The URL can be used to link to this page

APPEALS DECISIONS 1983 Q [ � , 5 60 �� 9 -� R� � .�. . �.� �� ; �� :� -� ��0 2�a�2� .� �!3 �� .�, ,�� Y __ i, �� i II 1 V` �'L21• G'��-�-o U ._ BOARD OF APPEAL DECISIONS - 1983 9195 i. Streets Petitioner Page 18 Abbott St. Raymond & Alberta Cloutier 1 6 Andrew St. Robert C. Bramble 2 29 Andrew St. Paul & Jan Ricard 3 37-39 Appleton St. Philip & Velma Oliver 4 50 Balcomb St. John M. Martins 5 23 Beach Ave. Robert Kalis/John Tierney 6 78 Beaver St. Harry Eng 6A 30 Beckford St. Robert P. King 7 94-96 Boston St. Steve Spanios 8 165 Boston St. Nicholas Gianareles 9 1 Brooks Court Zolotas Bros. (P) J. Bakas (0) 9A 37 Cabot St. Tanin & Sompis Sasaluxanin 10 150 Canal St. McDonald's Corp. 10A 277 Canal St. John & Bertha Cappucio 11 12 Carpenter St. Wendy Pruitt, Tr. 12 86 Congress St. Lawrence S. Theriault 13 22 Crowdis St. (Amended) Joseph Piemonte 14 22 Crowdis St. Joseph Piemonte 15 27 Daniels St. Julianna Tache 16 67 Dearborn St. Joanne McManus 17 105 Derby St. Robert C. Bramble 18 127 Derby St. Robert C. Bramble 19 132-134 Derby ST./16 Bentley John Hamilton, Tr. 20. Dove & Jefferson Aves. Shaughnessy Hospital 21 Lots 22 & 23 Emerald Ave. John & Gloria Mancini 22 43 Essex St. John Collins/Ralph Schiavone 23 70 Essex St. Kline, Gorfinkle & Musman 24 105-107 Essex St. a/,k/a 4 Union St. Stoll Associates 25 1 )� 347 Essex St. Edgar Kelley/James O'Malley 26 95-99 Federal St. David Rifkin (P) , Rhonda Preman (0) 27 DECISIONS 1983 - page 2 Street Petitioner Page .� 155 Federal St. Raymond Buso/Martha Jarnis 28 22 Forest Ave. George & Rita Pothier 29 11 Foster St. Robert T. Marsilia 30 14 Franklin St. William Linskey 30A 5 Gardner St. Ronald L. Wright 31 8 Glover St. Carl R. Lavoie 32 10 Hardy/11 Bentley Sts. Hardy/Bentley St. Rlty. Tr. 33 16 Hardy St. Diane Centorino 34 81 Highland Ave. Salem Hospital 35 84 Highland Ave. Ugo DiBiase 36 204 Highland Ave. Robert & Mary Jane Kart 37 207 Highland Ave. Hallman Chevrolet 38 272 Highland Ave. Tri-City Sales 39 272 Highland Ave. George & Linda Zambouras 40 E : 382 Highland Ave. John P. Keane 40A 4L/06 401 Highland Ave. Joyce Nelson/Gloria Kefalas 41 i 468-474 Highland Ave. Paul Sudenfield 42 24 Horton St. Linda Baillie 43 & 44 44 Jefferson Ave. Thomas Boucher (P) E. Fratangelo (0) 45 44-46 Jefferson Ave. Augusto Dacunha (P) it (0) 46 110 Jefferson Ave. Robert Bouchard 47 92 Lafayette St. Joan Boudreau, Tr. 48 198 Lafayette St. Aser Frisch 49 256-258 Lafayette St. Lafayette Villa Associates 50 14 Lathrop St. Peter Cempelin 51 71 Leach St. Graphic Realty Trust 52 23-25 Liberty Hill Ave. John & Paul Driscoll 53 7 Linden St. Nancy & David Guy 54 57 Loring Ave. Arthur Valaskatgis 55 160 Loring Ave. Margaret Hartt (P) DeFrancesco (0) 55A 217-219 Loring Ave. Kenneth Provencher 56 & 57 1 DECISIONS - 1983 Page 3 j • I Street Petitioner Page \ J 13 Lynn St. Grace Puleo 58 69 Mason St. Ruth Realty Trust 59 101-1012 Mason St. Jos. & Albertina Vargas/ Michael McKinnon 60 1 Milk St. Roger H. Rotondi 61 24 Monroe Rd. Robert Tina 62 96 North St. Arthur H. Chalifour 63 106 North St. George Ahmed 64 127 North St. Arvinder S. Bahal 65 - R144 North St. John A. Locke 66 162 North St. Robert E. Gauthier 67 35 & 37 Ocean Ave. Raymond & Elaine Landry/ Peter & Mary Hooks 68 • 8 Oliver St. Raymond Ditroia 69 27 Ord St. Peter & Francie Hinchey 70 91 Orne St. Carlton G. Lutts 71 1A Parellel St. Thomas Blackler 72 Peabody/Congress Sts. Massachusetts Electric Co. 73 10 'Phillips St. City of Salem 74 10 Phillips St. Joseph Levesque 75 1 Pierce Road Randall G. Wieting 76 2 Pioneer Circle William P. Goreham 77 25 Proctor St. Thomas L. Brophy 78 20 Raymond Rd. Gerard & Patricia Salvucci 79 3 River St. Anthony C. Scoglio Tr. 80 6-8-10 River St. Robert C. Bramble 81 • 17 River St. Robert C. Bramble 82 15 Ropes St. George & Georgia Osgood 83 DECISIONS 1983 - page four Street Petitioner Page 35 Station Rd. Raymond Beaulieu 84 5-7 Summer St. Richard & Diane Pabich 85 18 Summer St. John & Joan Kelley 86 18 Summer St. Richard Pohl 87 47 Summer St. Margaret Marchand 88 2 Thorndike St. Joseph & Diana Cosgrove 89 17 Varney St. Robert & Teddie Hartwell 90 61 Ward St. John D. Spinale 91 75 Webb St. Helen Doherty 92 82 Webb St. Ernest Delpero 93 15 West Ave. Jerrold & Ann Houghton 94 34 Willson St. Roger A. Tremblay 95 Winter Island Winter Island Commission 96 •� 2 Winter St. (Amended) Rozen & Maloff 97 2 Winter St. Rozen & Maloff 98 ,%CON . t O TN IIfT�EXtT� MStStLtnEo ` y nttra of :�pPttt L DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND ANDWBE*y&C )uRjTiO3 FOR A VARIANCE FOR 18 ABBOTT STREET CITY CLERK'S CFFIfE A hearing on this petition was held April 27, 1983 34i-b the, of owing Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Scott Charms, Acting Secretary, Messrs. Hopper, Luzinski, Bencal. Notice of this 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 variance for the property in question to allow them. to divide the property into two lots (lot A & B), both of.which lots will fail to comply with minimum density requirements; in addition, the proposed division would leave one lot (lot A) with insufficient rear setback and one lot (lot B) with insufficient front setback. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the plans of the property makes the following findings of fact: - 1, Substantial opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2, Petitioners have not sustained their burden of proving that the proposed construction will not exacerbate the water problem already experienced by the abutter at 16 Maple Street, 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 desired variance cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to deny the petitioner's request for a variance. Scott E. Charms, Acting Secretary THiS UECIC13fI, 17 ANY. SHALL BE `.'ADE PUP SUANT TO SECTION 17 CF THE L?. l'lrS. Cr-.PIi3 SLS, AND SHALL BE FILED VJ171lHIN 20 LA'S AFTER THE DATE CF C� Ik:T E'EC!S:�tii H: THE OFHCE OF THE CITY CLERIC. �;Ei:EFA' LA -'S CSAP'IER M. SECTO711 11, THE VACIANCE OR SPECIAL - ,E1 11'R P.. SHILL C''i TA:'.E ..'LET UfiT:' A. CCP'. OF TY.E"E!:!51 D:I. KARIN% Til: - U:: (IF 7H'f Li:i ....... CAYS 'A,9 ELAP.,^,EC ..'i J.N^ A?Pb.. HAS BEEfi Fii.L, - - ^�, +i F Sl °r r i N -1KAT IT i- .r ) D' -I�ai-D '}o D E. S, - - - - • '✓= - - T- ... E;;a A '�_IR L - OS 'I D JEX_D U';Da ,HE f A..E OF iH Or a<wru OR IS Rc�uRDED AND NUIIED u THE Uv,'NER'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 �' r � o ' ✓�� y/ . + ) 0831 EER 2.2 A9 41 ])ECISIO\ �Q`.: Td PETITION OF -9-OBSJt°C C BPJS?•BLE, TlTSTEE ALLic� FEALTY Cl7 $! { a 1RUST;' �d-CO.,vEp THE PROPEr.11 A 6 `DUN STREET TO !'FREE CONDOMINIUM UNITS A hearing on this Petition was held on February 16, 1983, with the follocring- Board Members present: ' James Hacker, Chairman; T?es"srs. hopper, Piemonte, Feeherry and, Associate Member Charms. 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 Lacs Chapter 40A. Petitioner has requested a special permit to convert a three-unit rental property into three condominium units. In addi.ti.on, Petitioner has requested a special permit to alter the existing nonconforming structure by slightly increasing the height of the building. This proposed condominium conversion is covered by the terms of the City of Salem,':: 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 \ f?xed incomes, (2) that the grant of the Special Permit isnot contrary to the, City's Master Plan, and (3) the grant of the Specia]_ 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 well suited for conversion into three condominium units and will have a beneficial effect on the neighborhood 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 to three condominium units was not opposed by abutters or neighbors. 4. The proposed conversion of this property will have a negligible impact on rental .stock in the city. 5. 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 f" the City of Salem. In addition, the Board approved the requested special permit to alter the height of the building in accordance with plans submitted to the Board. Accordingly, the Board voted in favor of granting the requested Special Permit in accordance with the following terms and conditions: �l. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT C. BRAMBLE, TRUSTEE ALLYN REALTY TRUST TO CONVERT THE � F Y„ PROPERTY AT 6 ANDREW STP.EET TO THREE CONDOMINIUM UNITS �,�^ � tiA.'.', PAGE 2 • February 16; 1983 "83 FF8 22'I A9 :40 -/ CffY C� 0 OFFICE 1. The conversion will be in strict accordance with the plans subm tired r,� to the Board. 2. Three parking spaces shall be provided at the site. - 3. Certificates of Use and Occupancy shall be issued prior to the sale of these units. 4. Because the buildiug,had residential tenants. at this time this petition was e filed, the Petitioner will be required to allow six months to elapse before commencing construction work in furtherance of the condominium conversion. . Provided, however, .that if the tenant on the first floor of the property shall voluntarily vacate the premises within the six. month period, - construction work may proceed upon that tenant's departure.. nAM. F ry _ ecretary A COPY. OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD & .CITY CLERK APP ' F°0� THIS DECG!ON, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE F `S. GEt._n.11 LA'1S, CHAPTER EOR, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN-20 DAYS AFTER THE DSTE MING CF NO _ OF THIS DECISIO'i IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - C r n� Cr SPEW,!. P pi,PSA9r TO %!.A-,S. PEN°RAL LAPS. CHAPTER, BOB, SECTION 11. THE V1 A FRAMED HE"R;EM, SHALL MOT -IPU EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE''ECL,,.r!, I.!7 [ca,--- FICA 1!X ,FICA1!XI CF THE CITY CLER'( NM 20 DAYS I!AYE ELAPSES- "10 i ':R THAT. IF SKIN vi APPEAL HAS D�uI FILE. THAT IT HAS BEE! DI -,YcD c - RECUP,DED IN THE S'UTH ESSEX REi;ISTRY OF DEM ANO I:.DEXED UNIDEa Tt•_ ...:4.Oc OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE 05YNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - - - BOARD OF APPEAL .. of 'Satem, fflassar4usetts �",v� •Y� ��y DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL AND JAN RICARD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR 29 ANDREW STREET-83 AUG 12 A10 28 A hearing on this petition was held on July 27, 1983 with the , _2win Board Or Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Hoppg;gYLuz_in§ki_GF F Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters SAd'--othci^S'and notices were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners originally requested a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a four family dwelling in this R-2 district. At the hearing the petitioner changed his request from the four family to a three family, this was agreeable to the Board. Petitioner is also requesting a Variancefromminimum parking requirements. In 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, and that the request is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance. The Board, after considering the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing plans of the property makes the following findings of fact: J-! =T-._. No opposition to petitioner's plan was raised 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 of the City's inhabitants and that the proposed use is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioner the requested relief. The Board grants the Special Permit under the following terms and conditions: 1 . The property may be converted to a three family dwelling; . 2. The use of the property as a three family dwelling is conditioned upon the property remaining owner occupied, in the event it ceases to be owner occupied the property shall revert back to its prior use as a two family dwelling; 3. A Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be obtained prior to renting of the third apartment. With respect to the petitioner's request for a variance, the Board of Appeal finds as follows: 1 . The desired variance cannot be granted without substantial detriment to �• the public good. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL AND JAN RICARD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR 29 ANDREW STREET page two Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to deny the petitioners request for a Variance from minimum parking requirements. o. LU O Lj- - _ q i L• ' ¢ i ess B. Hacker, `Chairman �N F0 U • 1 AF.,'AL M THIS DECISN I, I' ANY. SHALL BE LADE PURSUANT.TO SECTION IT C.'- T`."'c MASS - } GE.a:..._ L,?S, ��{.+F:,.R .:�� .'ND SHALL D_ r•LEu 1LiNI GO DAYS AMER THE DACE GS FILING OF , D'„IS�� - 1.1 THE ^F _ OF THE CII CLERK. Fl -.. _. a ,. Cr:Tr.Tro C.o .':TT i!. THE VARA^.CE ...L PIP, U C . _ _ �L _ .FFii,.. 1, ^r✓ C: "H - CERT- P.; S THE JiH E SEX RE.'!S:CT CoDZ JS MO •uLcdED V D ' TBC ..A...E OF THE OWNER OF RECSIRD OR IS RkCORDED AND NOTED CN THE OGHER'S CERTIFICAi: Or- IiTLE - - - - - BCARC OF APPEAL'. - - A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK �1 ��,covnrr,�b z k (t�i#u of !$UIEm; nsr-achusetto RECD;',! Paura of �} yvA 1111F6 '83 NOV -2 P 3 :')3 / �*~ CITY CLERKICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHILIP AND VELMA OLIVER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 37-39 APPLETON STREET A hearing on this petition was held on October 19, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal. 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. Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to allow them to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this 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 reconstruciton of nonconforming \ structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or \ expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, J 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 of Appeal, after considering the evidence at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Vigorous opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. The character of the neighborhood is basically single family homes with some two family homes; 3. Granting petitioner's request would tend to increase traffic and congestion in the area. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The requested relief substantially derogates from the intent and • 1 purpose of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. The granting of a Special Permit will not promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants; DECISION ON PETITION OF PHILIP AND VELMA OLIVER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 37-39 APPLETON STREET page two pp �n 3. The requested relief would be a substantial detrime�Al MVth9 P? :03 public good. CITY C .CE Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to deny the p$Aiflbners.�request for a Special Permit. n Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary - APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, r ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS: GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 308, AND SHALL BE FILE D WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 803, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE C,,", SPECIAL P7f':IIT GRANTED HEPEIN, SHALL NGT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, BLARING THE C'4;T. FICAHON OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL RFS BEEN Flt,":i . OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISiA1SSED OR DENIED iS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF TG� ci if8 OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK t of Mem, u5sac4use#fs Pearb of �FPML V . DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN M. MARTW FjO 16 P3 :03 VARIANCES FOR 50 BALCOMB STREET �. =F1 E A hearing on this petition was held April 27, IgAlY rSt�i..thra,<`Sa, fol�owing Board , Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Cha `s',' Acting Secretary, Messrs. Hopper, Luzinski, Bencal. Notice of this 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. variance for the property in question to allow the premises to be converted from a two-family to a three-family dwelling. Petitioner has also requested a variance from the minimum parking requirements. _ The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence, presented at the public hearing and after viewing plans oftheproperty, makes the following,findings of fact 1. No opposition was raised to petitioner's plan by neighbors; 2. The proposed use of the, property is consistent with that of surrounding lots. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the �) /1 hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The property in question is unique because of it's- size and configuration; 2. The conditions above described 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, causes special financial hardship to the petitioner; 4. The desired-variances maybe granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted in favor of granting the variances requested by petitioner. The Board grants variances to the petitioner under the following terns and conditions: 1. Petitioner may convert the premises to a three-family dwelling; 2. The property may have less than the minimum amount of parking spaces otherwise required by the Salem Zoning Ordinance, but may not have less �'` than four (4) on-site parking spaces; DECISION ON JOHN M. MARTINS FOR VARIANCES FOR 50 BALCOMB STREET 3. Petitioner must obtain a Certificate of Use and Occupancy for the premises; • 4. Petitioner must provide A.C. hardwired smoke detectors in all areas of the structure; and 5. These variances will automatically e_, e N tl n R24 o) years from the date of the filing of this decision, without prejudice to petitioner's right to request suc r•auces b ted again flyafter their expiration. SALEM� .•,. : .,, Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary ASS- IF ADIY, SHALL 6E MADE PURSUANT To.SECTION 17 OF THE bFILIN - - APPEAL F°"" THIS DECISIOZI, AND SHALL RE FILED VHTHDI 20 OAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING - - GENERAL�A"JS' CHA?TEP. 819, A�. CITY CLERK. =1 _ - --- Ia�OA Iry THE OcFICE -0F THE tCH 11, THE VAPIA lCE CP. SPECIAL agT-1T • - / - OF oIB r CL•,-.AoS. CEN ERA!_ F C CHAPTER 803. Sc c�cC`.+:. °. \ 1.;3 THE CERT- _ - PJ1sNN. 70 �t:E.EFI {,T UNTIL.P OPY Or IH✓.� - - GF.FSTED H'2E'�7. SHALL N n nrD ,10 NO APP=AL HAS KEN FILIS ED. .. FA':T'?N OF THE C:T7 CLEP.!. HAT 20 DAfo H4:E r Fo OEEN DIS'--.iISSEO CP. DENIED FT OR TH%S, 1F S9CFI Aw' APPEAL PAS B`_EH FIL'c. THA. 1. d . c " At1U iRDE"ED L'rIDER THE r.AXE OF THE OVlNER NDYED ON THE 019 IER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. RECCP.DED li! THE SU-11H EAL P P,Ee:,,TR'( OF CEE05 OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND - BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION . AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. i X of '83 FEB A9 S, Pvar� of AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT KAKS,RR-JOHN 77fMFEY THREE NDOM FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT 23 BEACH AVEN INIUM UNITS A hearing on this Petition was held on January 26, 1983, with the following Board Members present: Mr. James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper and Piemonte 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 three famili dwelling at this property into three condominium units. This proposed condominium conversion is covered by the terms of the City of Salem's Condominium Conversion Ordinance. The Special Permit: that has been requested may therefore be granted only upon a finding by the Board of 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 mocli.erate 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, • , of Appeal, after considering the evidence at the hearing, and after wing the property makes the following findings of fact: 1) The building at this location is 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 conversion of the property to condominiums will have negligible impact on the existing stock of rental units in the City of Salem ioy the elderly and far families of low and moderate income. 4) The conversion of the property to three condominium units will not have an adverse impact on the area. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on Lho evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal by a unanimous vote concluded that the proposed condomininill conversion is in harmony with the conduminilui.i conversion ordinanc-r-, of the City of Sal-ejj). Accordingly, the Board voted in favor of granting the requested Special Permit in accordance with the following terms and conditjonsc * AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF )ROBERT KALIS AND JOHN TIERNEY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT 23 BEACH AVENUE INTO THREE CONDOMINIUM UNITS Page 2 January 26, 1983. l Occupancy of, the units shall be limited to families as that term is P Y defined in the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 2) A Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be issued prior to .the sale of these units. 3) The Petitioners will not be required to allow six months to elapse before commencing work in furtherance of the condominium conversion. \` Anthony M. Feeher y Secretary 1 D & CITY CLERY 'PY OF THIS DECISION & PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOAR �83 FEB -8 A10 :18 Poartr of �"P� l DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT KALIS AND JOHN TIERNEY CITY CL'rR.i'•_I'„� .- NfiCEONVERT TIIE PROPERTY AT 23 BEACH AVENUE TO THREE CONDOMINIUM UNITS A hearing on this Petition was held on January 26, 1983, with the.following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs Hopper, Piemonte 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. 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 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 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 to three condominium units will not have an adverse effect on the neighbors. 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. Occupancy of the units shall be limited to families as that term is defined in the S-alem Zoning Ordinance. 2. A Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be issued prior to the sale of these units 3. Because the building had residential tenants at the time this petition was filed, the'Petitioners will be required to allow 6 months to elapse before commencing work in furtherance of the condominium conversion. APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MAGE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OFId GENERAL LAVIS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DAT OE I f^ ..♦�LL!/, OF THIS DECISION 1N THE OFFICE OF THEE CITY CLERK. P�i PSAffi TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 71, THE VARIANCE OR EGI Anthony M. Fe berry GRANTED HEREEi:1. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION 8rNG TH�CE'Zi T•�{ary • C..AT!?N OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPi AL S SEEN FILED. .,� .HQM.#r� Ns 1W,4RMTjMVES BHSI�C14�nEDeW11`NEET9E PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK ED UNDER THE OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED ANDREGISTRY NOTED ON THE OWNERSss SSEX OF DEEDS ANDINDEXCERTIFICATE OF TITLE'AniE OF THE OLYNER BOARD OF APPEAL �P Ti#u of "inIem, assn rouse##s } s PatzrD of '4pettl DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HARRY ENG FOR A VARIANCE FOR 78 BEAVER ST. A hearing on this petition was held December 21 , 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of said 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. Petitioner is requesting a .Variance from setback requirements and a Special Permit for use in order to construct a two family duplex and a garage, bringing a total of four dwelling units in this R-2 district. Mr. Harry Eng, Petitioner, requested Leave to Withdraw his petition without prejudice. The Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow this request. Petition Withdrawn. w c u �o t. . Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary PD A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROiA THIS DECI'113N. 1... ANY. SHALL BE ,,ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF Fi LI13 OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSAiuT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, S:CTION 11, THE VARIANCE CR SPECIAL PFR IT CRAN',ED HEREM SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISIG."J. Bf.4^'iJ'; THE Cc T- FILA'11OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE EIAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS B=Eh1 Fi LED. ,N OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISIr ISSED OR DENIED IS -RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER. THE NAME OF THE OVJNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL (situ of �SaIem, assar4use-R ,- cntr � � Ptldtv H (.y.F_ FIG DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT P. I�fN �LtAMAS. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 30 BECKFORD STREET A hearing on this Petition was held on March 23, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs: LaBrecque, Hopper, Feeherry and Piemonte. 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 reduce the size of an already non-conforming lot and thereby extend the non-conformity .of the lot. iThe provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, .whiich 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 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 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 reduction in the size of the lot was unopposed by any neighbors; 2. The proposed reduction in the size of the lot will have a negligible impact on the area. On the basis of the above findings of. fact and on the evidepr- nr"esented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals finds .(i) that the proposed modification of the. property will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing structure to the neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed modification of the property will ,promote the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare, and (iii) that the proposed modification 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. F� I� X DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT P. KING f7N( � 24 All SU0� ,f FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 30 BECKFORD STREET March 23, 1983 CIiY - .,,t FILE. Page 2 SALEFS. MASS. 1. The Petitioner may reduce the size of his lot from 9010 square _ feet to 7003 square feet in accordance with the plan submitted to this.Board. 2. A Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be obtained for . the premises prior to conveying Parcel A as shown on the ' plan submitted to the Board. /< Anthony .M.. eeherry Secretary • 1 _ A =7f"! .7 do ..i....._ 2�7 ZO OF.YS C__ - + I N ] 11 1 - I `D - t 9AT IFa .- - � IvP . .L is " c - r _E lrlu :iriREL 1= - Ti G c 1. Ili_' SJ- Lic X r tr.L -F CCE A.r'O voE D .,.; ! _ .v..[ - Of RECORO OR IS Rc RECO-DED A.'W NUI*.-,) Oil THE OW\cR'S CERT fFiCr,7E C iliLE - .x�, . . . BOARD OF APPEAL - '', A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK of o Salem, - � 1' ' ,,. Pnttrh of �App.ett! '83 Off 14 P2 5c, DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVE SPANIOS FOR A CITYC___E`CS CFFEf,F VARIANCE FOR 94-96 BOSTON ST. , SALEM Sh _; A hearing on this petition. was held September 28, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Piemonte. Notice of said 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. Petitioner requests a Variance to allow him to build a greenhouse for his floral business. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the. same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and +, c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the /1 public-good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal having heard all the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plan, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition was raised to petitioner's plan; 2. Due to the size; shape, and configuation of the lot, and considering the needs of petitioner's business and the physcial requirements of a greenhouse, the greenhouse requested would basically have to be built in that oart of the lot requested by petitioner; 3. The conditions referred to above especially affect this lot, and do not generally affect other lots in the area; 4. If this Variance is denied, petitioner will lose a significant per- centage of this floral inventory each year due to weather conditions; 5. The presence of a greenhouse in this largely commercial and industrial area would not be substantially detrimental to the area. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Zoning Appeal concludes as folloors: 1 . Special circumstances and conditions exist which especially affect - the land and structure involved and do not generally affect other lands or structures in the district. DECISION ON PETITION OF STEVE SPANIOS FOR A VARIANCE FOR 94-96 BOSTON STREET page two • 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial financial hardship for petitioner; 3. The requested relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioner's request for a Variance provided that: 1 . A new plan must be filed with the Board which reflects the true location and dimensions of the proposed greenhouse, specifically delineating the fact that the greenhouse will not be attached to the existing structure; 2. That said plan also reflect the type of materials of which the greenhouse will be constructed; 3. That said plan is approved by the City of Salem Fire Marshal; and 4. That a Certificate of Compliance be obtained for approved smoke detectors at this location. _ LU c S2 Li o U _ Scott E. Cherries, Acting Secretary . AFPEAL MOM TiIS OEC!S}JN, IF ANY, STALL BE iIADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 CF Ti= Lr_!S. f17") .:'; ! 5E F".� 4 -r '? '_•U CA'YS AFTER T8E CAT-7 O .4 - I.. Gc Iti LITv � SWU 1HE U.vc_ � e � D -1a _ i ,!I.E -n 11 .. LF .:HD OR la cwt,.b:L;ED ii;L) ut TIT', BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 4,...ovam.i TttT` 1L r� ' �y a9J' v� 4�4Yu o` /]VµL{�.L�1' C�i{.�.V1.iCKTJL � !-,r.-.r f•. --_ s' nttrb of� AppettC '83 DEC -7 A 9 710 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NICHOLAS S. GIANARELES CIT'. CC_r "' " F"FICE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 165 BOSTON ST. , SALEM $A A hearing on this petitioner was held on November 2, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Hopper, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the sale of used automobiles in this B-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, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, •' j 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 of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Opposition raised by neighbors was concerned with increase in traffic and with parking on the public way; 2. The proposed use of the premises will not have any substantial negative effects on the surrounding area; 3. The business will be owner operated. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal finds that: 1 . The proposed use of the property will not be substantially more •, detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use; - 2. The proposed use of the property is in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. DECISION ON PETITION OF NICHOLAS S. GIANARELES FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 165 BOSTON ST. , SALEM • Accordingly, the Zoning Board of Appeal approved the granting of a Special Permit. The Board voted as follows: Messrs. Hacker, Luzinski, Piemonte and Bencal voted in favor of the Special Permit. Mr. Hopper voted to deny. Therefore, the Special Permit is hereby granted in accordance with the following terms and conditions: 1 . No flamables are to be stored on site; 2. No repairs, other than minor emergency repairs, are to be made on the premises; 3. Any lighting is to placed so as to face inward and away from residences; 4. There is to be no parking of any vehicles on the public way; 5. There will be no more that ten (10) vehicles on the premises; 6. A Certificate of Occupancy and Use must be obtained; 7. Premises must be in compliance with all- Fire Codes; 8. Subject to the approval of the Licensing Board, and subject to any restrictions they may .impose. James B. Hacker, Chairman G: o �j q M r _ CC) U Moc L FR0.1 TP!S C 11%, IF AN't, SHALL K F'f DE PURiUANT TO SECTION I' Cr CE:EP.AL Li' -�. CnF'icd S03, A l SH4LL BE nL.0 L;, 1 :;;SS. OF 7FHS DECIS(CY, IN THE CFFICE OF T..c CIT! CLE.,RM1 tJ DAYS AFTER THE DATE C7 Fr±; y ' P- . fT TO !'a". CE'fR�L LAI;S, CHA?TER EC8, SECi10H ll. THE PA°I -CF r.:, r _ h_.uN S. !LL NU 'AXE EFFECT ULT'L A CCF'( Dc T EC:S. u 'i'i"! CF .L. Ci Me-; MAT 20 DAYS H'-0'E zl"rSED } 7 Ir. APP IF SJ;4 1. AP'EAL hAS BEEN FILE. iHA( IT H.'s t3ME DliirsS D - --'.;:RDEO IN THE SOU"H ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INJE;EO U'.0 R iN ; •-_ OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. ` ' s BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK K (fitu ofStt1em, ttsstttlusetts 1 l-JVYNrb Y1 C, p& _ 91.'Jf)IIF'L[PINtI )1 DECISION ON A PETITION OF ZOLOTAS BROS. , INC. (PETWOW")-( P3 :0 JOHN BAKAS (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE FOR 1 BROOKS COURT, SALEM !� �. A hearing on this petition was held December 21 , 1983 vfitT) h 6ie.,follfiZringtBoard Members present: James Hacker Chairman; Messrs. , Charna!1 ) pper; 'Luzinski and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of said 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. Petitioner requests a Variance from density requirements in order to be allowed z c W to convert an existing single family dwelling into a two family dwelling in this w 2 district. Property is owned by John Bakas. _wcoa o x Z5 m he Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a.finding of the Board p N Z m 6 C C N K L pthat: W O 6 ¢ O W U J W ~ ~ a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect !2 a N Q the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally z o z z W = affecting other lands, buildings andstructures in the same district; b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; d t7 4 'L o = c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment of the s W LL public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. N y o U ti W F ti a � The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of face: i2p i W a z o 1 . Vigorous opposition to petitioner's plan was raised at the hearing; Jl K ~ L J U ¢ J O 2. The neighborhood in which the proposed conversion is to occur is 4 Z y U w C ss already highly congested, quite densely populated and suffers severe � F. + , W traffice problems. y z On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the $ o a LL o r o hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: i 1 . The Variance requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without substantially derogating from the purpose of the Ordinance or the intent of the district. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously against grant this request. Variance is denied. �',�-� � �✓ i�+:rc-..tom i Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING, BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK of '$alPm �Ifi82IC Lt$p Y �' Pour3 of Appeal �•. •__ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF TANIN AND SOMPIS SASALUSANIN r FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 37 CABOT STREET $3 �[� �g i '`1 A hearing on this petition was held on November 30, 1983 with �e� �ollo!ding;-Board resent: Janes Hacker Chairman; Messrs. Charnas Ho Y Members ,' p , , , ppe. ; Guzirlski. and Associate Member Bencal. 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 Chanter 40A. Petitioners request a Special Permit to allow him to Instruct and lease a third apartment at the premises in this 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 J accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits _ _ o for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures and for changes, enlargement, extension or, N 4_ expansion of nonconforming lots, .land, structures, N = " _ and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, � . '.` enlargement or expansion shall-not be substantially more w w detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the N < neighborhood. C In more general . terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,. m w w guided by the ruly that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding J b the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the - y p p public health, r = safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. o The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes -the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; c On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: J _ 1 . The relief requested is in harmony with the q y purpose and intent. of > x the Ordinance; - 2. The relief requested will not be substantially detrimental to the public good. