Loading...
APPEALS DECISIONS 1984 I;'�s urs r � �l. -' : . � , �„ z `,' r`. DECISIONS - 1984 Address Petitioner Page 23 Albion St. Clifford Speicher 1 35 Andrew St. (AMENDED) John J. Suldenski 2 35 Andrew St. John J. Suldenski 3 35 Andrew St. John J. Suldenski 4 33 Balcomb St. John & Steven Kalivas 5 j 18 Barcelona Ave. Alice Pitreau 6 20 Barcelona Ave. Basil W. Antoniades 7 22 Barnes Road Richard & Doris Davis 8 78 Beaver St. Harry Eng 9 16 Bentley St. - SEE 132-134 Derby St. 63-63z, 65-65'-z Boston st. Edward Mello 10 23 Bradford St. James w. Poppe 11 33A Bridge St. Michael Gianelli 12 34 Bridge St. Nondas Lagonakis 13 71 Bridge St. Augusto DaCunha 14 72 Bridge St. John J. Suldenski 15 • 94 Bridge St. James Aspostolos 16 106 Bridge St. Lawrence Snyderman 17 109 Bridge St. Theodore Kuszmar 18 16 Broadway Herbert Ablow/June Brown 19 11 -13 Bryant St. Mark Leibowitz 20 2 Chestnut St. James B. Maguire 21 21 Clark St. Ronald R. Aalvani 22 9 Colby St. Richard Conway/Charles Brennan 23 5 Columbus Square William & Louise Pelletier 24 25 Congress St. Arthur Ingemi 25 7 Crombie St. - 11 /17/84 North Shore Shelter Committee 26 7 Crombie St. Crombie St. Church 27 7 Crombie St. (AMENDED) 1 /25/84 Crombie St. Church 28 7 Crombie St. Crombie St. Church 29 2 Crowdis St. Frank & Cheryl Romano 30 40 Daniels St. Robert Bramble 31 19 Dearborn St. Thomas Mazzarini 32 • 41 Dearborn St. Thomas Meler 33 132-134 Derby/16 Bentley Sts. John Hamilton Tr. 34 DECISIONS - 1984 - page two Address Petitioner Page • 278 Derby St. George Osgood 35 278 Derby St. George Osgood 36 23 East Collins St. Joan M. McCarthy 37 58 Endicott St. Josephine Ellis/Rosemarie Spinazola 38 98 Essex St. Charlotte S. Clemens 39 314 Essex St. Walter A. Costello Jr. 40 21 Fairmount John & Sarah Hayes 41 47 Federal St. Robert A. LeDoux 42 63 Federal St. Ann M. Serafini 43 95-97 Federal St. Jessica Herbert 44 107 Federal St. Paul Bonarda 45 107 Federal St. Paul Bonarda 46 107 Federal St. Paul Bonarda 47 186 Federal St. George & Margaret McAllister 48 41 Flint St. Wayne C. Sousa 49 „7 41 Flint St. Wayne C. Sousa 50 14 Forrester St. Clark & Patricia Finniss 51 • 12 Gallows Hill Rd. David & Jeanine D'Entremont 52 8 Goodell St. Robert & Maria Smith 53 12 Goodhue St. Robert G. Guess 54 5-7 Green St. Nicholas DelTorto 55 19 Green St. David L'Heureux 56 5 Greenway Road Jean Cote 57 s ' 28 Greenway Road Rene LeBlanc 58 10-10'-2 Hancock St. Frank & Diane Ouellette 59 10-1012 Hancock St. Frank & Diane Ouellette 60 19 Hancock St. Charles & Beverly Nelson 61 9 Hardy st. Alexander Hincman 62 81 Highland Ave. (AMENDED) Salem Hospital 63 81 Highland Ave. Salem Hospital 64 382 Highland Ave. John P. Keane 65 394 Highland Ave. Angelo Marotta 66 394 Highland Ave. Mike Stasinos 67 459 Highland Ave. Charles & Alexander Hincman 68 & 69 • 468-474 Highland Ave. Paul Sudenfield 70 8 Intervale Road Edward & June Urbanski 71 DECISION - 1984 - page three Address Petitioner Page • 22 Irving St. Joseph Mosca 72 44-46 Jefferson Ave. August DaCunha 73 37 Lafayette Place James & Lucille Goldrick 74 156 Lafayette St. Robert Tassinare 75 253 Lafayette St. Charles McManus 76 253 Lafayette St. Charles McManus 77 271 Lafayette St. Saul Toby/Clifford Abelson 78 278 Lafayette St. Marie E. Plamondon 79 303 Lafayette St. Raymond Pelletier 80 323 & 323R Lafayette St. Maureen Stevens Tr. 81 47-49 Leach St. Peter & Deborah Fadden 82 4 Locust St. Peter Christopher 83 4 Locust St. Peter Christopher 84 10 Loring Ave. William Kelley 85 57 Loring Ave. Arthur Valaskatgis 86 16 Lynch St. Shetland Properties 87 18 March St. John E. Kieran 88 • 45 Mason St. Stephen W. Haley 89 41 Memorial Dr./27 Essex St. McNeil & Associates Inc. 90 24 Norman St. Robert C. Bramble 91 24 Norman St. Robert C. Bramble 92 21 North St. Richard M. Riley 93 121 North St. Peter Koutrakis 94 11 Oliver St. Richard Clemens 95 20-20'' Phelps St. Andrew Karahalis . 96 1 Pleasant St. a/k/a 117 Bridge St. David Hurley/James Joly 97 6 Prince St. (A & B) Robert McCauley 98 22 Proctor St. Milona, Milona & Tzimas Trs. 99 21-23 Putnam St. Robert Cameron 100 7 Pyburn Ave. Eva Miller 101 15-17 Read St. Richard DeForrest 102 8-10 River St. Stephen Whittier 103 13-18 & 20 Sable Road/ 3,5, & 7 Buena Vista Rd. James Abram 104 • ' 12 Scotia St. John B. Conroy 105 DECISIONS - 1984 - page four Address Petitioner Page • 6 Story Road Robert W. Baker 106 9 & 11 South St. John J. Bilodeau 107 18 Summer St. John & Joan Kelley 108 32 Summit St. George & Stephanie DuBois 109 45 Summit Ave./10 Cliff St. Robert McKenna 110 Tremont Place/Irving St. George Papamechail 111 24 Valley St. Petro Theophilopoulos 112 66 Valley St. Jane & Robert McDonald 113 9 Warren St. John J. Flynn 114 96 Washington Sq. E. Emma G. Toomey 115 19 Washington Sq. N. Donald Turner Jr. 116 255-259 Washington St. Stephen Ingemi 117 22 Webb St. Donald Luis Jr. 118 78A Webb St. James W. Shea 119 19 Williams St. Stephen Scaletti 120 50 Winter Island Rd. Winter Island Commission 121 50 Winter Island Rd. Winter Island Commission 122 • Winter Island Easter Sea Boards 123 50 Winter Island Rd. Winter Island Commission 124 T • covaee.. Ctu ofi �,,-.-.r- . :r.-.. fflaqsar4uset Poarb of (4Fe A '84 APER 11 P" :()2 -•�nnsa N - �� j1 5 GFF��F DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLIFFORD SPEICHER FOR PITY !'LF' :: A; r� VARIANCE FOR 23 ALBION STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on March 28, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Associate Member Richard A. Bencal, Acting Secretary; Messrs. , Hopper. and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly_published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner has requested a Variance from side yard setbacks in order to construct a 15' x 30' addition. This property is located in an 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 petitioner; and r C- k • c. , desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the - k public good and without nullifying or substantial.ly derogating from the y intent of the .district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidencepresented at the public hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition was raised to petitioners plan by neighbors; 2. The proposed addition can only be built in this manner to keep in harmony with the existing structure. On the basis of the above findings of fact and the evidence. preaented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The property in question is an existing structure; 2. The condition described creates;,a substantial hardship to petitioner; 3. The desired Variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in;.-faror, of.granting - the Variance requested by petitioner. The Board grants the Variance under the _ following ter, and conditions: PETITION OF CLIFFORD SPEICHER FOR A VARIANCE FOR 23 ALBION ST. , SALEM ;S ' page two '84 APR 11 P3 :02 ` 1 . Petitioner may build an addition not to be close to the side yard line than which already exists; CITY G FF'F, GUILE , - Sn LGN .A 2. The addition to be built must not be larger than 15' x 30' and must be only one story; 3: A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. VARIANCE GRANTED 0011,z4e_6X Richard A. Bencal, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF AMY. SHALL BE MDE PURSUANT TO SECTlOtt 17 OF THE .:ASS. GENERAL LAS'YS. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL,BE FILED CIITHIH 20 DAYS.AFTER THE DATE OF FIICi:� OF TFIIS DEC'SIGN IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. c"7.1iT p0.-^.S%uii i0 'i_ISS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 833. SECTIOY 1.1, THE YARI.-AX2E CR SP C{:.L _ cBA'ii HEREU7, SHAH NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECIS:C1, uw.i•IG THE.CERT- FCfQ;J;; CF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HIVE FL'.:"5 0 F'iJ `IJ A?PEAL H'S BEE:! F11E9. DR i'..-"�T. IF SuCi't AN APPEAL HASB`Eti FILE. THAT IT F: 3 OEE!! DiS`.`.'SSFD 03 DUE !iED IS ' RECOlu E9 IN THE SGUTH ESSEX P.ECISTRY OF C-cJS AND I`IDEFED UNDER THE iiA2SE OF THE OWNER OF RECiInD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OVINER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE BOARD OF APPEAL - V � o < vQj (fitu of FIIPm, �ttsStttFiuSPtts': I_ r Poxra of �Fpral '84 AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN J. SULDENSKI FRI SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 35 ANDREW ST. , SALEM SG.' '. A hearing on this petition was held on October 17, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. 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 is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing single family dwelling into a three unit condominium and to expand the height of a portion of the building in this R-2 district. The Board of Appeal, after careful deliberation, decided there was substantial difference between this petition and a petition which was denied on August 6, 1984. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to hear this petition. 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 j • forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing plans of the property, the Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Rather than impacting of existing units, this will create additional residential housing; 2. On site parking is available; 3. There are other 3, 4 and 5 unit houses in the area. � resented at� On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence p •' the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN J . SULDENSKIS FOR A r: SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 35 ANDREW ST. , SALEM • 1 . The proposed use of the property would not be moreaoetK�ImiaqalpgQ;lj the neighborhood; 2. The proposed use will promote the public health, &8;4n ence and` "_E welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one, Mr. Luzinski voted against, to grant the petitioner's request for a Special Permit under the following terms and conditions: 1 . Eight on-site parking spaces will be maintained; 2. Access to the parking area will not be from Andrew St. , access will be from Webb St. ; 3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained for each unit. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED ames B. Hacker, Chairman 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 DECiSIDN V; THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PUPSANT TO LASS. ('E!'c FAL LA"'i C. CHAPTER 808, SE^,710'; 11, THE VARIANCE OF SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREii,, Si{f,L NSI •,.,. E EFFECT UNT!L A COPY OF THE DEC!S!Oi EEAfIC 1; THE CERT. FICATIDN OF THE Clic CLEF," THf,, 20 CA)" HATE ELAPSED AND Nn. APPEAL H=.S BEHN FI_EED, OR ";HAT, IF S';C!; ,',': APPE=.L HAS ;[ELI FILE, T,.,7 IT HAS BEEN DIF!C SED OR PEWED IS RECCRUED IN THE SsU'iii ESSEX REGISIR, OF :,ECS ANO I::DEXED UG:iE^n THE N.A::;E OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NDTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. • BOARD OF APPEAL 4F f�1�T —. to of ttlem, ttsstttljuseftg - i�a r _ Paurb of E ppeA 3 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN J. SULDENSKI FOR A N= SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 35 ANDREW ST. , SALEM �. m " L A hearing on this petition was held on October 17, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. 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 is requesting to convert an: existing single family dwelling into a three unit condominium and to expand the height of a portion of the building in this R-2 district. The Board of Appeal, after careful deliberation, decided there was substantial difference between this petition and a petition which was denied on August 6, 1984. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to hear this petition. 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 non- conforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantiall 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 proposed condominium conversion is covered by the terms of the City's Condo- minium Conversion Ordinance. The Special Permit that has been requested may there- fore 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 contrary to the City' s Master Plan, and (3) the grant of the Special Permit will not have an advers effect on the neighborhood. After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing plans of the property, the Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Rather than impacting on existing rental units, this will create additional residential housing; • 2. On site parking is available 3. There are other 3, 4 and 5 unit houses in the area. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN J . SULDENSKI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 35 ANDREW ST. , SALEM page two 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 proposed use of the property would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood; 2. The proposed conversion will not adversely impact upon the City's existing stock of rental units for low and moderate income families or on elderly people living on fixed incomes; 3. The proposed conversion is not contrary to the City's Master Plan. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petitioner's request for a Special Permit under the following terms and conditions: 1 . Eight on-site parking spaces will be maintained; 2. Access to the parking area will not be from Andrew St. , access will be from Webb St. ; 3. A Certificate of Occupancy for each unit will obtained. SE! AL PERMIT GRANTED W - J -"' )esrZer, Chairman U A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK APPEAL FRO'r' THIS DECISION, l; A;'iY, SHALL BE hS ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAGS. CH DE 500. SH'��-L 5E FILED Cd iTHIN [U DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING CLERK OF ,,IS DECISIO;i IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ECI;3I. ECiSi.^.,:v, cE`."n',•.ice THE CERT PURSAidT TC :A.A"S. GEIE"n A_ L::.i S. CP.F.cTER ECR. $ECTICN 1?. THE VARIANCE OP. SPECIAL PERMIT •' ED HEREIN, SHr.L1 P!^•i T;i 1E EF ECi UNTiL Ar LrcE OF..,,H ENO APPEAL HAS E;_.;'ED IS GRAIJ - - - HAS SE ELI DIEP.iISS-� 0R FICnTI::is -0F -HE CITY GLER7. iii; SC' DA+S H�^ � - A"JD IIiDEXED UNCE4 THE IiAI•lE OF THE O'r;NER OR THAT. IF Sui:H A; APFERL HA.S BEE'. FILE• iH'' 17 RECORDED IN THE SOJTH ESSEX RUi STR'( OF DEEDS OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE 0viNER'S CERTIFICATE OFTITLE.OF APPEAL (l jtg of '�Ujem, � Iusstttl�u$etts ;�- 1' uttrD of c� "84 All; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SULDENSKI FOR A SPECIAL PE&;1? E FOR 35 ANDREW STREET, SALEM, MASS. _ A hearing on this petition was held on July 25, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Associate Member Richard A. Bencal, Secretary, Scott Charnas, Messrs. Gauthier & 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 40 A. The petitioner has requested a special permit to allow him to convert the existing two family dwelling into a three unit condominum and to expand the height of a portion of the building. The owner of the premises is Edmond 0. Sicotte. 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 s 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, invokes the following findings of fact: 1. Vigorus opposition to the plan was presented by neighbors; 2. The neighborhood is already congested with traffic and the proposed plan would substantially exacerbate the situation. 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 creates a substantial detriment to the public • good. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SULDENSKI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 35 ANDREW ST. page two Therefore, the Board of Appeal unanimously voted agaiepst),granting tie-'E relief requested; THE PETITION IS DENIED. Scott E.Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THE DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. APPEAL FP,CJ,' THIS DECISION, IF ARK, SHALL BEC!ACE IidS PURSUANT TO Sr_CTION 17 OF THE MASS, GENERAL ;' OF Tfi;S -'S. C'r,f,P;II; 8u8, AAD SH'.LL CE FIM:; Vl:T^ N ZO DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FIL. CJSIC.'J I5. THE OFFICE OF THE CITY Clti;K. PC °,..T TO (,ISS CE rPSL L.;,", CHAPTER F.8. SE^T!01 11. THE VPR;A!;C° On S?'CiAL P'c°',!IT CB E� FrPJ S�. L I'C %E Eri ECT WML A CC,( Cr THTC Fi. Cr -.'H- ri-Y CL°P" THAT .O D:YS ..'F r BEn i . Th,- CERT.iH- IF H LPro 0 N PPEAL H�. F1l:D S r 5PFE5t HAS B.c, Rc i J..3 IIJ T � 'Y FLF Th.T it N9' er ri r c,.: .,.EO Gn ¢D IS ' S:.�1H ESSE. R&ASTRY C :;c_DS P;.0 Ii;'E).EU Ut:JSC SHE E'.' CF THE D'11;:ER OF REC'uRD OR IS R:CORDED AND nJ ED Cd•Till '- NCR'3 CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL 01itV of Sa1Em, tt�sttc�sE��::-"':= � � 3 A Puttrb of }x}irzt[; 3'84 APR 11 P fie DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JON & STEVEN KALIVAS Ftq�v A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 33 BALCOMB ST. , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on March 28, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Hopper, Strout 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 a Special Permit 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 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 cjetrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the y 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 consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition was raised to petitioner's plan by neighbors; 2. Premises were used as three family prior to the purchase of the property by the petitioners. 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 proposed use of the premises as a three family will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood;hborhood; 2. On site parking is available. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JON & STEVEN KALIVAS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 33 BALCOMB ST. , SALEM Page two '84 APR 11 P 3 :02 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously torapiEarSpecial Permit to convert to a three family dwelling on the mlloir ng fermis and conditions .l 1 . This Special Permit shall terminate and the building shall revert to a two family dwelling if the property ceases to be. owner occupied; 2. Petitioner shall maintain five on site parking spaces from Foster Court; 3. A Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be obtained prior, to use of the third unit; 4. There shall be no structural changes. - SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED �L B. acker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILE :es TH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FHO::i THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE "7ASS_ GENERAL LASS, CHAPTER BOB, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS APFER THE DATE OF FRtNG OF TH:S DECiSiON I.N. THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - . P: "acE" TD '..£ASS. GENERAL LA'NS, CHA?TER B'.7S, SECTION 11.THE VARIANCE OR SPEC:AL PER..fT - - CPA.,.TEil H'22N6 SHALL NO-1 TAaE EFFECT Lj%riL A COPY OF THE-wI"N. BEARING THE CERT- ' FIC11fi"N CF TH'E CITY CLERK +NAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AX") NO APPEAL HAS BEEN, Fi'..`_D, OR TH?.T. :F'S9^,H AN APPEAL Y,fS BEEN FILE. THAT IT Hi.S KEN D!SGISSEO CR DEN20 IS - R-,CO2'iEO til THE SOUTH ESSEX RESISTRY OF CZEDS AND INDEXED UF7OER THE NAME OF THE GYFI&2 OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - BOARD OF APPEAL_ y - _' fit# oaf 5P alem, Ic JF�'Jly1FE[Jti l �l ! - l/4 J7.iPi ,1 , i CIT%, ., DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALICE L. PITREAU FOR A ` _ VARIANCE FOR 18 BARCELONA AVE. , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on June 13, 1984 with the following Board Members present: Ed Luzinski, Acting Chairman; Messrs., Charnas, Gauthier, and Strout. 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 allow her. to use the premises as a two family dwelling inthis 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 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 petitioner; and • c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the -------- public public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose 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 to petitioner's plan; - 2. No construction is necessary to accomplish this conversion; 3. Petitioner's circumstances are such that it would be a financial hardship to her if the premises could not be used as a two family dwelling; 4. This conversion would haveno appreciable effect of the neighborhood. On the basi's of the above findings of fact, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which affect the premises which do not affect the district generally; 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 and purpose of the Ordinance. ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALICE L. PITREAU FOR A VARIANCE FOR 18 BARCELONA AVE. , SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the Variance requested, provided that it shall expire immediately upon petitioner's vacating the premises. Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ,c; w 00 v kt'7EAI Pt OiA `dila d �+"-•1."!. I: lr.lY. SHAtL �'0 -AOE PLe �.A.jr SF.CTfCf! 17 OF THE h1ASS. CFi{Pf!AL !rAVa. 4'dlf.r'I'�i 5;3. A%D SHA!I �Z F!7D '-X-hl;. _J-GAYS AF7E3 :HE DATE OF FILi.0 CKfp' t.^,IQitl C: MEt -- CB OF Ti.= CITY CLErR. . .inSC. 64.'i`PA' LA".i` 9A°i L-3 503. SECTICi! tL.UR - ABC OF C'9L TJ C .w.:, c, I -'cC• Shdt Iia, !X'E c-;ECT U-T!, A CLIM OF Th:.O. - FIC: i t THE lil C tR'. 'LA7 23 'Ai hA'.c ELA °D r .� fit AL PAS urr`v f!i ED _ - :. -I APPEk h U 0 c3 ME T i J IT HAS Lc 2F C$ a 6.6R O° .:ED IS ^..f RCL LC_ iii Ti;E SOUTH ESS` RcG:S`.RY OF OEEOS AND C:DECED L vu_C Trac rf OF TR.. .vcR. OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND ND'fED 00 THE O'd(NER'S,CERTIFICATE CF TOLE, BOARD OF APPEAL • "to\ Cltg ofttlPxrt, rxtfueito - . Potts of •gQ AIN"o� '3 P? -5 i DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BASIL W. ANTONIADES FOR CITY 'E VARIANCES FOR 20 BARCELONA AVENUE, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on March 21 , 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Strout. 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 variances from density and side and rear setback requirements in order to construct an addition to the premises as more fully described in a plan submitted to the Board. Property is located in an 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; 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, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition was presented to petitioner's plan; . 2. The unique configuration of the lot and its size make it difficult to put an addition on to the existing building without violating zoning restrictions. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and or, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which affect this lot but which do not affect this district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship_ upon petitioner; 3. The variances requested can be granted without substantial detriment _ to the public good, and without substantially derogating from the • intent and purpose of the Ordinance. r DECISION ON PETITION OF BASIL W. ANTONIADES FOR VARIANCES FOR 20 BARCELONA AVE. page two . Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioner the variances requested in order that hemay construct the addition described in a plan submitted to the Board. VARIANCES GRANTED Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK =-I 2�- �a v�t P°P,!:L F:':06i i1'.1S DECIS!Cti, it ANY. SHALL BE PIIR.iUnilT 10 SECTI-ZN 17 OF THE ...�$S. CEii SAL LAS;S. CHAPTER SM. AND SHA;L 3E Fi LED :ti iTHlri 29 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FUNS - CF "i!!!3 DECI3!G.'1 V. THE OFFICE OF THE CIT'f CLERK. T'J ':`ASS. CEtiEP,AI L4t13, CHAPT , 503. S6:FiOi1 U. THE VAR!"iCE CR SPEC!AL C 3At.T D H-4M.,. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UY.TIL A COPY OF THEDEMM.", BEAR:P1 THE Cf RT- - FICATI N OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED APO NO APPEAL HIS BEEEI FILED.- . OR "FH.AT, IF SUCK AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN CIS' {SSED OR OE:IED 13 RECORDED lir THE scium ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE B.Ab±E OF THE =-iER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O.VNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE BOARD OF APPEkL _ Tiig of Mem, fflaz5 djusPtf e Appeal < varh of c�J 1 '84 h 1i1, 21 F 4 •t • '3'RfOi MIF6 N:: . DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & DORIS DAVIS FOR A C! ` SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 22 BARNES ROAD, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held June 13, 1984 with the following Board Ilembers .present: Ed Luzinski, Acting Chairman; Messrs_, Charms, Gauthier and Strout. 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 Special Permit to allow a porch to be built on the ci premises. The porch would reduce the side setback to three (3) feet from it's already nonconforming setback. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request W fora Special Permit is Section V B -10, which provides as follows-- w o of w o Notwithstanding anything tot he contrary appearing ' in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and condition set o H > < s g forth. in Section VIII F nad IX D, grant Special Permits = for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, 4 E and uses; provided, however, that such change, extension, c-'�- ; � enlargement or expansion stall not be substantially more m w detrimental -than the existing nonconforming use to the m J O C neighborhood. n more general terms, this Board is," when' reviewing Special Permit requests. C W y f-1 J = guided by the rule that a Special Permit request � may be granted upon a finding ,.u a _- y n _ o =- � J _ _ _ ,} �y the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, 3 _ <afety, convenience and .relfare of the City's inhabitants. N + _ w _ the Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes rthe following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; •= _ _ 2. The relief requested will have no appreciable impact on the $ w q U f- • -- = _ neighborhood or the abutters. On the basis of the. above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board concludes as follows: 1. The relief requested does not create a substantial detriment to the public good, nor does it substantially derogate from or nullify the intent or purpose of the Ordinance- Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioner's ^--quested relief. Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK `� f�zt of 'SMem, Vi s' curb of c� o DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HARRY ENG FAT A VARIANCE,- 'Icc- AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 78 BEAVER STREET, SALEM- A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, 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 Net-is in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner requests a Variance from minimum lot area, density and rear setback requirements and a Special Permit to construct two dwelling units in this R-2 district, all as set forth in his petition. 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 thepurposeof the Ordinance. ' 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 anything6to 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 exoansion of noncon- formin lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantiallymore 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. After hearsng the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The Salem Fire Department, would have no difficulty reaching the. 1 premises in any emergency,particularly if a portion of Beaver St. were changed to a "NO PARKING - TOW ZONE" area; DECISION ON PETITIONER OF HARRY ENG FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 78 BEAVER ST. page two ,r 2. The back end of the premises slopes off violently, and does not lend itself to econcomically feasible developement within the confines of the Zoning Ordinance; -_- 3. The topography of the lot is unique to the district; 4. The current use of the premises by third parties - illegal dumping of trash - would cease upon the ocnstruction of the units envisioned by petitioner; 5. The construction of these four units on the premises would not substantially exacerbate any parking problems in 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 . Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would create a substantial financial hardship on petitioner; 2. There are special conditions which affect the lot and which are unique to and do not generally affect the district; 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, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the Variances and • Special Permit requested as set forth in the petition and plan submitted to to the Board, provided that: 1 . A six foot fence be erected at that edge of the premises wbich which abuts 74. Beaver Street; 2. A portion of Beaver Street be made a "NO PARKING-TOW ZONE^ area, the extent of which is to be left to the discretion of the City Council; 3. Grading of the premises bedoneso that the flow of crater is away from Beaver Street; and 4. No more than two vehicles be parked on the edge of the property abutting Beaver Street Court. VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED 2 m �J r ? TH.13 Dc ! ,N. !r ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SE iioN 17 F TP' i.S S CHUTE' 308. AND SHALL BE FILED VATHIN 20 DAY -T .ITE FiL "" a i«n-...n��0. �0 > Lc�SwN I1 .HE 0>�ICE OF THE CITY CLERK. S'COtt E. Charnas, Acting Secretary -: TO (EAS FE'-!ER.SL '..'.':;5. CHAPTER 803. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PE?^!T — --j -' W . ..:.::i-D CEii'_'i::. SH,:a�:^i;,`: T"--, EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE OECIS!077, BE4Rif:o T'r:c CE3T- �1 ! 7 THE lCf:r. TPAT 20 CAPS HAVE ELAPSED A: (gitu of �35IPm, Feb. 6 • '� P arb of A"ezd '84 dnU:3F 'l014 L Ny J Cr AP DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD MELLO FOR A�PECIAL` PERMIT FOR 63-63''2, 65-653 BOSTON STREET AND 4 PROCTOR STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held January 25, 1934 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 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 use the premises for a wholly residential purpose. Currently, the premises has a mixed commercial and residential use in this R-2 district. - The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section VB 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure andconditions 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 terns, 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearag, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition was presented at the hearing; 2. The wholly residential use of the premises would be of more benefit to the community than the present use. On the basis of the above findings of fact , the Board concludes as follows: DECISION ON PETITION OF EDWARD MELLO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 63-63 65-653 BOSTON ST. AND 4 PROCTOR STREET r= page two • ) Feb. 6 % 1 . The requested relief does not substantial$([ ditb&teyFt'2.O�c nor nullify the intent and purpose of. the Zoning Ordinance; 2. The relief requested will not be a substaU tial detrimen U= o the public good. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the Special Permit requested as more fully described on a plan submitted to the Board provided that the petitioner obtain a Certificate of Use and Occupancy. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK - ECT104 17 OF THE MASS. � NT 70 S THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE h..RDE PURSUANT r_q;E33i Lf.:fS, CHAPTER 808. AND $HALL BE FILED *WITHIN 20 GAYS AFTER THE GATE OF RL::;a O,F ',;,;5 Cr..C1S!OH IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY_ CLERK: ASS. CE:'-RAL LAiNS. CHAPTER So% SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER'Gff -i •; SHALL I:Oi TA::E EFFECT UNTIL cR COPY OFoNOERO APPEAL HAS'EEE9 APY CLERF THAT 20 CATS Ha 1. ELAPS_D nc..- _ V R.PEAL HAS B__M FILE TH4T IT HAS BEEN CISMISSED OR `-O ,`�r r..•c:- ir::;,. L ,7H SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY CF LEEDS AND 114DEXED UtIDER THE NAGE Ct T�.� NOTED ON THE O'WNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. OF PECO(9 0.'. IS RECORDED AND BOARD OF APPEAL y` L, s =5: fit of ` alem, // DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES 11. POPPE (PETITIONER) •; - MARION C. KENNY (OWNER) FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 23 BRADFORD ST. ,:`SALE: A hearing on this petition was held May 23, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing Were properly published in the Salem Eventing News in accordance with Massachusetts ;General Laws Chapter 40A. t n Petitioner requests a Special Permit to alter his non-conforming property by - _- = than-,ing the frontage from97.8 feet to 83.8 feet and changing the lot size from 7507�sq. ft. to 6692_ sq. ft. =')fie provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request _ 8or 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 ;7 for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or- expansion of nonconforming lots,land, structures, c449 ' e2 y } and used, provided,however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more E, J L ' _ detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the " neighborhood. r s -T-;i more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, _o7pided by the rule that a Special Permit may be granted upon a finding the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the pubic health, _ - _�?afety, convenience and welfare of the City's i-nhabitants. - _ _T--ne Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the bearing = _ _ €--td a-t.er viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The changes contemplated by the petitioner will not affect the neighborhood in any substantial way; 2. No opposition to the plan was raised by neighbors. ` Based upon the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1 . The relief requested does not create a substantial detriment to the public good, nor does it substantiall derogate from or nullify the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. •'� Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unagimousi.y to grant the relief requested. } Scott E. Charnas, Secretary .. COPrOF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILE WITH THE PLANNIPG BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. M (tict of $afrm, Anssruhusetts PDxrb of �Appral DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL GIANELLI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 33A BRIDGE ST. , SALEM •84 nE" -I F' A hearing on this petition was held November 28, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, ChaApman; Messrs,. , .Cbarnas, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member LaBrecque. 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 Law Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, seeks a Special Permit to extend an existing nonconforming rear setback in order to expand an existing building in this B-4 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 noncorming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, • and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement. or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence and viewing the plans presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No meaningul opposition was presented to the petition; 2. The change in rear setback is 13 feet and will not effect any neighbors to any substantial degree. 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 does not substantially derogate from nor nullify the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. The relief requested will not be a substantial detriment to • the public good. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL GIANELLI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 33A BRIDGE ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 - 0 to grant the Special Permit as requested to extend the rear letback nonconformity as shown in the plan submitted to the Board, provided that the occupancy conforms with all applicable provisions of the Salem Fire Code and Mas achsetts Building Code. '84 PEC SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED CSI , S, Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK AF?EAL FRC'.1 THIS DECISION. IF Ad:'(. SHALL PE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. AND ...__. F.° ?'="': 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING "r .:� T^ ? SS C _ .3. SF.- ,.. �''!"E OR SPECIAL PER^.IIT C l i . . �_GY„ E Ti .._ e. THE CERT. F ! CLEF OF, THAT, IF S UH AN APPEAL f GE"I. 'i I:LAI i RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND Tii J,.NFrc OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD. OF APPEAL 1 .. Ctg of Salem, Massachusetts N x • 'm i,��r pours of '4PVd DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NONDAS LAGONAKIS TO APPEAL THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S GRANTING OF A PERMIT FOR 34 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM, MASS. A hearing on this petition was held on September 19, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman: Messrs. Charnas, Gauthier and Strout, Associate Member, Richard 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 is appealing the decision of the Building Inspector to issue a building permit to Kenneth Surrette to construct a building at 34 Bridge Street (Permit No. 139) . Petitioner alleges that the permit violates Section VIII D of the Zoning Ordinance which provides that no structure destroyed by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent of its replacement costs, or more than fifty percent of its floor area at the time of destruction, shall be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact: 1. The existing building on the premises, in terms of floor area and replacement costs, was more than fifty percent destroyed at the time the Building Inspector issued or modified the permit which allowed • construction on the site of the destroyed building to proceed; 2. The Building Inspector issued or modified the permit, after the building was destroyed, in utmost good faith, but in derogation of Section VIII D; 3. The person or persons to whom the permit was issued never intended to rehabilitate or restore the existing building, instead they intended to raze the building and induce the Building Inspector to issue a permit to allow new construction in derogation of Section VIII D. 4. The building to be constructed does not conform to the Ordinance in that the minimum required lot stie is 12,000 sq. ft. and this lot contains 6,000 sq. ft. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes: 1. The deception on the part of the petitioner is indicated by S2he des on the permit and the date on the lease. a' 771 7-1 11 - N m DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NONDAS LAGONAKIS TO APPEAL THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S GRANTING OF A PERMIT FOR 34 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM, MASS. page two `•� 2. Permit NO. 139 should not have been issued or modified to allow construction of a new building at 34 Bridge Street. Therefore, the Board voted unanimously 5 -0 to revoke the permit in question, thus upholding the appeal of the petitioner. J Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK W, � U BE MADE PURSUANT TU SECTION 17 V THE FILING VKAC FM I= DEC'"' F ANY, SHALL THE DATE OF UNIM LAM CHAPTER BOB, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 PAYS AFTFR THE CITY CLFRIL pERMR IN THE OFFICE OF rARU1NCE OR SPECIAL �F THIS ToAAASN SE[TrTq 11.THEE qZ'T THE CERT- - PUBSANT 7p tAASS. GENER0.L LAWS. CHAPTER TIL c AAD NO PPPEAL NAS BEEN FILED, GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAPE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OS BECN DIS'.IISSED OR DENIED IS THAT iT N THE NAME Of THE OWNER FICATION CF THE Clil' CLERK iHAi S DAYS HAVE EL^AND INDEXED UNDER OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE,OH OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESS RNOTEDYONF DEEDS OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND BOARD OF APPEAL of "ttlem, i'rltts5ttci�use##s 1 / DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AUGUSTO P. DACUNHA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 71 BRIDGE ST. (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held on September 12, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Charnas, Secretary; Messrs: Robert Gauthier & Peter Strout and Associate Member Richard A. 