APPEALS DECISIONS 1982 ��C �� iUnS - ���� �� �l �c�. �s
���
BOARD OF APPEAL DECISIONS - 1982
STREETS NAMES PAGE
i 12 Abbott St. John Quartarone 411
19 Beach Ave. Neal & Maureen Joyce 2
-- 43 Belleview Ave. Joyce Cahill 3
63-632,65-65k Boston St. &
4 Proctor St. George & Georgia Lentros 4
122-Boston St. Gilbert Lumbard 5
85 Bridge St. Russell Green 6
10 Broad St. Richard L. Pohl 7
99 & 9912 Broadway D.E.V. Realty Trust 8
18 Charges St. James Stkuster & Kiehul Cho 9
14-14k Chestnut St. Thorvald G. Lauritsen 10
9 Cloverdale Ave. William Porcello 11
ago
Lot # 44-45 Cloverdale & Glenn Aves. Joseph J. Romano 12
Colby St. Lots IA,1B,1C, 1 & 3
Lots 9, 11 & 1D Almeida St, Salem Hospital 13
9 Colby St. Richard Conway & Charles Brennan 14
20 Commercial St. Paul J. Lyons (Jeannette Realty TR) 15
R 5 Commercial St. Lot 45R Louis Boisvert (Arro Manufacturing) 16
1 Cypress St, Beverly & John Pasquarello 17
36 Dearborn St. Richard Savickey 18
125 Derby St. Robert E. Bramble (Allyn RealtyTR) 19
38 Endicott St. John Spinale 20
30 English St. Linda Bumagun 21
25 Essex St. Peter MacLeod 22 -
43 Essex St. Ralph Schiavone 23
86 Essex St. Salem Housing Authority 24
` 362 Essex St. Arthur F. Wonson 25
394 Essex St, Lawrence D, Channing \ 26'
377 Essex St. Doris O'Brien 27
r
STREETS NAMES PAGE
63 Federal St. John R. Serafini 28
,,ei� 35 Flint St. Crowinshield Corp. 29
24 Fort Avenue N.E. Power Co. 30
24 Fort Avenue N.E. Power Co. 31
16 Granite St. Leonard J. Lowe 32
-19 Green St. David L'Heureux 33
Lots 46-52 Greenlawn Ave. Edward Morgani 34
86 Hathorne St. Helen Bassett & Maryann Landolina 35
8 Hersey St. Sampson Chandler 36
56 Jefferson Ave. Stephen Ingemi 37
62 Jefferson Ave. F. Robert Ruscio 38
271 Jefferson Ave. James Armstrong (Armstrong Animals) 39
400 Jefferson Ave. . Robert & Jeannine Dolliver 42
278 Lafayette St, Francine Small 40
301 Lafayette St. Robert D, Bowes Jr. 41
20 Linden Ave. Leonard & Cecile Muller 43
1
5 Mall St. Jean Harrison 44
11 & 11k Mason St, John Suldenski 45
69 Mason St. Bonnie Leather Inc. 46
3 Messervey St. Joseph Colella 47
28 Norman St. Stern Group I 48
162 & 162k North St. Robert E. Gauthier & Michael Murphy 49
2A North Pine Ot. John D. Spinale 50
2 Ober St. Roger A. Rogers 51
94 Ocean Ave. C. Emerson Dahmen 52
9 Orleans Ave. James Filaccio 53
14-16 Park St. Douglas Drew 54
15-19 Proctor St. Ernest J. Delpero 55
15 Putnam St. Isilda M. Silva 56
38 Shore Ave. Dorilla Morency 57
STREETS NAME PAGE
40 Sumner St. David & Lou Chisholm 58
7 Summit Ave. Mary E. Jennings 59
1 Turner St. Vincent Pepi 60
24 Turner St. House of Seven Gables Settlement Assoc. 61
57 R Turner St. Miller Wharf Marina 62
26k Valley St. Pamela Decesare 63
13 Wall St. Gregory Vervates 64
Winter Island Peter Haywood 65
Winter Island Albert A. Potorski 66
Winter Island Salem Sound Development Corp. 67
Winter Island Winter Island Commission 68
7 Wheatland St. Wilfred Pettipas 69
FCF'�,
�nuxr� rrfettSs2 FEB 26 P 1 :44
-
�_,-� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN QUARTARONE REQUESTIeft tCyAW-I�C�cFICE �r
FOR 12 ABBOTT STREET G TSA�Ei hi,�•`.>'
A hearing on this Petition was held February 17, 1982 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, and Mr. Piemonte and Associate
Members Luzinski 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.
VThe Petitioner has requested a.variance.for the property at 12 Abbott
Street, to add a 16' x 20' family room to his existing house. A
variance is required because the property is in an R-1 district and the proposed
addition will encroach into the minimum rear _,yard set-back.
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 variance is needed because a .proposed purchase by the petitioner
of certain land owned by one of his abutters was not consummated.
2. The proposed addition will not adversely affect the neighborhood
tI ` or the property of any abutter.
3. There was no opposition at the hearing to petitioner's proposal.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at .
the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its size and shape and
because of the location on the property of the existing structure.
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 a variance is granted, no expansion of the existing structure
is possible.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal unanimously voted .in favor of granting the
requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the Petitioner on the following
terms and conditions:
4
i DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN QUARTARONE 82 FEB ZO P� :44
_i 12 ABBOTT STREET
Februa-ry 17, 1982 CITY CLE ; 'S OFFICE
Page 2 Sli!Y_C`i ::":''O
1. The Petitioner may construct a 16' x 20'
addition to the property. In constructing this addition, Petitioner
may build to within 4' of'the existing rear property line..
2. All of the above shall be in accordance with plans submitted to
the Board.
DougVAs Hopper, airman
sz
o r-ref.t
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FLED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
�'�yy Tits of `alam,
SP 4tj�/�l e� y f pv.,
82 OCT -5 A9 :37
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NEAL & MAUREEN JOYCE FOR A
PERMIT FOR 19 BEACH AVENUE
A hearing on this Petition was held on September 29, 1982 with the following Board
Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrecque, Hacker 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 Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to extend a non-conforming structure
at the site so as to allow removal of an existing stairwell and to construct
steps at the front of the property. The existing structure is non-confomring by virtue of
the fact that it encroaches into the minimum front yard set back. The proposed
new steps will extend this nonconformity to within two feet of the front property line. ..
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance 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 Appeal may, in
k. 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 that such change . . . shall not be
substantially more detrimental than the existing non-
conforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the
rule that a Special Permit 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 Petitioners proposed renovation of the site which will have a negligible
impact on the site.
2. The proposed renovation 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 Appeal 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 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.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following terms and
conditions:
.a
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NEAL & MAUREEN JOYCE '82 OCT —5 A9 :37
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 BEACH AVENUE
PAGE 2 CITY CLF7 '0 DFFICE
,,.__,-September 29, 1982 SALt`I
1) Petitioner may remove the existing steps at the site and may construct new
steps at the site in accordance with plans submitted to the Board to within 2' of the
front property line.
2) Petitioner shall comply with all applicable fire safety codes.
Anthony M. Feeherry
.•,.,,Dc pU559A'.17 TO SECi!0?; 17 OF THE P:IASS. - .
r 1 4CIv cN4!L BE
! •ii
'01.. AfiCZ DIE C TE OF FILRIG
P L! n F
APPEAL FR^`.1 THICS+D4C1 rl r.-<+ _ G :`. r C. `CIAL FE''.117
C- T'
GERc-R4L
..1; C!
OF 7Fiw C
rq
a �--Eur 7nE D':lNER
Oap•.fCD yd's rc, L>:- cj Jac
FICAT!t,,r 0: id _ ARC ��Dc Oc TITLE.
"'dCli
OR T'riAT, 1: ,=,�,OORDZD gSSE:: 'n=`;G, • I
O'+ -�OG'r:ER'$ CERTIFICATE
OR IS P.EA;tD ivD!ED . _ .
REC'v DET'. ill T.`c 1' BOARD OF APPEAL
OF RECORO
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
y ��.cornq L.
(situ of '�5 alem, An5arhusetts
23varb of Appeal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOYCE CAHILL
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 43 BELLEVIE14 AVENUE X79'
A hearing on this petition was held on May 12, 19$ -wjth the-fol2biAng v
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs, Hacker, Piemonte
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 use the property in
question for a home occupation: a telephone answering service. The property
at 43 Belleview Street is in a R-1 district. The Special Permit which. has
been requested may therefore be granted upon a finding by the Board of
Appeal, that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,,
safety, convenience and welfare.
The Board of Appeal, 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 will have virtually no impact
on the neighborhood and does not constitute a precedent for any
other professional offices or other home occupations. This unique
home occupation involves no traffic, parking or other impact on
the neighborhood.
(2) The proposed use was not opposed by. anyone.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concluded unanimously that the
proposed use will promote the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare
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 Petitioner.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
(1) The Petitioner may operate a telephone answering service at
this site.
(2) The Petitioner may employ not more tJian one person to operate
�� this service in addition to those who reside in the property.
1 ,• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOYCE CAHILL
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 43 BELLEVIL14 AVENUE
Page Two
(3) Petitioner shall obtain a certificate of use and occupancy
from the Building Inspector prior to commencing this use.
6"
Any ony M. Feehelyt, Secretary
_._
COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
CITY CLERK.
IEIcic` c
of �tlem, �zstz�JEzse##s
'82 MAY -4 P2 :30
W A�aIAI:vY.�t�
uttr?t of eal
CITY CLER;;c OFFICE
SALEI,I �-
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE AND GEORGIA LENTROS
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 63-63 1/2,65- 65 1/2 BOSTON ST. AND 4 PROCTOR ST.
A hearing on this Petition was held on April 28, 1982 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Piemonte, Hacker,
Feeherry and Associate Member Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to extend a non-con5orming
use at the subject property to allow two small commercial stores at the property
to again be used for commercial purposes.
The property is within an R-2 District; however, the property has for
man; years been non-conforming.
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 Appeal 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 nonconforming structures, and for
changes, enlargement, extension or expansion on non-
conforming 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) The two small stores at the site had for many years prior to 1975
been used for commercial purposes including uses as a beauty
parlor, a barber shop and a snack bar.
T
RE'Cc „ -'
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE AND '82 MAY -4 P2 :30
GEORGIA LENTROS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
63-63 1/2, 65-65 1/2 BOSTON ST. AND I PROCTOR ST, CITY 11111;'1 11111
Page 2 SALEM 'irS-3
2) Because of the small size of the stores, and other restrictions
stated infra in this decision, the Board believes that the use of
the stores for commercial purposes will not adversely affect the
area.
3) No neighborhood opposition was raised to this use.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal 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 gta___ag of a Special Permit to the Petitioners.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
/ 1) The Petitioners may use the two stores at the site for only the
following commercial purposes:
a) Delicatessen stores, including specialty food stores,
but not to include regular grocery stores, cash or carry
dairy product stores, or variety stores.
b) Drugstore, exclud irg soda fountain and notions.
c) Book, stationery or gift shops.
d) Florist shop.
e) Barbershops, not to exceed two (2) chairs.
f) Beauty parlors, not to exceed two (2) Operators.
g) Professional offices, but excluding clinics.
r
2) Petitioners shall comply with all applicable fire safety codes.
Antb6ny M. Feeherry, 9ecretar'
�'
COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
CITY CLERK.
CLr � CJ"�- $. t Jd1. :�Ql �h _ 7s
�
Pa
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GILBERT LUMBARD REQUESTING
A VARIANCE FOR 122 BOSTON STREET
Nay 9 -Do r.�f s�?
A hearing on this petition was held on October 27, 1982, with the follo,�F ng Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper, Feeherry 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 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance to use a portion of the first floor
of the premises for a one-bedroom apartment. A variance is required because the property
is in a B-2 zoning district where residential dwellings are prohibited.
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) Petitioner's proposed use of the property for a third residential unit
will have no adverse effect on the area.
2) Petitioner's proposed use of the. property was unopposed by his abutters.
3) Petitioner intends to use this residential unit as a low-income rental unit under
.
a'HUD program. The proposed use of the property will thus add a much needed rental unit to
the city's stock of low-income housing.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1) The property in question is unique because of its present mixed use which- limits
its use for business.
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 vhich affect the land in question, but not
the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship: unless
a variance is granted, it will be virtually impossible to use .the property for business
purposes.
4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good.
Therefore the Board of Appeal unanimously voted in favor of granting the requested relief.
The Board granted a variance to the Petitioner on the following terms:
1) A variance is granted to allow use of one half of the first floor of the site, in
accordance with plans submitted to the Board, as a one bedroom residential apartment.
2) Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Use and Occupancy prior to using this third
residential unit at the site.
3) Petitioner shall submit adequate plans to the Building Inspector in connection with
his building permit application.
PAGE 2
�ETITION OF GILBERT E. LUhfBARD
OR A VARIANCE FOR 122 BOSTON STREET
-October 27, 1982
4) If Petitioner ceases to operate the existing variety-store at the site
this variance shall cease, provided, however, that Petitioner may in,,,
such event, request -a modification of this decision_"'
Anthony M. Fee erry, Secrettry
AM-ftL 'c 1 i: .., 1 17 OF VF .'ASS.
EORRD
OF A:FiEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
12
THU of �Salexn,
r
'Puttrb of Appmf
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RUSSELL GREEN
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 85 BRIDGE STREET
A hearing on this petition was held on May 12, 148Z0with.:the'£oll0`$ifng
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Hacker, Piemonte
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 expand a non-conforming
structure and modify a non-conforming residential use by the construction
of a 10' x 16' bedroom in the rear of the existing structure and an 8' x 14'
rear exit and storage area. The building at 85 Bridge Street is in a B-1
district but it is a non-conforming use as it includes four residential units
and a laundromat. The Special Permit which has been requested may therefore
be granted upon a finding by the Board of Appeal, that the grant of the
Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and
welfare.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of
' fact:
(1) The proposed additions to the property will have virtually
no impact on the area. No additional residential units will
be created, no existing residential units will be enlarged,
and no off-street parking will be lost.
(2) The Petitioner's request was unopposed by any abutters.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concluded unanimously that the
proposed .use will promote the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare
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 Petitioner may construct a 10' x 16' bedroom and a 8' x 14'
rear entrance to the property in accordance with the plan submitted
�_ to the Board.
r
• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RUSSELL GREEN
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 85 BRIDGE STREET
Page Two
(2) Petitioner shall maintain the existing parking, spaces at
the site. .
(3) Petitioner shall comply with all applicable Fire Safety Code
provisions and Building Code provisions in connection with the
proposed modifications of this property.
(4) Petitioner may modify the existing laundromat by the addition
of not more than 10 washers and two dryers.
(5) Hours of operation of the laundromat shall be limited to
7:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. (weekdays) and 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
(weekends) .
Anthony 1-1. Feeherry, Secretary
t
i'
BOAR OF APPEAL
COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
CITY CLERK.
9 ra Ctu of "Mem,
n
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD L. POHL (Petitioner)
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 10 BROAD STREET
4 o-
A public hearing on this Petitiea ;vas `field on March 10, 1982 and thereafter the
matter was considered by this Board at a Speciapl MeeE o`"on March 17, 1982 . The
following Board Members were preseat: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Hacker,
Hacker,
Piemonte and Feeherry, and Associate Member Luzinski."TNotice 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 him to maintain an. office
for the practice of psychiatry in a portion of the property in question. The remainder
of the property will be used as a single rental dwelling unit. A variance is required
because the property Is in an R-2 district where the proposed use is prohibited.
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:
l.) Che property has for many years been used as a single-family dwelling.
2) TIu_re was both substantial opposition to the proposed use from .certain
Pens on, :In thee ue.Jghborhood.as well as support .from others.
•\
3) .hc proposed use would be the first commercial use of this I kind
on tbl: street wh}ch has a strong residential character.
4) The proposej use may have a negative impact on pre-existing parking and
1crn1:I:3.c prnblems in the area. -
Oo the basis of the above findings of fact, and other evidence presented at the
public: h !,urir.g, the Board of. Appeal 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. The property is an attractive single-family
dwelling and can be sold as such, the neighborhood is a residential one.
B. The Petitioner failed to establish that a literal enforcement of the provi-
sions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance as applied to this property ;could involve substan-
tial hardship to the Petitioner. There is a substantial amount of vacant professional
office space in the City.
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 - March 17, 1982 - RICHARD L. POHL - 10 BROAD STREET
Page 2
Therefore, the Board of Zoning "p.Peai denied a variance to the Petitioner.
The vote was as follows: Messrs. Hoppar, Hacker and Luzinski voted in opposition
to the variance. Mr. Piemonte voted in favor of the grant of a variance
and filed a detailed statement of. reasons for his vote with the Board. Mr.
Feeherry voted "present." - -
! 7 Je
Anthony M. Feeierry
l'
�t yi1.SIL ,i5 Fu.vv ..:.J A.\1
1
•
�H COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED FIITH THE PLAN\INC BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
l a aLLi' fi oS �2iPY
'\9 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF D.E.V. REALTY TRUST REQUESTING
` A VARIANCE FOR 99 and 99-1/2 BROAD14AY
C_P 7 ! PH °P'
A hearing on this Petition was held on September 1, 1982 with the following
Board Mesbers` present: Douglas Hopper, Jr. , Chairman, Messrs. Hacker, LaBrecque,
Feeherry an,,--Associate Mamb er Luzinski. Notices of. the hearing were 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 variance for the property at 99 and 99-1/2
Broadway to divide the property into two lots. A variance is required
because the proposed division of the property will create two non-conforming
lots.
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 proposed division of the property into two lots will have no effect
whatsoever on the area.
2) The proposed division of the property was unopposed by any abutters
or others.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
i) The grogerty i-n question is unique because of its peculiar configuration
and .._cause of she fact that there are two separate structures on the property.
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 it will be virtually impossible to separate ownership
of the two structures on the property.
4) The c:esired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board granted a variance to the Petitioner on
the following terms:
D.E.V. REALTY TRUST
Fabe
,W. September 1, 1982
The property may be divided in accordance with the plan submitted to tha
Board. All variances from density regulations which are necessary
to allow this division of the property are granted.
1 ,
`Anthony M. Fe nei'ry, Qretary
I
:T TO S[f'(ni; 17 OF THE fAC,S$.
Ca i --
-
,G, .1ST TK, ...
_.. nyaH ' C7 UTY A P411T
:.
C 700 win,
:i' rtili�R
BOA0 OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PIANS INVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLAe?• ING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
,V _
J Pourb xif :typal
CO/H:�51P`/
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES SHUSTER AND KICHUL CHO
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 18 CHARLES STREET (FORNIERLY 12.,�Hff ,ES ' TREET,)e f
A hearing on this petition was held on May 12, 19�21.with .the fnllpy
s. zng
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; MessrHacker, Piemonte
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 Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to convert the
existing two-family dwelling at the property to a three-family dwelling by
certain modifications to the third floor of the building. 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 Appeal,. that the grant of the Special
Permit will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's
Inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the
' hearing, and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of
• fact:
i
(1) The area in question has severe traffic congestion and parking
problems which are particularly severe during the school year
because of the presence of Salem State College and the fact
that on-street parking is allowed on only one side of this
street. These parking and traffic problems may constitute a
safety hazard to the area in the event of a fire or other
emergency situation.
(2) The site in question has insufficient off-street parking to
accommodate a third apartment. Petitioner's solution to this
problem would involve the use of a parking plan that violates
this Board's off-street parking regulations.
