granted by this
Board only upon.a finding by the Board, that the grant of the Special
Permit is in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and that
the granting of the Special Permit will promote the health, safety, convenience,
and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeals, after .considering the.evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of
fact:
1. The proposed location for the Petitioner's swimming pool was
opposed by two neighbors who live in close proximity to the proposed
site for the pool and who are concerned about the negative effects (such
as noise) that the pool might have on them.
2. The Petitioner has several alternatives available to him (i.e. ,
a smaller pool and a different location) which would be less detrimental
to his neighbors.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concluded unanimously that the
grant of the requested Special Permit will not promote the health, safety, .
convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and that the proposed
location of the Petitioner's swimming pool is not in harmony with the intent
of the City of Salem's Zoning Ordinance. Accor gly, the Board voted against
granting a. Special 7ermit to, the Petit r
APP`" OF
fP,r 1 Th ^ CIS'vP' -Ir rriY S9ALL�.: ADc PUi$h" IT T7 S :1 }?] t`\ FSlJ IG -
Gc•+ LS ! _^ Ache SpaEial P€Yiiii� rs thi `Pi6 den d.
Tl_;c� r cLeas.
Or li i L �F,l L,C3 .ScUJu"J 11
P Pry-•; ' ' �" hony M. Fe er y, Sec etary
tX,t. eC c ' i ii�c cr 'CT U':TIL A ^>Y OF �" R a 3` fl
T1E.btiy't; r T GI^( C c i' iT 2C C HA!
ry.i e e v Sr J FI.E• irA FI F r ` 1 L :.rGv4
^,uJl^Er i•<.t +' Gr:Fh'EiT)'i(Y64
t '. {K;i APDEP� - u u + .
ReCC'UED t;J iyHc VSC� °Yn.;S1. D`WS.'�F-D 1)D
HE
AU�MR[W 1-11J..3u fitNIONEHASON TBEENNFILED cWITHDftiiE
:i Q91AACLERK AND TRE PLANWING BOARD.
r C/
TM
(9ttU of �5, I�E2tt9 tIfS2�� 8 P3 :41
ra
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE .
SALE"'; `i-S"
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD E. SAVICKEY FOR A .SPECIAL PERMIT
TO CONVERT THE 'EXISTING BUILDING AT 3-5 SPRING STREET INTO
THREE CONDOMINIUM .UNITS
A hearing on, this petition was held on July 29, 1981 with the following
Board Members. present: Mr. Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker, Feeherry,
and Associate Members Lusinski and Martineau. Notice of the hearing was sent
to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in
the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to convert the existing
three-family dwelling at this property to a three-unit condominium.
This proposed condominium conversion is coverdd by the terms of the
City of Salem's condominium conversion ordinance. The Special Permit that has
been requested may therefore be granted only upon a finding by the Board of
Appeals that (1) the grant of the Special Permit will not adversely impact upon
the City's existing stock of rental units for low and moderate income families.
and elderly people on fixed incomes, (2) that the grant of this Special Permit
is not contrary to the City's Master Plan; (3) that the grant of the Special
Permit will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence at the hearing,
and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1) No structural alterations of the property are proposed.
2) The proposed conversion of this property to condominiums in no
way conflicts with the Master Plan of the City of Salem.
3) The conversion of the property to condominiums will have negligible-
impact on the existing stock of rental units in the City of Salem for the elderly
and for families of low and moderate income.
4) The proposed conversion of the property to condominiums is supported
by the existing tenants.
On the basis of the above finding of fact-and -on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concluded by a 4-1 vote (Mr. Lusinski
voted present) that the proposed condominium conversion is in harmony with
the condominium conversion ordinance of the City of Salem. Accordingly, the
Board voted in favor of granting the requested Special Permit with one condition:
existing parking at the site shall be maintained.
RFCEIVFD,
'81 AUG -6 P3 :41
DECISION - RICHARD E. SAVICKEY - PAGE TWO
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM J. ASS
Because of the building being currently occupied, the Petitioner
will be required to allow six months to elapse before commencing any
work in furtherance of. the condominium conversion.
thony M. Fee ry, Se etary
AMAL FFC'-! . f, r. . .a OC ..,E. F 7"'... -: TO S.' :i U 0,F P-T 'IHSS.