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 Specail Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling house into a three family dwelling. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of 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 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 consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing,makes the following findings of fact: 1. Vigorous opposition was raised by neighbors, abutters and others; 2. The petitioner could provide parking for only one vehicle at most; 3. Bridge Street is a very highly traveled street and is used as a snow emergency route during snow storms. This limits parking on this street. 4. There is an existing problem with parking in the area and the a c addition of another unit and possible vehicles would add to this problem. • 1 N v_ H � U DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AUGUSTO P. DACUNHA FOR A ." SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 71 BRIDGE ST (B-4) page two The Board, after careful deliberation voted unanimously 5-0, to deny the Special Permit as the granting of this permit would not be in the public good. SPECIAL PERMIT UNANIMOUSLY DENIED Zee:!/Y,- - - Richard A. Bencal, Board of Appeal E A COPY OF THE DECISION HAS BEEN FIELD WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • APPEAL FRO;,; THIS DELISICN, .F A711', SHALL 82 !,;ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE ^;ASS. GENERAL LAA'S. CHAPTEV COE. AND SHALL BE FRED W:TWN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECi SIO.; IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO r.:ASS. GENERAL LA43. CHATTER 80F, SEC-'rN 11. TH- VA5'::.':LE C- :`,'!AL P°R"FIT GFAF;i ES HEEEIt;. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF TH Ei°G::iC�i. EEA:;i!;,; FICAnDN OF THE CITY CLERi, THAT [0 DAYS HAVE ELAFSED ,'i:4. r10 l;PPEA! FI:r s"i OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FRE. TY.AT IT f;AS BEEN DIS?;ISS,DHAS DE tiiE ISO RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEED UNDER THE r;-1E OF THE C:lrr'ER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL W - L C = v, W � V: U Q F- CC) V <' CUM of ;5- tt1em, gassachusetts l Poxra of �Pvvd � J •/� .�4 UST J , - CIT Y. -: LLu.�__ SSt iGk DECISION 5A��l IMITION OF JOHN J. SULDENSKI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR 72 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on October 17, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent 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 Special Permit to allow him to alter the already noncon- forming 10,192 square foot lot by dividing it into two lots containing 6,202 square feet and 3,990 square feet. The petitioner also asked that a Variance be granted from rear yard setback of 18 feet for the construction of a single family dwelling on the lot containing 3,990 square feet. 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 and 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. After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing the Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The proposed division of the property will create two lots which are consistent with the surrounding lots; 2. There was no neighborhood opposition; On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: i' 1 . The proposed use of the property would not be more detrimental ` • to the neighborhood; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN J. SULDENSKI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR 72 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM `I page two 2. The proposed change of the nonconforming lot by diti�ing it int,4r LE two nonconforming lots would not be substantially mor%AeVins jal to the neighborhood; 3. The extension of the nonconformity of building located at 72 Bridge St. due to the present nonconforming setbacks will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood; 4. By the Board allowing a rear yard setback of 20 feet rather than the required 30 feet the proposed use of the property will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants; 5. The proposed division and the construction of a single family dwelling on the lot containing 3,990 square feet does not violate the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the Special Permit requested under the following terms and conditions: 1 . On the lot containing 6,202 square feet eight on site parking spaces be maintained as shown on the plans submitted to the Board. • The Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to deny the petitioners request for a Variance for the rear yard setback of the proposed single family dwelling to be constructed on the lot containing 3,990 square feet. The petitioner was unable to prove a hardship. The Board found that although it was desirable for a single family dwelling to be constructed on the undersized lot, it concluded that a building could be erected that would conform to the front, rear and side setback requirements. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED VARIANCE DENIED James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROG^. THIS DECISICN, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. - GENERAL LAMS. CHAPTER 203, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING CF THIS DELIS'.ON IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. / • T _':'.S. GcVresi_ LAlYS CHAPTER, BCS SECTI01: 11, THE VA . �E OR SPECIAL PCRIAIT P'�� THE CERT-+ SHl.V NC, TP6.E EFFECT L'J i�L A CI PY OF THE CI I�''r °E.S 1i{ CITY CLER.✓, i�1 AT 20 DAYS F"VE ELA'S°.% P`10 L� �L H?S L ! FILED, :D OP. i.;Al. IF F.i:,H AN APPEAL HAS BEEP. FILE THAT. IT hAS 3EEIl O'S C ISSR CeiE9 IS OF CRECORDIOR'S RECORDED ANDREGISTRY REORDED NOTED OF ON THEEDS AND OWNER'S IIDEXED UNLET, THE CERTFIICATE OF TITLE. OF THE OWNER BOARD. OF APPEAL ,1,10.1UI[� CA) Tito of $Ufrm, 'Massachusetts \ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES APOSTOLOS FOR A VARIANCE AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 94 BRIDGE ST. A hearing on this petition was held on August 22, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Charnas, Secretary; Messrs. Robert Gauthier & Edward Luzinski and Associate Member, Richard A. 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 variance from side line requirements and a special permit to extend the use of a nonconforming building. 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 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 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 will promote the public health safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabidants- co n T • \ �, ,M f n DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES APOSTOLOS FOR A VARIANCE AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 94 BRIDGE ST. • The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Vigorous opposition was raised by neighbors; 2. The Board had determined that the petitioner is currently in violation of no parking zones and also not conforming to conditions previously set forth in other zoning decisions. 3. Existing heavy and dangerous traffic patterns currently exist. 4. The petitioner showed no hardship. The Board, after careful deliberation agreed that by granting the proposed plan would take away parking spaces that are very badly needed and would exacerbate an already congested dangerous situation. The granting of this permit would not be in the public good. VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT UNANIMOUSLY DENIED es B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, G 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 i,fASS. GENERAL LkIS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NGT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION, BEAR.:142 THE CERT- FICATION OF THE CITY CLER:X "THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN RLE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS 9WILRDED IN THE SCUIH ESSEX RE;;ISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER W KWRD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD. OF APPEAL C1 CC5 J fT1 P�--' „ Ctu of 3alPm, tt$5tttl��i P#ts : 0/1 A Pottrb of �p wl• Feb. 6 84 -d,Gu 37- P 3 :18 •__/ DECISION ON PETITION OF LAWRENCE SNYDERMAN FOP ' ` 1C= VARIANCE FOR 106 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held January 25, 1984 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 Variance to allow him to enlarge the existing structure and to conduct an automobile muffler repair and service shop in this R-2 district. The current owner of the premises is Systembs Improvements, Inc. Petitioner also requests Variance from minimum lot area, lot width, lot coverage, side yard, front yard and parking requirements. . 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 sane 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 . The premises, formerly a car wash, have been in a derelict and deteriohating condition for approximately one year; 2. The lot is peculiar in shape, is bordered on one side by an old railroad right of way and on its other three sides by streets - a condition which makes it impossible to acquire more space; 3. Because of the site and shape of the lot, a literal enforcement of the Ordinance would render the property extremely difficult to market in an area, though R-2, which is heavily commercial. 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 exist which affect this lot which do not generally affect the district; • 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship upon the petitioner; DECISION ON PETITION OF LAWRENCE SNYDERMAN FOR A VARIANCE FOR 106 BRIDGE STREET page two Feb. 6 3. The Variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent .and;_pµrpose of the Ordinance. CITY Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the Variances requested as more fully described in a plan submitted to the Board, provided that: 1 . Refuse is to be stored indoors on the premises except that refyse may be stored out doors if in a dumpster surounded by a fence with a gate; 2. Hours of operation to be 7:30a.m. to 6:00 p.m. , Monday through Saturday; 3. The property must be landscaped; 4. All previous non-conforming uses will no longer be permitted; and 5. Gas tanks and pumps on or under the premises must be removed. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 5 THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE (LASS_ APPEAL LAI - ATE OF PU',V1 'T ..N 20 GAYS AFTER THE D FILED lh.Y GENERAL LA'i�$. CHAPTER 8�8, AND SHALL BE ' OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PU.•'.SANT TO 4:AS5. GENERAL l:iJlS. CHA?TER SOB, S_C'q?. 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PE3'ST CP.A;I ED HE:: ii 1. SHALL RCT iA::E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY.GF THE DECrl':, 'oEA?:irS Tr.E fEaT- FIC.AT:^_f.-OF THE CITY CLER< THAT 20 'JAYS HAVE ELAe'SEJ A9:T ti0 APPEAL HAS BEEN FE-•_E0. CR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS SEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN OIS:'.ASSED OR GENIE') IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF LEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE HAidE CF THEOF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE_- - BOARD OF APPEAL Y y77 Y3 91a51�`� its of �3alem, Cfa55ac4lisetts ` J Poarb of eul \ / DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THEODORE KUSZMAR FOR A '- w VARIANCE AT 109 BRIDGE ST. (B-1) ^ �. A hearing on this petition was held on August 22, 1984- witE the following Board Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman, Scott Charnas, Secretary, Robert Gauthier and Associate Member, Richard A. Bencai. 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 Variance from lot coverage and rear and side setbacks to construct an addition to his store at 109 Bridge St. in this B-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 • involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and; C. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without modefying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. r • The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, • makes the following findings of fact: •1. There was no opposition raised by neighbors and abutters. 2. The store on the lot was there before the zoning laws were inacted. 3. The shape of the lot and building makes any expansion except the one proposed impractical. 4 . The enactment of the bottle and can deposit law is putting a strain on existing space within the present facility. 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 but which do not affect the district generally. I PETITION OF THEODORE KUSZMAR FOR A VARIANCE FOR 109 BRIDGE ST. page two • J 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial financial hardship upon petitioner. 3. The variance requested may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and without substantially dero- gating from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioner the variance requested in order to construct the addition des- cribed in the plan submitted to the Board subject to the following conditions: 1. A six foot high stockade fence be constructed the entire length of the new addition which faces 113 Bridge ST. 2. All deliveries to the store, except those from a tractor-trailer. be made on Arbella St. 3. The petitioner must install an approved fire alarm system, maintain adequate egress and lighting and maintain an approved hearing system within an enclosed boiler room. VARIANCE GRANTED UNAMIOUSLY Ridhard A. Bencal, Associate Member A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK , APPEAL FRO'1. THIS DECISION, I: ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LA SSS, CHAPTER bOS. A�40 SH Er ALL B. FILED W1THIN W THIN 20 DAPS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING . OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO :::F.SS. 'E)-RAL LAW', CHAPTER 805. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE DP. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN, SWUL N'% TA:1 EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION, BEARING THE CERT. FICATION OF THE Chi CLERK: ,iIAT 23 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AN) NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SU:If AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISh9S$ED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE S'.UiH ESSES RE--iSTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER Qf RECORD OR IS RE.,RDED AND NOTED CN THE O'h'NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEP, A N� T c: a �"1 > W Tl n rel 011 f itg of t5r,Am, �$tts�ttcJ�u�#ts,. =a - Pourb of �Appral R��M:FC Nu 111, DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HERBERT L. ABLOW & JUIN_[Hi'. ;-BROWN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 16 BROADWAY, SALEM Si A hearing on this petition was held on May 23, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski, and Strout. 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 r Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. z Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure _ - o by constructing an addition in this (I) district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request N z w foo a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: y w Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this < sxLL c - � �j t Ordinance, the board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, ? ? o EZ grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of e - a w nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension N or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, 4 provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or • o expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. r an more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, - = o, M N guided by the rule that a special Permit request may be granted upon a finding � ttj y the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, E �- � a afety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. s - T= d he Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing makes - __- he following findings of fact: "- 1 . There was no opposition raised by neighbors to petitioner's plan; 2. It would not be feasible to put addition in any other place. ®n 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 desired can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good; Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal unanimously voted to grant the petition for a Special Permit as requested. • ames B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS, DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK PLANS Ctu of C Pourb of A}rp, eal "84 q^ CITY ` ,;,Flr� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK LEIBOWITZ FOR A SA SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 11-13 BRYANT ST. (R-2) , SALEM A hearing of this petition was held on April 25, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Mr. Strout and Associate Members Bencal and Labrecque. 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 is requesting a Special Permit to. convert 11-13 Bryant St. (R-2) to a three family dwelling. The petitioner requested Leave to Withdraw his petition without prejudice. The Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow the Petitioner LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Richard A. Bencal, Ing e reza I A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRO;`: THIS CE_ISEOV. IF AL'Y. SHALL PC 6i�=.CE PURSUAIIT TO SzM0.1: U OF Tf!E ;BASS. GE.^;:RAIL LAt"'S, CHTPTER EO?, AKD SHALL 6E FILED W!iH!N 20 DAYSAFTER ME DATE OF FLUNIO THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE DF Ti!E CITY CLERK. ;:ENERAL L .._. CFIAPTER Z03, SEC;O;: 11. TF:E VA'.IA;IGE C'R :._C:ALa^:1FT S.iPLL N— i.;.E EF; i UiJT!L A COP 0. C-^.T- Fi,'-,P.0{. i:F THE CITY CLER:. T'r:;:T 20 LAYS IiAYE APS•:O G:.*.9 f.O A:?C.4L H' 'ED„ I: S•r.H f.N ;:P?-'." H?S DEEN FILE, i".;li IT H..S CUN OIL-"SED ';R ':F; ED tS RESOPC.E'J IN THE S31-1H ESSEX P.ECISTRY OF E---ECS AND *IDEYED L:.JEF. 'HE FIA;SE OF THE 0:1iBEP. OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OVINER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL , of U55ne Puttrt of 4t1 g< �� ,' . . DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES B. MAGUIRE FOR A C( � c SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 2 CHESTNUT ST. , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on May 23, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Backer, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Strout 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 is. requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing three family into a three unit condominium 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearing makes • ' the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioner's plan will not have a negative impact on City's existing stock of low and moderate income rental units nor on elderly people on fixed incomes; 2. Petitioner's plan will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood; 3. Petitioner's plan is not in conflict with the Master Plan of the City; 4. There will be no change in tenants and thus no hardship caused by the conversion. 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 desired can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good; 2. The proposed conversion will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use of the property. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal by a vote of four to one, Mr. Charnas abstained, voted to grant the Special Permit and allow the conversion to three condominium units under the following terms and conditions: 1 d DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES B. MAGUIRE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 2 CHESTNUT ST. , SALEM ." page two 1 . A.C. electrical single sation type smoke detectors be installed /// within individual units; 2. A.C. electrical interconnected smoke detectors within all common areas be installed; 3. Second means of egress from the third floor be constructed; 4. Approved doors on the 1st and 2nd floor stairway partitions be provided; 5. A Certificate of Occupancy for each unit be obtained; 6. Six month waiting period be waived. ;7 B Hacker, Chairman • '1 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRO.".1 THis DEC on"' IF ANY. SHALL BE ,�1.",9c PURSUANT TO SECTIC'; 17 OF THE GLASS. V0 SPALL BE F:'-FD 1-r!i! 2G PAYS A�r`R Tr.E DATE OF F L!flu + �.� 1 •,E OFFICE OF THE CIiV CL '.K. InL I-EPMIT - t GF Tila DR.iS I'! I E - F PU .A%I I :.A a r. fA' .. CHAPTER SJS SL T -... tl 74 `� Io. .E T',9 c..I- - I A �'+ ' OF Ik EL CRA 1 D HER' mi?L I"lI TA EFFECT L' Li10 tG N F!I EO. FiCAION OF IH LTY CLERK THAT 20 D+YS HAVE EL D IS OR THAT, IF SVii A; APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE TL 1T, h.�AI:d DEXEDS BEEN DLC C,E -i rim P ..`I OF THE O'J."ER RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY LI DEEDS ' OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND iTCTED OH THEO'+'7 fi EZ'S CERTIFICATE GF TITLE. - BOARD OF APPEAL n. .. CIO n L ;T F Jl Ctv of 'Sttlem, 'Mttssar4use##s Poxrb of �kppvd - / DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RONALD R. CALVANI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 21 CLARK STREET, SALEM, MASS. A hearing on this petition was held on September 19, 1984 with the following Board Members present: Scott Charnas, Secretary, Messrs. Edward Luzinski & Peter Strout, Associate Members, Richard Bencal and Arthur Labrecque. 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. Petitioner requests a Special Permit to allow him to continue to run a business restoring antiques and antique lighting in this R-1 district. Petition was previously granted a Special Permit for the same purpose which has expired. Petitioner owns the premises. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this re- quest 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 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. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. No opposition was presented to the petition; 2. Petitioner has conducted his business for at least three years at this location without any substantial negative effect on the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board concludes as follows: C6 1-!i 1 Ti C� r � J -TI �' v DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RONALD R. CALVANI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 21 CLARK STREET, SALEM, MASS. page two • 1. The relief requested does not create a substantial detriment to - the public good, nor does it substantially derogate from or nullify the intent or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 5-0 to grant petitioner's request for a Special Permit, provided that: 1. The Special Permit is to be in effect for only so long as Mr. Galvani himself resides on the premises; 2. A certificate of compliance for approved smoke detectors must be obtained; 3. All conditions of the original decision of this Board, granting petitioner the right to conduct his antique business on the premises, must continue to be observed by petitioner. The original decision is to be filed with this decision. LL � Gn,F1� Scott E. Charnas, Secretary o. 1 Acr�OPY-OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK vi G v F- J APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL DE FILED 4'dIi HIN 20 DAYS AF ER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PUP.SANT TO 14A.SS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR fp--IAL PER`:IT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISi;IN, BEARi.'1C; THc CERT- FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FL;-O. OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DI'kZSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE 6WNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL !J fit ofttlem � ttsstttl� sp##s Poura of cAppeal • �J Y. , DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD E. CONWAY & CHARLEPGr(.BRENNAN, TRS. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 9 COLBY STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on May 23, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to expand the existing nonconforming use of the property by adding a second story to the building. The property is currently used as a medical building in this R-3 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, lands, structures, and uses, • provided, however, that 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 reviewsing 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 of Appeal, after considering the evidence at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The proposed use of the property is in harmony with other uses in area and is an appropriate use becasue of the close proximity of the property to Salem Hospital; 2. Petitioner's plans have been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed use of the property will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood; i • \ 2. The proposed use of the property will promote the health, safety, /I convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants; 3. The proposed use of the property is in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD CONWAY AND CHARLES BRENNAN, TRS. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 9 COLBY ST. page two •j Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the Special Permit in_ accordance with the following terms and conditions: 1 . The property may be altered and its current use expanded by addition of a second story and the addition of a new entrance as shown on the plan (Plan B) submitted to the Board; 2. Petitioners shall maintain seventy one (71 ) parking spaces at the site; 3. Petitioners shall in all other respects comply with the terms of plan B submitted to the Board and approved as noted by the City Engineer with respect to drainage, sidewalks, etc. as that Plan relates to that property in question; 4. A Certificate of Occupancy and Use shall be obtained prior to occupying second story aures B. Hacker, Chairman I • A COPY OF THIS._DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK i ANy, BE PLADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE BASS. pnpEAL F2^ ' TV:S r I�". IF A.1Y, yifIHiN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FiLIf1G ;, fdJD SHALL SE FLED 'E'._ i r r,ICE OF 7HE CITY CLERK. VF.2IANCE OR Sp0' 'At-`!,',IT GF SECTION 11. THE n.l 8EA7 _ ar Li.lvS. CHAPTER 208. P- - �pT ?AhE EFfFCT UNTIL A COPY GF THE D`eLIS' ELAPSED AND NO A'PEAL NAS B c+ r HrS BEEN 0 S, ISSED OR J -� t' . .. ' ER'd THAT 20 DAYS HAKE - rEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT ,i'd ESSEX R'11111BE4Y Cf GEEOS AND INDEXED URDE'd THE ".A'.r Gf THE 0.! ut EO ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. lid AND NOT OF BE.' JRDED BOARD OF APPEAL c� A la moi. F �T "a �tJ itJ IIf211P1Ti� C215522L�II5Pttfi = :.5 '8d • MT -9P2 :/"' Puttrb of ��rFnl J CIi' r CE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & LOUISE PELLETIER REQUESTING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR HAVE THE BOAT CRADLES REMOVED FROM THE TIDAL FLATS IN FRONT OF 5 COLUMBUS SQUARE (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held on September 19, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout, and Associate Member Bencal. Notice o; 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 the Board of Appeal have the Building Inspector order the removal of the boat cradles from the tidal flats in front of 5 Columbus Sq. (R-1 ) . Mr. Peter Haywood is the owner of the boat cradles. After careful consideration and thoughtful deliberation, the Board of Appeal, by a vote of four to one, Mr. Gauthier voting present, voted to uphold the Building Inspectors decision. • This decision is based on the following terms and conditions: 1 . No more than sixty (60) boat cradles are to be floated at one time; 2. They are to be floated in the position shown in a photograph displayed by Mr. Haywood showing the relative position and egress for small crafts to the shore. Said photograph was taken approximately 1950. �=.�e James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK APPEAL FRO'" THIS CECISID ii, !F ANY, SHALL BE "ADE PO RSL'ANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAPIS, C::APFER SDR, A'1D SHALL BE F:LEi! li"".IN 20 DAPS AFi ER THE DATE Of FILING OF THIS DELG00N IN THE CEFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSA T TJ WASEVER'%L !CdS. C?A,PTER 808. --`•ECT:SI ll. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT CRANI U) HEf:E::;y!''.UL qJT T-.E EFFECT W:TIL A UFY OF THEPECISI:N, B '?:ii; THE CERT. FICAi ^c CIF 142 'MY i t i C 1 HAV.- Lb,?`v 7 NO APPEAL HAS LZEN FILED, • 'i OR 7HA- IF c. :.! 1 A4L.Pr[ H. E RLE. ' IT H LEEN CIS'11SSED GP ".. ED IS U RE:YED IN THE S_,.'H ESSEX DF DLEJS AND INDEXED LANDER THE Na..E OF THE O'; h r cil:7 �T#> of �Salera, 2Inac' 4use##s '84 JUL -2 P 3 :13 Pourb of �ypral CITY CL::. . . _ r r ICE DECI�ON•_ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR INGEMI FOR A VARIANCE FOR 25 CONGRESS ST. , SALEM (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held on June 20, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member Bencal, Acting Secretary. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News win accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. w x : -Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow a restaurant serving alcoholic LL LL W u n z '-beve�ages in this B-4 O F u O W The variance which has been requested may granted upon a finding of the Board LL VhatP ma. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect ' < < `-J - o the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally > w = s LL affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; �.g; - - Q C7 C W =' � N b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and > c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the w public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the j s W intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. o ti N O`T-he Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes < - �ie following findings of fact: a - m _ :n v w cn znJ w 1 . Vigorous opposition was raised by neighbors and abutters; ZE z 2. No one spoke in favor of the petition; i V` •• a 'n Z O 3. Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof as to hardship; 4. Petitioner failed to submit detailed plans as to, but not limited to, layout of the facility, seating and safety arrangements. 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 purpose of the Ordinance or the intent of the district. - •� Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to deny the petitioner's request for a Variance DENIED x X_� Richard A. Ben al, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 'a innn„1 a1!/ b (flit of �Iem, ttsschuse# s fb oxrO � cAFF4 NAV 19 P24- DECISION 7 :4,'DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NORTH SHORE YAEOER COMMITTEE (PETITIONER) , CROMBIE STREET CONGREGATIONAL CRURCH (OWNERS) FOR A VARIANCE FOR 7 CROMBIE ST. , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held November 7, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, 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. The petitioner requests an extension of a Variance which was granted January 25, 1984 to allow the premises to be used as an emergency shelter for the homeless in this B-3 district. The original Variance allowed this for a period of eight (8) months. 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 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 purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was vigorous support as well as vigorous opposition by neighbors and other persons and groups; 2. The plight of the homeless in this community is real and life threatening, particularly in the winter months; 3. The Crombie Street Church, because of it's location in the center of Salem, it's dedication to principles of charity, and the facilities available in it's building, is in a special and unique circumstance within the district; 4. Within the parameters of the rules and conditions under which petitioner proposes to run it's shelter, there will be no substantial detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood; 5. Without this Variance, petitioner (specifically, it's staff and con- .� gretation) will be unable to fulfill perhaps it's primary goal and reason for existing - that is, the provision of charitable services to the neediest of this neighborhood and community in the form it is most needed by them. This inability to perform these services while having the facilities and finances to do so would work a spiritual and moral hardship upon the clerge, lay staff and congregation of petitioner. �I DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NORTH SHORE SHELTER COMMITTEE FOR A VARIANCE FOR 7 CROMBIE ST. , SALEM page,-two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the '84 h��;i�q, �7e;43oard of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . _ Spegij l circumstances exist which affect the premises but do not CST ; L.'- generally affect the district; SI � 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship upon petitioner; 3. The Variance 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petitioner the Variance requested under the following terms and conditions: 1 . Rules and regulations described in the North Shore Shelter Committee's proposal, attached hereto and specifically incorporated by reference in this decision, must be followed and obeyed; 2. The Police Department is to be notified immediately when an incident occurs in or around the Shelter that requires a police response; 3. The log that is presently maintained by the North Shore Shelter Committee is to be made available for police inspection upon police request; • 4. That the route officer be permitted to inspect the inside of the Shelter during the course of his duty in order to insure no persons wanted by other jurisdictions are using the Shelter as a means of escaping police apprehension; 5. The fire alarm and prevention system be specifically approved by the Fire Department; 6. This Variance will expire on June 30, 1985; 7. This Board directs the Building Inspector to close this Shelter on July 1 , 1985 unless the Variance is extended by this Board beforehand; 8. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained by December 7, 1984. Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISMN, !F ANY. SHALL BE V.ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. -_� GENERAL LAWS, CHAFTE, SOS. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE Crci'E OF THE CITY CLERK. PURS4NT TO MASS. GE?. L FNA- FR 808, S.C'IO'J 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN SH.':.i- ,,- 11' EF"EC.T U:ITIL A COPY OF THEDECISION, BEA?L," THE CERT FICATION OF THE CIT1 : :.'i!::: ,.'A, ZG G:ViS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH t, APFu1L H.1S CL_N '!,,, THAT IT H%.S BEEN DIS:,1ISSED OR DE"JIED IS IEECO?DED IN THE S.;Ji4 ESSEX, DEe ISTRY CF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAGE OF THE OWNER OF ILECORD OR IS RECJRDED AND N0I ED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL _,�.cnwrrl4 O) f1li# of 'k$ttlem, ttssttclluse##s T" i �nttrD of '4veal i DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CROMBIE STREET CHURCH FOR A VARIANCE FOR 7 CROMBIE FTREET .SALEM MAS' A hearing on this petition was held on September 12, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Scott Charnas, Secretary, Messrs. Robert Gauthier, & Edward Luzinski, Associate Member, Richard 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 is requesting a Variance to continue to use the premises to be used as an emergency shelter for the homeless. The Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow petition Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. WITHDRAWN Co � a N� r _ O Scott E. Charnas, Secretary N - T A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DESId10!"I, 42 hbi`;, SHALL BE P.'ADE PURS'.iAt?T TO S=..I ION 1'1 iiF FHE F"•AASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPIE^n SOC• AND SHALL EE f:'_`_J ''A!Tr!Sl 20 DAPS AF�'.r, TI1E GAZE Or flLIi�S OF THIS Pi EC!SION IN THE CFF:rE OF THE CITY CLERK. OF THIS T TO I:tA55. GE',ERAI t°'.S CHAPTER S)S FLr'U!i 11 THE TH GRANTED HEREIIi, SHALL NCT TAdE EFFECT LN ILA WPY'UFirNOFN.] APPu".. HAS C=' ! F!__D. FICATION OF THE CITY CLERd THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSE OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. TEAT 1T HAS BEEN DISh`iSS`_D Ci ^u=SIED i5 OREORDEDF CRECORD TORT IS SOUTH RECORDEDSANDREGISTRY ONFTHEEOWNER'S INDEXED M• CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. OF THE Cr!`�_T BOARD OF APPEAL R oln d 0 J�'cVOpf� (gitu of "Salem, �zs�ttc�i�z�e�ts s rb of Appeal r j . AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CROMBIE STREET CON6E' ONAL CHURCH FOR A VARIANCE FOR 7 CROMBIE STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held January 25, 1984 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. Petition requests a Variance to allow residential use of the premises. Specif- cially, petitioner seeks the right to operate an emergency shelter for chronically homeless men and women in this B-3 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 purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Vigorous support as well as vigorous opposition has been proclaimed by neighbors and other persons and groups; 2. The plight of the homeless in this community is real and life- threatening, particularly in the winter months; 3. The Crombie Street Church, because of it's location in the center of Salem, it's dedication to principles of charity, and the facilities available in it's building, is in a special and unique circumstance within the district; 4. Within the parameter of the rules and conditions under which petitioner proposes to run it's shelter, there will be no substantial detriment to the health, safetty and welfare of the neighborhood; 5. Without this Variance, petitioner (specifically it's staff and con- gregation) will be unable to fulfill perhaps it's primary goal and • reason for existing - that is, the provision of charitalbe services to the neediest of this neighborhood and community in the form it is most needed by them. This inability to perform these services while having the facilities and finances to do so would work a spiritual and moral hardship upon the clergy, lay staff and congregation of petitioner. s DECISION ON THE VARIANCE FOR CROMBIE STREET CHURCH FOR 7 CROMBIE STREET page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the eY8. erff, R7s"teti:at the • hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: " ' ' 1 . Special circumstances affect the premises of pe£ taoh e..'rwhich 'db`not generally affect the district; . '-' " enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship 2. Literal e p upon petitioner; 3. The Variance 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. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioner the Variance requested for a period not to exceed eight (8) months from the date the decision was originally filed in the office of the City Clerk, February 6, 1984, .under the following terms and conditions: 1 . All terms and conditions described in the petition, which is expressly incorporated in and made a part of this decision; 2. The emergency shelter will be staffed by both paid and volunteer workers. Workers will arrive at the shelter one hour before the shelter's scheduled opening. Prior to the shelter's opening, workers will be involved in inspecting the overall security and condition of the building, as well as • preparing the sleeping area in Choate Hall_ I 3. When the shelter opens, guests will be admitted to the shelter. Before being admitted to the shelter each guest will be expected to: a. Sign a release form and guest book, b. Submit to a search of their person and possessions by a shelter worker of their own sex, c. Read or have read to them a copy of the rules governing the emergency shelter, d. Surrender all prescribed medications, matches, and any valuables that they may wish to have locked up of the evening. 4. Once a guest has been admitted for the evening, a worker will assign him/her a mattress, cot and appropriate bedding in the designated area (separate sleeping spaces for men and women) . 5• Each mattress and pillow will have its own plastic cover and they will be scrubbed with an appropriate disenfectant when they are assigned to a new guest. Each guest will receive clean linen. 6. At 11 :30 p.m. all lights in Choate Hall will be shut off and all guests will be expected to be either asleep or in a quiet situation for the re- mainder of the evening. Shelter workers will supervise guests at all times and in all parts of the shelter. 7. At 6:16 a.m. the shelter workers will begin waking guests. They will begin cleaning the different areas in use, distributing coffee and donuts to guests and discharging them at 7:00 a.m. DECISION ON THE VARIANCE FOR CROMBIF STREET CHURCH FOR 7 CROMBIE STREET page three '84 FEE 1 r rig 8. Once all guests have been discharged, workers W- j finish cleaning the facility, search to make sure that no unautFf6r%2r I 'ed':persori(`s),iremain and then lock the doors at 7:30 a.m. � t : C 0tnn,,,a_ J Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK f �'.. ir.,3 C_i1SIOi•. 17 AM. SiiALL BE MAI')T PURSUANT TO SECTION 1/ OF r CEi;;F -R c03, A,jL SuALL LE I-FD d:ITHIN N DIAYS AFTER THE DATE ... THE OFFI 'E ji'i: CITY CLERK. 1, ... ,is. -e:i:Oh 11 The ':'.. D T: 1 COPYTp-EF; .- ; 1 P il' - . ,. AN op-. . C oL` F -VAT IT IN FRE utH ESSU >{ h ,1 JF �cS A'`!U I: OEK D u'; I �E +: .Ec 'RD OR IS RECORDED ANO WUICD ON Tht OW IER'S CCRTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL y rrr Ll"1 `AYP2 >i Feb DECISION ON THE PETITIONER OF CROMBIE STREET CO\G' GElt-.NA CHURCH FOR A VARIANCE FOR 7 CROMBIE STREET, SALS;,^ A hearing on this petition was held on January 25, 1984 with the follovinZ Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Associate Member Bencai. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening I'own in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner requests a Variance to allow residential use of the premises. Specif- ically, petitioner seeks the right to operate an emergency shelter for chronically homeless men and women in this B-3 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. Literati 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 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 heaping, i;a`.ics the i'Ol1G:Jing findings of fact-. 1 . Vigorous support as well as vigorous opposition has been prow aimed by neighbors and other persons and groups; 2. The plight of the homeless in this community is real and life- threatening, particularly in the winter months; 3. The Crombie Street Church, because of it's location In the center of Salem, it' s dedication to principles of ch^.rity, and the fa,- li`,_ es available in it's building, is in a special and unique circumstance within the district.; 4. within the parameter of the rules and eend:it:ions under which petitioner proposes to run it' s shelter, there will be no s!a ;t rtial detri-tent to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhooi; 5. - without this variance, petitioner (specifically it's staff and con- gregation) :;i • ,1 grega ) . be unable lo f ll ll perhaps it's primary goal and „ reason for existing - that is, the provision of chatL .JIE' S C85 to the neediest of this neighborhood and comnunit.y in the form, it is most needed by them. This inability to perform these services .whilo having the facilities and finances to do SG would worm a spiritual and floral hardship upon the clergy, Jay ^.tiff and congregation of petitioner. DECISION ON THE VARIANCE, FOR CR,OMBIE STREET '• CHURCH FOR 7 CROMBIE STREET Pa:>e two Feb. 6 On the basis Of the above findings of fact, and On the, Qyy Bence presented at the • hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as ho1L: st' i 1 . Special circumstances affect th„, remise of p,�tffioner which do not generally affect the district; ' 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship upon petitioner; 3. The Variance 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. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioner the variance requested under the following terms and conditions: 1 . All terms and conditions described in the petition, which is expressly incorporated in and made a part of this decision; 2. The emergency shelter will be staffed by both paid and volunteer workers . Workers will arrive at the shelter one hour before the shelter's scheduled opening. Prior the shelter' s opening, workers will. be involved in i-napecti.r the overall security and condition of the building, Is well as :reparin the sleeping area in Choate Hall. 3. When the shelter opens, guests will be admitted to the shelter. Before • being admitted 'to the shelter each guest will be expected to: a. Sign a release form and guest book. b. Submit to a search of their person and possessions by a shelter worker of their own sex. c. Read or have read to them a copy of the rules governing the emergency shelter. d. Surrender all prescribed medications, matches, and any valuables that they may wish to have locked up for the evening. 4. One a guest has been admitted for the evening a worker will assign a mattress, cot and appropriate bedding in the designated area (separa .e sleeping spaces for men and women) . 5. Each mattress and pillow will have its o:rn plastic cover and they will be scrubbed with an appropriate disenfectant when they are assigned to a new guest. Each guest will receive clean linen. 6. At 11 :30 p.m. all lights in Choate Hall will be shut off and all guests will be expected to be either asleep or in a quiet situation for the re- mainder of the evening. Shelter workers will supervise guests at all times and in all parts of the shelter. 7. At 6:15 a.m. the shelter workers will begin waking guests. They will begin cleaning the different areas in use, distributing coffee and donuts to guests and discharging them. at 7:00 a.m. DECISION ON THE VARIANCE FOR CROMBIE STREET ` CHURCH FOR 7 CROMBIE STREET oae r thee Feb. 6 g. Once all guests have been discharged, workers will finish cleaning `84 11"ra1xa_cility, search to make sure that no unauthorized person(s) remain and then lock the doors at 7:30 a.m. C( F Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLER';• •, _ c ri u,l 17 OF THE L.vSS. . cls I° f''y SHAH BE MADE PUP.SUA"T TO c -,,'LC:: ARK, F30:1 THIS DENT0. ,iL r. F.�y, ';V I7NIil ^C GAYS r.r,_K THE. Dri C t D 5 cert cj= In OF,,, T o r. 7-0 jt } �i..� c f1> c.- _ cr, - •+ �.. ..A'g '.... '_ Lr C _ r A CO?i Cr t;ltt l LtH• S�IIL �•T i E '.:I c�. t L5f3ED :JJ I'D o ;r iir -:Bfl'? OIL- H _ ..F THAT IT H:,S B cl' T 'r. '.E. CF - fEL'G'nDED OF RECCRD OR IS RcCO2DED AMD ii'iFE'-� CiJ Tlic 0`tiirRS C'cB'llt! ' WARD DF AND' - ..CooRl. if of S IPm, � tt� cl#zzsP## =, r� Poarb of � Qu[ '84 MAY -8 P2 :41 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANK & CHERYL ROMANO MT1130NERS) =c(CE DONALD S. EMMERTON (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES FOR 2 CROWDIS �T`lfv' 14 A hearing on this petition was held on April 25, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Hopper, Strout and Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque. 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 Variances from lot size, density, setbacks and frontage in order to construct a single family dwelling in this R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: 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. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: • 1 . Vigorous opposition was raised by neighbors; 2. No one spoke in support of this petition; 3. Engineer report submitted showed probable water runoff damage; 4. Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof as to 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 . The variance requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment the public good or without substantially degogatir-g from the purpose of the Ordinance or the intent of the district. Therefore the Zoning Board of Appeal voted by a vote of four against and one in favor to deny the petitioners request for variances. VARIANCE DENIED J APPEAL Fi C Til ir. a SXALL �F AOE PUPS'! 'T TO SECTIOY 17 GF THE !2SSS7l rc:,ER;L LA,'._. I.FnP,.:, FC;. _ .- . _. ..! 20 DAYS AF-CER THE SATE OF rUl "F Te I; 1>: THE c.. -- MY CLERK. ;James B. Hacker, Chairman - r.l _ .- AL !' ?. !:;R :_. THE V.SR!A1:E . .! " .tIT CC)PY<OE SIS DEC O T FTS _SJIT.5 THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 1. iF . .'.� �. 1 �" ch U-S CFF.% F:*,r F4AT IT HAS i c:. DSM QED : __ t IS .0'D 1`.i Tit i:):!C!i E3SER F.E;'6 FF: CF DEEDS AUD ;Ni EC`_D OFJDER THE `.,...E OF TdE OF RECORD OR IS RELOADED AND NMI) Oil THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - BOARD OF APPEAL .. • ,:: .q nit 4i �// (tlitg ofttlem, Cttssttclju�etts :, �nttrD rrfettl • / DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT BRAMBLE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 40 DANIELS STREET, SALEM, MASS. CIT}' r: - A hearing on this petition was held on July 25, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Associate Member Richard A. Bencal, Secretary, Scott Charnas, Messrs. Gauthier & 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 40 A. The petitioner, owner of the premises, requests a Special Permit to allow him to construct an extension of a non-conforming building. 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: Nonwithstanding 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 charge, 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and viewing the plans, invokes the following finding of fact: 1. One neighbor opposed the plan on the ground that her proposed deck;ro view of the ocean would be blocked by the p p 2. Petitioner agrees to rthe petition to minimize that g alte neighbor's complaint; 3. As so altered, the plan will not substantially affect the health, safety or welfare 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 the following: PETITION OF ROBERT BRAMBLE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 40 DANIELS STREET, SALEM page two .84 All,", -6 \ • 1. Petitioner's plan as altered will not be substantially detrimental to the public good; CITY ' E 2. The plan as altered does not substantially derogate from or nullify the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the requested relief, provided that! 1. The southwest portion of the proposed second and third floor decks be reduced by 2 feet from the plans as originally sub- mitted to the Board; 2. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained prior to occupancy to any of the units; 3. A.C. electrical type smoke detectors shall be installed within all occupied units, and a Certificate of Compliance be obtained. Scott E. Charnas, Secretary • I A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK P.PPE4L FR061 THIS DEi 1'I:^:. I'. '":Y, SHA!.L F.E 1ACE PUP,"IAN? TO SECT'.O;J 11 OF THE L,,iE Cr 1FILIS:3 •. :g SH I,J .H 20 DSI N;�Ed IHc GE r L •..., L� OF +. �EC'c Ifi THE Ui-'. s LF T:'E CITY C °'i:. . o �I. Ti E VYZf ,Cc_ P . CP... 4L rcq... IIT 6r1:'.PT-P. J: S- - c u :__RT, '1 F FICA 01' OF -,HE CM CHER I+' c h:Yc E�� c - p O N1 l Fr-d PAS Is - OR THAT, IF SU4H Ai A"FP v' h+.S EEEN F'� IHAT IT h .� KEN LV;D-_R T P J T RECORDED IN THE SOCTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS A.D Ir...EXEO 0 7 R Tii� i�A .c OF THE O:iAER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OVi NER S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • I t Ctu of �5,ttlem, a6sar4usetts z , '84 JUL -2 - 71 1'3 Poarb of ( ►gtr � Fj�l IIFL jy i -= C!TY �F DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS MAZZARINI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM (R-2) ' A hearing on this petition was held on June 20, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout 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 is requesting a Special Permit 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, wnich 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 nad IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or • expansion., shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented a the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no neighborhood opposition to petitioner's proposal; 2. There will be on site parking for five (5)- vehicles. 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 proposed use will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants; 2. The proposed use is in harmony with the City's Zoning Ordinance. -- Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in. favor of granting the \ Special Permit to allow the premises to be used as a three family dwelling under • the following terms and conditions: r r / DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS MAZZARINI FOR . A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM • page two 1 . The premises remain owner occupied, if the property ceases to be owner occupied it will revert to a two family dwelling; 2. Five on site parking spaces be maintained; 3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained; 4. A Certificate of Compliance be obtained from the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED /3tmes .B. Hacker, Chairman 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 LAi.S. CHAPTER 803, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS CECISIGN NJ THE OFFICE OF THE CITY. CLERK. I - PU^ M-WL TO 'i�.SS. CE; L LAC1S, CWPTER CU, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OP. SPECIAL PER1ilT. FiEZEGI. 3HALL NOT TA-..E EFFECT U':T:L A COPY OF THEDECISIOii, KA31MC THE CERT- F15"-'"lis CF TH- CIi7 CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, 6S? i'H1T, IF SO::H AN APPEAL HA.$ BEEN FILE THAT IT HAS DEER D;SV:;SEO OR' 'Ja':IED IS REURD-0 1."1 THE SOLIM ESSEX R EISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UND", THE NA,,-E OF THE OL''lNER 'OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF 'TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL M W NT C. 1 I ;q° z fit ofIsm, tts �tcl�us� Pourb of Appeal .84 Jij 21 SI T Y C, _E DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS MELER FOR A VARIANCE FOR 41 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on June 13, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Charnas, Gauthier, •Luzinski and Strout. 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 is requesting a Variance to allow the use of the premises to be continued as a two family in this R-1 district. Attorney H. Drew Romanovitz, representing the petitioner, requested Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. The Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow petitioner to WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. WITHDRAWN Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK THE "ASS- T TO SECt Oi 17 OF _ nt Fp0?;1 THIS OEC1.1� 1Y. SHALL DF:.E�yVi t'P.HI4!20�DAYS P tES TtiE GATE GF c nI 1F A'. APP="' F EO3, AinO SFIALL 2E LEEK. ""-E OP. Gate L';�5. C:::.PiE: OFF.CE OF THE CITY C THE �.' " ;ta R7 77:_ c S. SECT Il. i 0;. CH ,'_it )3. OF THE UEC; ::eRA• uc �'c EE" i_t' ,pi:Ll FST S\tiE EFFECT U'!❑L A CGPY pAU Il'- {,vPE�D nR Gr: .. Pi ' r4iE E—Ps ED S��t. T'i CLi°ti 7Y.AT 2C DAYS c HAS p�cu C`h1E& ,H I,r =` .!::. C'' _ EEEN F1i_ 7HaT TpjD ti1DEXED D F:C!.T!�t: iftY 6F G°EDS s: Ai PEe r�,AREo15 C O:YNER'S GEII(IFi�ATc 0. �Tl - il: THE SGCTH c.5-h 0 N 1 Oti THE _ R_1 ?C2° CORDED. AK O of ;SPEAT- OF RECCRO OR iS RE �OARR ..00y0R1..`- ` /9// 0 v ,i (ofa (fitu of "Salem, Anssar4usjettor .=• $ Pour3 of Appeal '84 i" ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN HAMILTON, TRUSTEE OP) T 132-134 DERBY STREET REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 132-134 DERBY ST. AND 16 BENTLEY ST. , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held May 23, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski & Strout. 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 the two buildings currently on the premises into six condominium units (3 in each building) , as more fully described in the petition and on plans submitted to the Board. This is a B-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 consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Neighborhood opposition to the plan is based on alleged parking problems, but the plan calls for sufficient parking under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance; . 2. Notice requirements of Section V-B (12) (6) have been met to the extent required; 3. Petitioners plan will not have any negative impact on the existing stock of rental units in the City for families of low and moderate income or for elderly people on fixed incomes; 4. Petitioners plan will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood; 5. No significant hardship to any tenants in the building will be caused by petitioner's plan; 6. Petitioner's plan is not in conflict with the Master Plan of the City; 7. This petition differs materially and significantly from any petition filed within the last two years in regard to the promises in question. P/• ! 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,\ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN HAMILTON, TR. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 132-134 DERBY ST. AND 16 BENTLEY ST. , SALEM r • page two \\— 1 . The desired relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good; 2. 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 Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one in favor of granting the Special Permit to allow condominium conversion as requested, provided that: 1 . The concrete block wall on the premises be taken down and a six foot high fence be erected in its place; 2. Any exterior lighting of the premises be done by placing lights on the perimeter of the property facing inwards; 3. Nine parking spaces be created on the premises, as per the plans submitted to the Board and as described in the petition; 4. Certificate of Occupancy for each unit be obtained. Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECIS10M, IF ANY, SHALL RE M0E PURSUANT TO SECTIO14 17 OF THE MASS. GENER,:1, L'aTS. L'H�:PTEP. 803, A;D SHALL DE BLED V1'I;HI;I ZD DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF fILHP10 Cr i '.. "N 1.01- Or .0 OF THE CITY CL.RK. ;-, TLR 'o'8, K'I1'JH jl, THE V?,6" r. OR SPF L FEW.11T Eir! SPALL ,_ GCT iAriE r FECT Jh LL A _OPY CF h D r�Su 'T A,2 .G Tr. CEd!- --HE CITY .ER,T IAT 27 DAYS :AJF EL,-,'SED AND Nr ASPE WS EiEF4, ICED, OR !'I" r 'U,7H :.N APPEAI KAS CEEN F-t E. WAI IT HAS BEEN MSVIS `> JTZ BE1'I cC !S - RECC%DEO iN THE S'7JTH ESSEX REFISTRY JF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDCR 1H- rv'ME OF THE 0WNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TFFLE. BOARD OF APPEAL n C)3 y p C (1litg of �$ttfem, Aussuchusetts s �uarD of �ppettl ccros.cR' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE OSGOOD FOR A VARIANCE FOR 278 DERBY STREET r'm A hearing on this petition was held on August 22, 1984 witp th�lff lap Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Charnas, e r'et 'ry, 6 Messrs. Robert Gauthier & Edward Luzinski and Associate Member, Richard A. Bencal. Notice of -the hearing was sent to abutters arrdTa`£fi6F9_'and^- ^E notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem �E4Aning .News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner has requested a Varinace from parking, density, side line, front yard, rear lot line and height requirements in order to construct 58 multi-family dwelling units with additional commerical space at 278 Derby Street, all as more fully described in the petition and plans filed with the Board. Petitioner is the owner of the premises, which is in an R-3 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 i • 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 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 purpose of the Ordinance. 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 to the plan was raised by neighbors; 2. The lot is unique in regard to the configuration of the buildings on the lot, the proximity to public parking, and downtown area; 3. The current buildings cannot be used in any economically feasible manner within the constraints of the Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and orCthecevidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as fllocd�: C_ �' —r c Tl 1 -1 a PET}.TION OF GEORGE OSGOOD FOR VARIANCES v a r .FOR 278 DERBY STREET CL ` 1. Special conditions exist which affect this_10t wfi'ich - do not affect the district generally; _ r 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would ,—work a1sub- stantial hardship upon Petitioner; 11 ON 3. The Variance 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. Therefore, The Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the relief re- quested, provided that: 1. The peaks of the buildings described in the plans filed with the Board be lowered by 10 feet below the height shown in said plans; 2. Liberty Street may not be used as access to the premises from Charter Street; 3. If the buildings or parts thereof become condominums, at least one parking space shall be assigned to each dwelling unit; 4. The plan must be approved by the Salem Fire Department prior to starting construction; • 5• The City Planner is henceforth to be involved in any or all of the phases of planning and construction regarding the premises as he sees fit VARIANCE GRANTED Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, Ir ANY, SHALL BE LADE PURSUANT T� SEtT{[:N 17 OF 1HE I,!ASS. GENERAL LA'ir'S. CHAPTER 808, AND SHP.LL BE F:!:C ..:_': 2v DAYS AF?C:2 HE UAiE OF FI LINA OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFI:E CF THC CITY CL:R%. PURSANT TO 6iASS. GENERAL LAWS, CI4.4."TER 893, S[�.1`:; 11, THE VARIAN ` .^,a GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL N2T TA:(E EFFECT UtiTIL A C.F'. ,F TH'E EUSl91i. 87,rl;': TH.: C=RT- FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK TNA: 20 DAIS HAVE ELA.iSEO A31) N2 AFPEAL HAS B=EN FLED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, TH47 IT ii—S C=EN DIS'ASSED OR DEaIED IS .RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED 'UNDER THE NA'.IE OF THE CWN;2 OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. '•\ BOARD OF APPEAL ` f�Sit ofttiem, tto5txrue# - Poarb of Appeal 084 JIL11 21 A CIT DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE OSGOOD FOR A VARIANCE AT 278 DERBY STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on June 13, 1984 with the following Board. Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs., Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. 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 is requesting a Variance to allow commercial uses in this R-3 district. Also requesting variance from parking requirements_ Attorney John Serafini, 63 Federal St. , Salem, representing the petitioner requested Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. The Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow petition Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. WITHDRAWN Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRO.,! THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE LADE PURSUANT TO SECTIM I7 OF THE MASS_ GENERAL LA`:AS, CHAPTER BC9, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF T}i:S DECINON IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PUR'A:;T TO £ENERAL LA':IS. CHAPTER 809, SECTION 11, THE OR SPECIAL PER.11T G Flat;-,:? JPi 6 . SHALL NGI TARE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEO''1S'ON:- C-4:0.'2 THE CCRT- F!CATiJN LF nTH CITY CLERi THAT. 20 GAYS HAVE EIABSED ANO NO APPEAL F"S e£E'! FILED. OF. -Iwm1 if ;!i::i1 ANI APPEAL HAS BL-EN RLE. THAT IT HAS 3EE?1 015•.i`£q CR DEU!ED IS RE:D::OLD i.; THE SCLlm ESSEX REC:SIRY CF DEEDS AnrI INDE%ED L•T;i.EF NE NA:'.IE OF THE C1,7NER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NGi ED Oh THE CPiNER'S CERTIFICATE GF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL Ctv of ".5ttlem, 'ffittssarhusetto r h Poarb of teal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOAN M. MCCARTHY FOR A VARIANCE FOR 23 E. COLLINS ST. , SALEM ,, A hearing on this petition was held November 28, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, tq Ohter Luzirr QF and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and othe576'.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 convert a single family dwelling into a two 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, building 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 . Planning Board was opposed; 2. Vigorous neighborhood opposition; 3. The Fire Department was opposed; 4. Petitioner failed to establish any hardship; 5. Adequate parking not provided in a congested area. 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 . Literal enforcment of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 2. Desired relief cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without substantially derogating from the intent •\ or purpose of the Ordinance. f DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOAN M. MCCARTHY FOR A VARIANCE FOR 23 E. COLLINS ST. , SALEM Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal by a vote of 5 - 0 vote against granting \ petitioner the Variance requested. VARIANCE DENIED aures B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 77 a. APREU TOM TMS ENk OM i A0.0% SE MADE PUP.OAM TJ SECTION P OF ME V GEN&V LKA, C&PTER p._ AND SH -L __ LED -r;ra 2V DAYS AFTER THE DATE . r LIN- OF 70S PEDSON 1% THE 000A CF THE NY CLEX r r,. :'i TC 0w 1 S taAFTER _JY SEW PN IL THE VAMPICE CR .r_. E PEA'.'.IT - ROTTR OP THL CA i'-.. HOT L -it So f H" EC.. D IS OF RECORD OR IS RUSHED ANO Kau 00 THE OWNERS CERTiF TATE OF TITLE BOARD OF NFEAL Cg of �APm, fflassac4usetts ultra of e�[ . . N , P c�P 84 NY � DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPHINE ELLIS & ROSEf44R9 §gFAZOLA ���i'i�f E FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 58 ENDICOTT ST. (R-2) `� A hearing on this petition was held on April 25, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Hopper, Strout and Associate Members Bencal and. LaBrecque. 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 a Special Permit to convert the existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling by adding a basement apartment 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 D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures,a nd for changes, enlargement, ex- tension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlarge- ment 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioners plan was raised at the hearing_ 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 Special Permit which has been requested will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood. Therefore, the. zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting the petitioners the requesting Special Permit to allow conversion from two family dwelling to three family dwelling under the following terms and conditions: i ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPHINE ELLIS & ROSEMARIE SPINAZOLA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 58 ENDICOTT STREET, SALEM page two J1 . Five parkings spaces on site be maintained in accordance with plans -- submitted to the Board; 2. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained prior to renting; 3. The use of the property is conditioned upon the continued ownership of the property by the petitioners. In the event that the petitioner ceases to own or occupy the property, the property shall revert back to its prior use as a two family dwelling. Provided, however, that nothing in this decision shall be interpreted to prevent a reapplication to this Board in the event that petitioner ceases. to own the property. aures B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK r J fILEC K'J'+H!il ZO DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING APPEAL FROM 14115 DECIS!0N, IF A' Y, SHALL BE IKA9E PURSUANT TO SECT10JV 17 OF THE t�.^.ASS- GENERAL LAtlIS. CHAPTER V3. AND S^^L- B; CITY CLERK. o c `C,ryt P;�+rte OF Tyy DEC'�O- I1 THE 0 n� ..F THE r . .R;� ,.. C9:+�TER EOS, Sif �iJ 11. T. JnRiA"tC� C qEr .'G P,' o C° TH_�c F�ECT UNTIL A -O %D " 1Hc Gi rf CLE I,--.:i DAPS L r - A.O .�:OE"O x'10-Q THE .. c OF NEO -7icR : R _�r c c .li AB APP ' H-a FEET' FILE. iHA' I� h. � " nc �cS_O C. ' RE:.`.'".-`EO i"� 7tIE SG21H ESTE.( R-CIS`.RY 0: CEEOS OF RECORD OR !S RECORDED. AND HOiEO 0.1 THE OClPJERB CERTIF!CAIE BOARULDF APPEAL C') C _{ A cn-< r De's 3 �i cc m Tity of tttem, ttssttt�usett 4 ns�„ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLOTTE S. CLEMENS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND ` 'lot VARIANCES FOR 98 ESSEX ST. , (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on October 24, 1984 with the following Board members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Charnas, Secretary; Edward Luzinski , Robert Gauthier and Associate member, Richard A. 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 and a Variance to continue the original decision granted February 18, 1981 for 98 Essex St. (R-2) to convert a single family home to a Tourist Home with four guest rooms. The property is in an R-2 Zoning District which allows tourist homes by Special Permit. The Special Permit which has been requested may therefore be granted upon a finding by the Board of Appeal that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. • The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for A Special Permit is Section V 8 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 will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City' s inhabitants. In addition, the petitioner has requested a variance from parking requirements for a Tourist Home. 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 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLOTTE S. CLEMENS FOR A SPECIAL tsERMiT AND . VARIANCE FOR 98 ESEX ST. (R-2) PAGE TWO ? 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 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 purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition to the proposed use by any abutters or neighbors. 2. The petition currently has , as a matter of right, the ability to use the property in question as a two-family home. 3. The Petitioner will , in connection with the grant of the requested Special Permit and variance lose the right to use this property as a two- family home while this Special Permit remains in effect. • 4. The property in question is unique because of the configuration and size of the property and its location in a Historic District. Any alteration of the site to accommodate parking would have a negative aesthetic impact on the surrounding area. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the Special Permit subject to the following conditions. 1 . The property shall remain a single family residence while this Special Permit remains in effect. 2. The property may also be used as a Tourist Home with no more than four (4) guest rooms. 3. There will be no site or facade alterations at the property without the prior approval of the Salem Historical Commission. 4. Any sign at the property shall comply with all applicable city ordinances. 5. There will be no kitchen facilities in any of the guest rooms. 6. Petitioner must upgrade the present fire alarm system to the re- quired configuration as set forth by the Salem Fire Department. 7. Petitioner must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. In addition, because of the uniqueness of this property in question and the special hardship which would result to the Petitioner if the site were altered v DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLOTTE S. CLEMENS FOR A SPECIAL PER;RVT VARIANCE FOR 9E ESSEX ST. (R-2) • PAGE THREE 5;+ to accomodate parking, the Board also voted unanimously in favor of a Variance from the parking requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. //R Ricc hard A. Bencal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • APPEAL FRS. Th�S , ._ °P_LL Err H oi5 NT TC S - 17 ","IS- GEN' -SS. GEN'RAL Lk."', C!' F D .,F r , 20 GAYS A--� A OF THIS DECISION U" THE OFFCE CF THE CITY C;.[R:d. PURSANT TC BASS. GENERFl L:.}TS, CTIA '.ER S:'O. S... .i+ii 11, THE GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TA"F Elr-CT UiTIL A CCFY +F -H :- ...a FICATION OF THE CITY CLER ; THAT 2C JAMS i0v-, _f?i: N.? OR THAT, IF SUCH All APPEAL HAS SEEN FILE, Ti1.4i IT RECORDED IIJ THE SOUTH ESSEX RE,'-ISTR'i OF >'c"S AND I:NDEXEED VDZZi, THE ';A'.:E OF In, OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED 0:4 THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL itg of "Sttiem, Aassachusetts � S • r 1 F PAarb Of �pyeal n• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WALTER A. COSTEL LO JR. , TRUSTEE C.F. & B. REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 314 ESSEX ST. , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on November 28, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chair an; Messrs.., C-harnas, Luzinski, and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice o{ �he hearing was sent to abutters and others and notice of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to alter the current nonconforming use of the building so that it may be used e5a law office, and to alld✓certain renovations as described in plans submitted to the Board. The premises is owned by C.F. & B. Realty Trust and is in an R-2 District. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, 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 hearing the evidence and viewing the plans presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No meaningful opposition was presented to the petition; 2. The use of the premises as a law office would not be inappropriate for the neighborhood; 3. Parking problems will not be significantly exacerbated by the granting of the petition. 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 does not substantially derogate from nor nullify the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. The relief requested will not create a substantial detriment to the public good. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WALTER A. COSTELLO JR. , TR. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 314 ESSEX ST. , SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 to 0 to grant the relief requested, provided that: 1 . The occupancy conforms with all applicable provisions of the Salem Fire Code and the Massalrep-sAui�dinj',Code; 2. The plans submitted to the Board are approved by the Salem Historical Commission; CITY - ' ICE 3. A minimum of five (5) non-piggyback parking spaces be maintained on the premises. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED 5 c Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ^, AF SHAMi.EU ;;THIN 20 DAYS ArtER THE DATE Of FILING APPEgA� FRJ'h THIS DECISIGi'!. IF APIY. SHALL BE 1,. DE PURSUANT TO SECTION E DA THE kFIL . GEf7EFrL LA:4S, CHAPTER J.o, li4 T°E Gr°ICE C THr CilY G EPY OF it GE a' S 11, THE 4+PIneICEcDR SPECIAL CE?T- P R Cn ° :A .c TryE FILED, ;1L : iI -' ` E;r� T rI r � AL NS6 i.:,ED IS CF", t7 Ht 1F CITY CLEF F:T "t0 D - -" a . SED PR G P, Ev 'h' ER THE �E OF 7HE OV:7JER Y C, zE'1S 111 l:- eU Cis .H%.T, :F SJC-. Ald FPPt h S U- RECORDS RECOTHE SlUTH RD OR S RECOROEUSE NDTEU ON THE ON NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. $OARp OF APPEAF; o varb of F�'1111:A6 P]'/ I1I' l- l / l eal •VT AP.. 3 P2 �1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & SARAH HAYES (PETI- ONERS)' ` ESTATE OF RICHARD H. PERLEY (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES FOR 21 FAIRMOUNT STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on March 21 , 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and potices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners request Variances from lot size, density and seback requiremepts in order that they may combine lots 1 & 2 into one lot, as shown on a plan submitted to this Board. Property is. located 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 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 purpose of the Ordinance. 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 presented to petitioner's plan; 2. Lot #2 is presently unbuildable due to it's unique size and shape; 3. If petitioner's request is denied the property would be extremely difficult to market. 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 but do not affect the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship upon petitioner; and i • DECISION ON PETITION OF JOHN & SARAH HAYES FOR " VARIANCES FOR 21 FAIRMOUNT ST. page two 3. The variances requested can be granted without substantial detriment •� to the public good, and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioners the requested variances to allow the consolidation of lots 1 & 2 more fully described in a plan submitted to the Board. VARIANCES GRANTED cK5' I -rt T Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRW,1 THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MMS. CEYERA, lii'iiS, CHAPTER 203. AND SHALL BE FILED W17H1.1 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF SUNG Ti!iS DIECIEMI IN THE OFF!CE OF THE CITY CLERK.. _ P2 S^.TT TO ::ASS. CENERAL L19:S. CHAPTER$C8. SECT:Oi: 11. THE VAR!AT!CE OR SPECIAL P-R'°IT - _' Ci`Ai:;EJ 4!� Eia, SHALL VLF T.,..E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF TI!EDEC;S:'°I. 6EA:iti:S THE CERT- ' FiCA7iDJ CF THE CITY CLERK THAT 2O DAYS HAVE 'ELAP.-0 &':O NO APPzAL HAS 3=1 Fi:EU, - U% THAT, IF SSCH AN APPEAL H:,S D_ci RLE. THAT IT HAS OE°v. C;S."!SSEO OR DE:;!EO IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX R:i:;fRY OF DEEDS AtID IMJ:REO INDEP. THE N;"U OF TH- OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CE::TIFICATE OF TITLE_ BOARQ OF APPEAL ( )�_ 2 1 �s fgi#u ofttlem, tt�stttlTusetts v -p r ` s nttrD of enI '84 PIC' h1(` :4 ! "!:um7:rxy� CIT` 7 PE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT A. LEDOUX FOR A SPECIAL PERML'G )FOR 47 FEDERAL STREET (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held on October 24, 1984 with the following Board Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman; Scott Charnas, Secretary; Mister: Robert Gauthier and Associate Member, Richard A. Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of LL the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance n o with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40 A. C � v C C V W N i LL w o -Jhe petitioner has requested a Special Permit to change from one non- e- z conforming use, a survey office, to another non-conforming use, a law office. The petitioner also wished to construct a connecting passage r ' " Bay from 47 to 49 Federal St. = o � iihe provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this > ; 4 o t2 request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: = r' r uw it Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing o t = N in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set J G N forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits a o for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming o z structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, o c `LL w N 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. F: u � = - 2 In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, vy guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding v LL by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, < = o safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the < 7 w public hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. No. opposition was raised by neighbors, abutters or others. 