(3) The Petition was opposed by virtually everyone in the neighbor-
hood, the Planning Board and the elected Ward Councillor for
the area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concluded unanimously that the
proposed use will not promote the health, safety, convenience, or welfare of
• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES SHUSTER AND
KICHUL CHO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 18 CHARLES STREET
(FORMERLY 12 CHARLES STREET)
Page Two
the City's inhabitants and that the proposed use is not in harmony with the
Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board voted to deny the grant of a
Special Permit to the Petitioners.
i
Anthony M. Feeherry, Sectetary
G .._, . .
EMD OF APPEAL
COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
CITY CLERK.
X61 Titu of `§allera, c2$$cltllll$P $ CtI.Crvfl = '
PuttrD of AFFMI '82 JUN 15 A 9 :21
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THORVALD G. LAURITSECCIE�OtCLCP.;( S t ICF
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 14-14 1/2 CHESTNUT STREET
A hearing on this petition was held on June 2, 1982 with the following Board
Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Hacker and
Feeherry and Associate Member Luzinski.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing
was properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Mass. Gen.
Laws Ch. 40A. This hearing was scheduled in accordance with the terms of the
judgment entered by the Court, Bennett, J. in the case Lauritsen v. Hopper et al.
(Superior Court, Essex County, C.A. No. 80-1873) . That case involves an appeal
by the petitioner from a prior decision of this Board denying petitioner's
request for a Special Permit to allow the conversion of the subject property
to two condominium units. Under the terms of the judgment entered in that case,
the Court remanded petitioner's request for a special permit to allow the conver-
sion of the subject property to condominiums to this Board for "further considera-
tion of the [petitioner's special permit] application and specific findings in
the following areas":
1. Upon what basis can it be found that the locus
[14 Chestnut Street]• ever constituted ,a part of
Y k` the City of Salem's stock of rental units avail-
able to "families of low and moderate income"7
2. Upon what evidence can it be found that condominium
conversion of No. 14 Chestnut Street will contribute
to poorer maintenance than that existing in the case
of wooden semi-detached dwellings on the north side
of Chestnut Street?
3. For what reasons are two owners less likely-to be
able to resolve disputes than multiples of two owners,
given a condominium agreement containing a workable
dispute [resolution] mechanism?
After a public hearing on this matter, this Board concluded as follows on the
above issues:
1. With respect to Issue No. 1 above, the Board unanimously
concluded on the basis of evidence presented to it--including
in particular the new materials relating to the rents which
were previously charged for the apartment at the site, which
materials were provided to the Board in a brief submitted on
behalf of the Chestnut Street Associates— that 14 Chestnut
Street, at some time in the past, constituted a part of the
City of Salem's stock of rental units "available" to families
pry= G.
1/2 Chestnut Street
c 2. 1982
. t-,e ,
,- I
of moderate income. The Board bases its unanimous decision
• on this issue principally upon the relative low rent received
for the apartment at the locus several years ago. Whether
measured by HUD guidelines or any other standard, the apart-
ment was:"available" to familes of low or moderate income. No
evidence was submitted to the Board on whether a moderate
Income family ever rented the apartment at the locus.
However, with respect to the collateral question raised by
the City of Salem's condominium conversion ordinance, the
Board split on the question whether the conversion of the
apartment at the locus to a condominium would have any impact
upon the City's stock of rental units available to families
of moderate income. Board Members Messrs. Feeherry and Hopper
were of the opinion, both because of the current rent for the apartment and because the property at issue has but a single
rental unit, that the conversion of this property to two
condominiums would have no impact upon the City's present
stock of rental units available to families of moderate incomes.
Whereas, Board Members Messrs. Piemonte, Luzinski and Hacker
were of the opinion that the conversion of the one rental unit
at the locus to a condominium will have an adverse effect on
the City's available stock of rental units for families of
moderate incomes. In this regard, Messrs. Luzinski and Hacker.
are particularly concerned about the impact of this condominium
conversion upon the very limited number of moderate income
• rental units in the area of the City where the property is
located. Moreover, Messrs. Piemonte, Luzinski and Hacker
are all also of the opinion that this condominium conversion,
by virtue of the precedent that it will set, will have an
adverse effect on the City's overall stock of rental units
for families of low and moderate incomes.
2. With respect to Issue No. 2 above--the question whether
is evidence upon which it can be found that the conversionere of
this property to condominiums will contribute to poorer main-
tenance than that existing in the case of wooden semi-detached
dwellings on the north side of Chestnut Street--Messrs. Hopper,
Feeherry and Piemonte are of the opinion that no such evidence
was presented to the Board and that to the contrary, the evi-
dence indicated that condominium conversion would contribute
to better overall maintenance of this property as compared to
those sites on the north side of Chestnut Street which are
referenced by the Court in Issue No. 2. Messrs. Hacker and
Luzinski hold the contrary opinion that it is more likely than
not that condominium conversion will contribute to poorer
maintenance and in particular, that condominium conversion
would have the effect of reducing the likelihood of maintaining
the unique historic interior and exterior features of the locus
property. Messrs. Hacker and Luzinski hold this view based
upon the evidence submitted to the Board which indicated that
X: ;g : LA
cpascnut5treet _
. .f 3
due to the .likelihood of ,disagreement over matters of taste
. '
and finances, the maintenance of the exterior of this property
may be subject to frequent arbitration and with the resulting uncer-
tainty of outcome and delays ordinarily accompanying litigation,
maintenance of the entire structure and common areas will suffer
to the detriment of the entire house and neighborhood. This
situation is different from the case of semi-detached wooden
structures where the failure of the two owners to agree to
maintenance or repairs would not impede maintenance from pro-
ceding. In such otructures where one owner fails to maintain,
only ona-half of the structure suffers.
3. Finally, on-.Issue No. 3 above--the question t-hether there is
evidence that "two owners are less likely to be able to resolve
disputes than multiples of two owners given a condominium agree-
ment containing a workable dispute [resolution] mechanism"--
Mr. Feeherry is of the opinion that the dispute resolution
features in the petitioner's condominium documents provide a
workable framework for the resolution of all disputes amongst
owners. All other members of the Board are of the opinion that
the dispute resolution mechanisms in the condominium documents
are procedurally awkward, time-consuming, and expensive and
that they do not provide adequate standards to ensure a workable
process for resolving disputes, particularly if such disputes
relate to capital expenditures concerning preservation of the
• unique architectural features of the subject property. - In
4 addition, Messrs. Hopper, Hacker and Luzinski are also of the
opinion that the size of the condominium conversion (i.e. , a
two-unit conversion) presents inherent dispute problems, such
as dividing large".capital expenses amongst only two owners--
which are not present in larger condominium conversions where
no single owner can obstruct maintenance-and require that an
issue such as maintenance be decided.byarbitration.
A hony M. Feehey
ecretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRC" HIS .__`�a .. __ _. _. _. ,' I) .r. 17 CF. 'hE
:_CffS, _ > ti I ! tF. `iSALSS;:.GGE' .. ..
CF 1'SIS DECISI PI ItJ THE Gkf
FICAHO',' OF Ili i :rr.
I , _ _c D.
OR iHfil. IF SL.'I N
RECGROED IN T8c S_bflf IF TFE O"':A.R
"RECORD OR IS RECORDED AM) Nv QED Oli L'i= 'i Ii LE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
Pvarb of
AppA '82 DCT -5 A9 :38
Cl" yy : r. ;;:' ; OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIA14 PORCELLO REQUESTING '4TV�1�tTANCE
FOR 9 CLOVERDALE AVENUE
A hearing on this petition was held on September 29, 1982, 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 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 variance for the property at 9 Cloverdale Avenue to
construct a 16' x 10.9' addition to the property. A variance is required because
the proposed addition will be built up to the sideyard property line.
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) Petitioner 's proposed addition into the minimum sideyard at the site will have virtually
no effect on the area because of the area.
Petitioner's proposed construction was unopposed by his abutters.
\• /n the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the public
--_ihearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1) The property in question is unique because of its peculiar configuration and
because of the fact that there is no other possible location at the site for
the proposed addition.
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, it will be. virtually impossible to construct an addition at the site.
4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal unanimously voted in favor of granting the requested
relief. The Board granted a variance to the Petitioner on the following terms:
1) A variance is granted to allow construction of a 16' x 10.9' addition to the
property in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board.
Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Use and Occupancy prior to using the proposed
�• addition.
1
t " '82 LCT -5 A9 �38
CITY Cl FILE
PETITION OF WILLIAM PORCELLO FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 9 CLOVERDALE AVENUE
PAGE 2
SEPTEMBER 29, 1982
i.
3) Petitioner shall submit detailed plans to the Building Inspector in connection
with his request for a Building Permit.
4) Petitioner shall comply with all applicable fire and safety codes.
?
ti 1�r
r
capnea?2 n i 22 , Al 171-
DECISION
l1DECISION 0:: THE PETITIO?i OF J0���4' .3 ROMAN;¢.. fl;F
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE CLOVERDALE
AND GLENN AVENUE
A hearing on this petition was held on October 20, 1982, with the following Board
MeMbers present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Hopper, and Feeherr -.
Notices of the hearing were 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 variance for th.e property at 44-45 Cloverdale an'
Glenn Avenues to allow use of the property for the construction of a single-fam_ly
dwelling. A variance is required because the lot does not meet minimum lot area re-
quirements.
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hear 'ng and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1) Petitioner's proposed use of the area is for a single-family home. . It will have
no negative effects on the area. Rather, the proposed use is in harmony with the
existing neighborhood.
,2) Petitioner's proposed use of the property :,.as unopposed by his abutters.
Onthebasis of the .above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeal concluded as follows:
1) The property in question is unique because of its peculiar
configuration and size.
2) The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but nat the
zoning district generally cause. the following special hardship: unless a
variance is grnated, it will be virtually impossible to use the site in a
manner consistent with other lots in the area.
4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal unanimousl_. voted in favor of granting the
requested relief. The Board granted a varaiance to the Petitioner on the following
terms:
1) A variance is granted to allow the combination of two lots to create ore
lot, LOT A, with an area of 9,273 square feet, as shown on the plan dated
September 14, 1982 submitted to the Board, and to allow the construction
of a single-family home on Lot A.
2) Nothing in this petition shall affect the future use of Lots BC&D shown. on
the same plana
Anthony M. Fee erre
A COPY 0= :HIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN 'FILED -WITH THE P ANSING BOARD AND CITT CLERK
I
082 8C' Q_ Al 1 :21
SALc:
PjnPL2 T? S377 A 17 CF !IT UK-
V!
-
lar-
-,D OF APPEAL -
•
�t Of SA , assarfpzsP##s
RD-Fnm�
Am, �
Poarb of 4peA '82 JUNI 15 A9 :21
./ CITY CLERICS OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL SALE,'
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LOTS IA, 1B, 1C, 1 and 3
COLM STREET AND LOTS 9, 11 AND 1D ALMEIDA STREET
AND 1.2 ACRES ABUTTING THESE LOTS
A hearing on this petition was held on June 8, 1982 with the following Board
Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte and Feeherry
and Associate Member Luzinski. 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.
Salem Hospital, the Petitioner, has requested a Special Permit to use the
property in question for 165 parking spaces to be used by hospital employees.
The property in question is in both an R-C and an R-1 zoning district. The
Special Permit which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by the
Board of Appeal, that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public
health, safety, convenience and welfare.
The Board of Appeal, .after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1. The Petitioner's request for a Special Permit puts at issue
two legitimate and competing public concerns. On the one hand,
the Salem Hospital is in need of additional parking for its
employees. On the other hand, the proposed location for this
parking is a residential area.
2. The neighbors in the area in question were unanimous in their
opposition to Salem Hospital's request. We find that their
concerns about the proposed parking area areinall.respects iegi-
timate.
3. The area in question is a heavy traffic area by Virtue of the
presence of the Hospital, the Salem High School and several
hundred apartment units. The proposed parking area will increase
noise, traffic, and pollution all to the detriment of the resi-
dents in this area.
4. The site in question was the subject of a prior decision by this
Board which authorized the use of the area for parking. Pursuant
to that prior decision, the Hospital has used a portion of the
property for parking. However, there is a substantial question,
which this Board specifically does not resolve by this decision,
as to the continued viabili 'ER'FR.pp Lh1s Board's prior decision.
GENERAL LA r$ C p - I TO T:?:: 17 OF THE G.
r u- r- THE J jt n ° CITY ' " CA!" r•3 :nE SATE Cm F
Of Thist
GRANTED FE c4I. ?.:.;.LL _..
FICATIO'1 CF THC CIi7 CE? L-F ` -" ThE C=:
OR THAT, IF SU,:.I !'I nPf..4. H'S F;! r _•' I > - -'1S oil:E._;.cpF;LiSE
O
U; LSSCYRECCFDED M THE L^ hCJST ! i �C> " D i'1i'1Z NAME
OF THE
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND PIDTED Gil THE ON;IER'S CERTIFICATE Ci-Ti1LE.
aad. 3 Colby Street
ID Almeida Street
these lots
bow K[�s_Ab"Ctin$ I�
,5 The use of the area in question for a large parking area is
ins, direct Conflict with the residential character of the
neighborhood.
on the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented i
0 at the public hearing, the Boara of Appeal concluded that the proposed 1
use gill not promote tho public health, safety, convenience, and welfare
and that the rr„posed use is not in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance.
Accovdingly, the Board voted to deny a.Special_Permit..to_ the._.
Petitioners. The Board voted as follows: Messrs. Hopper, Piemonte and
Feeherry voted to deny the Special Permit. Mr. Luzinski voted "present".
� 4a�1
-'Anthony M. Feeherr
Secretary
` • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AND PLANTING BOARD.
•
F� Ctu of �,551e q, US5nC4U5et#s
DE`SION_ O" THE :PETITION OF RICHARD E. CONWAY AND CHARLES G. BRENNAN, TRUSTEES,
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 9 COLBY STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on January 20, 1982 with ?511031ing,Nj 7
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Hacker, Piemonte, LaBrec.que and
Feeherry. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others af{i notices of the C.
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accor pg, with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A. ' t" 't S!41H,HASS,
The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to expand the existing non-
conforming use of the property in question. The properly is currently used as a
medical building. Petitioners intend to expand this use by adding a second
story to' the building.
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 Appeal 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 nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion
shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconform-
ing 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 proposed use of the property is in .harmony with other uses in the
area and is an appropriate use because of the close proximity of the
property to the Salem Hospital.
2) Petitioners' plans have been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal 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 approves (4-1) the granting of a Special'
Permit to the Petitioners. (Mr. Hacker voted in opposition) .
J �
• DECISION -RICHARD E. CONWAY AND CHARLES G. BRENNAN, ' TRUSTEES
9 COLBY STREET
Page 2
January 20, 1982 '
JAu ZG 3 Is PH V
FILE
CITY C!_ L2!: S':LER.MA- M
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
1. The property may be altered and its current use expanded by
the addition of a second story and the addition of a new
entrance as shown on the plan (Plan B) submitted to the Board.
2. Petitioners shall maintain seventy-one parking spaces at the site.
3. Petitioners shall in all other respects comply with the terms of
Plan B submitted to the Board and approved as noted by the City Engineer
with respect to drainage, sidewalks, etc. as that Plan relates to
• the property in question.
Anthony 11. Feeherry,ISecretary
l(
BOAR] OF AREAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
Y«MVL,Iii V
of (ent,
�E .—s '82 OCT —5 A9 :3� �ttrD rrf flttl
DE,gIg
Cl7Y CL. l
S��` ON THE PETITION OF PAUL J. LYONS, JEANETTE REALTY TRUST FOR
t� VAR, �� FOR 20 COMMERCIAL STREET
A hearing on this petition was held on September 29, 1982 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Hacker.
Feeherry 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 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 20 Commercial
Street to construct an addition of approximately 5000 square feet.
A variance is required because the proposed addition will violate density .
regulations and will encroach into minimum front,,: side and rear yard setbacks.
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) Petitioner''s proposed addition will create jobs and will have a minimal
effect on the neighborhood.
i
2) Petitioners proposed construction was not opposed by abutters.
` On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1) The property in question is unique because of its peculiar configuration.
2) The condition 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, it will be very difficult to construct
an addition at the. site.
4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good.
Therefore, the Boad of Zoning Appeal unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board granted a variance to the Petitioner on the
following terms:
1) Petitioner may construct an addition, not to exceed 22' in height, of approxi-
i" mately 5,000 sq. ft. in accordance with the plan submitted to the Board.
2) The proposed addition may be constructed to within 5' of the
rear and side yard property lines and to within 20' of the front
yard property line.
3) Petitioner shall submit detailed plans to the Building Inspector
in connection with his application for a building permit.
'82 OCT -5 A9 :37
PETITION OF PAUL J. LYONS, JEANETTE REALTY TRUST FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 20 COMMERCIAL STREET CITY CLE"" • '�`FICc
PAGE 2 SAL
September 29, 1982
4) Petitioner shall construct a retaining wall at the rear property line
between the subject property and the properties of Simmons and Dyerson.
The choice of materials shall be approved by the Building Inspector.
A 6' stockade fence shall be constructed on top of the retaining wall.
5) A certificate of Occupancy and Use shall be obtained prior to
the use of. the property.
n6hony M: Feeher y, Secretary
APPEAL FRONT THIS DECISION, IF A6Y, SHALL 6E "ADE POR3UA T TO SECT!CN 17 OF THE MASS.
C U i ERAL LA'.','S, CHAPTE2 803. P.A:D SHAD_ EE F L'c0 k'!!,!iiC; 20 LAYS AFTER TH'c DATE OF FILING
OF iHiS OEC!S:v`: IN ;ic ncvw _
r TI C t O
O4 co I. 1 PE.2 i1T
v A C.7:Y
7 'aR i 12i i<.i5 !AtE �
P'r L P. S C.: ! F.'CO3
RwC.OED Ii 1'iE l H e;;SEX a��;au.• Cc J�tJS Ir.::D, c_�LL ., �> `t. t._,aED IS
OF RcCL'80 OR :S,fiECGBDED A,tiD NOT,-D 01; THE O•:: FP.'S CU?TIFICATE Or' :iTLEiYL,L Cr THE OK':1ER
BOARD OF APP&%
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK.
e
of 1�6'afvnl
-
��
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LOUIS BOIVERT REQUESTING �c2�(. �(f/,
VARIANCES AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LOT 45 REAR COMMERCIAL STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on October 20 and 27 witVR, + Q 5' , i
the following Board Members present: James Hacker, ;Cbairman;:LL;;
Messrs. Piemonte, Hopper, and Feeherry, and Associate Member Luzinsk4
Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and 0;111otice of the
hearing was published in the Salem Evening Nei-is in accordance with Massacfitisetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner has requested .a Special Permit as to use of the locus so that
he may utilize and expand an existing warehouse into a machine shop for
metal working.
Petitioner also requests variances from the density regulations of Section VI B, Table II
pertaining to lot area, lot width, lot coverage and yard requirements.
Peti'=ioner's nonconforming lot contains only fourteen thousand square feet and 135'
of frontage. This lot and the warehouse on it have existed for many years. The
present structure is nonconforming as to front, side and sear yards. Petitioner
proposes to construct an addition, which would have a rear yard of not
less than nine ( .) feet, and a Southwesterly sideyard of ten (10) feet, The existing
Northeasterly sideline of six (6) feet would not change.
The ;ioardof Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented a, the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1) 'etitioner's proposed addition at the site will have a positive effect on the
area and will protect jobs for Salem area residents.
2) ?etitioner's proposed construction was unopposed by his abutters.