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal by a vote of four in favor and one voting _ present granted the petitioners the relief requested. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK J b`r+ y,cornne.. of '5alem, tt�sttcl�use##s �� t (• 'r, ... t�� 1 Paurb of ECISION ON THE PETITION OF MCDONALD'S CORPORATION FOR •84 JAN _u P j .n A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 150 CANAL STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held December 21 , 1983 with thEMd1j:q ing;Boarq F Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hoppel^i -Luzinski and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of said 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. Petitioner requests a Special Permit to allow .it to build a recreation area as an accessory use to it's restaurent, as shown in a plan filed with the Board. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which. is applicable to the 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, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition was raised to petitioner's plan; 2. The recreation area will be in a part of the premises relatively isolated from the heavy traffic of Canal Street, thus not presenting a substantial danger to users. One the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board concludes as follows: 1 . Petitioner's plan will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood and the public good; 2. Petitioner's plan is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the 1 Zoning Ordinance, and may be granted without substantially derogating i J from same. _.' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MCDONALD'S CORPORATION t FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 150 CANAL ST. , SALEM Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioners • the requested relief, as shown on the plan filed with the Board, provided that: 1 . The doors leading from the recreation are to the parking area operate as exits only, and not to be used for ingress; 2. Wooden type guard built out of Fir lumber posts, 811 x 811, 31 below grade and 21 above grande, with 411 x 1011 fir ral, mounted on the face side of the posts using two 5/811 in diameter galvanzied bolts per post be placed at the perimeter of the recreation area where same abuts the parking lot. n ��, � lJi tl.�✓y1 rz.o� Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK C-) m -f p > C !' C- J1�1 APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE NIA$S. W -- GENERAL LA01S, CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF F'DING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. r''I `^ PJRSA.NT TO .SASS. CENUML LAWS, CHAPTER 598, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL FERIAIT (.RANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TRKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, BEARING THE CERT- - FICATIUiN OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SJUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE C'NN"R OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED CN THE DINNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • 01Tfu of '5cIIPITT, - nttrD ofAppeal N,. '83 JAN 16 P10 .11 'l DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & BERTHA CAPPUCIO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 277 'CANAL STREETCITY R1*SnerFICSALEME A hearing on this Petition was held on January, 5, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker; Chairman; Messrs. Hopper, Piemonte, 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.Ceneral Laws Chapter 40A. . The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to expand the nonconforming structure at the site. The site was last used as a gas station. The existing structure on the site has been there . ' for a number of years and is a pre-existing non-conforming structure in the following three categories: minimum lot area; minimum front yard, and minimum side ya The Petitioners wish to alter the existing structure in order to permit them to operate a package store on the premises in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board. The Petitioners have therefore requested a special permit as to Minimum lot area; Minimum front -yard and Minimum side yard requirements and use. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which we deem to he 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 use; 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 Petitioners' proposed addition to the site will improve the appearance of the area. 2. The proposed addition will not be substantially more detrimental to the area than . the prior use of the site as a gas station. _On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the 'A is hearing, the Board of Appeal finds (>J that the proposed use of the property L not be substantially more detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood, 1) 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 Y� - '83 JAN 16 P10 :11 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & BERTHA CAPPUCIO CITY Ci_FF ,-S OFFICE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 277 CANAL STREET SAt_EN NAS S January 3, 1983 Page 2 of a Special Permit to the Petitioners, The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following terms and conditions: 1. Petitioners may, in accordance with plans submitted to the Board, construct a 28' x 28-1/2' addition to the structure at the site. 2, • Petitioners shall submit a plan to the City Engineer for automobile access to and egress from the site. The City Engineer shall have complete discretion as to requirements for automobile access and egress. }A Certificate of Use & Occupancy shall be obtained before using the proposed addition. • /Petitioners shall plant and maintain greenery as shown on the plans submitted to the Board. S. Fourteen parking spaces (not including the delivery area) , all in accorance with the City's zoning ordinance,shall be maintained at the site. The parking area shall be paved and spaces shapthony . Fe erry COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK. TLiS uCiSIC.`!, `F rUl"', SHALL 3E MAD, FGSS'iC.i T TO S'.L^• it L' CF T::- ..+"g- .. GF TD:.. ..:...,:.... iie "li+c .: 0: iF!c .;Ire - // OF RECORD OR IS P CCbDEO 41.19 n+TE0 C+ THE Gari°RS CE?U;0A.c Cr TiTLE. BOARD OF APPEAL of Salem, gassuchusetts r r, Poarb of Apywl '83 om —5 Ai11 :59 !J/IIIi6�Y`/ CITY CLEF --, OFFICE Si�l r- ' ;._'i DECISION ON A PETITION OF WENDY PRUITT) TRUSTEE CARPENTER ` REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 12 CARPENTER STREET A hearing on this petition was held on September 21 , 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque. Notice of said hearing was sent abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A: Petitioner requests a. Special Permit to .allow her to convert an existing Wo family" dwellinglinto a three family dwelling in this B-2 district. The Special Permit which has been requested may, under the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance be granted upon a finding by the Board of Appeals that the grant of the Special Permit may be made without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of this ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Substantial opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. Carpenter Street is a small narrow street which already suffers from traffic congestion; 3. The street has a nursing home and a half-way house for retarded adults on it; 4. Granting petitioner the relief requested would lead to increase in congestion on the street and undermine the character of the neighborhood On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes that the requested Special Permit cannot be granted witnout substantial detriment to the public good, and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of this ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to deny petitioners request for a Special Permit. APPEAL THiS DECISION, iF AiN, SHALL BE LADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. - OFr;cgA! .i;'i o. CP;-.PT EP. X03, AND SHALL SE Fs"-_;i V/I TIi'"! 20 CABS AFTER T6E G:TE G` Fi LING Cr 1-.1] F,-... i r "`F Or THE CII-If C E':(. Ti VAP!A'r 0? c' .—AIT. -I 0 I r ..� l r i RT. f �'�� - r c U .I L I ,� FII. c., r t S£g ; .pyfls{�}arnas, Acting Secretary dEO ! X E S Cr 'eOS AND 1 D tC "1� the Lre..� _ OF RECORD OR IS RfwF::LO AND NOSED ON THE G71NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING. BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 0/1 �i of -"Salem s' Pourh of Appeal •83 FEB -8 A10 :1 PJ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAWRENCE S. THERIAULT REQUESTING CST SPECIAL FOR 86 CONGRESS STREET SA!_c"� A hearing on this Petition was held on January 26, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte and Hopper, and Associate Member Luzinsk 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. Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to use a vacant store at 86 Congress Street for his coin, stamp and jewelry business. With respect to this request for a Special Permit which involves a change in an-existing non-conforming use, 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 VIZI F and IR D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes,_ enlarge- ment :extention or expansion of nonconforming lots, land structures and - i; . 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 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 other commercial uses in the area and another commercial use at the site.. . 2) The proposed use of the property will not be detrimental to the area. 3) There was no opposition from neighbors to the proposed use of the property. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal finds (i) that the proposed use of the .property willnotbe substantially more. detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood, (ii) that the. pro�% posed use of the property will promote the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare ar (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 Y Petitioner. he requested Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following 1)s and conditions: RP DECISION ON THE PETITION OF • LAWRENCE S. THERIAULT X83 FEB -8 A10 :18 REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 86 CONGRESS STREET CITYLr�'j`. Page 2 SAD' January 26, 1983 1) A Special Permit is granted to allow use of the site as a coin, stamp and jewelry business. 2) A Certificate of Use and Occupancy must be obtained for the entire building. 3)• All other necessary licenses and permits must be obtained, VIN 11 t'1.4 Anthony M. Feehe ry Secretary i A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS -BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD & CITY CLERK APPEAL fR0"1 THIS DECISION- IF ANY, SHALL BE IJADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.APPEAL .0,11LMN . CHAPTER 86- AND SHALL BE FILED VIITHIN.20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF RUNG OF THIS CECIS!ON IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - Pu'S4iIT TC S1ASS. GEi2ER4t LRi7S, CHAPTER 803. SECTI^N 11. TIE VARIANCE OR S?ECTAL PEP..i1T CR'rl�ED "r!"=REIi!. SH4 1- NO! TIKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DLC212^4 E r' ° THE '" �� •� F.C.'+T�ON OF THE CIV CLEPF, THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AtiD N�0 APPEAL hI 6 EI F+ OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN ALE. THAT 1T 144S BEEN ms!"'IS ED OR G-I. 7 IS DS AND IN9�,\'ED UI!DZR TSE rEZOPDED ORD IORTIE RECORDED ANDR F SOUTH ESScXNOTED ONTHEEO YNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE OF IH_ C"','11__4 OF BOARD OF APPEAL �) Ctg of ,`6ttlem, asstar4usetts A r„ �•, 1 �nxxs P' / AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH M. PIEMONTE FO$ y SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 22 CROWDIS STREET, SALEM 84 AN 13 ��%' A hearing on this petition was held on September 21 , 1983CFihthe.folloyanng Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charil?�s,! Hopper, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque. Notice of said 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. Petition has requested a Special Permit to allow him to extend a nonconforming structure by extending a roof to cover steps and to construct a patio and a ` carport on the side of the dwelling in this R-1 district. W . "= ttie Special Permit which has been requested may, under the terms of the Salem honing Ordinance be granted upon a finding by the Board of Appeal that the Gant of the Special Permit may be made without substantia]. detriment to the LJ s Pvblic good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of this Ordinance. ? W C o � <<� �, , � � The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence at the bearing, makes the . M following findings of fact: - 1 . There was no opposition to the plan voiced by neighbors; - r O 2. The plan does not create a substantial encroachment towards the property of neighbors. w =, r On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the :•+ N x hearing, the Board of Appeal condluded as follows: Zz ti 1 . The requested relief does not substantially derogate from or nullify ; ter ? J a _ w the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance; ES s = Z5 _ < - w ti 2. The relief requested does not create a substantial detriment to the public good; ^ y . z 2 3. The granting of a Special Permit will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petitioner a Special Permit to extend a non-conforming structure as shown on a plan submitted to the Board. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary / A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK ilyy C0y0?A,bn I fit LfSIem, �tszIIPIr_ ncl..r;__�. Puttra of p }rpettl 83 -OCT 13 P3 :07 CITY C: _ :'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH M. PIEMONTE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 22 CRO'rIDIS STREET A hearing on this petition was held on September 21 , 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas Hopper, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque: Notice of said 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 allow him to extend a non- conforming structure by extending a roof to cover steps and a patio on the side of the dwelling in this R-1 district. The Special Permit which has been requested may, under the terms of the .Salem Zoning Ordinance be granted upon a finding by the Board of.Appeal that the grant of the Special Permit may be made without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of this ordinance. • "' The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition to the plan voiced by neighbors; 2. The plan does not create a substantial encroachment towards the property of neighbors. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concluded as follows: 1 . The requested relief does not substantially derogate from or nullify the intent and ourpose of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. The relief requested does not create .a substantial detriment to the public good; 3. The granting of a Special Permit will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. FppQ't r� THIS Dc - i�^! Ir' 4 Y SHALL DE MME PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF iH r1ASS. r - -.:.r The'refere'iLt;he•, dai'�cP'bf, L16A �n��Appeals, voted unanimously to grant the petitioner h. a Special gBrmY't ^W,e,,teg1d a,nAn-coneorinirag;;structure- as shoran on a plan suo^r 'ttedl:C�utl�e $P2J T Li'u 20 D \'$ k v` ELA°S-0 All:) r 3 A n'3. 'F FAS 6 `l F::E TPAr IT HAS °' �JcX 4EZISTR( GE DEEDS APip Id^E:cD Ui O is lB.D NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTfFICATc Or TITLE. BDARD. OF APPAP" E. Charnas, Acting Secretary - - - - E A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK z Puard of Appeal 41HY DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JULIANNA TACHE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 27 DANIELS STREET A hearing of this petition was held on June 15, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Charnas, Hopper, Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to . abutters and others and notices of the hearing,werR Tprapex'Fy�,pub1ished in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. °83 JUL -1 A10 :23 Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow her to convert the existing three family dwelling into a three unit condomi S�l rV "1<;SS This proposed condominium conversion is covered by fti erms of the City's Condominium Conversion Ordinance. The Special Permit that has been requested may therefore only be granted 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 con- trary 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 consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors or current tenants; 2. Notice requirements of Section V-B(12) (6) have been met; 3. Petitioner's plan will not have any negative impact of the existing rental units in the City of families of low and moderate income or for elderly people on fixed income; 4. Petitioner's plan will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood; 5. No significant hardship to existing tenants will be caused by petitioner's plan; 6. Petitioner's plan is not in conflict with the Master Plan of the City. One the basis of the above findings of fact and the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed conversion of the property to condominium units will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing (• use of the property. l ' Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously in favor of approving the grant of the Special Permit requested. The Board granted the Special Permit under the following terms and conditions: DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JULIAN TACHE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 27 DANIELS STREET 4 page two 1 . Petitioner may convert the premises to a three unit condominium ownership, 2. The parking spaces numbered 1 , 2 and 3 on the plan filed with the Board must be moved to an area behind the existing three unit structure; 3. The existing tenant cannot be dispossessed or evicted from her apartment for at least six months from the filing of this decision; 4. . No construction, repair or alteration in furtherance of the conversion to condominiums may be done except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday; 5. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. ^, w Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary j. J �w _fJ Ltl 1., • / - lir. }.U7 - - aO ~ v - - 7 -RAL FRQ,1.TH!S DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF Tr'' A--'.. ti1L V !� OHAP• R 8."3, AND SHALL BE FILED V1:THIN 20 DAYS AFTER Th- iii THE OFFIGE OF THE CITY CLERK. TO '.'ASS. ` ZRAL Lf 'S CHAPTER. 808, SECTION 11 THE VARIANCE A ' IASL N 1-.;E EFFECT UPoPL A COPY OF THED CISIO E t - G.i'! E°. 1HAT 20 DAYSHAVE ELAPSED AP:D NO APPEAL H> - 4 SU H AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN D!S 1ISSED - dE-� IN i,iE SOOiH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE - - - RSCGRil OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE - BOARD OF A.'r:: { A COPY OF .THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD,- AND THE CITY CLERK . .�coynR(.t - =s Ctu ofS�xlem, • ;'` Dttrh of L ett1 '83 00' 17 NO : CN DECISION ON PETITION OF JOANNE A. MCMANUS FOR A CITY �! SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 67 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on September 28, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Piemonte. Notice of said 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. Petitioner requests a Special Permit to allow hereto convert an existing two family dwelling into a two .unit condominium in this R-1 district. This proposed condominium conversion is covered by the terms of the City's Condominium Conversion Ordinance.- The Special Permit that has been requested may therefore only be granted 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 con- trary 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, and • after viewing the plans,_ makes the following findings of fact- 1 . Proper notice was given under Section V-B 1. 3 (6) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance; 2. There is currently one tenant in the building; 3. No .construction work will be needed to accomplish this condominium conversion; 4. There is no evidence by which the Board could conclude that petitioner's plan would have a_negative impact on the neighborhood or on the existing stock of low and moderate income housing in the City. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Petitioner's plan does not detract from the Master Plan of the City of Salem; 2. The plan will not have a substantial negative impact. on the existing stock of low or moderate income rental units in the City; 3. The existing tenant will be given substantial time to find •\ substitute housing; 4. Petitioner's plan does not detract from the public good. DECISION ON PETITION OF JOANNE MCMANUS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 67 DEARBORN ST. r page two Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petitioner • a Special Permit allowing her to convert the existing two family dwelling into a two unit condominium, provided that: 1 . The conversion not begin or take place until _six (6) months from the date this decision is filed, or until the tenant currently residing in the building voluntarily vacates the premises, whichever comes first; 2. Ownership of lots A and B as shown on a plan submitted to the Board, be merged so that A and B become one lot owned by one person or entity; " 3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. - � w . Li ¢ o ^DN .✓ Scott E. Charnas`, Acting Secretary U t D' SHAIL 8., 7AO_ :WRSUX.Ii U SCT!" 17 OF Ir ' , - Iq I 1 D'=WN,I _ -PED .H_ SZ'tX E It t 1°5 'u j;`3 AND OF P_CJ:J OR IS RECORDED AND Im,.D CN THE ON.1ER•S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE - . - BOARD OF APPEAL v - A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK r Tttu of §lent, Aassachusetts n�r� .n# ,4pe z1 rAdn,w,xa W�SY rx F n r)•.r rx DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT C. BRAMBLE, TRUSTEE OMILLA 29 P4 :07 REALTY TRUST, FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 105 DERBY STREET (FRANK AND GERTRUDE KONIECZNY-OTWNERS) CITY CLER;: S �JtFECE . A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 1983 with the fo?Powing Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper, Charnas and Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow him to convert an existing two family dwelling into a two unit condominium. This proposed condominium conversion is covered by the terms of the City of Salem's Condominium Conversion Ordinance. The Special Permit that has been requested 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 consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing .and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. Notice requirements of Section V-B(12) (6) have been met; 3. Petitioners plan will not have any negative impact on the existing rental units in the City for families of low and moderate income or for elderly people on fixed income; 4. Petitioners plan will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood; 5. No significant hardship to existing tenants in the building will be caused by petitioners plan; 6. Petitioners plan is not in conflict with the Master Plan of the City. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed conversion of the property to condominium units will not _ be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing • use of the property. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting. the Special Permit. The Board granted the Special Permit under the following terms. and conditions: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT C. BRAMBLE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 105 DERBY ST. page two • 1 . Petitioner may convert the premises to a two unit condominium ownership; 2. Any exterior alteration or modification of the dwelling must be approved by the Historical Commission of the City of Salem; 3. Work in furtherance of the condominium conversion may begin as soon as this decision is filed with the City Clerk; 4. Petitioner must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy prior to occupancy of each condominium; 5. Petitioner must install or have installed A.C. Hardwired smoke detectors in all areas of the structure. O U u u Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary � J }N. . - - OPO ES U APPEAL FRO.'A TH;S DECiS10?l, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PDP,SL!A,NT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS- 6E?:EBA! LF":S. CH$PTER SOO; ASD SHALL BE FILED '.'!MVI 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILIYG . EF TH;S DECiS!op! IAi THE CF "E OF THE CITY CLERK, C ,,' : hOp �»crr;1-r-1 L 'S, CHAPTER 303. SECTIV 1 11, THE VARIAiiCE CR S?-'14L P SHALL 140: :�',E EFFECT Ot;TlL A CCPV OF THE CECIS I;1, BEARii ; THE CE'T-. FMAT!O;J OF THE C!h' CLER TH-W 20 DAPS HAVE EIVSED F7:;: ?;0 RPPEi,L HAS CEEIi F"LEE). OR THAT, IF SECH AH .APPEAL HAS EMM FILE, THAT IT HAS E=E': G!S:.;ISSED OR GEiSIc'D IS - RECORDEO IN THE SODTH ESSEX REGISTRY Cf DEEDS AHD INDE'" D UNDER THE NA.':iE OF THE CY.'YER' OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE 01'/NER'S CEP,TIFICATE-0F TITLE - BOARD OF APPEAL - - A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ,r Gifu of *Iem, tt sttc��u e 3' Pnttrb fff AppPttl DECISALLYNION ON REALLTYTHE TRUST,IFORNAOSPECIIALTC.PERMITAF0RE, TUSTEE OF 127RDERBY STREE'P AUG 12 x10 :28 (FRANCIS M. BONA-OVNER) CITY ;L« .. ., :!FF!CE A hearing on this petition was held on July 27, 1983 with the follcSiahg'Board-_ Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Hopper, Luzinski and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special .Permit to convert an existing three family - dwelling into a three unit condominium in this B-1 district. 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. .� 1 The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public y hearing and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. Notice requirements of Section V-B(12) (6) have been met; 3. Petitioners plan will not have any negative impact of the existing rental units in the City for families of low and moderate income or for elderly people on fixed income; 4. Petitioners plan will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood; 5• No significant hardship to existing tenants in the building will be caused by petitioners plan; 6. Petitioners plan is not in conflict with the Master Plan of the city_ On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the Public Hearing, the Board concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed conversion of the property to condominium units will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use of the property. .`' . . DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT C. BRAMBLE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 127 DERBY STREET page two • j Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting the Special Permit. The Board granted the Special Permit under the following terms and conditions: 1 . Petitioner may convert the premises to a three unit condominium ownership; 2. Any exterior alteration or modification of the dwelling must be approved by the Historical Commission of the City of Salem; 3. Work in furtherance of the condominium conversion may begin as soon as this decision is filed with the City Clerk; 4. Petitioner must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy prior to occupancy of each condominium; 5. Petitioner must install or have installed A.C_ Hardwired smoke detectors in all areas. of the structure. cc L0 \ C LL James B. Hacker, Chairman 20 - - - SHALLG( ASE PURSUAFlT TO S C i l 1% 0 r c .0 . I IT11. I ply c ., t•i r I. 20 DP.VS AFT q ,5E ` APP f L r PO M1 THIS D ,,.18 F. J 5�FLL C- t ...T tl s- 11" lr.E 0 :"L rf J JIJE cv Au Cr TITLE- ..: iF_...;•:';A• gi TI;,_ SU',}'., RECuRO.-t0 AkD G;ED CH.THE (`IJ:\ERS ()F AP-EAL. "v RO Of IS BO:uR4 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLAAR:ING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. of o Salem, rise juutts Pourb of Appeal Y o 1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN HAMU LTON, TR. FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 132-134 DERBY ST./16 BENTLEY ST. , SIL§ r; = -T - A hearing on this petition was held on November 16, 1983 with the following Board members present: James B. Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski, and Piemonte. 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. Petitioner requests a Special Permit to allow him to convert the premises into — six nto —six condominium units and three stores, also, petitioner requests a Variance from minimum parking requirements in this B-1 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, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, htat such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental that the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, 1\ 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 Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. 'Special conditions and circumstances exist which expecially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings, and structures in the same district; b. Literal enforcement of. the provisions of the zoning Ordinance would in— volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner;and c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Vigorous opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. There is currently a substantial parking problem in the neighborhood; 3. Petitioner's plan would substantially exacerbate that parking problem; 4. Petitioner has not demonstrated that substantial hardship would result if the Zoning Ordinance were literally enforced. DECISION ON PETITION OF JOHN HAMILTON, TR. FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 132-134 DERBY ST./ 16 BENTLEY ST. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The requested relief .substantially derogates fromtheintent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. The granting of the Special Permit will not promote the health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City's inhabitants; 3. The requested relief would be a substantial detriment to the public good; 4. There would be no substantial hardship to petitioner if the requested Variance were not granted. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously against granting the requested relief. Petitioners request for a Special Permit and Variance is hereby denied. CL Co E-5 Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary PJ $JAN,T TO S_„ IDii 'T r +- S _ - A S.-'A' --- r_Ei G 20 DAYS AFTER TFE DATE 01- ''_'. '•!� v: T".7 C!T'i `•!_ I .. c c l THE t 'i:5 Mr. _ A COPY GF THE : [ fVE C Y OLER� 1 2D D i ./ E:.:�FSCJ %!•) f 1 it - . . i. r SJ �'.i r H. F -D PP t NAS S .1 E. Ti A I 4 'c;, ESSEX F i°T'Yr_- D ....R [_JS AND L! T: l c TIT OF R. DDR IS -RECORDED AND i,DTED CY THE C{'';tt ERS CEnTIFICATE Cr TITLE. BOARD DF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ` t, ft�t of 1 A varb of Jeal PNu ; .>) DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SHAUGHNESSY HOSPITAL FOR AtUTAR`]CE FOR A LOT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF DOVE AND JEFFERSM1- AVENUES, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on November 16, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James B. Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper and Piemonte. 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. Petitioner requests a Variance to allow the premises to be used as a parking lot in this R-2 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special Conditions and circumstances exist which expecially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings, and structures in the same district; b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. The petitioner is a hospital and has needs which do not generally affect the district; 3. Petitioner's parking problem for it's staff and outpatients threatens the public safety by closing off or substantially narrowing fire lanes on the premises. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions or circumstances exist which affect this lot but which do not generally affect the district; 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would work a substantial hardship upon petitioner and the City's inhabitant; 3. The Variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from tite intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SHAUGHNESSY HOSPITAL FOR A VARIANCE FOR A LOT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF DOVE AND JEFFERSON AVES. Therefore the Board of Zoning Appeal voted to g Pe unanimously,/ grant petitioner the requested Variance, provided that: 1 . Parking in the subject lot shall be limited to staff of petitioner and outpatients of the hospital; 2. Parking in the subject lot shall be only between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. ; 3. The Variance is only good for so long as the subject premises be leased to petitioner; 4. No improvement, including hottopping, may be made:.to the subject lot. UILL Cn O Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary 17 OF AFP--,',L f° -1 HIS,DECISION. IF ANY.S11H11L LC BE LEDOi.'IPHIN 20,10 DAYS AFTER SECTION' DATEYO nF USIG. - GR Ciin:'r> C T • Cr T"'33 EL.Q10 I` THE C'FL"E OF THE CI:Y CLERK. °E•h - .. ,:i a. SG.c�AL Lr;•:^ CHAPTER 308. SECTMN 11. THE VARIANCE CR v b "L - - U FER r SCALL V)-- i• E EFFECT A CO°7 Or rt E ; ..T- - - it Y CL �' n.4 20 -,)A)'3 HATE L� .PSD A'i7 r O AFKAL HAS 6 "' D - - . 5 C2 r-.T. iF .-�;i A^. AFFcA HAS DEEP FILE THA 1 HAS uccy C r . �cE] - 4 L '.�0 !S - _ k_;(t^DED li: 7"r,E SC JTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF U`_EDS A•JD INDEXED U� CER TH. -l.c OF TV N OF RECORD i4 IS RECORDED :SID rIOTED ON THE OVINER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK `aY _ `A 'e (1,11 Of 5alerll' ae;�Jur4u5vlgs °83 FEE:22 DAMON ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & GLORIA MANCIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOP. .OTS 22 and 23 EMERALD AVENUE CITY f; E"t;'S OFFICE SALEEII P,I : A hearing on this Petition was held on February 16, 1983, with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, Piemonte, Feeherry and Associate Member Charnas. Noi:ices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing wee properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Petitioners have requested a variance to combine Lots.22 and 23 Emerald Avenue and to use the combined lot with 1-1,655 sq. ft. for construction of a single family home. A variance, is required because the property is in an R-1 district where the lot does not meet minimum lot requi-r-ements for area (15,000 square feet) . 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 is well suited for use as the location • ' for a single-family home. The combined lot will have more square footage than . many homes in the area. 2. The proposed use of the property was unopposed.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 size and configuration. (2) The conditions described above especially affect the land in question but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land is located. (3) The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not the zoning district generally cause financial hardship to, the Petitioners. Unless a variance. is granted, these lots are valueless. i (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 residential. uses in the area. Therefore, the Board of Appeal unanimously voted in favor of ; granting the requested relief. The Board grants a variance to the Petitioners n the following terms and conditions: V' _ r `;'_ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF " • iJOHN & GLORIA MANCINI / REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR LOTS 22 '83 FEB ZZ 9 :41 and 23 EMERALD AVENUE FEBRUAP.Y 16, 1983 CITY C'_CQ't-S OFFICE Page Two _ SA E:1 MASS . 1) The property may be used for a single—family house. . 2) No blasting shall be done at the site without a_blasting permit. " 3) Petitioners shall comply with all zoning regulations except minimum lot area requirements. - 4) Petitioners shall obtain a Certificate of Use and Occupancy prior to occupying the site.. r �ti hony M. Fee erry /Secretary 1 r_',.f`. Ih' DE"ISID14G ANY SIMLL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTIO) 17 ti Tt r t` - L. C4AP:CR SM. A'7D S.'.AIL B: FILED WITIUN 20 DANS AFTER TKE W51' u IN LEE OCE OF THE CIT CLERt:. _ c r.,A?:ER ^VCR, SV=71 1' rrlr yy .B.'rc n ro'f L ..`r�:!cv r °I i. ::11L Tei i .E EF, DC7 Dt.',iL A Ct. , _ " - �. Ir t_ Cli"f CLEC::. T.... 2� iAYS RA' _ LR. tN"?. If S� ' AN APPEAL SIRS C cr c- s. T' IT klS Z'cu'! 