2. The property would be in more harmony with existing structures in .the area such as the court house and the county offices. The Board of Appeal, after careful deliberation voted unanimously 4-0, to grant the Special Permit subject to the following conditions. 1. A building permit for the connecting passage way be obtained. • SPECIAL PERMIT UNANMIOUSLY GRANTED . Richard A. ental A COPY Of THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Tito of Sulem, Htt� ttcl�usetto ,r Pourb of �ppval i <,DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANN M. SERAFINI FOR A VARIANCE FOR 63 FEDERAL STREET, SALEM (R-3) A hearing on' this petition was held on June 20, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. , Luzinski, Strout and Associate h Member Bencal, Acting Secretary. 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 is requesting a Variance from rear and side yard setbacks and lot coverage to construct an addition. in this R-3 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances 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 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 considering the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition for the petitioners plan; 2. Previous use of the building has been a combination office/residence and did not detract from 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 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, involved which are. not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial and otherwise, to petitioner; 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the j \ public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the • 1 intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting the Variance to allow construction of an addition to an existing room at the rear of the building under the following terms and conditions: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANN M. SERAFINI FOR A • VARIANCE FOR 63 FEDERAL ST. , SALEM page two 1 . The addition may be constructed based on the plans submitted. VARIANCE GRANTED Richard A. Bencal, Acting ec etary A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK • SHALL BE MADE PO NS'20rI0AYSAFTER THE DATE OF T I TO SECTION 17 OF THE (FILING hF'P'0�A FROivI THIS DECISION. IF ANY, — Ggt{Fr;;,[- LA:JS, CHAPTER 203, Ai1D SHALL 6E FILED VlITHI CF TitiS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. `CIJ10 1 BcOR SC THE C ER - pty-,:T TO 6;SSS. CEII`_'RAL L,7i S, CHAPTER SO'S SECTION 11, THE VA OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRA'iTEp HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAF.E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE. FIC%.ii0ii Cf ':H.E CITY CLERK iHAT 20 DAYS HA''+E [LAPSED AiiO NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FIIIS ED, OR TH 7, IF SUCH AN APPEHL H" BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS CEEN DiS�11SSEp OR DEN{ED T OF--RE(C"uR0IN TI8 ,SoUT RECO RDED NOTED YONrTHES-FIEOWfJER'SI CERTIFICATE OF TTLENDEXED U; OCR -'HE REC� Ji+w�,E OF THE OWNER BOARD OF APPEAL C. b U of �'alvm, ttssttcl�use##$ -;- f ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JESSICA HERBERT (PETITIONER)CIT:' c. r DAVID '& RHONDA PREMAN" (OWNERS) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR � )•'C 95-97 FEDERAL STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on June 20, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout 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 convert the structure into a four unit 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 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 e.:isting nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by therulethat 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 the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The property in question is presently being used as a three unit family dwelling and was formerly a nursing home and has approximately twenty five (25)rooms; 2. The structure cannot be economically used as, a two or, three unit dwelling; 3. That with reference to this particular structure a four unit family dwelling use is appropriate as it will best ensure this building's survival; . 4. The petition has the general support of the neighborhood. • On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at at the hearing, .the Board concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed use will promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants; r , DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JESSICA HERBERT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 95-97 FEDERAL ST. , SALEM • page two 2. The relief requested may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting the requested Special Permit in accordance with the following terms and conditions: 1 . That the property be used a a four unit family dwelling and that. the use of the property remain residential only; 2. That the property not be used for boarders; 3. That one of the units be occupied by-the-owners as--their-principal residence; 4. That a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained upon completion.of`.the renovation work and landscaping in accordance with the plans submitted with the Special Permit application; 5. That ten (10) off street parking spaces be maintained on the premises as shown on the plans submitted; 6. That the existing concrete block garage situated at the rear of the property be removed; • 7. That�all exterior work be in compliance with the Historical Commission; . 8. That this Special Permit shall terminate in the event thaP-anyo5f the . above conditions are not met. cn< n -n - — c i� r1i - SPECIAL PERMIT ,UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED — , J v m James B. Hacker, Chairman 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 LA',;S. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED YlITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATEOFFILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - PCRSA NT T0.MASS. GENERAL LAYlS. C4APTER 898. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE ORSPECIALPERMIT - GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT. TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECIS:GN,-BEARING THE CERT- FILED, OF,THE CITY CLER'.( '(HAT 20 DAIS HAVE ELAPSED ANO NO APPEAL HAS 8' FILED, • OR THAT. I, SUCH AN APPEAL HAS 2-EN FILET THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS%1ISSEO OR DENTED IS - RECO2.:;E9 INTHESOUTH ESSEX P.EOISTP.Y CF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFIGAIE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL ' 4 of J�ttlem, C4U5tits. Pnttrb of �Fpea1 �•-i;m,cam' T[ Rf'; 2L.• n r. . �DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL. BONARDA FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PRMIT FOR 107 FEDERAL STREET, SALEM, MASS, CIT - F A hearing on this petition was held on October 17, 1984 with the following Board Members present: Acting Chairman, Edward Luzinski, Secretary Scott Charnas, Messrs. Gauthier and Strout. 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, the owner of the premises, seeks a Special Permit to allow him to convert an existing store into an apartment; also, he requests a Variance from minimum parking requirements so that he would be required to maintain only three on-site parking spaces. The premises, in an R-2 district, already has two dwelling units. 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 zonditions set forth in Section VIII F and a D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming • structures , and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The 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 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 purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL BONARDA FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL ,PERMIT FOR 107 FEDERAL STREET, SALEM • PAGE TWO 'e4 nrr 29 u. � The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and viewing the plans, involkes the following findings of fa 1611Y 1. The petition is substantially and materially different from a prior petition, filed within the last 2 years, concerning this same parcel; 2. Opposition to petitioner's plan was presented by neighbors ; 3. The area in which the premises is located in one of the most beautiful and charming areas of the city; 4. Parking is a significant problem in this neighborhood; 5. The addition of another apartment on the premises would increase or tend to increase density of population in the area, and would tend to exaserbate the parking problem in the neighborhood; 6. Petitioner bought the premises when he knew or should have known that zoning requirements prohibited adding a third dwelling unit. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board concludes as follows: • 1. It is appropriate for the Board to hear this petition on the merits; 2. The addition of a third apartment may be substantially detrimental to the public good, and would derogate substantially from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, 3. There is no hardship to petitioner if the terms of the ordinance relating to minimum parking requirements are enforced literally. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted 4 to 0 against granting the Special Permit and Variance requested. PETITION DENIED, Scott E. Charms, Secretary A COPY OF THE DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEU FRO:. T:i:';: C'CILI a, :. S9ALL EE 61AOE PUFS-F,NT TO SECTIO.': 17 OF THE MASS. THE DAIE OF [l'H%O OF TF:IS DE'.!S'L.. IIG JH' Li Pb.. OF THE CIT! CLE2K. Pu '.IT TO :: 5 Cr .-R A. C9A°''E'n 555 �E-.I!.:;; 11, TH V':�, E P -P-"IAL -i" IT H_:;EI- SH;:L K'; ..-:T l)i!L A C�°f LF THE .-;3T. F;vnTIA OF THE CITY G_cn. i, 'C `S 't:i: WE OR THAT IF SU 9 nJ r,"r F'¢ H a F F'. A- 1 .r F? OIS I'.SIJ r O !S • �I RE, '"• ED u $ J L' _.;EDU DD 'IHc -.E OF Th_ I OFR C:RD OR IS PE 'p DED A1J hC;Ev ✓� TI!_ OX;ERS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL „„rnvnr�4p Ctu of ttlem, ttssttcl�usetts Pourb of c ppeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL BONARDA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 107 FEDERAL STREET, SALEM, MASS. A hearing on this petition was held on September 12, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Charnas, Secretary, Messrs. Robert Gauthier & Peter Strout, Associate Members, Richard 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 Cahpter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing store into an apartment. The Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow petition Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. WITHDRAWN • Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FR0;,9 THIS DE:ISIOP:, , SHALL RE 6SADE PORSJ 1' TO SE�1lCN i7 OF T'.iE MASS. GENERAL LASIG. CHAPTER u3' OF SHALL 6E fJ-`� u''-Tii1N 20 DAYS AF'i EP. SHE GA'iE OF FILING A° r? niT OF THIS DECISION IN THE 0%:ICE CF THE CITY CLERK 1, � _g -ERT uAPTER GOA SEC” 11 , OP P_ pup, i0 MASS. GENERAL LAV.S C AL HG° I ILEO, p Af - NDA GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT T.!(E EFFECT UNTIL A CO?rNDS UEENI DIS'-i ED OF. �t'l. Is ER THAT IT FIGATION OF THE CITY CLER'r, THAT 20 DAPS HAVE ELAAI�D INDEXED UNDER THE PIA OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS SEEN FILE, s.- O RECORDED IN THE SOUFH ESSEX REGISTRI' Of DEEDS i— _ c7 NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. I ---� OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND BOARD OF APPET'L I -' �7 N m � Ctg of ttlem, ttsstttlju$ettg Poarb of 084 e AUG -6 :n,, AUf•, f F?., DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL T. BONARDA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT ANp,,,E VARIANCE FOR 107 FEDERAL STREET, SALEM, MASS. CITY II A hearing on this petition was held on July 25, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Associate Member Richard A. Bencal, Secretary, Scott Charnas, Messrs. Gauthier & 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 40 A. The Petitioner, owner of the premises, requests a Special Permit to convert a store into two efficiency apartments; also, he requests a variance from minimum parking requirements. 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, extensions, 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 Cityis inhabitants. 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 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 purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL T. BONARDA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 107 FEDERAL STREETS SALEM page two 84 AUG —G A10 :4! The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence preseed..at tote t�F�ng, and viewing the plans, makes the following findings o ace: 1. Vigorous opposition was presented to petitioners plan; 2. Parking is already a critical problem in this neighborhood, and the plan would substantially exacerbate this situation; 3. Petitioner recently purchased this property and knew or should have known that there was insufficient parking under the Ordinance to construct the store into two efficiency apartments. 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 cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good; 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would not work a sub- stantial hardship upon petitioner within the meaning of the Ordinance. • \ Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unamicusly against granting the relief re - quested. THE PETITION IS DENIED. Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRC:: TI'!S 7)b^!317 . I' .'!VY, SF"lL K ':ADE PIh.S'!ANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE LASS. G ' ER4.L LA SS. Lr' i ;'d..L F: F, ... . ... "`l 20 DAYS A Fr.; 1HH' DATE OF F11 ING OF TfiiS DEM.W! 17 ?.._ DFiiuE CP THE CI"C1' CLERN. PURSANT TO rASS. GE'7EP..'-.L 'A.'.'S. CFbl ER EJ-3, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE CR SP'f l^.:. PE'rt'i.iT GRANTED HEREi'I, SHALL NOT 1'.I;E EFFECT U::TIL A COPY OF THE:i'_C 3!2N, BE6:G:`; "IH' CFRL FICATION OF THE CITY CLERii THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN OISY.iISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RI-IFTRY DF C`_DS AND HME'ED U'r:DEC "i HE iiA57E OF TfiE OY;NER OF RECORD OR IS REC6F.DI Fd7D i:.::5 D i 1'liE Gi+'i:Eii �n2Tli'.dA?E OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL i � � �b fit oftt1em, � ttssttcl�use#ts y n_ c M DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE & MARGARET MCALLISTER ; FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 186 FEDERAL ST. , SALEM ; nV. A hearing on this petition was held on October 17, 1984 with tMe:-foi±owing Board Members present: Ed Luzinski, Acting Chairman, Messrs. , Charna fi Gauthier and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and rfotices 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 from the 7,500 square foot per dwelling unit requirement to allow a two family dwelling on a 9,400 square foot lot 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 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. Permit will promote the public health, rant of the Special P p by the Board that the g P safety,afet convenience and welfare of the city' s inhabitants. After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing plans of the property, the Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition raised by neighbors; 2. The use as a two family is allowing in this district; 3. On site parking is available. 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 proposed use as a two family dwelling will not be detrimental to the neighborhood; 2. The proposed use is in harmony with the City's Zoning Ordinance ,r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE & MARGARET MCALLISTER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 186 FEDERAL STREET, SALEM page two I' • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal, voted unanimously to grant the petition - the requested Special Permit from lot size to allow conversion from a one family dwelling to a two family dwelling on a 9,400 sq. ft. lot under the following terms and conditions: 1 . A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained prior to renting. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH- THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. ANY. SHALL BE MADE THE DATE OF FILING APPE'•L F'^':' THIS DEC6l?N. IF FILED YJ!THIN ZO DAYS AFTER n: ?50 S'dALL EE PEP.'::IT C=lr•F.--' S- _ CrTHE CITY CLEF.K. 'CE O4 Sr'cC'4_ GL .n-i LDz,- _.F. `. -.-_ H Tp - cc ��',! 11 C¢Eii- CF inU 0.CIC C 1 � -, 48CS. CT A C-?) F:�EO. u il'c p H a c P'9c.p,.,' r r .. c.� IS TITLE. „OUTF E ? UJ,N'R'S CERTIFICATE OF t N01cu ON TH[ n C OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED N.ID BOARD OF APPEAL — r— _ rr, 2 S V. rr, � L (fitg of ttlent, Massachusetts 9 ama s .- Poxrb of �kppral DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WAYNE C. SOUSA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 41 FLINT STREET A hearing on this petition was held on August 22, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Charnas, Secretary; Messrs. Robert Gauthier & Edward Luzinski and Associate Member, Richard A. 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 Massachusestts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner seeks a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling at 41 Flint Street, and R-2 district. In order for the Board to consider this petition, it must first determine whether it is substantially different from another petition filed by petitioner within 2 years concerning this same property. This prior petition, denied by this Board at or about April, 1984 sought to convert the same two family dwelling into 3 condominum units. The Board finds that the petitions are not substantially different and declines to hear this current petition on the merits. • PETITION DENIED A� r Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, 1;" ANY, SHALL BE Mu AGE PURSUANT TO SE.^.TiON 17 OF THE (MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER E)?, AND SHALL GE FILED W;": ;FI 20 DAYS AFTER THE LATE OF Fi LIN3 OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER HOE, S-CTWN 11, THE VA31A CC !" i PE 'AL "E":;IT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPi' OF THEI:'i:IF!. f, .,. -,= f-ERT- FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE FLAPS—) .`.:.D ;J APPEALHAS OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THA" if H.;S. lic: i DIG I S'S EDOR C-ii_D IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER :HE NA:dE OF THE C-4 'C. OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICQ OF Tt{. D�BOARBsyF APPIAh r p. ' cri .� M ..O.«,.� (li#g of �'ttlem, ttcl usPi _ �. D s-. - Puarb of �}s rxzl '84 VR —3 P2 :51 - DECISION ON PETITION OF WAYNE C. SOUSA FOR SPECIAL Uyg11 _: (r' FOR 41 FLINT STREET, SALEM S.' is A hearing on this petition was held on March 21 , 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Strout. 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 special permits in order to convert an existing two family dwelling into two condominiums and to add a third condominium unit 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, and • after viewing.the plans, makes the following findings of fact: a 1 . Opposition to the addition of a third unit was presented, but not to the conversion of the two existing units into condominiums; 2. The addition of a third unit would exacerbate parking and traffic problems in an already extremely densely populated part of the City; 3. The building is vacant and was not made vacant by petitioner for the purpose of condominiumizing the units; 4. Petitioner's plan will nothave a negative impact on the City's existing stock of low and moderate income rental units nor on elderly people on fixed incomes; 5. Petitioner's plan will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood, except for the impact the third unit would have as described above; 6. Petitioner's plan is not in conflict with the Master Plan of the City; 7. There are no tenants and thus no hardship caused by the conversion. S DECISION ON PETITION OF WAYNE C. SOUSA FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR 41 FLINT ST. page two • 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 conversion of the two existing units to condominiums can be done _ without substantial detriment to the public good and such conversions is to a use not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use; 2. The addition of a third unit would be a substantial detriment to the public good. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted as follows: 1. Not to grant a Special Permit allowing the construction of a third unit; 2. To grant petitioner a Special Permit to allow him to convert the existing two units to condominiums, provided that no changes be made to the exterior of the two units without prior written approval of the City of Salem Historical 'Commission. 701 Scott E. Charnas, Acting Serzretary cR --- A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PL_4NNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ,M1°P,.tL cai,'2 T!iIS DECISION, AiIY, 54ALLcEE VAOEIP 6 ICi,2 �fiA'iS S.—,:t --- T 17 C T2� 'FlJNG , i i& Q.i� AND 'MLL E FL._J .it OFF—'CE OF Tr CM CLERK- 171 C' r ° H�° 1a cJ$. SECT:- N 11 Tic Vt - - - 1' T Edi ,1 lAb. r . r c ALL .,— T+ i EFFECT LNTit A COPY OF C, - 7i nn SED � NO � F - � C.� N- orf C ER �d T O A7S h\: V J „ I SJ,ri i,:l APPS L HAS F i F T`n 17 D 16 + ° R 4.c•.:r Ti 'C31H ESSEX RECiBi R'l ;F DEEDo OF REC::RD o2 IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OUNEn S CERTIFICATE OF IDLE. BOARD OF APPEAL f�it� of �ttlem, C�ttsSttchu�effs Poara of �Fpeal • my r ` i DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLARK & PATRICIA FINNISS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 14 FORRESTER ST. , SALEM (R.=2) A hearing on this petition was held December 5, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others. Notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the premises, request a Special Permit to convert a present two family dweling into a two unit condominium 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 ndin an thin to the contrary appearing he Board of in this Ordinance, t 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, p rovided,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 Soecial Permit 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, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition was presented to the petitioner's plan; 2. Petitioner bought the house in July of 1983 and the premises was vacant at that time; 3. Petitioner has lived on premises since buying and has never rented out the second apartment. 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 does not create a substantial detriment • to the public good, nor does it substantially derogate from or nullify the intent or purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLARK & PATRICIA FINNISS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 14 FORRESTER ST. , SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-0 to grant the petitioners request �= for a Special Permit, provided that: 1 . Three parking spaces must be maintained on the property; 2. A Certificate of Compliance for approved smoke detectors must be obtained; 3. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED 2 Richard A. Bencal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF AN". SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. CENERAL LA'.15. CH;.P?ER e- AJdD SHALL EE FILFU 'd;T,-;I?1 2C DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILIi:o uF ,HIS FEv L'!)N ii: THE L...— CF Tii`_ C'T'f C'_ERA. F > .]': iO . .-E' L SS. CF -ER S'"'2 S T 1;": 11. T F 7 Vf^'A i;C.E OF iI'I_ PETIT �r T '•.., IF S AP? H.,. .E. Ti R ✓E IN T. .- SJlR9 ESS F X RE IE LECo ___.cD V- :'( -ih V.E Tn .=1. OF P.ECCRD OR IS REGJROEO Aid,) '431ED ON THE O",,ER S CERTIFiCA-E OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL w t y Tito of ttlem, dfflttssar4usetts Paurb of �k"z tl DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID AND JEANINE D ENTfiEMONT FOR A VARIANCE FOR 12 GALLOWS HILL RD. , SALEM 84 PEC 1? A` A hearing on this petition was held December 5, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , nes, Luzingk4%-,and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to a ters dnd 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 setback requirements to allow them to build a garage as shown in a plan submitted to the Board. The petitioners own 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 involved and which are not generally the land, building, or structure g y 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 • 1 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, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The absence of a garage has a serious negative affect on the value of this property; 2. The shape and configuration of the lot makes it unfeasible to construct a garage within the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. The relief requested will have no apprciable affect on the neighborhood; 4. The shape and configuration of the lot are unique tot his lot, and do not generally affect lots in the district. 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 involved and which are not generally affecting other lands in the district; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID & JEANINE D'ENTREMONT FOR A VARIANCE FOR 12 GALLOWS HILL ROAD, SALEM page two • 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship \ J upon petitioners; 3. The relief requested may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 to 0 to grant the relief requested, provided that smoke detectors be installed on the premises as required by applicable laws. VARIANCE GRANTED r-Yc�'�L � �liiJ rii Q Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 0 j lt_ w-rz�ai:FROM--THIS DECISION, !F ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GE31MTj-UAW5,-CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL B- FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING IDT�i'M MEsJS10N IPJ THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PLEAA`T. TrE'SASS. GEIERAI_ L4iVS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIRLiCE OR SPECIAL PERP,IIT SHALL NO? TAY,E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISIO N. BEARiN"v THE CERT- _ �.lEATIDW 37F:!?{E CITY CLERK. THAT 20 DRYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, 01(JHAT. I LH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS"LSSED OR DENTED IS IIWMDED 7. SOU:H ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER I&RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL c - `'- o0 3 oftt1em, ttssttcxzse##s A n s . ., Poarb of �ppettl • I DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT AND MARIA SMITH FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 8 GOODELL STREET, SALEM, MASS. - A hearing on this petition was held on September 19, 1984 with the fmllowfng Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Charnas, Secretary; Messrs. Robert Gauthier, Edward Luzinski and Peter Strout. 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. Petitioners, owners of the premises request a Special Permit to allow them to build a garage on the premises, in an R-1 district despite the fact that the building will not conform to minimum rear setback and distance between building requirements of the ordinance. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this re- quest 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 Beard 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed construction will not substantially affect the abutters or the neighborhood in any way. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board concludes as follows: 1. The relief requested does not create a substantial detriment to the public good, nor does, it substantially derogate from or nullify the intent or purpose of the ordinance. I DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT AND MARIA SMITH FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR B 'GOODELL STREET, SALEM, MASS. page two •/ Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 5 to 0 to grant the relief requested, provided that: 1. No unregistered automobiles are allowed on the premises, 2. Construction work must be between 7:00 A. M. and 3:00 P. M. 3. The garage must not be used for commerical purposes. Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK w _ U l._ t ' L APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL 5= ;'ADE PURSOANT TO SECTI::6' 17 OF THE L1ASS. DO U GENERAL LAR'S. CHAPTER, EU3, AND SHALL BE 20 DAYS AFTER THE CAiE.OF FILING CF THIS CECIS!ON IN THE CMCE OF THE CITY CLERIC. PURSAJIT TO M.TSS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, S`Ciii%i! 11. THE VAR.'A:':_E C3 S?F('IP•L F'ER', I' 'RANTED HEREIN, SHALL NDT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE 9LCiSl'P' BEA.: N1 'THE CERI- FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS ME ELAPSED A.'I) It0 APPEAL HAS BEE-;:' FiL<D, GR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS DEEN CISt:'iSSE' OR OEiilEO IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA,-SEE OF THE Ow.:- OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF -TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • i of �Iem, � ttssttcljusetts Paura of �ppeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT G. GUESS d/b/a ROMAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (PETITIONER) P. CLAIMAN & SONS, INC. (OWNERS) FOR ASPECIAL PERMIT FOR 12 GOODHUE STREET, SALEM 84 11P11P -7 F �' A. hearing on this petition was held Novemt .I-, 28, --1984 with,_the following Board Members present: Janes Hacker, Chairman; 'essrS. , Charnas,-Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. 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 is requesting a Special Permit to install and operate a precious metal recovery process in this Industrial 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 his 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 will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, mares the following findings of fact: 1 . No neighborhood opposition was present at the hearing; 2. The City Planner was in favor of the project; 3. Fire Department was in favor as long as certain conditions were met. 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 substantially derogate from nor nullify the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance; • 1 2. The relief requested will not be a substantial detriment to the public good. r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT G. GUESS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 12 GOODHUE ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal_ by a .vote of four in favor, one opposed, granted the Special Permit requested provided that: 1 . All necessary permits be api;lie$ fpr, Wd received by DEQE, SESD, Federal and State EPA Vd 44Y other regulatory agencies; 2. All chemicals stored oto premises mus h labelled as requested by the Salem Fire DepartmeE t; 3. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTEDL�Lzgr, / aures B. Hacker, Chairman A COP:' OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ,4A L 5` :DE F� T1 r Dli OF 71-11 ' __ r8G'i, iHi� r •. ,;!Dt;. 1 _ .•. is i._ r - .. . � .�Li � ., i+ S, ° p r. ,, rcC P.' b c=D. \ A - Ji4 E 'k ."iED C. ir.c GY:t.R n C.fiiiIR CFTE GF i:Ta. CUPC OR i,, FE'JRDED AND '. BOARD OF APP`_AL �'` b '�. (�i#� of �ttlem, �ttsstztljuse##s • °, Poxra of 4peal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NICHOLAS DELTORTO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 5 - 7 GREEN ST. SALEM -64 5F _� F: . ,,b A hearing on this petition was held November 28, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; .Messrs �;.Charnas, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member LaBrecque. Noti&4 `6f.'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 Law Chapter 40A. Petitioners request a Special Permit to allow them to convert a two family dwelling into a three family by adding a basement apartment. The premises, in an R-2 district, is owned by F. John Ponce de Leon. 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 nad IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or • expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special PErmit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence and viewing the plans presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to the plan was presented; 2. The neighborhood is mostly two and three family dwellings, with elderly housing a few lots away; 3. The relief requested will not substantially detract from 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 1 . The relief requested will not substantially derogate from nor nullify the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. The relief requested will not be a substantial detriment to the public good. r, DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NICHOLAS DELTORTO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 5-7 GREEN ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 - 0 to grant the Special Permit requested., provided that: 1 . Five parking spaces be provided on premises, to be laid out at the discretion of the Buif84ng0F§asp;�ct(0r;.j ;, 2. The Special Permit be in �ff�ct: for only so long as the premises I is onwer occupied; rF` 3. The occupancy conforms to all applicable provisions of the Salem Fire Code and the Massachusetts Building Code; 4. The premises must conform to the state regulations concerning hardwired smoke detectors. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED = r-'ff � Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK FRO;'. TIii, DECI-i Vd, F ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MISS. APPEC'_AL L .0 S, CI!APT'ER 808. AID $H:`.'= EE FILED 1111 HIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING GENER OF THIS DECISIGN Gi THE OFFICE OF WE Clic CLERK. �. ..I;.,L PER-IT S Ch A:"R E0. S Oi: 11 THE �f,P A' E OF PI c � . GRANTED ` Pr.'S. SSr L ' �'. EFFECT i.'i,'T- A C PY CF THEDECI C� THE :ERT- FICAT!GN �r 1HE CITY CLEF... is AT .. Cfi� HA\ E�.. ED IW 4PPE�4L HAS U `:. F'I ED, OR THAT F °"-.I A; A°P° '.'- HAS 5'F` FILE T4 H>5 B° f DI D OR DELiED IS l � RECCRCED IN THE SOU11-1 ESaER PC IS(CY OF DcF^-, AND !i DE EJ :'En r� i:nF11E OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL l r ofttlem, ttsr �zsPfts -�6 HAY 7 Lan-, 23varb of tAypjeat CITY C'.'-e°-: c DECISION ON THE PETITION DAVID L'HEUREUX FOR A $r; F'rE / SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 GREEN ST. , SALEM (11-2) A hearing on this petition was held on April 25, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Hopper, Strout and Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque. 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 is requesting a Special Permit to continue use of the property as a threefamily dwelling in this R-2 district. Special Permit was granted on June 8, 1982 allowing conversion to a three family on condition property remain owned and occupied by petitioner. Petitioner now wants to sell property. 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 r. • 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 . There was no neighborhood opposition to petitioner's proposal On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed use will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants; 2. The proposed use is in harmony with the City's Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting the Special Permit to allow the property to be used as a three family dwelling on the following terms and conditions: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID L'HEUREUX FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 GREEN ST. , SALEM page two • -1 . Two parking spaces shall be maintained at the site; 2. The use of the property is conditioned upon both the continued ownership and occupancy of the new owner of the property. In the event that the property is sold by the new owner, Mr. Peter Harriss, the property shall revert back to its prior use as a two family dwelling. Provided, however, that nothing in this decision shall be interpreted to prevent a reapplicati to this Board by any subsequent owners. , 1 1 7 46� /' aures B_ Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK n m cc CD rrL --1 A r • .. :� -.+ T TO 11 OF 'APPEAL FRO': THIS DEC,ISIOPI' IF A'1Y, SHALDLE FILEDD�iIPIJ PI 2AOIJI1 DAIS AFTER THE DATE E MASS. Or'FILI-:'lu NE LA"�S, CP,2d t 0­. AND CESP.%.' F THiS i:E^IP:iuPl 1'2� THE OFRC= OF THE CITY CLERX. S03 ON 11. THE VARIANCE OF SPECIAL FZ3�.`.!T c A L C �cTEa SECTION H- ,£\ 1 - _ -�,;7 UNTIL A CCRY OF 'HE PEC`..".'�it. FEAR f li _;kT- -7r:: J eP L -- c. ::D No APPEAL HAS u :r rt O. ;.R ins.:, IF i' t : ..P°.i r FILE. THAT IT HAS 'EEtI D!Si'iSSED OR [;-"I'D IS REC!i°DEG 19 THc SCDiH ESSEX °E:;ISTRY OF CEEUS AND INDEXED UPIDER THE tIA r OF THE CV1;:ER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND HITiED Ofl THE OViNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL ofttlPm, ttsstttl�use##s " F Pnara of �ppett1 084 NPV -5 Nli :4 gums A _ rr DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEAN COTE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FORITY 5 GREENWAY RD (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held on October 24 , 1984 with the following Board Members present : Edward Luzinski , Vice-Chairman; Scott Charnas , Secretary; Robert Gauthier and Associate Member Richard A. 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 extend the existing 5 ft. side yard so that an addition may be built on the rear of the house to within 5 feet of the side yard. 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 will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal , after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, makes the following findings of fact : 1 . No opposition was raised by neighbors, abutters or others. 2. The existing structure is very small and any addition could be built only in this manner. The Board, after careful deliberation voted unanimously 4-0 to grant the Special Permit subject to the following conditions: • i • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEAN COTE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FQ84 NSI _5 N�'' 5 GREENWAY RD (R-1) PAGE TWO CIT 1 . The addition shall not exceed the dimensions as stated on the plans submitted. 2. The addition shall not be built closer to the lot line than the existing structures. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED Richard ental A copy of this decision has been filed with the planning board and the City Clerk • APPEAL FJ.'.'.: .;E i. .. 1f:'.. F..:. C'_ ' . .._.,. 7 _F ...: ;L43S. GENERAL LA, :;r .r:ci SH ._ F:' o .:.: <b E ., A. - .;A.E OF THIS DEC"SIGid IN THE [jFFI E OF THE CITY CL .i. PURSANT TO ASS, GEE:'¢E,Rr. L -`:S, C:AP ER EBG, GRANTED HEREIN SHALL N2 T`.iE EFFECT UNT'! A CCP'! CF TI _ _„ FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HIVE ELAPSED i.i Hi Ps.c`.L HAS C FI:.-D. OR THAT. IF SUCH Ai! APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAC LEEN CIS:'!CSED CR D---F: IS RECORDED III THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE 1';AS;E OF THE OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OVINER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • of �ttlem, ��ttssttc�jusetts � t Pnurb of L1ppeal ski.r•bTl`�. RR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RENE LEBLANC FOR A VARIANCE POK4 0 1'' 1� f • I 28 GREENWAY ROAD, SALEM, MASS, CIT , f!SE A hearing on this petition was held on October 17, 1984, with the following Board Members present: Acting Chairman, Edward Luzinski, Secretary, Scott Charnas, Messrs. Gauthier and Strout. 