APPEALS DECISIONS 1985 �-� � �Q�2Q I �CiSiC��'1S
l� �
����
BOARD OF APPEAL DECISIONS - 1985
ADDRESS PETITIONER PAGE
24,16,50 Adams St./330,314 Canal St. Esther Realty Trust 1
56 Almeda St. Ugo DiBiase 2
21 Arbella St. Janet Frazier 3
17 Barnes Circle Mary & Donald Lord 4
Lot 274 Barnes Road John M. Ingemi 5
102 Bayview Ave. Anna Della Monica/Vaughn Hennan 6
79 Beaver. Anh Thi N Nguyen Lam 7
11 Becket St. Chester Chalipowski Jr. 8
11 Becket St. Chester Chalipowski Jr. 9
r
73 Boston St. Clifford &-EIlen Clark 10
134 Boston/7-9 Watson Sts. Moose Realty Tr. , Scott Galber, Tr. 11
19 Bridge St. Paul S. Fraser 12
26 Bridge St. Nondas Lagonakis 13
`• 63 Bridge St. Frank & Joan Livas 14
63 Bridge St. Frank & Joan Livas 15
1 Broad St. Charing Cross 16
17 Broadway Dean T. Boucher 17
62 Butler St. Jose Pereira 18
26 Cabot St. Maurice & Tina Bouchard 19
R51 Canal St/4 Florence St. Leonard J. Samia 20
120 Canal St. Arthur B. Freedman 21
27 Charter St. Salem Housing Authority 22
24 Chase St. Joseph Grant 23
26 Cherry Hill Ave. Steven Paecht 24
4A Cleveland Road Ext. M. Joanne & Mary C. Glover 25
24 Congress St. Donald Clarke 26
7 Crombie St. North Shore Shelter Committee 27
26-28 Crowdis St. Gerald & Elaine Verrette 28
DECISION 1985 - page two
ADDRESS PETITIONER PAGE
• 14 Curtis St. Charles McManus Jr. 29
1
19 Dearborn St. Thomas Mazzarini 30
v
36 Dearborn St. Richard & Rita Savickey 31
36 Dearborn St. Richard & Rita Savickey 32
36 Dearborn St. Richard & Rita Savickey 33
281 Derby St. Donald Clarke 34
33 Dunlap St. James Collett Jr. 35
370 Essex St. Salem Public Library 36
396 Essex St. David & Deborah Clark 37
21 Fairmount St. John & Sarah Hayes 38
31 Fairview Road Francis & Patricia Welch 39
31 Fairview Road Francis & Patricia Welch 40
• First St. Salem Housing Authority 41
36 Forest Ave. Michael Cormier/David Rosenberg 42
81 Fort Ave. Janet Maguire 43
24 Grove St. Raymond & Barbara Haight 44
50 Grove St. Barnet Weinstein 45
8 Hancock St. Roger & Lorraine LaPointe 46
10 Harris St. Jeanne F. Sweet 47
2 Hartford St. Daniel & Linda Richmond 48
11 Hersey St. Robert & Judith Armstrong 49
50-52 Highland Ave. John & Pauline Cunney 50
57 Highland Ave. North Shore Childrens Hospital 51
57 Highland Ave. North Shore Childrens Hospital 52
0 450 Highland Ave. Jerry's Dept. Stores, Inc. 53
'• 108 Jefferson Ave. Salem Hospital 54
199 Jefferson AVe. Michael & Benja Curran 55
Decisions 1985 = page three
ADDRESS PETITIONER PAGE
• 292 Jefferson Ave. 292 Jefferson Ave. 56
14 Kosciuski St. James Casellini 57
159 Lafayette St. Arthur & Robert Marchand 58
256-258 Lafayette St. Lafayette Real Estate Trust 59
260 Lafayette St. Lafayette Real Estate Trust 60
256-258 Lafayette St. Lafayette Real Estate Trust 61
260 Lafayette St. Lafayette Real Estate Trust 62
332 Lafayette St. Louis Goutzos 63
2 Lawrence St. a/k/a 165 Ocean Ave. Robert Maguire 64
2 Lawrence St. a/k/a 165 Ocean Ave. Robert Maguire 65
59 Leach St. David & Paula Donaldson 66
28 Leavitt St. Francis Warren 67
• 14 Lemon St. Joseph Skomurski 68
4 Looney Ave. Robert & F. Kay Fouhey 69
4 Looney Ave. Robert & F. Kay Fouhey 70
509 Loring Ave. Charles Thibault 71
600 Loring Ave. Mark Klaman Tr./Village Rlty Tr. 72
2A Linden St. Lucille A. Cyr 73
36 March St. Ronald & Pamela Jalbert 74
36-40 Marlborough Rd. Donald & Paula Marsella 75
174 Marlborough Rd. Joyce Buttner Mallard 76
8 Meade Court Stefan M. Hedio 77
21 North St. Dr. Alvin Rosen 78
164 North St. Lawrence J. Russo 79
243 North St. William Corbett Jr. 80
• 15 Northey St. Mill Brook Realty Trust 81
5-7 Ocean Terrace Robert & Ronald Marsilia 82
Decisions 1985 - page four
ADDRESS PETITIONER PAGE
• 80 Ocean Ave. Frank W. Chandler 83
95 Ocean Ave. John Suldenski 84
178 Ocean Ave. Everett & Patricia Mitchell 85
Ocean Ave. Ext. a/k/a 198R. Jefferson Ave. Salvatore Bonaiuto 86
16 Ord St. Henry LaBrecque 87
2 Orleans Ave. Robert & Carol Muise 88
19 Osgood St. P S J Realty Trust, Paul Emelian 89
1 Outlook Ave. John Jermyn 90
9 Pearl St. Zonobie Davis 91
13 Pearl St. Janet Doucette 92
58 Proctor St. Robert Cohn 93
63 Proctor St. Robert Maguire 94
• 104 Proctor St. Mike Kantorosinski 95
47 Ravenna Ave. Benjamin Hernando 96
20 Rawlins St. Dana & Claudia Nicgorski 97
30 Swampscott Rd. Rocky Mountain Realty Trust 98
Zetela Lane McNeil & Associates 99
6 Upham St. Gwethalyn Jones 100
Malley Street Way Rear Paul & Nancy Gallo 101
17 Verdon St. Laurent J. Bedard 102
20 Walter St. Cynthia Rowe/Michael Angerame 103
9 Warren St. Court Thomas Lee Brezina 104
13 Washington Square West Essex Institute 105
50-50'' Webb St. Paul & Margaret O'Toole 106
81 Webb St. Kathleen Keefe-Ternes 107
1
,• 50 Winter Island Road Winter Island Commission! 108
50 Winter Island Road Winter Island Commission 109
40-42 Winthrop St. Argia Miglioccio 110
25 Wisteria St. W. Burdett Godfrey 111
of , ttWem, C tt55ttcfjusc is a
of w
i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ESTHER REALTY INC. FOR :A
VARIANCE FOR 24, 16, 50 ADAMS ST. & 330, 314 CANAL ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held January 9, 1985 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 B-2 uses in the R-1 portion of
this property. Property is in an R-1/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 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 and
after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The business zone is divided by the residential zone;
2. This would be the largest lot in the area;
3. Residential area is landlocked and not accessible from the main street.
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 affect this lot
but do not affect the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial
hardship upon petitioner; and
3. The Variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good and without substantially derogating from the
intent and purpose of the Ordinance.
60 ' Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 - 0 to grant the
J
Variance requested under the following terms and conditions:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ESTHER REALTY INC. FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 24, 16, 50 ADAMS ST. AND 330 & 314 CANAL ST. , SALEM
page two
1 . A twenty (20) foot buffer zone on the rear of the properties on
Jefferson Ave. (R-1 zone) be maintained with a six (6) foot stockade
fence at the propery line;
2.' *No dumpsters or refuse of any kind be kept in the buffer zone.
VARIANCE GRANTED
es B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK
C7 ct�
— uT
PURSUA
To SECTION 17 OF THE M
IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE WITHIN 20r TT DA S AFTER THE DATE OF FIL-s
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, - -
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE _
c
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
S. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE DP, SPECIAL PER'.7T
PURSAR7 TO h':ASS. GENERAL LAWS-
c. RI\^:THE CEI?T'
Fd:O No APPEAL HAS BEE;J FILED".
GRtiSTED HEREIN, SHALL N07 JAKE EFFECT UNTIL V A LAP EDS BHEf'.�U DCIS`.'•ISSED OR DENIED IS
F!(; UN OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE
SED
Og 1µA7, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA!c:E OF THE 0`%:�•ER
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS
OF RECORD DR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE oVNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. APPEAL ..
RD
t
CitU of ,� ttlem, fflttssttthu$etts
�ottra of �Fpral
DECISION ON PETITION OF UGO DIBIASE CONCERNING THE
�
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 56 ALMEDA ST. , SALEM (R-1 )
A public hearing on this petition was held February 20, 1985 with the following
Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Acting Secretary;
Mr. Luzinski 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 Laws Chapter 40A.
This case is regarding a temporary building permit for 56 Almeda St. referred
back to the Board of Appeal for a new hearing.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to requests 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 substantially more detrimental
than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
.�
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
A Variance request may be granted upon a finding of the Board that:
a. ospecial conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
e 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, makes
the following findings of fact:
1 . There was violent neighborhood opposition to this petitioner;
2. In 1977 two petitions previously denied;
3. Primary reason for granting (1973) was for storage, petitioner no longer
owns or operates apartment complex or shopping center in the immediate area;
DECISION ON PETITION OF UGO DIBIASE CONCERNING THE .
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 56 ALMEDA ST. , SALEM (R-1 )
page two
4. Original condition of a fence surrounding property was never installed;
5. Area not maintained in a sanitary condition conducive to an R-1 Zone;
6. Violation of allowing attack dogs to roam freely without notifying
Salem Police/Fire Departments;
7. Violation of three or more attack dogs on the premises at one time.
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 . Desired relief cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good or without substantiallyderogating from the purpose of the
Ordinance or the intent of the district;
2_. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not
involve substantial hardship to petitioner;"
3. Requested relief is not in harmony with the district and will not promote
the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 4 - 0 to deny the permit.
DENIED
aurS. Hacker, Chairmanb
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
C)3
\ A PEA: FR iH,S uE I pN tANY.
E cR,'.L L _ SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SEC71Jk 17 r- _
JF 7HA "AFTERS 3 AU SN.:LL PE rrl ru l '-� .� ZJ DAYS AFTER THE
P _ li tY CFrICE CF THE CITC
Y
T :S. fE
FA's i L 'E EFFEC TChAKEU i L A EC" Or 1. THE V rMA E C ^F'.COP —
THE
S H'.,
rr H r.rJ FIE TF.t rT F. P[E ^i�: ISS JN r
C _ 4E�C EU Ir N �,P Eaat7, RE I 'TRY CF CE° . HND I"JL 1_ t
OW&CCuRJHE
uR 7 to
OR IS RCCuRDED AND WED ON THE CwNER S CERTIF CATEJOF TITLE.
u_�\
00 U
/ BOARD OF APPEAL
;;riv lJ'1
of ttlem, ussar4useffs03
m
oarb Df � 'eal 3s rri
3 . o
r ' <
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JANET FRAZIER FOR A rn
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 21 ARBELLA ST. , SALEM
A hearing 'on this petition was held March 27, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Strout
r and
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters a
and Associate Member Bencal. g
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
W Petitioner, owner of the premises, requests a Special Permit to allow her to
W v N
a . LL W o convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district.
U r Z W 6
N z o a The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
H = for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
p
W m = o r r a
a o a= o Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in
i z x � Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction
r i c u W
of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion
x z o W=o of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such
j G o a change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
o m 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
u z 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
.W a the following findings of fact:
1 . Parking requirements of the Ordinance would be met, according to the
plan presented to the Board, through piggy-back parking;
2. Piggy-back parking is a basically inconvenient and unworkable system
which would not adequately meet the parking space needs of the this
E: `: LL - � � property if it were a three family;
3. The neighborhood is fairly congested, and off street parking is
already inadequate.
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 petitioner's plan would be substantially detrimental
to the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 3 to 2 to grant the relief requested.
• � ' Because the petitioner did not receive the 4 votes to grant, the petition is
denied. � p
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
I� T
I
of *Ipm, ttssttc usetfs
k
puarb of AFPEal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY & DONALD LORD FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 17 BARNES CIRCLE, SALEM
A Public Hearing on this petition was held July 24, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Ckrna?, Gputhier, Strout and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to ul'R gjf�"d others
and notices of the hearing were properly published ALEIp Salem Ever,in News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A.
t ry B1rSRK gAL
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow an existink,ert .way which
encroaches to within six (6) feet of the side property line in this R-1 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
.Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
Sof Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section
r XVIII F and Ia D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non-
conforming structures, `and -for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion o,
w o = = -noncomforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change,
z
- `-'exte€sion, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental.
s
=Uianthe existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
LIQ m�
_&video e general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
c: = . by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
�
z = the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
= P: = ^ W x safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
a The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
a G < Wearing and after viewing plans, makes the following findings of fact:
` ^ 1 . No opposition;
N LL oximately twenty two (22) years and
E- _ 2. This condition has existed for appr
>' y
o the stairway in question was built originally when the house was built.
a c v vi W - ✓: c Z
the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Z - + Y u
L2 c z w LWard of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The relief requested is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
Ordinance;
C C C LL O C
2. Relief may be granted without nullying or substantially derogating from
` - district or the Ordinance. and will not be detrimental to the public good.
G
cuo E.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the relief
requested.
James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
of ttlem, ttss�it use##s
C h
\
MM CK
Pnxra of �1�reu1 T�
1 •j' n vi f
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN M. INGEMI FOR A J o ,9 .-
VARIANCE FOR LOT 274 BARNES ROAD, SALEM N
n a
A hearing on this petition was held March 27, 1985 with the fdMowikg Board
Members present: James Hacker, 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, owner of the lot, requests a Variance from lot size requirements to
allow him to divide the property into Lot A and Lot B, as shown on a plan sub-
mitted to the Board, and to build single family under zoning requirements of
an R-1 district. The property is, in fact, an R-3 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and cirumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structure 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
I. •
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 and viewing the plans, makes the
following findings of fact:
1 . The topography of the lot is not conducive to the construction
multi-family housing;
2. It would be a hardship on petitioner not to be able to utilize his
land for a single family home, considering the impracticality of
multi-family;
3. The topography of the lot which makes multi-family housing impractical
is unique to this lot, and is not typical of 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 or circumstances exist which affect this lot but
do not generally affect the district;
% 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would work a substantial
.'� hardship upon petitioner;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN M. INGEMI FOR A
VARIANCE FOR Lot 274 BARNES ROAD, SALEM
page two
The Variance requested 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 5-0 to grant petitioner
the Variance requested.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
PLANS
S2
--1 1c3J7
rn"�
M
irn N 0
-nAPPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE W= n Lj
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE OAIE OF nUN6 rn W
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LA,NS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SpIcIAL pERM
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, BEARUiG THE CEyG
FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NOAPPEAL WA; SEER FlLED�
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN O:SLTISSED 02 DEAIED 1S
.RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED 'UNDER THE NAME OF INE UMNR
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITi.£_
BOARD OF A FFM
•
Ctu of *ttlem, fflassuchnsdis
• �CL.nT t�"'
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF 'ANNA DELLA MONICA AND
VAUGHN HENNAN FOR A VARIANCE FOR 102- BAYVIEV.' AVE.