3) Petitioner has adequate parking at the site.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows with cespec_
to Petitioner's request for variances:
1) The property in question is unique because of its peculiar configuration and
because of the existing structure at 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, it will be virtually impossible to construct an addition at the site,
�•� 4) The des-'red variances may be granted 7ithout substantial detriment to tae public good
P. The Board of Appeal thus unanimously voted in favor of the requested variances.
SII
r, f Y
PAGE 2 _
PETITION OF LOUIS BOIVERT REQUESTING
�• IVARIANCES AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LOT 45
REAR COMMERCIAL STREET
_ October 27, 1982
Nov 1 9 51 A,H 18?
With respect to Petitioner's request for a Special Permittffthe provision
of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which we deem to be applicaSie' to this
request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which' prov}des_ as;follows-:
-
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing
in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal 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 nonconforming structures, and for
changes, enlargement extension or expansion of nonconforming
lots, land structures and uses provided that such change. . .
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 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.
00 in the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
-1 at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal 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 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.
The requested variances and Special Permit are granted in accordance with '
the following terms and conditions:
1) A Special Permit is granted to allow use of the locus as the site for
a machine shop for metal working.
2) Variances are granted from density regulations, lot area regulations,
lot width, lot coverage, rear and sideyard restirctions for the construction of the
proposed addition.
i
J
r
PAGE 3 _
• / PETITION OF LOUIS BOIVERT REQUESTING
VARIANCES AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LOT 45
REAR COMMERCIAL STREET
October 27, 1982
NOV I 9 51 �M 'flz
3) Eleven parking spaces shall be maintained at the'sitrTIE
f Tr c cn_ „ ,i,1�,.
4) An addition may be constructed to the existing struc�ure -a£ the 'site "i'n
accordance with plans submitted to the Board dated October 25, 1982.
5) A Certificate of Occupancy and Use shall be obtained prior to occupying or
using the site.
6) Petitioner shall be required to submit plans to the Salem Fire Marshal
and the Salem Director of Public Services confirming that Petitioner
shall construct an acceptable water main and post hydrant to service the site.
7) Nothing in this decision shall be construed to require the City of Salem
to maintain the area of Commercial Street in front of the locus as a
public way or to maintain the water main to be constructed to service the site.
Anthony M. Veeberryy Secretary
A,.JO' ii ISI r f
OF r; !0G
1 )
0- tC
nJ vR IS P eUIi��U Ai J IJ ItD 0.7 T U I „lS 6cPII IC?T[ v III !:-",Z
Z C Ti!E C:iiiER
EOAP,O OF APPAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
•
I
ra�
uara of $uI
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BEVERLY AND JOHN PASQUARELLO
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 1 CYPRESS STREET
i.
A hearing on this petition was held on May 12, 198ZI-pith. the `fo11&wing
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Hacker, Piemonte 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 Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to construct a 9 1/2' x
9 1/2' addition to the first floor of the property in question. The addition
will extend the existing non-conforming structure on the property.
The property is within a R-2 district. The structure on the property
is currently non-conforming by virtue of the fact that it encroaches in to
the minimum rear yard setback.
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 Appeal 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 non-
conforming 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 will have a negligible effect on the
area and constitutes an almost de minimus extension
of the existing non-conformity.
. (2) The proposed addition was unopposed.
• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF
BEVERLY AND JOHN PASQUARELLO
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
1 CYPRESS STREET
Page Two
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of ADpeal 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, 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 Petitioners.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
(1) A 9 1/2' x 9 1/2' addition to the first floor of the property
may be constructed at the site.
(2) The proposed addition shall conform to the plan submitted
to and filed with the Board.
i
Anthony M. FeeherryI Secretary
T...;. ., T7 S-1.1 : 17 C: : i11'SS.
�_..
. EGW�4 GF pPPEAC .
•
COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
CITY CLERK.
L
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD E. SAVICKEY REQUESTING
A VARIANCE FOR 36 DEARBORN STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on September 1, 1982, d,jt1j the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Hacker, LaBrecq, e,,
Feeherry and Associate Member Luzinski. Notice of the hea$lfiri,`'was `'S
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 Petition of Richard Savickey requesting a variance to build a two—car
garage to within three feet of the side.yard property line.
A variance is required because the proposed garage would encroach into
the side yard restriction in an R-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:
Because of the size and configuration of the
Petitioner's lot, it is not necessary for him
to construct the garage at the proposed
location. The garage could be located on the
property in a manner which would not violate
minimum side yard requirements.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and other evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal 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 wish 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 site would
involve substantial`hprdship 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.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted in opposition to the granting the
requested relief. The Board denies a variance to the Petitioner. .
Messrs. Hacker and Luzinski voted to deny. Messrs. Hopper, LaBrecque
and Feeherry voted "present". �..
Anthony M. Feehrry, Secf tary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS NAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
T:iiS
0
C Ins, L�: r:. '4 � .. - 17 U:E 16.SSS.
Cr ii .C.I ! _ r,;,TS P T rc ifi-` DATE C F.uirS
K13AN .. _. ..
C .. _ 71"_ __
r37TL PERMIT
r::_:TL
J
Or RECORD GR W NESCROED ,AID it ioEaD 00 0-
.c - TIS com
BOARD OF APPEAL -
•
Poacrb Df &Ay ea.0
alA11AY.W'�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT E. BRAMBLE, TRUSTEE OF
ALLYN REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT 125 DERBY STREET
INTO FOUR CONDOMINIUM UNITS 9 7, tj. Pft 18?
FILE s,
A final hearing on this .Petition was held on September 2, 1982, with the following
Board Members present: Mr. Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Meg srYs:'-Hacker`an'dAF�!eherry
and Associate Member Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and
others and 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 Appeal
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 grant of the Special Permit
will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
• The Board of Appeal, 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 in this property '
and has made improvements in-what is a building which has historical signi—
ficance 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 Appeal 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:
i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT E. BRAMBLE,
TRUSTEE OF ALLYN REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
TO CONVERT 125 DERBY STREET INTO FOUR CONDOMINIUM UNITS
Page 2
September 2, 1982
$_? 9 2 47 011 0
1. All construction shall be in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board.
2. No commercial uses shall be permitted at the site.
3. A Certificate of Use and Occupancy must be obtained for each of these units
prior to any sales or rentals of the units..
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. Feeherry, Secretary
APPEAL FRO THIS DECD-^I I A:`7. Sli.i L BE ' f O� P P°':.i:T TO S`_CTICPI II OF THE h1ASS
G
APPEAL
- 11 -! 20 DrXS A.TER. THE DATE OF flLltiG
CE ,Ia C..CSC„ 1[{ i.l_ �r. �, t "'� .•. „ �c L•_,,........ �'. SPECIAL PERMIT
THE CERT-
C.,,.._i_).i.�._: , FA.S :_ EI FILED.
C4 i„T.'F F, . ..E OF THE OVINER
P.ECGPDED I', T . 'PJi^ ESS%J: :" -
OF RECORD 02 a .,..COnDEO A[+D t....� TF..E v.l3c'S CE�i i.FiCA.E GE TITLE.
. - - BOARD. OF APPEAL -
A 02Y OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
l�
i �Ct IIfIPm, �; ts> tttijuQz
L= Paurb of AppvA 82 MAR 17 A10 :49
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SPINALE FOR CITY CL-Rn;,Azc, CE
SAL-Ell i .9,LSS
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 38 -ENDICOTT STREET
A hearing on this petition was held on March 10, 1982 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Hacker, Piemonte,
and Feeherry and Associate Member Luzinski. 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 Second
floor of the existing structure on the site into a studio apartment. The
property at 38 Endicott Street is in an. R-2 zoning district; however,
the property. is also subject to the terms of a prior decision of this Board
which can be interpreted as limiting the use of the property- to its current
non-conforming use as a garage. Thus, Petitioner's request constitutes a
request for a change in a nonconforming 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 Appeal may, in accordance with the
procedure and conditions set forth in Sectin VIII F and IX D, grant
Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming struc-
tures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of noncon-
forming 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 use is in keeping with the residential character of ,
the neighborhood.
2) The proposed use was not strenuously 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 Appeal 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, 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
' R :(It-
P.
• DECISION - JOHN SPINALE - MARCH 10, 1982 882 MAR 17 A10 '49
Page 2
CITY CLEWS OFFICE
S A L E M1 m , T' _
to the Petitioner. - -
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the followng
terms and conditions:
•
1) The second floor of the structure at this site may be used
for a studio apartment 'Ias shown on plans submitted .to the Board.
2) -The Petitioner shall comply with all applicable provisions of Massa
Gen. Laws and the State Building Code relating to smoke detectors.
3) Plans for smoke detector(s) shall be submitted to the Salem fire
Marshal, for stamped approval.
4) One parking space shall be maintained at the site
for use by the occupant 'of the studio apartment.
areC/C
Antho y M_ Feeher'
I
. APPEAL r^C'o7 Tr IS r '
.I I , e'i'.L GE �.r� p c'__IT to S CTI_:k 17 OF THE 7dASS.
Go,E•.AL-L"r S C 1°i� P.'.-z ?� ) �... '; £D C :;'S A,:c:: .e_ CATS OF FILIilG .
OF THIS C fa:!)i: in T`i �.. n 'ITV -
tGlr. `
F c
..: Ti r � \1 F;111,1117
--
U '
f CAI IGIf ,
Oil sHAT, IF
RECG£DED I1 M -
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AD L+ D O � t;E G.�,i+trt'S ITLE.
" - - BOARD OF APPEAL -
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
ONO
,.i' .. . .b ✓1 .
zP Civ of Salem, -��;
Puttrbr of c4PDaf '82 JUN 15 A9 :21
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LINDA BUMAQWW RK'; OFICE
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 30 ENGLISH STREETSALEi ;z.;' cc
A hearing on this Petition was held on June 8, 1982, with the following Board
Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte and Feeherry 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
in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure
at 30 English Street so as to allow an addition to the property which currently
does not conform to density or side yard restrictions. This proposed addition
will extend these non-conformities.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance 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 Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and condi-
tions 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
IIS • lots, land, structures, and uses, provide(f; ,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 q may beranted upon a
g p finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the
safety, P public health,
convenience and welfare.
The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter, makes
the following findings of fact:
1. The Petitioner has made a large financial investment in this
site and has"markedly improved the appearance of the site.
2. The proposed addition to the site will be a minimal extension
of the structure's current nonconformity.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeal finds (i) that the proposed use of the
property will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing use to
the neighborhood, C i) 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.
i
dish Street
tea 8, 1982
n
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
codditions:
1. The Petitioner may construct the proposed addition as shown
z on the plans submitted to the Board.
2. Petitioner shall maintain one off—street parking space at
the site.
3. Petitioner shall comply with all applicable fire safetycodes.
9
33
4. Petitioner shall obtain a certificate of occupancy for the site. ?
5. Nothing in this decision shall be interpreted as having any t
bearing whatsoever on the dispute which has arisen regarding
the ownership of the land which is the site of the proposed
Addition.
• Anthony M. Feehe ry
/Secretary ,
i
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AND THE
PLANNING BOARD. .
APPEAL FRG::: T..... .... . .'S i'.. .., `i T:: 17 GF ...'-.SS.
OF
D.
GR INC. IF ... .. _. ... . . ..
Ti- :'•i%z??
OF RECORD OR IS RECOiiDED Ej';O NOTED E:: .... 0l''.NMS CE,,iii Ic4 iE
: BOARD OF A.N FEAL
f
tea;
9" C'
#g of 9alem, tts��zcl�u�e�#s
t Pourb of Alape
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER MacLEOD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO
CONVERT THE PROPERTY.AT 25 ESSEX STREET TO THREE CONDOMINIUM UNITS
JAy t5 3 nr PM 8Z
A hearing on this Petition was held on January 20, 1982, with EhE $-ollowing
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker, Piemonte, Martineau
and Feeherry. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others gn'T aot ce's't=H.k4SS:
-o£ 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 Appeal
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 -taut 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 Appeal; 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
three condominium units.
2. The proposed conversion of this property to three condominium units
was not opposed by abutters or neighbors.
3. The proposed conversion of this property into three 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 Appeal ;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. Not less than five parking spaces shall be provided at the site.
3. Occupancy Permits shall be obtained prior to the sale of these units.
4. 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 commencing work in furtherance of the _condomi?m conversion. The Petitioner may
commence such work 20 days after the date of the fi)?ing of -this d[ecisign. /�/
Anthony M. . T" herry, Secretap
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS`HAS BEEN FI ED WITH THE PLANING BOARD AND CITY CLER;JN,jt r
APPEAL FROfA THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MAS$,
GENERAL LAMS, CHAPTER 305, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISI�3N IN THE OFFICE- OF THE CIT CLERIC,
PURSANT TO idASS. (;E9-CAL LAWNS, Cr:APIER CPS, SEC.! N 11, THE VARIANOE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOl IA;(E ERZT UfIT.L A COPY OF THE :EUS: n';. .HS CERT-
8..
FICAT10N OF THE CI,'! CLER.0 THAT 2C DA'� NAVE ELP—:_D ry A P V. RA B—id FILED,
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS SFEN FP.E, IHA.I 1. H:.S CFE,; LIS I;SSED CR CEn9ED IS
RECORDED IN TH_ SOUTH. ESSEX REdISLii` 6F DEEDS AN, !NDEBED UNDE! PHE NX,E cF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
l
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RALPH SCHIAVONE FOR A
SPECIAL. PEKIIT FOR 43 ESSEX STREET
Sir 7 i 1� °►'. °B?_
A continued hearing on this Petition was held on September 1, 1982 ,with the
following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairidan; Messrs. LaBrecque,
Hacker, Feeherry and Associate :;ember Luzinski. Notice of the heari:Ig,,IS S
was sent to abutters and others and a notice of the heapiiigrFras published
in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming
use and structure at 43 Essex Street so as to allow that property, which
has been non-conforming by virtue of its use as an auto repair shop to be
expanded by squaring off the first floor and by construction of a 27' x .30'
second story on the building.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance 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. Appeal may, in accordance with the
fprocedure 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 that such change. . .shall not be substantially more detrimental
than the existing non-conforming 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 extension of this non-conforming use will not substantially
alter the commercial use of the property nor will it have any substantial
negative effects on the surrounding area.
2. The petitioner's -request was supported by his abutters and was .unopposed by
neighbors.
/ PETITION OF RALPH SCHIAVONE FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 43 ESSEX STREET
Page 2
September 1, 1982
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence
presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal 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, and (iii) that the proposed use .of the property
is in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the
Board approved the granting of a Special Permit to the Petitioner.
The Board voted as follows: Messrs. Hopper, Hacker, LaBrecque and
Feeherry voted in favor of the Special Permit. Mr. Luzinski voted
"present".
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
1) Petitioner may square off the first floor of the structure in
114 question and may construct a 27' x 30' second story onto the
existing structure.
2) The second story of the property may be used only for storage space
and an office.
3) Petitioner's construction shall be in accordance with plans
submitted to the Board.
4) Petitioner shall. not be allowed to sell gasoline to the public
at the site.
Anthony M. Fe herry, Secretary
TC _ ^:i V ^F {E
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
r�E�t� �utxr3 oaf �}z�erzl p
or n.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY REQUESTING A COMPREHENSIVE
PERMIT FOR THE PHILLIPS SCHOOL SITE AT 86 ESSEX STREET
Jnr Zh 3 1��N '8Z
A hearing on this Request for a Comprehensive Permit w£Stgiold. on January 20,
1982, with the following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs.
Hacker, LaBrecque, Feeherry and Associate Member Martineau. Q�brees�`og'dtktb;'f}�£ring
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. In addition,
a notice of the hearing was sent to the Salem Historical Commission. That Commission
was invited to attend the hearing on this request, and a representative of that
Commission did attend. The Petitioner requests .a ComprehPr�?ae permit pursuant
to Mass. General Laws Chapter 40B, H 20-23 and asks that this Board
authorize the proposed rehabilitation of the Phillips School site into eighteen
Aunits of housing for the handicapped.
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 proposed use of the site is supported by the Planning Board as
well as other city agencies.
2. The need for housing for the handicapped was well-documented in
evidence submitted to the Board.
3. The Phillips School site is particularly well-suited for the
rehabilitation and new construction proposed by the Petitioner.
- 4. The only objection to the proposed project which was raised at the
bearing were concerns voiced regarding the fact that the design of the
project has not been finalized thus .raising the issue of the impact of the project
on abutters in this unique historic area.
On the basis of these findings of fact and other evidence presented at the.
. public hearing, the Board of Appeal, unanimously voted in favor of granting the
requested Comprehensive Permit. A Comprehensive Permit is granted to the Petitioner
on the following terms and conditions:
1. Petitioner may use the site for no more than eighteen units of housing
'for the handicapped.
2. The final design of the rehabilitation and new construction must, however, .
be approved by the Salem Historical Commission, which Commission shall have the right to
approve all aspects of site development, parking, landscaping and construction :of this
project.
3. The Salem Historical Commission shall not, however, impose any uneconomic"
conditions on the Petitioner as the term "uneconomic" is defined in Mass. Gen. Laws
Chapter 40B 52.
DECISION - SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY RE: PHILLIPS SCHOOL SITE
at 86 ESSEX STREET
Page 2
January 20, 1982
JAN 26 3 is PH
FILE
4. In the event that an impasse develops between the Petitioner
and the Salem Historical Commission, that impasse shall be broughtMb Cthe' 3'1LE4f.MASS
attention of the Salem Board of Appeal ',t its next available meeting
for immediate resolution.
e�nthony M. Secretary
L ( . . 5... _ . . ... _ ... _.. �. ;Liii^u
;:A rr,
_ 1 I
IN T._ T .,. .. . .. i ,
-:
OF RECORD C2 IS iT_"F,YJ ID f:vi�J G - 1'.`c C:. t $
. . - BOARD OF APPAL -
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
' !< ' uara of c1}�uettl
AL�UIM1Y�'
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR F. WONSON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
TO CONVERT THE PROPERTY AT 362 ESSEX STREET TO TWO CONDOMINIUM UNITS
IN 26 3 5 •p
A hearing on this Petition was held on January .20, 1982, with the �O�jin�
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacke-AF&Lpiemonte,
Martineau and Feeherry. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the SalemG�?r�� ugKi� u }{egg
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 Appeal
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 Appeal, after considering the evidence at the hearing, and
after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact:
1. The property in question is 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 Appeal , 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 withthe following terms and conditions:
1. The conversion shall be in accordance with the plans submitted
to this Board.
2. Not less than three parking spaces shall be provided .at the site.
3. Certificates of occupancy shall be obtained prior totahe sale of these units.
4. 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 commencing work in furtherance of the condominium conversion. The Petitioner
may commence such work 20 days after the date o�the filing of this ec'-sion.
/Anthony M. Feehe ry .
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNI G BOARD AND CIT• CLERK c nv c-M
i
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTICN 17 OF THE RIAM
GENERAL LAIWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED VsliTN!N 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF I':i.I NG
OF THIS DECISION Iiq THE OFFLJE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSAN7 TO MASS- EENI-RAL LAMS, CHAPTER SOS, SKTI( ! 1t, THE VARLANCE OR SPECIN
CRANIED HERE{N, SHALL NBi TA,:E EFF-CT UNTIL A COPY THE i,-CIS!aN, BEAR'N�
FICATION Of ME CITY CLER:; Tf!.i 20 DAYS HAVE F;APSE) AI'tO ND APPEAL HAS BEEN FP .D,
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPcAL HAS BEEN FILE, TIM IT Hr.; EEEN OIS;MsED CR DMIE' G
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND Ii:DEXED UNDER THE NAS+iE OF IH: _I
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
goy\ O(�
Ar' (4FP
nttrD of
•DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LA14RFNCE D. CHANNING FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
TO COWERT THE PROPERTY AT 394 ESSEX STREET TO FOUR CONDOMI\ICM UNITS
A hearing on this Petition was held on January 20, 1982, with thqq��foYlo4} X82
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hac'ker,�K.Monte,
LaBrecque and Feeherry. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutt and others
and notices of the hearing were ening o properly published in the Salem vening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. CITY g=,CEp,.)4SS.