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, owner of the premises, requests a Variance for an addition to a house to be built less than 30 feet from the rear lot line of 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 involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to 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 purpose 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. Petitioner previously constructed the "proposed" addition without first getting the necessary variance; 3. This omission was unintentional, is unique to this particular lot, and may interfere with the sale and/or mortgaging of this property in the future. 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 are not generally affecting other lots in the same district; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RENE LEBLANC FOR A VARIANCE FOR 28 GREENWAY ROAD, SALEM, MASS. PAGE TWO 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this�rdlnanc� 1�or1d" • involve substantial financial hardship to petitioner; 3. The relief requested may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially dero- gating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 4 to 0 to grant the petitioner's request for a Special Permit as described in the plan submitted to the Board. PETITION GRANTED; Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THE DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • pr,C FDo$OAyT TO SECTION 17 OF THE i!.ASS. - TH IF F. . SHALL Bc_ ,..1 2D DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING _ S DECISI�K. APPEAL FRO'• TER cHF:LL 6E Flc.' 1"-: � AP UFR CF ii IIL L T OF%I-.,c LF THE_ CI ls D- 'c l`; IA H HT r c f" FE F 5 - SH LL I :I Err ,T L' A P1 ,.PP I. C:' IF C h T4: 5 h EaaCA is r r` P_ .�. ',.R> CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. O'r_RECORD OR IS RECURDEO A+D I+,i_L BOARD OF APPEAL i (u jtgJ II1 2I1PTT[� �, ZISS�It�LISPff$ �, c r77 zs C DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANK & DIANE OUELLETTE FOR A VARIANCE FOR 10-10''2 HANCOCK ST. , SALEM C=8 A hearing on this petition was held on October 24, 1984 with the Poll-Ewing Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, 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 are requesting a Variance to convert an existing four family dwelling into a five family dwelling in this R-2 district. The Board of Appeal, after careful deliberation, decided there was substantial difference from this petition and the petition for a Special Permit which was denied on June 20, 1984. Therefore the Board voted unanimously to hear this petition. 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 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. After hearing the evidence present at the hearing the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition was raised by neighbors ; 2. Neighbors showed their support either by letter or appearance; 3. The proposed use would be in harmony 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 . Special conditions exist which affect this lot but do not affect the district generally; • 1 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship upon petitioner; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANK & DIANE OUELLETTE FOR A VARIANCE FOR 10-1012 HANCOCK ST. , SALEM page two \ 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the — ' public good or without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting the petitioner the Variance requested under the following terms and conditions: 1 . Eight on site parking spaces be maintained; 2. The premises shall remain owner occupied, if the property ceases to be owner occupied it will revert to a four family; 3. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. VARIANCE GRANTED � w f9 U N � Q _ :7 S - w aures B. Hacker, Chairman J j A ZOPY 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, ECS, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DEC!S:OA IX THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. 'iSS. GEicEE,A'_ LAYi S, TER 808. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERN11IT PUF$A:dT TO CHAP GRANTED HE.'.Eli1. SHELL I��IT 7�.'�T EFFECT,, Uhn!JE AEL.4?�O FATO�NO CAPPEF.L 8HAS1 P�ENHFILED, . FICATION OF 111: C:`" CLE..:t T:.A. 2: OR THAT, IF SUCH A!, APPEALcH-S EEEtl FI`E.F. DESS THAT IAN GAIN BEXED DUNDIERF HE NAME ICF THE OWNER RECOF.DEO IN THE SJUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL ,�COyf•...{� r. ._ (gi#u of �ttlem, � IttsscazsP##s Puttrb of 4veal C( I 'i DECTSIOI ON"THE PETITION OF FRANK AND DIANE OUELLETTE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 10-101-zHANCOCK ST. , SALEM (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on June 20, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout 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 a special Permit to convert a four family dwelling into a five family dwelling in this R-2 district. The Board of Appeal after hearing the- evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans of the proposed fifth apartment makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was neighborhood opposition; 2. A serious parking problem on the street exists at the present time and the Special Permit, •if granted, would possibly increase the problem. i • 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 Special Permit requested would be substantially more detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood and will not promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously against the granting of the Special Permit. ` SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED Peter Strout, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS' DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS IDFI;ISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAVIS. CHA;-TER 829. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER TKE DATE OF FILING OF Ti':S DECISION Iii THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - / cit TO ^ AS . N 'J rV L'/S. CHAPTER. °0e SECPON 11 THE VARIA NCE CR i'.J P`".ir•IT I/ • ER c.._,L T�7 i :!E EFFECT UW1L A COPY OF THE DECIS!Jtl E A`. R TVE RT- r .1 ur i��. Cli:4 C rr. L.A[ 20 DAYS HAVE EI APSED ) NO APPEAL hN S >uI� Fit-ED, CAR is(, IF SUC':1', SA? APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HpS CEE[! DIS?..{SS..O Cq Did:ED IS R ECJ2C 0 IN 11-!E ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND IHDEXEO U:1DER TENS I .E OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS ii AND NO[ED OR THE O'.'JNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL Ctv of ttiem, ttssttt se##s S q • Poxrb of '4FV l ii/�CJS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES AND BEVERLY NELSON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 HANCOCK STREET, SALEM, MASS. A hearing on this petition was held on September 19, 1984 with the following Board Members present: Scott Charnas, Secretary, Messrs Edward Luzinski and .Peter Strout, Associate Members, Richard Bencal and Arthur Labrecque. 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 Petitioners, owners of the premises, request a Special Permit to build a third dwelling unit in an existing two family home 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 Permit for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, • and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. No opposition was presented to the plan; 2. Petitioners have sufficient on-premesis non-piggyback parking to allow the addition of a third unit without negatively impacting f upon the neighborhood's parking problems. i (i On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented i at the hearing, the Board concludes as follows: � n 1. The relief requested can be granted without creating a substa ial detriment to the public good, and without substantiall${'derogging _n i } ;„'DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES AND BEVERLY NELSON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 HANCOCK STREET, SALEM, MASS. • page two l from or nullifying the intent or purpose of the ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 5 - 0 to grant the Special Permit requested, provided that a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. ., - c Scott E. Charms, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK c� + d co • C L. -1 v 1-- 90 U APPEAL FROM THIS DECISL^.N. IF ANY, SHALL BE "!AO: Pp OS';ANT TG SEJ1;"V i7 CF THE :'.ASS. GENERAL LAN✓S, CHAPTER 808, Ai1D SHALL UE iL=v lrii!.!N '0 GATS Ahz.: iH° I-A.E O: !:L:i4B OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAPJS, CHAPTER 803, S'CTiON 11, THE VARIABC.`. 5P, £-=?' A! ?--.'.IT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDEC:SIOA. VEAlt.I:7, THF FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE EL:?SED AN NG APPEAL HAS B'EIJ -I,ED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIB:".ISSED CR OENfED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME CF THE 011"NER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL 1 s of 2ttlPm, tt�sttc�usQ#ts ,.. C. earb of C� PuI '84 FEB 29 P> :12 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALEXANDER HINCMAj ,:-A1--,- VARIANCE Ar VARIANCE FOR 9 HARDY STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 19$4 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Charnas, 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 Lai-is Chapter -40A. Petitioner requests a Variance to allow him to use a vacant lot on the premises 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 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 purpose of the Ordinance. After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the pians, the Board makes the folloi,:ing findings of fact: 1 . Very few alternative economically feasible uses of the premises are possible; 2. The lot, because of its size, location and undeveloped state is unique to the district; 3. Because of crowded parking conditions in the area, the use of the lot for parking of some neighbor's vehicles would be a benefit 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 . Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve a substantial financial hardship on petitioner; 2. There are special conditions which affect the lot and which are unique to and do not generally affect the district; • `' 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and without sub- stantial detriment to the public good. DECISION ON PETITIONER OF ALEXANDER HINCMAN FOR A VARIANCE FOR 9 HARDY STREET, SALEM page two • `i Therefore,the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petitioner the Variance requested, provided that: 1 . No more than ten ( 10) automobiles be parking on the premises at any one time; 2. A six (6) foot shrub barrier be erected on the southern perimeter of the premises from Hardy Street down said perimeter a distance of fifty (50) feet; and 3. Lyn-Pak be placed over the entire area of the premises upon which vehicles will travel and/or be parked. VARIANCE GRANTED Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary • ! A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 7 m �= APPEAL FROid TH;S DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT Tv SECTIBI IT OF THE Q7!' :.Al i6ii S, CHAPTER 202, AND SHALL BE FILED VATHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE GF FLi ri OF Iii"S DcC!S:O:! It: THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLEF.&. 'JT: NASS. CENEicAL LAT:S. C'I;?TER SDS. SECTIO : iI, THE Y:41AI:CE CB SP:^!AL p^.r 7 NERail, SHAiL fli IAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPT OF THEA ECiS! )`. 3FA'.?i1 T;i� . THE CITY CLEM, PAT 20 CAYS HA.E 71.0SED A.0 NO .APPEAL fl.."S DE31 F"t IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS D'-EN FILE. THAT IT PAS BEE WS.'JISSED' .g UV'!CJ 1'S 1I1 THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE ::n:f.E CF THE C';i;:: -RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE CWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. i BOARD OF APPEAL _ 1 •\ Y / t (gitg ofttiPm, Pear3 of Appeal 084 MAS 22 R 9 -16 AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITACLITY C-= =' ?7FICt , FOR VARIANCES FOR 81 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, 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 variances to convert a medical office building and a building known as Highland Hall into medical and dental office condominiums, also variances from density requirements of section VI, table 1 with respect to maximum height and number of stories, also distance betweenbuildingsin 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 provision 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 purpose of the Ordinance. After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after view plans, the Board makes the following findings of.fact: 1 . No opposition was raised by neighbors; 2. Petitioner's use of the Medical Office Building has existed for many years, petitioners use of the land for hospital purposes has also existed for many years; 3. The uses proposed are existing for the Medical Office Building and are compatible with these and other uses in the neighborhood; 4. The uses proposed for Highland Hall are compatible with these uses as well as other uses in the neighborhood; 5. Present nonconformity for the density requirements have existed for many years in harmony with the other hospital buildings and buildings - in 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: i AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL FOR VARIANCES FOR 81 HIGHLAND AVE., SALEM page two 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and 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 3. 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 purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore; the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting the Variances requested under the following terms and conditions: 1 . Medical Office Building not to exceed the current square foot total of doctors and dentists offices presently on site; 2. Condominiums for doctor and dental offices shall be limited to levels one and ,two of Highland Hall as shown on plans submitted to the Board; 3. In the immediate vicinity of Highland Hall, 70 parking spaces must be maintained for the exclusive use of the patients and staff; 4. Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained; 5. All work to be in strict accordance with plans to be submitted to the Building Inspector. Y VARIANCES GRANTED c� - of -4 P 1 �• N es B. Hacker, Chairman D A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNIO BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. APPEAL FRCNI THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE F.IASS. - GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FIU'I3 OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - - FC32riST TO '-1-ASS- GE'r;ERaL LA,�1S, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11..THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL F4^'!:!7 ' GRANTED HUEIN. SHALL NOT TARE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THECEM10.1% BEAR!::G THE CE::'T- FICATIOii CF THE CITY CLERK THA; 20 DAYS HA+E ELAPSED .A?ID t;0 APPEAL HAS 2---N F D. OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS ME" FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISLfISSED OR CE GED IS _ REN-RDED IN THE SVJTH ESSEX RECISTi Y OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAii.E OF THE % \ - OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OwNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. • . - BOARD OF APPEAL - a >, (CitU of '�'6ttlem, � tts ttc u�effs si ourb of �}� al 'g4. t4AF, -5 11"1' DO DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL FOR VARIANCES FOR 81 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Charnas, 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 variances to convert a Medical Office Building and a building known as Highland Hall into medical office condominiums, also variances - from density requirements of section VI, table 1 with respct to maximum height and number of stories, also distance between buildings 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 provision 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 purpose of the Ordinance. After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing plans, the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposiiton was raised by neighbors; 2. Petitioner's use of the Medical Office Building has .existed for many years, petitioners use of the land for hospital purposes has also existed for many years; 3. The uses proposed are existing for the Medical Office Building and are compatible with these and other uses in the neighborhood; 4. The uses proposed for Highland Hall are compatible with these uses as well as other uses in the neighborhood; 5. Present nonconformity for the density requirements have existed for many years in harmony with the other hospital buildings and buildings in the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence ?resented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: - --- --- ----._� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL s FOR VARIANCES FOR 81 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM / page two 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and are 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 3. Desirable relief may ge granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantiallyderogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning.Board of Appeal voted unanimously in. favor of granting the Variances requested under the followiing terms and conditions: 1 . Medical Office Building not to exceed the current total of doctors offices presently on site; 2. Highland Hall shall not exceed amount shown on .`he plans submitted to the Board; 3. In the immediate vicinity of Highland Hall, 70 parking spaces must be maintained for the exclusive use of the patient; and staff; 4. Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained; 5. All work to be in strict accordance with plans on file with the Board. VARIANCES GRANTED a tP. _ cam O games B. Hacker Cha>.rm an A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRO':" T!I!S DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE GENERAL LAW !S. CI ,PTER 323. AND SHALL BE FILED IYITH1?1 20 DAYS .AFTER THE DATE OF CF THIS D'cC/Sa:i IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. T9 .:.'•.SS. SE:•iEF.AL I;.:'•S, CHAPTER 803. SECTION 11. THE YA£IANICE DP. SHALL KO, T::!;E EFFECT 110TIL A COPY OF THE�ECIz!2:i. E=.FtIi7:: Tiff - , SE ,N4 TN APPEAL HA- 1,; (11.:?yOF THE C:`i CLER.: -13Ai '!. DAYS HA'.E El4'=_:D _ 'e4 "i :T, !F $UCH /di CLER;AMAL FIAS BCEA F!LE. THAT I1 BIAS LE:!1 GIS'.:L+_7 OR W ; ':D=7 IN THE S•'.J:4 ESSEX Ut-;STRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED U::O"_t ME f;n7.:E OF T;IE cs::ic OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O'WNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE BDARD OF APPEAL ayw..cmrre.�'e , Puttrb of &AFF2 [ '84 APR 1i P3 ata ry 1r FICi CITY C. L r i DECISION ON ,THE PETITION OF JOHN P. KEANE FOR A Sr VARIANCE FOR 382 HIGHLAND AVE. (B-2) A hearing of this petition was held on March 28, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Hopper, Strout 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 is requesting a modification of a Variance granted on January 6, 1984. . Attorney George Va11is, . One Church St. , Salem requested petitioner be granted Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. The Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow petitioner LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ames B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK PliRSOANT TO SECTIO-- 17 0'- THE ^•� HAIL SE '!:.D' ER THE DATE OF ftLI::O S _ FT An.• _ ,. a YS.� APPEAL F3T:11 THIS DECI5�10,7D'IF tCD SHALL 5E r:L-_t L.1!H,•l -O DA _ n 1.... 3 LEEN. '3'.tCf C- c C A,: P� C,ErvERAI Lti-1. ::;C` OF The CITY - OP P-_CI OF.TH!S ._.1C:�t. I;l THE 0. THE VA'At.�- �.. THE Czli-. rG•C PSS. S.E?.FRAC I':SrS, CH\PTEs SSi AE��PY ICFITHE 6EGiSt:F!. gE^"^ .` PI. HALL h� !C .E EFFECT Jt:T.L ElFSEO At3D r. APr:AL -D. ORr D V:.:;Eli;. S r\t5 :..':° R D - C, 111�.� C.( T ' C{i'l CLERK 01:1 2D J• F:AS BEcti CIS.,»`7 :IE7 i5 R it ,L�{ A;! APPEAS i;:5 DEE\ FILE.llC`c^`STAND 1S.DE cD U'+]c' TH� hA:.t Cr THE C'Ni'i°.:: RECOi DEO I(' THE S5uTH ESSE:< fiEI:ISTRi Or OF gECCC6 OR IS RECORDED AND CIUiEO Gil THE D:VNEttS CERTIFIGA!E CF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL i ' bob of �ttlem, ��ttssttclTuse##s • �, �. PnxrD of Appetcl �inmt oma'• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANGELO MAROTTA FOR A VARIANCE FOR 394 HIGHLAND AVE., SALEM, MASS, A hearing on this petition was held on September 19, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Charnas, Secretary, Messrs Robert Gauthier, Edward Luzinski and Peter Strout. 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 is requesting a Variance to allow a residential use in a non- residential zoned district to construct 216 single family concominimums. The Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow petition Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. WITHDRAWN Scott E. Charms, 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 SEi;00;1 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED 1VliHIN 20 DAYS AFF`_R THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTI_N 11, THE VAD.IANCE "2 -O'i'I�' GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A C01'Y CF TH� =MT- FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK; THAT 20 DAYS HAVE '_LAPSED AAP .i,:S C,:-^ ,"`D, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT Il' VIS SEEN C!S��:IS' EU OR CEI' -- iii -- pp RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF CEEDEI AND INDEXED UNDR THE NA-,E LF-IHE_4ER .A OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF'FITLE. e BOARD OF APPEAL .� 71 Tifu of Salem, gaswchusetts Pourb of �ppeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MIKE STASINOS FOR A VARIANCE FOR 394 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM FEB 15 49F' @q A hearing on this petition was held February 8, 11R$Hfrith the following Board Members oresent: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Hopp�Ceqr�, sLug4n and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent tOCWYU AVE bt ers and notices of the hearing were properly advertised in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Variance to construct 216 cluster residences in a mixed commercial/residential/conservation zone. Owner of the property is Nicholas Fiore. This application was continued from the December 21 , 1983 meeting. Attorney George Vallis, representing the petitioner requested Leave to withdraw without prejudice. The Board unanimously voted to allow petitioner to withdraw. . VARIANCE WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Y ' ' Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS .BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK AMENDED/CORRECTED DECISION FILED AUGUST 30, 1984 �(J Ctu of 'Sttiem, 'Mttssrtrhugrits q ;,r Vis:%� �oxrD of �p}�eul 4 SEP -7 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES & ALEXANDER HINCMAN FOR A v SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 459 HIGHLAND AVE. �� � A hearing on this petition was held on August 22, 1984 with the following Board MOmbers present: James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Charnas, Secretary; Messrs. Robert Gauthier & Edward Luzinski and Associate Member, Richard A. 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 for the property at 459 Highland Ave. to operate a business for the purpose of Display, Sale, Installation, and Service of Miscellaneous Truck Equipment and Accessories and to also conduct a Welding and Light to Medium Metal Fabricating Shop. 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 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 substantial opposition was raised by neighbors; The Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the relief requested, provided that: 1. The Special Permit is granted for a period of one year from date of re- cording this decision. AMENDED/CORRECTED DECISION FIELD AUGUST 30, 1984 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES & ALEXANDER HINCMAN FOR A ^'SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 459 HIGHLAND AVE. page two •$d SEP —7 F 9 :?`/ i 2. No display outside of building. CITY "--" F 3. No welding,sandblasting or fabricating of any type outside the"building: 4. A certificate of use and occupancy shall be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED es B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FIELD WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, I,-_ ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 CF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FIS--b iV:THIN 20 DAYS ATTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 806, SE -NON 11, THE VARIANCE OP. ^P�CtAI. 'PR- C AIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE)EC!SIS:. BEA !:i27 TIIC CER'F- • FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS),1ISSED CR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME Of THE OWN-: OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL rd c,cnvuq� l% Ctv of ttlem, ttssttrl�u$e##s ,. w3 `F �uxrD of �ppral • /� ' � - DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES & ALEXANDER HINCMAN FOR A VARIANCE FOR 459 HIGHLAND AVE. A hearing on this petition was held on August 22, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Charnas, Secretary; Messrs. Robert Gauthier & Edward Luzinski and Associate Member, Richard A. 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 variance for the property at 459 Highland Ave. to operate a business for the purpose of Display, Sale, Installation, and Service of Miscellaneous Truck Equipment and Accessories and to also conduct a Welding and Light to Medium Metal Fabricating Shop. 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 petitioner; and C. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nulliftying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 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 substantial opposition was raised by neighbors; The Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the relief requested, provided that: 1. This Variance is granted for a period of one year from date of re- cording this decision. 2. No display outside of building. 3. No welding, sandblasting or fabricating of any type outside the building. 4. A certificate of use and occupancy shcQl b�obtained. W j • I T � c m �' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES & ALEXANDER HINCMAN FOR • A VARIANCE FOR 459 HIGHLAND AVE. page two VARIANCE GRANTED es B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FIELD 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 LAJ.YS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING I OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS, GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 803, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OP, SPECIAL PERMIT G.$7.JED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, BEARING THE CERT- RC1aGN OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DA;'S HAVE ELAPSED ANO NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR T.11OLF IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECOR1,1l IN THE SCJTH ESSEX REGI STRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER IF 01511 b HR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. .. BOARD OF APPEAL n "'I m _ T a - n m ti I � r b � , Y 2'4 � 4� Titu of IQrrt, �z� ttc usett . - z� ! ,; �1 Feb. 6 i ni,.a w: IIZTT�1 IIl "" 84 �r 37 P. -7 a DECISION ON A PETITION OF PAUL SUDENFIELD (PETITIOpiRl ,.• , ..C7-,r� GREGORY ALEXANDROU (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held January 25, 1984 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 arid 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 operate an automotive repair facility at the premises, which is currently owened by Gregory Alexandrou and is located in a 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 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, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition was presnted to petitioner's plan; 2. Large cliffs and ledge, along with an easement held by the City of Salem, make the property buildable only for certain limited uses; 3. If petitioner's request is denied, the property will be difficult to market; 4. Petitioner does not intend any painting or auto body work to be performed on premises. 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 exist which affect this lot but do not affect the district generally; • 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance woculd work a substantial hardship upon petitioner;. DECISION ON PETITION OF PAUL SUDENFIELD FOR A VARIANCE FOR 468-474 HIGHLAND AVE. page two Feb. 6 & j p1 • 3. The variance can be granted without substantial t#rri �t to i e public good, and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. CITY ` _rc -,- Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioner the Variance requested provided that: 1 . No painting or auto body repair be done on premises. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROi+i THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE tAADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE 1,1ASS. CHAPTER SCS. AND S!!"LL 9E F1LEG WiTHlii 20 GAYS AFTER THE DATE OF F! :IG OF THIS C'1000 IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT! CLERK. p04SA;1'i TD I:IASS. GEf:ERAL LR.'!S, CHAPTER SOB. SECTION 11. THE %I IA;:CE OR S;)ECIAI FER`�iC OR;^.i.TcO hiEREi"1. SHALL tJOT T:KE EFFECT UNnL A COPY CF THECECIS.6C1. BEAR.:::G TH`.c:d' OF THE Cti! CLER:( THAT 20 GAYS HA'JE ELAPSED AND NC APPEAL HAS S'E:1 D. OR THAT, IF SUUH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT 1T HAS BEEN C!S\'ISSEO OR DE.!I`_D iS OF RECORDEDE ORD THE SOUTH S RECOROEDSEX ANDR NO ED ONRY FDEEDS AND THE�OWNER'S11DEXED UNDER THE CER7 CERTIFICATE F TITLE- OF OF THE C`.=`:E3 BOARD OF APPEAL • d-f , TitV oftt1em, � ttt4xp## ` :I n�xr of �pett1 •$a APS 11 P 3 0 • Inas C':' n DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD AND JUNE URBANSKTr, EOR., II A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 8 INTERVALE ROAD, SALEM CITY =`'' ` -� - A hearing of this petition was held on March 28, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Hopper, Strout 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 a special permit to extend nonconforming side setback in order to construct a 32' x 14' enclosed, single story porch. Property is located in an R-1 district. The provisions 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 nad IX D, grant Special. Permits for alterations and recosntruction 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 a 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 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 the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed construction of a 32' x 14' single story, enclosed porch on the property will not be substantially more detrimental to the - neighborhood than the existing side setback. I DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD & JUNE URBANSKI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 8 INTERVALE ROAD, SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously tgs2 rani, the petitioner the requested relief. The Board grants a Special Permit uM eraie11fo]`�oca@lig terms and conditions. CITY ERV' 1 . Petitioner may extend the nonconforming side setback ;Constructiirg a single story enclosed porch not to exceed 32' x 141 ; 2. Detailed plans to be submitted to the Inspector of Buildings SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED ames B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • a - APPEAL FCO;;; THIS OECISIpN, IF ANY. SHALL BE LADE PURSUANT TD SECTIOY 17 OF THE d!ASS O=r!tHAL �A':'�S. CHAPTER SD';. AND SHALL BE FILED MTHIN ZO DAYS ATP, THE DATE OF FILIOSG 07 .:iiS S'Ga iN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - P r. . 1- . F 'RAL Lf aO. CF' EOB, SECTION 11, THE +v"r}A �E 03 SPCC}AI PER:SIT C ' HALL Nor TA:+.E EFFECT 0 .L A COPY-0F Th '' C - -�!;. EE„ r s - t� TiIE CERT- - : Cti'! ..",CERA, irAi ZO O.!S !:A','z ELAPSED A?,D NO APrcAI HAS BEE:'! FLED. CR -i;i.�,f, i` :;p7y A;I AP?-cA.l Fi"S BEE, FILE. THAT IT HAS SEEN DISE.-i3-ED CR CEPHED IS PcCCc_ ;lz S:JJTH ESSEX REGISTRY CF OEEOS AND lilDEXED 0.`:CEZ PHE i!Al1E OF THE Oq'!ilER OF RECORD CR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF T.}}TLE. - - . BOARD OF APPEAL V �T � �t1.ttu of fI1Pm, 2ISStIt�l28PttS c r ' Uri Poxrb of 4peal '84 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH MOSCA FOR A VARIANCE AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 22 IRVING ST. , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on October 24 , 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier 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 is requesting a Variance from square footage for and existing building and a Special Permit to allow a fourth dwelling unit on the third floor 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 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 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 conditons 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 exisitng 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Vigorous opposition was raised by neighbors; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH MOSCA FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 22 IRVING ST. , SALEM • page two '84 —7 P3 TZ 2. There are no other three family homes in the neighborhood;rr c CIT1" 3. This would exacerbate an already existing congestion problem; 4. Petition failed to establish hardship. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously against the granting of petitioner's request for a Variance and Special Permit. VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • OF THE tf,ASS. SHALL BE f,SADE PURSU, TD SECTION E DATE DF FILING Fn'J'e THIS DECISION. IF ANY. FILED 1';(THIN 20 D" " AFFER THE AI:D SH'ONiLTOE CLERK. Cg S7ECIAL PERtili ArPc'' LA';IS, CHhPTER SOS. c EF G17Y THE CERT- GE;<EnA_ . - I, 7HE GFICE u ^ Eo gni SECTI�td 11. i'HE Vic,j M�-EEAR',P:3 OF DEG ' c, .F _,. C A. t r pY OF TY cAL H's b c.; FILED, �i�5 L iNTIL A i - 1'-1SS C. ,E EFFECT L. . F.`, , cD I H P.:P ".n'• TO C• HA\'E ELA c c IccEr CF OC7 tiER HEREIN, SP•F,LL DAYS _ "'r" DF T E GRANTED THE CGY CLEnr. TP:.T FOc E'+ FILE. THAT 1I..9"1:.'DE, U?7 c.: THE FICATI'Clr` OF OF DEE,S TITLE. IF SUCH, AiC APPEAL i R STR1' oaNER'S CERTIFICATE OF OR THAT, c SOUTH ESSE% RE" ON THE RECORDED IN TH- NOTED gopRD Of APPEAL of RECORD OR IS RECORDED A?.D • n' a fi# ofAPR -3 P251 o Sttrem, ttss�z� uQ##s: '-� YF nttr� of ntt! �• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AUGUSTO DACUNHA"(IPETITIoiiElp )r rF ERNEST FRATANGELO (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE/SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 44-46 JEFFERSON AVE. , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on March 21 , 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman;' Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Strout. 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/special permit to allow him to operate a bakery/ delicatessen/restaurant at 44-46 Jefferson Ave., this is an R-1 district. The Board of Appeals, after hearing the evidence presented by petitioner makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There are no specific and material changes between this petition and one by this same petitioner filed less than two years ago and denied by this Board (Prior denial was filed November 30, 1983) . ' On the basis of the above finding of fact, the Board, pursuant to Article IV Section 4 of the Rules and Regulations governing this Board, unanimously voted to deny the petition. • \ _ _ . DENIED - - - -- --- Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK 17 OF, APPEAL rrov TH!i CEC1510�1, ff A."1'i. SHALL £E '!ADE.Pv;�d 13 DAYS AFTERSLIA34T TO ,T"I �—EFEUi- - c. D S";LL b FlL'u �rF C ��! DF THE CI'Y CLERi / . k.9£ ra c v� •T CF T.e.S ..__ I Tot Or 1'PiER ^u,S. S-:TI-j; 11. THE \1 lr.c rEnT L r-FELT „i;7•L P CGrY D THE J. -' '. L P' i n:; .cZ \( 7 Ivo A -ch' '•.j u Ff O._ nrS E t11 FILE. Tr.?� IC r..S BEER D S..WS-T CZ .. L,,n 1'ii"T. $=.d n£c::> A:`17 GlOE::-D UND�d n[ .,....c C. 1t1 ESsE, fiES;STP;t CF F.ECL'3vED Iry T— �•�- - __. OF RECORD OR IS FECORDED AilO iIDTEO C:! THE O''SAEnS CERTIFICATE OF TI7L - \ BOARD OF APPEAL b .. (iii#g of "ittlem, ttasttcl#u$e##s DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES AND LUCILLE GOLDRICK FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 37 LAFAYETTE PLACE, SALEM, MASS. A hearing on this petition was held on September 19, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Charnas, Secretary, Messrs. Robert Gauthier, Edward Luzinski and Peter Strout. 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. Petitioners, owners of the premises, request a Special Permit to allow them to construct a garage on the site of a recently destroyed garage. The new garage ara e would not meet minimum rear and side setback and density requirements. The former garage was non-conforming as well in this R-2 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this re- quest 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 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 viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The new garage would have no greater effect on the abutters or the neighborhood than did the prior garage, which itself was not a negative factor. C'� a On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence present at r the hearing, the Board concluded as follows: T; 1. The relief requested does not create a substantial detriment tb' the public good, nor does it substantially derogate from_or nu33jify •° 1 ' Ti DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES AND LUCILLE GOLDRICK FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 37 LAFAYETTE PLACE, SALEM, MASS. f Page two Jthe intent or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 5 to 0 to grant the petitioners the requested Special Permit to allow them to construct a garage as more fully described in plans submitted to the Board. ,� cc , Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK a w c-� a CNI s � L :7. >- n APPEAL FROM THIS DE.:ISION, G ANY. SHALL BE LiADE PUBS WNT TO SEC70i! 17 OF THE h!ASS. GENERAL LA47S, CHAPTER 808. AND SHAL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFI''R IHE O.AiE OF FILING. OF THIS DEC!SiON IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAV!$, CHAPTER 808. SECTI-N 11. THE VAMA;CE OR `.F'."IAL PE?".IT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF 7HU)EM!'N. BS;R I'!'. 11HE l.L dl" FICATIGIN OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED h8D NO APPEAL HAS EHN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISNUSSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNCER THE NAIVE OF THE GV';XEW OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL i p k. Ctu of �5,alem, J ' Pnarh of Appeal a '84 FES 'l_r9 ? 