A hearing on this petition was held October 9, 1935 with the following Board
Members present; James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Charnas, Gauthier, Strout and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
were
and notices
of the hearingproperly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting a Variance to allow parking in the front of this
building which is located in an R-1 district. On July 29, 1981 the Board of Appeal
granted a Special Permit to allow the conversion of this three family dwelling into
a three unit condominium, a condition being there be no parking in front, area was
to be lar caped.
m. K
The Vari.;§e which has been requested may be granted upon ,a finding of one Board
that: CL-
2.
a. especial':,tonditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land; building or structure involved and which are not generally
Mffectibg other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
� w �
b. Cc=-3'it&a1tenforcement 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 plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Streets in this area are very narrow and parking is at a premium; '
2. Neighbors were in favor.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve a substantial
hardship to petitioners;
2. The relief requested can 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 4 - 1 (Mr. Hacker voted present) to
,' .� grant the petitioners the variance requested provided that:
G DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANNA DELLA MONICA AND
VAUGHN HENNAN FOR A VARIANCE FOR 102 BAYVIEW AVE. , SALEM
page two
1 . The area designated for parking be hottopped;
2. The retaining wall adjacent to parking lot be reinforced,
3. Removal of snow shall not be placed as to narrow the fire' lane in
front:of building; and not plowed towards abutting property;
4. Parking shall not impede accessa nd egress to this building for
fire fighting and other emergencies.
VARIANCE GRANTED
/flames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
F •
AFFa: FR;;S'. TH:.i C.. `'!TALL SE MAU PURSUANT TO 17 OF T... .
U... _. BE FILED 1'.;"HIIi 20 DAYS !n°' ..; DATE
!L A. C^F! OF THE LEGS " . _.. i` .:..
FI::. :P - 'i!E Hr F' r '_:.J.
On ,I, IF �L'..i . .. iT HAS BEEN DISF:.(3S- "R C_';: IS
IN T G S.l h ` ._: AH9 INDEX: VIJOEP The NAN!E OF I•i_ Nl ";
OF RECORD OP, IS RECORDED VA;(U aJii- c.. 1.:- ;,.,ITERS CERTIFICATE OF TiTLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
i
��O I '��
8 f�iTt of
ttlPm, C �ssar4uspits
11, �>
PIIBrb Q{ '"Fprzl
� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANH THI N NGUYEN LAM
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 79 BEAVER ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held July 17 , 1985 withJVbeZTcl2b*!g�FV d
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski, rout and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sept Etb abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A(tTYGt:BK. V4EM..AASS.
Petitioner requests a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming rear setback to
allow enlargement of a room on the premises. The premises, located in an R-2
district, is owned by Hoang Tri Lam.
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 used, 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 the plan;
2. The plan will have no substantial affect in any way 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:
1 .. The proposed extension of the nonconformity will not be
substantially more detrimental to the.neighborhood than the
existing nonconformity;
• 2. The proposed plan, is in harmony with the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANH THI N NGUYEN LAN,
FOR A SPECIAL PERt';IT FOR 79 BEAVER ST. , SALEM
page two
1 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested as per plans submitted.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
c
TO oc c;T SCrT1Dii 17 OF
PL
ShALL 6 I:n 1 t0 GAYS AFTtn THE DP 0-
F.
APPEAL fP.0
c..�c., F. SH. L DE P..c x'.:17
GENERAL Lk1`;S. Cr. OFF'��E C'F THE CIT` Cr_nF.. RIP.;;GE 0° SPEC!n_ P
OF 7H;S DECdS'.C'N . ,c;ER F".
SECTI:'I; 11. 7H�ECIS' EEkR'IiG lHE CECT-
' et ASS. L:. rcEC7 L. F C PY C° 7HE'•C kD]E''� HrS 5E
D:
PJF.SA iC S i c.�., A. _
T �, pA}'S F . Hre 5cR; D;c . rD G2 .a..ED T
Cr Th_ ',y htia d :t FIS 7- I U cr THE Ivwi,. OF THE 017NER
FICP.T R` r_�rcl N;;p In�CaED
OF, THr.T. IF SC-c`.' - „TRY DF GccDS TITLE.
-u ESSEY. P.: pYiNER•S CER7IFICA7E OF
RECORDED Ili 7�'S RECORDED AHD t NED Oli THE OF RECORD OR gppRD, OF APPEAL
,r
of �$ttlem, efflttsstzrFjuse##s
Y
3,
PnttrD of "Cal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHESTER CHALUPOWSKI JR. FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 11 BECKETT ST.
7 �j pp �
A hearing on this petition was held October 9, 14U bath khOjil wing Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs LCharnas, Gauthier, Strout and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing w ent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published ir���Y%,`Sle� pae1$.News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter IDA.
The petitioner requests a Special Permit to convert an existing two family into
a three family in this R-2 district. Petitioner owns the premises.
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, ex-
tension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures,
and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, en-
largement or expansion shall not be substantially more detri-
mental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Perm-f-_ 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 . There is adequate parking on premises;
2. The addition of one dwelling unit to this neighborhood will not
have a significant negative effect on parking or traffic.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The relief requested is not substantially detrimental .to
the public good;
2. The proposal will not depart from the intent and purpose of the
Ordinance.
i�
DECISION ON,THE PETITION OF CHESTER CHALUPOWSKI JR.
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 11 BECKET ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the .Zoning Board of Appeal by a vote of 4-1 , Mr. Bencal voted in
opposition, grnted the relief requested, provided that:
1 . The premises must be owner occupied;
2. Plans are provided to the Salem Fire Department indicating the type
and location of all fire alarm devices to be installed by a licensed
electrician;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained;
4. A minimum of five (5) parking spaces be maintained on premises.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
•
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE P1�4NNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
OR
p1\S P IT P o
'Er_•::cD F " L • L EP7, TYr Sc _ FP c Th F6:D Ir DE'� G __
F T IF S L'.. SJ cD ESSEd PROT[D,OFFThEc Os!I1ER'S GERi1flG:..�
_,• F In Tl'E
gp;,PD pF APPEAL
c gEL"uPD 0
R lg k.COnDED At D .
ftZit of "351em, cpassarhusdis
, s Poarb of �ppral RECEIV'.C'
• �cem�er'�
085 APR 30 P 3 :04
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHESTER CHALUPOWSKI JR. @ITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 11 BECKET ST. , SALEM SALEM MASS
A hearing on this petition was held April 17, 1985 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, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to convert
and existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district.
The Board of Appeal heard the evidence and viewed plans of the property, after
which the petitioner requested Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice.
The Zoning Board of Appeal by a vote of four (4) in favor of granting leave to
withdraw, one (1 ) , Mr. Bencal,opposed; allowed the petitioner .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
TO SECItON 17 OF APPi AL FROM, 71 W" DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE IdADE'PH R�L20^IDAYS AFTER THE DATEFOFI FILIS:C
FEN'RAL !AY.'S, CKAPTER EDS• ASD SI{ALL BE FIL.b
m, ,v AL PEF%IIT
OF TJi!S. CECIS'3'J 'Itl THE ,`i ._`F lPTER £02T}$c.CTIR'id 11. THE VAMANCELCR "'A (ERT
l tcn S F '- JC PY r THc
cr 'LL N'� � � ,7_ E' c � t , C
-Dr L DIS
r L 'c 6EEla CI - R,
-.9N. IF SC';F; la. .ARPEAL EAS
cit
OF RECORD RD IORTIS SoUi DEDSANDP NDTED'ONFTHEcDVJNER' SND I,CERTIFJCATE OF TITLE.
C THE
} BOARD OF APPEAL
Ctv of Salrm, gassar4usdis (51
a>� s Pnara of (4pez,
4r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLIFFORD & ELLEN CLARK FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 73 BOSTON ST.
A hearing on this petition was held July 24, 19R wKhZpfha1I g Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , aha na$, Mier, Strout and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearinWILa# sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Law ChapIKM4 2v'. S'ALEM,PIAAbS
Petitioners, owners of the premises along with Joel Decareau, request a Special
Permit to convert an existing two family 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 IY, D,
grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of
nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, ex-
tension 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 the plan;
2. The plan will not substantially affect traffice or parking 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 . The relief requested is in harmony with the purpose and intent
of the Ordinance
2. The relief requested will not be substantially more detrimental
% •�� to the public good than the existing two family dwelling.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLIFFORD & ELLEN CLARK FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 73 BOSTON ST. , SALEM
• page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
relief requested, provided that:
T . A minimum of seven (7) parking spaces be maintained, along
with access thereto, either on the premise or on the adjacent lot;
2. The dwelling be owner occupied;
3. a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
APPEAL FR DM THIS DECISI^_N. IF Y, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT
DATE OF HLINS
CI{A'•TER 605. A.dD'SHALL7B, FILED WITHIN HE CITY CLERK. 20 DAYS AFTER THE Cfr. ' pr,.1R
GEIJERAL LAI;S' THE VARIANCE OR „_�T
OF THIS DEC�S`OJJ IN THE DF�:�c OF _ .
PU R�.+'ET TG 'r� S E1 f\ U rS, C4 APTER RDS. SECTION 11 -^
'r,E EFi2Ci U°:TIL A CC OF THE DECISION B FFIi '• --
2O DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NC APPEAL HFA S
GF.Ah'EJ HEREh, Sr?. L I .,i
THE OWNER
FICATI^.N OF iH`_ Ll-,, APr:AL P..15 EECJJ FILE. THAI !T HAS BEEN DUNDESED - ...
OR THAT.
IF Sz H A E AND INDEXED AT DER ;5'> '
NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE•
RECORDED IN THE SCUTH ESSEX RESISiRY OF DE_DS
OF RECORD GR IS RECORDED AND BOARDOFAPPS
of �9: ttlem, Cttssttt�usetts
Y
3� �Raarb of '4PV l
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MOOSE REALTY TRUST, SCOTT
GALBER, TRUSTEE, FOR A VARIANCE FOR 134 BOSTON ST./
7-9 WATSON ST. , SALEM JUL lI 2 59 PM '85
A hearing on, this petition was held June 26, 1985 with the following Board Members
present: Edward Luzinski, Acting Chairman; MessrEjLflharnas, Strout and Associate
Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to04,�.yt,�tgers and others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem 1V�r1Ynp;" .accordance
with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioner requests a Variance to allow him to subdivide a parcel of land and to
physically divide a building into its original state of two separate buildings,
all as shown more particularly on a plan filed with the Board. The premises, in
a B-2 district, is owned by Moose Realty Trust.
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 parking problem in the neighborhood will be exacerbated by this plan;
2. The building as it currently exists, on one parcel of land, is unique
unusual and extremely difficult to market;
3. This situation is unique to the district;
4. If the petition is not granted, petitioner will suffer financial
hardship.
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 Ordinance would create a substantial
• ', financial hardship on petitioner;
i -
2. The above described special conditions which affect the lot are
unique to the lot and do not generally affect the district;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MOOSE REALTY TRUST, SCOTT GALBER, TRUSTEE,
FOR A VARIANCE FOR 134 BOSTON ST./7-9 WATSON ST. , SALEM
page two
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantially derogating
from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance and without` substantial
detriment to the public good.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 4-0 to grant the relief
requested, provided that:
1 . Petitioner fully comply with all applicable smoke detector
laws and regulations;
2. Minimum of five (5) non-piggyback parking spaces be provided on
Boston Street parcel;
3. Minimum of one (1 ) parking space be provided on Watson Street parcel;
4. Certificate of Occupancy for both buildings be obtained.
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. IF ANY. SHELL BE MADE PURSUANT 7D SEC71ON 17 OF THE FILM
GENERAL LS;YS. CHAPTER 8CF• AI;D SH,
BE FILED K' Hli: 2� DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILII7G
OF TET c:Tl' CLERK. ^ C° SPE^!AL PEF.8,1T
OF THIS DECIB!ON it. THE O'' C:.' F. B^S. SECTL:.0 1L 7HE T'F--A
Cf �� c� .... c - TETE•LEF.T•
Is
i :E Er i 'T'L A C^7 C T r i A Ln� h c a FILED,
•p c Cf ,L- A t F.> L
OF THE OR"C`-R
if
R ?ED Iti 7l�i SOR A-
J,:•r. E$�-n N:!fED D'iFTHE 6JIKER 5 CERTiF CAiE OF Tfn-E
OF6sCDRD OR RECOP.DED AXD
Ln BOARD OF APPEAL
w
N
a
� � J
Ci
b
of �$ttlem, � ttssttcl�use##s
s^ i
"_�� s �axrD of �p}iettl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL S. FRASER FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 19 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held September 11 , 1985 with "'-Tr�l
oQip
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Strout an fid( iNtle
Member Bencal. .Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters atiitLE4hers and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. CITY ^kE.vr S4LEM,WS.
r
_ - p Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from all applicable
L ` ; _� density and setback requirements and use regulations in order to construct a
- single family dwelling in this B-2 district.
S LLO = _ f. .0 W
€` - The tariance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
t
-. Maty •
W special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
t - _ 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
' cam Via: z
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.
ino
" W :is'Ae Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, and after
- _ = xv9 ewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Opposition was presented by neighbors;
O Z U y '�-
ti 2. The petitioner did not follow through with the reconstruction of
H = = the fire damaged property, presenting a serious fire hazard to the
abutting properties. As a result, the City Council ordered the
property torn down.
= C
o o 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 would substantially endanger the abutting properties
because of closeness and the past performance of the petitioner in
following through with construction procedures;
2. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment or
\ without substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance.
• 1 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 4-0 against granting the
requested relief.