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 Appeal
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 suited for conversion into fourcondominium units.
__ • 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 proposed conversion of this property to four condominium units was
not opposed by abutters or neighbors.
4. Because of the restrictions placed on this condominium conversion, 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 Appeal 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 acco=dance with the following terms and conditions:
1. The conversion shall be in accordance with the plans submitted to this Board.
2. Six parking spaces shall be provided at the site.
3. Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued prior to the sale of these spaces.
4. Because the building has residential tenants at this time, this petition
was filed, the Petitioner will be required to allow six months to elapse before
commencing work in furtherance of the condominium conversion. Petitioner shall
not during this six month period increase the rents for these tenants.
S. Petitioner shall not increase the re of the existing,Cenants during their .
occupancy of the property. 17F-
Anthony M. Feehtrry, 5'ecretar3
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH .THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
(o\1ERj
lot
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, ,, A4Y, SHA'L BE MADE P9RSUAiJ TO SECTIMN 0 OF THE ,MASS.
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 308, AND SHALL BE FILE.. 'N .Ii N 20 DAYS ALI'c.i iHE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFfIGE O THE CITY C'—
PJRSANT 10 AMSS. I,:E^'L .1. CHA' .2 8, _ ,, it, F!!E JA,,A',:`E ' , -PIAL PERMIT
CRANIA HEREIN, SHALL NUS TAKE El. -Ll UNTIL A C PY 1HF - H'. 2ERT-
FIGATION OF THE CITY CHER:( SHA, zO iA,S HR 'E EL,. . ,I' HAS DEE FILED,
OR THAT, IF SJCH .A:: APPEAL HAS E—E,; FILE. THA. IT H,,6 -E"l UIS i_:E .�i 01N'ED IS
RECORDED IN THE SGUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE iVA,tE OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
jC
ITT 111
'82 OOT 22 Ail :2;• r-arb of Appeat
CITY
Sr-LDECtgION ON THE PETITION OF
LEONARD AND CECILE HULLER REQUESTING
A VARIA7CE FOR 20 LINDEN AVENUE
A hearing on this petition was held on October 20, 1982, with the following
Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Hopper and
Feeherry, 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
in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner$' have requested variances for the property at 20 Linden Avenue to
allow the sale of a small portion of the rear of the property. A variance is required-
because the proposed changes in the configuration of the property will violate rear
yard setback requirements, lot area requirements and maximum lot coverage requirements.
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) Petitioners' proposed modification of the area of the site will have virtually
no effect on the. surrounding area.
2) Petitionersy proposed actions were unopposed by their abutters or neighbors.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the public
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1) The property in question is unique because of its peculiar 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 the follo-.wing special hardship: unless a variance is granted,
it will be virtually impossible to modify the configuration of the lot.
4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good.
Therefore the Board of Appeal unanimously voted in favor of granting the requested
relief. The Board granted a variance to the Petitioners onthe following terms:
1) Variances are granted to allow the proposed modification of the lot lines of the
property in question as 'shown on the
/p submitted t the Board.
Anthony M. Feeh rry, Sec etary
• A COP:' OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED 14ITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
'82 OCT 22 N 1 :21
C:
S "F-!CE
CITY A.
17 OF
THE DAT- Cr FiLl:"
OF
la 3�c,,,,U 0 AND rml Oi
BOARD OF A?D F C
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEAN HARRISON FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR 5 MALL STREET
. �ap?t
A hearing on this Petition was held on October 27, 1982 with the following
Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper, Piemonte„nnd, i::,, ;
Feeherry 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 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to enable her to use one
room of a five-room apartment at 5 Mall Street as a professional office
for the conservation/restoration- of paintings. A Special Permit is needed because
the property is in an R-2 Zoning District, where professional offices are
not otherwise allowed.
In general terms, this Board is, when reviewing such Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit 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,
eJ makes the following findings of fact:
1. The Petitioners proposed use of the site will have a negligible,
if any, impact on the area.
2. The Petitioner's work is in keeping with the historic character of
the .City of Salem.
3. The proposed office was supported by .numerous neighbors and others.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on
the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board
of Appeal finds that the proposed use of the. property will
promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare and 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.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
1) One room at the site may be used as a professional office solely for the restoration/
conservation of paintings.
0 2) No retail sales shall be allowed from the premises.
3) Customers shall be seen at the Petitioner's office by appointment only.
4) No exterior signs shall be allowed at the site.
Y
Anthony M. Fbeherryd
Secretary-
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD & CITY CLERK
IP&V i0 OEV09
O30Nnom c! n, CY."n3a 40
1! -L_d IiJ
9IMId d0 °1:G 3k1 c31.-• S,.'dO of IJ!`.?.'S r5-.,. =a ll;:, _Ids
1.':
3X,1 :0 Ll W.-MS 01 'ra:SZ-,.d 33 iidnS i.u'! it 'I:OIL!93O SI41 viCul 1:3ddV
i
I
uoSizzrg ueof - Jams g1vu S
OMS a`ded
fit of ,'5ttlem, fflassarhuse
Pnttrb of Areal
i DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN J. SULDENSKI FOR A3 "�G
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 11 and 11-1/2 MASON STREET
S_P 9 2 4F PH T
A hearing on these two Petitions was held on September 2, 1982 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. if�cKrr, Feeherry and
Associate Member Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent x�o.�utters, a dNASS.
others and notices of the hearing were published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with MassachusettF General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to convert the existing single-
family dwelling at 11 Mason Street to a two-family and to convert the existing
two-family dwelling at 11-1/2 Mason Street to a three-family dwelling.
The properties are within an Industrial district; however, the properties have
for many years been used as residential properties.
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 Appeal 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, nor
shall this paragraph apply to billboards, signs, or other adver-
tising 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 proposed conversion of these properties was supported by virtually all
neighbors.
2. The property at 11-1/2 Mason Street is presently vacant and in a serious
state of disrepair.
3. Petitioner's proposed conversions of the 2roperties will have a beneficial
. effect on the neighborhood.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN J. SULDENSKI .
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
11 and 11-1/2 MASON STREET
. Page 2
September 2, 1982
S`P 9 2 PH Ise
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented.
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal finds (i) rt}eLt, the proposed use of
the property will not be substantially more detrimental than the`existi�dg 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 approved the granting
of Special Permits to the Petitioner.
The Special Permits are therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
1) Petitioner may convert 11 Mason Street to a 2-family dwelling.
2) Petitioner may convert 11-1/2 Mason Street to a 3-family dwelling.
3) Petitioner shall maintain no more than two off-street
parking spaces at the sites; provided, however, that up to a total
of five parking spaces may be maintained at the site with the written
agreement of the Petitioner's abutter Mrs. Broult and provided that such
written agreement is submitted to this Board.
• 4) A Certificate of'Occupancy and use shall be obtained prior to renting
any of the units to be converted.
5) Petitioner shall arrange for an easement or other property arrangement to
allow both 11 and 11-1/2 Mason Street to have access to and to use
the two (or more) parking spaces at the rear of these sites.
6) The Special Permit for 11 Mason Street shall terminate if the property
is no longer owner-occupied.
The Special Permit for 11-1/2. Mason Street shall terminate if the Petitioner
transfers ownership of the property to any party other than an owner-occupant,
thony M. Fee er y, Secretar /
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE
ff: " -1 ^.''i,l"i'•I. 'F A?IY. `^IL ^' Arc PCRSJAW TO `_:Tf^'i 17 OFF _K ,^.!Ass. CITYCLERK
L . . .- A•7 �J DAYS '.F,ui iIlE DAT: Dr FiLVIG .
l c
E,
Lr ._u(] V .J 6.1..a. l..J ... U. ::E 1 .. ... u.Nt F. LE.
60APM OF APPEAL
r� r
sx1 �
•IHlSi ti,'� .
j DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JA14ES & JULIA FILACCIO REQUESTING
A VARIANCE FOR 9 :ORLEANS AVENUE
PH 'R )
v_
A hearing on this petition was held on September 1, 1982 with the following
$q_aYd Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; 'Messrs. Hacker, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Associate Member Luzinski. Notices of the hearing were sent
t6 'a'bu_ters aril dalliers and a notice cf the hearing was published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a variance for the property at 9 Orleans
Avenue to construct a carport. A variance is required because the proposed
carport will be built to within one foot of the sideline of the
property.
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) Petitioners' proposed carport is a minimal encroachment into
the minimum sideyard at the site,
2) Petitioners:' proposed construction was supported by his abutters.
A
• On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented t..
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1) The property in question is unique because of its peculiar configuration
and becausn of the fact that there is no other possible location
at the site. for a carport.
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, it will be virtually impossible
to construct a garage. or carport at the site. - -
4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board granted a variance to the Petitioners
on the following terms:
rDECISION ON THE PETITION OF
JAISES & JULIA FILACCIO
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 90 ORLEANS AVENUE
Page 2
September 1, 1982
The proposed carport may be constructed at the site d^
accordance with the plan submitted to the Board.
Anthony M. Fe h rry,'Secretary
TO
AFr L 71 ._ .
C,: .,., ... .. ._ . .
.. _ ..
Oc F-lw-ID OG
eOA4J OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
i
�f of Salem, assar[m Efts
}
varb of X82 FE 8 26 P 1 :44
CITY CI . ^EFICE / �P
• =�"n
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DOUGLAS DREW REQUESTING A VIS--YArC£FOR=
14-16 PARK STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on February 17, 1982 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Mr. Piemonte and Associate
Members Luzinski 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 proposes to increase the number of residential units at this
site and requests a variance from existing parking regulations which would
otherwise require off-street parking for the new units. The property is in an
R-3 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. There are substantial parking and traffic congestion problems in the
area which will be made worse if the requested variance is granted.
2. The requested variance was opposed by the Salem Fire Marshal , the
Planning Board and several neighbors.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and other evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
A. The grant of the requested variance would result in a fire safety
problem in the area, would exacerbate a parking and traffic problem in the
neighborhood and would in general have an adverse effect on the area. Moreover,
the Petitioner failed to establish circumstances relating to the land or struc-
ture which affect that property butdonot 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 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.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously in opposition to the
granting the requested relief. The Board denies the requested variance to the
Petitioner.
01�
T a ti ! V F TF° MASS.OF FILH
i'' ougl Hopper', tt irman
Pc .'.iT
PU
FPr:f70 CF ;A :COPY'OF ;THIS IDECISION AND PLANS''HAS BEEN WITH THE PLA*NItiG BOARD AND CITY CLERK
L J i:. i 'd:!E OF WE OYICIEP. - .OF RECURO G3 IS F.ECpnJ_G AINO NC"C 01d TN_ OCi i;ER'S CcF.il i�iSE CF 11. LE. . -
Ni
It 7 Vf p ?SIPIIT� tt ttc u Pf r.
26 P1 :44
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ERNTEST J. DELPERO FOR A SIWJ V�-g IIS�oIcFICE
FOR 15-19 PROCTOR STREET SAL_= 1 �'In
i
A hearing on this petition was held on February 17, 1982 with the
following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, and Mr. Piemonte and
Associate Members Luzinski 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 4OA.
}
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to construct 10 new condominium
units at 15-19 Proctor Street. The property in question is in an R-3 district
where the construction of new condominium units requires a special permit. The
Special Permit which has been requested may therefore be granted upon a finding
by the Board of Appeal, that the grant of the Special Permit will promote
the public health, safety, convenience and welfare.
The Board of Appeal, 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 was opposed by a number of abutters and
f
neighbors.
} 2. The proposed use of the property will have an adverse impact upon parking
and traffic conditions in the area.
3. The Salem Fire Marshal' expressed opposition to the proposed construction
because of fire safety concerns.
4. The proposed use of the property will aggravate existing drainage
problems in the neighborhood.
5. The proposed use of the property will require a substantial amount '
of blasting at the site which will have an adverse impact upon the neighborhood.
6. Concerns were also raised regarding whether the petitioners plans were
in conformity with side and rear set-back requirements.
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 not promote the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare and that
the proposed use is not in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board
voted to deny the Special Permit requested by the Petitioner.
LGA~ �� `
rF° hLING
I9C'I THIS .''.'!. >1.11L7. P;.`-!,'-T TO ccrTi^J i1
l7 OF TDO `9.yd Hopper, airman -
CE N L+.
-A .COPY. OF THIS'DECISION AND PLANS HAS, BEEN .FJ,LED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
F -sue Cru - .....
IF
Or KPOR0 OR is : 'r FIRE.
lee
F,C
af gklem, fig
z5UC '
r at Df u�zr '82 N10V 22 110 :12
CITY r!FrICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ISILDA M. SILVA FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR 15 PUTNAM STREET
A hearing'--on this Petition was held on November 17, 1982 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. LaBrecque, Hopper, 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 Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to extend the existing nonconfirming struc-
ture by constructing an 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 in
this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal 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, exten-
si6n 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 wel-
fare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this ii-Itter, makes the
following findings of fact:
1. The proposed addition was unopposed by any neighbors,
2. The proposed addition will have a negligible impact on 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 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 Petitioner.
'40CISION ON THE PETITION OF
ILDA M. SILVA FOR A SPECIAL
PERPIIT FOR 15 PUTNAM STREET
Page 2
November 17, 1982 -
1. All work shall be in accordance with plans to be submitted to Building
Inspector for his approval.
__ '.r} .a.' '""'e "v' �. .." •Y.Mt. -sn?V $ �•Ju aT' .'�:-dd .LMT ^R'r aY
2. A Certificateyof Use and Occupancy `shat be obtained prior to using the addition."
,'Anthony M. Feeher?y
APPEAL . TH!S DL.,1SI0.., IF ANY, SIIALL BE mAu PUR3!'r:NT TO SECTIC"I 17 OF THE VASS.
;r. • r• F!L£u �l;; 220 DAYS A. EX T,!E OA]
G. .� ;�' ' �t r AD ; I iF L EE
G 1 THE OFF' Or THE ! CLERK.
PSRS�i. .0 iir.$S. ( '. :�� LAV'S L H rFTEP EO S{r'0;: 11, THE
Pr':^SED EE'r E!7:. ...I3.LL '':J. TiJ.. EFiECF UP:LL ALJ.''! CF TI'.'.DEC13:,i.,
OF ;HE CITY CLER4 THAT CO CAPS HAVE ELAF3ED O,FI^, NO A'I'C:1L F:;S CE_ii
G SGCH AN APPEAL HAS EE`_?I FILE. THAT FF HAS DEEM CIS::1li3'_D III? DS'( ) .S
RECCRCED IN THE-SOUTH ESSEX RESISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNOFd TF:E ;IP.}'E C'F T'r.E :�... _.
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OCrNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL -
•
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
RFCEI"rr
(f tia#g of 'Salem, nssadjuse##s
� u�rD t([] '82 MAY -4 P2 :30
��eiaur;s N SPP
CITY CLERK-'S OFFICE
SALEM
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DORILLA MORENCY
REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR 38 SHORE AVE.
A hearing on this Petition was held on April 28,1982 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Piemonte, Hacker,
r Feeherry, and Associate Member Luzinski. 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 variances for the property identified as
38 Shore Ave. which now consists of two non-conforming lots designated as
Lots A and B on a plan submitted to the Board. Variances are required because
a prior division of the .property caused both of the current lots to be
non-conforming. The requested variances, if granted, will conform the lots
to current zoning standards.
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 property in question currently is divided into two lots. A
two-family house is on Lot A; a single-family house is on Lot B.
Both houses have been at the site for over fifty years..
2) By virtue of a prior division of the property, by deed, into two
lots, neither lot now conforms to current zoning.
3) Petitioner's request involves no change of use nor any other changes
at the property. Petitioner seeks only to establish that each
lot is a legally proper one under current zoning.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1) The property in question is unique because of its peculiar frontage
problems and other access problems and because of the fact that
the structures on the site were there for many years prior to
any zoning statute.
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.
r
th
^FI` f
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DORILLA MORENCY -82 MAY -4 P 2 .30
REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR 38 SHORE AVE.
Page 2
CITY C; �,`�"� p�FICE
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 given, it will be
virtually impossible to sell either lot.
4) the desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
F to the public good because the requested variances, if granted,
will change nothing on the site.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal unanimously voted in favor of
granting the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the
Petitioner on the following terms and conditions:
1) Variances from frontage, front yard, side yard, rear yard, lot
area and density requirements and any other variance necessary to
cause the two lots at the site to conform to current zoning
are hereby granted.
r ,
,Anthony�M. `Fee er , Sec etary
f,
}
APPEAL FRO.'.1 THIS DEL'ISION1, IF. A^P!, SHALL RE MADE PURTUANT TO SECT I1 17 OF THE MASS.
GE'd Ei'?,L L•,ri. 803 AND -AlS A- L; fN- DATE OF FIMIG
OF :i-':S n Iii 111 O ':f:t , -r6= CITY
11 r
CIF r
IIv.rl lv... .r. .e.v \ t'.:�,i _ I'.�i�. 1 .: • "...i I._I.D•
0: RECORD Di< 1S RECG'ROED xlII, IC ED C?i -iK- G',`i;lER'S GEI:I IF:owl ;,F T:TLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
•T
COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
CITY CLERK.
zPr: `=r, Ctu of galem, eml ttssarhuseffs
���� � �aurh fff ���rPul
(lla6 My.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID AND LOU Oil'ISHOUA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
TO CONVERT THE PROPERTY AT 40 SUMMER STREET AND ZERO BROAD STREET
TO T140 CONDOMINIUM UNITS +�2
JW4 3 ', P
FILE'.y
A hearing on this Petition was held on January 20E1A982with'-fheAk5llowing
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 Appeal
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 Appeal, ' 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 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 and neighbors.
4. Because of the restrictions outlined in this Special Permit, 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 Appeal,: 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. Petitioners may take no action in furtherance of this conversion
until September 1, 1982.
3.- Petitioners shall do no construction in the apartment.which is
currently occupied by tenants until September 1, 1982.
DECISION - DAVID AND LOU CHISHOLM
40 S"fER STREET AND ZERO BROAD STREET
• Page 2
January 20, 1982
JAS 26 3 15 PN '82
FILE 4j
4. Petitioners shall not increase the rent of the existirdaY QE F' S4!EM.MASS.
tenants during their occupancy of the property.
5. The existing tenants at the property shall have
until September 1, 1982 to vacate the property.
6. In the event that the petitioners wish to show the unit
which .is currently rented to prospective purchasers, this
will be accomplished by appointment with the existing tenants.
7. Certificates of occupany shall be issued prior to the sale
of any condominium unit.
i 'Anthony Pf. --FeeherSecretary
APPF,.L FP:!� iY:° i i. . - _ P: .. ,V;T .J . _ .. . ._ 1 SS. -
C. :..t1. IF ., e,.- :-?r
OF u..C'1—RJ CR 13 r .e_ ` -J
DDnND CF AFP'a!-
40
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
R (l
Clu of
'82 DO 22 All :21 varb of
IFC-1SYO . ORH`>;TPETITION OF MARY E. JENNINGS REQUESTING'
��T fA'NtE FOR 7 SUMMIT AVENUE
A hearing on this petition was held on October 20, 1982, with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Hopper 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 in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 7 Summit Avenue to
convert the existing two-family dwelling at the site to a three-family. A variance
is required because the proposed conversion is not permitted in an R-1 zone where the
property is located. (See prior decision of this Board) .