CF.. L�: r.'.. O :c 0: F.Liilu
Cr T:il:i ..�..... ... 7P.0 C-iiCE OF CITY CLUX.
r 'CT L A CC irE CEiil- .
F r ,... _.. r r. i �a _ c. -:6 -.� _°+i f:!ED, :
G.^. !h'�r7 L .._.... ... ,r. _ ._ ., .. .. 't:_ �..._ i_ is IS
.t J �..+ AiL i 'D_._J ur THE C'ily„j
OF RECORD CR IS R.,URDLD ARM NOTED OI! WE 04HER'S-CERTIFICATE OF TITLE _
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLF
n .
r,
„ •�-,
r Patxrh of Ap�rettl RECE, ;
JUNE 10, 1981 '81 JUN117 A10 :07
CITY CLP 'S OFFICE
SALEM n,,SS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY JENNINGS
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 7 SUMMIT AVENUE
A hearing on this Petition was held on June 10, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Feeherry and Hacker and
Associate Member Lusinski. Notices of the hearing were sent to 'abutters and others
and notices were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance to add a gas meter and an electric
meter "to adequately define three dwelling units" at the site. A variance is
required because the property is in an R-1 district where the use of the property
• as a three-family dwelling is prohibited without a variance.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
The property in question is not a legal three-family dwelling. The evidence
presented to the Board, including several city directories and the testimony of
numerous neighbors who have lived in the area between twenty and forty years,
established that the non-conforming use of. this property is limited to its use as
a two-family dwelling.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and other evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
A. The Petitioner failed to establish circumstances relating to the land
or structure which affect the property .in question but not the zoning district in
which the property is located.
B. The Petitioner failed to establish that a-literal enforcement of the
provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance as applied to the property would involve
substantial hardship to the Petitioner.
C. The Petitioner failed to establish that the requested. variance could'
be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying
or substantially derogating from the intent and purposes of the Salem Ordinance.
r
RE0(FIV!, _)
• DECISION - JUNE 10, 1981 - MARY JENNINGS - PAGE WTO
'at JUN 17 ato :07
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in opposition
to the granting the requested relief. This Board denies the requested variance .
to the Petitioner.
Anthony M. Fe berry
APPEAL FR71 THIS C:CI I ! 1' jIYS °H`L``C' }�'D, PhPi�a SAY'S AFTTO 'ION R.ME O,%IE OF MASS
Ct T !IS L 4 .I. !: he Ct 'C r FI . -!TV CLERK.
Pad.4.JT TO i...'..o. t - R;, I,..:S, Go-., iES 55-. `--mit-;1 Ll PI v_ �9 n. n�g!AL F.M.AT
tr T o'' :L A COPY ::� � - .
.L -u r
FICAII'3N
OF lh .'.;t C F� T ,t It .h: l IS
OR THAT. IF SJ Ff P - H%S , _
RECORDED IN' WE SOJTH E35E;; t L-111-1
Cr J c S A D ; �� J ..:.1:... .h A,'.',E CF THE DIMMER
OF RECCRD OR IS RECORDED AND NuED OMT 0,11N U.-S CERTIr WEI OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING OBARD AND THE CITY CLERK
ofttlPm, �xs �zcu�e v Y
' n 2gR2Irb D'E c }I�IPcTI . -2 A�� 27
�llI1RR�%
June 24, 1981 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE .
SALEM
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERTSON-CORINTHIAN LTD. , INC.
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 24 TURNER STREET
I 1.
A hearing on this Petition was held on June 24, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Hacker, LaBrecque,
and Feeherry. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a variance for the property at 24 Turner
Street to use the property as a parking lot. ' A variance is required because the
property is in an R-2 district where the proposed use is prohibited without a
variance.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1) This property has by virtue. of a prior decision of this Board, in effect been
made into a parking area; the property is thus unique.
2) There is a need in this area for off-street parking.