DENIEDf9Jr%tii�,z�
Peter Strout, Member
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
/ •`„"e � :. " /`�' 1Ci.Tt 1 of '15ale TTS tT$$MLhTI$PttB >c a
Df '4FVd• Xr"tri. �.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NONDAS LAGONAKIS FOR A �T N
VARIANCE FOR 26 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM F; A
M
A hearing on this petition was held March 27, 1985 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 side and rear setback requirements in
order to construct an addition in this B-2 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to 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
hearing and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings
of fact:
1 . It will improve the neighborhood;
2: Will substantially increase the tax rate;
3. Many residential and commercial abutters are in favor of this
project;
4. There was no substantial opposition;
5. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts imposed the bottle return law and
the business in question does not have the facilities to comply with
this law without the 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 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
building or structure involved and which do not generally affect
land, dui6
-
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; and
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NONDAS LAGONAKIS FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 26 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM
page two
3. Relief requested can 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 5-0 to grant the petitioner
the variance requested under the following terms and conditions:
1 . Underground gas tanks must be removed or the situation must be remedied
to the satisfaction of the Salem Fire Department;
s
2. Parking area in front and on side of building must be hot topped
and lined;
3. Minimum of ten (10) parking spaces must be maintained on premises;
4. Storage trailer must be removed from the side of the building;
5• All work to be done in strict accordance with plans of file.
VARIANCE GRANTED
names B. Hacker, Chairman
n �,
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARIPAND &E CITY CLERK
fTi
>
>n a
mm
3� 1 !'1
)> A r
LnN
L 7
n vt
M a
APPEAL FIR7A THIS DECISION, IF.ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL Lk,,S, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DEL!S!ON IN THE OFFI^.E OF THE CITY CLERK.
PL'RSAIiT is "ASS. GEN°RAL LAFSS, CHAPTER. 808, SECTION 11, THE VAMANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAt(E EFFECT UNTIL A COPi OF THE DECISION. BEARING THE CERT•
FICATICH CF THE GJ-.Y CLER;: TEAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED,
OR THAT, IF SUt:H AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIVI!SSED OR DEWED IS
- RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OV9ZA
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
�tyLt J of $alent, tISs�t�u$PttB
MAY 23 3 of PM IS
Pusra of �}�enl
FILE�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANK & JOAN LIVAS FOR A O(TY CLFhk SALEk,RASj
VARIANCE AT 63 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM- (B-4/R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held May 15, 1985 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 Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting a Variance from setback requirements and use in order
to construct a storage building in this B-4/R-2 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
• b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings
of fact:
1 . There will be no change in the type of business or work performed;
2. Petitioner will remove old trailers from premises;
3. This will improve the neighborhood;
4. Will generate new tax dollars for the City;
5. There was no 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:
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;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANK & JOAN LIVAS FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 63 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM
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 5-0 to grant the Variance
requested under the following terms and conditions:
1 . Trailers are to be removed from premises;
2. Building is to be used for cold storage. only;
3. No fabrication to be performed in the new building;
4. Building to be unheated.
VARIANCE GRANTED ' '
aaes B. Hacker, Chairman
j • `I A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
IF ,glr'Y. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE FCASS. .
APPEAL FROM THIS DEGISICN, 4IA SHALL EE FILED YlITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILIitG
GENERA,
LA.Y.S. CHAPTER ECS.J•F1C.E OF THE CITY CLERK. VARIANCE OP, SPEGI^L PER':'.IT
THIS DECISiOP: lil
THE F,. -TER SGS, SEC',10�I 11. THE - THE CERT•
OF ^,. C..Ar, EDEOISIC EEA"iii,;
r c.vr^.4L L-, rnpl' OF 7H ny BLED.
PURSANT TO S':PSS. - EFFECT U"-,!L A —.) Ii;, p
HEREiN, SHALL NCl T^-._ .. .c HA`i`_ EL., PIC OR D ::fED IS
. GRA'iicD ry CLEF,.. THA 20 DA)- THA, IT HAS E.EEN CI_.
FICP.TION OF THE G. E-'i1 FI_E. T UNDER THE NA!,5E OF THE 0'�ICER
OR THRT, If S':?H A% AFFEA: HAS r AND IIIDE"K
RECORDED Ift THE 5=�iH ESSEY. RE-ISiRI' GF D.EOS
OF RD-3RD OR IS REGURDED AND NOTED ON THE OY;NER'S CEFTIFICATE of TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL .
� V
r'
(ISit of t§ttlem, ttssttclju$etts y�
>� g rn
• �3' DMf�1 Df f211 rnm a C7
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANK & JOAN LIVAS FOR A n N
VARIANCE AT 63 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM (B-4/R-2) n
rn
A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1985 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 Variance from setback requirements and use in order
to construct an addition in this B-4/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 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings
of fact:
1 . There will be no change in the type of business or work performed;
2. Petitioner will remove old trailers from premises;
3. This will improve the neighborhood;
4. Will generate new tax dollars for the City;
5. There was no 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:
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 requested 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 FRANK & JOAN LIVAS FOR
A VARIANCE AT 63 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 - 0 to grant the
variance requested under the following terms and conditions:
1 . Trailers are to be removed from premises;
2. Building is to be used for cold storage only; a ca
3. No fabrication to be performed in the new building; La-<
C> z� 71
4. Buildingto be unheated. mm a n
�cn C
VARIANCE GRANTED
n a
M o
//James B. Hacker, Chairman
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
ALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE c F!I'SS:S
a DECISION. IF ANY. SH S AFTER THE DATE 0
,OA1 THIS 20 DAY
F. r F^9 AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN
r r THE CITY CLERK.
C., - - - r ^i 11. Tvc 1?IANCE OR SPECIAL PER7:11T
THE CERT-
Ell
ERT-Eh i U '1IL C. y r 1
� c i iCl
pi i. ,I Gr ch Ail Apr4 1 P C ri c. 1H.:; IT N'3 SF
CR 7d,i, iF U
HIS E;'
OF ORD INTHE
S RECORDED SAN DP NOT rONFIKEEOV4NER'SIICERTIFICATE OF TITLE-
RECORDED , c G"r TriE CWfiER
BOARD. OF APPEAL
.c(O�DIKb
CtU of �$ttlem, gassuchusrtts
Paxrb of � rettl
cnms_N.
r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARING CROSS CORP. FOR
VARIANCES FOR 1 BROAD ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held July 24 , 1985 wit4 the fo owi �Sp rd
Members present. James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Cha ,SSt B sociate
Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abuP�er and others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evei g News in accordance
with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A. CITYt-t- EPµi.55.
Petitioner is requesting Variances to convert the building formerly the School
Administration Building, into twelve (12) condominium units 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 purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The Planning Board and the Planning Department have highly
endorsed this petition;
2. The building is existing and is so large it is not conducive to use
as a two family;
3. No neighborhood opposition;
4. Neighbors and abutters spoke in favor of this 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 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which affect this lot
but do not affect the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
\ would work a substantial hardship on petitioner; and
( • 3. The relief requested can be granted withoutsubstantial detriment to
the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent
of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
,
� r N1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARING CROSS CORP. FOR
VARIANCE FOR 1 BROAD ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 4-0 to grant the Variances
requested under the following terms and conditions:
1 . Must be approved by the Historical Commission, the Planning Board and
the City Planner;
2. Maintain eighteen (18) parking spaces on site;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each unit;
4. All work to be in strict accordance with plans on file.
VARIANCES GRANTED
ell"ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK
� � DFC4tDR, !` ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
APPEAL BEM U1[+S_ (2tAPTEf °DS. ANO SHALL BE FILED 191THIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS OECtS'V% Ud THE OFFICE CF THE CITY CLERK.
PtiRSA'iT T� "ASS- -`''FEA! ka '• CHAPTER BCS. SECT!=.il 11. THE \'ARIA';CE OP, SPFC!AL PER"SIT
SHr:�L Q=.'� 1'+.E EFFECT UliTl! A COPY ^_F THE 76;!$lG;i. 6EAR!NG THE CERT
O�.PED Ham';:. ELAPSED Ai:7 :V^ APPE{•.! HAS BEEN FILED'
FiCATt09t ED IS
OF THE CI.TY CLERIC lKAT i0 DAYS HAVE
HAS 6E'c L �'.,ER`1HORu°l.,EI OF THE GYi iQER
OR THAT. If SIKH: W4 APPEAE PAS. BEEN FILE, DS AND It:DEr.D C^^
�tECOROED IX T'� SDJTR EESSSAENDRI�E�ONFTHE cOWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
OF ifs+ to 15 RECORDED
BOARD OF APPEAL
1
l P/7
of43 PN °8
Fcarb Df C�VP� FILE i!
-- DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEAN T. BOUCHER FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 17 BROADWAY, SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held July 17, 1985 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 Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Variance from front yard setback in order to construct
a porch on an existing foundation in this R-2 district. Petitioner is owner of
the premises.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building and structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented and the hearing and
after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No neighborhood opposition to petitioner' s plan;
2. Existing foundation already there.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions affect this lot which do not generally affect
the district;
2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would work a substantial
hardship upon the petitioner;
3. The Variance requested 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 DEAN T. BOUCHER
FOR A VARIANCE FOR 17 BROADWAY, SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 - 0, to grant the
petitioner the variance requested, provided that:
1 . Porch come to no more that five feet of the front property line;
2. A Certificate of Compliance be obtained from the Salem Fire Dept.
VARIANCE GRANTED
6dames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
APPEAL FROM. THIS DECISION. If Ai1Y, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL EAN'S, CHAPTER BOC. AND SHALL BE FILED \'+';7'1;1 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF rILilu
OF THIS DECISION I!i THE 11 OFFICOF THE CITY CLERK.
S J^v 11 THE Yt6,M° LE OP eF'e LAI IIT
PURSAKi TG - a. G_ �A L./• Lr1r ro 51:. EFT :I 'I�iL r'_RT-
T;.f c T L -. C f DF TH
RAN-ED tiu r - �`, E - D rFE h E PJ FiLiD;
0 .' r c "i"-1
rp " J IS
li'rC'r F Tu r'ITp i.--�. .E IT p,:S
R hAT, c S.J -' �:; APr l h-S GF L. y AT;0 IS.cT LtTDE., THE T''r VE OF THE
TITLE.
Rc "RC.E , IN Tr'. SDJ:H ESS- "r,
OF RECORD OR I' RECORDED S AND
NOTED ON THE
(I:INER'S CERTiFiCATE 0'r
BOARD OF APPEAL
} of
Poxrb of 4pral
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSE PEREIRA FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 62 BUTLER ST. , SALEM ����
A Public Hearing on this petition was held August 14, 4951LA2 tftpt wing
Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messr%LELE Parnas, Gauth1 r,
Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to al5utters and others and !
z notices of the hearing were properly published in the ,($*t�r +ye�pin News in
ti z o accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A. y. .M455.
— w w w
ad ac� � _yF A
w o < s LL o Retitioner, owner of the property, requests a Special Permit to extend non-
w 3
w conforming front setback in order to construct a second means of egress in this �
o a y 11-2 district.
w c y r LL She provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request !
w � cry a n
?or a Special Permit is Section U B 10, which provides as follows:
O y 7 WJ O � Q
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
N = N 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
w = d - 3 a z 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 '
m LL ti Z detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
2i = o 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,
LL.
Qw G z o safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and
¢ v s
U
i,i N Q w s N F after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
LL 1 . This is the only logical location for a second means of egress;
2. Planning Board is in favor;
3. There was no opposition.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented,
the Board of Appeal concudes as follows:
1 . The proposed plan will promote the health, safety, convenience
and welfare of the City's inhabitants;
2. The relief requested may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good and without derogating substantially from the
intent or purpose of the Ordinance.
•l Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the
petitioner the relief requested.
�ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
Olitg of "Salem, fflassac4uspits
' F Pottrb of r ppv 1
wet,ms.d'
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MAURICE & TINA. BOUCHARD
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 26 CABOT ST. tpr
A hearing on this petition was held October 9, 1061 n th2t" FR1S�ing Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Strout and .
c Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing W tent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published in th,e SleeQu News in
-: w accordance with Massachusetts General -Laws Cha. t�
"• O E• L C_ :�
PetilSioners, owners of the premises, request a Special Permit to allow them to use
the 15remises as a two family dwelling in this R-2 district.
N a W LL
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
- Por 2 Special Permit is Section VI 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, ex-
r `
tension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures,
w = _ and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension., en-
largement or expansion shall not be substantially more detri-
LL, z
mental .than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
in more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
LL> uided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
E - by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
_ safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
she Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the
Following findings of fact:
1 . The premises are suitable for use as a two family dwelling,
having two separate kitchens and baths;
2. The use of the premises as a two family will not have a
negative impact on the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and of the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The relief requested is not substantially detrimental to the public
good nor does it derogate from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the relief
requested, provided that 'a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
c .
n� k
00)
w'^~'
�ugra of '�t51�P22�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEONARD J. SAMIA FOR
VARIANCES FOR B51 CANAL -ST./4 FLORENCE ST. , SALEM
A Public Hearing on this petition was held July 24, 19 it?h t�e,b Crog Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Cha
, ' Gauthier; Sut and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was self abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evenin News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A. FTS =
Petitioner requests a Variance to allow the premises, which are partly in a B-4
district, to be used either for warehousing, wholesale merchandise brokerage and
storage, carpentry, woodworking and printing shops, or retail uses related to
those uses. Petitioner also requests a Variance from parking requirements so that
only a minimum of fourteen (14) spaces be maintained on premises. The property is
owned by Saul Tanzer Trust, Nathan M. Tanzer, Trustee and is located in a B-4/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 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 the plan;
2. The size and shape of this lot, and the position of the
building relative to the lot lines, are unique to 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 affect this lot which do not generally affect
the district;
2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would work a substantial
• ,I hardship upon the petitioner;
3. The variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment
to the public ,good and without substantially derogating from the intent
and purpose of the Ordinance.
A
c y
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEONARD J. SAMIA FOR
VARIANCES FOR R51 CANAL ST./4 FLORENCE ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the
Variances requested provided that:
1 . No storage of any materials be done outside the building;
2. A minimum of fourteen ( 14) parking spaces be maintained on
premises;
3. This plan be approved by the Salem Fire Department.
VARIANCES GRANTED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION & PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FRDA1 THIS DECISION. IF A':1', SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER ECB. ARD SHALL BE FILED 1'.;T HIiI 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS CMSVO IN THE Ci F'CE OF THE CITY CL`_2K.