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). Petitioner's proposed conversion of the property into a three-family dwelling was
unanimously opposed by all abutters.
2) Petitioner's proposed conversion will have an adverse impact on parking problems
in the area because the site has inadequate off-street parking.
(6, 3) The property has been in violation of existing zoning for a substantial period
of timer
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the public
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes.as follows:
1) The property in question is not in any wav unique. Rather, it is a type of
structure which is found throughout the surrounding area.
2) Petitioner failed to establish any conditions which affect the property in
question, but not the zoning district generally.
3) The Petitioner failed to establish a hardship as required by Chapter 40A to
support a variance.
4) The desired variance may not be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good. More specifically, the grant of the special permit would be contrary
to the single-family residential character of the area.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal unanimously voted in opposition to granting the requested
relief. The Board unanimously denied a variance to the PeVe
S�' L E p ' JO -"iT TO v.. �]N 17 C tk}c 'y M. $ cYetaryA r PY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED= FHS PLA\NCITY CLERK
.0
..� is _ i✓r.
BOARD n, nwc�i
Tit of gzytem, C zsnr4V0je#ts
' �uurir >rf �Op�.e�I
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF VINCENT PEPI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO
CONVERT THE PROPERTY AT I .TURNER STREET TO THREE CONDOMINIUM UNITS
AN 26 3 l� P11 '82
fiLE;°
A hearing on this Petition was held on .fanuary 20, 1982 with. the
following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messr�lrTi�tjcez,yrPi�m¢n�p�
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 neighbbrhood.
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 well suited for conversion into
three condominium units.
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 proposed conversion of this property into three condominium
units was not opposed by abutters or neighbors.
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.
3. Cerfiticates of occupancy shall be issued prior to the sale of
these units.
•
DECISION - VINCENT PEPI - 1 TURNER STREET
�age 2
nuary 20, 1982 -
3r, PHTZ
4. The Petitioner will be required to allow six months
to elapse before commencing work in furtherance of. the FILE'..'
condominium conversion with respect to the units on the
second and third floors. The Petitioner may, however, CIT Y `•�,=a,'?15S
commence work in furtherance of .the condominium
conversion with respect to the first floor of this property
20 days after the filing 'of this decision.
� ! / 5-
/Anthony M. Feehegy, Sec atary �t
OF r,ECOBw
MAU OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
`d-S 7 �
/ 1QtTTL
•�^ '82 OCT 22 �\;t :2
ra 'Appeal
DECISION ON THE PETITIO`i OF THE HOUSE OF SEVEN GABLES
CITY C; =.';'SKTZ'LEMENT ASSOCIATION REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR
24 TURNER STREET
A hearing on this Petition was
held on October c bar 20, 1982, with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Hopper, and Feeherry.
Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing
was p_blished in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested variance for the property at 24 Turner Street to construct
an addition to the existing structure at 114 Derby Street. A variance is required -
because the proposed addition will violate minimum front yard depth requirements,
mini__m• sideyard (or rear yard) requirements and maximum height restrictions.
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) Petitioner's proposed addition will have a positive effect on the area because
of the architectural features of the proposed addition.
2) Petitioner's proposed addition was supported by abutters, and by the Salem
Historical Commission.
3) Petitioner's proposed addition is essential for the efficient operation of the
valuable social service programs offered to the community by the petitioner.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the public
heari-_g, the Board of Appeal concluded as follows:
1) --_ property in question is unique because of its peculiar location, the existing
strut=ure at the site, and because of the fact that to locate the proposed
adait_on in any other manner at the site will ba less compatible with the area.
2) 1 conditions described above especially affect the land in question but do not
generally affect the zoning district in which the land is located.
3) :-.e conditions described above :which affect the land in question, but not the
zonin_ district generally cause the following special hardship: unless a variance
is granted, it will be virtually impossible to construct an addition at the site.
4) T'se desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public. good.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal unanimously voted in favor of granting the requested
relief. The Board granted a variance to the Petitioner on the following terms:
1) A. variance is granted to allow construction of an addition to the property in accord—
ance ::ith the plans submitted to the Board.
•2) ?etitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Use and Occupancy prior to using the
proposed addition. )
Anthony ,4. Fee Secre wry
A COPY OF HIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLA:rNING BOARD AND C TY CLERK
'82 OCT 22 All :21
CITY C;
s .;._ . it C ss.
BGAF.D OFF AFP[AC
•• h
=ei +LLTI ? of �TIPTTC� :
a�Oucce N::
PIIcarb of �I�JPII�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILLER WHARF MARINA
FOP, A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 57 R. TURNER STREET V+rr
A hearing on this petition was held on May 12, 1902vwitH:the_foI3b$ang
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Hacker, Piemonte
and Feeherry. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published inothe Salem Evening News
in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The property in question is in an R-2 district. The Petitioner has
requested a Special Permit to (1) validate the construction of an addition
to a previously existing non-conforming use at the site; a snack bar, and
(2) to extend and modify this pre-existing use by allowing the use of a
different structure on the site for a dining facility. In addition, the
Petitioner has in its petition asked for a variance to "operate a full service
marina including floating slips, gasoline and oil storage and sales, marine
hardware and supply, haul-out facilities, sales, service, repair, and storage
of boats and motors. .".
• The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of
fact:
1. There is no dispute that for many years a snack bar has been
operated on a seasonal basis at this site. The facility operated out of a
small building at the site and provided a limited amount of outside seating
both in front of the restaurant and on the pier behind the snack bar This
snack bar has operated each year from approximately May to October. Because
of the nature of the structure housing this snack bar it had a fairly minimal
impact on the area. There were a limited number of seats within the
restaurant; thus, the facility had very few patrons during cold or rainy
weather or late in the evening.
2. In October 1980, without benefit of a building permit or a special
permit, the prior operator of this restaurant/snack bar caused a substantial
addition to be constructed at the rear of the property. This addition now
provides 32 seats for patrons.
3. The addition in question constituted a substantial modification,
alteration and addition to a prior non-conforming use by virtue of the fact
that by providing a larger sheltered restaurant facility patrons could use
the restaurant at any hour and in any weather. This has expanded the operation
• of this facility to the detriment of the residential neighbors.
i
• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILLER NHARF MARINA
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 57 R. TURNER STREET
Page Two
4. The addition to the restaurant has had an adverse impact on the
area by increasing both pedestrian and automobile traffic, and by creating
noise, traffic, parking, security and other problems which have affected the
peace of the residents in this R-2 neighborhood.
5. In addition to requesting that this Board "validate" the addition
to the restaurant, Petitioner's Special Permit request also proposes' a further
expansion of this non-conforming use through the use of a second structure
on the property which would house approximately thirty seats.
6. The Petitioner's plan provides no detailed plans for how the
property will accommodate the flow of increased traffic to and from the site.
This deficiency .in the Petitioner's plan is particularly troublesome because
Turner Street in particular and this area in general simply cannot absorb any
additional traffic. Turner Street is a dead end street with a major tourist
attraction, The House of Seven Gables, on it. The street is adjacent to a
large and developing commercial area along Derby Street which is one of the
most congested areas in the City.
7. The Petitioner's plan for this site fails to provide landscaping or
screening from area residences. The plan fails to propose any limitation upon
the hours of operation of this expanded facility. In addition, the Petitioner
proposes no improvements in the overall appearance of the property. The
property currently has a substantial amount of debris scattered about which
is unsightly and particularly unattractive when compared to the well-kept
restored homes in the area. Lastly, the Petitioner's plan for parking to
accommodate restaurant patrons is wholly inadequate.
In deciding a request for a Special Permit to alter a pre-existing non-
conforming use, this Board must apply the following standard:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing In
this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance
with' the procedure and conditions set forth in Section
VII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations
and reconstruction of nonconforming 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 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.
• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILLER WHARF MARINA
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 57 R. TURNER STREET
Page Three
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal finds as recorded in the vote .
stated below, (i) that the proposed use of the property will be substantially
more detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood, (ii) that the
proposed use of the property will not promote the public health, safety, -
conveneince, or welfare of the City's inhabitants, and (iii) that the
proposed use of the property is not in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
The Board, upon consideration of whether to grant the Petitioner's Special
Permit request, voted as follows:
Chairman Hopper and Mr. Feeherry voted to deny the
Special Permit. Mr. Hacker voted to grant the Special
Permit. Mr. Piemonte voted present.
Accordingly, the Board concludes that the addition at the rear of the
existing restaurant is illegal and must be removed. Further, Petitioneris
prohibited from expanding the existing restaurant into any other structure
on the property.
• With respect to the Petitioner's request„as stated above for a variance
to operate a "full service marina” including sales, service, etc. , this Board
finds as follows:
1. This property had for some time prior to ownership by this
Petitioner been run as a boat yard. Petitioner provided aerial photographs of
the site taken in 1963 to prove this point. However, for several years prior
to the purchase of this property by the Petitioner the property had a very
minimal use. Those uses did not include, for example, floating slips, and
engine repair shop, the sale of boats or the like. Accordingly, to the
extent, if at all, that the property had a prior non-conforming. use as a boat
yard, that use does not confer on the Petitioner any rights to use this property .
as a "full service marina" based upon a claim of a prior non-conforming use.
2. Petitioner's request for a variance to operate a full service
marina at the site suffers from the same deficiencies outlined above in this
Board's discussion of the Petitioner's request for a Special Permit. Petitioner's
plan fails to adequately deal with parking, traffic or security issues. In
addition, Petitioner offers no proposals to minimize the effect of the proposed
"full service marina" on neighbors.
3. Petitioner offered the Board no evidence explaining the basis for
the Petitioner's addition of approximately twenty floating slips in front
• of this property. These slips are not authorized by the Board's prior variance
• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILLER WHARF MARINA
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 57 R. TURNER STREET
Page Four
for the property next to this parcel nor are these slips otherwise authorized
by any provision in the Zoning Ordinance. The slips must, therefore, be
removed.
4. Petitioner's proposal for "service, repair and storage of boats
and motors at this site" fails to define where this work will take place, or
whether there will be any restrictions on the hours of such work.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and other evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows with respect
to Petitioner's request for a variance:
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 to this parcel 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.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted to deny the granting of
the requested relief, the Board denied a variance to the Petitioner in .
accordance with the following vote:
Messrs. Hopper and Feeherry voted to deny the variance,
Mr. Hacker voted in favor of the variance, and Mr.
Piemonte voted "present".
i
c {1 T An how' n M-Feeherryg Secreta y AS -
v S
COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PUL%ikGF'&RD AND
CITY CLERK.
/ C T
of 'alera, 411 C-15�5njz
F '( u�r'� rrfnrul
-_ - 82 NOl 22 P'1::3 ):1
CITY a 7.::':,'`, FF!CE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAMELA DECESARE REQUESTING
A VARIANCE FOR 26-1/2 VALLEY STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on November 17, 1982 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper, LaBrecque and Feeherry and
Associate Member Luzinski. 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:' a � _ m
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property in question to allow
her to keep a 12' x 16' storage shed in its present location at the site. The shed
was erected without a building permit and it currently encroaches into the minimum side
and rear yard setback requirements for an R-1 zoning 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 remove another shed at the rear
of the property if the requested variance is granted.
. 2. No substantial 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 configuration and
topography. In addition, the configuration of the lot imposes a hardship on the
petitioner by restricting her ability to put a shed at any other location on the property.
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.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted in favor (4-0), with Mr. LeBrecque voting
present, of approving the grant of the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to
the Petitioner on the following terms and conditions:
1. Petitioner's 12' x 16' shed may remain at its current location at the site.
2. Petitioner shall by May 15, 1983 remove a smaller shed which is approximately 6' x 8'
and which is on the rear property line. �1 n
6thony M. Feeh rry, cretarf
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLEI
E MASS
$ECTION'�'"OE.7N,.�
MADE PURSUZ NDA S AFTER
THE DfaiE OF FILID
IF ANY, SHALL BELIED WITHIN
M THIS DECISION. AND SHALLTBE HE CITY CLERK. SPECIAL PEF
APPEAL FRO. . ,;,AFTER BOB, THE VARIANCE DR c GER
GENERAL THE OFFICE OF SECTION 11. BEARtN.- TH-
DEEN FILED
OF THIS `a`�-"r;�� !ENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808. DOPY OF THE DECISION• DENIED IS
- .�,,, EFFECT UNTIL A AND NO APPEAL NAS
F' ��I"'I` lu ;+FALL NOT TAKE I{AVE EWSEO DISMISSED OR
0 OPYS HAS BEEN NAME OF TH
: CLERK THAT 2 pILE:THAT IT UNDER THE
F:-�,0 r .H APPEAL NAS BEEN DEEDS
AND INDEXED TITLE.
CR t=.?i.•tF1'? :. -_. IT" Ess EXD NOTEDISTRYONFTHE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE Of
y-GURDED AN BOARD Of APPEAL
of RECUR) UR A
A;
i Ctv of "Mem,
..♦_�ir �II2Tr�i 131 ��Quj
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GREGORY VERVATES
FOR A SPECIAL. PERMIT FOR 13 WALL STREET
5�� 9 2 117 PM T
A hearing on this Petition was held on September 2, 1982, with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messr`&�!Iacker, Feeherry
and Associate Member Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was .sent to abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were published in the Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner, has requested a Special Permit to construct a 16' x 24'
addition to the property which addition will extend a non-conforming structure
at the site which encroaches to within 7 feet of the side (or front) lot line.
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 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. The proposed addition will have a negligible impact on the area.
2. The proposed addition will provide an off street parking space within
the garage to be constructed.
3. 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 Appeal 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 approved the granting of a Special Permit to the Petitioner.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GREGORY VERVATES '
• FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 13 WALL STREET
Page 2
September 2, 1982
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions: pp ((LL
1. Petitioner may construct a 16' x 24' addition to the diBsting2sm, DMW
in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board. The addition may
be constructed to within 7 feet of theWall Street pro��r line.
2. The exterior of the addition shall be wood shingle and'rsekl'matcli,t'z*� Aosely
as possible the exterior of the existing structure.
3. A Certificate of Occupancy and Use must be obtained prior to using the proposed
addition.
1
nthony F f'er Secr tary
APPEAL FRC.':! THIS CEG!SIO"i, IF P-"Y. SHALL C'A'E Pl:;iS'"::'!T TO SECTIO.! ll OF TILE MASS.
GENER'L ..:Is. Cr! �. ,%! ) S11,. .. . .. DAYS .AFTER THE DATE OF FILIi:G
OF
- P .": . _.\ `? ..-:. :?' lE VA? .E ^2 £ .ItL P-R':UT
,r'- N:"Z
OR TO. 9R.0 '•.J !U - -
Rt,,..._U
_A7D L'.'i� t. br 'HE"G�ftNZR
OF RECC30 GR ,S (i t �G .aiG '.oiEJ G. ERS V FLCATE 07 TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL - -
AOPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AND PLANNING BOARD
.cola
of ��
varb of
:g1A8 V>i:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER S. HAYWOOD FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A PARCEL OF LAND ON WINTER ISLAND
JAN 26 3 z5 P�i 'FZ
A hearing on this petition was held on January 20, F�1$RZ=with the
following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs.
Hacker, Piemonte, LaBrecque and Feeherry. Notice of thcCIMSt ng was_y +1y5
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 use a portion of
two existing buildings at Winter Island as a boatyard. The property in
question is in an R-C 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 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 is supported by the Winter
Island Commission.
2) The proposed use of the property will provide much needed security
for the area and will result in an improvement in the existing
structures.
3) The proposed use of the property will not limit public access
to Winter Island. In fact, revenue f om the Petitioner's lease
with the City may generate income that will promote public use
of Winter Island.
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 unanimously 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:
•
DECISION - PETER S. HAYWOOD FOR SPECIAL PER&NfIT
FOR A PARCEL OF LAND ON WINTER ISLAND - Page 2
January 20, 1982
1) The Petitioner may use an area on Winter Island, th tu�j l e
defined by the terms of a lease between the Petitio4 43hd J 15 PN '97
the City, for use as a boatyard. FELE ,-
2) The Petitioner's use of the area in question is coitdf:�ioned ;
upon the execution of a lease with the City. In the event �H'FsdSS.
that no such release is executed, this Special Permit shall
be null and void.
3) Petitioner will comply with all applicable Fire Safety
Codes prior to commencing the opeation of his boatyard.
Anthony M. F ' herry,�'Secret Ary
APPEAL FRTA T p-r� f
OF
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK .
i Cnt#� of �tt1em, tzs�� �e##s
?p, uttr� of yy,�pyPtt2 FEB 26 P 1 :44
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALBERT A. POTORSKI FORr %
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A PARCEL OF LAND ON WINTER ISLANIV SA!ENI OFFICE
A hearing on this petition was held on February. 17, 1982, with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, and Mr. Piemonte and Associate
Members Luzinski 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 Lacus Chapter 40A. _
�fhe Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to use a leased area of Winter
Island for the construction of a 30' x 40' structure in which petitioner proposes to
operate a snack bar. The property in question is in an R C Zoning District.
The Special Permit which has been requested may therefore be granted upon a
finding by the Board of Appeal; that the grant of the Special Permit will promote
the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, 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 is supported by the Winter Island
Commission and the Plummer Home.
-• 2) The proposed use of the property will provide much needed security for
the area and will result in an. improvement in the area.
3) The proposed use of the property will not limit- public access to Winter
Island. In fact, revenue from the Petitioner's lease with the City may
generate income that will promote public use of Winter Island.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concluded unanimously that the proposed
P
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 unanimously 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) The Petitioner may use an area on Winter Island, that will be defined
by the terms of a lease between the Petitioner and the City, for the con=
struction of a 30' x 40' building to be used as a snack bar.
2) The Petitioner's use of the area in question is further conditioned upon
the terms of a lease with the City.
APPEAL FRO.M THb V,_ I p I SH'"LL BE t/`r` P'a. n r T t o 7. r r ..
p ' •%.- L s 3) :k etitioner,w�Yl gbta�n. ac--uilc ifig�. geiiFE-t and obtain the prior approval of
D }I the Salem_ ERTt Marshall before 0Etibhlhtel onst ction at the site.
Y ,H.:,ED H TGR 37 " 11 THE 1 P' "PECIAL P..'
OR (r1.,T If Sj , � r I ' [ ErI F!L`D,DOugl Hopper, airman
RE,ORCED 1'1 Tr �i E v R 'I ! ° - ^;i G:1 is
Or' RECORD OR IJ fEU „DEO AuJ P6,1D p% ruEE� ! r• -E, ,fi H- A:i OF THE WMER
A COPY OF THIS DECISION-XND 1�U"i" A9'%EEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK.
=n (situ of *IPm, nssar4usetts. p2
82 MAY "4 .31
Pourbof
A}JpP211
-
CITY C
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM SOUND DEVELOPMENT CORP.
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A PARCEL OF LAND ON WINTER ISLAND
A hearing on this petition was held on April .28, 1982 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Hacker, LaBrecque
and Feeherry and Associate Member Luzinski. 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 use a portion of Winter
Island as a marina with not more than 208 slips. In addition, Petitioner
proposes to construct a 30' x 40' marina support building at the site in
question. The property in question is in an R-C Zoning District. The Special
Permit which has been requested may therefore be granted upon a finding by the
Board of Appeal, that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, 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 is supported by the Winter
Island Commission.