1 " DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERTO TASSINP.RI FOR ,CITY SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 156 LAFAYETTE STREET, SALEM = A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Charnas, 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 individuals other than himself to use the premises for the operation of a dentist's office. Previously, this Board granted petitioner a Special Permit allowing only petitioner the right to so use the premsies. This is an 11R-3 district. The provision, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of 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 1 detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Expanding the nonconforming. use to allow individuals other than petitioner himself to use the premises as a dental office will not appreciably affect the neighborhood any more or less than when petitioner himself had this right. On the basis of the above finding of fact and on the evidence presented at the 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 relief requested is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioner the Special Permit requested, provided that: DECISION ON THE PETITIONER OF ROBERTO TASSINARI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 156 LAFAYETTE STREET, SALEM page two • 1 . A letter be received from the Pastor of St. Joseph's Parish, 135 Lafayette St. , granting permission to patients of any dentist or dentists who may practice dentistry at 156 Lafayette St. , to use as a supplementary parking area the Church parking area located at the corner of Lafayette and Dow Streets; 2. A Certificate of Compliance be obtained by the Fire Marshal for the premises; 3. No more than five (5) persons be employed on the premises; 4. At least four (4) on premises parking spaces be maintained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED S2 ca =-a a cn-< :. r r- Cry 7 nrn N. �z Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK T41S IF ANY, SHALL 8£ 'MADE PURSUANT Tn SECTION 17 OF is=`_ % „S, CiID.r^!ER 8';3. AND SHALL RE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE 0- . ... - IN THE OffIC£-GF THE CITY CLERK. .. 803, SECTION 11. Tkr '..-s"E - -—! '- 3ciii,a`I'.LL 8PT i,i(E EFFECT UXTIL A CO?Y OF TH:CEC'-':if:. E!:: : .._ ... TAE CIi'i CLRE: T:IAT 20 0. 'tS N .E ELA?SEO Ai<0 RO iu-'PEAL P.:;S 2£ !. =._ IF Sri::Fi AN APPEAL HAS LEE;" FEE. THAT IT HAS SEEN D:S ISSE? OR DE::i¢iJ E . ri THE SOUTH ESSEX REGIS'i R'! OF LEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE ?:A..c Vi the v.A.:.'. �, do uRD OR IS RETARDED AND NOTED ON THE O'WNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - BOARD OF APKA' - I 76 fit of 1�jttleM, C Ittss�tl��zsetts � attrD of DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES MCMANUS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR 253 LAFAYETTE ST, SALEM, MASS. A hearing on this petition was held on September 12, 1984 with the following Board Members present, James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Charnas, Secretary, Messrs. Robert Gauthier & Peter Strout and Associate Member Richard A. 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 convert an existing two family house into a three unit condominum , and a Variance from a 20 ft. sideline requirement to build within 15 feet of the sideline in this R-3 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows; Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permit • 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 b the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding Y g health promote the public , b the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will p P Y City's safety, convenience and welfare of the C ys inhabitants. 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 involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and "c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the / \ � public good and without nulliftying or substantially derogating from the PETITION OF CHARLES MCMANUS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR 253 LAFAYETTE ST. , SALEM _ Page two intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. the building is a unique structure and the existing style prevents an inside stairwell without substantial financial hardship. 2. No opposition was raised by neighbors or abutters 3. The petitioner has complied with the provisions of the Salem condominium Conversion ordinance. The Board of Appeal voted 5-0 in favor to allow the Special Permit to convert from 2 units to 3 condominiums and 4-1 in favor (Mr. Charnas opposed) the variance of the sideline, provided that: 1. the conversion must De done in accordance with the plans submitted. 2. a certificate of occupancy must be obtained. _ U..ECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE GRANTED i Richard A. Bencal, B Appeal L >- A A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLEjpK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADEPURSUANTTO SECTION 17 OF THE MiASS. GENERAL,IAV.'S. CHAPTER 600. AND SnA_L BE RLV Y:iTHIN 20 DAPS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION III THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PUP,S.A T TO "ASC. GENERAL LAWS, CHA°TER 698, SECTi"; 11, THE VARIANCE '. S?E^.!AL PES'.:IT GRANTED HEREi N, SHALL NOT TAI([ EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF TNEO4L!SIJ!i. 5ESs:IN.: 7H: CERT- FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPGED !."') N7 APPiAL HAS °EEE FiLCCD. OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEE.."' FILE, THAT IT H'',S CEEN DF',1ISSEO OR Dc GiED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REo1STRY OF DEEDS AND IND9 ED URD[R THE NA1E OF THE uV,ii S. . OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL »,yb (tai#g oftt1Pm, Httsstttuse##s r Poura of �4veal �'ctmn.va" 1 � DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES MCMANUS JR. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 253 LAFAYETTE ST. R-3, PALEM MASS. A hearing on this petition was held on July 25, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Scott Charnas, Secretary, Messrs. Robert Gauthier, & Edward Luzinski, Associate Member Richard 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 is requesting a Special Permit to convert existing two family dwelling into a three unit condominium at 253 A Lafayette St. The Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow petition Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. WITHDRAWN Scott E. Charnas, Qecretary • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, 1= A".I1', SHALL BE MADE PURS';.iANT TO SEGTIOII 17 OF THE 6'.ASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER EOE. AND SII,LL LE FILFJ Vi IT'Jn'V 20 DAYS HATER HE CAT: OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF Th1E ChTYS CLE JIV i.l. THE VA°.IAIICE O? SP`I•iv.: PSR"'I� PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LA ?, C'�APTER SO.. Td CERT- GRANTED HEREI-N SHALL NOI TME cn ECT UNTIL A CvPY CF THE �r F�A Hp5 "3 E?i `�-`.D. RCATIOIV OF THE CITY CLERK THi,T 211 DAYS HAVE ELi=,•E0 'P "'d!.0 IS OR THAT, IF Si1CH AN APPEAL HAS E'EN FILE, THAT 11 IF D'Ei;ED 'CR GER iF,E is Ai,�E DF TIT: 'ISTRY 6F C'� -� _ . RECURDED IN THE Su UTH ESSEX REI OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND I40TED ON THE OV.'NER'S CERTIFICATE OF HTLE. BOARD OF APPEAL c's 7 "1 1 J I • � 1, m r�c.a ccs:�¢ �� '//'JX/f'\• Pvarh of t :,✓_ o '84 FEc 29 P 121 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SAUL TOBY AND CLIFFOR BELSON:. -� ,r, -- rc (PETITIONERS) RICHARD & MARY RODERICK (OWNERS) FOR AS:_,_::, VARIANCE FOR 271 LAFAYETTE STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski and Associate Member Bencai. 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 allow them to use the first floor of the premsies as a professional office. The property is currently owned by Richard D. and Mary R.B. Roderick and is in an R-3 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, buidlings 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 purpose. of the Ordinance. After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The size of the building on the premises is extremely large, and the first floor itself is so spacious as to be uneconomical to heat as a residential unit; 2. If the first floor cannot be used co..--ercially, the owners will be under a substantial financial hardship; 3. These conditions are unique to this property in the district. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board concludes as follows: 1 . Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance will work a substantial financial hardship upon petitioners; 2. There are special conditions which affect the lot and which are — unique to and do not generally affect the district; DECISION ON PETITION OF SAUL TOBY & CLIFFORD ABELSON FOR A VARIANCE FOR 271 LAFAYETTE STREET page two 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantially derogating • from the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and without sub— stantial detriment to the public good. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioners the Variance requested, provided that: 1 . At least six parking spaces be maintained on the premises; 2. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained; and 3. An approved A.C. Fire alarm system including smoke detectors, heat detectors, audible/visual alarm devices, converted to a fire alarm panel, be installed. VARIANCE GRANTED Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK n .- _j C& A IV APPEAL FFiO.; THI' DECISIO"L !' ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE 'SASS. EPEAI"L LA''r:S, CH:1PiE^n &CB, iciC SHA!L 6:: FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE LATE OF FILING „F -..'IS r,; IN SN THE OFFICE CF THE CITY CLERK. �� SPE PER:°iT :" G&IERAL Lal:S. CHAPTER POS, SECTION 11. THE VAP.IA�:.. G^ LlL SHALL N TAriE E-F ECT UNTIL A COPY OF TTIECECIS;Pi±. EErRil6 iifE CE T- FSC'i^0ii TH- CItY CLER?. THAI 2C DiI(S H:19E E!AP'ED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEST F±LED. dR (i1. T, iF SUCis AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. TIMT IT HAS BEEN DIS'.:ISS`_D CR DENIED h RECOR[;ED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER TF..E NAME OF THE OF PECOP.D OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFIC:.TE CF TITLE BOARD. OF APPEAL. Tito of "ittlem, 4nttssachusetts '.d. 03 �" • ;, F Pours Of P211 A sk'�um,.oa`a cn 71 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARIE E. PLAMONDON FOR w VARIANCE FOR 278 LAFAYETTE STREET 01 A hearing on this petition was held on August 22, 19$'4 with the -following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Charnas, Secretary; Messrs. Robert Gauthier & Edward Luzinski and Associate Member, Richard A. 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 variance for the property at 278 Lafayette Street to continue the use of a carriage house as a Bridal Shoppe at the rear of the property. A variance is required because the proposed use is not permitted in an R-3 zoning district where the property is located. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner's proposed business will have a very limited affect on traffic and parking in the area because of the nature of the business. • 2. Petitioner's proposed use of the property was not opposed by any abutters. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows; 1. The property in question is unique because of the fact that the carriage house was in serious disrepair and there was no economic incentive to repair the structure as a garage. The necessary repairs and improvements have been made in order to conduct said business. 2. The conditions described above especially affect the land and structure in question but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land is located. 3. No opposition to the plan was raised by neighbors. 4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal unanimously voted in favor of granting the requested relief. 1. A variance is granted as long as the business remains in the Plamondon family and majority of stock is owned by the Plamondon Family. 2. Petitioner shall designate not less than four parking spaces at the site for • use in connection with the operation of the Bridal Shoppe. PETITION OF MARIE E. PLAMONDON FOR A VARIANCE FOR 278 LAFAYETTE STREET • I page two 3. Any exterior lighting to be added at the site shall be approved by the Building Inspector and shall be of a type which will minimize illumination of the property of abutters. 4. A certificate of use and occupancy shall be obtained. 5. Any sign at the site shall comply with the Salem Sign Ordinance. VARIANCE GRANTED J s B. Hacker, Chair/man A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FIELD WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM id!S E.131 .j. AIF. SHALL CE :FADE PJRSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAP,ZR 3J3. AND SHAL' GE FII.EJ WITHIN 20 DAPS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISiON IN THE OFFIF:E OF THE CliY CLERK. PURSANT TO !.4ASS. GEiaE P.AL L:103, CHANTER 809. SEC1-!,,N 11, THE VRR!ANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL N)I TASE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY CF THEDECIS!CN, SEARR!NG THE CERT FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK ThAT 2J DRB HAVE ELAPSFD ANO NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH,, AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, -di AF IT H, S SEEN DIS'NSSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SDUTH ESSEX REGISFRY 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 C-) ca � A -- w �� co CUR of �$abora, ourb of &Appeal ' DECISION ON PETITION OF RAYMOND PELLETIER TRUSTEE, f40R-PEL '- REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 303 LAEAYETTe'.STREET r,r A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, 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. Petition requests a Special Permit to convert the second story of a wood frame garage in to a single family dwelling in this R-3 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinate 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 exisitng nonconforming use to the i • 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. After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; 2. The proposed use will be in harmony 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 proposed use of the property will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use;. 2. The relief requested isiin harmony with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. i DECISION ON PETITION OF RAYMOND PELLETIER, TR. MOR-PEL REALTY TRUST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 303 LAFAYETTE STREET page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting petitioner the Special Permit in strict accordance with plans filed with the Board, provided that a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 5`FDE PG'P.SUT'IT TO SrCIIO 17 ft .: c ` S• - { -C "I. IF ANY. S4ALL 5E - -::,, .,3. A;':D S;iALT _ . .._ J: _o ✓AYS ?..E.. �ti .. u.... r o r r Lh l I'_.. :e - NE ,J "PK, ' n, F H' _ : I L: T'+ Or ':E Tic �1N C o.. n 0 o T . ti. E:•EP l r C A : .. 3, S CTU't P. THE VAF!!a iS -.c E- ...r. Er LL `')i tl 1"N ' P COPY Of THEI D. - 1O �A s HA E c.r J 0 ✓;rrE HAS _ � u. ;r -ti AFPE h B IT 2' ti r" H HAS 3 c - R b. THE �.:UTH E St\ SE3 e Pi it cEdr AND INDEXED -'. .>. Lr T -. OF RECORD OR iS RECORDED tv0 '.TOTE- ON THE OVNER'S CEP,IIr IGr,IE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL n --1 a :! - c Cn • n • «,,,, e��, 84 APR —3 P? :5 t DECISION ON PETITION OF MAUREEN STEVENS TRUSTEE, MISL ' REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 323 and 323R LAFAYETTE STREET, SALEM A hearingon this petition was held on March 21 1 84 with the follow' P > 9 following Board . Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Charnas> Hopper, Luzinski , and Strout. 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 her to convert into condominiums the vacant five unit building at 323 R Lafayette St., as well as the two family building located at 323 Lafayette St. The owner of the property is Gregory A. Rand Property is located in an R-2 district. This proposed condominium conversion is covered by the terms of the City's Condominium Conversion Ordinance. The Special Permit that ahs 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 r • 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 was presented to the plan; 2. The buildings are vacant and were not made vacant by petitioner for the purpose of condominiumizing the units; 3. Petitioner's plan will not have a negative impact on the City's existing stock of low and moderate income rental units nor on elderly people on fixed incomes; _ 4. Petitioner's plan will not have a negative impact on the neighboyhood; 5. Petitioner's plan is not in conflict with the Master Plan of the city; 6. There are no tenants and thus no hardship caused by the conversion. 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 desired can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good; DECISION ON PETITION OF MAUREEN STREVENS, TR_ 1 FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 323 & 323 R LAFAYETTE ST. page two 2. The proposed conversion to condominiums. will not be substantially • more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use of the property. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the relief requested for a Special Permit to convert to condominium units. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary T A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK -- APPEAL FP.G'�i T:iIS DECISlC2!. IF A;-Y, SHALL BE ` .ADE PURSUA`!T TO SECTION 27 OF E O nH3;1 - - Ap?EAAL LAC:S, CHAPTER 503, Aii9 SHALL CE FILED WITHINCF 1. 20 DAYS AFTER THE CATE D F`IJ IG Gi- TuIS DEC!S+ i! IN THE CFFtCE OFTHECITY CLERK. r �, 6 I °AI L :'S C A, S £03. SECTION Il. THE `v'AR!A of OR CP ''13L PC9'.^.[F - +!E.N''L SHALL �:'�: IAYE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY GF THEA=IS!"' BE 1 � TP p0- ELAPSED dJi) P : APPEA1 H S 5-a" r D. . R 0 h:AT 20 DAYS HA- nL E - T I t;r H: Cin' rL I v IIT Y.AS 9 cC D'.'-SS OR `t O !S° .yr uAC BEEN F:_i. T '" Ai1D IHDEY:ED UNI 2 "IE "k"t 0r Id. G':.•. R ., .F Su CH F.�1 APPEAL a_,ISTRY CF DEEDS - RE�ui'JcD Ci THE SJUTH "S CF HECDRD OR IS RECC.'.DED AND NOTED ON THE OYiNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE ­ I OF APPEAL - - C711 " A `Ilil`14i �� (gitg of J,-$ulem, �fRussuchusetts Poarb of Appeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER & DEBORAH FADDEN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 47-49 LEACH , T. ,[� FL A hearing on this petition was held November 28, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; MeV�s. , Charnas, Lu2inski, Strout and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the heari-gg_ 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, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to convert a two family dwelling 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 gf Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section XIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non- J r r eonforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of non- LL H Ronforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, . LextenZ�ion, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental _ .` L ^ khan ple existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. a c Z w LLo • ` _ _ § moge general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, W N gide? by the rule that a SpecialPermit request may be granted upon a finding H < K, tHL� Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, L r us;gfety, convenience and welfare of the City' s inhabitants. 2U§e Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence and viewing the plans presented ' C C the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: c _ mow 15 E 0 1 . Vigorous opposition was presented by neighbors; 2. A majority of houses in the area are two family; y =; 0 3. The area is densely poplulated and already plagued with parking problems which this plan would exacerbate. gn the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the gearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The relief requested would substantially detract from the two family character of the neighborhood and thus be substantiall detrimental to the public good. c L he the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 - 0 against granting the requested —� Special Permit. The request is therefore denied. SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED � o_ Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK a c of �ttlem, ��ttssttc�u$etts � �,�( �uarb of �upeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER CHRISTOPHER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT 5 FOR 4 LOCUST STREET, SALEM, MASS. A hearing on this petition was held on September 12, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman: Scott Charnas, Secretary; Messrs. Robert Gauthier & Peter Strout and Associate Member Richard A. 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 requests a Special Permit to construct a 10'1'x 272' addition to the rear of his existing house to enlarge the existing kitchen and add a sunroom. The existing building is non-conforming as to front, rear and side yard requirements. Petitioner owns the premises, which is in an 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 Permit • for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, -_makes the following findings of fact: , ` 1. Opposition to petitioner's plan was basically limited to neighbor, who presented no convincing evidence that the ti proposed addition would have any substantial negative impact a on his own property; >-LT. Petitioner's plan is substantially different from any petition co filed with this Board within the last 2 years regarding petitioner's property; PETITION OF PETER CHRISTOPHER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 4 LOCUST STREET, SALEM, MASS. page-two / 3. The proposed addition will have no substantial effect on either the property of abutters or the neighborhood in general. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence pre- sented at the hearing, the Board concludes as follows: 1. The Board can decide the merits of this petition because it is substantially different from any petition filed within the last 2 (two) years regarding this property; 2. The proposed plan is without substantial detriment to the public good, and does not detract from the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 5 to 0 to grant the Special Permit requested and as shown in a plan submitted to the Board, provided that the height of the addition does not exceed the height of the existing building which is approximately 16 feet. Scott E. Charnas, Secretary • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRO!.1 THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MAD, PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE 11ASS. GENERAL LAV.S, CHAPTER 800. AND SH41 L BE FILED MT H,IN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FIU''i2 OF THIS DEC:SIOi! IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURC=diT TO NtASS. GEHERmL LAV,S. CH+??P 808, SECTIOtI 11, THE VAMANCE 177 SP-'I4' FIR.]IT CP.ANTEC HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPi OF THE%cOISIL.RT- FICA.TI,I: OF THE CITY CLERK THAT. 2D DAYS HAVE ELAPSED A';) NO APPEAL HAS ES_N Fi-D. OR TH .T, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS ZEEN FILE THC.: IT HAS BEEN DIS,:iSSED CRE OC_E) IS RECORDED IN THE SGUTH ESSEX EECISTkY OF DEEDS AND 1149EXED UNDER THE N :.:E OF THE ..... OF RECDRD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL _ LJ L n N co v YD Ctu of �Sttlem, �zss�zcC use is PuttrD of Appeal DECISION ON PETITION OF PETER CHRISTOPHER FOR A I., -,,,:`. M�ICE VARIANCE FOR 4 LOCUST STREET, SALEM CIT ; A hearing on this petition was held January 25, 1984 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 Variance from lot coverage and side setback requirements to allow him 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 exist which especially affect z the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally : i2affecting other lands, buildings, and structures in the same district; - Lj w - � . i2RD. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- < '= w N o m volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and sr- c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the Ll W public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the r = intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. W O e Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Vigorous opposition to petitioner's plan was presented by neighbors; - 2. The addition proposed will seriously encroach upon the neighbors a t: L7 privacy; W p rJ L - J C 3. The petitioner has not demonstrated that a literal enforcement of the J ` ' Ordinance will cause hardship to petitioner. the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the wring, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would not work a substantial z. hardship upon petitioner; 2. The Variance cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted two in favor and two against granting the \. petition. Having failed to carry at least four votes in favor, the petition is • (: ' denied. ,C Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK covnr,� zq� Ti#u of '�3ttlem, tt$�ttcllu a## 84 JUL -2 P :: 3 'Boarb of c2`pprA C!TV rc DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM KELLEY FOR A VARIANCE FOR 10 LORING AVE. , SALEM (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on June 20, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout 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 ri c r o accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Cn LL w w w s d U W y F w o Q s c o J Petitioner is requesting a Variance from rear yeard setbacks in order to W H ' E W cor�truct an inground pool in this R-2 district. op rn � mo ¢ s a < -Th EE Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Z O P9 m w �Bo#d that: C v a `� C Y. O yUj f.: uj L P W a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect o ? w the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally _ o 5 affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; " o w b. literal enforcement of 'the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in ' � • „ < � < � S volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and S o • ,� � N W �, � c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the J W i W public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the wo = o intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. C t S i' - � Z'he Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing an oIts w L -after viewing plans of the proposed pool makes the following findings of fact: o L4 " J 1 . No oppositions was presented to the plan; = t= = 2. Hardship because of need to have 16' width for diving. �)n the basis of the above findings of face and on the evidence presented at the tearin the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: g> 1 . Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship upon the petitioner. 2. The Variance requeste can be granted without substantial detriment to the good of the neighborhood. Therefore the Board of Appeal voted unaimously to grant the petitioner the. Variance requested under the following terms and conditions: 1 . 'ool is to be no closer than 8' to the building or closer than 4' on side. Peter Strout, Board of Appeal 11 11 10TC nVrTQT0 ,1 ❑Ac nooAi cTTvn wTTH THF PC.ANNTNG BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK - C9P (git' of `alem, tts�rztl�usetts e • riliL gq -2 p ' �attr� of �pettl i ' DECISI( N] THEIPETITMiN OF ARTHUR VALASKATGIS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 57 LORING AVE. , SALEM (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held on June 20, 1984 with the following Board Members present: Edward Luzinski, Acting Chairman, Mr. Strout, Associates Members Bencal and LaBrecque. 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 is requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use by allowing a convenient supermarket in this R-1 district. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing plans submitted of the property and the proposed construction,makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Neighbors were in substantial opposition; 2. The, Planning Board opposed the proposal because it does not conform to the City's Master Plan. • 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 proposed use of the premises will be substantially.more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood; 2. The granting of the requested Special Permit will not promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the zoning Board of Appeal, by a vote of three to one, voted against the granting of the petitioner's request for a Special Permit. SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED Peter Strout, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FP.O'd THIS DECISION, 1( ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE 1•:A.SS. _ G E'IFR�L ,A.''S• C'/i A•PTER SOS, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE OAIE OF FILING r >'0'I IN THE OMU 01: THE CITY CLERK. - / . rr ERAL L1,W3 C FT`" SJ° SECTION 11 THE Y CS F7.-AT SP LL NEI i? EFFECT UNIM, ACOPY Or THE ' T- r C•TY CLERK Tlt,,, 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AI / -;f,!I !'l APPEAL FAS r EN FILL. THAT IT HAS BEET , ' - -V: THE THE S.UTH ESSEX PE'ISMY OF OEEOS AND INI E/ L OF In- C...;ZR C n:C.n1 OR IS REGORGED AND NOTED OR THE OVINER S CERT FIC,nIE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPCAL . fllitg ofttlem, �assttcl�useffs'` Paura of '84 SEP -G P2 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SHETLAND PROPERTIES FOR EURIANCE E. v FOR 16 LYNCH STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on August 22, 1984 twith the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Charnas, Secretary; Messrs. Robert Gauthier & Edward Luzinski and Associate MEmber, Richard A. 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 Variance to use a vacant lot at 16 Lynch St. as a parking area. 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 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 purpose of the Ordinance. 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 substantial opposition to the plan was raised 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. Lights, if any, to be installed, will be placed on the outside perimeter to shine inward. 2. Access for fire fighting to be provided. 3. Parking area to be graded and asphalt surfaced by 9/l/85- 4. Plantings of 5ft evergreens every two to three feet to create a visual blind - ground cover to be grass. 5• Two (2) ten foot (10 ft. ) hemlocks to be planted in the green area. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SHETLAND PROPERTIES FOR A VARIANCE FOR 16 LYNCH STREET, SALEM '84 SEP -6 P2 ' • page two 6. Current 4 foot fence to be maintained. r : Jr . VARIANCE UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED J esB. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FIELD WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRG.id THIS DECISION. 1. AN SHALL BE [RADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GEi.RAL LAtVS, CHAPTER 808. APID SHALL GE FILED 11TPIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IS THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. • PUi7SANT TO f!,.ASS. GENERAL LA'NS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. FEARING THE CERT- FICA.TION OF THE CiTY CLERK: 1NAT 20 DA.1'S HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN NLE, THAT IT HAS EEEPI DIS.;HSSED OR DENjED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAGiE OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OVINER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL Ctg of Clem, � �ssttcljusetf$ Poarb of � ettl • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN E. KIERAN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 18 MARCH STREET, SALEM, MASS, CI TY E A hearing on this petition was held on October 17, 1984 with'�:the following Board Members present: Acting Chairman, Edward Luzinski, Secretary, Scott Charnas, Messrs. Gauthier and Strout. 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, owner of the premises, requests a Special Permit to allow him to raise the existing roof from 2'k to 3 stories (i.E, from 35 feet to 37 feet) to allow for two additional bedrooms. The premises is in an R-2 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: r. 1. No opposition was presented to the plan; 2. The proposed changes will have no substantial effect on the neighbors or the neighborhood On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board concludes as follows: 1. The proposed change is not substantially detrimental to the public good nor does it derogate from the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 4 to 0 to grant the petitioner's i DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN E. KIERAN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT•rFpR 18 M.1RCH STREET, SALEM, MASS, PAGE TWO '84 PM 29 h(, request to raise the existing roof from 35 feet to 37 feet as more particularly described on the plan submitted to the Board = d d that petitioner obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. PETITI ED. "ICE Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THE DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK A:ES'. SHALL EE ISADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OFTHE 1FA FILING _ APPEAE FR)•! iHl" C' '�- r� y�"SIA 2D DAPS AFTER WE DA GENERA.'- �•.S. Cr' Fi ` A C SHALL BE FI C,F_�F CF THE CITY CLERK. r !;n cq_rlfL PER'11T CEC'S.C, I ' IH_ SEC-1 11. THE V Z' OF ih r ,. =l. L riA'T,cR C CRT- ,_L h:,1 in c EFrcCT JNT,L A. CC("! nF 1F-:; " :'i Lc PURJr � :.5 GRRI c R 'i -0 CA1S HA\'E EL'• ,E•i D Z-. ) =n r- rC IS Ri:A•. ., CF •HE ..Ii CLEi: T"^ ihA'LrIT OF THE CY:'pCR Cd: T. If S'J F.. "r r'' h QFC cE.i H..F ci;.';, AYD II:DERED C 'J d iH� . RE. - h T'F S. `(H ES A R CISTP.! OF F.E��RD CR IS R ::DRDED FM1O N'TED O6 Tril OvJ i\CR S CERTIFlCATc GF TILL . BOARD OF APPEAL Ctu of ��alem, AaS33a r Pnarh of APPJ44 APS -5 €'2 .159 IJ ��1i11AL C9.� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN W. HANKYEOR VSPECIAU- PERMIT FOR 45 MASON STREET, SALEM A -= " A hearing on this petition was held on March 21 , 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, -Luzinski and Strout. 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 extend a nonconforming side setback as more fully described in a plan submitted to the Board. This is located in a (I) 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, 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 the plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact 1 . No opposition to the plan was presented; 2. The granting of this Special Permit will have a negligible effec,t,` if any, on the neighbors and 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 . Petitioner's plan will not be substantially detrimental to the public good; 2. The relief requested does not substantially derogate from or • nullify the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON PETITION OF STEPHEN W. HALEY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 45 MASON ST. • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petitioner the requested Special Permit. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED jr 29 Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK =e ct; a Na �. THIS DECISION, 'F 4y'. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO $ECT!Oti 27 G' Tf:4 'S, C4A :+ PTE3 E73. IN,,) SH4!L BE FILEu WiiHRl 2C oNfS AFTFR TH= C.,TF CF , B'-C!S!C, Ili THE CRi�_ CF THE Cilf CLERK. TO :':w'S GEir'_R4 :A;_S. C'APFER B. S S bM ,% Tn� \.i��4i V. $nil i.. .'...E EFrECT UNTIL 4 C^v°� ;HE f_C! -1 r,F ;u"[ C11Y f� yx I!t\i '0 DAYS HAVE -� N: Ac�_r H�> SUCFI r ' h`rEAL Y . o-''il FILE,THAI IT H. C EN DIS' �a D `?R r D RE�'tS EO IN THE SDDTH ESSEX R'-t'S! i OF DEEDS "0 I""Fi'D ih� Z,-A. _ v: ♦lc ' OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED wi THE OP%NER'S CERTIFICATEOF TITLE BOARD OF APPEAL - - Safer , tts�tzcl�use is 4: . t•' _ Pourb of c4pjeal �evunss ci..•. I' �� hG (� •g4 JL: C1T•; 'DECISION'WN THE PETITION OF MCNEIL & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR VARIANCES FOR 41 MEMORIAL DRIVE/27 ESSEX STREET EXTENSION A hearing on this petition was held on June 13, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and.notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 4OA. Petitioner requests Variances from requirements of use and minimum width of. side yard in order to construct thirty six (36) townhouse, multifamily condo- minium units in this R-1 district. The property is owned by the City of Salem_ 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 petitioner; and • ; - --- � 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 purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The property can be developed in an economically profitable manner by building single family homes within the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board concludes as follows: 1 . There is no substantial hardship caused by a literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, by a vote of three to two, the Board of Appeal denied the petitioner's request for Variances. APPEAL FRO.71 - DgCI_:C,I, IF ANY. SHALL BE 1.?ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE NM. - 6ENtP.f . . L r S, AA;D SHALL DE HLED P!MW4 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FTLIii - - �F�.['� nF T6 S 0' , ': -i I. OPFIC_ OF THE CE?: CLERK. !.` CHAPTER 303, SECT:0N 11, THE \'ARI ' c CSCOtt ,.4arnas, Secretary • `r H - '. -- T ECT U ITIL A CJPY OF THEDECI I + iT- Er A fs©PYi OF T'HI'S iDECISION HAS"JBEEEA!FILED .SIITd. THE. PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK cY. 'TL... ,.i, .AL N.XS ��..�. FILE. T!I:'i IT HAS OEEY TS'G,--$) :iR C5.•.EJ :S 'j';', ESSC>i C,S rRY :,F GEECS ARD IFIDEXED UND_, ,... Tti'c G" OF RECLRO Di: :o .,.C.n:OED Ali Jr NOTED CN THE OY/NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE BOARD OF APPEAL 91 of Salem, Passac4usetts ; n :� of1}reu1 '840 21 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT C. BRAMBLE FOR C!T/ c r` VARIANCES FOR 24 NORMAN STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on June 13, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. 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 Variances from parking and use requirements in order to convert an office building into thirty nine dwelling units in this B-3 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 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, makes the following findings of fact:. 1 . The building, once used by the Telephone Company, is unique in interior configuration and cannot be readily marketed or economically converted for any use permitted in this B-3 zone; 2. Riley Plaza is in close proximity to the premises, is currently underutilized in the evenings, and could serve to provide off— street parking for the residents and their guests; 3. The addition of residential housing in the downtown area is beneficial to 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 . 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 the petitioner; 3. The Variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT C. BRAMBLE FOR VARIANCES FOR 24 NORMAN ST. , SALEM Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one to grant the Variances • ' requestedprovided that each occupied unit is required to pay an annual fee to the Salem Parking Commission for each motor vehicle registered to each occupant, in return for parking privileges at Riley Plaza. The fee is to be set by the Salem'Parking Commission. Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK -0 L i APPEAL FP.O'1 IPh bECi51Cf1. Ir ANY. SHALL BE lu':ROE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 DA THE 'hFILIN - APPGENERALL1` LP;' 'S D- R S,S, AND SHALL BE FILED. WITHIN 20 DAYS+.AFTER HE�cR7E 0F!FI 4^Ct�tT Of THIS DECISION IN THE Cff CE OF THE CITY SEC 11.11. THE -„E CERT- . c r - ' ;".ASS, Sc2ERA1. LA:'1S, CHAPTER 8C3. - ISIOV. B 'i::6 •_ tt D. P-3,'A.li ,0 s - ,Ef,T UFlTIL A COPY OF THE GEC ,.F` AND NO IS FXC 11 i0N GF THE GITi CL'enn T1!RT 2L` DAYS HAVE T IT BS DDS BEEN UNDEREDH ,R cuE OF THE 6:"!i<ER OR THAT. iF SUC;i i!i APPEi+L H:\S BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISsaSSED :2 a,,IE O T RECOROcD til THE SCO1H ESSEi: R`OTEDYOOFTHEEOWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. OF RECORD OR IS RECOROEO AND BOARD OF APPEAL Titg of 'N5'ttlm, I SIC I n'2ttS : u�zr3 >rf c�i' ettl '84 PAY •J CIT� �_�-_ - -_irE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT C. BRAMBLE (PETITIONER) NEW ENGLAND TEL & TEL (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES FOR 24 NORMAN STREET, SALEM (B-3) A hearing on this petition was held on April 25, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Hopper, Strout and Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque. Notice or 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 is requesting Variances to convert building into 38 dwelling units, multi-family is not permitted in a B-3 district. Proposed use cannot meet the parking requirements. Attorney George Vallis, representing the petitioner requested Leave to Withdraw his petition without prejudice. The Board of appeal, by a vote of four in favor and one opposed allowed the petitioner LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDIC. Petition Withdrawn ;richard A. Bencal, Acting Secrftary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED i7ITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK TltiS ' __iSi i:, Ai PL SHALL 0_ PURSUANT TO SEMO! 17 C- T.HE C:iASS. ._ .-._ '�. . ... __. AND e!=LL ii R- .:!THIN 20 DAYS AFTER Fn: CATs CF F.L`:S F. TH:_ ".0"c OF THE CIT. $hi. f• .. Z. _ 3--C:A' ._P:'7 ,:':E L.T L ,T, 'CPY OFr'EI:F- i -n' t4 _ C1)„ P`-" Pc't 1.. '-'ii ' cT.i_° ""Q OF -1h-- OF ri.OF E—Sj _,, iS .,_.::HOED AN-) NOiLD Oi: Til' .,....ER'S UP.TIFICATE OF TI'S:.. _ BOAM 0r APPEAL • 93 ,ti flit ofttIPIn, CttssttcusP#t� Pourb of Atrpettl DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD M. RILEY FOR A�'VARIA-NCE ALTO SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 21 NORTH ST. , SALEM ` A hearing on this petition was held December 5, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, 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 is requesting a Variance to use the building as a law office and a _ -, � - � :.13peci_al Permit to allow extension of existing nonconforming side setback in this w c = --- :3-2 district. ` = - � .` � f �!T!le Ariance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: r _ a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally _ r affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; Lz b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the ` - public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the v c �� .` c � = intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. - - _ ghe Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes 5 the following findings of fact: 1 . The lot was undersized; - - 2. Expanding the building would be detrimental to the public good; 0 Not sufficient parking on premises; - C 4. Street parking would exacerbate an already dangerous and congested situation. 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 . Petitioner failed to demonstrate any hardship; 2. Relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-0 against granted the Variance and Special Permit requested. DENIED Ames B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK >a k (gi# of Sale fflttssatjxz��#�R a • ? Putts of AppeztC 084 APP, 11 P3 :ir? AI'�111:Ag CO.S CITY C' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER KOUTRAKIS (PETITIQ�i1.ERT. ";riCE LEVARDI ROSSI (OWNER) FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 121 NORTH STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on March 28, 1984 with the following. Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Hopper, Strout 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 is requesting a Special Permit. to extend existing nonconformity by constructing 19' x 25' addition to the building known as Pete's Bait and Tackle Shop. Property is located in an R-2 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in , accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of -nonconforming • . ..structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantiall 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 consideration of the evidence presented at the public. hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition was raised to petitioners plan by neighbors; 2. The business has been at this location for approximately five . years and has existed in harmony 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 business will not be expanded by allowing this addition; !\ • \I 2. Petiticner will upgrade property if Special Permit is granted_ DECISION ON PETITION OF PETER KOUTRAKIS FOR r. A, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 121 NORTH ST. , SALEM page two ,• '84 APP i l P 3 :02 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to. grant the Special _ Permit requested and allow the construction I x_ 25' addition on the following terms and conditions: GTI = - .'.• ==;u� 1 . The building is to be used as a Bait & Tackle Shop only; 2. The entire building and addition to be cedar shingled or wood clapboard; 3. Design is to be in keeping with the neighborhood as.shown on plans submitted to the Board; 4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED aures B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FR07,1 THIS DECISION; IF ANY, SHALL Sc' MACE PURSUAU TO SECTION I7 OF THE iw'S. CE:'iERAL UV:173, CHAPicR 803, AND Sri:`,L' BE PLED 1:::14IN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF RLLiG THIS CEC13:,3N IX THE CFFP.;E OF THE CITY CU`_RK. ^"' TO :'.IHSS. GEHEP.i;L U; tS. C4"TER 303. SECi!_:1 IT. THE '';A?.'A."!CE OR SPECIAL PER,%U . :..,..EO 'r,EdC!PI. SHi:LL NC ..,E EFrECT Ut1T!L A COPi CF T3cDSa CN. S^_.'.iiiz; THE CERT- ;E! OF 7N-.':7'if..-'i CUR:i T::'.I 20 NYS :'S :'E `_LAPS'_.. A.':]: ;:O AP?oCL H.:S acEEl FILED. CR HAT. !F S,- AN APPS-.L IiAS 4°E! FiLE. TRAT !T F S 5`E:': Ct_,:.Ij ED OP. CEN:ED 13 RECUi<<10 iit THE SUN ESSEX .'.ESIST?.Y OF DEEDS AND 1:'7Ek ED UNDER THE NAME OF ME MINER. OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED Cf: THE O-WAER'S CERTIF!LATE CF TITLE BOARD OF APPEAL Ctv of "ittlem, 'Mttssadjusetts / DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD CLEMENS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 11 OLIVER STREET, SALEM, MASS. A hearing on this petition was held on September 19, 1984 with the following Board Members present: Scott Charnas, Secretary; Messrs Robert Gauthier and Edward Luzinski, Associate Members, Richard Bencal and Arthur Labrecque. 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, owner ofthe premises, requests a Special Permit to allow him to build a third dwelling unit in an existing two 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 Permit for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, I • 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. No opposition was presented to the plan; 2. There are sufficient on-premises, non-piggyback parking spaces to allow the addition of a third dwelling unit without negatively impacting upon the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board concludes as follows: 1. The relief requested does not create a substantial detriment to the public good, nor does it substantially derogate from or nullify the • ., intent or purpose of the ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD CLEMENS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 11 OLYVER STREET, SALEM, MASS. page two I \ Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted 5 - 0 to grant the relief requested, provides that: 1. A certificate of occupancy be obtained; 2. 5 non-piggyback spaces at a minimum must be maintained on the premises. _'e cQAA,)l� Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK W U li N L^ C Q E- � U 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 fILINO OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL UNIS, CHAPTER 803, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR YPECIAI PER'IT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE :E"ISIGN, BEA@!F f11HE rT- FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED " D NO A°PIAL HAS _ rI'7D, OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAI IT HAS BEEN DIS-?ISSED OR IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF 04EDS AND L'ME7.ED UNDER THE EA?6E JF Ti-- 6W8ER' OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL If of "Salem, ttsstttl#use##s �� • , , ''F �uxra of �ppettl , DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDREW KARAHALIS FORP . A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 20-201 PHELPS ST. SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on November 28, 12�4, , with the-following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnlqs., Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. 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 is requesting a Special Permit to convert existing two family into a three family dwelling and a Variance from minimum parking requirements 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 reconstruction of non- conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of non- conforming lots, land, structures,a nd 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 consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No building plans were submitted; 2. Piggyback parking was proposed and would extend onto the sidewalk creating a hazardous situation; 3. Petitioner was not present to explain the plans in detail; 4. Size of the lot is less than 3,000 square feet. 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 creates a substantial detriment to the public good. 2. The relief requested does not promote the public health, safety, I,' • convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDREW KARAHALIS • FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 20-20112 PHELPS ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 - 0 against granted the Special Permit and Variance requested. SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE DENIED times B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 7:, r_ L u. G — � U AppEAL F"^.':1 THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. G Eh ER'L L%+.':':S. GI'.�P-`^ A D SE" L B` FI:Fu V.IT91!i 20 CAPS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING CF ;.cS '.'! I\ THE C .E Gr` iriE CITY CLERK. x".L,L FIR:'.IT o;: / {%f �. Z.is, SEC ' ` 11 THE V -4 JCE C , rERT- P� _ EFFECT U'.i'L A FI � : -H : `--:F:(. H - H HA' I c D CR E Is GP T., Ir .i is^{ Cf -_i.DS P 'D I.rE:ED L w_R �:`_ I+A',E OF TBE C1 .`ER RECORDED IN Tr :h{ t SFA n[ _ OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL F yaOc]CA..\ 9/ i of S t1em, assJjiise# s paurb d A"4 FFF 210 P3 I Z L'AML N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID HURLEY & J,AgES ;JOLY SPE ITIONERS) JOHN & BERTHA CAPPUCCIO (OWNERS) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 1 PLEASANT ST. a/k/a 117 BRIDGE ST. A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Charnas, 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 Soecial Permit to allow the premises to be used as a real estate sales office 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 reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of noncon- forming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, how- ever, 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. After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal makes the followinm findings for fact: 1 . The proposed use of the premises is more beneficial to the comsmunity than the current use, a Liquor store. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearin , 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 relief requested is in harmony with the purpose and intent ofv the Zoning Ordinance. - it DECISION ON PETITION OF DAVID HURLEY & JAMES JOLY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 1 PLEASANT ST. a/k/a 117 BRIDGE ST. page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting S ) the Special Permit requested, provided that no additional fences be erected on the premises. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE " CITY CLERK c� o0 =1 a =.� r APPEAI. FRO:'d THIS DECISION. U ANY. SHALL SE MADE PURSUANT TO SECT 04I 17 OF THE VA S. - C'-NCR41 LAISS. CHAPTER 803, AND SHAL:. BE F:LEu VNTHCI 2D [AiSAMR T4E DATE OF OF TF(S 3ECISiUJ IN THE OFFICE CF THE Cir: CLERK. - - PL'"i::'.iiT TC 'i;f:SS. CENERAI I MIS. CHAPTE.'. 503, SECTION 11, THE CA'RL4'i'E CR C.P=C_:;L CRaI'fEu FEPE!N, SF:ALL NC'T TAi:E EFFECT UNT!L A COPY OF THEDECISt ,-. Ti Z F:_L....; OF ".HE CITY' CLERA THAT YD GAYS HAVE E_AFSED AND ND APPc`=L Hai �]o FiLc2, C'R ;,A-i, !F SbCH !.N APP ;TL HAS BUN FILE. THAT IT H'S 5FUI C!S,.,CSE3 UR .....,`_D RLCD:'.CED k,: THE SOUfH ESSEX PUJITRY CF DEEDS AND IIiDEZED OF Ti.E.C-a'Eh OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE DINNER'S CERWICATE OF TITLE. - - BOARD OF APPEAL y l\ • ofttlPm, ttsttzusg#t . ._.;_ 'a nttr� d• Appeal ew- '84 MAY -8 P2 :4S DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT P. MCCAULEY L'P'1i'-! r .j_ VARIANCES FOR LOTS A & B AT 6 PRINCE ST. (R-3) , SAgEM>-;: ., , FECE A hearing on this petition was held on April 25, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Hopper, Strout and Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque. 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, is requesting variances from frontage requirements on Lot A & B;. from density on Lot B and from square footage on lots A & B. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that:. 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 samedistrict. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: •' -1.- -No-opposition or support to the plan was raised at the hearing; 2. Petitioner could not prove that enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwis=' On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the" hearing the Zoning 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 purpose of the Ordinance or the intent of the district. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to deny the variance requested. VARIANCE DENIED z/4ez e l e 'Richard A. Bencal, Acting Secretary APPE.'.L FRJ:i TH:S DECiSI:i:, !r ::;:'f. SHALL BE MADE PURSUA�`IJ �ipp §§FF�II,,Ip. �E �,,,�; c 5 GENERA^ IA,'rC9PPr0Fc3HTaDruISEIQ�T_CF4sHI§ bAGsl w�k1' d E�P� 'ANNING BOARD ARID THE CITY CLERK T T F CF 'F;,, C S I 13 THE OU!"' OF THE CITY CLERK. - • fEti-KAL 1 .r!S. CHAPTER 803, SECTION 11, THE VAR;A9CE OR S?-11A ?..75 - _., HtT.EL'1. SHALL NOT T. ..: EF CT UNTIL A COPY OF THE - ;I Cr iH_ C!TY CLERF. ?=d; :C DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO AFPEA! HAS BE-M Fi'EJ. . IR.'i t'^:i. iF 77C.' AN APPEAL HAS :EEN ALE, THAT IT HAS BEEN-CISi ISScD CR :EN;E3 m F< TF:E SJOTH ECS=R (!E�iST Y OF DEEDS AND INDEXED U\DER T%iE i;A,'E OF THE ' 'dS RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. 1 - _ BOARD OF APPEAL e Cgi#g of Salem, tt� tttlf E is � �q uf �ppettl.84 Jut,, 25 N� i1 ' _.j/ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NICHOLAS C. MIL(0NICHOLAS MILONA AND ANASTASIA TZIMAS, .TRUSTEES OF M & M REAL+t ,:TRUST FOR:17IrF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 22 PROCTOR STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on June 20, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout 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 a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. The orovision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request . for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which providesasfollows: _ Notwithstanding anything .to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance mith 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 suchchange, extension, enlargement or I • expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the \ existingnonconforming use to the nciighborhood. . In more gneral 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 . There was no neighborhood opposition to petitioner's proposal; 2. There will be onsite parking for five (5) vehicles. 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 proposed use will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants; �. t 2. The proposed use is in harmony with the City's Zoning,Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting the . Special Permit to allow the premises to be used as a three family dwelling under the following terms and conditions: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NICHOLAS C. MILONA, NICHOLAS MILONA AND ANASTASIA TZIMAS, TRUSTEES OF M & M REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 22 PROCTOR ST. , SALEM page two 1 . The premises remain owner occupied, if the property shall cease to be owner occupied it will revert to a two family dwelling; 2. Five on site parking spaces be maintained; 3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained; 4. A.C. electrical hardwired smoke detectors be installed in accordance with the Salem Fire Prevention office l ames B. Hacker, Chairman a A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CI'PY CLERK - APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LA:".S. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - PURSAIVT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARiANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT . :,RANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. BEARING THE CERT- FICATICN OF THE CITY CLERK-THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS SEE'] FILED tp OR ;HAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISaISSED OR DENIED IS - p '.;, RECOR,ED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RE;ISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE `lAA1E OF T -CNNER ` OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. -P. Z BOARD OF APPEAL CdO: (gi#u of $Ulrm, tts ttil�u ##s Feb. 6 nttrt► of Mal 7 ? J :1 DECISION ON PETITION OF ROBERT J. CAMERONCO ONERJI ' RAYMOND & THERESA CLOUTIER (OWNERS) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 21-23 PUTNAM STREET A hearing on this petition was held January 25, 1984 with the following Board Members present: Janes 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 extend the existing nonconform- ity by allowing transfer of a strip of land approximately 11 ' x 75' from 21-23 Putnam Street to 19 Putnam Street. The parcel of land in question is currently owned by Raymond W. and Theresa Cloutier and is in an R-2 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set • forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits or alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion ofnonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconfirming 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition was presented to petitioner's plan; 2. The proposed conveyance would not substantially affect the neighborhood in any way. , On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: a' DECISION ON _PE.TITION-OF ROBERT CAMERON FOR A. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 21-23 Putnam St. page two Feb. 6 aqq - �: 3� P a a 1 .• 'Phe 'requested relief does not create a substantial detriment to the - public good,-. nq; does it substantially derogate from or nullify the Cjjbieent or`purdd§e of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the Special Permit requested, which request is more fully described 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 THE CITY CLERK • APPEAL ANY, SHALL DE VADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF TH.t fi ASS. '5ENERAL L.;;ia, C..AP FER 808, AND SHALL BE F;:D VIMMN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILINC Cr T;';3 DECISi0i,, IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - P S , '-i TO r:A a GE'iERAL LA-dS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION ll, THE VARIANCE OR SFECIA.L PE2%1IT 1 ' , HERE;N, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THCDECISV.N BEAW45 THE CE T ail .?F TH_ CIFY CLERK THAT 20 DAPS HATE LA°SED AND NO APPEAL HAS EFFN FILED,. - OR ;Q. IF ,Gil AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAI iT HAS BEEN CIS:9USSED OR DDN:EO IS RECPROED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF Ti:E G':1.ICL OF RECCRDOR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL. - - a (fitU of Safera, Anssar4usrtts, J J' II2Ir�I DfPII! Feb. 6 17 84 ttt�t 37' P.3 �60H/IAB, - ((��'' I DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EVA MILLER FOR A SP'ECRL PERMIT 'rE FOR 7 PYBURN AVENUE, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on January 25, 1982 with the following Board a _ Y Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and J Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others LL and2Dotices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in o r c w cc&dance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. F < o W N w Nc� tltioner requests a Special Permit to allow her to conduct a Beauty Salon z lusTness on the premises. Ej a ~ G W p 2 p U s E —. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request _ a y e gbr a Special permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: , j r. a ^ < = Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in a r accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII V and IX D, grant Special. Permits � ^ for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming w a structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or • " y X expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, a and uses, provided" however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more =' _� � y � � < detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. W = " .- gln more general terms this Board is when reviewing Special Permit requests g , , g Pe , 9 Hn aguided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding n .J Eby 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The requested relief does not substantially derogate from nor nullify the intent and purpose of the Ordinance; 2. The relief requested will not be a substantial detriment to the public good. Therefore,the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petitioner the Special Permit requested provided that: 1 . The Beauty Salon operate between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. I/ \ Tuesday through Saturday; and 2. Petitioner's business is by appointment only. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK Ctg of oar �f � s PLYUP44 MAY -8 P2 :4 I DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD DEFORREEM(F;09:_�4 VARIANCE FOR 15-17 READ ST. , SALE14 (R-2) j.<•,__:°i A hearing on this petition was held on April 25, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. , Hopper, Strout and Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque. 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 Petition is requesting a Variance to allow him to rebuild a four unit apartment building that was consumed by fire and to convert it to a four unit condominium 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 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 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 considering the evidence presented at the bearing and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition or support for petitionerTs plan; 2. Previous use was as a four family dwelling and it did not detract from the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of facts, 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 involved and which are not generally affecting affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. 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. r ^ • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD DE70RREST FOR A VARIANCE FOR 15-17 READ ST. , SALEM Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in favor or granting the Variance to allow construction of a four unit condominium building under the following terms and conditions: 1 . Any lights must be on the perimeter facing inward and away from residences; 2. There must be a solid fence or solid bushes to prevent lights in parking area from shining onto neighbors property; 3. A Certificate of Occupancy for each unit must be obtained. 7 fJ ames B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK c� c Di7 3 r mm M -� x C:, o _. z:3 fP£i=i k:r:^• ;FII$ DcT,IS7uN,. !F AS'(, SHALE 3: ibADE PURSJANT TO SECTiew 17 OF THE &LASS. .ccAG ?, S Ch=,RPE; 303, AND SHALL 2E RLL el;Tn!9 20 DAYS AFTER. THE DATE OF FILING OF Tli.S- ^u a IN THE OFF:'-E OF Ti" CITY CLERK. - P0::5A.".T TO ;r:ASS. iF :'.'sr I4•:S, O41:PFER °J3, YEO'lCii 11. THE Y:�^iA rnt• •+•. !i•_ - NCE OR SPc :.L Pr ,.:IT ErzCT U.`."!L A G^'Y OF TLIEDEC!SI"I. E S A< ,.;THE CERT-CF THE CITY CLE2 ' r:.1.. T MYS %:!J NJ APPEAL HAS Frl', FI!.EO, Est 1'r.AT. IF ScC!i AN APPEAL HAS BEEF! F;L.. -;'.i IT .`:'S DEER DISi.'iSSEU J.', DEAIED IS - RECCRDEO IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF i;E DS -ND INDEXED UTJDER THE i{.AGE OF THE OWNER OF RECORD GR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OY:' R'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE BOARD OF APPEAL o,*Cosy (Effu of �alem, assuchuse#ts f• r , .: &A"kul 84 MAY -8 P2:41 • F 1111�6 Cji DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN 14HITTIER FOR VARIANCES FOR 8-10 RIVER ST. , SALEM (R-2) Cl ` =� A hearing on this petition was held on April 25, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Hopper, Strout and Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque. 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 is requesting a Variance from all density and setbacks in order to construct a single 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 especiall 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 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 considering the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no neighborhood opposition to petitioner's plan; 2. Several neighbors spoke in favor of petitioner's plan. 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 especially affect the land 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; 3. 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. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN WHITTIER FOR VARIANCE FOR 8-10 RIVER ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting the petitioner variances from frontage, density, lot size and setbacks on the following ` terms and conditions: 1 . Petitioner may construct a single family dwelling with zero foot front yard, 5 ft. side setback on the westerly side, 8' side setback on the. easterly side; 2. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained; 3. Detailed plans to be submitted to the Building Inspector; 4. Two on site parking spaces to be maintained. James B. Hacker, Chairman c; • A COPY_OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD ANA THE gITY CLERK co m < ,n >C-) a Ti _'Ui -_ O M A?PEAL FROi3 THiS DECISION: IF ANY, SHALL BE SLADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LASTS, CHAPTER EOu, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER, THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECIS!ON 1% THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PCRS..?:i T;; '?.SS. CEN-RAL LA-,:S. CHAPTER 803. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SP`_CIAL PER'`-NT G Rr.S'c HES Et!i. S`i.ALL NCT -TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPi OF THE DECIG!ON, BEAR:f:G THE CEP,T- F;CATIDN CF THE I17( CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED A%,) NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. OR THAT. !F S' i1'H AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS SEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER. THE NAME Or THE O':NER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE- BOARD ITLEBOARD OF APPEAL " Ctu of "infem, Massachusetts "? F 3 w;� Paura of Appeal • �cL.TT.� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES ABRAM FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 13-18 & 20 sable rd. , 3,5, & 7 BUENA VISTA RD. , SALEM, MASS. A hearing on this petition was held on July 25, 1984 with the following Board Members present: Scott Charnas, Secretary, Messrs Robert Gauthier, Edward Luzinski and Peter Strout, Associate Member, Richard 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 is requesting a Special Permit and/or Variance from lot size. The Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow petition Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. WITHDRAWN Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK L, C6 cn� m - Ctg of Salem, assarhu�kfj s Poara of s '84 MAY -8 p 2 :41 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN B. CONROY FOR CITY `FfI-rp /05 VARIANCES FOR 12 SCOTIA ST. (R-1 ) , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on April 25, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Hopper, Strout, Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque. 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 variances from, all density and setbacks in order to construct a 24' x 241 garage 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 wbuld in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to 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 purpose of the Ordinance_ The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition or support was raised to petitioners plan by neighbors; 2. The proposed garage can only be built in this area of the lot; 3. A hardship does exist with regard to the lot size and configuration; 4. The rights of abutters with regard to light and air rights would not be infringed due to the height of the property in the rear of the lot. 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 to the area; 2. The condition described above creates a hardship to petitioner; 3. The desired varianceF may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. J `1 DECISION ON PETITION OF JOHN B. CONROY FOR VARIANCES FOR 12 SCOTIA ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting the (\ • variance requested by petitioner. The Board grants the variance under the followin., terms and conditions: 1 . Petitioner may build a 24' x 24' garage for the storage of vehicles as per the plans submitted; 2. The garage must not be used for living purposes. Richard A. Bencal, Actingecretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL Mill THIS DECISIO9. IF ANY, SHALL PE MADE IPURSTHIIJ UANT TO AF !'!i.9E 17 CFDA�T E MASS- GEN.ZRAL LA,'1S, CHAPTER 503. A.-.D SHALL RE FILIG OF TiCC DEC!S;OtJ IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. 11 THE , r „a. "FC'tAL "r E2[ IT +,aoAi L'l'JO CPAo�Cn gOS SEC?IDN Pio ,T A CC tic i t i TA.;E EFFECT U:J;' A COPY OF THE F _ . ..D. Fw..iiiii LFTHz CL^( JcR: ?':AF J DAYS -?VE -LAr3ED D 1' A ' `{ O _ _ fS. CR lI T. IF S,•.H F'1 APPEA_ n�S BSi� T T I t _, OEM DI - RcC.RD`) IN THE SOUTH "ESSEX P.ECISTRY OF D E7z 0 INDEXED LXX:=P '-:E OF THE ON�' OF RECCF.D OR IS RECO—ED A\D NOTED ON THE CUNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. _ BC•.ARD OF APPEAL ; C T! Poarb of APPS o _ u.- 84 API ' 5 f'L =y DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT W. BAKER (PET TONER)- r PAULA F. AYOTTE (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES FOR 6 STOR h '-SALD%f., A hearing on this petition was held on March 21 , 14$4 with the following Board . Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Strout. 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 Variances from rear and side setback requirements in order to construct an addition at 6 Story Road which is located in an RC 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 or the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in— volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to 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 proposed addition,makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition was presented to the plan; 2. The unique configuration of the lot and its size make it difficult to put an addition on to the existing building without violating zoning laws. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: a = 1 . Special conditions exist which affect this lot but which do not affect this district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship upon petitioner; 3. The Variances requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and without substantially derogating from the ., ,i intend and purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON PETITION OF ROBERT W. BARER FOR VARIANCES FOR 6 STORY ROAD • page two j Therefore,--the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petitioner the Variances requested in order that he may construct the addition described in a plan submitted to the Board. VARIANCES GRANTED Scott E. Charnas, ActingSecretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK y - v^ � trI c� L_ yL7 17 t Ctg of ttlPm, tts ttc Ptt ourb of Wal-84- JUN 25 : )1 j -- it-. > .. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN J. ,BILODEAU I F Fb� VARIANCE FOR 9 & 11 SOUTH STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on June 20, 1984- with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout . 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 is requesting a Variance from density and setbacks in order to change the .common boundary line between the two lots so -that a driveway may be opened up to_allow motor vehicles to have access from the street to the area behind number 11 South St. This property is located in anR-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 in • volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and c. desirable relief may be granted without-substantial det:•iment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the - intent of the district or the purpose 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 . The buildings have existing for many years; 2. There is no off street parking for either dwelling, 3. There was no neighborhood opposition to petitioner's plan; 4. Petition has neighborhood support. 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 but do not affect the district generally; 2. Due to ledge, the driveway can only, be located in area shown on plans; �• 3. This will be .beneficial to neighborhood as it will provide parking I for both dwellings; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN J. BILODEAU FOR VARIANCE. FOR 9 & 11 SOUTH STREET, SALEM • page two 4. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship upon petitioner; and 5- The Variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petitioner the requested Variance as requested. VARIANCE GRANTED l James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED ILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK C-) C vn -n n APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL.BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. rn GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 803, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF TH!S DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. '- PURSANT TC MIASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 803, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT - _ CRA!OED F'._ uN. SHALL N3T TAKEEFFECTUNTIL A COPY OF THEDECIS:ON. BEARING THE CERT- FICAT!'N OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAFSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS UEEN D!S%IISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE HANIE OF THE 0111:4� OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - - BOARD OF APPEAL Xr� 'JyN..covcrt�..fa� DU �t# ofttlem, ttssttcJuse## J' Paurb of �ppettl , 1 ^ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & JOAN KELLEY Mk' !ONERS) REQUESTING THE BOARD OF APPEALS TO ENFORCE THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR 18 SUMMER ST. A hearing on this petition was held May 23, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski, Strout 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 that the Board enforce the Section of the Zoning Ordinance Section V, regarding allegedly improper use of the premises in question as professional offices in an allegedly R-3 zone. After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board makes the following findings of fact: 1 . At all times relevant to the petition, the premises in question was in a B-3 zone. Based on that finding the Board concludes that the premises at 18 Summer Street " • may, under the terms of the Ordinance, be used by the current occupant as professional offices. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to deny the petitioner's request. Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRCP.1 THIS DEC,!SIOPJ. IF ANY, SHALL DE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE PLASS. APPEAL LAY;;. CiiP.P?ER 503. Ai'Jp SHALL F.E Fi:EO WITHIN 20 DAYS 0. TER THE DATE OF FILING CF T�3 nEgg!CN CE THE CFFICE OF THE CIN CLERK. p ,i TC 4 a. r_-b;r4 qL' l .. T C^ R F^3, S=Gt�J"J I1, THE �PRip.JCc OR SPF ;IAS PERMIT _i.. ..r':\LL I��- rbc `F i U: ,TIL A COPY OF TYc� I ��. t3 CRI�G Tii: PT-. OF THE CITY C� R� TP J 'P > I : E ELAPcEo AND i' !r _AL Hip D E[I F'LEO. P T7,'­_, IF SJ.'hl i.N APPc P:' iF',.fT IT H?.S HIEN JI° I�SEU OR DENIED is Rn.,'� =D uJ THE SOUTH ESSni. do:: `i Y L DEEDS Rf(D IH ExED Uh.DER THE NAME OF THE 0'.^Rv'ER OF RECGRD OR IS RECORDED AND tiujEO GN THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL _ r ' v J(,c nOli,lo II �C/4111 OO '♦ f u�� ? 2 • HO W.STAFFORDCITY SALEM LFII J MARY P, HARR INGTON MASSA Y SOLICITOR C i CHUSETTSL is ASSISTANTCITY SOLICITOR ,HINGTON STREET 93 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,l✓,A•i1970 CITY 9F L t+K �, SALEM,MA 01970 745-4391 745-4311 July 18, 1983 C-) 00 Mr. Richard T. Mcbitosh n Zoning Enforcement Officer z One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 `n Dear 2Ir_ McIntosh, ^' You have requested an opinion regarding the zoning status of a portion of the Westerly side of Summer Street. You have suggested, based upon your research that the Grea in question is R-3 in that no zoning ordinance has been adopted changing the district from the original 1965 zoning map. I am of the opinion. that based upon the official zoning ordinance and zoning • map that the area 'in question is a B-3 district. "Section III_ D. Zoning Map." of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance states: "Said districts are located and bounded as shown on the mapt entitled "Zoning Map, City of Salem", adopted August 27, 1965, and as amended September 2, 1969, August 1, 1972, Decenber 3, 1974, Septe ober 15, 1976, November 9, 1976, and"Say 20, 1977, and on file in the office of the City Clerk. The Zoning IJap, with all explanatory matter thereon, is hereby made a part of this Ordinance. -: _ :. - -._.-. ........,.- ;.-.: .- -.. If, in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance and the General Lasts, Chapter SOA, amendments are approved by the City Council which involve changes in district boundaries or other matter portrayed on the Zoning Map, such changes shall be made promptly on the Zoning Map. Regardless of the existence of purported copies of the Zoning Map which may be made or published from time to time, the Zoning A'lap on file in the office of the City Clerk shall be the final authority on the current zoning status of land and water areas, buildings, and other structures in the.City." I Based upon the amended Zoning Abp, which is incorporated by reference'ir- • the ordinance, and vhich is expressly granted superiority in the event of any conflict with any other provision of the ordinance, I conclude that the land in question is presently zoned B-3 and that if a business use is commenced (Cont'd) . . Richard T. McIntosh July 18, 1933 y . at the premises prior to amending the official zoning map then such. use would constitute a nonconforming use. Very truly yours, RIC-IARD W. ST RR City Solicitor MVSJlmc IIS f of �alvm, � tt5sttcljuse##s P�t. y e , DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE J. AND STEPHANIE M. DUBCfS FOR A VARIANCE FOR 32 SUMMIT STREET, SALEM -, E,:. A hearing on this petition was held on July 25, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Associate Member Richard A. Bencal, Secretary, Scott Charnas, Messrs. Gauthier & 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 40 A. The petitioner , owner of the premises, requests a variance from side and rear setback requirements to allow them to construct a garage with a rear setback of 21 feet and a side setback of 8 feet. 