3) The proposed use of this property will reduce traffic congestion in the
area and will benefit the neighborhood.
On. the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1) This property is unique because of prior restrictions placed on
the property by this Board. As a result of those restrictions,
the property cannot be used for any purpose other than a parking lot.
2) The conditions described above especially affect the land in
question but do not generally affect the zoning district in which
the land is located.
3) The conditions described above which affect the land in
question, but not the zoning district generally cause the following
special hardship: unless the requested variance is granted, the
• land cannot be used for any purpose.
DECISION - JUNE 24, 1981 - ROBERTSON-CORINTHIAN LTD., INC. PAGE TWO
4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good.
Therefore, the Board 'of Zoning Appeals. unanimously voted in favor of
granting the requested relief, the Board grants a variance to the Petitioners
on the following terms and conditions:
1) Nothing in this variance will in any way affect the terms of a
prior decision of this Board requiring use of this property at
a parking area for 6 White Street.
2) The property may be used as a parking lot for 13 automobiles
provided that spaces in this lot shall be leased only for periods
of a month or longer.
3) The property cannot be used for the parking of commercial
vehicles or boats.
4) The property cannot be used as a parking area for commercial
. properties in the area.
5) The lot shall be paved prior to its use as a parking lot.
6) Wheel bumpers shall be installed for each space.
7) An 8 ,foot area shall be maintained on the Turner Street property
and a 4 foot buffer zone shall be maintained at the rear property
dine.
8) All other buffer zones shall be maintained as shown on plans
submitted to the Board.
Anthony M �eeherry
APPEAL !'.. _ i:,. _1 �.`1! S �1t 1_ Oy -GE FO ... r f ^,i7 7 OF T}I :BASS.
i FILING
• O .i i �i n, r.c = CII/ Ci
P
C r :`.0 f _ .`•' 'i - ... E C ,I I Ot _ Tn_ oU2T•
- - r. i H'U ,� ':LED.
FIri G T f i - I�.:i -o � .e E-to r
CR i i Ir 1 P4 IPP n- n.a f r T HAS C L �.-J IS
R CMM R'THE S''UlH ESSEX RWS C- .. EE> A 1D I; E 3 - c 4u ,t::c JC THE C'i liER
OF RELM.9 OR IS RECORDED AND SI02D Cr! Ti HE O'Nl:ER'S CERTINCATE Ci 71171 E.
. ]OARD OF-APF`6A
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CT.P.Rk-
Qlitg of ��xlem, assacIpsetts
LI
2 RErr1VEDPaurb of AMA .
'81 JUN 17 A10 :07
JUNE 10, 1981
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALE-M W cc
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LYDIA KING REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 7 WALL STREET .
A hearing on this Petition was held on June 10, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Feeherry and Hacker
and Associate Member Lusinski. Notices of the hearing were sent to :abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at. 7 Wall Street
to convert the property to a two-family dwelling. A variance is required because
• the building is in an R-1 district where the proposed use is prohibited without
a variance. -
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1. The property is easily converted to a two-family dwelling.
2. Conversion of the property is supported by area residents.
3. There are several other two-family dwellings in ;the. area.
4. The conversion of this property to a two-family dwelling will not
adversely affect the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:'
1. The property in question is unique to the area because it is so easily
adaptable to a two-family dwelling.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the property in question
but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the property, is located.
3. ' The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but
• not the zoning district generally cause a special hardship to the Petitioner, who
because of a recent illness in her family needs the income from a second dwelling unit
at this property.
RECEIVED
• DECISION - .TUNE 10, 1981 - LYDIA KING - PAGE TWO
'81 JUN 17 A10 :08
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM % S^
4. The desired variance may be. granted without substantial detriment
to the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of
granting the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the Petitioner on the -
following terms and conditions:
1. The property may be used for a two-family dwelling for five years from
the date of this decision.
2. Any alterations of the property will be in accordance with plans
submitted to the Building Inspector in connection with an application for a building
permit.
3. Petitioner will maintain existing parking at the property.
• 4. Petitioner will comply with all applicable fire codes.