PURSA'T TO WASS, FRIERS_ LAYS, CHAPTER 803, SECTIDIV 11, THE VAR`ANCE OP, SPECIAL PERMIT
GRANTED HEREIN, SHA'_L NOT TAKE EFTECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE-`�In.,1N, BEAn:!:o THE CERT-
FICATION OF THE CITY CLER, THAi 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED ANC NC APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED,
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPE HAS BEE-iQ FlLE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DiS:HISSED OR DENIED IS
'RECDRDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEA REGISTRY CF DEEDS AND 1':OEAEO LINDEF THE ft A!r:E OF THE 01^,f4 CR
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NCTED DN THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
I
Ctv of ttlem, ttsstttliusetts
;MJ F
PY Poarb of 4peal
i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR B. FREEDMAN FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 120 CANAL ST. , SALEM
Nov 26 2 ;u PM 15
A hearing on this petition was held November 13, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: James Hack06EChairman; Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout
and Associate Member Bencal, Acting Secretary. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notiods' of atiSrere properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petition requests a special permit to all a Veterinary Clinic/Hospital in
this Industrial (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
1 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 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.
i
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and
after viewing the plans,makes the following findings of fact:
i 1 . Opposition to the plan was appeased after petitioner explained
the plans in detail and agreed to the requests of the opposition;
2. The plan, as agreed to, will not substantially affect the health,
safety or welfare of the neighborhood.
i
I3 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 . Petitioners plan will not be substantially detrimental to
the public good;
2. The plan does not substantially derogate from or nullify the intent
and purpose of the Ordinance.
i
i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR B. FREEDMAN FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 120 CANAL ST. , SALEM
page two
• \ Therefore the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the relief
Jrequested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Prior to a Building Permit being issued, the property must
meet the requirements of the Salem Fire Department as to
cleanliness, trash, rubbish, etc. ;
2. The property must meet all Salem Fire Department approvals for
the installation and use of smike and fire detection equipment;
3. No pets shall be exercised outside, nor shall they be sheltered
outside of the building;
4. The kennel area must be sound isolated from the outside with the
appropriate STC rating;
5. No incineration of trash or carcasses is to be allowed on the
premises;
6. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
g
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 ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
CENTRAL 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.
PUCSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 803, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SP--!AL FSCY;iT
GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT T.':SE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, BEARING THE `t EOT.
FICATi,N OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED,
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
t
Ili •
Ij
y�
S
1
ajtU of ,15, ttlem, �fHttssarhusetts
peal
I 5 �Baarb of �v
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY
FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT FOR 27 CHARTER ST. , SALEM
A public hearing on this petition was held AuguSt _1 � lff� 98e following
Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman;UsZs. , s, Gauthier,
Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing wasFgi to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published in e Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapttyt BEca . .'t,.,EN.NOSS.
This petition is brought pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40B,
Section 21 , seeking a Comprehensive Permit to allow the construction of an
addition for office space to low and elderly income housing. The property is
located in B-5 district.
After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing a"he plans,
the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the petitioners the
Comprehensive Permit requested, provided that:
1 . It be a one story addition;
2. All work be in accordance to plans submitted; - _-
' • 3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT GRANTED
lL 9rti.;
jJ�ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL fR01; THIS DECISION, G ANY, SHALL BE LtADE PUP.SUANT TO SECTION 17 OF Tl-;E 6;ASS.
GENERAL LAYJS. CHAP'i EF 505, AND SHALL BE FILED 1-17-'l 20 DAPS AFTER THE GATE OF FI LIYG
OF THIS DECISION IN THE CF'I'E OF THE CITY CLERK,
PURSAtr'? TO ..:lSS. EE?IERA'_ L :' `,. C:1= ?R 3D3, SECTI C.II 11. THE VA'r.IA!;CE OR SPECIAL PER:!IT
i R.AiJ?EG HERi115, SHALL N:,i -i ,:E EFFECT U!iTiL A COPY OF THEiEC!S!:'d. 5E= THE CERL
FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK. TW,� '[O :;'A'iE HA, ;1`IT`H(.S.A5E°ti CAP.AF---AL
OR DENIED HAs BEEN ISD,
-- CR THAT, IF SUCH Aid APPB:! H,S BEEN F''--•
@'ffuORU`D IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME Of THE OVJ f!C"
j� OF FILLUD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
Titg of ttlem, Massachusetts
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH GRANT FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 24 CHASE ST.
��[
A hearing on this petition was held October &j1JF5 tIARtM 191lowingBoard
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Strout and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the heariHikEfas sent to abutters and others
and notices of the bearing were properly published in tbeQ iwtEvening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Ch6ge;!ItbA. "
Petitioner, owner of the premises, requests a Special Permit to allow him 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, ex-
tension or expansion of nonconforming lots, lands, structures,
• and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, en-
largement or expansion shall not be substantially more detri-
mental 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 . There is adequate parking on premises;
2. The addition of one dwelling unit to this neighborhood will not
have a significant negative effect on parking or traffic.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1. The relief requested is not substantially detrimental to
the public good;
2. The proposal will not depart from the intent and purpose of the
Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH GRANT FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 24 CHASE ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0, to grant the relief
requested, provided that:
1 . The premises remain owner occupied;
2. Plans are provided to the Salem Fire Department indicating the type
and location of all fire alarm devices to be installed by a licensed
electrician;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained;
4. A minimum of five (5) parking spaces be maintained on the premises.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
ess.
FiLE,_ 17!?H{'; ?O DAYS AFTER THE DA7E OF BLING
APrERL pOv, THIS OECISInr:, IF A'1Y, SHALL BE MADE PuRSL'AN� TO SECT!O,Y 17 OF TH
A r. SF,. . E. _
OFF—; 0 T' LITY O_Ent OR S.. :I;'. P
iF:S Ii. il4 C
{ 1 c r:i Or .ht
n
r,._''- I TN °` 'H ° c _.E - -EP.'S CERTIFICATE DF TITLE.
OF HE:.^,RO OP. IS REL'RDED AGJ NCl.J L.; TrE 0 BOARD OF AFFEAL
situ of "ittlem, ttsstztlju�etts
Poxrb of '4FV ai 0
[
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN PAECHT FOR A 0
VARIANCE FOR 26 CHERRY HILL AVE. , SALEM (R-1 ) m W
A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1985 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 lot width in order to construct a
single family dwelling in R-1 district. The City of Salem is currently the owner
of the property.
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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings
of fact:
1 . . There was neighborhood opposition;
2. Planning Board objected to petitioner's plan;
3. Most property in the area had more that fifty (50) foot frontage;
4. Petitioner failed to establish 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 . Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial
hardship to the petitioner;
2. Desire relief cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good or without substantially derogating from the intent or
purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN PAECHT FOR A
VARIANCE AT 26 CHERRY HILL AVE. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 -1 to. deny petitioners request
for a Variance from lot width. Mr. Bencal voted in favor.
VARIANCE DENIED
,3ames B. Hacker, Gna:Lrman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
n
VNO TJ
3�n rn
mm
3� N M
�CD -o
En n
m
APPEAL MIA THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
CENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
THIS C CISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. _
Ra.inF:T TC -:. CE:ERAL I-QNS, CHAPTER SDS, SECTIBN 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PEW-IiT
Hr e_ ,,.;L N.;i iPvE EFFECT UNTIL A CCP) CF THEr)EC I- :i, DE R_ THE CERT
;F THE_ ..I l GLh.� 1HA. 20 DAYS HAVE ELAP ED +� NO APPEAL HAS ME FILED.
-]R )HC,T. IF S '.i'. P.N APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT EAS 6EEK DISJiSSED OR CEdiED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA.`dE OF THE OYl NER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
psarb of �ppral
T
_ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF M. JOANNE & MARY C. GLOVER '
\ FOR A VARIANCE FOR 4A CLEVELAND ROAD EXT. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held January 16, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinskl; Strout
and Associate Members 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 from rear and side setback requirements
in order to allow an 8' x 12' storage shed in this R-1 district.
The Variance which as 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 plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Four neighbors appeared in favor of the shed, two neighbors
appeared in opposition;
2. The shed is used just for storage and in a short time it will
y house a motorized wheel chair fors the occupant of the dwelling;
3. A compromise between the petitioners and the neighbors who
were in opposition was reached.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions or circumstances exist which affect this lot and
which do not affect the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would work a substantial
hardship upon petitioner;
3. The variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to
• \ the public good adn without substantially derogating from the intent
of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISIOtd ON THE PETITION OF J . JOANNE & NARY C. GLOVER
FOR A VARIANCE FOR 4A CLEVELAND RD. EXT. , SALEM
page two
. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 - 0 to grant the
f i Variance requested under the following terms and conditions:
1 . The shed is to be moved from its present location to the
position near the bushes;
2. The shed is to be placed on blocks;
3. Variance to terminate on sale of property or if ownerEteasts
to use shed:
VARIANCE GRANTED
Peter Strout
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
AFFEAL FPC:,' THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE V—DE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF TK @',:SS.
CErl RA., L,,'S. C',,IAPTER 80S, AND STALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAPS AFTER THE GATE OF F!L!F'?.
CF THIS CEC!S:7:: I:: THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
P-i;£: i TO 6'"'._`£: ^_.. 'd.:. L.4i.5, CHAPTER 808, SECTI:".'i 11. THE VARWiCE CR SIC.L IF-1,-::T
!-D ii E: . cu-.LL I YTA!!- EFFECT U.':TIL A 6..^Pl' C'F TF lsi;
Ih'. n'i 6L.R 7i ;T 20 DAYS H4r/E ELATE A;; I ° A! F
! -� F S:,:% cP. AFr i�.. F.AS EF--N F:_E, TNA. IT H;c cry
r III 7 J!H ESSEX PE:ISiRY OF DEEDS D INDJ`D ur T.1-
C-
7 r_.:E iiF
RE'CRD OR IS RE "ORDED AND NOTED ON THE 0*4HER'S CERTIFi,;JE OF TITLE
BOARD OF APPEAL
(ISit oftt1em, ttssttc�jusetts
« gym
. curb of '4pud
_ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD CLARKE FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 24 CONGRESS STREET, SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held January 9, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, .Lunski
and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abuttersCan� others and 'n tices
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 Variance from use requirements
to allow him to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises lotted in a B-4 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes
the following findings of fact:
1 . The area is unique in the district due to the proximity of
Pickering Wharf;
2. An inability to serve alcoholic beverages would seriously hamper
the owner's ability to make any reasonable profit and keep his
establishment open;
3. Again, due to the proximity of Pickering Wharf, a non-restaurant
business is ill suited for the location.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at
the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions or circumstances exist which affect this lot and
which do not affect the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would work a substantial
hardship upon petitioner;
1 3. The variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to
/ the public good, and without substantially derogating from the intent
of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD CLARKE FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 24 CONGRESS ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 - 0 to grant the
Variance requested.
VARIANCE GRANTED C_�
=T m
v -< n
C
a 1
Scott E. Charnas, Secretaryn,
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNINq BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LA.VS, CHF.F,F^ 30@, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS - HF i E OF THE CITY CLERK.
pOr, LA S C`!AP-FR 12R. Sc(.TL'.N 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER':SIT
GRANTED is"_3..:;. ;ii:+!L i�:: i.:;E EFFECT 16171L A C''P,' OF THE=�uSIC`.. BEF.71NG THE CERT•
FICATi lji iH"_ .:.EF.r: i.D "N:S Hn!E _.'., fi:"CJ SPP AL H:S B F! 'D.
v.
OR H 1 iE Sc:- P. -;: d t' -tP 'tl' ii U •• f J CR D vJ IS
RECGRDE:: :Y THE o;d n ECS_. L I._- i 1,' SE OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECGRDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL •.
Qf �ttjem, �; 2I85�IC�uSP#t8
PuxrD of
t�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NORTH SHORE SHELTER COMMITTEE
FOR A VARIANCE E FOR 7 CROMBIE ST. , CROMBIE STREET CONGREGATIONAL
HURCH OWNERS JULIO 3 2u PH BS
A hearing on this petition was held on June 26, 1985 ,)atil the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. arnas, Gauthier, Luzinski andces of the
sent to abutters ^�
Strout. Notice of the hearing was s a@/{'� 'p�
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A.
The petitioner requests an extension of a Variance which was granted originally
n Januar 25 1984 , and extended thereafter until June 30, 1985. This Variance
o Y as an emergency
- district to be used g Y
would be
to allow the premises in this B 3
shelter for the homeless for a period of sixty days, until August 30, 1985.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
that: '
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
• the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Vigorous opposition to the plan was raised, particularly by
neighborhood merchants and residents;
2. The premises constitutes a danger to its occupants because of its
inadequate fire protection and alarm systems, specifically:
(a) the premises needs a complete sprinkler system to be installed;
(b) the premises needs a complete and comphrehensive fire
alarm system;
( c) the premises needs a Fire Department approved method of
transmitting alarms automatically to the Salem Fire Department.
Because of the above, the premises is in violation of the State
Fire Code.
• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NORTH SHORE SHELTER FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 7 CROMBIE ST. , SALEM
page two
• 3. Since January 1 , 1985 there have been 24 arrests of persons at the
shelter and 57 incidents in which the police were called to the shelter;
4. Contrary to the rules of the North Shore Shelter Committee, the
adherence to which were specifically made a condition of the prior
variances granted to the petitioner to operate its shelter, some
shelter residents have lived at the shelter for consecutive weeks
or months;
5. The staff at the North Shore Shelter Committee have worked hard in their
attempt to alleviate the plight of the homeless.
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 nullifying and substantially derogating
from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 against granting the
requested Variance. The Board notes that pursuant to its decision filed
November 19, 1984 in regard to the matter of this shelter, the Building Inspector
is directed to forthwith close the premises for use as a shelter.
. VARIANCE DENIED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE CFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSANT TO ;SASS. CENERA! LA;1S, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TA'(E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECIS11"N, BEA.R:N1 THE CERT
FICATI;:N OF THE CITY CLERK 1:1A- 20 J47 HA+E ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED,
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS%.iISSED OR DEiGiEU IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA.,E OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
'1
. g
of �IPm, � ttssttc�juse##s
PETITION OF GERALD AND ELAINE VERRETTE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR 26-28 CROWDIS STREET, SALEM
A Public Hearing on this petition was held August 14, 1985 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 Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioners request a Special Permit to allow them to construct a garage
which would not conform to side and rear setback requirements. The
premises, owned by petitioners, is in an R-1 district and is already noncon-
forming.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this
request f m a Spe A al Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows;
� 4
Notwithst�ing aything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the
Board of Appeal mi!y, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth
in Sectionp''V,III Fund IX C, grant Special Permits for alterations and recon-
• structionEP' nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, . extension or
expansion,g noncweforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however,
that such'change, Lextension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially
more detri�ndl than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
c � �
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 willpromote 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 plans;
2. The propsed addition would have no substantial effect on the
neighbors or 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 petition can be granted without disjecting from the intent and
purpose of the Ordinance;
2. The proposed addition will not be substantially more detrimental
•
y9
!ry
' PETITION OF GERALD AND ELAINE VERRETTE FOR A SPECIAL PAGE 2
PERMIT FOR 26-28 CROWDIS STREET, SALEM.
to the public good than the current structure.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
relief requested, provided that:
1 . The proposed garage be attached in some manner to the
existing dwelling;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
-Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY 0 CLERK
vE
T
� TYS
IFICA'C OF TOLE.