0:3'+teJ 7 " r ' _ - - - ��OEcCIS AND INDE,EO LRIDZP rN.. t.n...E r Ir._ .: RECC^DED I± THE SOU-M ESS" r"" !N' OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. .- - BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK of o Stt1em, �zs �I �zPfs narb of p P- 1 '83 40V 30 P? %•t DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN COLLINS AND RALPH SCRI%o IE- FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 43 ESSEX STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on November 16, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James B. Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper and Piemonte. 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. Petitioners request a Special Permit to allow them to conduct a used car sales business in the R-2 district. The subject premises in already_ being used as a service station. 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 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 of the City's inhabitants. , ' The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Vigorous opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. The residential character of the neighborhood would be substantially changed if a used car sales business were conducted on the subject premises; 3. The already significant parking problem in the neighborhood would be exacerbated if petitioner's request were granted. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing the Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1 . The Petitioner's request cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. 2. The granting of the Special Permit will not promote the health, safety DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN COLLINS AND RALPH SCHIAVONE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 43 ESSEX STREET r convenience or welfare of the City's inhabitants; 3. The requested relief substantially derogates from the intent and purpose t of the Zoning Ordinance. \ Therefore, the Board of Appeal by a vote of three against, Mr. Piemonte voted present, voted to deny the petitioner's requested Special Permit. The Petitioner's request for a Special Permit is hereby denied. W M d C. --- IW M - 00 Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary .r iJ iSf. 'I i' F':°. SIU LL BE FADE PURSOA'!T TO SECT ON 17 OF Tri' VAS S. ._,. ..n SNA, SE F:,.::D 1.i °i'] 10 DAYS AFTER THE D!..E I •f I ^ 1. G` T'- f,i CLERB. - .:c ? S��i10a !]. Tr:c V>a..Ai2CE CP L4 7 FG9. T,:'-,, .tc 1NM A tOPI OF . ' _.,rc r0 f .'AL Ni y l F - c i _ E :.n it h. I �_U ' 1 - '- - . a'.•.,i 11 E SE) Rv,:JI cY OF DEEDS AND Ilr_E ? 'r r n�.E r:r r-`- -•- ^'CH IS RECORDED ANO NOTED ON THE DINNER'S CERTINCAIE OF L?LE. BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ` .7 4 of 'Salem, fflass rhusetts A nttra of �l}rett[ �. J e0/lll,h w�i ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN KLINE, IRA GO�ft16D Mt�2Y MUSMAN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR 70 ESSEX STREET - 7� Y CI r.7i •C :y._F'F�� .. A hearing on this petition was held April 27, ICY Bpard Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Scott Charms, Acting Secretary, Messrs. Hopper, Luzinski, Bencal. Notice of this 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 for the property in question to allow them to convert the existing two-family structure into a three-family structure. Petitioners have also requested a variance from the minimum parking requirements to permit a one (1) space per dwelling unit minimum. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the plans of the property makes the following findings of fact I 1. Substantial opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. petitioner's knew or should have known that the structure was a two family dwelling at the time they purchased it on or about.January, 1983; ' 3. The area in which the property is located already suffers from a very high traffic density,and parking in the area is already at a premium and creates a traffic hazard. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of ppeals concludes as follows: 1. The inability of the petitioners to meet the minimum parking requirements for a three family dwelling does not work a substantial, hardship on them. 2. The granting of a Special Permit to allow the conversion to a three family would be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use to .the neighborhood. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to deny the petitioner's request for a Special Permit and a Variance`. APPEAL FROG THIS DECISIOA, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION! 17 OF THE \ASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 803, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE, OF-fi(J^ - vi OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO '.:ASS. CE;IERAL LAV;S. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT Charms, Acting Secretary CRA:.TEO L'ERECi. SH.-AL NO.' TA.; E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, KAMIG THE CERT- _ FiCAT1ON OF 114E CIiY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. - - - - - ''R :HAT, IF SU:H AN APPEAL HAS BEEN HLE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED CR DENIED IS - -_ • 'IRDED IN THE SCUIH ESSEX,RECISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAi/iE OF THE 07RIER _ - .tECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED- ON THE OWNER'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 s : p � ? Salem, Aassachusetts Ctu of Pourb of ApIPAI i 't DECISION ON A PETITION OF STOLL ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR 105-107 ESW'. AER A10 :78 a/k/a 4 UNION STREET r(TY QL-r.f. OFFICE A hearing on this petition was held on July 27, 1983 t'1 Gi ,e._following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Hopper, Luzinski, and Associate Member Bencal. 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 i Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert to a seven unit condominium and a Variance from minimum parking requirements in this R-2 district. The property also house three businesses. This proposed condominium conversion is covered by the terms of the City'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. • TheBoardof Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. Notice requirments of Section V-B (12) (6) have been met; 3. Petitioners plan will not have any negative impact on the existing rental units in the City for families of low and moderate income or for elderly people on fixed income-; 4. Petitioners plan will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood; 5. No significant hardship to existing tenants in the building will be caused by petitioner's plan; 6. Petitioners plan is not in conflict with the Master Plan of the city. With respect to the petitioner's request for a Variance, the Board of Appeal finds as follows:. 1 . The desired relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board concludes as follows: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STOLL ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR 105-107 ESSEX- ST. a/k/a 4 UNION ST. Dage two • ,I 1 . The proposed conversion of the property to condominium units will not - be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use of the property. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting the Special Permit and Variance. The Board granted the Special Permit and Variance under the following terms and conditions: 1 . Petitioner may convert the premises to a seven unit condominium ownership and the use of the three businesses on the premises may be continued; 2. The six months waiting period for occupancy shall be waived; 3. The minimum parking requirements shall be waived; r 4. A Certificate of Occupancy and Use shall be obtained for each unit prior to the occupancy of any unit. OIt C N \James Hacker, Chairman= L1.J 1% V r n ?"r�'JS:1T 7D S`_�T.!DCt 17 CE THE E4A°S. D �. 1= A`!Y, SHALL t 2D DAYS AfA" rHE DA:E 6 HL!NS - FPPM I A: ) �' 1L C C rCJ. C. t 7 Y r - G' ._ ., i c. ,r l D �. ` ,� il. THE JF g E CS SP__"� P `:llT .S - F .U� C W. T:IE ,A ._ Ut u� yrpr:, C o , .:: - .;Si RY Or Dc.JS A?,7 u:�E1..D ..Dc.' .D .1 T1c ^.iy cSSE F- CF RECORD OR IS RE..vnD.D AND NOTED Dil THE 0""ER'S CERTIFICATE GF Ti:LE_. - BOARD Of APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK x -4 CIR of � ` L_V Pvar� of IA"VA - '83 FE? HECI5T0N ON THE PETITION OF EDGAR KELLEY AND JAMES O'MALLEY, TRUSTEES, FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 347 ESSEX STREET CITY � ' _� y;•C OFF ICE A hearing on t$l5 'Rel=it ion was held on January 26, 1983, with the following -Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper and Piemonte and Associate Member Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and a notice of the bearing was published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to enable them to use the premises as a law office. In 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 use of the site will have a negative impact on the residential . character of the area. 2. The proposed use of the property will worsen parking and traffic problems in the area. The proposed use of the property was opposed 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 not promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare and that the proposed use of the property is not in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board unanimously denied the granting of a Special Permit to the Petitioners. Furthermore, the Board notes that although the Petitioners styled their petition as a request for a Special Permit, the Board believes that the Petitioners should have requested a variance. Had such a request been made, the Board finds that the property in question is not unique and that no special hardship was shown by the Petitioners. Thus, Petitioners failed to establish a right to a variance. Anthony M. Feeh rry Secretary A COPY OF THIS DF,�CISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD & CITY CLERK i --� APPEAL FP T�ifl [ Ci3!GN, IF A?;Y. SIIALL DI PAME PJRSUANT TO SECTION 17�• ` C`i ;`! ' S `M P_,ER -�S AfiD SHLLL BE FILED MMM- 20 DAYS AF)ER THE D F 0 fFILV: i OF Td;3 ' D. •N IN Inc 0 F:CE OF THE C!TY CLERK. FILI C APMR 803, C:LTi:N 11. THE l'A?TAP rE r o - ! c . C?;"""ED ii ....a. Sdn� NST 1 : .FFc:T UNTIL A COPY Or' Ti,E%[Ci°i5l:, E=+:S:i9 - L`P.R9ET F!Jii15n Lr THE CITY C.Ek7. TEAT Z^ LAYS HA+E ELAFS_0 A.'!0 f.0 A'ri4AL HAS cc:i:.li7.cJ, OR THAT, IF :Y MIAPP[f.! '1AD i:EEi! FII.. MAT IT HAS SEEN CIS9I3SED C3 DE!`:12U !S RECORDED lit THE SDU:H ESS:.'. REMSTRY OF NES3 .AND INOS;ED UNTER 'fAE.NA:Ac OF TME OW.':ER - OF PECCRO OR IS RECORDED A!i6 i!L`fED CU THE OONER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - y� of Salem a7 • ,� 9 Poxra of '4PVd '83 NOV -2 P3 :03 J41111N6� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID RIFKIN (PETITIONER) FOR WJ;l R( `_ A VARIANCE FOR 95-99 FEDERAL ST. , SALEM - RHONDA PREMAN (OWNNN 3, -` !r'E A hearing on this petition was held on October 19, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal. 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. Petitioner requests a Variance to allow him to use the first floor of the premises as a law office and to convert an existing eight room apartment on the second floor into two, four room apartments. The third floor to remain as is. The lot is currently owned by Rhonda R. Preman, and is in an R-2 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings, and structures in the same district; b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; • and c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Vigorous opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. The Planning Board is opposed to petitioner's plan; 3. The character of the immediate neighborhood is not commercial, but residential; 4. The addition of another residence would further add to the density of an extremely dense neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The Variance requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without substantially derogating from the intent of the district and the purpose of the Zoning • Ordinance. i j DECISION ON PETITION OF DAVID RIFKIN FOR A VARIANCE FOR 95-99 FEDERAL STREET page two Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted against granting the petition by a vote of three against, one in favor, and one abstention. The petition is denied. t^ w 'y Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary z b.� Cn F - APPEAL FROM, THIS DECISION, iF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE !.'ASS. - GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILi?iC CF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE GFFY CLERK. PUR3ANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL P ..R'IT - 6NAtl i Eu HERE['-, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDEC1110N. f1i:ATTON CF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN r u:-.i, OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS':'ISSED OR "MEO S. RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL - A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 1 4a (fit of ttlExtt, Aassar4us2tts Pnttrb of ApFMI DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND BUSO AND MARTHA JARNIS-83 JUL 29 P4 :06 FOR VARIANCES FOR 155 FEDERAL STREET A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 1983 with the ' f�1T1 �icig!�Baar.dF►CE Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper, Charnas �d�3enE,aFw Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices were properly published in .the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. - + Petitioners request variances from side and rear setbacks and lot coverage in order to construct a wooden deck in this R-2 district. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Because of a large tree shading the premises, petitioners cannot grow successfully plant anthing in the area to be covered by the deck; 2. The value of the premises would suffer substantially if petitioners could not build a deck on this otherwise almost useless land; • � . 3..- No opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 4. These special conditions are unique to the premises and do not generally effect other lots in the district. 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 . Petitioners' request for variances can be .-ranted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance of the City. 2. A literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance -would involve substantial. financialhardship to petitioners owing to the above described special conditions which do not effect the district generally. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting the petitioners the variances requested. The Board granted these variances under the following terms and conditions: 1 . Petitioners are granted variances from minimueL side and rear setback requirements and from minimum lot coverage requirements to allow then to APPEAL FRWA THIS DECISION, IFQPI1 SO61-Ck plan filed by them with the Board_ GENERAL LAV/S: CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING ��TIIS D°Ci ��'ri 17 THE OFFICE OF THE CIN CLERK. 'A 'i TO _-S. GEN=?AL LAYS. CHAPTER "003. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL _fs!FT .?u_O H-r._.,+ S'i.dl NOT TA:;E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISI7N. 6FA",?'4] THE RT- ,iCATION OF i6'E bGY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO A.QP ''06, t " �yhas, Acting Secretary OR THAT, IF 3J C:; F`. ,"PEA! HAS E`_EN FILE. THAT IT AS D,EPI DLf7Y�.,`_O-tl3 ..fail=J•U _ - RECORDED G: THE >GJTH ESSEX REoISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OVINER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEE�CgI, k R THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Pourb of (Npwl '83 OCT 13 P3 :07 '`1411,c6� ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE AND RITA POTHIER CITY CLERK'S p ICE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 22 FOREST AVENUE SA LE I•i A hearing on this petition was held on September 21 , 1983 with .the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque. Notice of said 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. ✓ Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to allow them to use the two-family dwelling plus store on the premises as a three-family dwelling. The Special Permit which has been requested may, under the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, be granted upon a finding by the Board of Appeal that the grant of the Special Permit may be made without substantial detriment to the public good- and without. nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of this Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing, mates the following findings of fact: 1 . No neighborhood opposition to the plan was raised; 2. The neighborhood is predominantly composed of three-family dwellings. On the -basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the. hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes that the requested Special Permit may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of this Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petitioners the Special Permit requested, provided that they obtain a Certificate of Compliance for the premises prior to the third unit being occupied. AFHAL FP SI TliS D Cbl_.'i, IF ANY. SHALL EE MAGE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 O GE:iERr.0 LAi:iS. Ct;A_r:=a El13. A.:'D SHALL CE FI'_EJ 4i!TI'.!N2G DAYS AFTER TH.SEI=bFS"' aharnas, Acting Secretary DE Ti'S .. _!I L'I .na -r:CE CF THE CITY CLERK. . . ..... .. .... .i. !g i.F'.P.Lo '1E. S-.'!';'; li. T'r:E lh-..p.'.CE CT .."r-''AL PERMIT . .,.. _ Cn1:CT I; i:L AC.!:'i FF E- THE CcRT- - �,�� '1 FILE TWJ I F - _ i4 Eoa' -j 3i.tl GF r DS C dD INCE% D l� r-- (;A:,,E OF THE 1) CR 1S F,cwdJEO AND NG ED ON THE O INEIRS C13TIr CA,E C 1iLE. - BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH, THE PLANNING BOARD ACID THE CITY CLERK S - of gialem, Poura of c4ptal .83 JAN 16 P10 :10 DECISION THE PETIRSILIA FOR A SPECIALTION PERMIT FOROF 11 FOSTER STREET TY �Lf FK ``ICE Cl A hearing on this Petition was held on January 5, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper, Piemonte 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 permit him to use the existing structure at the site for a woodworking shop. That use is non-conforming; however; the property has been used as a machine shop whiph is also a non-conforming use. . The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of 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 i • j: _- --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. On the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal finds (i) that the proposed use will not increase noise, or traffic in the area and. is compatible with existing uses in the neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed use of the property will not be substantially more detrimental than the prior use to the neighborhood, (iii) that the proposed use of the property will promote the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare; and (iv) 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 in accordance with the following conditions: 1. Petitioner may use the site as a woodworking shop and office but not as a furniture refinishing shop. A Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be obtained prior to using the site. 31 Hours of operation of the woodworking shop shall be limited to 7 :30 a.m. - 5:30 a.m. Monday-Friday. However, Petitioner may use the office at the shop for bookkeeping, etc. on Saturdays. Er" lECISION ON PETITION OF ROBERT T. MARSILIA *83 JAN 16 P10 :10 '• !� :%ERMIT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 11 FOSTER STREET 'PAGE 2 CITY CLER'V. S OFFICE January 5, 1983 SgLE•1 '• ct`;� 4. Petitioner shall insulate exterior walls of the structure to improve soundproofing. 5. Petitioner may not use power tools in excess of 1-1/2 hp in his operation. 6. No exterior storage of materials shall be allowed at the site. Storage of materials will, however, be allowed in the shed at the rear of the property. 7. Four parking spaces shall be maintained at the site. 8. No more than two employees shall be employed at the site. ony t3. Feehet i APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE RADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS- APPEAL LAPIS, CHAPTER SOB, AND SHALL DE F!'-EC Vdl"1i 1 20 DAYS PFTER THE DATE OF FWiiG CF THIS DECISION I" THE THE ICE OF T}!o C!TYCCLE°�R� 1.L THE VARIANCE OR SPEITAL PERMIT P0.'•.SANT TO ^;ASS. fEOE"n LP'VS, Cu."E 2�5. ii_.. :. ` 3.i. . IH- LEP,T- -� EFF-' 'i "L A C '' `r iP E.RAATEO H"cP.El;I, SMALL N n " hliE A ':.) l V �:AL H S Dc_ 1 F:_ED. FlLATION OF THE C'iY CLER •.!f,: D _ E. Di,%Liss[O CR DEM.D IS OR THAT, IF $UvH AN APPEPL HAS DEEM rt -. iI- UND-IR THE - - RECORDSOF D[11 THE SO,-jTM RECORDED SAEX ND NUED CERTIFICATEOFOF TITLE.NAME , � OF THE OCi?iER BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK t q situ of5tt1Qm, ttsuQtt Poura of cAppeal "83 Q C 14 P2 :5 '�4/I:aL LJv UT / l DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM LINSKEY FOR A $'. - VARIANCE FOR 14 FRANKLIN ST. , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held November 30, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening Nears in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner requests a Variance to allow him to construct and use a timber column building for the housing and repair of construction equipment in this R-2 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve. substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: ' . 1 . , Vigorous opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. .The type of use contemplated by petitioner is one which creates a danger to other occupants of the surrounding residential area by encouraging the movement of heavy equipment through the street; 3. The use contemplated by petitioner is generally inappropriate in an R-2 district. . On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal �oncludes as follows: 1 . Relief requested cannot be granted without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance or without substantial detriment to the public good. TK .r=tore thv-86ard)bf '7b!1drgsAppaa3 [voted two against, three in favor of granting t� oe,tit Q:le, s request3d6ified. t T1. L a Scott .E; Charnas, Acting Secretary - =E G3R3 GR IS R „F.CED -d) NNIM DN U.E 0;;�!_°S - A COPY OF THIS DECISION .HAS BEEN FILED LITH THE PLANIUI'IG BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Titg of ',5,alem, fflassac4usetts z (_ C . i ,f•-! �i Poarh d Appeal '83 FEB -8 P1018 DEC1N ON THE PETITION OF RONALD L. WRIGHT FOR A SPECIAL CITY CL A'SphR FOR 5 GARDNER STREET Hearings on this Petition were held on January 5 and 26, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper and Piemonte 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 accordancf with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to enable him to convert the structure at 5 Gardner Street into a three-family dwelling. A Special Permit is needed because the property is in an R-2 Zoning District, where three-family dwellings are not otherwise permitted. 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 and that the proposed use of the property will be in harmony with the zoning ordinance: • The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Petitioners proposed plan .for the site will have a beneficial effect on the neighborhood and will improve the appearance of the site. 2. The proposed use of the property will have a negligible impact on parking or traffic patterns in the neighborhood. 3. The proposed use of the property was not opposed by abutters. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of 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) The property may be used as a three-family dwelling so long as it remains owner- occupied;if the property shall cease to be owner-occupied it will revert to to a two-family dwelling; F.EOFIV DECISION ON THE PETITION OF @83 FEB -8 A10 :1= RONALD L. WRIGHT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 5 GARDNER STREET January 5 and 26, 1983 CITY 11 { FF1�E Page 2 Sr;L €` 2) The parking area and landscaping at the site shall be in strict compliance with the plan submitted to the Board. 3) A Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be obtained prior to renting the property. - thony M. Feeher y Secretary AOPEAL FROM THIS DECISIC11, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE C'.M SM-FAL LAPIS. CHAPTER 803, AND SHALL BE FILED 07HIH 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FIiGIG - �. VIS DECISIO^! Ii4 THE OFFICE OF THE CITE CLERK. o eo-r.1:.+ )I!T YJ.'ti'.«;Ci TO ttASS. GEEEF.AL [AWS. CHAPTER 603. SECTION 11. THE VAP, ."- - GR,=Ie HEREIN, SHALL Di T TACE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY CF THEDEC'S. " tA- i FICATiOY OF THE CIiY C.cR;: T�1AT 2O- DAYS HAVE ELAFScD A'ri P J A'F AL HAS = F `1• OR THAT. if SUCH A'! APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS Ec`Y uto E'ER, DEP E CF ° - - RECORDED ICJ THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS ARD INDEXED U�.';cR THE M1A7Lt CF THE .':ER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED MID NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. -. - - BOARD OF APPEAL. A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD & CITY CLERK \ i �Y#g of �5alem, gassuchusetts � Wv ;R Poxrb of Appml DECISION ON PETITION OF CARL R. LAVOIE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 8 GLOVER STREET A hearing on this petition was held on June 15, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Charnas, Hopper, Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing,we etggrr�$eryl ,published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massach setts'General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner requests a Special Permit to allowhim tp„ex_ end, n-conforming side setback by constructing a deck: `AUL _ The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance whefflyiC ra_W019.aRRIgEto this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, wa!4ri _¢r6v 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 IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes; enlargement, extension orexpansion 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. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing. the plans makes the: following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors. On the basis of these findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the publichearing; the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed construction of a deck on the property will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing side setback. Therefore the Board of Appeal votedd unanimously to grant petitioner the requested relief. The Board grants a Special Permitunderthe following teras and conditions: 1 . Petitioner may extend the non-conforming side setback to construct an open 16' x 20' deck .as shown on plans filed with the Board; f ' DECISION ON PETITION OF CARL R. LAVOIE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 8 GLOVER STREET page two �I 2. Petitioner must obtain a Certificate of Compliance for approval of smoke detectors by the Salem Fire Department. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary N U -. ZEE C a u. UQ .. . FO A COPY OF THIS. DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH. THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK MEAL FROn1 THIS DECISION, F A`'.Y, SHALL BE NTADE PURSUANT TO SECTIOV 17 OF THE IMSS- CEN FRAC L1iYS, CHATTER 8C8, A D SH'--L BE FILED WiT-H1'? 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF F11-1??" OF THIS DECISIGH IN THE OFFICE GF THE CITY CLERK. - -. FJ7SART TO ;:ASS. CENERA! LA:Y CHAPTER 893, SECTI9PI 1I, THE VARIANCE''OR SPECIAL PE?+l IT C -N ED HER$71, SHALL NOT �A:iE EFLECT UNTIL A COPY OF T:{c OECiS9,:?, BEA,'.e:Ei THE CERT- _ - - F!--AT{ON CF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE EIA?SED AND NO APPEAL HAS 6:EP4 FILED, - _ OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DiS ISSED OR DENIED IS- RECORDED IN THE'SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF LEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE . - - BOARD OF APPEAL 03 - Paurb of A"ag - DECL N p}�� j{, T•,�' ON OF HARDY AND BENTLY STREET REALTY TRUST FOft 11 S�ECI L PERMIT TO CONVERT TO CONDOMINIUMS AT �II3 AUG 12 AlU 10 HARDY STREET AND 11 BENTLEY STREET CITY C;_ R''V ` ICE ��'T(y :fir ;�,r.� ..•FF A hearing orrSthis petition was held on July 27, 1983 with the following C-Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Hopper, Luzinski, and Associate Member Bencal. 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. Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing five family dwelling to five unit condominiums in this R-2 district. This proposed condominium conversion is covered by the terms of the City's Condominium Conversion Ordinance. The Special Permit that has been requested may therefore only be .granted 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 con- trary 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 consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing-and after viewing .plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. Notice requirements of Section V-B(12) (6) have been met; 3. Petitioners plan will .not have any negative impact on the existing rental units in the City for families of low and moderate income or for elderly people on fixed income; - 4. Petitioners plan will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood; 5. No significant hardship to existing tenants in the building will be caused by petitioners plan; 6. Petitioners plan is not in conflict with the Master Plan of the City. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the Public Hearing, the Board concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed conversion-of the property to condominium units will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use of the property. DECISION ON PETITION OF HARDY AND BENTLY STREET REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 10 HARDY ST. AND 11 BENTLEY ST. • page two Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting the Special Permit. The Board granted the Special Permit under the following terms and conditions: 1 . Petitioner may convert the premises to a five unit condominium ownership; 2. The six months waiting period will be waived; - - . 3. The minimum parking requirments will be waived; 4. A Certificate of Use and Occupancy must be obtained prior to occupying of any of the units; 5. DetAiled plans to be submitted to the Building Inspector in conjunction with the Building Permit. LJ . Q �-James B. Hacker, Chairman APPEAL .`E-.; THIS CEC!SION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MiADE PURSUAai TJ SE^0:! 17 C.' THT G'.:'� ..- rq+ujC3 HCC. ACID SHAtl. OE F!:EJ V!17:.hi 20 DAYS Ar, THE CA:E OF FlC'rIS OF ;, ,, f,( !Ca IIl THP CF:!CE CF T;:E CITY CLERK TI, THE VAMA"C' OR S? iL PERMIT - L. . .,_i t':.. T1... _. -CT H'.. - A 3E- ._._.. ... _ ,rv� ,gin,- F r li!z (7! CL' ,2M D ' J ELAPSED A . ... S - � F.� -E9, . C .Ii.: is !' A PPUL H o i;-ENI FILE TEAT IF HAS o_EiX MS _D CR .V n tS - iiECO.".S=U Li THE SSU li ESSEX R`SIS:,".: C: F,-EDS AID IADEI.EO 6iiS' 3 THE t Ar'.:E DF THE Ow ER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NUCED ON THE O'WNER'S CERTIFICATE OF Tti LE- - HOAR6 OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK .:.� �x •ago,�,b .( Ctu of "'Ment, 'fflassar4useff - uurh rrf �p �u[ • <, �t '83 OCT 14 P3 :00 DECISION ON PETITION OF DIANE W. CENTORINO FOR A CITY - YFFICE VARIANCE FOR 16 HARDY ST. , SALEM Sf+•. "' A hearing on this petition was held on September 21 , 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque. Notice of said 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. Petitioner seeks a Variance from density and setback requirements in order that the owner of subject parcel, Robert Hayford, have clear and marketable title. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands,. buildings, and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise,to the petitoner; and c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying orsubstantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: - 1 . No opposition to petitioner's request was raised by neighbors; 2. Petitioner purchased the property in 1979 in good faith not knowing the property lacked a Variance from density or setback requirements; 3. The present owner purchased the property in 1982 in good faith with the same ignorance of the .property's lack of a Variance; 4. Without the requested Variance, the property's title will not be clear and marketable. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board 'of Zoning Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special circumstances exist which especially effect the subject property and do not generally affect other property in the same district; •� 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would work a substantial hardship upon petitioner and owner; --------------- __ DECISION ON PETITION OF DIANE W. CENTORINO FOR A VARIANCE FOR 16 HARDY ST. , SALEM page two 3. The requested Variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. J Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the Variance requested from density and setback requirements which, in effect, ratifies the already existant dwelling at 16 Hardy St. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary c'� n� o -'7.77 ; _—>-; a A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRO`A THIS DECISIDN, IF ANY, SHALL BE WADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE 7,ASS. GENERAL LASTS. CHAPTER M, AND SHALL BE FILEU P/1TWN 20 DAYS AFTER THE.DATE U FILING OF T:uS DECISION IN THE OMCE OF THE CITY CLERK. Pt;-- ' TO .`.'>SS. '_.,'"AL !.9 fl S. CHAPTER EOS, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SP-CIM. PE:::CT ._- =I'1. S:IALL NJT TP..:: MECT UUIL A COPY OF THEOECISION. BEAR:ri;: TPE CERT- - F". ,71E CITY CLr'J. Tti.,. 210 DAYS HAVE EL.APS-G ..:.., NOAPPEAL HAS TEES: fiLED. - : : E � is!;C:: —'! A P. H.'," BEEN FILETHAT Ii dEcS ] .- _ - _ - 1 R- I:: IHE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UU'ER THE i:ATE OF THE DeME2 OF }. ...:,J HD IG RECORDED AND NOTED Oil THE OYl19ER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL -•:\ 2 fji#U of �$ajvm, � tts�rzc�u�>?#t'3; Pnura of 4PrA '83 OCT 17 A10 :26 ��onuss N's j DECISION ON PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL FOR�jy r" 5 OFFICE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 81 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM Sh=_ii t`rS`i A hearing on this petition was held on September 28, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Piemonte. Notice of said hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the bearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner requests a Special Permit to allow a trailer to be maintained for office space as shown on a plan submitted to the Board. The Special Permit which has been requested may, under the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance be granted upon a finding by the Board of Appeal that the grant of. the Special Permit may be made without substantially detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of this Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was presented by neighbors; • G , L2. :The petitioner is, in effect, requesting an extension of a Special Permit granted by this Board on or about October 7, 1981 ; ioo a 3. The orderly administration of Salem Hosoital is in the best interests w o 4 o w � o of the inhabitants of the City of Salem. LL0 Onm he basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented- at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: x � E, z r x o ;`; w 1 . The granting of the requested relief will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants; 2. The trailer is a temporary structure which will not be needed as soon 2r- _ as petitioner can afford to construct permanent office space.- F o Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to Grant petitioner a Special Permit to allow maintainance of a 10' x 50' office trailer on the premises G — LL p i. N r as shown on a drawing submitted to the Board .provided that: _ G a. This Special Permit expires two years after this decision is, filed; F. b. The trailer may be used only as an office; V fJ rA c. The terms stated in the original decision granting petitioner a -i • ''; - = Special Permit to maintain this trailer remain in effect. `o i y Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK. Pnttrb of A"Val AMENDED DECISION ON PETITION OF UGO DIBIASE FOR A V61IAI EI2 A 9 FOR 84 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM CIiY A hearing on this petition was held November 30, 1983 withS$He-folloiaing Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of said 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. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from a previous Variance which required sin.-!-- oomership. This is an R-3 district. After studying the facts presented in the case, the Board of Appeal found that public convenience and welfare would be substantially served and that this would not derogate from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance by striking Section B on the Special Permit granted August 27, 1971 and attaching the following conditions: 1 . A Certificate of Occupancy and Use must be obtained; 2. Fire alarms must be maintained and updated on the dwellings on both parcels of land prior to sale; 3. Maintenance problems must be corrected as per the Fire Marshal prior to sale; 4. Parcels may be divided according to plans submitted; 5. All other conditions in the August 27, 1971 decision will remain in effect. Petition unanimously granted. r James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED, IIITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAYlS. CHAPEER EGB, AND SHALL BE FILED VJ;THIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF OF THIS DECISION IN THE CFHE OF THE CITY CLERK. PCRWIT TO '.SASS GENERAL [,N". CHAPTER EU8. 'CCTi0;2 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT 1 • � GRANTEDHEREIN, SHALL NOi TARE EFFECT UTITIL A COPY OF THEM ISIDN, BEARING 14E CERT- FICADLIN OF THE uiY CLERK iiIAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELk,KM AN0 33 APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT.'IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT FT HAS BEEN DIS"AISSED CR DEME9 IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY CF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER. THE NAME OF THE O:YNNc: OF RECCRO OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPES.L - .. RECFl1'rD UT TTI cSIPm, r � 1t5PZh; i E. An Z7 9 13 A114 \� 0 CITY JFFICE SALEM, HASS. '83 OEC' 14 U9 !+` .%wieUeM .. Aaeorr - JAM_$ ». RouceR DECISION ON PETITION OF UGO DI BIASE AND ELI.O DIBIASE, - Jo$e.» R. OOYLE TRUSTEES OF DI BIASE-SALE,1 REALTY TRUST,CIPOR'!_5PECI'AP.cE JO»N M. GRAY. $R. - , ARr»oR tAadeGo�e PER1N1IT AFFECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONtRS WITH - -: EMfRY R. T.NCN RESPECT TO USE OF LAND IN AN R-3 ZONE. iA NORMAN WEIC». JR. ; The Petitioners, Ugo DiBiase and Elio DiBiase , Trustees of DiBiase-Salem Realty Trust , through their attorney, George P. Vallis, appealed directly, to the Board of Appeals for a Special Permit as it affects the . construc- tion of a local business area in the Colonial Village multi-family complex. located on Highland Avenue . A hearing was held on this petition on August 23, 1971, pursuant to notices mailed to the Petitioners, their attorney, abutters, Board members, and others, and advertisements were duly published in the Salem, Evening Newson August! 6 and 9, 1971• Attending the meeting were Board members John Gray, William Abbott, James - Boulger, Joseph F. Doyle , and Arthur Labrecque . TIr. Vallis appeared for' the petitioners and pointed out that Section V, � Subparagraph B (4) (f) , �of the. Zoning Ordinance states that certain. business _ ,.s are allowed by Special Permit in a multi-family residential district j 0 -videdcertain basic minimum requirements are met . The following are ss sought by the Petit oners: - 1 1{. . Drugstore . 2. Book, stationery or gift shop. 3. Food store. 4 Florist shop 5. Barber shop. 6 . Beauty parlor.. 7 . ': Self-service laundry and dry cleaning 8. (,Professional offices. . 9 . Restaurant serving alcoholic beverages consumed on premises. - 10. Bank and Savings and Loan Institution. Vallis stated that all basic requirements enumerated in this section :ld be met . the Colonial Village Complex there are presently 254 units occu- ,i.ed ;by tenants with 81 units presently under construction. The ownership title to all of the buildings and all of the land is held . in single ownership by the Petitioners . \ c � All r(iulti-family buildings have been built and so located so that r no other type of building except multi-family dwellings occupy any r part : of the development . i (d) The area proposed to be occupied by the businesses permitted by : Spec al Permit use herein sought shall be within a multi-family- dweling. (e) . The �rea required for the Special Permit occupancy has been pre- determined so as to prevent locating such businesses in a haphazard manner. It is the intention of the Petitioners to concentrate the businesses into one main area in order to create a ".local business area". within the development area - (f) The blusiness uses within the development area are intended to pro- vide services primarily for the tenants of the development, but such primary use will not prohibit the use of cervices to the general public . ' (g) The Petitioners do not intend to establish more than one business use of a similar nature . j 9 G. 'he appeared in opposition to this matter. After studying the facts presented in this case, the Board found that thl public convenience and welfare would be substantially served and that th� general public would be the beneficiary by the granting of the Special Permit . Ori the basis ofthis determination and also on the basis that the granting of this Special Permit will not tend to impair the status of , the neighborhood, the same, therefore, may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. The Board further found that the Special'' Permit may be granted without nullifying or- substantially derogating f om the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance since the Zoning Law co .- tains within it specific provisions to allow the hereinbefore mentlonecl` business uses as Special Permit uses within the development area so that the granting of the Special Permit is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance . The Board by unanimous decision voted to grant the Special Permit as requested . U3 C6 SPECIALPEAalIT GRANTED. BOAR9-,bF "PEALS, 1. W e . o m a ;r r (gitg of �52TlP a, fflassar4usjetts Ilk RECE-1W '83 MAR 21 A9 :31 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT AND MARY JANE KART CITY C A,STA PERMIT.FOR 204 HIGHLAND AVENUE A hearing on this Petition was held on March 16, 1983, with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper, Feeherry and LaBrecque. 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. Petitioners have requested the right to construct an addition to the structure on the site. The proposed addition will be 52' 6" x 34' 8" together with pavement to the rear of the addition and kennels measuring 15' x 50'. The existing structure is a non-conforming use. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing "in this Ordinance, the Board of 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 nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special. Permit will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter, incorporates into this decision the findings of fact made in this Board's October 20, 1982 decision. On the basis of these findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes: (i) that the proposed expansion of the property will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed expansion of the property will promote the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City's inhabitants, and (iii) that the proposed expansion of the property is in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordiannce. Accordingly, the Board unanimously approved the granting of the requested Special Permit to the Petitioner. � J DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT AND MARY JANE KART FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 204 HIGHLAND AVENUE Page 2 March 16, 1983 1) The proposed addition shall be constructed in accordance with the plans . submitted to the Board. 2) Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Building Inspector for his approval prior to any remodeling work at the site.. 3) Petitioners shall provide no less than 23 parking spaces at the site. 4) Petitioners shall obtain a Certificate of Use and Occupancy for the entire structure before using the addition. An y M. Feeher S cretary APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, it ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING _ OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. _ - PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAf:S, CHAt'i ER 808, SZC1l 1Y 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL Ni TGEIE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY '.F THE 'EG'S ;1. 3EAi;:^i? THE CERT- . - FICATION OF THE CITY CLER., iHAi 20 CAIS HAVE ELfiFti_ii .':':? ND APPEAL HAS 2EEN FILED, OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, ':HAT IT Ho.., '4Ea DIS'.IISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NVOE OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'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 ;I er, �iig of �SttIPm, � 'dtt tt�I�use t Pourb of �Appeal DECISION ON TIME PETITION OF HALLMAN CHEVROLET (PETITIONER) SALTZ FAMILY REALTY TRUST (OWNER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 207 HIGHd ID ffiVEj9 Splpt.= A hearing on this petition was held on November 30, 1983 with the fo]I9wing Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , ChaCR'as -:Eloppzr,..--EdZinski and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to &bunters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter -;.OA. Petitioner requests a Special Permit to allow it to expand the present noncon-zz . fora:ing use in this B-2 district. Thiprovision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request sfor a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: - i r o Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in G W u, n c 2 - A i n w x accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of, nonconforming C� w structures, and for changes, enlargement, extorsion or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, r Q and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, -= y ` �t = enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially mote ,v W �:: detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the r neighborhood. u z aIn more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, 03ided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding y,y the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, = safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. C In i 1 - N o-he Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes ._ Q he following findings of fact: ,-En 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. Petitioner's plan will be an asset to the buisiness community of the City. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The relief requested is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. The relief requested will not be substantially detrimental to the public good. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petitioner's request- . ; to expand the present nonconforming use as described in plans presented to the Board. Scott. E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A_._COPY OC Ni.$` _ECISION_HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK (tutu of Salem, tt�sttclju$e# Potts of Appeal '83 NOV -2 P3 :i14 _ I q<aprNe W DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID COHEN, TRI-CIW)§k E9'. 'S nrjrirF FOR A VARIANCE AND/OR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 272 HIGHLAND-AVENUE 5 A hearing on this petition was held on October 19, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal. 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. Petitioner requests a Variance and/or a Special Permit to allow parking in this B-2/R-1 zone. The Board concludes that, in order to secure the requested parking, petitioner needs a Variance and not a Special Permit. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings, and structures in the same district; b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; � and c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioner runs a retail business on the premises which depends on customers who travel to the premises by automobile; 2. Petitioner's business is not located in a shopping center, nor in an area with a great amount of convenient on-street' parking; 3. Without sufficient parking at petitioner's premises, petitioner will lose a substantial number of customers; 4. Much of the lot is uneven wetlands; 5. Because of this topography and nature of the lot, the only reasonable on-premises area to designate as additional parking is the area petitioner requests to so designate in his petition; 6. Granting this petition would tend to reduce parking by petitioner's j • �, customers on Marlborough Road near Highland Avenue, and thus reduce traffic congestion at this site; I • DECISION ON PETITION OF DAVID COHEN FOR A VARIANCE FOR 272 HIGHLAND AVE. page two • 7. In terms of topography and business conditions referred to above, such " conditions do not generally affect other lands, buildings or structures in the same district nor in the same general area; 8. Adding the proposed parking area to the premises would not have a substantial negative impact on the neighborhood; 9. Highland Avenue in the vicinity of petitioner's premises is basically a commercial, high-traffic area. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist in terms of topography, wetlands, and business conditions, all as referred to above, which affect this lot but which do not generally affect the district or districts involved; 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would work a substantial financial hardship upon petitioner; , 3. The Variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and without substantially derogating from the intent of the district or districts nor from the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioner the requested • j Variance to allow parking as shown on a plan submitted to the Board, provided that: 1 . A solid wall or compact evergreen screening, five feet high, be erected along all property lines abutting residential uses; and 2. Said parking area, if illuminated, shall have lights used for illumination so arranged as to reflect light away from adjoining premises and away from the street. N I 20 Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A PIAL ` -" IIy `IE "ISN• ;, ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHLP1-d S03• AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS LE!SICN IFI THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, A;;!ED FE 4!AE%S. ,ENERAL f.AY/S. CHAPTER 308, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PE"+..,;T C Rti."�,'�C' .F E3EIfi, SHALL NOT TAE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. 13EARIPIG'i H'e THE C9 EY CLERK T:IAF 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FiLEOIf IF SJ14 AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DIStVI;SED OR DENIED IS PE 'E I1 i'IE SWFH ESSEX REGISTRY DF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAb1E OF THE U•YY�� • `1 OF PE�URII UR 1- RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF,,% THIS DECISION HPS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK J _� of "Salem, z i •j'�AA„ �� Pnttr� of (�*ppzal •83 NOV -2 P3 :(14 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE AND LINDA �AvURAL REQUESTING ENFORCEMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE A�4" -RELATES TO USE OF THE TRI-CITY SALES, INC. PREMISES A hearing on this petition was held on October 19; 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal. 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 4OA. Petitioner seeks to have the Board direct the Building Inspector to enforce the Zoning Ordinance as regards Tri-City Sales, Inc. 's (TriCity) alleged violations of same by (a) operating a retail shoe outlet in an R-1 Zone and (b) using part of the premises for parking of vehicles for a commercial purpose. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioner has not sustained its burden of proving that a retail shoe operationis being conducted by Tri-City more than thirty feet from the B-2 Zone in which much if not most of Tri-City's premises lie, the only evidence of same adduced at the hearing being a plan prepared by `) petitioner who is not a registered engineer. 2. The Building Inspector has taken certain steps, including writing on December 15, 1982 to Tri-City telling them to Cease and Desist parking or allowing parking in the disputed area, to prevent Tri-City from using 3. The Board of Appeal has voted to grant Tri-City (through it's president, David Cohen) a Variance to allow the parking of which petitioner complains; 4. Petitioner has not adequately substantiated it's claim that, since the Building wrote to Tri-City on December 15, 1982 requesting Tri-City to Cease and Desist parking or allowing parking in the disputed area, there have been anyviolations of the Zoning Ordinance regarding parking on the premises. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: There is insufficient evidence that Tri-Cit 1 . T Y is committing or has committed since December 15, 1982, any violation of the Zoning Ordinance regarding parking; 2. There is insufficient evidence that .Tri-City has ever violated the _ Zoning Ordinance by carrying on a retail shoe business more than thirty feet from the B-2 district on which much if not most of it's property \ lies. i DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE AND LINDA ZAMBOURAS REQUESTING ENFORCEMENT OF THE ZONING ORbINANCE AS IT RELATES TO USE OF THE TRI-CITY SALES, INC. PREMISES • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to deny petitioners request to order the Building Inspector to enforce the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to Tri-City Sales, Inc. 's use of it's premises as a retail shoe outlet, or for commercial parking. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary N L✓ o a_J A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PC83k.NT TJ "A'S. GENERAL LA'W'S. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT FRANKED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISIO11, BEARING THE.CERT !0N 11 TNF CITY CLEnK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS SEEN FILED, ti n'CPA"'. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENiED IS IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OFDEEDSAND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME CF Tr't "FNER • OF 1.RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. i BOARD OF APPEAL s ERR of "Salem, Anesur4usetts Poura of �ypzal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN P. KEANE FOR A '84 JAPE -6 P' VARIANCE FOR 382 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held December 21 , 1983 fthe fo3row ' ii'jf Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas';�Iop'per;"Luzinski and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of said 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. Petitioner requests a Variance from side setback and density requirements to construct a commercial building in this B-2 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise; to the petition; and • ) c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment .to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal after considering the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Opposition raised to petitioner's plan would be appeased if certain conditions (enumerated below) were observed; 2. The unique positioning of this corner lot makes the 30' side and front setback requirements together virtually impossible to meet and still build a commercially viable structure in this B-2 district; 3. If petitioner cannot build a commercially viable building on this lot, he will suffer a substantial financial hardship. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which affect this lot which do not generally affect the district; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship upon petitioner; 3. The variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. r i DECISION ON PETITION OF JOHN P. KEANE ' FOR A VARIANCE FOR 382 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM . 1 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioner the Variances requested, as shown on the plan filed with the Board, provided that: 1 . The building be only one story on top of the existing foundation, the sidewall above the foundation being no more than 10 feet high, and there be no more than 30 units in the building which units are to be used for storage only; 2. There be a 6 foot high green vinyl coated chain link fence built and maintained around the perimeter along Ravenna Avenue and around the northerly tip of the property; 3. The exterior of the building be a natural stained shingle or clapboard; 4. No sumpsters be allowed on the property; 5. No heavy construction equipment be stored or parked on the property at any time; 6. No obstruction by bushes or fences exist coming out of the intersection of Ravenna and Highland Avenues; 7. The hours of operation are Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. , and that the building is closed for business all day Sunday; . 8. No advertising signs be posted on the property; / 9• That, if any 'artificial lights be placed on the property, they be placed . at the perimeter facing inward; 10. That anticipated surface runoff water problems be determined by the City Engineer and that he make adequate provisions for either dry wells on. property site or a street catch basin for water containment. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF TM MASb3 GENERAL LA'.RS, CHAPTER 803, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATETF FILING OF THIS CECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO M1:ASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER" _ GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION. BEARIf1G TN� CERT 1 FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN'FILED, p� OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS � - \ RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAMEQ THE OWNER • OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - BOARD OF APPEAL ~ .COND.. D N t. �Ttv of 'Salem, assar4usettwt Poara of Appeal CITY 'c Pu nrrICE AMENDMENT TO THE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN P. KEANE FOR A VARIANCE FOR 382 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held December 21 , 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of said 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. Petitioner requests a variance from side setback and density requirements to construct a commercial building in this B-2 district. A decision was filed on this petition on January 6, 1984, the Board of Appeal now amends that decision by adding the following condition to the ten (10) conditions, making a total of eleven (11 ) conditions to be met by petitioner. 11 . That 4 foot high shrubs to screen the building be placed inside of fence. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAM, CHAPTER ROS, AND SHALL BE FILED VIUMN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DEiSION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSkNT "TD :.:ASS. GE:ERAL IA,,S, CHP?TER 808, SECTION 11, THE W..i MlGr DR SPECIAL PFRVIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL PIOT TAKE EFr ECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE OE:".ISIJ-'i, EEAR JG! IHE •"ERT- FICANI)N OF THE CITY CLERK -THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS DEEN F11 ED, OR THAT. IF SU,^,H AN APPEAL HAS SEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN D:S'::P3S=J OR D&41M IS RECORDED IN THE SJILH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NP06E OF THE 0l7 iNIE? OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL of /l�T�[lttlem tt s�zc �zse : ^Z / .:� Pnttrb of cArett1 ,83 � _ -7 g D Lr DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOYCE NELSON/GLORIA KEFALUT, ,.rrtrE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 401 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on November 2, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Hopper, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal. Notices 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. Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow them to have an electrology office in this R-1 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 recosntruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlczrgement, 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 of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was voiced by neighbors; 2. The proposed use of the property is consistent with other, uses in the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, The Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed use of the property will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use; a / 2. The proposed use of the property will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants; 3. The proposed use of the property is in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. I DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOYCE NELSON/GLORIA KEFALAS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 401 HIGHLAND AVE. ` Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously in favor of approving the grant of a Special Permit. The Special Permit is granted under the following - ' conditions: 1 . Five on site parking spaces to be maintained, allowing enough room to turn vehicles to prevent backing out on to Highland Ave; 2. Certificate of Occupancy and Compliance to be obtained prior to use; 3. This Special Permit to remain in effect only as long as petitioners own, occupy and operate this business. _ r� James B. Hacker, Chairman L 1,D1 o \• M i^ ... _I W G.J A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK T!0> DELI 'rN IF A'.Y NALL C= rA.DE PJF,SWIT TO -"-1 l 17 C TWE Cj;iuiii:::. C4?.FTES N. A:') SS•!� SE T,�__� In ur!,1 20 CA.S Ah:�: .,._ DATE Or ed r 1;1 !HE Crh .L Cr. TFE CT'( CLERK. - . CENr°nl lP-:... Cif:, .EP ?OS, SLCn;; A of Sttlem, IttsscsE , A 1� Poura taf Appeal ` G� 83 O�EC -7 RS` ' CITY 1.1 rr:�":. '-F DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL SUDENFIELD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 468-474 HIGHLAND AVE. A hearing on this petition was held on November 2, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Hopper, Luzinski, Pibmonte and Associate Member Bencal. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others- and thersand notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the construction of a muffler shop in this B-2 district. Attorney Arthur Goldstien, representing the petitioner respectfully requested leave to withdraw this petition. The Board voted unanimously to allow the petitioner to Withdraw Without Predjudice. James B. Hacker, Chairman - APPEAL FROM T 11S OECI�xN,, IF A;iY, SriALI BE t;iAOE PURSUANT TO SEC.T!'IY. 17 OF TY= CENERAI. L:":`S. C:°:;SSE?. M. A.MX S,'JALL BE FILED 4';PHIN 20 DAYS AFT ER :ii_ GATE OF F t_tCiS Iii THE OFFICE Or THE CITY CLERK. GULPAL CF.:C'3, CHAPTER M. SECT OI N 11. THE t'.3R..4Pi7E C7 . ..0}AI f__ .FT O H--710N. S3VLL 1.07 TAME EFFECT ON71L A COPY OF THE - FIPAfi Iti CF HE Cf'Y CLEU THAT 20 C.',YS HFVE ELAPSED AND is3 f'?=Li..' I+.'3 3EEi1OR TB;T. IF SUC:'i AN APPEAL HAS MEA FILE, THAT 1f ;14S BEEN DIS".i<."-'LS CR O--i!:E7 !S RECORDED I; THE SLOTH ESSEX RECISTRV OF DEEDS A.NO INOEXED Uf:DEI: L.- ......E CFT E D'ii ER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED Oh 1BE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.' BOARD OF APPEAL F A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Ctu of Pourb of Appeal • r/ 111 3Ta%4. • 83 OCT 13 PZ .(`{l. .. ' - DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LINDA BAILLIE FOR A VARIANCE FOR 24 HORTON STREET CITY CLF: ` zFFIC A hearing on this petition was held on September 21 , 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque.- Notice of said hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly_ publishedin the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner has requested a Variance to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this R-1 district which would not conform to zoning requirements . regarding lot area, lot coverage, lot width, rear setback and front setback. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings, and .structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; • \ - c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Neighborhood opposition to petitioner's. plan was based on fears concerning the efficiency of the septic system to be utilized on the premises, the potential for increased flooding in the area caused by the construction of the foundation for the house, and dissatisfaction. with the location of the dwelling relative to side and front lot lines; 2. The City Engineer has determined and the Board of Health finds that the construction of the dowelling will not create or cause a flooding problem in the area; 3. The City Health Department has approved petitioner's plans for a septic system; 4. The land abutting the side of the proposed dwelling which is not sufficiently distant from the lot line according to the Zoning Ordinance, is "open space" land owned by New England Power Company; r • ` 5 The front setback of the dwelling, at the point closest to the sidewalk, is not substantially less than other front setbacks in the neignborhood; 6. The land abutting the property which is "open space" is not likely to be sold in any part to the petitioner in order that she might augment. her lot to allow conformance with zoning requirements; > DECISION OF PETITION OF LINDA BAILLIE FOR A VARIANCE FOR 24 HORTON ST. .� page two 7. The above described conditions which affect petitioner's lot are special • to it and do not generally affect other lots in the area, as this lot is one of the few, if not the only, undersized lot in the area bordering the "open space" property of New England Power; 8. The construction of a single family home is the only financially feasible use of the subject property. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board. of Appeal concludes .as follows: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the the land involved and which are notgenerally affecting other lands : ' in the same district; 2. Literal enforcement of. the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to petitioner; 3. The relief requested may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the .district or the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal by a vote of four (4) to one (1 ) voted to grant petitioner a Variance to construct a single family dwelling as shown on a plan dated June 10; 1983 and submitted to the Board. Cn Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary APp'_ -oD�ji.`gS D CU:�':. I� A"! SHALL BEMADE PURSWIT TO SECTION 17 OF TS. - -- CEN__%'4 LATS. CHAPTER £moo, AND aiIALL BE F:!-Eu 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF OF THiS bECIS!3M. IN THE GFFiGE OF THE CITY CLERK. PL'^S; - aT TO LASS. GENERAL L::::S, CHAPTER SM. SECTI^N 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GF`- '" HEREIid, SHELL 11Gi EFFECTUNTILA COP" OF THE 7PECF 'HE'HE CIiY CLLR 27 DA S Pn\: L.0?Scq �J ii) :EAL HAS G"E"i FI ED, - OR THJ1 IF Su; I-Ad APPEAL HAS R EPI FILE. THAT IT HAS SHN D;Si IS::EO OR D'N;ED IS _ RECORDED IN ;H_ SOUTH ESSEX RE ISTP.Y OF DEEDS AiID IJOE�D UnC�.', THE hA'riE OF THE 0:'INER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - BOARD OF APPEAL - - A C`%iY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND .THE �,.� 1iTv: isi ER - - - r Pourb of Appwl '83 JUL 29 P4 :07 DECISION ON A PETITION OF LINDA BAILLIE FOR A VARIANCE FOR 24 HORTON STREET CITY CL=R',"S OFFICE - SALcPi f'!-!L_ A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper, Charnas and Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner has requested a Variance from lot area, coverage, width and setbacks to allow construction of a single family dwelling. The Board voted unanimously to grant the petitioner Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary APPEAL FRGM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE P!;RMANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. - `;.N-AL LAWS. CHAPIE_P, 8C3, AND SHALL E: .. .:i° L:A-E Q. F!UNG - - IPS GEDIS!ON IPI THE OFFICE OF TH"t F{ASS. ,E!:ERAI lUiS, r!!1'. . . .. FP 7-11T ., -'2!,, SHALL N1,)7 TA::E U. :F THE CITY CLERK T!'AT ..: 9, SI!CH AN APPEAL P.?�' - T!iE SOUTH ESS": v ..._ "A'"EOF THE Up!ER OF RECORD OR IS RECORGEU A iu OF YITLE. @OAR4 QF AP?EAE A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK -APPEAL FRO''l THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS- GENERAL LA71S. CHAPTER 303,. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECiSIOH IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. • '� - PURSANT TO :"LASS GE!!`_RAL LAMS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PE3.4F GRAN:ED HEREIN, SHALL NOT Tl;.E EFFECT UP:TIL A COPY OF THEO-IMSION. UARINC� THE CE2r- FICAT1,)N OF THE C!FY CLER,i IHAF 20DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS 6EEN FILED. OR ]HAT. IF &;CH AN APPEAL HAS B=EN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMIS3ED OR DENIED IS ,. RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REvISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE 02MER .. OF RECORD OR IS RECGRDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. IL _ j &]ARD OF APPEAL { of �55alem, �ifflttssadja tts aurb of PuI 2 '83 NO" 30 P- :-) i , DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AUGUSTO DACUNHA (PETITIONER), gRN�ST ` E FRATANGELO (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 44-46'1'- JEFFERSON AVE. , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on November 16, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James B. Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper and Piemonte. 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. Petitioner requests a Variance or Special Permit to use the premises as a restaurant/coffee and donut shop. The premises were last used as a fruit/produce and delicatessen in this R-1 district. Since it is a Special Permit that is needed and not a Variance, the provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request is Section V B 10 which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of 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 r 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. a The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioner's plan was opposed by some neighbors; 2. Use of the premises as requested will cause an odor as a byproduct of baking which will substantially interfere with the neighbors use and enjoyment of their own properties; 3. Use of the premises as requested may serve to bring back a rat population to the neighborhood which plagued neighbors when the premises were used as a fruit/produce and delicatessen `store. y ie ` DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AUGUSTO DACUNHA FOR A VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 44-46 JEFFERSON AVE. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1 . The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good; 2. The requested relief will not promote the health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city's inhabitants. Therefore, the Board of Appeals voted unanimously against granting petitioner's requested relief. The Petitioner's request for a Special Permit is hereby denied. r cylk Z y Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary 1-- (20 r.. 7 PPS A.NT TO Eo GCI 17 O, � .: .7ASS `'• '" ��. AND h�:LI. E r .L� :.?iG..'J 20 DAYS ArT'ER SS ": T.:u. D6::J�o;1 Hi THE GUICE 07 THE CITY CLERX. . -HE Cr',T= OF FI Li.'i3 n To l,JS f '+. L: vJ CHAPTE2 ' SC°. SEoTi^i1 17. 7N: t r i r s� . ` ' S-1 LL N I T r.c EFECT U6LL A COPY OF THED_C I �- L Tit L'IjvILII_, iilAf 27 DAYS HAY= " T 'F mai 1-N APJEt.! I'" OEE"! F.LE TFi.`.7 17 NF: 3='�: 'e SOUTH ESSEX _ IN THc - M� X REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED Ur E i OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OYINER-S CERTIFICATE Or TITLE. BOARD OF A??EAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK r � I � of 5alern, Pnxr� of AmA DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS J.: BOUCHER FOR A •83 JUN 10 A 9 :27 SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR 44 JEFFERSON AVE. A hearing on this petition was .held on May 18, 1983 with EhWf(d1UbaiiS90F.: Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. , Cha ;toppe'r, Luzinski; Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal. 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 allow him to use the premises as a Machine Shop in this R-1 District. Petitioner also asks for Variances from minimum setback and parking requirements. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the Public Hearing and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . `Vigorous opposition to Petitioner's plan was-raised by neighbors; 2. Petitioner has not demonstrated anyspecial financial hardship. • caused by the property or any condition of the property; 3. The use of the property as a Machine Shop would be substantially. more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming use.. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the Public Hearing, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to deny Petitioner's request for Special Permit and Variances. - e y P-. .Ai FROM THIS DECISlO}!, IF ANY. SHALL 6E MADE PURSUANTTO SEC?I4 G'�kLT �E^�yr^,arna5, Acting Secretary , : ESAL LA':-,'S, CHAPTER 80, AND SHALL BE FILED :91THIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF Fi LIN" 5i= THiS DFCr;ECLERK.!N THE OFFICE OF THE CITY C - - 35>Sd:",T TO !n.'Sj, fEiJERAL LAWS, CHAPTER M. SECTI^N 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PM7.iT- - �t LL NGT - S, E EF' w L' L A CO?Y U THEDECiS!O'!, SEAR:R-, THE CERT- _ T C-: T11, C'-.Y CAM: THAT 29 DAY3 HfVE E APSEG ANC NO APPUL HAS BEEN FILED, - - �3 Tr;T. !F ",CH A,! A9:c6r HAS DEEM FILE, MAT IT HAS BEEN DIS;"ISSEO OR uc[.!Eu IS YCCRDLO If.; THE SCU*H ESSEX P.EOISTRf OF DEEDS AND NIDEXED UNDER THE NAIAE OF THE GF;itc:I 3f. '9CO IS ReO.2DSD AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - - - - - - BOARD OF APPEAL - - - - �,r 1 A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK �z ft�it� IIfSttlem, ttsstt� z #s r ev )K3 • ; ,=. Pnttrb of �Ppvd rapt DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT BOUCHARDCFb��AF.�{gJbU.�CE PERMIT FOR 110 JEFFERSON AVENUE A hearing on this Petition was held on March 23, 1983,- with the following Board Members present: .James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper, Feeherry, Piemonte and LaBrecque.. 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.Ceneral Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner ties requested the right to construct an addition to.`the structure 'and the use at the site. The proposedaddition will be approximately 22' x 47' . The existing structure and use (gas -station, .repair shop, etc.) are 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 IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non— conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement; extension of • expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, exten-ion, enlargement- or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than`ihe . existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted- upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board, after.considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter, finds as follows: 1. The proposed addition was .unopposed by neighbors: 2. The proposed addition will be used for state auto inspections and will therefore benefit the City's inhabitants. On the basis of these findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes: (i) that the proposed expansion of the property will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed expansion of the property will promote the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City's inhabitants, and (iii) that the proposed expansion of the property is in harmony with the _ Salem Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board unanimously approved the •) ,I granting of the requested Special Permit to the Petitioner. (✓ i 6AR 24 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT BOUCHARD C{Tl _ �FiiCE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 110 JEFFERSON AVENUE SALEM, MASS. PAGE 2 March 23, 1983 1) The proposed:additionshall be. constructed. in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board. 2)- Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Building Inspector for his approval prior to anyconstructions .at' the site. 3) Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of .Use and Occupancy for the , entire structure.be£ore using .the.addition. Anthon _ $eeherry I , Secretary APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING -OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - - - - PURSA;VT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER, 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT - - GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TARE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION, BEARING THE CERT. - FIGATWN OF THE C!iY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. OR THAT, IF SUCH-AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THNi IT HAS BEEN DIS ISSED OR DENIED IS � _ RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REG!STRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - BOARD,OF APPEAL OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 1 I Y. .�� r.. FBF�..E� E_: '83 FEB 22 6_961�S�ON ON TIIE PETITION OF JOAN M. BOlInREAU, TRIISTEF. • a .40 LAFAYETTE B. TRUST, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 92 LAFAYETTE STREET CITY CLE°~;'S OFFICE rR� LEIM A�.Izri g on this Petition was held on February 16, 1983, with the following Board Members cec present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, Piemonte and Feeherry, and Associate Member Charnas.: 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 92 Lafayette Street to use one floor of the property for a restaurant that may serve all alcoholic beverages..' A variance is required because the property is in a B-4 district where the proposed use is prohibited without a variance. Petitioner also requests a variance from. parking 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. The property in question is the former site of the. Canadian.Klondi.ke Club- . The Building at the site is vacant except for a pool hall in the basement. 2. The petitioner proposes a very substantial renovation of the structure which will have a beneficial impact on the entire area.' r 3. The use of the property for other permitted uses in a B-4 zoning district ~ is difficult, if not impossible. 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, its size and the configuration of the lot. (2) The conditions described above especially affect the structure in question but do not gneerally 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 Petitioner. (4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good because the proposed use of the property will substantially improve the 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: -iION ON THE PETITION OF JOAN M. BOUDREAU, JSTEE OF LAFAYETTE B. TRUST, REQUESTING ", VARIPONCE FOR 92 LAFAYETTE STREET - - RE - PAGE 2 ' tiruary 16, 1983 '83 FEB 22 A9 :41 83 FEB 22 1!9 CITYCI " r , T;FILE CITY S�tLI r ;5 S ��=F S OFF 1) The first floor of the property designated as 92 Lafayette Street HL I , t4 i;Cc may, .subject to approval by the Licensing Board, be used as a 92-seat restaurant serving all alcoholic beverages. 2) Petitioner shall maintain the four parking spaces at the site as shown on the plans submitted to the Board. 3) Petitioner shall not enlarge the restaurant authorized by this variance or otherwise use the property for any other purpose which would require additional parking spaces at the site, without the prior approval of this Board. 4) Petitioner shall provide valet parking at the restaurant Monday- Friday, 11:30 a.m. "to 2:00 p.m., and 5-9 p.m. on Fridays., Provided, however, that this restriction shall terminate if petitioner obtains access to ten off-street parking spaces close to the property in question for restaurant patrons during the above-referenced hours and ' provided that written notice of such access to parking is delivered to this Board. This valet parking restriction shall then cease only so long as. access to these ten parking spaces remains in effect. j, • ' —_- _5) Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Use and Occupancy for the entire structure. Anthony M. eeher Secretary . --,HIS pS�;$I��, IF ANY, SHALL BE Ir PURSUANT TO SECTION �7 C TNr - (•- ,;g;:!- LtP:S. CHAPTER 0J3, ACD SHALL RE FILED Vi ITHIii 20, DAYS RFTER T, C- E G F Cc i 101 VA T;iE DF THE Clef CL_M. p., - 'ST TO 7z+,S- GEi<°RAL UiIS, V:TIER S^.3, SECTION It. THSVA'lai+ uc nc-- I..;y Hr' 61. SH-ISL NJT TA!(E EF - - CT LVNI. A COPY OF T _ - .. OF tiic CIf CLERX THAT 2. DAYS HAV= ELP.pSEO A}n n^ - �R TP�T.,IF SUCii P.iI APSE=.L HRS BIEN FILE. THAI IT HAS KEN C :Iri � � RECDCOED lil THE SOUTH ESSEX RECI3TRY GF DEEDS AND INDEXED L IDER T _ r" -'= Or THE .A == - OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED A.ND ria-,10 ON THE OY(NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL - e- ^OPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK: t "r CtU of lem, tz rzc u E 3 /IIiAS DECISION ON THE PETITIONS OF ASER FRISCH FOR SPECIAL PERMITS TO CONVERT 198 LAFAYETTE STREET INTO FOUR CONDOMINIUM UNITS>8�D j , 10 A9 :27 ADD A FIFTH UNIT A hearing on this petition was held, on May 18, 1983 withCEh so ldr ^':,FICF Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Chr�as,' Ho]�oer, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal. 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 is requesting a Special Permit to allow him to convert the existing four family dwelling into four condominium units. Petitioner has also requested a Special Permit to add a fifth condominium unit to the premises. 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 consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's .plan was raised by neighbors; 2. Notice requirements of Section V-B(12) (6) have been met; Petitioners plan will not have an negative impact on the �. P Y g existing rental units in the City for families of low and o moderate income or for elderly people on fixed "income•, 4. Petitioners plan will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood; 5. No significant hardship to existing tenants in the building will be caused by petitioners plan; 6. Petitioners plan is not in conflict with the Master Plan of the City. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the .' public hearing, the Board concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed conversion of the property to condominium units, and the addition of a fifth condominium unit, will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use of the property. DECISION ON THE PETITIONS OF ASER FRISCH FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR 198 LAFAYETTE ST. page two Therefore, the Board of Zoning .Appeal voted unanimously in favor of approving the grant of the two Special Permits requested. The Board granted those Special • F, r 'Permits under the following terms and conditions: 1Petitioner may convert the premises to condominium ownership; '83 JUN 10 A9 :21. 2. Petitioner may add a four-room.fifth condominium unit to the premises; CITY CLERK'S OFFICE SALEi'I3. . Petitioner will maintain ten (10) paved parking spaces as shown on the plan submitted to the Board; 4_ No construction or alteration work.' in furtherance of the condo- minium conversion or the addition of the fifth unit may be done at -- any hour ,or day other than between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday, such restriction to remain ineffectfor six (6) monthsfromthe date of the filing of this decision. Scott E. .,Charnas, Acting Secretary. l APPEAL FRONI THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTIO^! ll OF THE MASS. GENERAL LA:iS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS -CEC!SION IN THE OFFICE OF-THE CITY. CLEERK- - - PURSAIXT TO 7,1ASS. CE NERAL LAAS. CHAPTER 808, SECTIC.11 11.,THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERWIT - GRA`! -7 ht.,_I;1,'S4:,LL PiJT 7.'�.�E EFFECTUP,TIL A COPY -. THE UEb�t.A, EEARIN:; TH� CERT• _ FiCATiON OF THE CITY CLER'A THAT. 20 DAYS HAVE ELAFS_. Af1-3 NO APPEAL HAS LEEN FLED, - •c BEEN FILE, THAT IT H:,S BEEN DIS:aISSEU OR DENIED IS " - AN APPEAL HAS 'A"F �. SJ"H A _ OR THAT. '. RECORDED It! THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAiriE OF THE O'lli7a2 Or ' RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'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 " 0 k (situ ofttlem, ttsscue## • '2JIlI1.YL�� " DECISION ON PETITION OF LAFAYETTE VILLA ASSOCIATES FOR VARIANCES-. AT 256-258 .LAFAYETTE STREET A hearing on this petition was held on June 15, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. Charnas, Hopper, Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal. 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_ J /.R Pe Petitioner requests variances from minimum width, side and rear setbacks and density in order to construct buildings containing 14 condominium units as shown on a plan dated May 11 , 1983 which has been filA63itd [02 B*dt5 The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidenep'?xesefAAikda�t-�1 e public hearing and after viewing the plans of the property, makeSAT_9j.�Ffo 3t1 findings of fact 1 . Vigorous `oppostion to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. The property was purchased by Petitioner in February of 1983; 3. At the time petitioner purchased the property, it was known or should have been known, the provisions of, the Salem Zoning Ordinance governing it's use. t - On the basis""of.-the above findings of fact, "and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Zoning Appeal concludes as follows: " 1. Petitioner has not met its burden of proving that special financial hardship would result by literal, enforcemnt of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal Voted unanimously" to deny the petitioner's request for variances. APPEAL FRO.73 TH'S GF '31„J 1- ANY, SHALL of MADE PURSUANT TO SECT!dri 17 CENEP.AL LAVJS, CHAPI_.. =2. AND SHALL BE FLED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE OO-f O" THIS DECIS!ON If - CE F ' - F t Tflt bFFlo_ OF THE CITY eL_a:c. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary PdRSP.NT TO ',;ASS. GENERAL LA^S. CHAPTER 80S, SECTI:TI 11, THE VARIANCE CR SPECIAL PER?4IT CRANIEO HERZIN. SHALL NOT TARE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE CRdS1711, BEARII:9 THE CECT- - FICATION' OF THE CITY CLERr,, THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND 10 APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, - OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL NAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIST;ISSED OR DEMI D IS - RECORDED IN THE SOUTHESMREGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NATE OF THE OWNER - - OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'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 I - - Y of v�xiEm, : tssttcu >? ', _. r; TIarb of �ppjmt 83 OEC 14 p?_ :ti rr i DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER CEMPELIN F09 A VARIANCE FOR 14 LATHROP ST. , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held November 30, 1983 with the foollowing Boarand Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopp , Associate Member Bencal. 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. Petitioner requests a Variance to use the premises as a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding' of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; • and c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, crakes the following findings of facto 1 . Vigorous opposition to the plan was presented by neighbors; 2. Petitioner knew or should have known when he bought the premises that it cannot be used as a three family dwelling without a Variance; 3. There is a parking problem in the neighborhood which would be exacerbated if this petition were granted. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the .evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 .. Any hardship on petitioner which literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would work would be one that could have anticipated by the petitioner prior to purchasing the property, and thus not the type of hardship referred to in Section IX (E) (1 ) (6) of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. The relief requested cannot be granted withouttrintent substantial detriment ._ to the public good or .:itho'.'t substantially d_. oga.in� from thet or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. f DECISION ON PETITION OF PETER CEMPELLIN FOR A VARIANCE FOR 14 LATHROP STREET Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously against granting the relief requested. The petition is denied. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary Lr• v d o = LJ.. o T- A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEALr,,..',i THIS OECICIL:7, it ANY. SHP.LL B_ MADE PURSUANT TO SECT!O'1 17 OF ME r:IM - fE ;fidL'1'S 6-:APTP.P. B'JD. AND .S'HI SHALL sa FRID 20 DMS AFTER THE DATE 0` FLIiiG ,;ECISVI IV WE OMCE 01 THE CiTY CLERK. ell P } OR e .^ - -. iJ I:AS5. C - °� t t! MA. `8 "c0 S*rf!Oi! IT. T .vc A. A.' P RetT C ho.._i:. Si! LL !I�i i' t EFFECT UfITiL A COeY OF 'di: E -C!� I S OF THE GT}'-CLERi( THAT 20 C-'}'S HAVE ELA°SCD AN+ r+D APPEAL HAS . 'i DR ;'!1.=,T, !F SUCH AN APPEAL HAS 8EEr1 F!'-E, 1�'.AT IT HAS BEE}! DiSL1;SS�D OR D�P:;W iS I1.^.02L'PD IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RECIS(RY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED O'IDER THE NA,,,E OF TiiE OICAE(f OF &EGGED OR IS RECORDED AND. NOTED ON THE C}PNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - -' BOARD OF APPEAL i "0Vy� Ti#u of 5,alem, �z �ttt4iu e# Pourbi of Appy l DECISION ON PETITION OF GRAPHIC REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE FOR 71 LEACH STREET A hearing on this petition was held on June 15, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Charnas, Hopper, Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal. 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 GffMr!i� Lays, Chapter 40A. Petitioner requests a variance to allow its printing business to be conducted in the R-2District_ '83 JUL 12 A935 The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evide>,�r� e�pnted at the public hearing and after viewing photos and plans of the prop q,�taake�,WdMollowing findings of fact: . 1 Vigorous opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. Petitioner;s ownership of the property is contingent on its getting.' the requested variance; 3. The neighborhood is a residential type area with an already existing parking problem. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of .Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Petitioner has not met its burden of proving a special financial hardship is a variance is not granted; 2: The desired variance cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good; 3. The proposed use of the property is not in harmony.-with the neighborhood_ Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to deny the petitioner's - request for a variance: APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE ;.ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 Or THE MASS. - _ VNERAL LAWS, CHAPIER SOB, AND SHALL BE FILED WTHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING - - - CF THIS DECISION IN1 THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - - PUPS NT TO VASS, Gr:!rP,1I LAw.i. r,j 'TER BP Sc •I 11 THE MIANCE CR SPz CIAL °'�I C 7AN, D h R°�i, SH iL i o' T:-nE EFFECT VWIL A C'7a, Or THF- ECIIMN B d' ..�5 P k •� ' rL,,.TJ'. Or THE_ Ci^l FRF, i.,:, 20 DAYS H i_ El..`oEO "N) NJ A=PFni HAS, BEc t E. Charnas, Acting Secretary, CR THAT. IF SUCH APPF'AL HAS BEE?! FELE, THAT IT ..:,5 2H- MV:FSED-OR CE ilE7 IS - RECORC-29 IN THE S9UTH ES—E, RE:613ii?: DF C_: :A':D iI:DEi:EO UNDER THE f:A&IE OF THEOr RECORD OR IS RECORDED AHO 140-,ED ON THE O,,4ER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - - - - BOARU QF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, _ AND THE CITY CLERK ,� T# of 'Salem, fflassaclpzsetts .� paurb of �pywl # IRP, 21 11 :11 E IS ION ON ZTAAH,,IIEPETITION OF JOHN AND PAUL DRISCOLL CIFOR ATY CLEFS � �1 �i'.•tpERMZT FOR 23-25 LIBERTY HILL AVENUE SALr_i•i i A% — A hearing on this petition was held on February 161 1983 and March 16, 1983 with the following Board Members present on the latter date: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, 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 Petitioners gave requested a Special Permit to convert the two-family dwelling at 23-25 Liberty Hill Avenue into a three-family dwelling. The property in question is in an R-2 district. The Special Permit which has been requested may therefore be granted upon a finding by the Board of 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 unit. • 2) The proposed use of the property was not opposed by abutters or others. 3) The Petitioners have made a substantial investment in the property in question and have. made a major improvement in the appearance of the property. _ 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 I 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: 1) The property may be converted into a three-family dwelling in accordance with plans submitted to the Board. 1) The Petitioners shall maintain the off-street parking on the northerly side of the property and shall provide for two parking spaces on the southerly side. Plantings shall be maintained to screen these two parking spaces from 19 Liberty Hill Avenue. • 3) The use of the property as a three-family dwelling is conditioned upon the continued ownership of the property by the Petitioners. In the event that the Petitioners cease to own the property, the C property shall revert back to its prior use as a two-family dwelling. • ; DECISION OF PETITION OF JOHN AND PUAL DRISCOLL -' FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 23-25 LIBERTY HILL AVENUE PAGE 2 MARCH 16, 1983 ' Provided, however, that nothing in this decision shall be interpreted to prevent. a reapplication to this Board in - the event that Petitioners cease to own the property. 4) The Petitioners shall obtain a Certificate of Use and Occupancy for the property before renting the third apartment at the site. bony M. . Fee erry ` • ecretary APPEAL FRO\! THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECT!0P! 17 OF THE PLASS. - GEfdERA! LAWS. CIL.".PTER 205. AND SHALL BE FILED VUWN 20 DAYS AFTER TEE`DATE OF FILI`!G OF, THIS DEGISIOi! i:! THE OF"ICE OF THE CITY CLERK. r. : -�--:,• ?='::i!T Pu'.SA^:T 10 's .S CE'IEPA'. L4i1S C4 °�[R 3�S $ Tl T 1.+.�' i 680..it0 H�.'.EI`l SHALL NOT E��F'.i ':T' A C. °Y CF T4 n L FIOATION -F i4' CL1 'L °' iKA - GR THAT, Ir SJ.-d AN APPEAL RAS D- � �- '_�,IAiID INDEXED Lc,.-' .0 �n��` c. SHE UNN WORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX Rt �� ^.r C'r - - O'r Uaaa OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNERS CERTIFICATE Uh TITLE. - BOARD OFAPPEAL _ "�:-%PY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK I , .cow-a..�� of ` �TlPltt� C �ISSFIL lISP S + ' ?' JMLW,Snxrb of vd DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NANCY AND DAVID GUY FOR A '83 JUL 29 P4 :07 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 7 LINDEN STREET A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 1983 with the folMYp'n ��ara i?F-SCE Members press.+.t: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper, Charnas anc� rcah:; Notice oP t;r,. nearing was sent to abutters and others and notices were properly published :' :l tae Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 4:;.A. Petitioners request a Special Permit to allow them to build a garage four feet from the si .:.: abutter and four feet from the rear abutter, all as shown on a plan , filed with Board. The. prcvisJaa of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which we deem to be applicable to this request fr a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this 0rdinan:r-, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedi:re and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction on non- conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion on tion-conforming lots, land structures and uses j provided that such change. . .shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming 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 a Special Permit will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the plans of the property, makes the following findir%gs of fact: 1 . The proposed gambrel garage will be an improvement not.only to the premises but to the neighborhood as well; 2. The present garage is in poor condition, and is located four feet from the side and 1 .5 inches from rear abutter; 3. No opposition to petitioner's plan was Voiced by neighbors. One 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 proposed construction of the gambrel garage will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the • present garage. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting the petitioners the Special Permit requested. The Board grants the Special Permit under the following terms and conditions: DECISION ON PETITION OF NANCY AND DAVID GUY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 7 LINDEN STREET page two • I 1 . Petitioners may construct a gambrel garage within four feet of the side abutter and four feet of the rear abutter, all as shown on a plan filed with the Board; 2. The garage may be used for storage of motor vehicles and storage of any other things otherwise permitted by the laws of the City, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and United States, except that it may not be used for human habitation; 3. Petitioners must obtain a Certificate.of Compliance. r` w o � i1 L7_ L!_; a Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary Lit U L �U cc) !- i APPEAL FRO?d THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE 610E PURSUANT TO SECTION 1.7 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPFE3 303, AND SHALL BE FILED MaiL'1 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS GECISiON IN THE CPFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. FJRSA?iT TO`:..ASS. GEN:-AL LA7JS, CHAPTER 803, S_01'10[: 1:, THE YAMMME OR SKUIL FS::FiT - CR.1�!TED HEn@':. SHALL N-i ErFECi, UNTIL A CG OF THE OE^, `;":�� 00 , S'0[: SEA TtiE C•IRT- - - F!CATION OF THE CITY SLER!'.. TI '.T 2C DANS HAVE E'APSED ND;"0 APPEAL H:IS-G-,it FILED. `,•R THAT, IF SUC:i Ai! APPEAL HAS S<EN RU, THAT IT HAS CEEN WS'ASS D RE:b3DED 1:9 THE SJJTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND IPiOEXEO UNDER THEE v:A7-- DF THE GY,; EB DF rZaM OR IS RECORDED AND NUED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - BOARD OF APPEAL - A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK CON, , r� of a, - :r ourb of err.[ a •,�,�,��-`' � AY '83 OCT 1 d P3 :00! DECISION ON PETITION OF ARTHUR VALASKATGIS FOR A n..; ! r VARIANCE FOR 57 LORING AVENUE, SALEM CITE C_: i •� ._ A hearing on this petitioner was held September 21 , 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque. Notice of said hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing was properly - published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner requests a Variance to allow him to construct an auto parts business in this R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special .conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner, and • c. desirable=relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. On the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, the Board of Appeal makes the followning findings of fact: 1 . The property is a large, undeveloped lot on the edge between a . residential and a commercial area; 2. These special conditions do not generally affect other lots in the area; 3. The property has been an empty dirt lot for about fifteen years, and has not been put to any constructive use for. at least that long; 4. The proposed use of the property would be permitted across the street under the present Zoning Ordinance; 5. The abutting property to the south (the Housing Authority) and the commercial nature of that portion of Loring Avenue makes it impractical to develop the property for residential use. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence Dresented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; 2 Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; and • I DECISION ON PETITION OF ARTHUR VALASKATGIS FOR A VARIANCE FOR 57 LORING AVENUE 3. Disirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment • to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to grant-the petitioner a Variance to construct a new auto parts business at 57 Loring Avenue, as shown on a plan submitted to the Board, provided that: 1 . The premises be landscaped, including trees and shrubs; 2. There be a five (5) foot high solid wall or fence or compact evergreens on the side. and rear lot lines; and 3. There be a green area between the sidewalk and the parking area in , the front. W L L11 0 -' Scott E. Cherries, Acting Secretary FO APPEAL FROM THIS D: I U`N ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE G".A$S, - .GENERAL LA! S. C1;ti7L P 8"', 0:a S'ALL BE FILED '.'/'CHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF "'_S D;:CIS.GN U! THE OFFICE C, THE CITY CLERK. CL °. 2 ^D3: ."+EC.!.7;1 11, THE VAMAtJCE _D � r S'!''L I -t ��E EVE T UNTil ACO?'i OF THE:ECISiQi i. Oca':::� Ti. CERT- - F n D;J OF IHS CITY rLcr,I 7ii 2C DAYS H;/ LAPSE) ;":!it) NC A'�P AL HAS B - GP IFAT, LE $tJ4iJ AN APP-A,. Hn' c' FILE. t - 1 I' F, '=- r P "HCED IN T9c SJdt4 ECSE% " i- ai3Y Cr' C ci.S - J Bu LEM DL 'J $ 0 02 13 2 OF RECORD OR IS R:CGfiDED A!D M 'ED ON THE O""ER-S CCRtIFICATE LH 7 c _ - OF T2T,w •'gym., BOARD OF APPEAL - A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK (fitu of $Aem, fflassuchusetto Pourb of �VpPrNNNyrI DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARGARET HARTT (PETITIONER) TS o , JOSEPHINE DEFRANCESCO (OWNERS) FOR A VARIANCE FOR 160 L N w 3 '"' AVENUE, SALEM CITY Ci_ A hearing on this petition was held December 21 , 1983 with the fm�ITowing Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of said 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. Petitioner seeks a variance from sideline, density and frontage requirements to allow her to divide a parcel into two lots in order to construct a single family dwelling in this R-1 district, all as shown a a plan filed with the Board. The property .is currently owned by Patsy J. and Josephine DeFrancesco. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district; • b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petition;and c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence present at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition was presented to petitioner's plan; 2. The presence of extensive ledge on the property makes it difficult, if not impossible, to construct. the proposed dwelling without violating minimum frontage and sideline requirements; 3. Prohibiting petitioner's plan because of insufficient density would prevent the appropriate use of the property in this neighborhood; 4. The above conditions especially affect the property and do not generally affect other lands in the same district. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board concludes as follows: • 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land involved and which do not generally affect other lands in the same district;; w 1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARGARET HARTT (PETITIONER) PATSY & JOSEPHINE DEFRANCESCO (OWNERS) FOR A VARIANCE FOR 160 LORING AVENUE, SALEM • l 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to appellant; 3. The relief may ge granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioner's request for variances to allow her to divide the property and construct a dwelling as set forth in the plan filed with the Board. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK C a cn� APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, iF ANY, SHALL BE id ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE t' GENERAL LAY.'S, C'�A.P("R 803, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF i• OF THIS DECIMN IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PO:'.SAi7i TO (.!ASI. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER EG8. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR S' .T•4t-'°ti-,^ W GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, BEA'!?a'.,_ FIF.-"''j" .� FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DJS�1ISSED CR 01 r D IS DS AND INDEXED UNDER OF RECORDED RECORDI ORHE SOJIH IS RECORDED ESSEX ANDREGISTRY NOTED ONFTHEEOYII ER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.HE r M E Ur" THr BOARD OF APPEAL � 1 LLI v' s Ponrb of Appeal AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KENNETH PROVENCHER FOI�WPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 217-219 LORING AVENUE A hearing oxfc�hisZ=?etition was held on April 20, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Charnas, Acting Secretary; Messrs. Piemonte, Hopper, LaBrecque, Associate Members Luzinski and Bencal. 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 40 A. The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to allow him to alter the already non- conforming 12,140 Square foot lot by dividing in into two lots, 5,920 square feet (Lot 16) and 6,220 square feet (Lot 18) . Petitioner also asks that a Variance be granted from the setback.requirements for a three family dwelling existing on what will be Lot 16. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to petitioner's request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows.- Notwithstanding ollows:Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in it • - Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction on nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood, nor shall this paragraph apply to billboards, signs, or other advertising devices. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of a Special Permit will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's- inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the plans of the property makes the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed division of the property will create two lots which are consistent with surrounding lots. 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 proposed use of the property will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use; AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KENNETH PROVENCHER fes' FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 217-219 LORING AVENUE 2, The proposed use of the property will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants; • 3. The proposed use of the property is in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance; ��. ':, _:� 4. The setback of the three family dwelling from Lot 18 is a cond' o � especially effects the land in question but does not generally !tole t He A 9 .C( zoning district in which the land is located; CITY CLERK'S OFFICi 5. . The condition just described causes special financial hardship toS46EFpetitione 6. The desired Variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously in favor of approving the grant of a Special Permit and a Variance. The Board granted a Special Permit and a Variance under the following conditions 1. Petitioner may divide the property into two parcels, one containing 6,220 - square feet. (lot 18) and one containing 5,920 square feet, (lot 16) . - 2. Petitioner may keep the existing structure on .lot 16 within five (5) feet of .the northernmost property line of lot 18. 3. Petitioner must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy and Use prior to the recording of the plan submitted to the Board, -' • - 4. Petitioner may never build or construct a driveway within sixteen (16) feet - J -of the northernmost boundary of lot 16. 5. Petitioner must lay crushed stone throughout the parking area at the rear of the existing three (3) family structure. 6. This decision to allow the continued use of the three family dwelling will be in effect so long as the petitioner or his heirs continue to own or reside in the adjacent single family dwelling (lot 18) or so long-as the three family dwelling is owner occupied, 7. Petitioner must limit parking on lot 16 to three (3) spaces, no such space to b less than sixteen (16) feet from the northernmost boundary of such lot. 8. Petitioner-must landscape the northwest corner of lot sixteen (16) , 9. Petitioner must obtain a Certificate of Compliance prior to recording said plan APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT-TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL L1141S, CHAPTiR SOS, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF F:LI^.GA- � � f_nr OF THIS D'.