An ny M. Feehe ry \
APPEAL FRO'.4 THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS) -
CENERAL LAGS. CHAPTER '03. AHD SRitiL FE FILED VI;TH!N 20 LATS ASTER THE DATE OF FIUOO -OF 1'I!!S FiE_i;!SlaN UI THE CFiY of T!.E CIA! CLERK.
PiCS'..'iT TO ! _ �:_ �_.. .`. 'i -i 30< c_.GilOii It,
CRi.6FEDr ��. SHALL tSAi EF T tiiL AC3'l'I Cr i:. .._. ._..."; iH GT• _
L' . ii . F:`. Afi' �:� •I�'': .:o�I FA's V.
FIGITIbiI OF THE C!TY CU
OF 2D iit vc..OR IHAT. IF SU,,;j A!I Ai'PEnL I!.':S L + t.;. TH': IT'6+t P ` 9 . e-I! ;+ .
RECORDED VI TEE S:STII ESSEX itE.,STR! Ur JFFD• Ai.D
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND IIGTED ON THE D:MER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE,
BOARD, OF APPP,AI.
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
MARCH 11, 1981 74
situ of ialem, � ss Elusei s Y
�a Pmrb Vf CA"W1
'81 MAR 16 T2 :30
rr � „
DECISION "ON THE PETITION Or STERN TISE SALEM GROUP, INC. RE�jG"9.�fARIAVCE FOR
A PARCEL OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT WASHINGTON STREET, FEDERAL SVI ET AND NORTH WALKWAY. '
c.
A hearing on this Petition was held on March 11, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Mr. Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. LaBrecque, Feeherry, Hacker
and Piemonte. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and a notice
of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on February 25, and March 4,
1981, in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at the above location
. as shown on a plan submitted to the Board to allow construction of no more than 10
residential units up to within 26+ feet of the rear property line and to allow the
two entrances for those units to encroach within 20+ feet of the rear property line.
A variance is required because the building is in a B-5 district where the minimum
rear yard requirement is 30 feet.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
- • public hearing and after viewing the;property makes the following, findings of fact:
1. The Board adopts all of the findings of fact previously made by this Board
in a March 19, 1980 decision relating to this same parcel.
On the basis of-the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique for the reasons stated in this Board's
March 19, 1980 decision.
2. The conditions described above especially. affect the land in question but
do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not
the zoning district generally cause the following special hardships: without the
requested variance, the petitioner will not be able to site their building iri a
manner which is best suited to the surrounding area. This will result in financial
hardship to the petitioner.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good because the proposed use of the propertywill improve the appearance
of the entire neighborhood.
Therefore,- the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief, the Board grants a variance to the petitioners on the following
terms and conditions:
�> �1tg of ` LtZEtit, C �SvSc�C Lt8E 8
� en
nar3 rrf Apott1 Rr L
'Bl HA4 16 P2 *30
DECISION - STERN. TISE - PAGE T140 (March 11, 1981)
CITY CI FRn OFFICE
SA.' 'S
The Board hereby modifies the variance previously granted by the Board of Appeal
on March 19, 1980, to allow the Petitioner to construct 12 residential units and
a commercial office building on the property in question. The variance previously
granted contained the following language "A variance is granted from the 30 .foot
minimum rear yard requirement for no more than 2 of the residential units which
may encroach into the rear yard area to within 16 feet of the rear property line".
That language is stricken and the following language is substituted in its place,
"The variance is granted from the 30 foot minimum rear yard requirement for no more
than ten (10) residential units which may encroach into the rear yard area to within
20+ feet of the rear property line, provided however, that the two 'entrances for
those ten residential units may encroach to within 20+ feet of the rear property
line (i.e. , the northerly property line) ."
•_ Anthony M. Feeherry, Secretary
APPEAL FRDtiI THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL S° NIADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 CF ills HASS.
GEN=P..L LAiIS, CEA.PTER 845. AND SHALL t?E r. U -+ '°'i.""<O DA'fS A;+ER THE DATE OF F;LIfIG
. GF :Its D7U:S:w1 I+ Th- C5:,E Tat
o -
it rd° ?A C� C� to ri . Rs' IT.