OF REOORD OR G FLEERDEO A'� gOARD OF APPiA=
•
�V
ofttlem, ttssttc �zsetts
3�
1 i Poxrb of �Fpeal >�
M
rTIM C)
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES MCMANUS JR. FOR A (pv-T N
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 14 CURTIS ST, , SALEM (R-2)
w
m
A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1985 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 to convert an existing three family
dwelling into three condominium units in this R-2 district.
This proposed condominium conversion is covered by 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 elder
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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No substantial change in use or parking requirements;
2. Current tenants were notified per present Salem Condominium Conversion
Ordinance;
3. No opposition to petitioner's proposed 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 granting 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. Petitioner's plan will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood
and will not be in conflict with the Master Plan of the City;
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good;
4. The proposed conversion will not be substantially more detrimental to
( • the neighborhood than the existing use.
t
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES MCMANUS JR. FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 14 CURTIS ST. , SALEM
page two
• _
Appeal voted 4 1 Mr. Luzinski voting in
J Therefore, the Zoning Board of App ,
opposition, to grant the Special Permit to convert to three condominium units
P
on condition:
1 . Prepent rents be substantiated to the Board;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each unit.
GRANTED
-;d'ames B. Hacker, Chairluan
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
>c� rn
rr
mn � n
3 N �
f)"CD -V
C7 W
m e
APPEAL FROId THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 800, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER, THE DATE OF FILING
'OF TH!S DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PU RSRP:i TO LASS. LA :S. CHAPTER 808, SECTQN-11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER9'.IT
GRANTED I:.RE.i, SHALL NO- FAnE EF:ECT UNTIL A .COPY OF THE--Ems!=!9I:. E_?.:'.IGC THE CERT-
FICAI:Dii CF THE Ch I ER.: Tri At 21 DAYS 3A`;E CL AP SED rJ'O NO f.r EAL HAC BE'-N' FILED,
OR ',HAT, iF SU(H F.!i APFEnL HAS BE Efi F!LE. THAT IT 'r':S EEE!; C:f:`.!SDED CR DEn!ED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REIISTRY OF DEEDS AND BiDEXED L'i 2!iER THE YA.o.E OF THE OC';:'_'':'
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
' � ���``�. • �t '' fgi#v of *iem, cmttsSttrljuse##s
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS MAZZARINI FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 DEARBORN ST.
A hearing on this petition was held October 9, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, 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
dwelling into a four 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 4jitb the
procedure and conditions set forth is Section �II F F S d IX D, ,
grant Special Permits for alterations and recol�strzcta.W of
nonconforming structures, and for changes, enl#rgement', ex-
tension or expansion of nonconforming lots, laid, strY. ures,
and uses, provided, however, that such change, oxtensi=n, en-
largement or expansion shall not be substantia$y•' morendetri-
T mental than the existing nonconforming use to the neiggaorhood.
z
r
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewin�SpeciagiPermit requests,
guide.: 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:
No major opposition;
2. Several neighbors appeared in favor.
On the- basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating
from the intent of the district or the intent of the Ordinance;
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS MAllARINI FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the Special
Permit requested, provided that:
1 . Six (6) parking spaces be maintained on premises;
2. The fourth unit to be occupied by blood relatives only;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained;
4. Premises must comply with Mass. General Laws relative to the
installation of smoke detectors;
5. Work to be in accordance with plans submitted.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK,
•
AF EA- FRC:1 TH!S G ANY. SHAL! BE ',ADE PCSS7�NT TO SECTION 17 OF TEE F*:—'S.
C f.'cEn=:L LA.;iS. CH:.P;ER EO°. P.h'D SHAL' 2E ilLEi: Vi:TFi 20 DAYS AFT P, THE D.".TE OF 7;L'::S
OF THIS LEGIS 6T( IPI TTiE OFFICE OF THE CITI' CLERK.
F'^i..?:T T 5'.',SS. CC.'?.'.n.,_ V,Y;S. SHnPTER E=3. SECTi.^`: ll. THE l''..';-i:i.E OR SP[;.! FEP.':;iT
.n ce F' SE%dl i. - ,::.E EFFECT UtlT" A 'CPS D: iYC r.: o' T'r7 CE b
h l.'.i:_i C^ 1tE ^ITY CCECn T':A:- 20 r:pVr :nVE rlC iCtl ,� H4 [° :' F, ED
:-r -'i':', I,' S ',-,: i,N APPS" H?S KE , ILF, THAT IT F",
Iii T!'[ $'."iH ESSE?: MiSiRY 0( __ECS'AiC- i..,,_:iD L:':Fi HE NA:;H OF Tn_ 0:.1Si;E'
OF RECORD OR IS RECURDED AND NOTED ON THE 06;XLR.'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
Jf�.cam
- ala Ctg of �$tt1em, 41196tttllusetts
�RnxrD of Mettl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD E. & RITA P. SAVICKEY
FOR A VARIANCE FOR 36 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM
� 5
A hearingon this petition was held December 1 N50Q�N I the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; WEE s. , Charnas, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hear g was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly p�i��i shed ai1.1",tbk6 Evening News in
�a�@'a'�
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws C40A.
Petitioners, owners of the premises, request a Variance from side yard setback
requirements in order to construct a 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 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, makes
the following findings of fact:
1 . The heavy traffic on Moulton St. and necessity of having adequate
sight lines for backing out of petitioners proposed garage makes it
imperative that the garage be located closer to the side yard
boundary than the Ordinance requires;
2. This situation is not common to the neighborhood;
3. This petition is substantially different from any other petitions
presented by these petitioners withing the last two years.
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 this property but do
not generally affect other lands, buildings and structures in the
same district;
2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to petitioner; and
• \4 3. The relief requested may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from
the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & RITA SAVICKEY FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 36 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM
page two
• `1 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one, Mr. Bencal voted present,
to grant the relief requested, provided that:
1 . A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained;
2. The garage conforms to existing finishes of existing house.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• 1
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE SIMS-..
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE O" Fic :S
OF THIS DECISION IN THE CFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSANT TO MASS. GE'lERAL LAYS. CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11, THE VARIA710E OR SPECIAL PEP":;T
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TA"IE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, BEAEiR" THE CERT.
FICATIO14 OF THE CITY CLER: THSY 2D LAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS LEEN FILED,
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE THAT IT HA,S BEEN DISiMUSSED OR DEi;iED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RE;;ISTRY OF DEEDS AHD INDEXED UNDER THE NA .E OF THE O'di,'4EC
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
i
f
i
i
CO /lL
(gitg ofIlk
ttiem, � ttssttthu a##s
r� F Pourb of
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & RITA SAVICKEY Sir ZS 3 oo PM '85
FOR A VARIANCE FOR 36 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM ll
A hearing on this petition was held September 11 , 1985 with ThE following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, jfify,�Onq,I 3t�i e
Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others an n es
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioners are requesting a Variance from side yard setbacks in order to
construct a two car garage in this R-1 district.
The petitioner requested permission to withdraw his petition. The Zoning 'noard
of Appeal voted unanimously 4-0 to allow petitioner Leave To Withdraw Without
Prejudice.
WITHDRAWN
n
Richard A. Bencal, Associate Member
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM. THIS DECISfJ'Y, IF A''IY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUAt.7 TO SECTION 11 OF THE LTRSS.
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER. ROR, F'ID SHALL BE .`P_G' W-HIN, 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILClG
OF THIS DECISION IN THE CMCE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSANT TO Ue_.S. LEN-F.:.- LAC13, CHAPTER ROS. SECT!-N 11. THE YA°:f.F;ZE C? SnMAL FEMMIT
GRANTED HEREirf. SHALL t;i T?.t:E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE GEC!.",iCi;. EE=.3:':G THE CERT-
FICATIDH OF THE Cilf MR.. T::Ai YC DAYS HAVE E:A.?SE) AND CJ A?PEr+L HAS BEEN FILED,
OR THAT, IF SUCH A.•, APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE THAT IT HAS BEEN D!S':iSSED C? DENIED IS
RECORDED It" THE SCUM, ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED Ut:DE' THE I:AN.E OF THE OWNER"
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
ll.11l$tw
Ctu of �ttlem, ��ussttrljusetts
\; F Poarb of Appud
r
•� W ums. Q
H
N"-
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & RITA SAVICKEY FOR
30-
r a n
A VARIANCE AS 36 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM (R-1 ) 3 N
�o
A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1985 with the fonf'win4oarr
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Gauthier, 4a91nsk$,o Street and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abusers�Wd others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Bveni'Pg News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance from side yard
setback requirements in order to construct a two car 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 would in-
volve substantial
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
• / public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intend of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Petitioner had been denied variance for two car garage on
September 1 , 1982;
2. Petitioner failed to prove hardship as- building could be located
in other section of the property.
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 do not exist which affect the premises and not the
district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not involve substantial
hardship to petitioner
3. The requested variance could not be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good or without substantially derogating from the intent
and purpose of the Ordinance.
r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & RITA SAVICKEY
FOR A VARIANCE AT 36 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Board of Appeal by a vote of three (3) in favor, two (2) opposed,
denied petitioners request for a Variance.
VARIANCE DENIED
I
games B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
n
m
rnm a 0
�S N F'1
y V)
(n o -V 7
n-n N
n �.
rn e
• APPEAL FP,OGi THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTICN 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF T"'S DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PUSSF.'4T TO MASS. CENERAL LA;1n, CHAPTER VS. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR S?E1-14L PER741T
o FAPii ES HEIElil. SHALL NCT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISiON. EEAR!N� THE CERT-
FI:.;�.TIO, OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELA?SED AND NO APPEAL HAS CEEN FILED,
PR THAI. IF SUCH A'I APPEAL HAS EEEN FILE, THAT IT HA$ BEEN DIS':'ISSEO OR DEti!ED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RE'ISTRf OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA.AE OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. _
BOARD OF APPEAL
• f�i#� of Salem, ttssttcl��z$e##s
Poxrb of �ppeal
k'•.L.ms\d
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD CLARKE FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 281 DERBY ST.
A hearing on this petition:was held October 9, U2p4it� VDfp wing Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Lamar ,9 M er, Strout and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice the hearing waf9LEVt to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chats"VW*.: 94iEK.IW S.
Petitioner, owner of the premises, requests a Special Permit to allow him to
construct a 36' x 50' addition as more fully described in plans submitted to the
Board inthis B-4 district. Under the Ordinance, the parcel's 53.73 feet of
frontage is insufficient.
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, ex-
tension or expansion of nonconforming lots, lands, structures,
and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, en-
largement or expansion shall not be substantially more detri-
mental 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 Beard 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 the plan;
2. The addition proposed will allow petitioner's tenant
to expand his business without impacting negatively on
the abutters nor on the surrounding area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at
the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The relief requested will not depart from the intent of the Ordinance;
2. The relief requested is not detrimental to the public good, nor is it
• an unreasonable increase of the exisitng nonconformity.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD CLARKE FOR A
v SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 281 DERBY ST. , SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the relief
requested, provided that a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
ApKAL FROV THIS DECISION, IF AaY, SHALL BE r"DE PURSOA'CT TO SECTION 17 OF THE t.iA$S.
CEttEM LA:S. CII:.PTER SDS. A'(D SHELL BE ii El-' W!MN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILI'N'G
OF THIS QED>'O,i IN THE U - Or r THEc CITY CLERK. _ cc:^ c't� -
c E!,SS, CE^ERr�L LAY.:_ .....-TER 812, SE: !1. Tiit VA:.indCE C� _. _TIAL PE.... J .
PUR„At.T 7C
OP.k�rTcC RE':I',. SH'.�L f; T'::E r FcC7 U:Th n CcPI' Ci ?H:CcL+"!rl.r c° ?. THE CERT•.
_ - It: N:i APPEAL HA: BEEN FILED,
—S HA'Jc ..�.
FILATID?: GIY CLER?. 'i _ _ r,c•� ''� 'F. Du:;tD IS
-cI FILE, THA , It :�'S L_-i. CIY.,:IS._T C
H=.`_
BEEN
OP.RECORDED
IF STHE K APPL._ _ s ,
_ _ � o ' c-o� - Al:,-- u:^ucXED U":DER THC A.A,.._ Or THE OWF.Er
RECOROcO Uv THE Sc�UT}i ESSEX .,E.:L..,1 Gr CcECS
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
� n
n c^. a
ti
Otg of Salem, � c�85FIt�lISPtt � . . n
z
=3 �, arra of Fpeu! _ '
oo V , rn
T7 N ID
M
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES COLLETT JR. FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 33 DUNLAP ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held April 17, 1985 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, owner of the premises, is 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 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of
fact:
1 . There was substantial neighborhood opposition;
2. Although the petitioner was allowing six (6) parking spaces in the
rear of the building, that would have eliminated a large portion of
the green space, therefore being a detriment to the neighborhood;
3. The premises would not be owner occupied;
4 . Plans were unclear as to the actual width of the driveway;
5. Although there are currently a few three family houses on the street,
they were there prior to Zoning Ordinance being enacted;
\} 6. Petitioner has owned the property less than three months.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES COLLETT JR.
FOR A SPECIAL ,PERMIT FOR 33 DUNLAP 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 will not promote the public health, safety, convenience
and welfare of the City's inhabitants;
2. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal by a vote of one (1 ) in favor, four (4 ) against,
denied the petition the Special Permit requested.
SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED
Pa
James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
-� v1
• V n
rTi m a n
i N T
m
n vT
m o
iF AI:Y, SHALL BE t1�ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION
17 OF THE.t.%SS.
ptiD SHALL 6E FiLEU WIT .1
20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE Of.FiLli4G
APPEAL FP.DG; THIS DECISION' c c TP.E CITY CLEP.K. ^ F cpc^,�,AL Fcgn,dT
GENERAL LAMS• GH-FTcR £w.n�FiC- 0' SECTIJp; li, THE VARIA i.E 'ERI*
IN T°E c - 0 , TP.E
OF THIS DEC S- FgR £05 ^ -HE B
^E "r" Lt •!` C TIL A C"�\ C''• D ,0 AcPcAL P .S BEEN FILED,
PURSANT T' c�;AcL 1.. 1 '';E Er ECT U.: cL.rSZD IED IS
..-EO HEr E!... iHA? 2O DAPS r_., c iSc,D �R 0"c:: THE OV;P!_P.
GR;,;;- T'dA. IT HAS B_p` DL'S. N'�LE Of
FICAiib:: SF 16_ CIT'i C`•EF -c^ iilE.
S,,_,., A;! APPEAL H:,S B"' _L5S At:D INDEXED Ui:DER THL
C'R TWIT- IF - g^,,TH ESSEX RE-IST EF Cc 0'w iER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.'