2) The proposed use of the property will provide additional security
for the area and will result in an improvement in the area.
3) The proposed use of the property will not limit public access to
Winter Island. In fact, revenue from the Petitioner's lease with
the City may generate income that will promote public use of
Winter Island.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal 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 unanimously 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) The Petitioner may use an area on Winter Island, that will be
defined by the terms of a lease between the Petitioner and the
City, for use as a marina with not more than 208 slips. In
•82 MAY -4 P2 :31
DECISION - SALEM SOUND DEVELOPMENT CORP. FOR SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR A PARCEL OF LAND ON WINTER ISLANDCITY CLEpi(y OFFICE
Page 2 SALLA`
addition, Petitioner may construct a 30' x 40' marina support
building at the site in accordance with plans submitted to the
Board.
2) The Petitioner's use of the area in question is conditioned upon
the execution of a -lease with the City. In the event that no
such lease is executed, this Special Permit shall be null and
void.
3) Petitioner will comply with all applicable Fire Safety Codes prior
to commencing the operation of his marina.
4) Petitioner's use of the marina support building shall be limited
to use as an office, shower and laundromat and for the storage
of marina equipment.
5) Petitioner shall sell no food at the site in question nor shall
Petitioner sell gasoline, store gasoline or sell boats at the
facility.
6) Petitioner will, together with the Winter Island Commission, agree
on a plan to give Salem residents priority for the marina slips.
If no such agreement can be reached this Board will order such a
plan for the marina's use.
7) Petitioner may store no more than four boats at the site and these
boats must be owned or operated by the Petitioner.
r
�nl
Anthony M Feefidrr Secretary
APP,A.L FP THIS f_C' nJ I A'Y, Sprit. P P TO SECT.
10ol t7 OF THF3 'AASS.
SF :Ud'
IS
P P
BOAi2D OF A.PP61E - -
COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
CITY CLERK.
v,Y,covrv,A foo V
r, Titg of �$ alerra, fflassuchnUffs
Pourb of A"eal '82 FEB 26 P 1 :44
ori r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE WINTER ISLAND COMMISSIO!C1TqRC4K MMVICE
PERMIT FOR WINTER ISLAND SALEM bi?.S '
i
A hearing on this petition was held on February 17, 1982 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, and Mr. Piemonte and Associate
Members Luzinski 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.
ahe Winter .Island Commission, as Petitioner, has requested a Special Permit
to allow overnight camping by not more than sixty recreational vehicles on Winter
Island during the summer months. Winter Island is in an R-C
district. The Special Permit which has been requested may therefore be granted
upon a finding by the Board of Appeal, that the grant of the Special Permit
will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1) A prior request to this Board resulted in the granting of a Special Permit
allowing overnight camping at the site. That Special Permit expired on October 1, 1981.
2. The proposed use of the site will in no way limit the public's access to
the site and the revenue generated by the proposed use will benefit the City and
provide funds which will allow greater access by the public to Winter Island.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeal, concluded unanimously that the proposed use will
promote the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare 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 overnight camping of not more than 60 recreational vehicles shall be per-
mitted at Winter .Island during the period June 1, 1982 to October 1, 1982.
2) The occupancy of-Winter Island by thesp ra.creational vehicles shall be
in accordance with the restrictions stated in the Salem Fire Marshal', February 17,
1982 letter to this Board.
Dougl Hopper, C airman
*Q � FP TM c< � >` 'c t1 I I ^.= TO °C_CTION 17 OF THE P:1ASS.
LL A .COPY OF THIS DEEFSION A_v PLANS,'; Si:BEENoFILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
Cj
T.
tS
OR TO' a'E -` TOE 0VINEtR .
R •UC1 r. .. ._
OF R.Cc,0 OR iS "'W.3 A'+J J - %!, -,. +Fw ur ,:TLE. -
of Salem, �z6sadjuBe#ts
'82 MAR 17 A10 :49
Pourh of ( p"=l
�111lNG[�i" -
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILFRED PETTIPAS CITY CLER^'SM1O'FICE
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 7 WHEATLAND STREET .
SALEM r .,S':
A hearing on this Petition was held on March 10,1982 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 the right to construct an addition `
to the first floor of the existing building at the site. The proposed construction
will, however, extend an existing non-conforming structure. The existing
structure encroaches in the minimum sideyard at the site; the proposed addition
will likewise be built to within 3: 4" of the side line.
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 Appeal 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, the 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 will improve the appearance of the property in question.
2. The proposed addition will have a negligible impact upon the property
of abutters and other neighbors.
3. The proposed addition was unopposed .by anyone.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
lff at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal 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, 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.
- ._.I�-
DECISION - March 10, 1982 - WILFRDD PETTIPAS '82 HRR 17 A10 :49
Page 2
CITY CLERI`, OFFICE
SAI ; n z
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
1) The Petitioner is authorized to construct a 16' x 24' addition at the rear
of the first floor of the existing structure at the site.
2) The addition may encroach into the minimum sideyard to within 3' x 6" of
the property side line.
3) Plans shall. be submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the commence-
ment of any work at the site.
4) The Petitioner shall comply with all applicable provisions of Mass. Gen.
Laws and the State Building. Code with respect to smoke detectors and shall
., submit plans for stamped approval by the Salem ire Marshal..
jbony M. Fetherry
APPEAL M I r. C:,.-.i:. 4. ., £' t C.. ... r„ ;? W 17 C'r .PAS$. - . . ..
CqI 7 P.A.L r..1,4 Cr:,.rit: v-'. A.-.. .:i.- _ ..cr - ED DAYS A=T_a :1:_ A._ o YIUE:u . - -
Cr li ;s 1 a: - Cf.:.E C T::_ Eft C _:�. . - - - -
`.rT -
T. I "a1 ''-t:i .irs r` I ::c. :__ -t ._:'. !S
C Ti E.;.,_C -,t ,'_-H1' .. -.c:.... .
Cr' RE-iiRD G3 IS RcCORD'cD AND ftj :D it T:!E Dlr •RS L-^T MO.. GP THiE -
...F. _
- - BDARD UP APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERF
Pourb of -Appm[ '82
A9 :2
CITY CL RK,"S 7r° F
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DORIS O'BRIEN ' h/ice SALEt,; tr._
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 377 ESSEX STREET
A hearing on this petition was held on June 8, 1982 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte and
Feeherry and Associate Member Luzinski. 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 first
floor of the locus to two apartment units, thereby converting this single- .
family dwelling into a. three-family dwelling. The property is in a R-2
district. The Special Permit which has been requested may therefore be
granted upon a finding by the Board of Appeal, that the grant of the Special
Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of
• fact:
1. The first floor of the property in question was previously used
for a doctor's office.
2. The proposed use of the property will therefore cause-fewer .
traffic and parking problems for the area. than its prior use.
3. The proposed use of the property for residences is more in
harmony with the permitted uses in an R-2 zoning district.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of'Appeal concluded 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 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. The first floor of the property may be converted to two apartments
as shown on the plans submitted to the Board.
APPEAL FRO:'A THIS CECLS!M, P11-_"A.-IT TC S :7 OF THE .'BASS.
•. - GENERAL LA'S CIA' I r_ 1 f ?� -?'fS 2. _. :h_ G:;`[ CF MINI!MINI!OF THIS D S.,?I Ci, r ,,
PL.'.SA. T Ti) - ,_o. (_' a.'.;i _ °: :'.L FER"ffT
GRANTED - i'.t CERT-
FICATi07 Gf Tile C:;.'
OR THAT. IF SL,!i __L i .� L�._A -ii.'c .. ad' - L_:::ED IS
RECORDED I:d T'I.: "�iH ESSEX, :.,iT( C. ., ,•:0 EJ _.:� .Lr. - .,.: .,F IH-1 UME!"
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED Ai1D ii ,`_D CJ T6Z ViliIEXS CERT:FF,xfE OF TITLE. '
w
. . RI ON THE
PETITION OF DORIS O'BRIEN
FOR
SP
-FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 377 ESSEX STREET
.i ` Page Two
2. Three off-street parking spaces shall be maintained at the site.
3. The Petitioner shall prepare an adequate set of plans for
submission to and approval by the Building Inspector prior to
any work on the site.
4. Petitioner shall comply with all applicable fire safety codes in
connection with the work to be done at this site.
5. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the site
prior to renting the premises.
Ir
W'Inthony M. Feeher y, �Secreta
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THV CITY CLERK AND PLANNING BOARD.
•
'Salem' �zes�zcijusens
'C�Ofllln"i tp4,i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN R. SERAFINI
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 63 FEDERAL STREET
Fii E .,
A hearing on this Petition was held on „ay 12, 198 -,with the .foidbhfhg
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Hacker, Piemonte 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 requests a variance for the property at 63 Federal Street
to use the site for professional offices in addition to not more than four
residential units. A variance is required because the building is in a R-3
district where the proposed use of the property for professional offices is
prohibited without a variance.
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 . (1) The proposed use of the property will upgrade the site without
an adverse effect on the area.
(2) The area has over the last several years become a .favored
location for professional offices. . This use of the older
properties in the area has had a markedly positive effect in
upgrading the appearance of the street.
(3) The proposed variance received the support of several
persons in the area and no opposition to the proposed use .
was raised by anyone.
On the basis of the above findings of .fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
(1) The property in question is unique because of its size and
location. The building's proximity to local courts and the
Registry of Deeds is particularly convenient for local. .
attorneys. In addition, because of its size and structure,
it cannot be used economically as only a multi-family dwelling.
(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.
I \
t
• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN R. SERAFINI
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 63 FEDERAL STREET
Page. Two
(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 property cannot
be utilized for its highest and best use.
(4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good because the proposed use is in keeping with
the general area.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal 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 professional offices in conjunction
with not more than four residential units.
(2) Six parking spaces shall be maintained at the site as shown on a
plan submitted to the Board.
. (3) Prior to use of this property for professional offices the
r _ Petitioner shall be -gequired to obtain a certificate of use
and occupancy from the Building Inspector.
L, i, F (t t-'A
Anthony M. Feeherry, Secretary
T _� t v T... Hass.
d:' Ti: 0:'7642
BOARD OF APPAL
• COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
CITY CLERK.
t �
'82 XV 15 A 9 :21
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CROWNINSHIELD CORPORA'f(Hr r
REQUESTING VARIANCE FOR 35 FLINT STREET (BOWDIT.CH .SCHtr�14"`(' � '�IC�
1
A hearing on this Petition was held on June 8, 1982 with the following Board
Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte and Feeherry,
and Associate Member Luzinski. 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 35 Flint Street
to convert the structure at the site (formerly the Bowditch School) lto 28
.condominium 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 Appeal after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing .and after viewing the property, -makes the following findings
of fact:
1. The building in question is unique because of its previous use
as a school.
Ik± - � 2. The manner in which this property isto be developed is of
special significance to the City because of its proximity
to a number of historic sites.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appealr concluded as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its prior use.
2. The condition described above especially affects the structure
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 special hardship
because if the requested variance is not granted, the property
cannot be developed in a manner which is consistent with the
City of Salem's Master Plan.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detri—
ment to the public good because the proposed development will
enhance the appearance of the area and provide much-needed
housing. APPEAL FR01 7!I:SA:!'i, SHALI. SE (:SDE PICS!"AXT TO S'CT!G 117 OF THE MASS.
GENERA? LAB=S, kl;) Si-JA.! G:'.Ri7!
sGAYS i?E3 TRE DATE OF FILCiC
" - "» � - I " rVR?fiIT
FICP.7:TI C. "-. .2-r - H,_ d' FILED. .
OR 7H:T, IF SO:,.. ......,_�: t, ��:rJ iS
RECf,PGE^ 17 THS S v Eu r J n .)
< i'. ,,, �iA:,iE OF THE ONNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECJRDED A.0 Nu7ED On TH= O:lnER'S CERFIF!C.4TE OF
BOARD OF APPEAL
�a
CROWININSHIELD CORPORATION
35 Flint Street (Bowditch School)
June 8, 1982
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal- 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 28 condominium units.
2. No less than 52 parking spaces shall be maintained at
the site.
3. This-variance is further conditioned upon and subject to
the terms stated in the City Council Order relating to
this site, which order is dated December 10, 1981 approved
by the mayor on December 14, 1981. The terms of that order
are incorporated and made part of this variance.
Anthony M. Feeherr
• Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AND THE PLANNING BOARD.
V1 � rJ4Sb19
1 Pjsar� of Appmt
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NEW ENGLAND TOWER COMPANY
FOR 24 FORT AVENUE
i
Nov � �A hearing on this Petition was held on October 27, 1982, with the?following
Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hoppg.r-,'`Piemonte, and
Feeherry and Associate Member Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters
and others and notices of the hearing were properly;'published 'iii 'the Salem+Tyening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner requests . a Special Permit and/or variance to construct
several structures described in plans submitted with Petitioner's application.
The submitted plans depict the proposed structures which will house the precipitators
for Units No. 1, 2, and 3, and decanting bins and a fly ash silo. Also
included is the associated ductwork (breeching) , ductwork supports and pipe bridges
which connect the proposed structures and internal systems to the existing station.
The property is within an industrial district. The proposed structures
will all be in excess of the 45 foot height restriction which is applicable in an Industrie
District. Theproposed buildings will be attached to another structure by pipe
bridges and ductwork. The proposed structures will, therefore, constitute an extension
of existing structures which are non-conforming because of their height.
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 Appeal may, in accordance
with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII
F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and recon-
struction of nonconfirming 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 structures will facilitate the burning of coal at the plant.
2) The proposed structure has been mandated under the terms of a Delayed
• Compliance Order issued by EPA.
3) The structures- will reduce particulate emissions from the stacks at the plat
4) The structures vill substantially reduce the need for sluicing water
which, historically, has come from Salem harbor.
PAGE 2
October 27, 1982
NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY - 24 FORT AVENUE
5) The structures will reduce airborne dust in the area.
NOV
6) The proposed structures cannot be built to meet foot foot height
restriction in the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
CITY P6 i,iq cr
7) A literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause the
"Petitioner to
be unable to comply with the EPA's Delayed Compliance Order thus subjecting the
Company to revocation of that order and possible civil penalties.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeal 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 prposed 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 granted in accordance with the following terms and
conditions:
1) The proposed facility may be constructed in accordance with the
plans submitted to the Board.
2) The Petitioner shall forthwith provide to the Salem Health Department
any reports requested by that agency which the Petitioner must prepare
for the EPA relating to the use of _these structures.
3) . The disposal by truck of fly ash from the storage facility shall,
except in bona .fide emergency situations, be limited to the hours 7 a.m.
to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. Except in a bona fide emergency
situation, no ash will be removed from the site on weekends or holidays.
4) The procedures for trucking ash from the storage facility shall be
as follows:
A. Ash will be loaded into trucks within the storage facility.
B. Once loaded into trucks, the ash will be covered by canvas or
similar material.
C. The trucks will then proceed through a truck wash to remove any
material adhering to the truck.
5) Petitioner shall re-connect the water main on which forms a loop for the
eight inch water main protecting this property.
• 6) A certificate of Occupancy of Use shall be obtained prior to using the
structures in question.
PAGE 3
"t October 27, 1982
NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY - 24 PORP AVENUE
Although the Board believes that a Special Permit is.all that is required
in this situation, the Board also finds that a variagye could be granted in this case
with the same conditions as stated above. f;OJ Q c, kflIP2
( In reaching the conclusion that a variance may LVgranted, the Board finds
in addition to the above-stated facts: �.•, ;
_ '.i clq.khgj
1) That the property in question is unique because of its use as a
power plant and because as the only electric facility in this
district it is the only facility which must handle substantial quantities
of ash.
2) The conditions described above especially affect the property in question,
but not the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship:
unless the proposed structures are built, the plant will not be in compliance witl
an EPA Order and will be subject to possible fines and civil
penalties. -
3) The conditions described above especially affect the property
in question but do not generally affect the zoning district in
which the property is located.
4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good because the proposed facility will in fact
reduce pollution in the area and therefore benefit the City. .
,(_: l.f;., 7
thony M. F e erry J
Secretary
i
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FP71 i;:iS 0"�J$iO'i. If A.-IY SHALL 3F ^'enc PU°T_'A.1i TO cc^i•^.i 17 CF THE MASS. -
., __ C'i'.: . . .... ':: ] �. i:°T ..".•A(E C� FiLIh1O
. ... . .. ..._ C c-Y. -
._ .. .. - .._ _. ...... -._ ... - _. ..Iii;.
OF HEC6+u 0., iS .._'n.GEO A_f0 111D 1.1 Tr OF riiiP.
- 60ARO OF APPEAL
t
l A R
Jvarbr of
� �Vpter.[ '82 PIAR 17 R10 -44
DECISION ON THE PETITION. OF NES? ENGLAND POWER COMPANY CITY CLERK'S 0 FICE
FOR 24 FORT AVENUE SALEM i iiS
A hearing on this Petition was held on March 10, 1982 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.
The Petitioner requests a Special Permit to construct a fly ash storage
building at 24 Fort Avenue. The property is within an industrial+district.
. .The proposed structure will be 108 feet above grade which is in excess of
the 45 foot height restriction which is applicable in an Industrial District.
The proposed building will be attached to another structure by a pipe bridge.
The proposed structure will, therefore, constitute an extension of that
structure which is also non-conforming because of its height.,
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 Appeal '; may, in accordance
with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII
F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and recon-
struction 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, .F _
makes the following findings of fact:
1) The proposed structure will facilitate the burning of coal at the plant:
2) The proposed structure has been mandated under the terms of a Delayed
Compliance Order issued by EPA. .
3) The sr_rVcture will reduce particulate emissions from the stacks at the plant.
4) .The structure will substantially.-reduce the need for sluicing water which,
historically, has come from Salem harbor.
5) The structure will reduce open air storage of ash, thus reducing airborne dust
in the area.
DECISION - MARCH 10, 1982 - NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY
ftEG" :
Page 2
• '82 MAR 17 A1Q :4.9
6) A practical dry fly ash collection system cannot be built to meet the
45 foot height restriction in the Salem Zoning Ord'
6MLE�--Rh?S u�FiCE
7) A literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cSAW" :11,ss
Petitioner to be unable to comply with the EPA's Delayed Compliance ,
Order thus subjecting the Company to revocation of that order and possible
` civil penalties.
i
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence
presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal 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 granted in accordance with the following terms and
conditions
1) The storage facility may be constructed to a maximum height
of 108 feet above grade in accordance with the plans submitted to .the
Board.
I �
• 2) The storage facility shall be constructed so that the motors used to
drive the system shall be placed within the structure thus reducing
noise in the area.
3) The Petitioner shall forthwith provide to the Salem Health Department
any reports requested by that agency which the Petitioner must prepare
for the EPA relating to the use of this structure for the storage of
fly ash.
i
4) The disposal by truck of fly ash from the storage facility shall,
except in bona fide emergency situations, be limited to the hours
7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. No ash will be removed from
the site on weekends or holidays.
5) The procedures for trucking ash from the storage facility shall be .
as follows:
A. Ash will be loaded into trucks within the storage facility.
B. Once loaded into trucks, the ash will be covered by canvas.
C. The trucks will then proceed though a truck wash to remove any
material adhering to the truck.
• DECISION - MARCH 10, 1982 - NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY '82 MAR 17 A10 :49
Page 3
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM MASS
Although the Board believes that a Special Permit is all that is
required in this situation, the Board also finds that a variance is appropriate
in this case with the same conditions as stated above.
In reaching the conclusion that a variance may be granted, the
Board finds in addition to the above-stated facts:
1) That.the property in question is unique because of its use
as a power plant and because as the only .electric facility in
this district it is the only facility which must handle substantial
quantities of ash.