N 'h 4t
:,. Fit ED.
i:, APPEAL -
FICATIOh OF 7H`_ F' I'4 wt 1-.J . . CC a OR E'ItcO IS
OR THAT. ff SuGh fn tPP,. ti- - int ' _r,t..R ,H-_ P1A';iE OF
THE OWNER'
REL,.^F:DED 11 THE SJU7H ESS`cX `PU ' 0
pF R.L1laG u IS RECORDED AND Naut) ON T°E OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND TEIE CITY CLERK:
0
MARCH 11, 1981
of 5allem'
z,
RE:! ,
Z Poarb o �ppwl
{ r 1
AlcLipB Vii'
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (OWNER). Aal S7f1FV16IS?2 :30
SALEM: GROUP, INC. (PETITIONER) REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR A PARCEL OF LAND AT
WASHINGTON STREET, BRIDGE STREET AND NORTH WALKWAY. - �.c 0M
CE
C:.=?__ _ E
SA'
A hearing on this Petition was held on March 11, 1981, with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Piemonte. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and
a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on February 25, and
March 4, 1981, in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the parcel of land at Washington
Street, Bridge Street and North Walkway as shown on a plan submitted to the Board,
to allow the petitioner to construct ten condominium units at the site with no side
yard at the southerly side of the parcel. The property is in a B-5 district where
the mini=m side yard requirement is 30 feet without a variance.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The parcel in question is unique because of (a) its odd configuration,
(b) its peculiar location and two intersections and (c) the fact that the
Gi property is a vacant piece of--land in the center of Salem.
2. The proposed use of the property has been approved by the Salem Design
Review Board and the Salem Redevelopment Authority.
3. The proposed development will be an attractive addition to the redevelop-
ment of the center of Salem.
4. The proposed variance is a minimal deviation from the zoning ordinance
but is essential to the development of this parcel.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the.
public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The property in question has both a peculiar location and an odd configura-
tion which makes it unique.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land in question but
do not generally affect the zoning .district in which the land is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not
the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship: unless
the requested variance is granted, this property will not be developed in
a manner which is most appropriate for the City of Salem as is outlined in
the Salem Urban Renewal Plan and the Petitioner will suffer substantial
financial hardship.
4, The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good because the proposed use of the property will provide an attractive
development in a vacant lot in the center of Salem. The proposed use of the
property will thus enhance the appearance of the entire surrounding area. r
�s Gag ofaleztt, sstttuQtts
<3 23r=b of AFFeA
JALfl4'�6 S%
'81 MAR 16 P2 :30
DECISION SRA-STERN TISE PAGE TWO (March 11, 1981)
CITY CI_' OF ICE
SNS-:
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the petitioner on the follow-
ing terms and conditions:
1. A variance is granted from'the side yard restrictions of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance to allow construction on the southerly side of the parcel up to the
property line (i.e. , construction will be allowed to a "zero" side yard) .
GRANTED
y
Anthony M. Feeherry, Secretary_"' `'
• APPEAL FROM THIS 0' ISIOII. IF ANY. SHAT L BE I ADE PURSUANT TO SECTIO.4 A7 OF THE�E1A53.
GENERAL LA-.� " ,Pf£R SJ3 AND SH-11 �E r�LEU .v::� !:: 20 DAYS A�£R THE CATS OF FI'.t2iu '.
OF TiiS C S:O'.I 9:; N° ,C'c ^: Tn'. 17Y CL 2n
... _ - t I -1 1. T4° 1?L Fcl� IT
FU �_!, t "�, r T9u t '. >. TIIE.':EdT•. - -
,^ r.f._ H a. 0 N fILEO.
OR DEWED I$ - -
u
11! NA",
Z OF THE O:YMEIt
!N THE SUUiH ESS0. r.EL"" - ib
CF RBC_' ..o Ca IS R£CORDEO AND h'OTEO ON THE Otl.icR$ C£fiT!rfC^T£ CF tiiLE.