-C13I0N IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. Srptt E. Charms Actin Secretary PU2SANT TO '.'ASS. GENEF.4L LAWS. CIi.APTER 606, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL P6... a _ S GRANTED HECEIN. SHALL NOT Th'(E EFr ECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE^-ECISION. BE.ARIZ0..THE CE::T- FICATION OF THE CITY CLER4 THAT 23 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. - -OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT. IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS `CORDED IN THE SDUTH ESSEX RE:IISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE CYJIIER (\ ,RECORD OR IS REOORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD. OF APPEAL - - A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND TETE CITY CLERK Cornr,�l to � n� N ter' (f�i# of �xlem, ttstztzse to 3 Pourb of c� a o, gw m o g a \' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KENNETH PRO.VIMqCHER FA SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 217-219 IgRING 42NUE A hearing on this petition was held on April 20, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Scott Charms, Acting Secretary, Messrs, Piemonte, Hopper,LaBrecque, Associate Members Luzinski and Bencal. 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 allow him to alter the already'non- conforming 12,140 square foot lot by dividing it into two lots ;5,920 square feet (Lot -18) and 6,220 square feet (Lot 16) . Petitioner also asks that a Variance be granted ,from the setback requirements for a three family dwelling existing on what will 'be Lot 16. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to petitioner's 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, wand, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood, nor shall this paragraph apply to billboards, signs, or other advertising devices. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of a Special Permit will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the-City's inhabitants. _ The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the plans of the property makes the following findings of fact: IIS 1. The proposed division of the property will create two lots which are consistent with surrounding lots; On .the.basis of the above finding of fact, and the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The proposed use of the property will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use; DECISION ON ,THE PETITION OF KENNETH PROVENCHER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR n y 217-219 LORING AVENUE =im 2. The proposed use of the property will pfCD-amote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's i&abitan&Z; o 3. The proposed use of the property is in hfq:mony Rth the Salem Zoning Ordinance; Co :c x 4. The setback of the three family dwelling�;rom Lo18 is a condition which especially affects the land in question Vut does notgenerallyeffect the zoning district in which the land is located; 5. , The condition just described causes special financial hardship- to the petitioner; 6. .The desired Variance may be granted without substantial detriment to'.the public good. Therefore,.. the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously in favor of approving the grant of a Special Permit and a Variance. The Board granted a Special Permit and a Variance under the following conditions: 1. Petitioner may divide the property into two parcels, one containing 6,220 square feet (Lot 16) and one containing 5,920 square feet (Lot 18) . 2. Petitioner may keep the existing structure on lot 16 within five (5) feet of the northernmost property line of lot 18. r • 3. Petitioner must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy and Use prior to the the recording of the plan submitted to the Board. 4. Petitioner may never build or construct a driveway within 'sixteen (16) feet of the northernmost boundary of lot 16. 5. Petitioner must lay crushed stone throughout the parking area at the •rear of the existing three (3) family structure. 6. This Special Permit to allow the division of the property will only be in effect for so long as both parcels are owned by the same owner. 7. Petitoner must limit parking on Lot 16 to three (3) parking spaces, no such space to -be less than sixteen (16) feet from the northernmost boundary of such lot. 8. Petitoner must landscape the northwest corner of lot sixteen (16). 9. Petitioner must obtain a Certicate of Compliance prior to recording said plan WEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. 'ONERAL LA;S CHAPTER 303, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE ATE OF FILING %,F THIS DECISI0;I IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.A Pu'CAI'T TO ASS. GENERAL LA:S" CHAPTER 303, SECTION 11, THE V.4RIARCE 0 ..RAN fED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISIM. i. II-AM'N OF 1HC CITY' CLERK, THAT 2G DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL 6 #'11'iJFILE harms, Acting Secretary °AT. IF SOCK AN APPEAL HAS BEE!I FILE, THAT Ii HAS BEEN D!S!.:ISS.cU OR DENIED IS - I. �IEO III THE SOUTH ESSEX. REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INOEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE 049F:Sp _ ORD OR IS RECORDED AND HMO ON THE O','JNER'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 Gifu of Salem, fflassar4usefts J/ Puttrb of Amd •j,9jnhus .. _ DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GRACE M. PULEO FOR A VARIANCE FOR 13 LYNN STREET APR l 8 so A hearing on thispetition was held on April 20, 3983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; "Scott Charnas, @Yt£zkig Secretary; Messrs. Piemonte, Hopper, LaBrecque, Associate Members Luzinski and Bencal. Notices of the hearing were sent ,to abutters and others and notrMSI EFthel.6 g 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 in question to allow her to divide the property into two lots (Lot A and B), both of which lots will fail to comply with minimum density requirements. In addition, Petitioner has requested a Variance from the rear setback requirement for Lot A to allow the present dwelling structure to remain on that site. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing plans of the property makes the following findings of fact: 1. No opposition was raised to Petitioner's plan by- neighbors; 2. The proposed division of the property will make two lots which are consistent with surrounding lots; 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 it's size and configuration. 2. The conditions above described especially affect the land in i 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, causes 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 unanimously in favor of approving the grant of the requested relief subject to a maintenance easement described below. The Board grants a variance to the Petitioner on the following terms and conditions: 1. Petitioner may divide the property into two lots as shown on the plan submitted to the Board; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF �. 7 OF GRACE 11. PULEO T^ FOR A VARIANCE AT 13 LYNN STREET page two April 20, 1983 - CIO • M . 2, Petitioner may keep the existing structure orrLot A.—Sithin zero (0) feet of Lot B; y C=9 3. Petitioner must grant a maintenance easement to Lot A for reasonable access at and for reasonable times by the owners of Lot A to the property of Lot B for the purpose of maintenance, access not to exceed four (4) feet from the property line of Lot A which is contiguous to Lot B. _ Scott E. Charms, Acting Secretary APPEAL FRO-.A THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.- GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 803, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISIOL IN INE OFFICE OF THE CITY .CLERK:. - - - PURSANT TO .MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 898, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PE7.7:117 - GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, DEARINO THE CER:- FICATIGN OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED ANO NO APPEAL HAS CEET FI'_ELj OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS SEEN DIS-"ISSED OR DENIED IS _ RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'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 • ._i J J / DLCISIOiQ ON iH? TITIGii OF RUTH !EAi;Py TRUST fmpnFmi LEATHF:.P;k � . CIT FOR A SPECIAL ]'ERMT FOP 69 P-VM i;'IRATi1' A hearing on. this Petition was held on February 16, 198'1 with the ellowiug ,oard MemL-ers present: James Hacker, Chairman, riee:':r8. Hopper, Piemonte and Feeherry and Associate Member Charnas. Notice: of the hearing were sent to abutters and othars. and notices of the hc�a_iLn to prcpetrl.y publishes in. the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusett.=_- General Laws Chapter 40A:. The Petitioner has requested what, in effect, is an amendment to_a rrior special permit granted by this Board on October 2.0; 1.982 to expand the existing non-conforming structure at the property irk que.stion. By our prior decision, we allowed petitioner the right, to construct_ a 950 square foot addition to the property. Petitioner now asks that we modify that pedal, permit to allow,the construction of a 1080 square foot, addition. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance wbich is applicable to this request f�:z 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 non- if 1, •' conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension _ or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter, incorporates into this decision the findings of fact made in this Board's October 20, 1982 decision. On the basis of these findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes: (i) that the proposed use of the property will not be substantially more detrimental. than the existing use to the neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed use of the property will promote the 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 (5-0) the granting of the requested Special Permit to the Petitioner: W � _ DECISION ON THE PETITION' OF RUTH REALTY .CRUST '83 FEB 22 A9 :n;0 • (BONTNIE LEATHER) FOR A SPECIAL PEFtdIT FOR 69 MASON STREET t FIY CL rr .'a c FT t PAGE 2 (;f February 16, 1983 1) . Petitioner may construct n ad :Ltion of approy-kniatel.y 36' x 36' trl th(c property in accordance with the plans subm tied. to the Board. 2) A Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be obtained prior to any use of the proposed addition. • ri finny . . Fee _rry Secretary ] APPEAL FROM THIS DECISIG`!, IF ANY. SHAT L BE BADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. r GENERAL LAWS, CHAFFER 808• A710 SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE CA7F OF TIL'3C �� c SECTION 11, THE VARMiCE G c - OF THIS DECiS'ON IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. P.i?CAP!? TO -A`S GE:!FRA' LA.dlS; CH..:T`R 503. c ^r.l 7i_ •.i- _ - "`;v' FIO APPEAL HAS - F: �. c;vANiEO HCREIN, SHALL NOT TME EFFECT UNTIL A COPY C PIE cScp L4 C :a!tDla FiCATION OF THE CITY CLMh WA f 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED uR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT n0. SECN Dta OF RECORD 114 THE S ',H ESSEX AND NOTED IONFTHE EOWNER'S DS AND 1tCEP.T CERTIFICATE OF TITLE n.E OF 74 C'r..7: ED -- BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK s. •1 600 Ctu of "Mem, assuc4useft - Psarb of �AMud QE' -7 A9 � Y J. 83 Fl�llli�6�i DECISION ON PETITION OF JOSEPH AND ALBERTINA VARGAVMICd1 E� IMM NN0[ FOR VARIANCES FOR 101-10112 MASON STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on November 16, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James B. Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Piemonte. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evenipg News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners seek Variances from minimum frontage, density and side setback zoning requirements in this R-2 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands; buildings, and structures in the same district; b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and • c. . Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition was raised by neighbors to petitioner's plan; 2. Petitioner McKinnon purchased the subjection property in good faith without knowledge of the necessity of obtaining variances to make the title marketable; 3. Without the requested variances, the title to the subject property would not be marketable; 4. The above described situation is uniques and does not generally affect the district. One the basis of the above findings of fact, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: } 1 . Special conditions or circumstances exist which affect tDis lot and which do not generally affect the district; 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would work a substantial. hardship upon the petitioner; DECISION ON PETITION OF JOSEPH AND ALBERTINA VARGAS/ MICHAEL MCKINNON FOR VARIANCES FOR 101-1012 MASON ST. •� 3. The variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the requested Variances. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary - w a. - � L-ii' - UJ Po f1 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK c Wf IT ANY. Si;.:.L,' B_j .DE PURSUA"T TO SECTION l7 . C ENIEi'A_ LA%IS, C i... J -' , A,iO S!!AU BE Ht ED 41:!.L. 20 DAYS AFTER r- F - - ff Tii;S DEMSlcii IN THE jKl::[ OF THE CITY CLERK. P�'Si.C2; TO !'ASS. ;ENERAL LA-,-,S. CHAPTER 833, SECfMO 1.. THE.VAMANCE :R - - S Au P+i,. 'ARE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF HE C13,- .. ° '1.: "'A IuN OF THE CM -_Pix THAT 20 DAYSHAVE EL?oED A.-:-) NO APPEAL HAS NAT. IF SUCH 0 Ai?;dl HAi BEEN FILE. THAT IT HIS EEVi DIS';'SzcD C? - PiECu'ROED IN THE SCUiH ESSEX REOISiRY OF DEEDS AND INDERED UNDER THE t:. - �) 0% RECORD OR IS RECORDED-f,ND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFIWE OF T:TLE - . I . BOARD DF •to\ Otu of Salem, fflnssarhuqtfts , r Potts of '4FCKl DECISION ON PETITIONER ROGER H. ROTONDI FOR A CITY G r"; F: SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 1 MILK ST. , SALEM Si A hearing on this petition was held on November 2, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Hopper, Luzinski, Peimonte and Associate Member Bencal. 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 4OA. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert and existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this- R-2 district. Mr. Rotondi, representing himself, requested Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. The Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow the petitioner to Withdraw Without Prejudice. James B. Hacker, Chairman APPcAL r :� i..._ .•5.1:3k.;:i, 6- ANY. SHALL OE A-� PO?=GA:'IT TO SECTI^F: !7 OF T:1E :f:ASS. UL"'F:1L 1A.*.,.•11:'.'.AKES SG$, ANN.) SHAH- CE RSD Ci T;HCd 20 DAYS AFTER 1c1E GATE @ r.1't:S . G,c Tr I:J THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - PC?...... [..:`.5�. .:6;ERAL 'LAW,", „iIAP FER ScB, SECTI331 11. THE CAMA„r PS [r SHALL :N::'T TntE EFFECT UNTIL A C^P'( CF —:XEOECISi!'•il. CiiRT- Fisk Tr- CiiY CLE"n t: TIi .� ZU O,VS Y _T LAPSED AN.) N0 AP?LA W. L DR ^ :':� AN APPLAI HAS SHN F L c it�1 1: HAS BEEN DIS :�oS n SS REGC °J lid THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DLEDS AND 1,11DEXED UNDER T3_ ''.F- F T:i' C u_ OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. _ BOARD OF APPEAL _ A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK r (fi#g oftttem, Aassachusetts Pearb of AyprA DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT TINA FOR VARIANCES FOR 24 MONROE ROAD A hearing on the petition was held on June 15, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Charnas, Hopper, Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of thF: 7w.as 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. '83 JUL -1 A10 :23 The petitioner has requested Variances from front P }ty� �eside setback ��"iaL , requirements that will be needed when petitioner 1J 4a ��oneeys 442 square feet - q 1 of his property to lot 7a, as shown on the plan file Zi th the Board. . The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the plans of the property makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition was raised by neighbors to petitioner's plan; . 2. Eleven feet of the driveway for lot 7a, now part of lot 6a, would be conveyed to lot 7a under the terms of petitioner's plan. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board finds as follows: 1 . The property is unique because of it's size and configuration; 2. The conditions described above especially effect the land in question but do not generally effect the zoning district in which the lot is located; 3. The conditions described above cause financial hardship because fo the marketability of lot 7a is greatly reduced with a substantial part of its driveway belonging to lot 6a; 4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to . the public good because the proposed conveyance would put lot 7a in . harmony with other properties in the area. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal unanimously voted in favor of granting the requested relief. The Board grants a Variance as follows: Petitioner is granted a variance from frontage, density, and side setback re- quirements in order to allow him to convey 442 sq. ft. of lot 6a to lot 7a as ,shown on the plan of April 12,1983 filed with the Board. DECISION OF PETITION OF ROBERT TINA FOR VARIANCES FOR 24 MONROE ROAD page two ?eI Scott E. Charna ; Acting' Secretary '83 JUL -1 A10 :23 CITY CLE ,'S OFFICE SALLE N . .JA - .� APPEAL FRO'.'I THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE 27ASS, - - C P+`_RAL Li„S, CHAPTER ECS, APID SHALL BE FILE OF THIS CtCISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLEP,IK.1 20. DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING - - SENMAI -! ,PTER E-2 SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE CR SP'" IAL PER,%iT II i ';E ttreC7 Ilii FIL A CO°Y OF FHFDEOICIn+ J-,R';.;^ THE CEtT- " In Ciit Ct h.( L;A? 20 nn S }iAVE ELA,+SED At") NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, '=k .d..?, IF S;,CH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT 1T HAS BEEN DIS%;ISSED DR DENIED IS RECORDED IF; THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NANIE OF THE Oi4P.Er; RWORD OR IS RECORDED ANDNOTEDON THE OWNER'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..coy...... T' 1r 1 i# of tt e ttssttt use##� • '.�� ,. PnttrD of Appett.0 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR H. CHALIFOUR FOR A •83 AUG 12 A10 2B VARIANCE AT 96 NORTH STREET (ROMAN CARON-OWNER) A hearing on this petition was held on July 27, 1983 with the(-yOG_r rlg'B0!5T .r Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Hopper, Luzin 1_and A'ss'ociate Member Bencal. 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. Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow the use of a loading dock for outdoor dining in this B-1 district. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after viewing the plans of the property makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Vigorous opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. There have been prior violations with the Licensing Board and the Building Inspector; • 3. Expansion of the loading dock for dining has already been completed without a Building .Permit; 4. Specific terms of. the 1980 Variance requiring using loading dock for such purposes has not been complied with; 5. Outside eating and drinking would not be in harmony with the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Petitioner has not net its burden of proving a special financial hardship if a variance is not granted; 2. The desired variance cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good; 3. The proposed use of the property is not in harmony with the neighborhood Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to deny the petitioner's request for a variance, APPEAL FROM THIS OECISI?N. IF AN'Y, SHALL BE t^.ADE PURSUANT TO SECTIM 17 OF THE HASS. GEt:E"dL LA.':' . C!".?L:it A?;v S:I,`,LL BE F;L37 Wlli (:I 20 DWtS AF;ER THE DATE C. FILING - C€ .T a O«.:'!,'1 u.F:C� OF Tr'._ I:I-F CL?Y,. ' .--E .(h 7 i".711. T.IE \'t iii'E CR •lzC,AL PE".IIT i r c O B Tr E T ri T IF - \ u v u fT l - 1 r i J T° C. - hEC TF_ NN u:° PE ISTR'f OF c«.S CF R 03RD OR is T:._.i, tD ANU NOTED ON T8E OWNERS CERTIFICATE Chairman , BOARD OF APPEAL - A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. t-. of �tt1em, tt58ttt�uSE##s j' Poura of Aype2d t •\ F�411Fg 0� J CITY C L r I.L'.11•S IJ Ft✓� DECISION ON PETITION OF GEORGE AHMED FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 106 NORTH ST. , SALEM A hearing on this petitioner was held September 21 , 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque. Notice of said 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. Petitioner requests a Special Permit to allow him to complete and maintain a file room as an addition to his office building, all as shown on a plan submitted to the Board. 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, laird, structures, and uses, provided,-however, that such change, extension enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing noncomforming 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 of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Neighborhood opposition to petitioner's overall plan was raised, but such opposition was largely appeased when petitioner agreed to limit his petitioner to requesting a Special Permit for the already existing 11 ' x 72 ' file room; 2. Traffic problems in the area would not be substantially worsened by theuse of the aforementioned 11 ', x 72' file room. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board concludes that the Special Permit eventually requested by petition may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of • the Zoning Ordinance. V DECISION ON PETITION OF GORGE AHMED FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 105 NORTH STREET page two • % Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petitioner a Special Permit to allow him to keep an already existing 111 x 7" file room, provided that: 1 . The length of this file room is not to exceed the lenght of the existing main building; and 2. The file room to be used for general office work. U m - L..i ✓Z - /.+'CII-n.c./ 1. l�t/1 Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary v <C 90 U - APPEAL FRO!A THIS DECISION, IF A[:Y. SNA!_L DE 2.ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE NIASS. GENERA' 1.'... CHAP._.. AHD SHALL LE FJ;S.. ...-. !a 20 CATS A. ._.. T}!: DATE OF FiLi!X OF -',iS D_C c'...., IN THE OMC' OF THE J1Ti - PURSAG. L C: .Y>. L .i:: 11- .. ^.' ? .,r. 4�..St_ :;:'I 11. THE 1'ARWii E O C?ECIAL PERWT - - GRA U! c'r,$ Sh."LL ii f.t�_ U*r,, UNTi` A COPY O: THEOM"." ... 5E.t2'., 'HE „ERT- F NIM 7 Dai. 4? _ E'A�'":'1 .;\h] �AIO A:'PElL 19a _-ii F;'19. .. OR THAT. !F S APPIn_.HAS Bi: F!IE -i i .T "3 L';E:J D'S!.'LaS7 ei� iS - 2_CCRUEO 1-'i _.:H ESSEA RENS' .. �i_EDJ W INOEX:U C.DE% 'PE .. CF -H° OFi _OF RECORD OR IS RECUROED AND NOTED ON THE O'WNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK (11itu of �5zllem, 7552IC��125Pttsr " 4'r , Poarh of '83 JAN 16 PI0 :11 fiS OFFICE CITY CLER DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARVINDER S. VA�HAL` REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 127 North Street A hearing on this Petition was held on January 5, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper, Piemonte, 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 127 North Street to use the property for an embroidery shop and for the sale and storage of antiques. The property is in an R-2 zoning district where the proposed uses 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. The Petitioner is prepared to make a considerable investment in the property to upgrade it. °. The Petitioner's proposal will create several jobs for the area. \ The. existing structure on the site is currently not being utilized and is deteriorating. i 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 structure on the site which was previously used for commercial purposes. This situation imposes a hardship on the Petitioner 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 tothe public good_ Therefore, the Board of 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 use the .site for the storage and embroidering of / garment's and for the sale and storage of antiques. Petitioner is granted a variance from parking requirements. Jr. Hours of operation of the embroidery shop shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. p=r � 083 JAN 16 P10 :11 CITY CLERK'S CFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARVINDER S. BAHAL SALEMit ASz REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 127 NORTH STREET Page 2 January 5, 1983 4. Not more than 2 embroidery machines may be used at the site. 5. Not more than 4 people shall be employed at the site. 6. The sale of antiques shall be by appointment only, Monday—Saturday. 7. There shall be no changes in the exterior of the structure. 8. Petitioner shall maintain no sign on• the premises greater than two square feet. 9. A certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be obtained before using the property for the above referenced purposes. i lf .. ttioner shall comply with all applicable fire safety codes. Anthony M. eeherry — APPcAL FRO:! THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE 1,MDE PURSUANT TO SEUMM Y? OF THE E=,m GME:^.AL LA:'1S. CHAPTER M", AND SHALL BE FILED V-.rHM 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILMS CF iNiSC=C'a""!O:J IN THE OFRCE OF THE CITY CLE K. PURSAU TO ....,S. CEIiE i:' Li.._. CHAP(ER K0, S°CTi'.. 11. THE CA'IA'!CE 0^ SP=_Ci'... PERYT " "UAP._D SHALL :. .i IP:.c Mf--'T I ..:1 A CS'Y 'Ir �h . . 5°7. ... .!E C:i:'.. . flc:;i rail CF -iHE CITY C!Ril 'i H.. 20 01175 MiZ °D i.`iD Nu =PCA_ H.-, i__.. FILED, OR CHIT. IF SJ2i1 AN APPEU HAS 97-;i FILE. -AT Ii ..,.S BEEN Di. ::3SED .:R DE `':il IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS ANDnLiDEY.ED UNDER THE t1A iE OF THE O'. NER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL ��• Y OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Tttof Salem1 anac use#ts r •. ` �' Asara of c4veA '83 FEB -8 A10 '1 r' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF. JOHN A. LOCKE REQUESTING A VAR��1£tE FOR R144 NORTH STREET CITY CI ER'i(' .'•?r, A hearing U is Petition Petition was held on January 26, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper, Piemonte 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 from rear and side yard setback and - density requirements for R144 North Street to construct a garage/family room. 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's proposed construction will improve the appearance of the property. 2. The Petitioner's proposal was supported by abutters and 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: .� L.-- The property in question is unique because of the size and shape of the lot and the structure on the site. This situation imposes a hardship on the Petitioner restricting his use of 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 Appeal unanimously voted in favor of approving the grant of the requested relief. The Board grants a variance from side and rear yard setback requirements and density requirements to the Petitioner on the following terms and conditions: 1. Petitioner may use the site for the construction of a garage/family room_ 2. All work shall be in strict compliance with the plans submitted to- the Board. 3. A Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be ohtained before us 'ng the proposed addition. _ APFFAL FROi1 THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO S ..TI �{SS. - [ NERAL LAWS CHAPTER 308, AND SHALL BE FILED WITII::! 20 Anthony PS. Beeherry 1 I GF THIS C�W 'ON lil T:1'c OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. / (, P _ ,, �� r See•>:etar�}2 !IT - `Y aF' Iq �,� p�� L;�•�' `��P�T�t mi SECTION 11,jiTE A.'n (..v,.liLlnJu.C �; Y,t7i F`tC4�SNT�r�OrHt� EjL"WITH:,;THE_PLMNNING BOARD, & CITY CLERK HCf.T'ON CF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAFSED Atli) NOAPPEAL HAS EE'=q uR THAT, IF SOCH A4 APPEAL HAS iiM! FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN CISI-IISSED CR CE11"iE0 IS _ _ - P.ECORCEO IN THE SOUTH ESSEX R&,ISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA:,1E OF THE OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OVINER'S CERTIFICATE.OF TITLE. - BOARD OF APPEAL 117 .COY C6 6 [L.Eq rj Tito of ,5alm, assar4usetts raUl:Si w`' - DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT E. GAUTHIER-83 MAY 16 P 3 :03 FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 162 NORTH STREET CITY CLERVK uFFICF A hearing on this petition was held April 27, 1983 with Mg E�ollowing Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Charnas, Acting Secretary; Messrs. Hopper, Luzinski, Bencal:. Notice of this 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 change the non-conforming use of the premises to allow use of the first floor for an office in this R-2 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to petitioner's 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 advertising devices. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of a Special Permit will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after consideration,of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing plans of the property makes the following findings of fact 1. No opposition was raised to petitioner's plan by neighbors; 2. The proposed use of the first floor is consistent with the use of other lots in the area. 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 proposed use of the property will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use; ' �•� 2. The proposed use of the property will promote the health, safety,- convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants; DECISION ON PETITION OF ROBERT GAUTRIER r FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 162 NORTR STREET 3. The proposed use of the property is in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. p `. 1 Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously in favor of approving the grant of a Special Permit. The Special.Permit is granted under the following conditions: 1. Petitioner may use the first floor of the premises foranoffice; 2. Petitioner may not erect a sign larger than two (2) square feet on the property which sign is connected or related to the business carried. on in said office; 3. Petitioner must obtain additional A.C. electric hardwired smoke . detectors as protection for the mixed residential/business use and occupancy. Scott E. Charms, Acting Secretary - . N-C 1 • APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION! 17 OF THE C:ASS.r'r -9e GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED LYITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING-'_--Io �. I CDN OF THIS DWSION it] THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. FURSANT TO 1LSSS. GE FdAL L12!/S, CHAPTER8^.8, SECTIOII 11. THE VARIANC° G. SPECIAL FEPN23J GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL iIJT_T?.:(E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF H° EC.S�^7 6 t -tS .d_ „SRT-f FIC�.7{uN OF THE Clii LLERK THAT 2U DAYS H4" ELAPSED D N A?P 4L HAS 5-23 FILE% _ C7 O OR THAT, IF SIf.:H A:I APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE THAT IT HaS BEEN'DIS.':'So D OP, DENiEJ IS _ W RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWN5 OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O'NNER'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. yy COMCT,,�i _ C to of Salem, � assar4ueielts Pour3 of Appeal tom• �, _- =. RF0._. , DECISION ON PETITION OF RAYMOND AND ELAINE LANDRY AND PETER A; MARY HOOKS FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR 35 &' 37 OCEAN AVENUE JUPd 70 A9 :27 A hearing on this petition was held on May 18, 1983 with the[ 1,1towing. _ Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charna R` err � `iC� Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal. 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. Petitioners are requesting Special Permits -to allow alteration of the already non-conforming lot area, width, coverage, depth and side and rear setbacks at 35 & 37 Ocean Avenue which,will result when the owners of No. 35 convey to No. 37 a parcel of land two feet in width and running seventy-five feet parallel to the western boundary of No. 35. 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 reconstructions of nonconforming.structures,. and for changes, enlargement extension or expansion of nonconforming l • 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 of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the ' public hearing .and after viewing the plans of the property, makes the. following findings of fact: : 1 . . No opposition to petitioner's plan.was presented by neighbors; 2. Petitioner's plan will allow access to the rear of no. 37 by emergency or fire vehicles which access is now impossible due to the existing lot size. One the basis of the above findings of fact and the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board concludes as follows: 1 . The petitioner's plan will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non- - conforming use. DECISION ON PETITION OF RAYMOND & ELAINE LANDRY AND PETER & MARY HOOKS FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR 35 & 37 OCEAN AVENUE page two oil j Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously in favor of approving r + !Dinner's request for Special Permits. The Board granted these Special Permits under the following terms and conditions: Ag .2l •a3 �uN 10 1 . Petitioners may alter the already non-conforming lot area, ylidth, coverage, depth and side and rear setbacks at nos. Of & 37 Ocean Avenue as will result when the owners at no_ 35 CIT SAL >; T convey to no. 37 a parcel of land two feet in width and running seventy-five feet parallel to the western boundary of no. 35. / r Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary �) I -PEAL FRO" THI$ DEC '^*!Y. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTICN 17 OF THE SS - r-uIERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 203, AND SHALL EE E.EO WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE'DATE OF FI;I'," OF THIS CEC!S:C IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. E p •...^ i0 h1FS5. Cc �.°+,L Li.. .. CHA'TEP 802, S-CT!'!i! it. THE VARI - SP I i ' ED hEPciN, SNAIL ^ul i �( -ErF CT UinL A GOP( I;r TH J .' 1 uu _ -i7, FiC�ji);; CF THE CIT C cn, THI\T CA:S HAVE L P ! ) N' Eu�.cD S - . . . "T :F SUCH AN APPEAL H'�S BEEN FILE, TH.AT IT HAS c.EN Pc.EIEqD OR DEN _ F Tit- D[�1=: - - - R DEJ '9 TH=-SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND Ui DEXEO UNCI i � - - OF P.ECORD OR IS RECCRDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE U TITLE. - ' - BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 1 Tito of alem, � Paurb of AM211 '83 OCT 14 P2 =5 Fronnwx a'+%. \ DECISION ON PETITION OF CARLTON G. LUTTS FOR A CITY CLF I1'S OFFICE VARIANCE FOR 91 ORNE STREET, SALEM $A Lt: : .''iA A hearing on this petition was held September 28; 1983 with the following . Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Piemonte. Notice of said 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. Petitioner requests a Variance to allow construction of an additional single family dwelling in this R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the _ Board that: . a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and.structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and j . c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying of substantially derogating from the_ intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. . The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was voiced by neighbors; 2. The premises consists of 30.6 acres of land, which already contains four W homes and a barn; 3. If another single family house could not be built on the property there is not other productive use of this large parcel in an R-1 zone_.. - On the basis of the above findins of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions or circumstances exist which affect this 30.6 acre lot which do not generally affect the district; 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would work a substantial hardship upon petitioner; 3. The Variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent of the. district of the purpose of the Ordinance. r DECISION ON PETITION OF CARLTON G. LUTTS FOR A VARIANCE FOR 91 ORNE ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petitioner ', •I a Variance to construct a single family dwelling as shown on a plan submitted to the Board, provided that petitioner obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for said dwelling. ec Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary TION IE OF THE MASS - PURSUANT SU ASR W SEC � n� .. MRDE NG —. . -BE 1 ALC Fll 6'� IF ANY. S`K gplf£A�FROM'THIS DECISION-, w BOB, AND SHALL 6EEILEC WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER.THE DATE.OF CHAPTER Cn . GENERAL LA'ti15. -- - .. CLERK. _ -TH'S DECISION IN THE. OFFIS. OP-TER - 1. THE VARIANCE 0R SPETIAL CERT-IT Dr_ C - ECT,�,1 1 - F—r n S cR BOB,SOB, ^ CERT-� IIP - a r r L LAMS. CHAPTER _ t 4 BEHRING INc un. - P;,^Seal -0 MASS. GENERA n °'� AND NO.APPEAL-HAS BEEN FILED. dt3EL'd SHALL NOi TAKE- EFFECT UNTIL ALC°Y of 7HE DECIS. � . � t='rG1LC4 OF THc CITY CLERK.1 Ai 2 c DAYS E, T THAT T,HAS BEEN DISdUSSED OR DENIED IS I> — _ - OR THA.F. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BE- 'PAT, FILE, y � RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ES REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INERTIFIATE.O THE NAtiiE OF THE WINE _V' N RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWN _n TITLE _ -- OF RECORD ORIS - - — �. 3'-BOARD OF APPEAL t A COPY O. . THIS DECISION BEEN FILED i7ITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK (Eitu of Salem, assac4units Pourb of }peal F OI IIF IS�•'rr.'. - DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS BLACKLER FOR '83 JUN 1QSPAOy[7R'1 PERMIT FOR lA PARALLEL STREET A hearing on jpp„ petition was held on May 18, 1983 with the following &-4rg! EIF-b Ar p ant: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper; LuzS�j'U'; 'Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal. 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 allow use of the premises as an auto body repair shop in this R-2 district. The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the plans of the property makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by various neighbors; 2. Petitioner's plan would cause increased vehicular traffic on the street as well as cause the presence of fumes, noise, sand and flammables in an around the premises. • On the basis of the basis of the above findings of fact and the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board concludes as follows: 1 . Petitioner's plan would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood then the existing use of the property. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to deny the petitioners. request for a Special Permit. pr'r 1,! FRCi.! THIS DECIS!0'I I ANY. SHALL DE MADE PURSUANT TO Su TICi! rc�t�EE:LSf.harrias, Acting Secretary _ GE?;ORAL 'LAWS. CHAPTER d09, AND SHALL BE FiLE.r WI IN 20 DR�a F .? THE OATOF OF THlS G:.fS108 :.d THE OFFICE Of TkE C'TY CLEP.n. - PU ct.IT -Tf A,,S c ' RiO LA rc 'C!i 11E ll PI L n�07(1.r1TH`H`�Ac41f JCEE.P S HSL Pn _iT. _ CP. !T D (: c.i U ir' 1 2L 7 :'J N1 A F il. it FIeED. flC4T:_':1 CF THE !. , UL i'. t 5i 2J DA43 4 v 1cc, '7 g-EPI CIS-I =I) 4 I FD IS OR THAT, IF Sboa ,`.'! !.F7t4 h-.S CE;:� - RE9� ESSEX RESISIRY OF CEE03 A.JD MN,EAEO UNDER -i HNA-1E CF TiiC' DERE 3RD OR is i'.EC.^.RDED AND NOTED ON 11E. 0:9i4ER'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 } Ctv ofSalem, fflassar4uselts ' Poura of (,A"t t ' . 83 OCT 12 Pia l DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY CITY C: FOR A VARIANCE FOR LAND LOCATED OFF PEABODY AND CONGRESS STREETS SA_- : `�FFIeE - . - S_ A hearing on this petition was held on September 28, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Piemonte. ' Notice of said hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts Generals Chapter 40A. Petitioner requests a Variance to allow the lease of the premises for use as a parking lot in the Industrial district. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Vigorous opposition to petitioner's planwas voiced by neighbors; 2. Petitioner has failed to prove that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance will work a substantial hardship upon petitioner; _ 3. "A contiguous parking lot owned and/or operated by petitioner's lessee (the same lessee which will operate the proposed- parking-lot) is a major source of neighborhood problems including excessive noise, public drunkenness and leud and lascivious behavior; 4. .Neither petitioner nor its lessee are willing to police the proposed parking lot any better than the existing lot is policed. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . A literal enforcement of the provisions of. the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner; 2. The Variance requested may not be granted without substantial detriment _ to the public good. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to deny the petitioner's requested Variance. APPEAL FRCS^. THIS DEC1Si0 1. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF-THE MASS. C_NEPAL L17!S. CHf.P;S^n ?72. C.i:u SH'.L_ BE FILED CIITH!N 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING - OF T:=! "C:CfS'C:1 IN THE OcnCE OF THE Cii( CLERK. 11. THE VAZir, :— u r ti i a�.,,H ESS SS n.".aary 1; DE.DS .SPID LNDa,:'D J„u_:. IP ESS+O �,;F,H; g•�, nas, Acting Secretary .r Rc CRD OR f5 RECORDED AND 'NOTED CN THE OVINER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITL E. " A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN Bh'1LEDF A1Pp4A THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK of Salem, sttc �z ei .' Pourb of Appwl C DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND DITROIA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 8 OLIVER STREET A hearing on this petition was held on June 15, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Charnas, Hopper, Piemonte -and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the S Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A_ The petitioner has requested a Special Permit to allow him to extend his yt�Uerjpo� Rj5six (6) feet; extending the already non-conforming rear setback. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this Crnip§Q'( UliFt�icial Permit is Section V B .10, which provides as follows: SA1 EM M "- _I , Notwithstanding anything to the cbntrary 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. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the plans makes the, following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors. On the basis of these findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed expansion of the kitchen will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing size to the neighborhood. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioner the requested relief. The Board grants a Special Permit under the following terms and conditions: 1 . Petitioner may expand his kitchen six (6) feet by fifteen (15) feet, (one story) to within fifteen (15) feet of the property's rear lot line, as shown on the plan filed with the Board.; . 2. Petitioner must provide A.C. hardwired smoke detectors for all areas of the occupancy per current fire code. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND. THE CITY CLERK • PETITION OF RAYMOND DITROIA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 8 OLIVER STREET page two .83 JUL 12 A9 45 CITY C!tP 3 OFFICE SALE-'o c; APPEAL FRO,'A THIS CECISIOH, IF ANY. SHALL BE ILAK PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF ULE G &;AL LA:iS, CHA`ri E2 053, k:D SHA:_L Be FILED_1;i Tf:tH 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE r;THIS CECISIC?i IN.THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK(. - - - - P;i P.S.-_ .: .� TO ,A>S NIM CEL U.13. CHAPi ER M. SECTION 11. THE VA4!ANCE OR a 31_ PE3:EiT - - i"7.A}s' SH'LL EFFECT U,:T:L A COPY DF THE i;fl " E--2, IHEL--i-LT- - FiCAi iil:.' :O ON(—HAVE EL'FSO :'0 AO PPPEAL K,7 nZEN OR 'iH .: !F SJCH A:J APP=,-0! H-3 BEEil FILE, FHA- IT F-"S KEN DIS`1:2310 9R VU;:L-9 !S RECC"n:.c_ Hi THE SOUTH ESSEX RECI3TRY OF O=f OS AND INDEXED UNDER THE '.A:,iE OF THEOF UCORD 03 IS RECORDED AMU NOTED ON THE OVINER'S CERTIFICATE CFF IITLE BOARD-OF APPEAL - QjjtU of �5ajem, z , •, F Pourb of Appm, _ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER AND FRANCIE HINCHEY P83 JUL 29 P4:06 A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 27 ORD STREET AT y � ��;�� ^FFICE A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 1983 with tEY2Tf 6�11h,�oard Members resent: James Hacker Chairman; Messrs. Ho �` p , , Hopper, Charnas, and Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General .Laws Chapter 4OA. The petitioners have requested a Special Permit to allow them to continue the use of the premises as a three family dwelling in this R-1 zoned district. The Board of Appeal, .after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the plans of the property makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The premises has been used a a three family dwelling since circa 1900, long before the inception of zoning in the City; 2. No opposition to petitioner's plan was voiced 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 granting of the Special Permit requested by petitioners will only serve to ratify the existing use, and will not be any more detrimental to the neighborhood than the present situation. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting the requested Special Permit. The Board granted a Special Permit under the following terms and conditions: 1 . Petitioners may continue the use of the existing three family dwelling on the premises. 1 t...F_ APPEALr'ROr.: THIS :EC;S7^.1;, IF ANY, SNAIL BE i/AD° PURSCAVT TO SEf,i IOi 7 fic�l+� h!.S�.S� GENERAL LA7/S, C`!APTER 203, AN' SHALL BE Fi:.ED 'WITFUN 20 DAI3�j{� SHG Co�Effri �3 Acting Secretary OF TH!S CECISION R: THE CFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PUM',`IT TG d:ASS. F.=?IERAL LA;:1. C`u:P7ER 503. S`_Cr!C.:i 11, THE VARIANCE f, S._.IAL P'cRt.%T - GRANTED H!EU;t.SHALL f:;: E - . : EFSECT U:'iTil A CGPY CF THE GECiS'S'ri. oEA^�•g THE CERL FICATON CF THE Ci,7 ..^:ER:i ii,v, 2J DA)S HAVE EL.,9SED ':ii-) NO APPEAL HAS B°E:I FI;ED• OR THAT, IF SUI-H A;? ;.PPEA.L HAS BCE:i FF F, TX . IT HAS CEEN DIS:.:i SSED CR L;--MED IS RECORDED IN TS:E 5: iH ESSEX RE'WR? OF OE-19S AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA.-.4E OF THE 6ailc.: OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. 1 •� l BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK yy �— of Salem, fflassuchusetts I A/ snttrD of Appeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF SALEM FOR VARIANCES FOR LOTS 1 & 2 at 10 PHILLIPS STREET, SALEM •84 Ili; -� J O11) A hearing on this petition was held December 21 , 1983 with t1PjTfbTlowing ,Boa d Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopperi, :Luzinsk'i ,G and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of said 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. Petitioner, the City of Salem, requests variances from lot size for lots 1 & 2 at 10 Phillips Street so they may be sold as buildable lots. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition was presented to petitioner's plan; 2. Without the requested Variance, the lots will probably remain unmarketable and a burden to the City and it's taxpayers; 3. This circumstance is unique to the area. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Soecial circumstances exist which affect this property butldo not generally affect the district; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial financial hardship upon the City; 3. The Variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the Dublic good and without substantially derogating from the intent ,' of the district and the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF SALEM // FOR VARIANCES FOR LOTS 1 & 2 at 10 PHILLIPS ST. r • \ Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petitioner a Variance as requested, provided that this subdivision is approved by the Planning Board of the City of Salem. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK t APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. - •� 1 GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING / OF THIS DECISION IN. THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO EASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT - GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAt!E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION, BEARING THE CERT- FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RE'OIRDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE 0;7Cl ETi OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL _ c� C6 I I Jyp,covrm`� 7� x (gitU of $ajem, &4lassar4usefts l 1 11 4% r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH LEVESQUE FOR VARIANCES JUL 29 P4 :06 10 PHILLIPS STREET r �-•c ;,�FICE A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 1483 with the f4� a Irc �nsrd Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper, Charnas, d Bencal Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices were properly. published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 4OA. The petitioner is requesting variances from frontage requirements to allow -an 83 foot frontage on lot 1 and a 72,3 foot frontage on lot 2. Petitioner also requests variances from density requirements to allow him to build a duplex on 8100 square feet (lot 1 ) and another duplex on 6360 square feet (lot 2) , all as shown on a plan filed with the Board. The neighborhood is zoned R-1 . The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the plans of the property makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The premises are currently owned by the City of Salem; 2. There are no special conditions which affect this lot specifically and • not the.-neighborhood generally, and which would make a substantial financial hardship to the petitioner. One the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Petitioner has not sustained his burden of proving that a literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial financial hardship to petitioners owing to special conditions which effect these premises specifically and not the neighborhood generally. Therefore the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to deny the petitioners . requests for variances. APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE L1ASS. GENERAL LVIS. CHAPTER CCB, AND SHALL BE FILED ',NTHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATEEC F LI��` �n OF THIS OMN IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PDRS.ANT TO LiASS. GE;RAL L1':'/S. CHAPTER No. SE .C'h' E N I1. THE Mcw lrt_;',E:I AL__jti.it_TaS, Acting Secretary GRANTED HEREIF, SHALL P!T (".:E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION. BEAR:W', THE CERT• - - MCATiON OF THE CITY CLERi, TIIA': 20 GAYS RA VE ELAPSED ANO NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, _ +AT. IF S7SH A:: APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THA; FAS.S MEN DISMISSED OR DEFIED IS i / EO IN THC L'_i'iTH ESSEi. RE3ISTR! OF DEEDS Ai2O INDEXED UADER THE NAME OF THE C•YIN:d _ RD OR TS RZ:;ORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE- BOARD ITLEBOARD OF APPEAL - g A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK IIF .' � ..• - i 10 Ti#g of 'Stt1Em4 fflnssar4uslelfis r I Pourb of �VyEtt1 '83 NOV -2 P3 :()3 ` . 5f�UIIN{SPS CITY C!t .� UFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RANDALL G. WIETING FC?"W VARIANCE FOR 1 PIERCE ROAD, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on October 19, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal. 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. Petitioner requests a Variance from side line requirements in order to construct a porch on the subject premises in this R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special condiitons and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other -lands, buildings, and structures in the same district; b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner, . • and; c. Desirable relief may ge granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. The dwelling is so placed on Petitioner's lot that only the side upon which the porch is to be constructed is close to a boundary; 3. The neighborhood is not densely populated; 4. There is no Pierce Road - it exists solely on paper. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions or circumstances exist which affect this lot which do not generally affect the district; 2.. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would work a substantial ��` hardship upon the petitioner; DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RANDALL G. WIETING FOR A VARIANCE FOR 1 PIERCE ROAD, SALEM 3. The Variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petitioner the requested variance to allow him to construct a porch as shown on the plan submitted to the Board. .t M , N � r rcn Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary go APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS,.CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 13, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PEP`?IT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION, BEARING THE CLE FICAFION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FII.EU, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF TSE U!^t:E? OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK \ � 1 j ,1 frig of �tiem, ttsscu >r # 1, l ultra of Append '83 OCi 13 P3 :015 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM P. GOREHAM"FOR A VARIAPCF FOR 2 PIONEER CIRCLE CITY CL�tir:_,: O.: CE arL _. i . . ... A hearing on this petition was held on September 21 , 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque. Notice of said 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. Petitioner requests a Variance from lot area and sideline setback requirements ' in order to construct an 8' x 10' pool shed on the premises in this R-1 district_ The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building,` or structure. involved and which are not generally ' affecting other lands, buildings, and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the .petitioner, anc c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the, public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the bearing, and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. The unique contour of the lot makes the construction of the pool shed on . another part of the premises extremely difficult if not impossible; 3. Use of a pool without a pool shed to store pool equipment and -materials is extremely difficult and would force petitioner to maintain said pool paraphernalia scattered dangerously around the pool perimeter. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of_ Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings, and structures in the same district; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner;and DECISION OF PETITION OF WILLIAM P. GOREHAM FOR A VARIANCE FOR 2 PIONEER CIRCLE ( page two 3. Disirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioner a Variance to allow him to build an 8' z 10' pool shed as shown on the plan submitted to the Board, provided that the shed is used for the storage of pool related things. w v - Scott E. Charnas, :Acting Secretary L. o - C-3 C - %C C ` APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION.-IF ANY. SHALL BE NT..ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE M.ASS_ - - GENERAL LAY'S,-CHAPTER 508, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING _OF Tiil$ -CEGiSi,)N liv. THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - - PUR.,7 i. TO .SS. UNcRAL LA S, CF;APTTR'SOS. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT - - - - -EFFECT L TIL A COPY OF THEDEM:0i: ECARI I CERT- �� •� FIC :UL OF HE. E.C.TY CLER.� THAT 20 DAYS HAV E`ELA-S D A'U NO-APPEAL HAS SEEN FILED. OR IHAT, IF S.- H AN APPEAL HAS BL.EN FiLE. THAT.IT:HAj BEEN DIS!'ISSEO OR OEitI EO - P,ECO:i�-J SCU,H ESSEX R� ST CF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE MMAE OF THE 041NEP. OF RECORD OR IS RECLRDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE BOARD OF APPEAL : - A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK (fit t of Safem, gassnr4usetts z 21fV DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS L. BROPHY FOR VARIANCES FOR 25 PROCTOR STREET �$3 JUL 29 P� •0� A hearing.on this petition was held on July 20, 1983 with tFOTWIT I �PP?� Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper, ChafinStA and;.Bangal_ Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner requests variances from minimum side and rear setback requirements to allow him to construct a one car garage. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fac 1 . Because of the excessive ledge on the premises, the proposed garage cannot be reasonably constructed in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance; 2. No opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 3. The special condition described above does not effect the district generally but is instead peculiar to that lot; 4.. The value of the premises would suffer substantially if, because of this special condition, petitioner could not construct a garage on the property. 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 . Petitioner's request for variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance of the City. 2. A literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to petitioner, owing to the special condition above described which does not effect the district generally. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting the petitioner the variances requested. The Board granted these variances under the. following terms and conditions: 1 . Petitioner is granted variances from minimum rear and side setback require- ments to allow him to construct a one car garage as shown on plan filed with the Board_ A?PEAL FRO.A 114'.S GECICICN, IF ANY, SHALL DE 1,*.ADEE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 CF TRE MASS. 3ENERAL LAYS, i:E:P.PI E;t w8, AND SHALL LIE FP_EO IVITHiN 20 DAPS AFTER THE DATE OF FI I IG - �" -H!S 1:j 13E OFFICE OF TiIE CITY CLERK. 1F 70 - -cv 1. LAWS. CHAPTER 803 SECNUN 11, THE VARIANCE OR °y '(}'�'€R�g? Charnas, Acting Secretary _D LL 6'.'P TA:(E EFFECT LINTIL A COP! CF THECECIS ON, BEAR*,/ _ THE CRT- - ON CF THE C9 P7 C!ERS THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPS�O AYD SIO APPEAL NAS 6EEN FLED, OR THAT, IF SC:;H A% APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DEN-ED IS RECORDED IN THE S2ufH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED L'NDER THE NAb:E OF THE OWNER - _ OF RECORD CR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BE&J,gj�;ISP�gTH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK e �'x of '-.5ttlem, assar4use#ts L �• J4'(Al is - r 83 UFS 19 P 3 -% DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GERARD AND PATRICIA SALVUCCI FOR A VARIANCE FOR 20 RAYMOND ROAD, SALEMCf i Y Cl %. '_r'-.CF _ SA A hearing on this petition was held November 30,1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charms; Hopper, Luzinski and Associate Member Bencal. 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. Petitioners request .a variance from density requirements in order to construct an addition on the premises in this R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances existing which especially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings, and structures in the same district; b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; / • and - - - ,,: -- c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the. intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings for fact: 1 . No opposition to the plan was raised by- neighbors; 2. The rear of house exit area has deteriorated to the point where it is or may soon become a safety hazard; 3. Without the requested Variance, the necessary repair and new egress from the rear would have to be done in such a way as to be very-expensive; 4. The above situation is unique to the premises. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would create a substantial. financial hardship on petitioners; 2. The above descrihed special conditions which affect the lot. are unique .' to the lot and do not affect the district generally; PETITION OF GERARD AND PATRICIA SALVUCCI FOR A VARIANCE .FOR 20 RAYMOND ROAD 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and without substantial detriment to the public good. Therefore, Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioner's request to allow them to expand or alter the premises as described in the plan submitted by petitioners to the Board. C W - � U Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary LU J{ CO M .F- A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL F-RJ iii!`: � �I U:, '':Y. SHALL BE 'i;.DE PURS:ANT TO SECTION 17 F .h_ - CE`.ERAL LAX!', L'. .'i'R ..]S. AND SHALL BE F41'5 10;7HIN 20 DAYS Ai,EP 111E Ci._ C '"i"M - C.ETli{3 G:CiSIC;iS it! THE 0:FMEE OF THE CITY CLERK. . 11. THE VI ..._ T. t2:1 k En.!N. S ,11 N T,.;;E EFFECT UNTIL A CCPr OF TH4: / .!:iii ' r.r fi CIi! i.[RTHA{ 20 DAYS P.dE ELF.ES°l X:' P.^. P r Si"H r ..� VIAS BEEN FiL i '1 If C -t 0 Fi T-IE S� 0 d ESSEX REGISTRY OF LE O� "D I. J .EDU X N:7. RO OR. IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OV.uER-S CERTIFICATE OF Ti TLE. BOARD OF APPEAL �,'•.C.VyfA, n Pourb of Appeal A '83 DEC 14 Z / DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHONY C. SCOGLIO, TRUSTEE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 3 RIVER STREET, SALEM C IT y C A hearing on this petition was held November 30, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Associate Member Bencal. 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. . Petitioner requests a Special Permit to allow him to convert an existing two- family dwelling into a two unit condominium in this R-2 district. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioner has failed to present sufficient credible evidence concerning the degree of hardship which would be caused by the conversion on existing tenants, and the steps, if any, taken by petitioner to alleviate such hardship. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence. presented at . the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Because of the. dearth of credible evidence presented, the Board cannot assess the degree of hardship the petitioner's plan would have on existing tenants, nor can it assess what steps, if any, Petitioner has taken to alleviate any such hardship. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously against the granting of petitioner-Is request. The request is therefore denied. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary .. P',RS-XAT TO S-710}: 17 .. i._ �R ) Ti_ IiiT 20 CAY; F..�i2 THE ME .. _..._ F L OR 13 RECORDED AND :27EDl 011 The GaileR'S ..LRILF:C- . Gr - -� BOARD OF APPUL _ A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK � fit of "c.Sttlem, Anssachn- Qtt s nttr� of Appeal °83 h'i!; 30 P3 r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT C. BRAMBLE FOR t 'V.A4,AN E -AND 'E_ SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 6-8-10 RIVER STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on Wednesday, November 16, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper and Piemonte. 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. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit to allow him to .corvert an existing two family dwelling to a two unit condominium and a Special Permit to allow him to re-sub- divide Lots B, C and D into two lots as shown on a plan submitted to the Board__ Petitioner also requests a Variance from side line requirements adjacent to said condominium, as shown on said plan. 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 of expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, } provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use tot he 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. This proposed condominium conversion is covered by the terms of the City's Condominium Conversion Ordinance. .The Special Permit that has been requested may therefore only be granted 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 con- trary to the City's Master Plan, and (3) the grant of the Special Permit will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings, and structures in the`same district; a b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; an DECISION ON ETITION OF ROBERT C.-BRAMBLE FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR 6-8-10 RIVER ST. C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Neighborhood opposition to petitioner's plan was based principally on the assumption that petitioner's plan would exacerbate the parking problem in the neighborhood; 2. There was insufficient evidence to shot; that petitioner's plan would substantially affect the parking problem in the neighborhood;- 3. The premises is vacant; 4. The plan is compatible with the Master Plan of the City of Salem; 5. The plan would have no detrimental impact on the neighborhood or on the existing stock of rental units for low and moderate income families or for elderly people on fixed incomes; M ; __-_6. The vacancy of the premises was not created in any manner as to cause a a hardship on any tenants; L 7. If petitioner cannot create a two unit condominium because of his failure to meet side line requirements by one foot, then no economically feasible use of the property can be made. 1 — On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions affect this lot which do not generally affect the district; . 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would work a substantial hardship upon the petitioner; 3. The Variance and Special Permits requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and without substantially derogatinj from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance; 4. The granting of the Special Permits will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the. City's inhabitants. Therefore the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the variance and special permits referred to above. S@ALC DE ..ADE PU%SOAV TO S`C-.10N 17 OF - -. C.. ..'L L 3, C=.:r ' S'3. AN i. ,., F -h•^. ^<D 0AYS Ar'CR THF DAT: O . . . THE '.;TY CLERK. h l. i.,'E-<r 'n,r ONSI I. A COP'! OF THE'W"10 nt .. 'i CLE'.' iPAT 2v OA'IS HA,: ESA"rSZJ a', L i AN APr:AL Pik E 1 F:L'. IHA7 Ii HIS 6EErl Acting Secretary iE O•J id ESSEX f: '-:S RY GF CEEDS AND INDEXED u .O R THE LA..Z L. ? •.� � n. Cit IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OW4ER•S CERTI(L.:NjZ C; TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED `.dITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK of 'Sn atem, fflassachusetts DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT C. BRAMBLE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR 17 RIVER STREET (OWNER-DONALD & JOYCE DAVIES, TRUSTEES OF OLD SALEM REALTY-TRUST) -A hearing on this petition was held on June 15, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Piemonte and Associate.Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing wei@FpT,-0.perly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.. The petitioner has requested a Special Permit ;Bjaqjkne4 t4j(' 4�7 w him to divide the property into two lots, the first to containe the existing single family dwelling and the second to contain the exist i� o,if }ky grllFFling, all as described in aplan filed by the petitioner wit�' tht�ara;, , Apgeal. Each lot would have zero sideline setbacks as the buildings are attached. . Petitioner also requests a Variance from minimum parking requirements. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the plans of the property, makes .the following findings of fact: •J 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was voiced by neighbors; 2. The proposed division of the property will create two lots which , are not inconsistent with surrounding lots. On the basis of. the above findings of fact and the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The petitioner's plan will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood nor to the public good than the existing non-con- forming use; 2. The fact that the two dwellings connect and the way they lie on the property creates a special financial hardship regarding the market- ability of both dwellings on a single lot; 3. This hardship is unique to the property and does not occur generally in the area; 4. The proposed use of the property will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's. inhabitants. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously inf avor of approving the grant of a Special Permit and Variances. The Board granted the Special Permit and Variances under the following terms and conditions: i i 1 . Petitioner may divide the property into two lots as shown on the Dlan filed with the Board; ` DECISION ON PETITION OF ROBERT C. BRAMBLE FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES AT 17 RIVER STREET • page two i 2. Petitioner is granted a Variance from minimum parking requirements,- 3. Petitioner must provide smoke detectors in each dwelling which are are approved for use by the Salem Fire Department. 41, M U O C V. �. c.l Q C<L ._ Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary LLI _ J J C F.— - _ . . . V .APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION,. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. - • Gra ER�L LAJS,. CIIAPi P SCS, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING !:S ^ !SIO?1 IN THE CFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. P TO ,`,CS. OEN`_RAL.LAWS, CHAPTER 303, SECTION 11, THE VARWA E OR SPIAL PE7;A11T i ' ISJ F.RE'i� SH'iL F 1 Tr}:E ErFECT UN A COPY OF TH.D Mz- BEAR-NG I- E LEnI- Fi";:TI:!i CF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE 'LAPSED AN0 NO APPEAL HA3 BEEN 9i.&i, - : IF S. ill AP Ni'. BEEN 1'i LE. THAT IT HA3 BEET! C S1,;:S DOR iEi IEDIS R._ ../..D IN THE S, JRi ESSEX RECjS LY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER .Hc NAME OF THE u':_,v: OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OVINER'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 • , 4 S L Salem, fflassachuseffs t'. pp ''11 A9 arb of A rra1 DECISION Q6T1 �A�p'Pb`i'ITION OF GEORGE AND GEORGIA OSGOOD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 15_E�S STREET C17Y CLEP,{ S ,Ctr�tt i - -A hearing on this Petition was held on March 16, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, :Chairman; Messrs. Hdpper and LaBrecque and Feeherry. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Petitioners have requested the right to construct a one-story addition of approximately 15' x 20' to an existing garage at the site. This will. expand ' the existing non-conforming structure at the property in question. 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 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 City's, inhabitants. promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the z y s, bi s. The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter, incorporates into this decision the findings of fact made in this Board's October 20, 1982 decision. _ On the basis of these findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes:. (i) that the proposed addition will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing structure 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 the requested Special Permit to the Petitioners: �•,. q (� )ECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE AND GEORGIA OS GOOD '83 MAR 21 A9 :32 FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 15 ROPES STREET PAGE 2 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE MARCH 16, 1983 $ALEft i'Ir1S$ 1) :Petitioners ,may construct a one-story concrete block addition, of approximately 15' x 20; to the garage at the site.. The addition may be used for dead storage and for parking. 2) The proposed addition shall be not less than 15' from the Florence Street property line and not less than 3' from the southerly property .line. 3) Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Building .Inspector in connection with the Petitioners' Building Permit application. - 4) A Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be obtained for the entire property prior to .any use of the proposed addition. ony M. Feeherr S retary APFE::L P2.7A THIS DECISICN, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SE�ION !7OFi tE i'r'..Is.. GENERA! IA1Y3. CUPTER 82, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 GAYS AFTER THE GATE OF -ILW:G OF T!8S 'DECISICN IN T!:E OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - Pb;iS.liii TO ..,11S3. CEti ERA_ IA'sM Cti{PTER 808. S=CTMT! 11, THE iii,^,E1ti:CE L'' ^. :C.'.:L PE.:°;T - CR%GdiE✓ HEREIN, SH.'.LL NN TUE EFFECT UNTIL A COF'f GF T4EDECIC:.-M. u'Ef,T:i i:ii� Fi AMI N OF THE 111-,YCLER- )..AT 25 DAYS HAVE EI_APSEO .2D N: APPEAL HAS OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APP=41 HAS G'_Ei2 F!LE. THAT IT Ht'S BEEN DISaISSED'OR i:;.2+iJ •.. RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE tiXAE CF TFiC OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OVINER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK e2 01itV of gate n, assurf[U62ttwi � /'•j"`, �� Puttrb of ( x"29 pi AH 2.4 tht 83 _nasi 1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND V. BEAU=EU FOR:-"j ICE VARIANCESFOR 35 STATION ROAD SALE.N. r4A . A hearing on this Petition was held on.March 23, 1983, with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman;. Messrs. Hopper, LaBrecque, Feeherry and Piemonte. 