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 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 purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, with hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. No opposition was presented to petitioners' plan; 2.. The unique topography and water runoff problems on this lot make the construction of a garage within the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance unreasonable and a hardship to the petitioners. 3. Construction of the garage would not substantially affect the neighborhood in any way. 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 but do not generally affect the district; 2. Literal enforcement of the ordinance would work a substantial hardship upon petitioners by exacerbating the water runoff PETITION OF GEORGE J . AND STEPHANIE M. DUBOIS FOR A VARIANCE FOR 32 SUMMIT STREET, SALEM • page two 84 AIh -o ^. - problems on the lot; CITY 3. The variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioner the relief requested. VARIANCE GRANTED Scott E.Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 1 • 1 APPEAL FRO%! THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL RE LACE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE PASS. GERF?,p,L LAYiS. CH;'.P7ER I' F:N 20 DAYS AFTER, THE DATE OF F1LG;O OF THIS DE(ISi,.. Iia 'HE '=:C' OF THE CITY CLE?J. PL'R_..ST TC �:.._�.n_ L=.ICS. C-AP EF, :S. S':"..,.. 11. T;ir VAW!:CE 0= SPF - `7. 'IT CRI�Jf F. .... SHALL NI: -o-:E f4: ':T L .A "_FI Clt 71KE F, I.i _ . FIC:,TION C% iiHE C!"Y O.EpX SDAYS HP'.E ';AP'--D k .. Aol .L H,,S L_ .` °:I'D, . (:R 'B.'T, IT Fi AN APPEAL IL._ EEi:Y FI'_... i!'.A" 11' 111.. CIg,^.11;SEO D-,:":, .. RS:.=3DED IS THE S' JVH ESSE, ".Y) I'IL_..EU _.;u-_R THc :;A:., nE i;ER OF RECL,RD Da IS RLCvRO,O A8U !¢Ci EJ UN 'fi,c O',NERS JERIIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL of 5alem, Aassachusetts C//O) �q f Ama� IIZirb of t • / DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT MCKENNA`'FOR F&`VDLRIANCE'f ' FOR 45 SUMMIT AVE. & 10 CLIFF ST. , SALE14 CITY ,.r A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1984 -with -the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Charnas, 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 Variance to allow him to divide the properties at 45 Summit Ave. and 10 Cliff St. into separate parcesl as shown on a plan submitted to the Board, 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 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. After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, the Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact: 1-. No opposition to petitioner's plan.was presented by neighbors; 2. If petitioner is not granted the requested relief, one of the parcels would not have a side vard and would therefore be very difficult to market; 3. This condition is unioue and does not generally affect the district_ On the basis of the abovefindings 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 work a substantial hardship upon petitioner; 2. There are special conditions which affect the lot and which are unique to and do not generally affect the district; and 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and without J substantial detriment tothe public good. ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT MCKENNA FOR A VARIANCE FOR 45 SUMMIT AVE. & 10 CLIFF ST. page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioner's requested Variance to divide the properties shown on the plan subzk tted to the Board. VARIANCE GRANTED Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK C'I 05 _. N rrn APPEAL FRO.'3 THIS DECISl0'!. 1.. AN+. SHALL EE rrADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE is ASS. CE ,,AL LA'AS, CHAPTER 538. ANN SH.-`.LL DE FILED WITH!N 2D DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILED: CF THIS CEC!SIOrI IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PJ2SAAT TO t.,ASS. DE"IERAI !AW".. CHAPTER X83. SEC1iO3 11. THE VARIANCE OR -EClAL P-7'.71T ,RANTED HEREIN, SHALL ND'i TA:;E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE XCISi:N. 6EA-'.f t? T;1E (:RT, F'POATIGN OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 28 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED A%-) F•0 APP'-4L HSS °=E: FLED. i�R THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS KEN FILE. THAT IT HAS 3E-N M- ICS_D OR DEB!ED IS RECORDED PLTHE SOOTH ESSEX REGISTRY CF DEEDS AND INDEXED U:dGER ME r;A'.:E CF T;;E CViiEb OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O'WNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.- . BOARD OF APPEAL v i �! Q&i#u of ��Iem, w�sttc4uMts Poarbof Appezrl , 84 APR 11 P3 :03 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE PAPAMECHAIIC1TP,ETIT20NERIFF10E LEONIDAS J. ZISIS (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE FOR TRESTTtPLAGE;S AND IRVING STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on March 28, 1984withthe- following. Board Members present: James,Hacker, Chairman; Associate Member Richard Bencal., Acting Secretary; Messrs. , Hopper and Strout. Notice of this hearing was sent to abutters and others and:notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in. accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner has requested a Variance. to -construct six two bedroom condominium units o a certain parcel of land located on Tremont Place and Irving Street_ . Petitioner additionally requested a Variance from the Zoning Ordinance for use, area, setback, density and other requirements of the zoning regulations that may be affected in order to construct said condominiums in this R-2 district. The Variances which have been requested may be _granted upon a finding of the Board that: - -a. 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; • ti. ' Literal enforcement of theprovisionsof the Zoning Ordinance would in- :•.; volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the plans of the property in question, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The neighbors and abutters of the property are in significant favor of the plans presented; 2. The existing structures of an abandoned tannery present a tremendous fire and health hazard to the neighborhood and adversely affect the area; 3, No opposition was raised to petitioners plan; 4. The petitioner has met with the neighbors on numerous occasions to work out a plan suitable for all 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 property in question is unique because of the existing structures; DECISION ON PETITION OF.GEORGE PAPAMECHAIL „ „ r FOR VARIANCE FOR TREMONT PLACE AND IRVING STREET F` page two .�� APR 11 P3 :03 2. The conditions described affect the land in q stion but do not generally affect the zonding district in which the land is located; CITY CLER" OFFICE 3. The conditions described above which affect the WaW int question causes no special unique-.hazard to the neighborhood and property; 4. The _conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not the zoning district generally, causes special financial hardship to -= "the ;petitioner, f , 5•'. .The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to � r ",=;the:::publD.c good _Z- Therefore'—the t Therefore;, the Zoning Board of appeal voted unanimously in favor of. granting the•. Variance':requested by the petitioner. The Board grants a Variance to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions: 1. ` The existing 'structures' on the property must be exterminated and razed; '- 2.., Petitioner may build six two bedroom condominiums as presented on the plans submitted to the Board; 3:' All aspects. of the plan, specifically, but not limited to, parking, greenery and shrubbery must be in full compliance with the plans submitted; t . 4. Certificate of Occupancy and Use must be obtained prior to any occupancy the condominiums. GRANTED Richard A. Benc _..o y A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROL1 THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTIC11 17 OF THE MASS. - GENERAL LAPIS, CHAPTER. 803. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FiUNG OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. ' - PURSATJT TO M1'.ASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11. THE VA-3IANCE OR SPECIAL PEI'ZIT GRANTED HEREiN, SHALL MOi TA. EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION, BEARi`JO THE CERT- GRAN ON OF THE CITY L ME11 THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS B'NF FILED.Fjgj _ OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN CISk1i..°_O 3 _ r_0 IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RESISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UiiC�R THE NAd-E O'c THE O RIEO • OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NO-ILD ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLL BOARD OF APPEAL. 3' r Ctu of I; Aa Poarb of AN 25 P 3 :0 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF. PETRO THEOPHI WOUCQS�FOR . c� A VARIANCE FOR 24 VALLEY ST. , SALEM bn•_:.:': .;';. A hearing on this petition was held on June 20, 1984 with the followingBoard Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout 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. Petition is requesting a Variance from rear setbacks in order to construct an addition to be used as a family room. The property is located in an R-1 zone. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: 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. The Board of Appeal, after -hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of_fact: . • 1 . Vigorous opposition was raised by neighbors; .2. Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof as to 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 . 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 Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously against granting petitioner the requested Variance. VARIANCE DENIED yI es B. Hacker, Chairman �} CY ,� D�CILLHSF, FE ( 7gIdG �N ,j�TNG BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK AP SAL �a+ +� v v 7. r •�+. GENERAL LA,.S.`CHAPTER 303: AND SHALL BE FILED NiTHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THic CEC!S-ON IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - `I -MAL P°-d'IT GENERAL LA, S. CHAPTER 803. SEMON-11. THE VARIANCE OR SP G nnr+ J u :IEI4, SHALLNCi TA1E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE CEC+S!uN, 6E�.R, .G Ti+E C' T- FILr,i �-F ,H'_ CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE 'LAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FII ED. _ OR THAI IF .:UCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS CEEN-DIS°LISSCD OR DEMED'IS - - IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE 1A,'E OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE UWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. . BOARD OF APPEAL - 4. / Ctv of ialrm, gassar4usetts vara of Mud DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JANE & ROBERT MCDONALD m FOR VARIANCES AT 66 VALLEY ST. , SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on September 19, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. 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 is requesting a Variance from rear setback requirements in order to construct an enclosed porch 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 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 consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition was raised by neighbors to petitioner's plan; 2. The proposed enclosed porch will be in harmony with the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the f hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would create substantial hardship to the petitioner; 2. Desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the '3 public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the ' intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. i Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously by a vote of 5-0 in . favor of granting the requested Variance under the following terms and conditions: 1 . Petitioner may build the enclosed porch to within 24 feet of the rear • property line; 2. A Building Permit must be obtained prior to any construction; DESiISION ON THE PETITION OF JANE & ROBERT MCDONALD F6R VARIANCE AT 66 VALLEY ST. , SALEM page two i3. A Certificate of Compliance be obtained from the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke detectors. '/Zz s aures B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK T W S -- cr." i G C� APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MFi3 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, CHARTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NJi TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE CECISI70N, 6EA%:N2 THE CERT- FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK. THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELP.PSED 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 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 YV COV:ICA..� _ (lei#g of ��alera, �lzii PuttrD of �Vpettl •gq .APR 11 P 3 l}� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN J. FLYNN FOR Gj-F;15EC! rAL. PhkZU 7-iND/OR VARIANCE FOR 9 WARREN STREET, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on March 28, 1984 with the following: Board Members present: james Hacker, Chairman; Richard A_ Bencal, Associate Member and Acting Secretary; Messrs. , Hopper and Strout_ 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 and/or Variance for the property in question for the division of a parcel of land containg 11 ,484 square feet of land. The first parcel would contain 7,588 square feet and an existing structure. The second parcel would contain 3,896 square feet and would be used to build a new house. This property is located in an R-2 district., The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following finding of fact: . 1 . Substantial opposition to the petitioner's plan was raised by neighbors; ' •: -- 2. The,lot to.be-made for the new house after the subdivision would be smaller than lots in the area; x 3. The rights of the direct abutters with respect to light, air and view must be. considered. 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 desired Special Permit and/or Variance cannot be granted without- substantial detriment to the public good. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to deny the petitioners request for a Special Permit and/or Variance. DENIED Ize-zi X- - 4ZGC Richard A. Bencal, Acting Secretary APPEAL FRO::; !E��r, 31 !¢HIIS SALT BE�dFJE"PURSIIAT�TO SECTi p,)1GFT THF,,PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK -- GENEF`.; LA 15. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF F11.17:6 OF 1•..., Ct::!Sir;C IN THE OFF:�E OF THE CITY CLERK. • P ':ER� � .:. AMR 898. SECTION Il. THE CA°•A p OR cPF A _:IT _. _a la.. EV 1-:ALL N1 i Z.FECi UNTIL A COPY OF THE OCCIS!"'!, or- . ?1:= i,C;' L wR. "i:�l'' LAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND YO A'P,�l H:;S - +.R S:;";i A.%, ..PrE... .. ,.; C'.—N F!!"E. THAT IT HAS BEEPI CIS!:If3"-U OR -_..._.} .. U. THE SOtiTH ESSEX E;!S EY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED ODER THE NA'.:E OF . . -r-RE. CRD OR IS RECORDED AND YL;tD CN THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. .. .l - BOARD OF APPEAL - (Ili# of *Iem, ttsstttlju�e##s • ;, !ss �oxra of Appeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EMMA G. TOOMEY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 96 WASHINGTON SQ, EAST SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on July 25, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Scott Charnas, Secretary , Messrs. Robert Gauthier & Edward Luzinski, Associate Member, Arthur Labrecque. 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 is requesting a Special Permit to convert existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling. The Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow petition Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. WITHDRAWN Fcott E. Charnas, Pecretary • A COPY OF THIP DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS D-3ISION, IF ANY, .HAIL 3E MALE PU-SJ,S1T TO SC'TiON i7 GF TH'E :M..S GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL UE FN.^v 'is.':'.fJ 20 DAPS AF_R .'HE DAi', C.. F:L;GG OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF TH-- CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO WA.SS. GENERAL L; .S, CHAPTER 808. 11, THE VACL''d:CE O.. ..^!A6 --4 '.'.iT L-' GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TACE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE ;ECIEi-:J, E°i":! • T!iE C- =f,1. L FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 LAYS HAVE ELA:PSEED A'r;J NO'AFP--AL IT NO :LFD, . - C OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE THAIif i'%S 3EEN D:Sf.HS ED OR C'E9:EC IS - '- -RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY Or DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDEd THE IV;ii:iE OF THE Cq'd-R 1 _ OF-RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. n ce, BOARD OF APPEAL C ic rt 01 tC i • M �,: Ti#u of ttlem, Massachusetts • ��,3"� Pnxra of �kppeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD TURNER JR. , FOR A VARIANCE FOR 19 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH, SALEM A hearing on this petition was held on November 28, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charna*,, Qauthier, -r r_ Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abuttPs ',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 convert a single family dwelling into a ten ( 10) room bed and breakfast tourist inn and a Variance from parking require- ments 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 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 careful consideration of the evidence and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The Planning Board is in favor of this petition; 2. Salem Fire Department is in favor of this petition; 3. The neighborhood is in favor providing off street parking be provided; 4. It is an old building and could never be used as a two family structure because of the lot size and the position of the building on the lot. Size of the rooms make it uneconomical to use as a two family residence. 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 especially affect the premises but which do not affect the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial `.\ hardship on the petitioner; • 3. The Variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD TURNER JR. FOR A VARIANCE FOR 19 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning_Board of Appeal voted 5 - 0 to grant the Variance requested provided that: 1 . Two parking spaces be maintained on Kimbal Court for loading and unloading of suitcases for guests; 2. Buffer zone be created between the parking area and Kimbal Court and appropriate shrubbery be planted; 3. 10 Parking spaces be maintained at the Off Street Parking Garage on a year round basis; 4. Live in manager reside on the premises; 5. Nine rooms be available for rent; 6. Certificate of Occupancy and any other permits or licenses be obtained by the petitioner. VARIANCE GRANTED • James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPi,OF DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK a � F- 20 APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION E THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHP.PTER 808, AND SOF LTBE HE FILED CLERK. 20 DAYS AFTER THEDATE CIAL FILING OFFICE E O. ION IN THE THE VARIANC OF THIS DECiS 4�VS CH AFTER 808, SECTION ll, THE'^ECISION, BEARIi;G THE CERT- PURSHNT TO MA SS GEiJE NO L rNO HFP�f HAS BECIQ FU ED, GRANTED HEf.EI;f, SHALL NOT T,4Y,E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY 0• FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE FLAP atD AND INDEXED UN OER THE NAME OF THE OY�NER OR -i HP.T, IF SU OH. AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FELE, THAT IT Hi.S BEEN CG:d iSSED OR DEWED I RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDSTI OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OFTLE.OF APPEAL Ctu of Salem, fflassuchusetts i rPotts of �ppeal ,,,l.e w, Feb. 6 '84 -,*r37 P3 :17 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN INGEMI, TRUSTEE OF BECKET STREET REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIZ�1f4R` ,_.,, 255-259 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM �FFiCt A hearing on this petition was held January 25, 1984 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 and owner Stephen Ingemi, as he is Trustee of the Becket Street Realty Trust, requests a Special Permit to allow him to divide the property at 255-259 Washington Street despite the fact that the division would otherwise violate minimum lot size, density, setbacks, height and parking requirements as more fully described in the petition and in a plan filed with 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,a nd for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board 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 presented to petitioner's plan; . 2. No alteration or construction of any structure is contemplated by petitioner; 3. The neighborhood's health, safety,. and convenience will not be affected by this. plan. ' •' \ On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: !� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN INGEMI, TR. r BECKET STREET REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 255-259 WASHINGTON ST. page two Feb. 6 I\ I '84 -dF=31' P 3 :1 7 1 . Petitioner's plan will not be substantially detrimental to-t public good; CITY t .° 2. The requested relief does not substantially derogate from or nullify the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning. Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the petitioner the Special Permit requested as set out in schedule A of the petition and in 'a plan submitted to the Board. Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING .BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 4FOo z f Oil THIS DECISI:"+, i ANY SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE I fSS. _i_IIBVAL LI+'i S, CHAPTER SOS. A''D SHALL B; FILED V11THIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE Or F11 11"G UF. 'r!a D CiS ON IN THE O r C THE CIT'! CLERK. PUIiL��, w ASS. GENERAL L ,S. C IAPTt P. 803 SC;TIi J 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER`l.T. C'"fiFIi EO HE'nEii1. SHALL NDT TAPE EFFECT ICaT.L A COPY OF THEDE'1001;. BGA7'ii. T'r•: G_r,l- FIC.ATIr" �F THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DA'iS HAVE ELAPSED A':D NO APPAL HAS °'I F;'F3, CR T- A. IF SU.H AN APPEAL H-,S BZpa FILE THAT IT HAS BEEN CIS\,IS°ED OR DE,"'FED IS ` $ECCRJED IG THE SOU FH ESSEX RECiSTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDcR THE i.ArvIE Or THE v THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. OF RECGRD OR IS.RECORDED AND NOTED ON _ BOARD OF APPEAL — ,� of '�$ttlrm, C ttsstztl�usr#ts .% " Pourb r � eul —� DEGI90N ON THE PETITION OF DONALD LUIS JR. (PETITIONER) , liRAYMOND PAGE -(OWNER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 22 WEBB ST. , SALEM v — OD A hearing on tYf2s petition was held on December 5, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, 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 is requesting a Special Permit to convert former grocery store to a restaurant in this R-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 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 consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: \\ 1 . Petitioner was not present to present plans to substantiate a ( • Special Permit or hardship for a Variance; 2. The Board tried to reach the petitioner by phone that evening but was unsuccessful. On the basis. of the above findings of fact, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . No plans or evidence having been presented at public hearing, the Board was unable to grant petitioner the requested relief. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-0 against granting the requested Special Permit. SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED //aames B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK APPE4'_ ',RD;6 THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL LF BE I!IDJEI PURSUANT O AFTER'4 1 OF THE IFISf�O C-! EPAL L� 'S CH='PTER 11'8, A::b SV i, + S USC L,'Oli 19 THE o :'CE THE CITY CLERK. MACS. C:c cc A' L :c [ R ;, 3 ° �1 Il Ti �. ^.� c C 4P L PEP RT- C '.'i ;;T SWILL F i. i.E 0 E - .. c� °I' + i �. _ R'CO. J'•, r IH Y 6LEn'. 1 ''8 C'. ,• I+ ' r i •, c R .'J IS R H+lf v A: ArPr.+_ HI'S G[t:, BILE. yy +,;, GF THE cGCER RE:.0 R.—, �i HE S:UM ESSE;A RC21,TR) OF GuJE !-.J {•��_n_D THE c . OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OYiqER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL (1�i# of "Salem, C ussorlj�zse##s Poard of tAppfal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES W. SHEA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 78A WEBB ST. , SALEM '81 F q- 1.P (: 1 A hearing on this petition was held on December 5, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charn zLs;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, owner of the premises, requests a Special Permit to allow him to extend the nonconforming use of the premises as a roofing business into a proposed second story addition. The premises is in an R-2 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Soecial Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Nctwithstanding 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 will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence and viewing the plans at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioner has agreed to alter his petition such that no flammables will be stored in the proposed addition; 2. The proposed addition will be used for administrative offices; 3. The risk of fire at the premises will not be increased by creating the proposed addition. 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 proposed addition and it's use in petitioner's roofing business will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing noncon- formity tot he neighborhood or to the public good; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES W. SHEA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 78A WEBB ST. , SALEM page two • , 2. The proposed addition does not derogate from the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 to 0 to grant the Special Permit requested by petitioner, provided that: 1 . No flammables be stored in the proposed addition; 2. All state, federal and local codes, ordinances, laws and regulations regarding flammables generally and liquid propane specifically be adhered to; 3. A.C. hardwired smoke detectors be installed pursuant to applicable regulations; 4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED �PLQi Scott E. Charnas, Secretary r A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APP:-.1 THIS DECISI2N, IF A';'i. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. _A—S. Ci;:,F"��R `.,='_S, F.:;� S::-::,'L SE F l7"H'ii 2C DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING CF 1i.3 C:. _ _.J C: THE C::":'E :: THE MFYCLERK. _L .:. ._ _Ci d':T L A 1..11! C T:; RF-,' I', Td= C2U,H ESE,, F P= .,1 i...7a %`.9 F' c..D o : THE k.W.:E OF THE r� OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND ACTED ON THE ONNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD. OF APPEAL r- { C: W _ _ C r f1Zif of �$ttlem, Cfttssnr4usetfs 0/10 r> Poarb of '0,1, -_ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN M. SCALETTI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 WILLIAMS STREET, SALEM, MASS. A hearing on this petition was held on September 12, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman: Scott Charnas , Secretary; Messrs. Robert Gauthier E Peter Strout and Associate Member Richard A. 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, owner of the premises, requests a Special Permit to build a third dwelling unit in an existing two family dwelling. The property is in an R-2 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permit for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming I- • structures, and for changes , enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses , provided, however, that such change, extensionk 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 reviewina 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and viewing the plans , makes the following findings of fact : 1 . Some neighborhood opposition was presented at the hearing; 2. There is insufficient non-piggy back parking on the premises w for 3 dwelling units, which is a particular problem given -= the general lack of parking in the neighborhood. y FO U PETITION OF STEPHEN M. SCALETTI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT F. f9 WILLIAMS STREET, SALEM, MASS. page two (�� On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed plan would be substantially detrimental to the public good. Therefore, by a vote to 5 - 0 the Board of Appeal voted to deny petitioner's request for a Special Permit. Scott E. Charnas , Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK C • C� L D— _ LI1 N Li L V. G.. i- � U SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, If A..1', o GENERAL LAMS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED vi-THIN 20 DAYS AFTER 1HE DATE OF F,U; G OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. ,�.._�.I or^ '.IT PURSANT TO 6MASS. GENERAL LAWS CHAPTER 8D8, SEC�I.7! 11. THE VAr E _ : i GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A CCPV IF T4 �EC 51 " 'H �'ri FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELCPSED A:10 NO A r,rE _:._ HCS SEr-TI F;-=� OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEE N FILE. THAT IT.M"iDE ED DL.,D R`THE PF:n :.i Lr RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OVJNER-S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL CHC of ,Jttlem, �fRttssachusetts nxrb of evil DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE WINTER ISLAND G Y7gw WMIP FOR A VARIANCE FOR 50 WINTER ISLAND ROAD, SALEM - rF A hearing on this petition was held December 5, 198LChTbth the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , CharnBs, 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 are requesting a Variance for a broader use of the Hangar in this R-1 District. In a letter to the Board of Appeal dated December 5, 1984 from Gary M. Moore, Manager of Winter Island, the Winter Island Commission requested this petition be allowed to withdraw without prejudice. The Zoning Board of Appeal by a vote of 5-0 allowed this petition to be Withdrawn Without Prejudice. WITHDRAWN ames B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRO":1 THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE G1ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MPSS. GENERAL !A:JS, CHAPTER ECE. A^,D SHALL BE F!LEO P:ITHIN 20 DAPS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS D_CISICiJ C: THE OF=i",E CF THE CITY CLERK. F U TO S. C_i:'EGu i. ....I,. 11. THE .A,: ...__ 17 , U-MAL PE',:.I i EH T U.";T!L A =i E D t': -?_.._ h :E" FI -D, CR --;'.T. IF S-'!, '.i APrEAL F ,r' C_ F .¢, Tii.A. 11 r „ _E GR _.IEC IS R C cDED IN THE S-,-:H ESSE7 I,[ !S-Mt OF DEE,,- A .:) IiDEi D %Hw NA'.1E Of THE DINNER Of RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL Ctv of Salem, 'Mttssttchusetts w. A Poxrb of '4PV l �cnms.tlT` DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WINTER ISLAND COMMISSION FOR A VARIANCE FOR 50 WINTER ISLAND ROAD A hearing on this petition was held on August 22, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Charnas, Secretary; Messrs. Robert Gauthier & Edward Luzinski and Associate Member, Richard A. 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 seeks a Variance to adapt a building at 50 Winter Island Road for use a; a small boat storage and maintenance facility, and sailing program office and classroom. The property is owned by the City. 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 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 purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. No opposition of any substance was presented; 2. The locus is unique in that it is part of a City - owned recreation area; 3. The building is in a state of disrepair, is vandalized from time to time, and will continue to be vandalized if left in its present state; j 4. Continued vandalism will render the building economically useless and therefore create a hardship for the city. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on-c5 egidence presented at the hearing, the Board concludes as follows; C, -< a • C n �� PWITION OF WINTER ISLAND COMMISSION FOR A VARIANCE FOR 50 WINTER ISLAND ROAD page two 1. Special conditions exist which affect this lot which do not affect generally the district; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work substantial hard- ship upon the City; 3. The Variance 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. Therefore the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the Variance re- quested provided that said Variance is to run concurrently with the duration of the City's lease to petitioner as filed with the Board, and for so long as the lease may be extended in the future. VARIANCE GRANTED • Scott E. Charnas, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FIELD WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRDM 1HIS DESHALL BE MAJE PJitSJANT TO SECT;ON 17 OF THE MASS. ' GENERAL LAWS, CHWEP, 808. AND SHALL BE FILED :,JT'IN 20 DAPS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECFI']N 11. THE VARIANCE c" "P=^.IAL PER'IIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECI::i til. BE> id _011 CLRT- FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED .1;40 NG APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED CR DENIED IS .RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNE' Off RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. C-) p ROARDT OF AP9pAL V1{ .T: CM _ :a W M . m i I to of �ttlera, assar4usetts: �C Pnara ,rf App5 Appeal ? - P, Ly �. '84 AP. IME - CITY DECISION ON PETITION OF BRENT MERRILL D/B/A EASTERN BOARDS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR WINTER ISLAND_ A hearing on this petition was held on March 21 , 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of paid hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of - the hearing were o..^Oln;^ly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts Gen.:.-al Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner requests a Special Permit to allow him to operate a windsurfing program on Winter Island and erect a pre-constructed wood frame building thereon_ , The Island is owned by the City of Salem and is in an 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 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 begrantedupon 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition was presented to the plan; 2. The windsurfing program which petitioner has previously conducted on Winter Island has been an asset to the island and the City. On 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 detrimental to the public good; / 2. The relief requested will not substantially derogate from or nullify the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON PETITION OF BRENT MERRILL d/b/a ` EASTERN SEA BOARDS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR WINTER ISLAND page two �i Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal, by a vote of four in favor and one present, grants petitioner the requested Special Permit to allow him, until January 1 , 1986 to operate a windsurfing program on Winter Island and to erect a pre-constructed wood frame building on the island, as as more fully described in the petition. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BqAflD P& THE CITY CLERK to T - tsT - • - - ----n .. - y - - - rt !7 OF T` - , RS'JA"n TO SECTIO. - P. g�^..tAO_ PJ V!! THIS . SHALL z ..<[ "' THIS OE�ioIC�.'J. tr.'D S - -u DAYS AFTE& THE DA.t G A.PcP.L f„�.•1 P"t? tr.i..1.3 0 - _ r. n.. oHAL! gc FILED LF-.,13 C4APTER S�S, „ .0 - - OF _.:!S;C?1 .IN THE OFFICE GF THE CITY - "A--:A::'=E CP, gPc•••A= u,e.=R 3JS. SELTiJ"i 11. THc3T- . CcnE r lf;;iS, C - Fl.E - r...:n n.,L •c E.-- i:::IL A COPY OF �= - Sd?.LL r!Ot T;'�,._ EFFECT � APF`SL H=S 6•= �'�-�• -... ,.�cJ m_r,_�..' CAY$ HIVE E! $ED ASF c [:-,;7 s ERK THAT 20 �r. Ct:;;-D OF .Hc CITY CL F THA; !T HFS 3_u DIS-':FSS_D CR = ..... HAS SE"ch "IL-. -;p=R ,Ht i.'.�.'.:n 0`- a.c GiY: IF S9:'H AN APPEA! „- - -AND In DEXED 0: .;R-7i::;•' 6iSTR( O OEECS 'm-H ESSEY. RE - r� CF TITLE is Ttit S..Ji CERTIR ;� ,E _ cD ON THE OJIt1ER'S - .a .> .. CF RECORD OP, IS RECORDED AND NOT' - 60ARD OF APPEAL ,,,oN�,.,�� ;,. Ctg of 'Salem, assuchuottt Paura of tA"oo,,,,,,__ Feb. 6 nose v% w l DECISIOP] ON THE PETITION OF THE WINTER ISLAND COMMISSION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 50 WINTER ISLAND ROAD CITY S,. A hearing on this petition was held on January 25, 1984 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. The Winter Island Commission, as Petitioner, has requested a Special Permit to allow overnight camping ,bynot more than sixty. recreational vehicles on Winter Island during the summer months. Winter Island is in an R-c district. The Special Permit may therefore be granted upon a finding by the Board of •Appeal, that the grant of the Special permit will. promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare: The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . A -prior request to this. Board resulted in the granting of a Special Permit allowing overnight camping at the site. That Special Permit expired /// October 1 , 1983; 2. The proposed use of the site will in no way limit the public's access to 4 the site' and the revenue generated by the proposed use will benefit the City and provide funds which will allow greater access by the public to ;linter Island. On the basis of. the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal, concluded unanimously that the proposed use will promote the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare and that the proposed use is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting Special Permit to the Petitioner. The Special Permit is therefore granted ,in accordance with the following terms and conditions: . 1 . The overnight camping of not more that 50 recreational vehicles shall be permit at Winter Island during the perior June 1 , 1984 to October 1 , 1984; 2. .The location of the recreational vehicles shall be approved by the Salem Fire Marshal to guarantee access by fire fighting _ apparatus to the site. . APPTA.L.F9,".7 iH.S E�ISICId, W ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TOSECTIOPI V OF THE .IAM .E%-RAL LA !S CHAP-67 M AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FIL'ri5 - - r. no u C! DN iN THE OFFICEOF THE CITY CLERK. - - ��- ' .. 4.5. P ?n! Lk-::O. CH^CTE?. Si E, S f,TION 11, THE VARIANCE OR. �'W"'� 4 SN,"I W ,e,: cF-'T U::TIL A C PY OF THE DECISION, 6�1 .$�Cf"vitc' wT: Charnas, Acting Secretary . E ra' cLz,.jK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS.BC i FMD. AN APPEAL H.,S B.Pl FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN MS?.ISSED OR DE-,_C IS - % IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RE�ISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME,OF TEE -- RECORD OR IS RECuRDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - - BOARD OF APPEW - - - A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH'-TH PLANNI.NG_BOARD AND CITY CLERK