2) The conditions described above especially affect the property
in question, but not the zoning district generally cause
the following special hardship: unless a 108 foot storage facility
is constructed, the plant will not be in compliance with the EPA
Delayed Compliance Order and will be subject to possible fines
and civil penalties. -
3) The conditions described above especially affect the property
P y
in question but do not generally affect the zoning district
r -_•
.. --..in which .the property is located.
4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
.to the public good because the proposed facility will in fact reduce
pollution in the area and therefore benefit the City.
Anth ny M. Fee rry
A COPY OF THISAiDEGISION:�AND':iP.LANS HAS BEEN !FILED'•F71THJ1EfE':FLANNYTNG` 15ARD AND THE CITY CLERK
- G=i;:RnL L ilS, GY.`? L,2. ta:L .._ ci .-1- 27 DAYS B Nic- OF FILE(.'
RE.r..:JcD !:; T.:' �K.u.:: .: _. ... J i D .r_ :......_ CF..i„ vi:i'! d
CF R CGRD OR 1°. 2ECu D;J AND K.-,ED Gi'i-TrZ C "?R'S CE i!. ,:Ei.
. ROARD OF h?f LAL
1y Ctv of "yak i, �E?%a3Cx��la2ReL�T�J
aurb Df uezl OCI -5 A9 :3? 43
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEONARD J. LRRTIr. _ 9/la �l
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 16 GRANITE STREE
A hearing on this Petition was held on September 29, 1982 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Piemonte, Hacker
and Feeherry 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 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 19 Granite Street
to allow him to install a pool at the site within 5' 6" of a foundation wall.
A variance is required because the proposed location of the pool is not
permitted without a variance.
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 proposed pool will have no effect on the surrounding neighborhood.
lI 2) The proposed pool was unopposed by any abutters.
l On the basis of the above findings of fact, and-the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1) The property in question is unique because of its peculiar configuration.
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 because unless a variance is granted it would be impossible
to construct a pool at the site.
4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good by virtue of the restrictions placed on the variance.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Boad grants a variance to the Petitioner
on the following terms and conditions:
1) Petitioner may construct a pool at the site in accordance with the plans
submitted to the Board to within 5' 6" of the foundation wall at the
site.
/ PETITION OF LEONARD J. LOWE
IMQUESTING VARIANCE FOR 16 GRANITE STREET �8Z OCT -S A9 :3 /
PAGE 2 `.
September 29, 1982 CITY
C: MCE
S;.
L.
2) Petitioner shall strictly comply with the terms of the Building
Permit issued by the Building Inspector.
3) Petitioner shall comply with all safety regulations in connection
with construction of the pool.
Anthony M. Feeherry, Secretay
APPEAL iRO:1 Ti!U n.0:S!-:!. I _ oi,r L �_ ..:1 ..,' i! c ..1 17 C - .'?:>SS.
CrNEPU
i
OR r .l,
0
(:i ..�rtF9 L''u'+ ii. c U. sitz ..,.:EO
OF P.ECORD OR IS R:wROED ARD i9OTE3 0 ! TAE 06ii S;S CERTi'r!CFtiiE O TIT;_.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
I
of �$a1Pm, Cttsstlu�Es y =-
�uttr� of
� eul '82 JUN 15 A 9 :21
CITY ClE^ `:'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID L'HEUREUX SALE'; ": 1 $
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 GREEN STREET �`�1�✓r��� 2 5�0
A hearing on this petition was held on June 8, 1982 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte and
Feeherry and Associate Member Luzinski. 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
attic in the structure on the site into a two room apartment, thereby
converting a two-family dwelling into a three-family. The property is in .
a R-2 district. The Special Permit which has been requested may therefore
be granted upon a finding by the Board of Appeal, that the grant of. the
Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and
welfare.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of
fact:
1. The proposed addition of a two-room apartment at the site will
have a negligible impact on the area.
2.: There are several three-family dwellings in the neighborhood.
3. There was no neighborhood opposition to Petitioner's proposal.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of. Appeal concluded 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 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 Petitioner may convert the attic at the property to a two-room
apartment thereby converting this two-family dwelling into a
three-family dwelling.
2. All constructionsh1j L1?� ap, zcGoracjc�.•withL the plans submitted to
.LIAthe Board. GE':EAL L a C r i= r P •1 SY LC r. - TD"Ic r 7 CF THE
OF THIS Crtl 'v I ; I! c c t� ' " L'°f ' UTE OF (I Li1;G
Ti J T C
PU 'Ar47 TO ; S
,. EO T.
OR THAT, IF,S I i' -N. , '_0 IS
RECC?O:5 IN THE S l i c v s-�
OF RECORD OR I., rccouGDLD AND NCi°J C, 14: U +cR S eET; Fl :\tE Cr lu,c. J n� GtYREg
b.
• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF .DAVID L'HEUREUX
f' FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 GREEN STREET
Page Two
3. Petitioner shall maintain the two parking spaces at the site.
4. Petitioner shall comply with all applicable fire safety codes.
5. Petitioner shall obtain a certificate of occupancy for the
property prior to renting the apartment. in question.
6. The use of the property. is conditioned upon both the continued
ownership and occupancy of the property by the Petitioner. In the
event that the Petitioner ceases .to own or occupy the property,
the property shall revert back to its prior use as a two-family
dwelling. Provided, however, that nothing in this decision
shall be interpreted to prevent a reapplication to this Board
in the event that Petitioner ceases to own or occupy the property.
thony M. Feeher y, Secre ary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AND PLANNING BOARD.
•
n
a y
�t# of c- iem, tt �zcl z e F I V
\`��
.
PourD of Appeal '82 MAR 17 A10 :49
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD MORGANI CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE SA H M1S
f:
A hearing on this Petition was held on March 10, 1982 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker, LaBrecque,
Piemonte 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.
This property is currently the subject of a prior variance dated October 14,
1982. However, the Petitioner has requested a new variance for Lots 46-52 Greenlawn
Avenue to divide the property into four lots as shown on the plan dated December 31,
1981, bubmitted to the Board. A variance is requird because the 1ots 'to
be created as shown on the plan `submitted to the Board will all be non=conforming. .
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 lots in the surrounding area are similar in size to those
which Petitioner wishes to create
2. No substantive opposition was raised to petitioners plan by
neighbors.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal -concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its peculiar
configuration 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 sur-
rounding area.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land in .R
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.
DECISION - March 10, 1982 - EDWARD MORGANI
Page 2
'82 MAR 17 A10 :49
4. The desired variance may be granted' without sb Y C�Etantial
t i?h':_ O
detriment to the public good. r E
SALCf'1 i it J
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted 4-1 in favor of
approving the grant of the requested relief (Mr. Piemonte voted
"present"). The Board grants a variance to the Petitioner on
the following terms and conditions. .
1. Petitioner may combine Lots 46-52 Greenlawn Avenue into
four single family 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 shall
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.
ifs
nthony M. Fee1� r
APPEAL ? T- -7!Oit 17 ,",F :'i= !TABS. -
CEM"AL 1 -C.. C;-1,1.;`...1
._. if ?: c.. D.``a "-Ii't D.0.F. OF FILPi0
TO
e :
..!'_ --T- -
OR IF IS
REC.,RLEO I'! TFr -sLftl iiEQ ;.: .a ` ....c LF Tit G-'iv'FR:
OF RKORD OR IS AFID 'W1.z'D ^ i (A.;:HR'S O6:i;FIEA-.E OF TIDE. - .-
w:.
BOARD OF APPAL - -
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLAATNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
t
� '� \` CUTof �Cnlem'
6,�\ � �JJ�3ciYlt DT 4 '82 NOV22
ro
rr �DMAR-'; ,
• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HELEN D. BASSET'1 llaYANAl LAiUOLINA
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 86 HATHORNE STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on November 17, 1982, with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper, LaBrecque and Feeherry
and Associate Member Luzinski. 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
,.Cha ter.er,, - 04�
p — -
- _
The Petitioners have requested a variance from density and rear yard setback requirements
in order to allow petitioners to construct a one story addition to the site.
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 property in question has for many years been used as a dance school. The
proposed addition will provide additional storage to the space and 'space
for school functions.
2. No substantial 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 Appeal concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its peculiar configuration, because
of the configuration of the structure on the site and the present use of the structure.
In addition, the present configuration of the structure imposes a hardship on the
petitioners by restricting the use of the premises.
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 Petitioners.
4. The :requested variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good.
In addition, the Board concluded that if only a Special Permit is necessary to allow
the proposed addition; the petitioners also established their rught to such a
Special Permit.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of approving the
grant of the requested relief. The Board grants the requested relief to the Petitioners
on the following terms and conditions:
1. Petitioners may construct an addition to the property in accordance with the
® plans submitted to the Board.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HELEN D. BASSETT
AND MARYANN LANDOLINA REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR" 86 HATHORNE STREET
Page 2
November 17, 1982
2. Petitioners shall obtain a Certificate of Use and Occupancy
Prior to using the proposed addition.
3. Petitioners shall maintain existing off—street .
'parking at the site
thony M. Fe err-y, S cr-etaryl
APPEAL FRMI.THIS DECISIO'I, IF ANY, SHA'EL CE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 GP THE BA. ,.S.
GERE:cAL IAt7S, CHAPTER 893, AND SHALL EE FILED WITHIN 2C DAYS A.-TER THE DATE CF Fl li':,;OF THIS DECISION IN THE OF ,.E OF THE CITY CLEM - -
P•.17.SAHT TO MASS. GEMZRAL CHAPTER 803 SECT!03 11, THE VA':.NCE C
LEA;!TED HEr..EIH, SHALL NOF TA": EFFECT UrAiL A COOT OF TrED'C!7i'Y P 1
Fl-f%12N OF THE Oil CLEW( ,ll" 20 DMS HAVE EL,',PSED AND N.. 3..'-4L HAS
OR THAT. IF SUN All APPEAL HAS ^FEIN FILE, THAI IT HAS CEErL D:3'..:i3SED OR C.E�:�:.a :'-
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX kEOISIRY C'F DEEOS AI:D 1P:CE.".ED UND`8 THE R:.i+i c" ('ETc° GTi E?
OF RECORD OR IS P.ECOROED AND NOTED ON THE OIYNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
y (:23 /(2
IIT of �uf�'_riT� Ci:�rx��aC.�e2L�F
✓.� n�ra deal '8 2 --MAR 19 All :31
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SAMPSON CHANDLER CITY CLERI'S OFFICE .
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 8 HERSEY STREET SALEf-; 1'I :SS
A hearing on this petition was held on March 10;, 1982 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 Ewing News
in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner.:has requested a Special Permit to convert the two-family
dwelling at 8 Hersey Street into a three-family dwelling. The property at 8 Hersey
Street is in an R-2 district. The Special Permit which has been requested may there-
fore be granted upon a finding by the Board of Appeal, that the grant of the Special
Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's
inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1) There is adequate off-street parking at the site for a third dwelling.
2) The' proposed use of the property was not opposed by abutters or others.
3) The building is presently owner-occupied.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeal 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 Petitiners.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following terms
and conditions:
1) The property may be converted into a three-family dwelling.
2) The use of the property is conditioned upon both the continued
ownership and occupancy of the property by the Petitioner.; In the event ^`
that the Petitioner ceases to own or occupy the property, the property
shall revert back to its prior use as a two-family dwelling, Provided,
however, that nothing in this decision shall be interpreted to prevent a
reapplication to this Board in the event that Petitioner ceases to own or
occupy the property.
3) The Petitioner shall prepare an adequate set of plans for submission
to aad approval by the Building Inspector prior to any work on the site.
r.
t
4) Petitioner shall comply with all applicable provisions of Mass. Gcn. Laws
and the State Building Code relating to smoke detectors and shall submit plans
for stamped approval to the Salem Fire Marshall.
Ant ony M. e erry
I•. APPEAL TW3Iii ! 6"• C{i F 23v ?.: 5C t) Ce i`c S.
.i!E ..!'}Ia_ 0 T1'.L my C__ :..
?;,;a..,.- 7P !:'.... ._ .:.`•?'. C'Ar'. . :.,. .... �E^li�.. __. ?:'. s .:[ir:.: vii .. _r!nL ?_..i?T
OF G<C6 d CR IS i._.:JED An iL, i:i E�G'iii(c;i{:;
-BOARD OF APPEAL
COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED 4:ITH THE PL_ 1NNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
µ 4t.L
/�
�\'. Yi� !fid
'82 NOV 22 PIC, :1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN INGEMI REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FOR 56 JEFFERSON AVENUE CITY r,"a GF..-ICE
S1l.1-ci'
A hearing on this Petition was held on November 17, 1981 with the following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs.. Hopper, LaBrecque and Feeherry and Associate
Member \Luzinski. 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 Massa-
chusetts General Laws Chapter 4OA.
The Petitioner -
has`requested a variance for6 Jef£er"son venu
�1___." er,O,m,,. d_ a ,tfirdresdential
dwelling unit to the ground floor of the structure.
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 has already made a considerable investment in the property and has
vastly improved the appearance of the property.
2. The Petitioner's proposal was strongly supported by the neighborhood.
3. There is adequate off-street parking at the site.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the public hear-
ing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
The property in question is unique because of the structure on the site which was
previously used for commercial purposes and can be remodeled only at a considerable
expense. This situation imposes a hardship on the Petitioner by restricting his
development of the property 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.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal unanimously voted in favor of approving the grant
of the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the Petitioner on the following
terms and conditions:
1. Petitioner may add a one-bedroom residential dwelling on the street-level of the property
2. Construction shall be in accordance with the Plans submitted to the Board.
3. Hereafter, the property may be used as a three-family dwelling. However, no commercial
uses shall be allowed at the site.
4. Not less than three parking spaces shall be maintained at the site.
5. A Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be obtained prior to renting the additional
rental unit at the site. /
APPE;L F"O51 THIS DECI^">10;i, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PU'SUAN7 ID SEC710N 17 OF '[.''r+�M.�1���tt✓7 L��1 �Cc(r),LkV,S, CHP„iEH JJ3, A\D SHALL BE FfL CD �' ��� '1
/J7...LI ZO pAYS MTER THE DAA
OF 'HI DEc SON IN THE OF ,G G T,° h y CLERK. t•FrLthony M. Fee�erry, ecretar�y
1 Ai i.F I5�?(. L �/S Ci,P.!'!ER 3rl3 -,CfIC.fl I1 ( L
A Y. O '�H S`fYLCY'9ION A33TIf�LANS H F�FBE Y � L`, IT'H THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
�^ 1, Clly CLZw, T Af 2D D1'.- r 1JE EL!:G,iu F,i'O I'0 F -
-, I
7H'i f. 'F SACH AN APPEAL HAS OEEN FILL'. THAT IT HAS B Erl ,;.n d. ,
PE"-":',ED Irl Tf E SJJfH EiSEX PiC-!STRY CF DEEPS AND Ii;OEXED Uil-, THE "; E o f.,.`
OF P,LC_.f�C OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OVINER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
r
E
i.rr.
R E 14'
City of 'Salem, fflassadjusetts
'82 MAY -4 P2 :31
uttrb of Appeal
J�t�nnss%r '
CITY CL 11
Ci F!CE
SALE(. 1 Ml :3
.DECISION ON THE PETITION OF F. ROBERT RUSCIO
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 62 JEFFERSON AVENUE
A hearing on this Petition was held on April 28, 1982 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Hacker, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Associate Member Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was properly published in
the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to construct a 16' x 25'
concrete block addition to the southerly side of the existing non-conforming
structure at the site. The addition is to be used in connection with the
petitioner's automotive repair business.
The property is within an R-1 District; however, the property has for
many years been a non-conforming use and structure.
/ 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 Appeal 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 non-
conforming 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's proposed addition was strongly supported by
Petitioner's neighbors and others. No neighborhood opposition
whatsoever was raised at the public hearing.
�T
,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF F. ROBERT RUSCIO '82 my -4 P2 :31
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 62 JEFFERSON AVENUE
Page 2 CITY C; OFFICE
SALEM 3
2) Although the property is in an R-1 zone, it has for many years
been a non-conforming use and the proposed addition to the
property will have a negligible effect on the area.
3) The area in question has a number of other commercial properties.
4) There is adequate parking in the area.
5) There is, because of the topography of the land in question, a
partial natural buffer between this property and some of the
surrounding residences.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal 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 approved
the granting of a Special Permit to the Petitioners.
• The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
1) A 16' x 25' concrete block addition may be constructed.
2) Plans must be submitted to the Salem Fire Marshal for his
stamped approval.
(Anthony M Feel{erry, Secretar
.. - APPFA N.,t l iM PECI , ( L Tu °.rTlo:`I 17 CF THE AMS
.
. . ... 1'.
BOARD OF APPEAL
COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE. PLANNING BOARD AND
•'� CITY CLERK.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES ARMSTRONG d/b/a ARMSTRONG ANIMALS.
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 271 JEFFERSON AVENUE
5P 1 °� �R'
A hearing on this Petition was held on September 1, 1982 with the
following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, .
Messr,s. Hacker, La$recque, Feeherry 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 in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 271
Jefferson Avenue to allow him to use the property as a pet shop.
A variance is required because the building is in an B-1 district where
the proposed is apparently not permitted without a variance.
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented
at the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following
findings o,`. fact:
1) The property In question is in an B-1 zoning district which allows
retail stores generally. However, no specific mention is made of pet stores.
2) Petitioner' s business will cause fewer parking and traffic problems
in the area than would numerous other retail operations that
would be permitted as a matter of right. .
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1) The property in question is unique because of its past use as a
market and because of its location within what is otherwise a
residential area.
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 a special hardship to the
Petitioner.
4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good by virtue of the restrictions placed on the
variance.
• PETITION OF JAMES ARMSTRONG d/b/a ARMSTRONG ANIMAL
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 271 JEFFERSON AVENUE
Page 2
September 1, 1982
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal unanimously voted in favor of
granting the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the
Petitioner on the following terms and conditions:
1) Petitioner may operate a pet store on the first floor of the
premises. Hours of operation will be 10 a.m, to 8 p.m. Monday—
Saturday, 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. Sunday.
2) There will be no boarding of animals at the site (other
than the animals for sale) .
3) There will be no exterior runs or exterior cages at the site.
4) No refuse from the shop will be stored outside.
5) The area in the store to be used for the sale of canines will be i..
soundproofed to the satisfaction of the building inspector.
6) A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained prior to commencing
operation.
7) If the Petitioner ceases to reside at the property, this variance
shall terminate.
T T Cc
A hony M. Feherry, Secretary .
A' Y OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
r f�if IIf �tim, � �tr`ixseex 5
qu
� 5
PVUrs of -7
f ns�ICE "
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANCINE $EQUESTING
A VARIANCE FOR 278 LAFAYETTE STREET
A hearing on this petition was held on September 29, 1982 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 arida notice of the
hearing was published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 278 Lafayette Street
to temporarily relocate a Bridal Shoppe in an existing carriage house at the 'rear of
the property. A variance is required because the proposed use is not permitted in an
R-3 zoning district where the property is located.
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) Petitioner's proposed business will have a very limited .ffect on traffic and parking
in the area because of the nature of the business.
�) Petitioner's proposed use of the property 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 Appeal concludes as follows:
1) The property in question is unique because of the fact that the carriage house at
the site is in disrepair and there is no economic incentive to repair the structure
as a garage.
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.
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, it will be virtually impossible to u?grade the structure at the site.