RE;;rcC:ED
IN TH: AWD ir'UTEp ON THE
OF RECORD OR IS RECCROED BOARD OF APPEAL
of 'Salrm'
, ; ? curb of (�Ppen! m;-n 0
17
BOO _V rr,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM PUBLIC LIBRARY "-n N 7
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND/OR VARIANCE AT 370 ESSEX ST. , SALE M(R-2k
m
A hearing on this petition was held February 20, 1985 and continued until March
20, 1985 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman;
Associate Member Richard Bencal, Acting Secretary; Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinski and
Strout. Notice of the original 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 from density and setback requirements
and a Variance from parking requirements to allow rehabilitation and the construction
of an addition at 370 Essex St. in an R-2 zone.
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, enlargements,
• extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures,
and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, en-
largement or expansion shall not be substantially more detri-
mental 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 ,
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The building is in disrepair and is in dire need of the
proposed renovation;
2. The building in its present state is not accessible to the
handicapped residents of the community and area;
3. The proposed single story addition will greatly enhance the
usage of the facility thus serving the public good;
4. Tremendous support for the plans was shown by neighbors, abutters
and other residents of the City and area;
j 5. Opposition to the addition to the building was presented by some
! • ` neighbors, abutters and other residents of the City and area.
1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AND/OR VARIANCE FOR 370 ESSEX 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 /1 1 . The proposed renovations, handicapped access and elevator will
not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming
use and will greatly enhance the use of this facility by others in
the community;
2. The proposed addition of a single story at the rear of the building will
enhance the usage of the facility and will not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming use.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 - 0 to grant the Special
Permit requested for the renovations of the building, installation of a handicapped
access and the installation of an elevator per the plans submitted for the Salem
Public Library at 370 Essex St.
Also; the Zoning Board of Appeal separately voted unanimously 5 - 0 to grant a
Special Permit for the addition of a single story and egress at the rear of the
building at 370 Essex St. per the plans submitted with the condition that all
aspects of the plans and alterations to the plans must be done in conjunction and
cooperation with the City Planner and Library Commission.
The petitioner has also requested a ,Variance from the parking requirements of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance.
• 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 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, abutters and others are in favor of the plans presented;
2. The property in question is unique due to its architectural and aesthetic
qualities;
a 03
3. Literal enforcement of this provision of the Zoning OrQnan� woul in-
volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise t*t-6e ptitiomr;
3� N (1i
tn_n N v
F5 ?
rn o
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AND/OR VARIANCE FOR 370 ESSEX ST. , SALEM
page three
• 4. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good, and will in fact keep the aesthetic qualities of the area
in tact.
+ 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 property in question is unique because of the existing structure;
2. The property has been used for approximately ninety-seven (97) years
as a Public Library;
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question but
not the zoning district generally, causes special hardship to the
petitioner;
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 - 0 in favor of granting
the variance requested by the petitioner for relief from the parking requirements
at 370 Essex St.
SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCE UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
i
Richard A. Bencal, A etary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
R.PPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
CENERAL LA'v S. CHAPTER 803, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING-
C_.4
ILIN u" t
SECTIDW 11, THE VARIANCE OSPECT.AL C EF.':=:IT
OF TH:S EEOiS!ON IX THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
R
T`.' i;:,�S. GENERAL LAYd3. CHAPTER 378,
i;iEO H'_REii!• SHELL NGT TA:i,E EFFECT UNTIL A COPi Of 7HE DEC!SiON, BEAR.':' CID
HAS BEEN DISS`.'ISSED OR CE::IEp IS -i t71
•F i:.•'.1";C'•: CF -WE CI_-) LLERF, THA, 20 DAYS HATE ELAPSED idJO NO APPEAL HAS B"EI'; FILED.
C_R ;HAT. IF ' 'C'I Ail APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT yn FT1
F.ECUPG. GJ THE SOUTH ESSEX P.EOISTRY OF DEEDS AND IN DE);Ep UNDER THE NR:fE OF THE OVlC:`_mm rn
OF RECORD OR IS RICO AND NOTED ON THE OVlNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. r
BOARD OF APPEAL 3T �O
\\) LI) _
• I �_ FV i
n A
f+7 O
Z
/ ofttlem, tt�sttt�jusetts m /
�• mm C)
3� 1 1
Poara of Appeal
'- DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID & DEBORAH CLARK FOR m N
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 396 ESSEX ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held March 27, 1985 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 carriage house into a
single 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 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings
of fact:
1 . Buildings were built sometime before 1874 and 1876;
2. Would improve the neighborhood;
3. The neighborhood was in favor;
4. There was no opposition;
One 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 health, safety, convenience
and welfare of the City's inhabitants;
/•� 2. The relief requested may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good.
J
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID & DEBORAH CLARK .
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 396 ESSEX ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 - 0 to grant the
•� petititioner the requested Special Permit to use the carriage house as a single
unit and to change the main structure into three separate units under the
following terms and conditions:
1 . The main house to have three rental units and the carrage house
to contain one rental unit;
2. No windows in rear of the building with exception of velux windows
on the second floor;
ei Ch
Ch
3. Must maintain six (6) parking spaces on premises; y�
4. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. rr:m z
3� 1 Fr,
3.s
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED ` CD � .-'
T N ,1
n rQ
n /� / fel N
James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
I
r
APPEAL FRO!-! THIS DECISION, !� ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT 'J SECTION E A THE AFILIN
GENERAL LASS$, CHAPiEP. 803, AND SH, BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS REFER THE DATE OF FILING
c CO".?TER SOS. 5:TIO;d 11, THE VARIANCE OR SP`_CIAL PE9.!.IT
OF THIS DECIS'Ai: 111 THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
r„'i zA KI �' THE CERT-
P P �� T ::SE E ECT UNTIL A C^P OF THE
F,;., S11—Ec.�c:�� S4 r'L _ 2i _ ELF'SED ,D NO APPEAL H S Bim' fIIED.
FIC'aT�O: OF TH. CITY CLEn`', inAi i DP.YS. HATHAi lT HA.S SEEN
DIS'•'•ISSED OR C6�!EG IS
OR THAT, IF SO J'd A'! APP��'.. HAS BEEN FILE, DS AND INDEXED UNDE" THE NASIE CF THE OViGER
OF RECO IOTHE SOU-'H R S RECORDESSEX RNOTED"ISTRYONFTHE EOWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
r •�
(litg of $Aeml gnssac4usetts
�oxrb of e4pve
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & SARAH HAYES _
FiiF A SPECIAL PERMIT .& VARIANCE FOR 21 FAIRD'iNT ST. .. .
A hearing on this petition was held October 9, 1989W'Lth �e fAci g Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. ,U dna �a iB^J, Strout and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing w rt to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published in Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter dHtll: H:K S1LzE#S,9A6S. -
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to construct a carriage house on an
existing foundation and variance from lot size to convert single family dwelling
into two family dwelling in this 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:
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 and after viewing the
plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . A Special Permit is necessary because the foundation is attach6d
to the dwelling unit;
2. Neighborhood was in favor of the project;
3. No opposition.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence present, the Board
of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed carriage house will not be substantially more detrimental
to the neighborhood;
2. The relief requested does not create a substantial detriment to the public
good, nor does it substantially derogate from or nullify the intent
of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
• Therefore, the Zoning Board. of Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting the
Special Permit requested on condition:
r ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & SARAH HAYES FOR A
J SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 21 FAIRMOUNT ST. , SALEM
page two
1 . Carriage House is for storage of cars and household goods only and
not for human habitation;
2. Carriage House/garage to be constructed on existing foundation as per
plans on file;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy. be obtained.
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, makes the following
findings of fact:
1 . There was neighborhood opposition to the two family dwelling.
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 Ordinance would not involve substantial
hardship;
2. Relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimous 5-0 against granting Variance
from lot size in order to convert single family to a two family dwelling.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
VARIANCE DENIED
/�//
c
James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
APPEAL FPO,',! THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE h:AS4l.
GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 82, AND SHdLL BE FILED I�ITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE Ci THE CITY CLERK.
•� 1 PJRSANT TO I.:ASS. CEi;ERAL LP.C.'S. CHAPTER 809, SEC-NON 11, THE VARIANCE DR SPECIAL PERMIT
CR"N7EO HEREIN, SHALL NCI IRriE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISIO'!. BCARI;CC THE CERT-
Fir
ERTFir MON OF THE CITY CLERd THA': 20 !),.YS HAVE `_LAPSED AND NO APPE.'d HAS BEEN FILED,
CR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS E-E:: FILE, THAI IT HAS £EEN D:Si;ISSED OR DENIED IS .
R7':"DE,) IN THE SDU H ESSEX P,E3I-Smi OF DEEDS A,D INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER
T RECORD OR IS RECORDED AR,D NOTEP ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
�. A
."COD' "y � 3 /
i.
Titg Of '5ttlPm, � ttsBtttllusPitS m
= s �varb of �ppeal
• 3z N ^!
✓;O
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANCIS AND PATRICIA WELCH FOR '� N
A VARIANCE AT 31 FAIRVIEW ROAD, SALEM (R-1 ) m o
A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Associate Member Richard Bencal, Acting
Secretary; Messrs. , 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 petitioner has requested a Variance from front and side setbacks to allow
a deck at 31 Fairview Rd. in this R-1 zone.
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 considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The structure after years of neglect and disrepair would be improved
with the deck addition;
2.. The configuration of the lot makes any other plans also in violation;
3. The deck addition would allow a second means of egress from the rear
of the structure in case of emergency;
4. Minor opposition was presented in the form of letters to the Board.
No one appeared at the hearing in opposition, and only the petitioner
spoke in favor.
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, building or
structure in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement, of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
volve substantial hardship, financial and otherwise, to petitioner;
I ,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANCIS & PATRICIA WELCH FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 31 FAIRVIEW RD. , SALEM
page two
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 5 - 0 in favor of the
granting the Variance under the following terms and conditions:
1 . The structure must be to building code;
2. The structure must comply with all pertinent Fire Department codes
and regulations relative to the installation of smoke detectors.
VARIANCE GRANTED O
Richard A. Be�l�cting Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
n
H
y�
�
r- g M
rrnm z n
3� NM
a v %0
�,.CD
Cn " N Ql
rn O
APP AL FRO11 THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE I..IADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE MASS.
CEN EP,=.L LADS. CHAPTER 898, AND SHALL BE FILED WIhCN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF 1HIS DErIS'ON IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. '
P11RSir T TO i..'ASS. CENERA.L LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PEP,IAfT
GRA'STED HEREIN, SHALL NCi T;"L EFFECT WJIL A COPY OF THEJECISIJ.`i. BEA",:;:, THE CEP,T.
FICAT!ON OF THE CITY CLEP,' 1-HAT 20 DAYS HAVE E'AFSED .;i0 N, APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED,
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APFEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT H=.S LEEN D!Z,,.!SJED OR 'EmED 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 OVINER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
BOARD OF APPEAL
Ctg of '$ttlem, �nssar4usetts
f
Puxra of '�ppettl
W cums.,rd ,
1
� C
DECIISON ON THE PETITION OF FRAN=& PATRICIA WELCH FOR J
A VARIANCE FOR 31 FAIRVIEW RD. , SALEM
:U
A hearing on this petition was held February 20, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski, Associate
Members Bencal & 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 Variance from front setbacks to allow a deck in
this R-1 district.
The petitioners requested Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice in order to resubmit
application at a later time.
The Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant Leave to Withdraw 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?�, THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
:;:':S, C'H,PT-R SGS, AND SHALL BE
FILEG 'iJITHIiI 20 DAYS ATTER THE DATE OF FILING
L' I;,, THE DFRCE OF THE CITY CLERK. r f,'. C'YC'.vL PEG1^IT
OEC, c� l�', 11. THE V d.,E
CH.,P rP, £:S S 11
, n_ CERT-
p - . FILED:
L r, Fp H f $H..
,� 1.- 'E EF ZCT Ui t.L A G'PJ Gcn TLc:101 ` AL H
FII.AA�J CF lei L''T i. I' '"I\ 2L DP1S NAVE t a D E.c FIF _.SSED CR C_NIED IS
c. FILE TEW1 IT r ��R lH. !.R sE OF THE 01VNER
OR THAI IF >i.,� �°i RFr rA1, 1S .. h1D u
REC::40ED IAL THE SCUIH ES$9; RE;!�i F.l CF i_n..S
OF RECORD OR IS REGORGED AND hu.CG GN THE OVINERS CER
OF
DLE.
OF APPEAL
i \
1
i.
Ctv of ttlem, tt$sttc zsPtts
Y
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY
FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT FOR FIRST STREET, SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held April 24, 1985 and continued to April 29,1985
with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. , Charnas,
Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other
interested persons. Notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem
Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 408. The Board
of Appeal did notify, in a timely fashion, each applicable local board concerning
this petition by sending a copy of same to each such board as defined by MGL Chapter
40B.
This petition is brought pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40B,
§21 , seeking a Comprehensive Permit to allow petitioner to construct six (6) buildings
each containing two (2) units for low income housing. This property is located in
an R-3 district.
After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans,
the Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 - 0 to grant petitioner the Comprehensive
Permit requested, provided that:
1 . A detailed landscaping plan, defining the type, size, amount and caliper
• of landscaping be subject to the review and approval of the Planning
Department;
2. A drainage plan for the site, particularly as it impacts the abutting
parcels, be submitted to the review and approval of the Planning Dept. ;
3. Parking spaces be a minimum of 9' in width and 20' in length and shown
on a plan; and a minimum of eighteen (18) such spaces be provided and
Ls+Sown ory>a plan;
e m y
4. ffFe extd for of the building shall be wood shingles;
O W
5. JP lighting plan for the development be submitted for the review and
a%proval—by the Planning Dept. ;
w
6. �A, derpigdted snow storage area shall be delineated on the plan at the
�T.d !�f the cul-de-sac. This area shall be located such that melted
'Wsno wi£7 drain away from the cul-de-sac and access driveway to avoid
any possibility of icing;
?. Conrete curb stops in the parking area as shown on the plan shall be
adequately anchored;
8. Pathways from both the access driveway and parking spaces to the
/
buildings shall be stone dust;
•~ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY
FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT FOR FIRST STREET, SALEM
page two
\ • / 9. The Salem Fire Protection Code regarding blasting shall be strictly
adhered to (M.G.L. 148, s. 10A and 527 C.M.R. 13.00) . Any blasing
or drilling which may be necessary shall be limited to the hours
between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. , Monday through Saturday.
10. A Certificate of Occupancy for each unit shall be obtained.
COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT GRANTED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROt THIS CE:I-DN, IF A:7Y. SHALL BE APADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE N14SS.
GENERAL LA,:S, CHAPTER SC'8, AND SHALL BE FILED W!THIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS CEC:SION IN THE UFI:E OF THE CITY CLERi .