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 in question to allow him to divide the property into two lots (Lots 1 and 2) , both of which lots will fail to comply with minimum lot area requirements.: In addition, Petitioner ` has requested a variance from side yard restrictions for Lot l to allow the ;garage on that site to remain there. 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. No opposition was raised to Petitioner's plan by neighbors. 2. The proposed division of the property will create two lots which are considtent with surrounding lots. • n the basis of the .above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the public nearing, 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 his ability to use the property in a manner consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. 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 unanimously 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 divide the property into two lots as shown on the plan submitted to the Board. 0 . DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND V. BEAULIEU FOR 24 A, `d3 VARIANCES FOR 35 STATION ROAD � CITY iirriCE PAGE 2 SALEM. HASS. March 23, 1983 2. Petitioner may keep the existing garage on Lot 1 within 2.98 feet of the side line of the property. 3. Petitioner shall. obtain a Certificate of Use and Occupancy ,for the. premises before recording the plan submitted to the Board:. Ant QayLM. Feeherry Secretary APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS, GENcRAL.LASiS. CHAPTER 803, AND SHALL EE FILE WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE 0.47E OF FILING �Cr THIS DECIS!GH IN THE OFFICE OF: -HE CITY CLERK. - P' l ii TO P:' c:FAI LA.V. CHAP"ER 373, S:CHGN 11. THE Y:,'t ANCE OR P_^Ia P''R:57 ii c7 .7E 'i, SHILL N' �.- E EF T UNTIL A COPY OF THED.C:$!0% BE ^-, TiiS CEPT- FiCAu_r! 'CF 14E Ci-.7 CLERi 19th 20 DAPS HAVE EELAPS9O V:J 1:O APPdAL H,,-CcE.-i FH.ED, OR TMT, IF,SJL:i AN APYZAL LtEH F!:c, TPAT IT HAS LEEN C13ChSS=D CR u :-a.':v IS RECGR-^•FO CI THE S:;UTH ESSEX RE':ISTii CT DUOS AND INDEXED MDR TH' i.As,: OF T`t OF RECORD OR 13 RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE CNN£R'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 ` e (9i#U of '�tlPm, �tttczse##s Pottrb of AMA DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD AND DIANE PABICH FOR A VARIANCE FOR 5-7 SUMMER STREET A hearing on this petition was held on April 20, 1983 �i�H theJf6riQir Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Scott CharnahtEY*ting Secretary;. Messrs. Piemonte, Hopper, LaBrecque, Associate Members Luzinski and Bencal. Notice of said hearing was sent to abutters and others and notice ofbe( bffs. ;�gtp5{ggp lished in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Petitioners have requested a Variance for the property in question, an Inn, to - allow them to lease two (2) fourth floor residential apartments in this B-3 district. They also request a Variance from minimum parking requirements. The Board_of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Because of the unusual location of the structure it would be quite difficult, if not impossible, to provide the required parking spaces on site; 2. If the petitioners are not permitted to lease the two-(2) residential apartments they will suffer financial hardship. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the public hearing, the. Board of Appeal concludes the following: 1. The inability of the property to meet minimum parking requirements is a special condition which especially affects this property, and which does not affect the other property in the same district; 2. .The need for petitioners to let two (2) residential apartments is a special condition or circumstance which especially affects this property, and which . does not generally affect other property in the same district; 3. Literal enforcement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to petitioners; 4. The relief requested by petitioners may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously in favor of approving the grant of the variances requested by petitioners. The Board granted variances under the following terms and conditions: 1. Petitioners may lease two (2) one-bedroom apartments on the fourth (4th) j floor of the premises; r DECISION ON PETITION OF RICHARD AND DIANE PABICH FOR A VARIANCE FOR 5-7 SUMMER STREET page two April 20, 1983 • � 2. The property may have less than the minimum amount of parking spaces . otherwise required by the Salem Zoning Ordinance; 3. Petitioners must obtain a Certificateo€��C0�pp1' nce c .�the Fire Marshall before leasing either of the two (2) ap0i�(eht� 00 � pJ - FILE CITY CLEO& SUEA.AAS& Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. . - GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER,THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS. DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PUrSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL FERIIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION. DEARING THE CERT - FICAT12N OF THE CITY CLERK THAT-20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED ANO NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, - - UR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS - - R1;CORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAVE.OF THE Gi:iicS ' _ OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED,ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - • - BOARD OF APPEAL ofIPm, � �ss �xc�zzs Pvarbr of Ajspea1 '83 i1EC 14 A9 :;3:, DECISION ON AN APPEAL BY JOHN AND JOHN KELLEY $;', REGARDING 18 SUMMER STREET A hearing on this petition was held November 30, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs_, Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of said 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_ Petitioners is requesting an appeal of a building permit issued to Richard Pohl, owner of 13 Sumer St. (R-3) After diligent deliberation and after consultation with the City Solicitor, the Board of Appeal decision is as follows: The Building Inspector has acted properly and correctly issued Permit #359, after consulting the map in. the City Clerk's office. Decision to deny. . James BV Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE. CITY CLERK S {p r ,, TC :CT _ -. IN r �' or i _ &i C i7 yr: TCit cr is! C_: CR IF J-':^rA%� AI'i' r �'_. r,__ R' u. T i v iii ti AS 1`211c - Or R°C' rn r a V adA2DEJ A.D E: su [ BO.AP.O OF AFP_AL �. Ctu of 9z atera, passnr4uodts U Pourb of Appral DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD POHL FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 18 SUMMER STREET . A hearing on this petition was held on June 15, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman-, Messrs. ChAtina ;!#'gpper,. Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal. : 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 Massachuse83s d&42,1 U45 Chapter 40A. - CITY CLEM'S OFFICE SALti ' The Petitioner, represented by his Attorney, George Vallis requested" leave to withdraw without prejudice. The Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petitioner Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary s (�i of $Aem, fflaqsar4usetts ?' Pnura of �ppeul i A�j lY A \ '8i KEG 19 t' :4 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARGARET MARCHAND FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 47 SUMMER STREET, SALEM _ Cl Tii A hearing on this petition was held on November 30, 1983 with 16�e--foll6wing Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski, and Associate Member Bencal. 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. Petitioner seeks a Special. Permit to allow her to use two rooms or, the first floor of the premises as a decorating and craft store in this R-2 district.- The istrict.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, 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 ::ill promote the public health,. safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing_ , makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was presented by neighbors; 2. The use of the premises as contemplated will be limited in scope so as not to be out of character with the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The relief requested will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood; 2. The relief requested is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the (/ Zoning Ordinance and will not be substantially detrimental to the o public good. •' PETITION OF MARGARET MARCHAND FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 47 SUMER STREET Therefore the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the relief requeste provided that: \ 1 . The premises shall continue to be used as a one family dwelling for so long as the first floor is used for a business purpose; 2. The size of any class taught on the premises not exceed five persons; 3. The number of persons employed to work on the premises does not exceed one person. , w - a o c co Scott E. Char'nas, Acting Secretary - • A COPY OF THIS DECISION 'HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK y ' G.?PE.^: i 11:— ^F..!SWil. !- P:,^'. SNAIL SE •.!d.�Z F! Up.?ii TO SIC"ON' Li _...�.. .. -AL {IS. CHKER oGB, AS. •A-L F „, tiI;V 26 DAYS Fn ER THE v- =C1:f - . OF !;EC!S:bPt IN, THE OFFICE OF THE W1 CLE K. f. L LAWS, CF CFTF� rU3. 11. THE I:_.F. :i VLALL Nji iA;E EFFCC.T 13,;M A CO?Y OF THE.; .v !a: CLERK T!1Af 20 DAYS HA-17 ELASED F.:.7 4i`• ;P ,.. !i AN APPEAL HAS BEE PI FILE. THA? IT HAS 2tEN u._„ IN THE SOUM ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED L DE THE DF HECGRD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - BOARD OF APK - e Titg LIf '5alem, gassar4usletto UUU �Y Pottrb of Appv:t DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH & DIANA COSGROVE FOR ' A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 2 THORNDIKE STREET '83 AUG 12 A11 .29 A hearing on this petition was held on July 27, 1983 with the followi?1�d�$oard,.,. QM CI Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Hopper, Luzinski �h1df�rSsociate; Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others a&' notices ' of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to convert the existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling. The property in question is in an R-2 district. The Special Permit which has been requested may therefore be granted upon a finding by the Board of 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 plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. Parking situation will be improved by on site parking. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and 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. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petitioners request for a Special Permit. The Special Permit is granted under the following terms and conditions: 1 . The property may be converted to a three family dwelling; 2. Petitioner shall maintain five' (5) -on site parking spaces; 3. One unit must remain owner occupied; 4. Plans to.be submitted to the Building Inspector in condunction with the Building Permit; 5. The Petitioners shall obtain a Certificate of Use and Occupancy prior to the renting of the additional apartment. AP EX I i dalI Cr ? PJ 3U NT Ti °ff IJ`! U ` Gat Fr 1 . ... .i c` _ 20 DAYS t.. �a c, 1T t T - (Ai! C El-K. Cr ^ hacker,` Chairman— _ i1. i ; Y.'. .. - .. ,... -. .. L .:.IS'.P( .,r i.Z_')j AND 1`; EYE' ....1E OF iri_ � of RECc.:C drii 13 t?.: JSDED AND tiu;ED ON fiiE Q.NNERS CERTIFICAIE Oi A COPY OF.THIS DECISION HAS BEEN F18E�6 QhYMHE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK covorT AN r ` Pourb of '4FV l DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT I. AND TEDDIE L. HARTWELL FOR A VARIANCE FOR 17 VARNEY STREET An 29 9 n, AM T A hearing on this petition was held April 20, 1983 with the fo],Iowing Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Charnas, AcfMggSecretary; Messrs. _ Piemonte, Hopper, LaBrecque, Associate Members Luzinski andC�7,t jq ;K STe4.9 the hearing was sent to abutters and others and a notice of the earing was pu ]_shed in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioners have requested a variance for the property in question to allow a stairway to be built to within four (4) feet of the side boundary. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing plans of the property makes the following findings of .fact: 1. No opposition was raised to the petitioners plan by neighbors; 2. The proposed stairway cannot be built on the back of the dwelling because of the topography of the land. 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` 1. The property in question is unique because of its topography; 2. The condition described above especially affects the property in question but does not generally affect the zoning district in which . it is located; 3. The condition described above creates a substantial hardship to petitioners; 4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously in favor of granting the variance requested by -petitoners. The Board grants a variance to the petitioners on the following terms and conditions: 1. Petitioners may build.'a stairway within four (4) feet of the side line at 17 Varney Street; 2. Petitioners must obtain a Certificate of Compliance from the Fire Marshall. _APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION A7 OF F15 MASS �. ,GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER. Illi:^v --of THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. 911 m Scott E. Chars, Acting Secretary : AvVT TO k.ASS. GENERAL LAWS, CF!APTER 8;4. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PE".'i1T ` t%TED HEREIN, SHALL NJT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DEC!SIJN BEA. 1"' T' `� .;A71DIT os1r;OOcPx' CtFR,{rHF�$z�Br�$,?;Q�ED$ 1DFA SEA. BOARD AND THE CTTY CLERK. OR TNAT, IF SUCH AN APFEAL NAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DIVAISS`_D OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE GYiEE.k - - OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL ..60vvRA,� - oqi z; 01i#g of Salem, Ansour4usetts Pour of �pf►ettl , DECISION ON A PETITION OF JOHN D. SPINALE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 61 WARD STREET X83 AUG 12 AIO 'Z8 CITY C '::p}'.'S OFFICE A hearing on this petition was held on July 27, 1983 with the fal&iwing "•` > Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper,Luzinski and Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner has requested a Special Permit to expand non-conforming use by constructing a cement block building on an existing foundation in this R-3 district. The Board voted unanimously to grant the petitioner Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. \ames B. Hacker, Chairman APP:'L F'- -1 THIS P CIShil, IF ANY, SHALL BE .:A F nRSt14YT TO SECT:CSI t7 f ' 'IASS. GE'{EP1 LAVIS. CNAPT EP K3,-MD 'HALL u :c.J i%':N10 20 DAYS AFTER 'HEC .. r:LING OF T;•`e CECN:)i"i I('i 1H, C'',Mf" CF Tr!c C!iY CIC^h. if i E-S:i1 OSYNER OF REGuRD OR IS kc ;JwED A'ii, fIG120 Ok Iff Gril ER NRTIFICATc 'F TITLE.,F BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK CqTitg of >M, fflassar4usettq ' Poarb n# Appeal '83 OCT 12 P 3 :17 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HELEN DOHERTY FOR A CITY CLER!cs OFFICE VARIANCE FOR 75 WEBB STREET SA; A hearing on this petition was held on September 28, 1983 with the following Board Members present: Janes Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Piemonte. Notice of said 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. Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow her to keep an already existing deck which otherwise violates the side setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in this R-2 district. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing plans and photographs of the existing deck, makes the following findings of'fact: 1 . The, deck extends right up to the neighbor's side boundary; 2. . The deck seriously compromises the aforementioned neighbor's privacy; ,\ • 3. ' Vigorous opposition was raised by neighbors to petitioners plan. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The deck substantially derogates from the intent and purpose of _ Zoning Ordinance; 2. The deck is- a substantial detriment to the public good. . Therefore,the Zoning Board of Appeal, by a vote of three (3) to two (2) , voted to deny petitioner's request for a Variance. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary APPEAL F"?d.: THIS DECloi ii, IF,:':Y. SHALL BE L'.AOE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 CF THE - CENERAL 4JS, A:;3 SHALL BE F!LELI :YTi H!ti 2G DAPS AFTER THE DATE CF - T. ._ TF:.E CIT'! Pt,... . C:... :.:2. .._'L:'1 11. THE t. / • -"1 E \ -�S:h G[.::J D 1..J.n 0 i. ,,:G CF 1 c uPi.Er - n „SJ CR IS F wr,YcD AND NOTED ON L.E C:/NERD CERTi FIeni= U: TI LE - BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH. THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK =� fit �fSal ' assarusE s' .�� a s Pondr of DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ERNEST DELPERO 6R A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 82 WEBB STREET A hearing on this Petition was held on January 26 , 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper and Piemonte 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 allow the construction of a four-family dwelling at 82 Webb Street. A Special Permit is needed because the property is in an R-2 Zoning District; such a use is not otherwise permitted. In addition, petitioner has requested a variance from minimum front and rear yard requirements as well as lot area and denisty requirements. In 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 and that the request is in harmony with the zoning ordinance. / The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter, makes 1\ the following findings of fact: 1. The Petitioner's proposed use of the site will have. a beneficial impact on the area and .will replace a commercial structure that was destroyed by fire. - 2. The Petitioner's work is in keeping with the character of the area. 3. The proposed use of' the site 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. With respect to the Petitioner's request for a variance, the Board of Appeal finds as follows: 1) . Tha property in question is unique because of its peculiar configuration and size; 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 anything at the site; • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ERNEST DELPERO '83 FEB -8 A10 :17 FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 82 WEBB STREET Page C Page 2 CITY CL e '- _ FICE January 26 , 1983 SALLi 4) The desired variances may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. In fact, the grant of the variance will improve the appearance of the neighborhood. The Board of Appeal therefore unanimously voted in favor of the requested variance. The requested Special Permit and variance is granted in accordance with the following terms and conditions: 1) The property may be used for the construction of a four-family dwelling which shall be constructed in strict compliance with the plans - ' submitted to the Board which provide, inter alia, for six parking spaces. \ • 2) A Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be bbtained prior to renting the premises. 3) All construction shall comply with applicable fire safety codes. j Anthony M. F herry APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OSggxeE2ry - - - - G -RAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAY!..�FTER THE DATE OF FIL':13 - C -THIS DEC'SION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. _ PURSAHT TO IIA3S.. CENERAI LA!-13. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11,THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERM11T -CRANTE7 HEREIN, SHALL NUTTAKEEFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. SSAR! ."' THE O.RT• - _ - FICAFION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS FEE ! F;L-,D, - - OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DiSY.ISSED 02 DEN;ED IS - -RECORDED IN THE.SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UfIDER THE NM;E OF THE-OYNE2 - - OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - BOARD OF APPEAL A COPY OF THIS .DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD & CITY CLERK ! • II �.coX arrn..b A r (fit of �3alem, f ttsstzr4use _ Pourb of Appear '83- P19v 22 �j'S<�/AI:XE NAY 1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JERROLD AND ANN HOUGHTON FOR =.`•' A VARIANCE AT 15 WEST AVENUE,SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on November 2,1983 with the following Board Members present; James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Hopper, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Members Bencal and Labrecque. Notices of the hearing were went to abbuter, and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners are requesting Variances from density requirements,frontage,side and', rear setbacks and to allow an existing two family dwelling on lot lel. They are also requesting Variances from density requirements,frontage, side and rear set- backs to lots #2 & 3 now combined into a single lot, Lot #2 in this R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. .Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally - affecting enerally _affecting other lands, buildings, and structures in the same district; b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of .the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;and c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from .the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeals, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1. No opposition to petitioner' s plan was raised by neighbors; 2. The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the. neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the• hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions or circumstances exist which affect this lot which do not generally affect the district; 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would work a substantial hardship upon the petitioner; 3. . The Variance requp;sktpk; pA y k gsantgt�•yj„thopPyrlpmgl;t:_tom the public good ands wi/tYEoutr,^stxbstanoisallyscDerogatingt Exrom=the!i�mtent and purpose of the 2onftigi0>adihanee '•° r '=°i` •� nr�:A - / r,i.S F �_ Ir Cr- T. R c a E_vt:N :1. TH` l r t ! Sd-.Ll NX /i E Ea.EC( U fT ^ D'{ OC - .�`r .4L CF I9= M 'L-R:; I-AT 20 DAYS K,u•: EEA/'SEG AHD NO A PS.E_ ,.i _ . L•_.. T:,3 i, IF SUCH P14 APPCAL HA-1 Kitl FILL. 'iF.AT IT HP.S BEEN D15:5iSEQ C:? RFCSf:S ED III THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AN) MIDEXED U%DER THE EF OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O't:NEWS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE_ BOARD OF APPEAL _ f y DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JERROLD AND ANN HOUGHTON FOR A VARIANCE AT 15 WEST AVE. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petition and allow the two family dwelling on lot r1 , also variances from density requirements, frontage, side and rear setbacks on lot #r1 , and to grant variances from density requirements, frontage, side and rear setbacks on lots 2 & 3, now combined into a single lot, lot #2, on condition a Certificate of Compliance from the Fire Department be obtained. c: r• N l z J •es B. Hackeh, Chairman M f— _ t _qL FROM iHUS L�i:; .,.1,-r P.•RS.,`A?iT To SECMD' 17 CF iC .. _. Y-R 60 F'.Lc� 'S! L. ZO DAYS ASTER uiE CA c ::. CIIT.P �..._ _ O;= T..... •CE'.ISIOR It! THE J Ai10 SH."L BE OFRCE C: THE CITY CLE;c'C: - uf TO GE1:P,iL LAW'S. CHAPTER Bo. . SHALL Mol !AhE EFFECT UNTIL CC?'( G. 'H-e" - ,� CITY CLER( THAT 20 DAYS HAVE EL`PS°O AND V-3 IPPEAL HAS L. N a i • _ _ Lt., IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR rF+P fa •`- RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED WIDER THE AA;E OF TNE _ OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE _ BOARD OF APPEAL \Sj J ' 22 A9 :0 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROGER TRTI LAT, P.IQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 34 T:ILLSON STKEET CITY PULER"' OF F ICE A hearing on this Petition was held on February 16, 1-982,, with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, , Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, Piemonte, Feeherry . and Associate Member Charnas. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and other.:_, and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News I-a accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A_ The Petitioner has requested a variance for the property at 34 W illsru Street to convert existing two family dewlling at the site to a three-family dwelling A varirn(;e ,is required because the property is in an R-1 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 males the following findings of fact: 1) The property in question is currently an owner-occupied two-family residence. 2) The property is a relatively large structure which is easily converted .into a three- family . dwelling. / 3) The proposed conversion of the property will provide an apartment for a member , ;- • of petitioner's family. 4) There are five parking spaces at the site. 5) The proposed use of the property was supported by the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the public bearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1) The property in question is unique because of its size and configuration. 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 zoningdistrict generally cause financial hardship to the Petitioner. 4) The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good because the proposed use of the property is in harmony with the 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: cn4�,� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROGER A. 'TREMBLAY, BNEOUESTING A VA.P.IANCE FOR 34 WILLSON STREET �• SAGE 2 �8j FF z •� .February 16, 1953 ^{ SALrtq rrFiCC 1) The property may be converted into a three-family dwelling - 2) Detailed plans shall be submitted to the building inspector for his approval prior to any remodeling work at the site. 3) Petitioner shall.provide 5 parking spaces at the site. 4) Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Use and Occupancy for. the entire structure before renting the third unit. 5) This special permit shall terminate and the building shall revert to a two-family dwelling if the property ceases to be ovmer-occupied. Anthony M. Fee r 'y . Secretary APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 1E DA THE !LASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER SOS, AND SHALL BE FILED.WITHIN 20 DAYS RFT°'t THE Ol.Tc OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE -CITY CLERK. -VISI 2c R.:' iu M1Y-. PURSANi TO MASS. GENERAL IAHS, CHAPTER S03 S°CTIO! 11 THE F^��i^ IEC' co tc,I�O, `.—I I._ APKAL-HAS E CRANTED HEREIN, SHALL PID: TA:'E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY CF THc IS FICATI' I OF THE CITY CLERI( THA. 20 CAMS HAVE EV1?"oE0 - AND INDEXED UNC 2 THE KALE OF THE VX:'i! UR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT ri=a DEXE DIS � l T GR DEG:OF T RECURDE,0IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE•, BOARD OF APPEAL- - A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD & CITY CLERK (p fy�1 R E C E � itg of SttIPm, 2 a5Sar4U5gtt9 °83 MAR 21 A9 31 Paurb Vf c�3 ezc[ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WINTER ISLAND COMMISSION FO1Cj1FtSFEq?L:$P FOR WINTER ISLAND SALEM MASS A hearing on this petition was held on March 16, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, 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 Winter Island Commission (hereinafter "the Petitioner") has requested a Special Permit to allow overnight camping of not more than sixty recreational vehicles at Winter Island during the period June 1, 1983 to October 1, 1983. The property 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 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 will generate revenue for the City and provide security for the area. • --2) The proposed use of the property was not opposed by abutters or others. 3) The proposed use of the property will .not limit public access 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 concludes unanimously that the proposed. use will promote the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City's inhabitants and that the proposed use is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting a Special Permit to the Petitioner. - The Special Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following terms and conditions: 1. Winter Island may be used for overnight camping of not more than 60 recreational vehicles during the period June 1, 1983 to October 1, 1983. i 2. The location of the recreational vehicles shall not limit public access to Winter Island. 3. The location of the recreational vehicles shall be approved —\ by the Salem Fire Marshall to guarantee access by fire fighting apparatus to the site. An ony M. Feeh ry Scretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE .BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK. " DECISION ON?WINTER ISLAND PAGE TWO / NBPEAL FRO^1'.THIS DE tolUN . IF vh/' SHALL BE MADE PU".SLANT TO SECTION 17 OF TEE G"ASS. GENERAL LATS,.CHAPF R-.8,11S. AND, SHALL BE FR-D N,i4 'a ZO DAYS AFTER THE OATS OF FILING 1 OFF THIS DEONSVI IN TFF- EF- E U :IE CITY' G°P�. WdrfLR^li TEL MASS. C tRA CA,i Cti1 aR 3R3 3Cri � .FIJl: 11 c 1^�! ^' OR SP TIALNO THE CEERT-RI- T IflBAUMI,' R'cREM,SHALL RC.T : -UECT ':,FL A C..°i OF Tr . S-._ ^LER. .id L'5i� HUEEli n-3 0 APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. EICA'e{ON 4$r THE-GiTY. . - .;.1,.- OR T9AiT, f$SMH A% APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE THAT IT H_ J NCS."ISSED CR 0nE I 'Rozovs $I3Yc,SOH7R ESSEX RcRMMy OF REDS AND WOEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER ECDRMOR Es+oyacuuR A IR NATER OCL T}iE O➢'INER'.S:Ci:RiIEICATE OF TITLE. _ UABD.OF APPEIII r f1�i# of �tlPm, � �ts �ztuef Paurb of �vpezd -It� AMENDED DECISION OF JAN B. ROZEN AND ARNOLD I. MALOFF FOR VARIANCES FOR 2 WINTER STREET A hearing on this petition was held on May 18, 19T'yiffh ' b3fp� jing Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., harnas, opper, Luainski, Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal. FEtti*e 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 MassSj11: t1ft SU-n"brkA_S�:aws Chapter 40A. Owners of the property. are Michael A. Clemens & Richard A. Clemens, Trustees C & C Realty Trust. Petitioners have requested a variance to allow them to use the first floor of the premises as professional dental offices in thio R-2 district. Petitioners also request a variance from minimum narking requirements to allow a minimum of eight (8), spaces. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: • 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan- was raised by neighbors; 2. The shape and size of petitioner's lot are unique conditions affecting the lot, but not other lots generally in the district; , 3. Because petitioner's lot is bounded by streets on three sides and by buildings on the fourth side, there is no possibility of obtaining additional land; 4. Without allowing the premises a partial non-residential use, the premises will probably continue to decline. 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 . Petitioner's request for variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Salem; 2. A literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial financial hardship to petitioners, owing to the above-mentioned special conditions rihich do not effect the area generally. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting • ` the petitioners the variances requested. The Board granted these variances unter the following terms and conditions: 1 . Petitioners may use the first floor of the premises as professional dental offices; , ' DECISION ON PETITION OF JAN B. ROZEN AND ARNOLD I MALOFF FOR VARIANCES FOR 2 WINTER STREET page two • ' 2. Petitioners must maintain. a minimum of eight (8) parking spaces on the property; 3. Any construction or alteration of the premises must be done in strict accordance with the plans presented to tA�ard3apd d>t (* Building Inspector; 1133 [TI UU FILE,-S. 4. The design of any and all signs related to the professional dental offices must be reviewed and approved by the D0VtCLBRV3iStE%pUSof the City of Salem; 5. The existing garage must be maintained at the same location as itis presently; ' and can be used only for the parking of cars; 6. Petitioners must install A.C. hardwired smoke detectors in all offices and all residences; 7. All heating units must be inspected and approved by the Salem Fire Marshall; 8. A certificate of Occupancy and Use must be. obtained. 4. 401 Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary iWS DEDI;f)N I ;':Y. SHPU M SMDE PJ'SOAiT TO SECTM 17 G= i-- :•'-.S - LAd*iS. CPA.PaEk SO$, F S!L?LL bE FRE.; 20 DAYS AFTER THE ME OF - T._.. THE OF T9 CITY CLERK. -:J .... v F .. '.1'. S. MAPTE O.. S-N!)N 11. THE VAR!A..XE ^, "P ::cq. - ....:E.h S... L -i,-E E:!--'CT L%T. COP: CF - .. .e.., ..n i r'? " EL.,: ._o .:'.) r}'=tI HAS _ - {: a ESSc:: .".E::?R'i OF :i OS AND i-iG_X[.7 u.1 ori_ T GF RECORD OR iS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE WMER'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 -�. ,•'-e.Y - 'ted - a� Ctu of "Mem, assac4naelfs 3' Poarb of AppL l DECISION ON PETITION OF JAN B. ROZEN AND ARNOLD I. MALOFF FOR VARIANCES FOR 2 WINTER STREET '83 JUN 10 A 9 3 A .hearing on this petition was held on May 18, 1983 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , CharC$'�`( Gr7FT E Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the he'ik<ing 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. Petitioners have requested a variance to allow them to use the first floor .of the premises as professional dental offices,in this R-2 district. Petitioners also request a variance from minimum parking requirements to allow a minimum of eight (8) spaces. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. The shape and size. of petitioner's lot are unique conditions affecting the lot, but not other lots generally in the district; 3. Because petitioner's lot is bounded by streets on three sides and by buildings on the fourth side, there is no possibility of obtaining additional land; 4.- Without allowing the premises a partial non-residential use, the premises will probably continue to decline.. 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.. Petitioner's request for variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Salem; 2. A literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial- financial ubstantialfinancial hardship to petitioners, owing to the above-mentioned special conditions which do not effect the the area generally. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting .the petitioners the variances requested. The Board granted these variances under the following terms and conditions: 1.. Petitioners may use the first floor of the premises as professional • dental offices; DECISION ON PETITION OF JAN B. ROZEN AND ARNOLD I. HALOFF FOR VARIANCES FOR 2 WINTER STREET page two 2 Petitioners must maintain a minimum of eight (8) parking spaces on the roperty; '83 JUN 10 A 9 :2 3. Any construction or alteration of the premises must be done in . CITY CL �'Sstlr�i6tcrcordance with the plans presented to the Board and the SAL-, , -1- in.- Inspector; 4. The design of any .and all signs related to the professional dental- offices must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board of of, the City of Salem; h 5. The existing garage must be maintained at the same location as it is presently, and can be used only for the parking of cars; - 6.. Petitioners must install A.C. hardwired smoke detectors in all offices and all residences; 7. All heating units must be inspected and approved by the Salem Fire Marshall; 8. A Certificate of Occupancy and Use must be obtained. v Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary APPEAL FROM THIS DEOMC-N, I, ANY. SHALL DE 61ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 PF THE .... 3.,. GENERAL.LANS. CHAPTER SOB. AND SHALL SE F.!Lu :VIiHnN 20 DA`S Pr EP Ti!E A OF THIS DECIS!OfI. 1N THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - - - PiMANT TGaASa �Crr.'ERA!. 'A',YS. CHAPTER 8C8, SECTI771 11. THE l MANCE ,'Y ?,W! ! - CRA'J CO IIZREIN. SFML-W"i T:,':e EFFEU UNT:{ A COPY THE _ . -.•.. .r° (:_.. - - FICAT:_r. 'IF HLA :T.f OUR fl;Ni 20.DAYS H. ,E :.L:. _. --;) N. ^.L GC 1HAT. IF SUCH AR A:PB2A<. HAS i!M( FILE. IIIA-. IT .icci. T I "P tS P,ECURCED:_iN THE SOUTH ESSEX PECISTRY vF OEECS ALU I`,DEA-0 U;,OGR THE t 1..c' OF Tfi- _. - OF RECORD OR AS:RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O'NNER'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