4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board granted a variance to the Petitioner on the following
terms:
1) A variance is granted for two years to allow the use of the carriage house at the
site as a Bridal Shoppe.
42) Petitioner shall designate not less than four parking spaces at the site for
use in connection with the operation of the Bri,ial Shoppe.
%A• PF:r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANCINE SMALL REQUESTING
A VARIANCE FOR 278 LAFAYETTE STREET .37
PAGE 82
OCT -5 A 9
AGE 2
SEPTEMBER 29, 1982
CITY CLE-,- "` "FICF
SALE;,
3) Any exterior lighting to be added at the site shall be approved
by the Building Inspector and shall be of a type which will minimize illuminatio.
of the property of abutters.
4) A certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be obtained prior to the use
of the site as' a Bridal Shoppe.
5) Any sign at the site shall comply with the Salem Sign Ordinance.
Anthony M. Fe Herry,JSecretary
1
APPEAL FRWO THIS DECISION. F' ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTIO!I 17 OF THE 6f ASS..
GENERAL I_AFi S. U.".PTER QC. A7:3 SR':L!. uE F.L'0 t.:TH!;'1 c DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF F!Lli;G
OF i ;IS C i;iS'il„ C: T:1- BFF'.._ THE ,IT CL"K.
E. THS VAR!6?:i._ OR ;PECI%.L PER"IT
FiL Av.r'rCGRT-
HCAiI'):1 OF r C+ .c i - io ._ .:.) '.i ) A i :IAS BEEN F::cD,
OR THAT, IF .....:;I . .. -.._ H'.S S_Si . -._ . T . : E.D. D >. US OR G iiIE- IS
REMRDE0 IN THE S=_UM ESS'**.!, N Dt:,,, AN-) !`:: fED L -DER ME PA .E OF THE J:iNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AIID NOSED 0't; THE O N7ER-S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
u 5 , uttrb ul AypeA
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT D. BOWES, JR. ET AL. , REQUESTING
A VARIANCE FOR 301 LAFAYETTE STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on January 20, 1982, with tq11iyI �ItOL
Board Members present: Douglas. Hopper, :Chairigan, Messrs. Hacker, Piemonte' ee efr 1 OL
and Associate Member Martineau. Notices of the hearing were sent to abp{ttets and i-
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. DITYCp. °:l,i.ASS
The Petitioners are requesting variances for the property at 301 Lafayette .
Street to use the first floor of the property for a law office. A variance is
required because the property is in a :R-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 the site of six residential units, four of
which are in the bbilding designated as 301 Lafayette Street.
2. The property is a large structure which is easily adaptable to a law
office.
• 3. The continued use of the property for only residential units presents
an economic hardship on the Petitioners.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeal. concludes as follows:
(1) The property in question is unique because of its size and
configuration and because of its unique ability to accommodate
a substantial number of off-street parking spaces.
(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 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
harmony with other non-residential uses in the area. .
•
• DECISION - ROBERT D. BOWES, JR. , ET AL
301 LAFAYETTE STREET
Page 2
January 20, 1982
Jae 15 3 io PN '81
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal unanimously voted in favoD UE-A
granting the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the Petitioners
on the following terms and conditions: CIT-Y E.@
1) The first floor of.:the property designated as 301 Lafayette Street
may be used as a law office for not more than 4 attorneys.
2) The property may also be used for not more than three residential units.
3) Petitioners shall provide eleven parking spaces at the site as
shown on the plans submitted to the Board unless this requirement is modified in
accordance with paragraph 4.
4) Petitioners 'shall submit their proposed parking plan to the Salem
Fire Marshall for his review. Alterations, if any, in that plan ordered by the
Salem Fire Marshall shall be incorporated in and become part of this variance.
Anthony M. Feeherry, S 'creta
a
L.
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
p ' 7- r !
-
RErA
OF REC,;RO OR Is i,wnDcr7 f(D r,J!CO .. - _ '- •. -
.Y s it
of alera, Aa5sachuutts
Fire Pepurtment PeaDquurtess
�nncas�j- trenptut 48 Tiz>tte 9treef
ali��et gatem, C�zu 1119711
Al, 3 14 Pff
FILE
January 21 , 1982
CITY A
LEM,HIS,,
Salem Board of Appeals Re: Bowes
City Hall Annex 301 Lafayette Street, Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, Mass.
Sirs:
Having reviewed the plan for entry to the rear of the structure at
301 Lafayette Street, Salem, Ma. , it appears, that access for emergency .
equipment and operation of same, will be sufficient for the purposes
required under provisions of Article 12 of the Mass. State Building Code.
Plan viewed is dated Dec. 23, 1981 .
Res ctfully EgFgi
Capt. David Jl/
Salem Fire Marshal
(gilu of o,&T era,
s Y` II iTt� d LTWzd '
82 NnV 22 P10 :13
DECISION ON THE PEITION OFROBERT & JEANNINE DOLS11f.
PERMIT FOR-400 JEFFERSON AVENUE
A hearing on this Petition was held on November 17, 1982 with the following Board Members
present:" James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, LaBrecque and Feeherry 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 in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners'have requested *a Special Permit to enable heI se'
one" room
Jefferson Avenue for a family-run telephone-answering service. A Special Permit is
needed because the property is in an R-1 Zoning District, where such offices are not other-
wise allowed.
In general terms, this Board is, when reviewing such Special. Permit requests, guided by
the rule that a Special Permit 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 Petitioners proposed use of the site will have a negligible, if any, impact on the
_ area.
2. The proposed office 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 Appeal finds that the proposed use of the property will promote the
public health, safety, convenience and welfare and 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.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following terms and conditions
1) One room at the site may be used for a family-run Telephone Answering Service.
2) Not more than one non-family member may be employed by the business.
3) A Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be obtained prior to operation of the business.
Anthony M. Feeherr Secret ry
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN F ED WITH THE PLANNI G BOARD AND CITY CLERK
AP°`pt FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL DE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
DENc11AL LAPIS. CHAEJEH sa3. APID SHALL BE FILED WIT41I4 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE CF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PW APIT TO :1A">$ CENFRAL LA--,1S. CHAPTER EOE. SrCT11II 11, THE VARC:,CE OR SSP ^IAA- . ":ai
SHALL N H TAVE EF,tC1 UhT'L A CCP( OF THEUECISION. rEAR 1rE f i
FlLir flU': OF fli`_ CIfY CLERKTHAT 20 D.\:'S HAVE 'LAPSED ANO NO A''E'17,. "S BEEN
CH 1HA1, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS DEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS:ISSED OR DZNIEi IS
RECCE`` IN THE SOUfH ESSEX RE7-sTRy CF DEEDS AND INDEXED URUE'. THE NAM1 CF TP- rl `! -
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED ANO NOTED ON THE OVNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
Pct ::; ,
X11/FFt of �'alna, -inn .—clinutRi
• Poi rb of
CITY C- :. :rF
S;:
AECISION ON THE, PETITION OF BO' NIE LEATHE?, INC. FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 69 MASON STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on October 20, 1982 with the following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Hopper and Feeherry, 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 in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure
by constructing a 950 square foot addition to the existing structure at the site, and
removing and reconstructing a loading dock. The existing structure is nonconforming
by virtue of the fact that it encroaches into the minimum rear and sideyard setbacks
at the site. The proposed construction will extend these nonconformities. The
provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance 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 Appeal may, in accordance
with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F
and. IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruc-
tion of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, exten-
i cion or expansion of nonconforming lots, land structures and uses
/ provided that such change. . .shall not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing (nonconformity) to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided
by the rule that a Special _Permit 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 Petitioner's proposed renovation of the site will have a negligible impact
on the area and will in fact improve the appearance of the property
in question.
2. The proposed renovation 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 Appeal 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 and (iii) that the proposed use of the property is in hanaony
with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board unanimously approved the
granting of a Special Permit to the Petitioner.
� 1
, he Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following terms and
"conditions:
DECISION ON THE PETITION '82 EIj 22 A,1 :21
OF BONNIE LEATHER, INC.
• FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR 69 MASON STREET CITY ='CF
Page 2
October 20, 1982
1. The proposed addition shall beconstructedin connection with plans
submitted to the Board.
2, A Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be obtained prior to the use
or occupancy of the site.
Anthony M. Feeherry, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLER-K
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH F. COLELLA
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 3 MESSERVEY STREET
PJY 'i Sri fti '?/
A hearing on this Petition was held on October 27. with thJ ' '`
following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. hopper,
Piemonte, and Feeherry and Associate Member Luzinski." Notice of tfie' hearing' "'•� '•S
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 extend a non-conforming
structure by. removing. an existing rear porch and _two stoops; installing a
driveway on the side of the property; extending a kitchen, on the
first floor ten feet with a. basement under said extension; and enclosing a
patio on the first floor and reconstructing a second floor porch with outside stairs.
The existing structure is non-conforming by virtue of the fact that it encroaches into
the minimum side yard set back. The proposed addition to the site will extend this
nononformity to within five feet of the side property line. The provision of
the Salem Zoning Ordinance 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 Appeal 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 that such change. . .
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 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 Petitionerh proposed addition to the site will improve the area.
2. The proposed renovation 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 Appeal 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 and (iii) that the proposed
use of the property is in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly,
the Baord unanimously approved the granting of a Special Permit to the Petitioner.
1
PAGE 2
DECISION ON PETITION OF JOSEPH F. COLELLA
FOR SPECIAL PERPIIT FOR 3 MESSERVEY STREET _
October 27, 1982
i
�fol� I 9 M1P,'r_
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions: i J,1; CITY C f
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following terms
and conditions:
1) Petitioner may construct a 10' x 26' addition to the first floor of the
existing structure at the site and may complete all other above referenced renovations.
2) The addition may be constructed to within five (5) feet of the side yard
requirement.
3) Petitioner shall submit detailed plans to the Building Inspector in
connection with his Building Permit application.
4) A Certificate of Use & Occupany shall be obtained before using the proposed
addition.
•
Anthony M. F eeherry, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
�,;,�or TO, SE,i TI 17 CF THE IMASS.
CIS1O;1, 1F AMY. SHA;L EE ii,.^"t P!i°S LC7C
APPEAL FRC^7 TR1S DE 2; D!. — !'.`iER T8E LATE OF Fi
o
THE `fn
rFXAT
OF U t -,j ,iJ 6w,O
BOARD OF APPEAL
�i of Salem, fflassac4usidto
PIIMrb of Appeal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STERN GROUP I, FOR
AN EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE FOR 28 NORMAN STREET
s_P s z 46
A hearing on this Petition was held on September 2, 1982, wit£JLE11,W following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker, Feeherry
and Associate Member Luzinski. Notice to the hearing was sen17to 'aliutfer`s'?.E�hSS.
and others and notices of the hearing were published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with.Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 4OA.
The Petitioner has requested an extension of the rights authorized by a prior
variance granted by this Board dated August 24, 1981.
On the basis of the authority of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 4OA 511,
the terms of this Board's prior decision (including all conditions stated
therein) are hereby extended and are effective through and including
September 22, 1983.
Anthony M. Feeher , ecreta .y
APPEAL FWD! THIS DECIM.—I. IF ANY. SHALL BE P_(°.i WIT TO SECTI.ON 17 OF THE PdASS.
CENT RAL L:':YS, 23 LAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
CF TI!!S DEG:S!Jli Lt: T:'.2 C,:':'!C`_ THE -
IM P_'';1FF
C^-KT•
.... Er . .;iii L... . :-. ' .i - -. :.-. :. d .., Eq,-_ "'d•
G.". idAi, IF S`)._i. .lFl /,7i'c,,.. d2; ::c:.. :i_>=.
RECiiRCcii iii TIIE S!'rJ H "[$$E:i ';-. Si RY G _¢�. ..+-_..i9 -. -i i1E itAi.iE GF TFtE Cl'iNE3
OF RECO:iD OR IS RcC'CRDED AND NO-,c0 Oil THE CZ:Pr R'S cERENCAiE OF TIRE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
//
,= C to of '15a1em, �c ttc4lus�#
l Appeal
'
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT E. GAUTHIER and MICHAEL E. MURPHY
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 162 NORTH STREET AND 162-1/2 NORTH STREET
SIP 9 2
A hearing on these petitions was held on September 2, 1982, wiph the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hack �� Ad Feeherry
and Associate Member Luzinski. Notice of hte hearing was sentC�t� abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Eve......S
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to convert the existing third floors.
at both 162 and 162-1/2 North Street into four-room apartments., thereby converting, -
in each case, a two-family dwelling into a three-family. The properties are in
an R-2 district. The Special Permit which has been requested may therefore be granted
upon a finding by the Board of Appeal, that the grant of the Special Permit will
promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed addition of a four-room apartment at each site will have
a negligible impact on the area.
2._ There are several multi-family dwellings in the neighborhood.
3. There was no neighborhood opposition to Petitioners' proposal.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeal concluded 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 voted 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 Petitioners may convert the third floors of the two properties to four
room apartments, thereby converting each of these two-family dwellings into
three-family dwellings.
2. All construction shall be in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board.
3. Petitioners shall maintain not less than five off-street parking spaces at
each site; these parking areas shall be paved.
4. Petitioners shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy and Use for the
properties prior to renting the apartments in question. L
itti
cArny M. Feeetterry, Secr airy
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
FILE
Ti MITNT1 17 OF THE id.iSS.
G
.
l
OF UCO;
c
- - BOARD OF APPEAL _.
r.J.4}S1JuCL{ z1�.�L - ' ...
\c Y �1
Pwrr� Df c%yp lj '82 OCT —5 A9 :37
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN D. SPINALE REQUESTING S. `;rFiCF
CITY �.: ,;.
A VARIANCE FOR 2A NORTH PINE STREET C-FR
SA i....
A hearing on this petition was held on September 29, 1982 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 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 variance for the property at 2A North Pine
Street to convert an existing carriage house garage into a single-family
dwelling. A variance is required because the proposed conversion will violate,
inter alit minimum lot area, lot width, lot coverage and area per dwelling
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
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) Petitioners proposed single-family dwelling will have a minimal
affect on traffic and parking in the area.
• - -2) Petitioner's proposed conversion as modified by the restrictions stated
in this opinion was supported by his abutters.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1) The property in question is unique because of its peculiar size
and configuration, because of the unique structure on the site and
because of the fact that there is no way that the property can be
used for any use permitted as of right in an R-2 zone.
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.
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, it will be virtually
impossible to use the site for anything but a garage.
4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal unanimously voted in favor of granting
/ the requested relief. The Board granted a variance to the Petitioner
on the following terms:
iy
/ RF
'82 OCT -5 A9 :37
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN D. SPINALE CITY CL=R '.`3 OFFICE
RE A VARIANCE FOR 2A NORTH PINE STREET _I'd
PAGE 2
September 29, 1982
1) All variances requested by the Petitioner to convert the existing
carriage house to a single-family dwelling are hereby
granted.
2) The property may be used only as a single-family dwelling.
3) This variance will terminate in the event that the property is not
owner-occupied. In the event that an owner of the property ceases to
use the property as his residence, the property may be used only as
a garage.
4) All changes in the exterior of the structure must be approved by the
Salem Historical Commission.
5) One off-street parking space shall be maintained at the site.
6) Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of TJse and Occupancy
prior to using the proposed dwelling unit.
7) Petitioner shall make all reasonable measures to change the
street number at the property from "2A" to some other designation.
8) Petitioner shall comply with all applicable Fire Safety Codes.
Anthony M. Feelerry, Secre a y
+ �^ " sPLL EE - F '"SO"1T TO ��� �+ 11 CF The '..ASS.
A COPY 8�'ETtI3S DECfS�O�V vn PLAN&E RUE BEEN7RILED: TITH :TH:E PL!A'NNING BOARD AND CITYCLERK
THE Or :U OF -WE CF:'i
PLIr`
LL
OR
,.,E EF T ._ OV.'U
OF RECORD OR IS RcCOROED ANU 4f i) O:. Ili: r::;"S CE.^.i:FiC.. ii: ili LL. -
DOARD OF APPEAL
• of 'Salem' a55UC4UUf-Lr'
'82 OCT 22 Al :2;
ultra of hr peal
OCITY'ngls'QN:_;QI`�;PE PETITION OF ROGER A. ROGERS FOR A
S�SZFLCZALj#MIT FOR 2 OBER STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on October 20, 1982 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Hopper, 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 extend a non-conforming structure
at the site so as to allow construction of a 13-1/2' by 16' addition at the rear
of the property,- The existing structure is non-conforming by virtue of the fact
that it encroaches into the minimum rear yard set back. The proposed addition
will extend this nonconformity. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance 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 Appeal 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 that such change. . .shall not be
substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use to
the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided
by the rule that a Special Permit may be granted upon a finding by the Board that
the grant of the Special Permit will promote the publid 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 Petitioners proposed addition at the site will have a beneficial
impact on the site.
2. The proposed addition was unopposed by the neighbors.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the public
hearing, the Board of Appeal 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 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.
The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following terms and
conditions:
8Z
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF OCT 2Z
ROGER A. ROGERS CTTy yJJ 2J
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR SH`
2 OBER STREET
October 20, 1982
Page 2
1) Petitioner shall have the right to construct a 13-1/2' x 16-1/2'addition
to the existing structure at the site.
2) Petitioner shall submit detailed plans to the Building Inspector
in connection .
with his request for a Building Permit.
3) Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Use & Occupancy before using the .
proposed addition.
Anth y M. Feeherry, Secreta y
i
i
P ..t7 TD c_ .V! 17 ^F THE VASS,
OF GECORw OR 1J R�cw:2L�� .,..J :D _- .._
�� ..R i.
IFL.,�T.�U� fiT!L.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PL'_:S HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
Y
Jr
^� uarb of Appintl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF C. EMERSON DAEMEN AND CELESTE D. MILLER FOR A
SPECIALRMIT FOR 94 OCEAN AVENUE
5;Ti-aaring on thisuPetition was held on September 1, 1982 with the following
Board Members_.prgsent: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. LaBrecque,
F*acker, Feehorry'' 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 in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners. have requested a Special Permit to extend a non-conforming
structure (a garage) at 94 Ocean Avenue so as to allow construction of
a 22' x 24' addition to the garage. The existing structure is non-
conforming by virtue of the fact that it encroaches into the minimum rear
yard set back. The proposed addition to the garage will extend this nonconformity.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance 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 Appeal may, in accordance with
. the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F 1'
and In D, grant Special Permits for alterations and recon-
struction of nonconforming structures, and for changes,
enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming
lots, land structures and uses provided that such change. .
shall not he substantially more detrimental than the existing
nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this L'oard 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 property in. question is in a B-4 business district where the
sale and servicing of boats is a permitted use.
2) The Petitioner proposes to use the expanded garage for storage of
supplies relating to a boat repair business.
3) The proposed addition to the existing garage was unopposed by any neighbors.
4) The Salem Fire Marshall expressed opposition to the proposed addition;
• however, the Board believes that Petitioners can obtain the approval
of the Salem Fire Marshall for this use of Petitioners' property.
DECISION ON PETITION OF C. EPIERSON DAHK N
AND CELESTE D. MILLER FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 94 OCEAN AVENUE
Page 2
September 1, 1932
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal 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,
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.
The Special Permit is threfore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
1) Petitioner may construct a 22' x 24' extension on the existing garage
at the site in accordance with plans submitted to the Board.
2) The exterior of the new structure shall match as closely as
possible the exterior of the existing garage.
3) Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy prior to
using the new structure.
4) Petitioner shall. comply with all applicable fire safety codes.
r
Anthony M. Fe berry, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
zi
EOF�;J OF WPIis .