PURSAFiT TO %ASS. :N-,',k L ..`.. C!!APTER 808. SE7! i 11. THE YARIAh:CE OR SPECIAL FEF.-.JT
GRANTED HEREIN. SPALL N" c `F ECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE C" '. BE IPI CERT-
F CATIG` CF TI C i i% H - i S H. 'r 7 °zL :;p 1 A o- L Htc EcEI' FILED,
x � '� NA? IT h EEE! ��'�.:ISSc. CR c 'IED IS
OR THAT, IF SKH A. APPEA. H.A., is=:
RECORDED IN THE SODTH ESSEX REcISTRi CF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDEIi THE %A:,:E OF Tri, OWNER
OF RECORD DR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
j •
..,cn.nrtib -
/- of Sittlem, gassxc juse#tg
< m
1. r
r W
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL CORMIER OBAVID
ROSENBERG (PETITIONERS) , MARGARET DEFRANCESCO,31 OWNER)
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT 36 FOREST AVE. , SALEM y
A hearing on this petition was .held May 15, 1985 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 Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to operate a miniature golf course
in this B-4 district.
A letter from Mr. Michael P. Cormier stating they wish to withdraw their petition.
The letter was read into the record and the petitioners were allowed to withdraw.
SPECIAL PERMIT WITHDRAWN
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FRMM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION NOF THE Vlm,
GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 203, AND SHALL 2E FILED NITFIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE CFFICE OF THE CITY CLER",
PUESANT TO MASS. GENERAL -t,1,3. CHd=-E" BOS. S_i."t';[i 11, THE 1'.,.JA5CE OP. SPECIAL PERMIC
w GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL F d:.E EFF- T UN ':L PY OF iP i i t "t�� THE CERU
FICATiON OF THE LITY CLERK. FHAT 3„ C%l:S HAVE _ '.-'' � � F AL H - E`_&� FILED,
CR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEc', F;'E. THA- i� oEcf: f.:d CTE-SE✓ CR ''ElilED IS
RECORDED IN THE SC'OiH ESS" .".__.` .F'. OF LrDEEED L;.,-R TYE 14A?1.E Of THE OW4ER
OF RECORD OR IS-RECORDED AND NOTED CN THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE ,
BOARD OF APPEAL
of �ttlem, ZlSsttt�juse##s y.3
Poarb of �"Vd N� �
/ rnrn 0
r7i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JANET MAGUIRE FOR A v o
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 81 FORT AVE. , SALEM f"'1
�T N { y
A hearing on this petition was held March 27, 1985 with the fol�wing�Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, GaLMierO 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 allow her to have an enclosed porch which
encroaches to within seven (7) feet of the side line. This property, owned by
81 Fort Ave. Realty Trust, is in an RC 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 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes
the following findings of fact:
1 . The porch will not substantially affect any neighboring property.
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 porch will not be substantially detrimental to the
public good;
2. The relief requested is in haromony with the purpose and intent
of the Zoning Ordinance.
i
` DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JANET MAGUIRE FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 81 FORT AVE. , SALEM
1
page two
' • J Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the
petitioner's request to have the enclosed porch within seven (7) feet of the
side line.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
J
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Cl) CLI•
N
ac-) a -�
MM v
3� _+ Piz
3 Cn
Ln--3
N-n N
Z5 la
M w
APPEAL FRC 1 THIS CACI CION, i' ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE 14ASS-
GENEP.AL LA,'r'S, CHAPTER SOS, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING,
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
SECT ON 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER'-11T
PiiCSANT TO F.:ASS. CEIIERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808,
C BANT ED fiESEI[ SHALL NOT TA:iE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, BEARi NC THE CERT-
GRAT0 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED,
iOD GF 1HE CITY CLEF.{ THAT 2
OR THAT. IF SO';H A8 APPEAL HAS 0 N FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS6NSSED OR DEi4IED IS
RECORDED IN THE SDU1H 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
" �.pcmvi4�c .7
Ti#u of 'Sttlem, 'futtssttcEjuse##s
S
Go'm �
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND k BARBARA HAIGHT
FOR A VARIANCE FOR 24 GROVE ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held on September 11 ,W19 wit,�Hf=owing Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, trout an Associate
Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to atFALE ^s and others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance
with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A. CITY Ci;'t: FILEXAA5b.
Petitioners, owners of the property, request a Variance from side setbacks to allow
a pool and a Variance from rear setbacks to allow a storage shed 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
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 petiitoner; 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 voiced at the hearing;
2. The swimming pool was constructed in error by an installer,
not the petiitoner.
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
generally affect the district;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial
hardship upon petitioners;
3. The variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent
/- of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance.
• 1 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 4-0 to grant the
Variances requested, provided that:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND & BARBARA HAIGHT FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 24 GROVE ST. , SALEM
page two
�• 1 . A Certificate of Compliance relative to installation of smoke
detectors be obtained from the Fire Department;
2. The shed on the premises must be no larger than 6' x 81 'and 7' in
height.
3. The shed must not be put closer than 3' from the rear yard line and
6' from the side yard line;
4. The side of the swimming pool may be allowed to stay and be
used in the present state.
R'�chard A. Bencal, Associate Member
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
AFPEA.L FRO:A iHIS DEC UION, L 4!:'i, SHALL 'u_ MADE PJNKCANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE '."Ass.
LABS. CHAP?ER 365, AiQO SHALL BE FILED WITfiIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF r.LISG.
THIS DECIS!ON IN THE OFR OF THE CITY CLERK. -
P TS.-'.NT TO :',;i:3S. GEN-RAL L.';:',S CHI,PTCR SM, SECTION 11. THE V,,; IAS'CE OR =L PFR-- IT
C-?.(i'ED HERJN. SHALL !4=-i TA::c EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE.'.EC;i,!�.":. BE:'2C;3 THE RT.
FI„=.TP3N OF THE CI.1' -LER.'; 1HAT FO DAYS HAVE EL:.'SGD AND NO AP=:AL HAS E_EH FILED,
CF. THAT, IF SUCH AIN APPEAL HAS BEE': FILE, THAT IT HAS LEEN DISS:!SSED OR Du!I-D IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED L'NOER THE NAME OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD, OF APPEAL
I.
Cl)
r •� Y f1ZjtU of �Nlem, fttssarhusetts
)? y r r
CPoarb7
M!
cn <
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BARNET WEINSTEIN FOR A
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 50 GROVE ST. , SALEM r`nn N
A hearing on this petition was held March 27, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, 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 and a Variance from all dimensional
requirements in order to demolish the structure that fronts on Harmony Grove Ave.
and Grove St. and replace it with a new structure having a foundation footprint
virtually identical to the demolished building. Said footprint does not meet
the present dimensional requirements relative to front yard depth. The remaining
structures will be rehabilitated. The property is located in an industrial zone.
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
Jf 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 detri-
mental 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 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 BARNET WEINSTEIN FOR A
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 50 GROVE ST. , SALEM
page two
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing and
• ,I after viewing the plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact:
_.� 1 . The proposed plan would improve the neighborhood;
2. The proposed plan would add to the tax base of the city;
3. Would remove a potential fire trap and encourage business in an
industrial area;
4. There was no opposition to petitioner's plan;
5. The antiquated building could not be restored because of its current
construction.
One 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
involve substantial hardship, financial and otherwise, to 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 purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 - 0 to grant the
petitioner the relief requested under the following terms and conditions:
ca
1 . All work be in strict accordance with plans submitted 0 1 Board;
r� D l
2. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained.
MIn -�
3� I�
Mr f
SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE GRANTED o Fal
cn T 1V C7
rn
n �
James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FRL.A 'i H.o C..:ia Uii, AI41Y. SHALL BE "ADE PoRSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAPIS, CRAFTER Bud. AND SHALL CE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DMS}JN Iti THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
Fu rT i0 S f°: _A43, CHAPTER 804, SECTION 11 THE VARIANCE OR SPFCIAL PER'�.IT
rA: '-D XE E. Sr,ALL — (E EFFCL'T CiIT�L A COPi OF THE40 APE BEAR THE GIRT•
3F ,.;c C!If C dl : Al :0 DAIS HAVE ELAF3r.) Aa9 W APPEAL H S Bc_i. FILED,
�,R TH::T. IF S:J' AN APPEAL H.-.S E'EN FILE. THAT IT HAS SEEN DIS'.'ISS_O OR C Ie ICO IS
REC'DnDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEC RE-WRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NMIE OF THE OWNE!:
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
• rk`c`n- S' VJ APR 30 P3 :02
I /
/ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROGER & LORRAIVTWAPQERVS OFFICE
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 8 HANCOCK ST. , SALEM SALEM MASS
A hearing on this petition was held April 24, 1985 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.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to convert an
existing three family dwelling into a four 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 existing use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing and
after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There are other four and five family houses in the area;
2. There was no opposition;
3. Neighbors appeared in support of the petition; •
4. Would increase the tax base of the City of Salem.
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 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.
4�
�M 1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROGER & LORRAINE LAPOINTE
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 8 HANCOCK ST. , SALEM
page two.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the Special
Permit requested to convert from a three family dwelling to a four family dwelling
under the following terms and conditions:
1 . Eigbt (8) parking spaces be maintained onsite;
2. Must be owner occupied;
3. No structural changes except for windows as shown en- plans submitted to,
the Board;
4 . A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Uoames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• I
THE MASS..
PURSUANT TO SECTION E OF OF FILING
SHALL BE
MADEPURSUANT
20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE
IS DECISION. IF ANY• FILED W
° APPEAL FROM 7H SHALL BE
OF THE CIT( CLERK. R SPECIAL PER!AIT
GENERAL LAV7S. CHAFIN HE OFFICE SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE C CERT-
CN IN THEDECIS17ii. EEARCJG THE
OF THIS DECIS'. CA_ LI;':;,. CHAPTER SDS. COPY OF 7HE
^SS' `ENE,. A',E EFFECT UNTIL A c AND NC APPc AL HAS BEE':J FILED.
PU RSAIJi TO iSSEp OR DFNiEp IS
Id. SHALL N;1 T AYS HAVE E!APSH' SEEN DIS:,
CANTED HER:' UI+DER THE NAA^E OF THE OWNER
PL HAS BEEri FILE. THAI IAN D~INDEXED OF TITLE.
fICATION OF THE Cil l' CLER7. 7'H.gT 20
CR THAT, IF SUCH AN APF' NOT
ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE
^ RECORDED ICOR 3 RECORDEDSAND EUISTRY OF DEED BOARD OF APPEAL n C3
OF RECORD -1 Ch
Dc� a ^F7
rr-
rnm �
3 C.
3 � o
Ln
' � o
rn w
03
of 'Sttlem, ttssttcljusetts =
3
Poxrb of �Fpeul
_ :r:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEANNE F. SWEET FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 10 HARRIS ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held February 20, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski, Associate
o Members Bencal & LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing were sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
- accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner requests a Special Permit to allow her to move three (3) back steps
c = o toe east side of the property and to add a porch and living room, all as shown
LE = pn �z plan submitted to the Board. The premises is in an R-2 district and is owned
''-W r by petitioner, Linda A. Paolucci and William H. Huber III.
o the provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
gor a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this
L� U B Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the
K _ procedure and conditions set forth in Section VZII F and IX
D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction
r of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement,
' w extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures,
and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, en-
largement or expansion shall not be substantially more detri-
mental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
__ hided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
E " _ - - - �v ,the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
t w
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 proposed change will not substantially affect the neighbors
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 that the Special Permit requested may be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or
substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
- Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 - 0 to grant the
• petitioner the requested Special Permit, provided that:
1 . Three (3) parking spaces be maintained on the premises at all time;
2. Any extra advertising costs caused by any errors in dvertising of this
petition be borne by petitioneVy ?,,)j6)
cott E. Charnas, SecreA rnnv no TATO nRrT.cTnN HAS HF.F.N FILED WITH PLANNING BOARD AND CIERK
l
Titg of "Salem, gassachnortis
O
f: 3;• ',�,;�s aarD of '4pral
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANIEL AND LINDA RICHMOND
FOR A VARIANCE FOR 2 HARTFORD ST. , SALEM
'W"nY
A hearing on this petition was held November 6, 1985 withN@Jh��olUo�+7n B d
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas zinski, Strout and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing wautters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published in the Saleff.Flyon nNg]i{S►W. ,
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting a Variance from side yard setbacks in order to construct
a carport in this R-1 district. Petitioners are the owners of the property.
The Variance which has 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 ].ands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and
. c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after
viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition to petitioner' s plan;
2. Would be no difference in this carport than in others in the neighborhood;
3. Any location on the other side of the house would be unfeasible,
locating a garage to the rear of .the house would be impossible due to
ledge.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect this property but do
not generally affect 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 and without
nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district
or purpose of the Ordinance.
L
r,
Y DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANIEL AND LINDA RICHMOND
FOR A VARIANCE FOR 2 HARTFORD ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the Variance
\ •j requested on condition that:
1 . A Certificate of Compliance be obtained from the Fire Prevention
Bureau relative to the installation of smoke detectors.
VARIANCE GRANTED
/j ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• ZNE N\AS\NG
pF OF F\�
UANS SO SP CA JNE' AN pRRM\t
pE QURS 2G OAFS pR SQE,NE GENj.
SNAIE GG�c0 ,N\ZN\N VAR\ANG gEpp•1NG N F\1.F.0•
1, E F1E� GEERKZNE \ON, S BEE FS FUER
AN E 6 F1, G\S NA \ED OW
EG\S\ON, \FANO SF\AF -\NE G\� SEG,\ON pF jNEDp AePEAE 0 GR OE E GF tNE
jN\S 0 R g0a• C\GE 0 R g08. GOP PND N An\SSE NAM
• AGE�ARP S�E�\S�NP\E�C N�,\L}`�tE 2F��pP�F,�A�P�S FAD�\0�Aj 0\P E pFS�N\.E OF peQEAE
OF �SANZ'(OERE N,S j�G G�F,R',.j \�S 4ESNRy OF Sc\E pVlNER S g0A(t0
FG ANNE N of jNE H AN APREE SEY.REN�1E0 ON
F\GAS\OAj•\F S tNE S005NOEO ANO
REGp OEOD ft\S ftE`OR
OF REGp
• I
y9
r
� . f1lit ofttlem, ttssttcl�usetts
3 oxrb of eu1
\ k'comm E2
I
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & JUDITH ARMSTRONG M
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 11 HERSEY ST. , SALEM (R-2) r — m
A hearing on this petition was held on March 20, 1985 with the f�owin)q Boar
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Associate Member Benc4,oActixg SerAtary;
Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing W;6 sent to abutters
and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in lae Salem
Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter40A '
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the continued use as a three
family dwelling the structure at 11 Hersey St. , zoned R-2.