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
}
'ATitg of Salem, gassar4usetts
rE L•,
Poarb of Appeal
' ALnp11N,W��r .„� p
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE WINTER ISLAND•$COmt4NSSjOIT 9 :55
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR WINTER.. ISLAND
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM mASc
A hearing on this Petition was held on May 27, 1981
with the following Board Members: present: Mr. Douglas Hopper,
Chairman; Messrs. LaBrecque, Feeherry, Piemonte and Hacker.
Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem
Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
The Winter Island Commission has requested a variance
for the Winter Island property (1) to install an attendant' s
booth; (2) to -locate a trailer at the site to house a security
guard and (3) to permit recreational vehicles to use the
property during the summer. A variance is required because
the land is in an R-C district where the proposed uses are
prohibited without a variance.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence
presented at the public hearing and after viewing the property
makes the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question is unique. It is one
of the last undeveloped locations on the waterfront in Salem.
2. The proposed use of the property will be limited
in time.
3. The proposed use of the property is expected to
reduce the likelihood bf vandalism in the area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the
evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals
concludes .as follows :
1. The property in question is unique because of its
location,.
2. The condition described above especially affects
the land in ,question but does not generally affect the zoning .
district in which the land is located.
3.. The condition described above which affects the
land .1n .question' but not the zoning district generally, causes
RE'CEaVf
DECISION - THE WINTER ISLAND COMMISSION
PAGE TWO ,81 JUN -' P9 :55
CITY CLERK'S QFFICE
the following special hardship: unless a 'Spec$AIEMerm�T-
is granted, virtually no income producing use can be made
of this property unless the property is developed for
residential or commercial use.
4. The desired variance may be granted without sub-
stantial detriment to the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously .
voted in favor of granting the requested relief. The
Board grants a variance to the Petitioner on the following
terms and conditions;
1. An attendant's booth may be erected on the site
and permanently maintained there. .
2. A trailer may be located at the site for a period
not to exceed three years from the date of this decision.
3. The property in question may be used from the date
of this decision to October 1, 1981 as an overnight camping
ground for no more than 50 recreational vehicles which will
be sited at the property in accordance with a plan to be
developed by the Planning Department.
DATE: May 29, 1981
Anthony M. F eherry, Secretary
' � 1
.APPEAL Fh:9 t'!S 2 _ . ...-tr:U _ .-i = FC�P'.D'A%i K: a..n:.: 17 Cr T:fC 12s.155..
<G D.ATS n..crc ,n:. DAZE G. :'IURS - - -
2OF TMS f.EC:SiG.:IL Is! 1112 H',: CF T..- M,.'
Cr T.i: Ci._.;n Til.-J G. ..? +�
:OR T! .T r 111 _.P E;.. . nL.. -. ice. 0 .. L.:... Z _ .. :R ._..._2
. P.EW%;DcO I"1 T'�C ° s Y, F i -.' C. i v ::D i l r. -1 fil i:.1' . CF iliE^RiiR -
- OF BECORO G% IS P.LC SUED AND Wino uN ToE „;.:,ER OF MLE.
.BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE
PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
i - r
-2-
STREETS NAMES PAGE
14 Federal Street Salem Redevelopment Authority 29
35 Federal Street Salem Redevelopment Authority 30
49 Federal Street Robert A. Ledoux 31
55-57 & 59 Federal Street James T. Ronan & Alice Rogers 32
162 Federal Street Health & Education Services Inc. 33
41-45 Forrester Street (Amendment) Lillian S. Hill 34
41-45 Forrester Street Lillian S. Hill 35
57 Grove Street Paul Kostopoulos 36
24k Hardy Street Chester & John Defanski 37
11 Hersey Street (Amendment) Robert & Judith Armstrong 38
11 Hersey Street Robert & Judith Armstrong 39
230 Highland Avenue Joseph A. Finocchio 40
488 Highland Avenue Warner Cable Corp. 41
43 Jefferse['Hiie,_ e.(Amendment) Vincent R. Kudirka 42
43 Jefferson Avenue Vincent R. Kudirka 43
399 Jefferson Avenue Henry H. Jalbert 44
11-13 Kosciusk6 Street - George & Robert Maguire 45
253 Lafayette Street Dorothy Dunne 46
12 Larkin Lane Robert M. Shea 47
14 Leach Street Kenneth B. Weston 48
72-74 Leach Street Peter Koutrakis 49
20 Naples Road Irving & Paula Parker 50
121 North Street Peter Koutrakis 51
27 Northey Street Angelo &::Janice A. Pramas 52
1 Oak Street Richard W. & Armida St. Pierre 53
`--25 Peabody Street Heritage Trust II 54
'6 Prince Street Wayne M. Parker 55
36 sable Road Cynthia Barber 56
` _ I
1978 BOARD OF APPEALS CASES
ETS NAMES PAGE
,Barcelona Avenue Andrew J. & Mary jC.: Mitchell 1
)4' A
6 Bay View Avenue Henry J. & Virginia M. 'Jalbert 2
18 Bay View Avenue Robert &Ruth Armstrong 3
64 Beaver Street Henry R. Dupuis 4
8 Bentley Street Michael J. Egan 5
8 Bentley Street Michael J. Egan 6
30 Boston Street Harry & Constance Eng 7
80 Boston Street & 15 Goodhue .Street John Flynn & Sons, Inc. 8
4
97 Boston Street Gerald Selznick 9
140 Boston Street Raymond Lavoie 10
145 Boston Street Whitney L. Jackson 11
151 Bridge Street Julianne Kallas 12
y 333 Bridge Street Edmund Morneau 13
37 Bridge Street Robert & Rose Magarian 14
14-16 Brown Street George & Robert Maguire 15
282 Canal Street Esther Realty Inc. 16
21 Clark Street Ronald R. Calvani 17--
20 Commercial Street Bergeron Bath &Kitchen 18
18 Conant Street James Jr. & Nathalie Crowley 19
108 Congress Street John W. Keefe 20
10 Cross Street Yoland A. Bickerton 21
106 Derby Street John Franco Ukranian .,Society of Salem 22
48 Essex Street Peter & William Rice 23
298'k-302 Essex Street Jacob Levin, Salem Y.M.C.A. 24
315-317 Essex Street Robert .S. Ginsburg 25
-4r,
sex StreetRobert Mignone, M.D. 26
* ry
335 Essex Street Richard & Sandra Pohl 27
411-413 Essex Street I Frank Bisegna 28
r�
ar
of *15 � "- � +�. }7
n + ; 3
` ►- � i 9 : .!r r E 744-6900
CITY �13$T�i i7{
•��.;. ��`. P�J22I�
w n' SALEM. .MASS, JUNE 6, 1978
DECISION ON PETITION SUBMITTED BY_ANDREW J._ � MARY C. ARTGJELL, OWNER OF
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12_, 14 and 16 BARCELONA AVENUE
�l
A hearing on this petition was held on Tuesday, June 6, 1978, with the following
members of the Board present: Jane Lundregan, Donald Eames, Douglas Hopper and James
Boulger. Notices were sent to abutters and others in accordance with Mass. General
Laws, Chapter 808. The notice of hearing was duly published in the Salem Evening News
advising the public of said hearing.
The Petitioner represented himself before the Board. They presently own three
lots each with a 50 ft. frontage and they-wish_ to combine the three lots into two
lots; each having a 75 ft. frontage.
The lots were purchased a number of years ago and at that time the lots were con-
sidered buildable lots. They are not now buildable lots and therefore it is desired
to combine the three lots into two lots making them larger than they previously were.
The Board voted unanimously to grant the petition requested. The Board found
that by combining the three lots into two lots would be within the intent of the Salem
toning ordinance. Most of the lots in that area are undersized and it would be a hard-
ship to the . Petitioner to deny the use of the two lots.
VARIANCE GRAN'T'ED ON THE TWO LOTS
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF AMY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GEN.
LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS
DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSUANT TO MASS. GEN. LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE V"ARIANCE OR SPECIAL PEILMIT
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, BEARING CERTIFICA-
TION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL I-LAS BEEN FILED OR THAT,
IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED AND
NOTED ON T E OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
BOARD OF APPEAL
Mane T. Lun regan
Secretary
i