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 detri-
mental 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. The building has been used as a three family dwelling for the
past nine (9) years;
3. The lot has adequate space for six or more cars and reduces the
the need for on street parking;
4. There are other three family residences in the area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
• , I 1 . The proposed use will promote the health, safety, convenience
and welfare of the City's inhabitants;
r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & JUDITH ARMSTRONG FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 11 HERSEY 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 5 - 0 in favor of granting
the requested Special Permit in accordance with the following terms and conditions:
1 . The building must be in compliance with Chapter 148 Section 26C of
the MGL relative to the installation of automatic smoke detectors;
2. The building, if sold, must remain owner occupied.
SPECIAL PERMIT UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
Richard A. Benca , ing Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
ti
y-
rr- m
3� N rn
�o
cn� N i_7
Ff a
rn O
IF AtGY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17
OF THE MASS.
SHALL BE FILED W!i III 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
.c?EAL fRG:�1 THIS DECISION. CLERK. a SPECIF.L PER'91T
iS, CHAFTER 805. AND CITY
6EirERAL LA'i. SECTION 11. THE VA":�AE 0., _ U7tT-
cr "�hl IR TEL OFFICE OF THE
BOB. CECiSiC:;, EEAC.w.: 7H'
D �.$4• �E•,c .AL CHAFER
TO ':.A:S. • _F - A50 NC. A.FPEAL HA.$ BEE.; FILED.
SIS
HALL t:0i 1i:\E EFFVAi$HAVEAELPPSIpy ' Ty°lu DIS;.;IS$Ep OP, DECIED THE O;lnE
- ` CITY CLERF: TP.AT 20 IT p,FS BE. Nt %.E OF
it gip; OF iVHc i HAS BEE'1 FI'_E. THAT p��D INDEXED U:GDER THE
�;'rl AY APFEA- TITLE.
.IHAi, IF .$Ey REGISTRY CF GEEOVJNER'8 CERTIFlCRTE OF
F, 3ROE0 IN THE bl ' ES N07ED ON THE
GF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND BOARD. OF APPEAL
I •�
Titof Salem, assuchuse#ts
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & PAULINE CUNNEY z
FOR A SPECIAL, PERMIT FOR 50-52 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held January 16, 1985 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 notice 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 change a nonconforming use, namely
a T.V. Repair shop, to a business 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 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.
i The Board of Appeal, after considering the:evidence. presented at the hearing,
makes the following findings of fact:
1 . This has been a business for over an eighty year period;
2. While this business has run as a T.V. Repair Shop work was
done on the outside sidewalk area and vehicles parked on the
street by the curve;
3. There was no neighborhood opposition;
4. Several neighbors spoke in favor of this 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:
r 1 . The proposed used will be in harmony with the neighborhood
and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood;
2. The proposed use will be less detrimental than the existing
T.V. Repair Shop.
_I
w
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & PAULINE CUNNEY
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 50-52 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM
•) Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 - 0 to- grant the
Special Permit as requested under the following terms and conditions:
1 . The office not be expanded from its current size and the
office not employ more than four (4) employees.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
0x
SH'LL LL GE eiAO P ,2$'JAfIT TO 1E Or rE
. A!;',' 20 DAYS AFTER THE GnE r ' .•..
CENE4..L L411� L i ° - SH .,
OF THIS OECISICN IN THE OFFICE Or THE CITYSCLTR`, 11. THE vASf A�:CE OS
PLRSSST T"u '.A S Cr.T_°f. Lk1v - CHAPTER BUS, I E 0 '
,'-:,L Ht F
GRAn'.ED HERE:. SHALL N.1 TA",E EF -� UNTIL A C?Y CFA\, Ijc '
fl;.kT! i! OF Tri- CITY CLERr THAT 20 DAPS HATE EL4."tD . , _
OR il-4I IF H7 A.. F.PPEAL HAS' BEEtI FILE, THAI Il HAS BCE": GiS::.i�£�-D E DE'O T' .
OFCRECORDtORT S RECORDED SEX ANDP NOTED{ONFTHEDEEDS
OVI ER'StICERTIFICATE OF TITLE.A c OF T'-.-
BOARD OF APPEAL
E6
CtU of �ttlem, f ttssuchusetts
&APVVd
PaarD of
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NORTH SHORE CHILDRENS HOSPITAL
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 57 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held November 6, 1985 wiNothv2q he1[o oJMQwingNn1E5 Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Lyr&#ki, 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 E` Ti'tt#.Mews fgf.&A<$5rdance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to construct an addition in this
R-1 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:
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 use to the neighborhood. .
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing and
after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition;
2. The decision of this date supercedes previous decision of April 24,
1985 and renders the previous decision „null and void.
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 petitioner's plan will not be substantially more detrimental
to the neighborhood;
2. The granting of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants;
\ 3. The relief requested is in harmony with the purpose and intent of
\I the Zoning Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NORTH SHORE CHILDRENS HOSPITAL
FOR A SPECIAL. PERMIT FOR 57 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM
page two
•� Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the
petitioner the relief requested and allow the construction of an addition under
the following terms and conditions:
1 Decision granted April 24 , 1985 is rendered null and void;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained;
3. Addition be built in accordance with plans submitted to the Board;
4. The fire alarm system and automatic sprinkler system be expanded
as per the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
aures B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
AF'HEAL Ff�O:+� THIS DECISI7:. IF P,y SRSLL BE I:SADE PURS'J c."^ iD SEC710R 77 OF THE
GENERAL LAWS. CHP.P�R SS°. A .D SH=LL
Sc :ICED 1'ATfi DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FW:,u
r OF T;'.E CITY CLERK. SPECIAL FEP•!:'.IT
OF THIS _DECISIOS 11; THE 0 "E c ��r, T' THE \n7` CE OR „ j,HE CEF.i-
PURSART W F - EUIJ ��Ciil A CC°� G' ' - FILED.
- A F.L H S
GRATED Y.7c4. 1 - ` - c pg H!.IED IS
FIC STI J'. OF lh :7 E° u,,J DE 4\F s r(tiA� li K r 1 n , �� THE hA :E OF THE
OR THAT, IF 5--.. AFF c .EDS AN 1.�'J QED 0
OF TI
RcCORDEO IK THE Sc9TH ESSC): RE :>�Ri w °
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND WEG OIJ THE O'iiWER'S CERTIFIGA7E SDR Q APPEAL _
\ it
i
of �aiem, 4�tzssttt4usPtts
a
RECEIVED
�JOJ �DtLi�1 II{ ��IPiil
i l '85 APR 30 P3 :03
" DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NORTH SHORE CHILDRENS HOSPITAL
FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 57 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM M 6S.
A hearing on this petition was held April 24, 1985 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.
Petitioners are requesting a Special -Permit in order to construct an addition
to its existing structure in this R-1 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance 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, e-tension 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 use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing and
after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings for fact:
1 . There was no opposition;
2. Would enhance the operation of the hospital and therefore be an
improvement for the inhabitants of the City of Salem and surrounding
communities.
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 petitioner' s plan will not be substantially more detrimental
to the neighborhood;
2. The granting of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City"s inhabitants;
The relief requested is in harmony with the purpose and intent of
,' the Zoning Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE NORTH SHORE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 57 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the petitioner
the requested Special, Permit to allow an addition under the following terms .and
conditions:
1 . A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained;
2. Addition be built as per the plans submitted to the Board;
3. The fire alarm system and automatic sprinkler system be expanded
as per the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
aures B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• n
=i Ch
N <
a T
rr ,
mm
o
3� <
O -0 T
VST W -
n p
rn '
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THEA?ASS.
GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER SCE, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
CF THIS DEC!S!CN IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PLICSF,%l TO .'aAa. OPiESAL LA,.'F. CHAPTER SOS, SECTIDN' 11, THE VARIA',CE OR FPECIA.L PER'.UT
C P.Adi T ED EERo'i;. SHALL NiiT 17,::E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DE^.IS L,'!:d. EErB!NG THE CERT
FILA.T:D�4 Cr- THE CITY C'.ER I iHGI 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEUI FILED, .
/R ;HAT. IF SU:511 A!i APPEAL HRS BEEN FI!E, THAT IT HAS EEE ii CIS%.!SL,D CR DENiED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NARIE OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
of Salem, � ttssttt use##s
• �Y',� �iuMra D{ '��iP2il
fC'l L.p�T.Pin
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JERRY'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 450 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM cc''
A hearing on this petition was held September 11 , 1985 wi&rt?5 f�al"l� and
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Strout and ss gate
Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutterFgLg& others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evenipg News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. 6fTYCt�FJ'- a=Ftl.AASS.
Petitioner, owner of the premises, requests a Special Permit to allow extension of
a nonconformity by demolishing the existing fabric store and the Mr. Grocer store
and constructing an addition to Rich's Department Store, all as more fully described
in the plans submitted to the Board. The property is located in the Business Park
Development 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 sdubstantially 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 was presented to the plan;
2. Petitioner has been an asset to the City and this Board has no
reason to believe that this proposed addition will be anything
other than an even greater asset.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board
of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposal does not depart from the intent and purpose of the
Ordinance;
• 2. The proposal is not substantially detrimental to the public good.
DECISION ON THE PETITION .OF JERRY'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.
y FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 450 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 4-0 to grant the relief
requested, provided that:
1 . A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained;
2. Plans for the proposed construction are presented to and approved by
the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to issuance of building permit.
SPECIAL PERMIT 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. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURIUAN1 TO ��ET14H j� OF tot.MP.S§.
CENERAL LAWS. CHAP EP Ks0'.AF ID ESHALL TH` FCITY C�LEFKH rD DAi9 AF-TEP. THE NA��
pF Tr S D ,.DYER Ci?. SECT . 7. THE l '. 6R °rzf1AL PEGie�{
rPL L�� CTr,. _:,; -, THE CERT-
PDi2 A T T� --=� o HAS &ct Fli`_D.
A T O ccFECT U"'TIL A CIYY OF THE
C ' S ELd.c �1 NOF P :
N OF .c F.r: TF �D A' H h'S CEEB Clc`IS ^• CR D it!ED.IS
CF; TH''. IF
S9LH F'i APPEAL HF.: Z.CT! r ,c, ,d.7 IT
OF RECORD IORTHE
IS RECORDEDSAN DRE"STV
NOTED O OF
FTHE OY.'NER'SIICERTFOICAi\E OF TITLE�� n OF THE CWIEP'
BOARD OF APPEAL
• 1
f1�i# of ttlem, � ttssut use##s On
is Dcn A
c
Poarb of � ettl T�
n0 m
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL FOR A �� N 0
VARIANCE FOR 108 JEFFERSON AVE. , SALEM a
m .A
A hearing'on this petition was held March 27, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, 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 requests a Variance to allow commercial/industrial uses in this R-1
district. The premises are owned by Nancy Kupchan.
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 amy 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 . The ledgey topography of the property, and its proximity to commercial
properties, make it uniquely unsuitable, in this R-1 district,
for single family use;
2. Petitioner would suffer a financial hardship if it were limited
to R-1 uses of the property;
3. Petitioner has proven to be a trustworth and reliable neighbor
and one which would not be expected to abuse the broad discretion
this Board, by granting this petition, would be investing in it
in regard to its use of the property.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and. on the evidence presented at
the hearing, the Board of appeal Concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions or circumstances exist which affect this lot which
do not affect the district;
/ • 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would work a substantial
hardship upon petitioner;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 108 JEFFERSON AVE. , SALEM
page two
• 3. The Variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent
�\ of the district and the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0 to grant the relief requested,
provided that:
1 . All underground tanks once used for gasoline be purged of gasolineo
vapors and be pressure tested for their structural integrity, the
results to be reported to the Fire Inspector's office;
2. The testing of the automatic sprinkler system, and the results of the
test to be submitted to the Fire Inspector's office;
3. The installation and/or updating of the automatic fire alarm system
to reflect new occupancy;
4. Fire lane must be maintained around the building .
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FRO?.I THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE 6',ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE AfASS.
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER M. AND SHALL BE FILED WIMN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF RLING
OF THIS DECISiON IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PUSSANT TO :::ASS. GE.'?-RA' LAWS. CMPM 8C'5, S;GT:SN 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PE:
".':`IT
GRAN IED HEREIN, SHALL NLi TP..-.E EF.ECT UNTIL A COP! CF THEOEC SI'-S, EE�:I;{Nt THC C-FT-
F1CF.TiON OF THE CITY CLER7. 'i: .ST 20 DAYS HAVE EL',.'CEO AN7 NJ F?PE;.L HAS BEEE3 FILED,
C:'. TH,J, IF SU:rI AN 4RFI—L WS BEET: FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS::'.il,"D OR DE:UED i5
RECORDED IN THE S'_J1h REGISTR: GF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA:dE OF THE
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND iiO:ED Cit THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
bleb
. Ctu of �Iem, ussttusetts o .
Paarb of 4peal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL & BENJA CURRAN FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 199 JEFFERSON AVE. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held Decembpf,4V 19T following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; M� s��JJS. , harnas, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hey LL 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:d`p¢Bii02:.4T)A4E*•AASS:
Petitioners,. owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to allow a
barber shop 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, ina ccordance 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.
i
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 . Petition was submitted by neighborhood in favor;
2. Additional neighbors spoke in favor of this proposal;
3. There was no opposition;
4. The use of. this dwelling as a two chair barber shop will be j
less detrimental than the previous use.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, concludes as follows:
1 . The relief requested can be granted without creating a substantial
detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating
from or nullifying the intent or purpose of the Ordinance.
" DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL & BENJA CURRAN
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 199 JEFFERSON AVE. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
• ) relief requested, provided that:
1 . The premises comply with all regulations relative to the
installation of automatic smoke detectors;
2. There be no more than two barber chairs;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
�James B. Hacker, Chai an
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• ApP FROM THIS pEClSION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS,
APPFJIF LAWS IS DFCR N' AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DEEM Ili THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PEP,tt1T
[IRSS. GENERAL LA', CHAPTER BOB. SECTION 11, C$.OK BEAR... THE .,ERT.
PURSAdfT TO _
ER['+�:_O HEHEItI, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE ,iED IS
HAS BEEN DIS ISSED OR CE,:
RAk , N OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED,
AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAAiE OF THE OWNER
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY tj DEEDS
OF RECORD OR IS.RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE BOARDLE.
OF APPEAL
J�
Lz_ 21 100
_
p
`5 Irm,/
Df ►tISS t�llSef��`r' V� �'r
a
It varb of MCA N;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHpIOCESE OF.
BOSTON, A CORPORATION SOLE (PETITIONER) FOR VARIANCES AT
292 JEFFERSON AVE. , SALEM `
A hearing on this petition was held January 9, 1985 with the following Board
Memberspresent: 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 variances from the density requirements (specifically
side yard, rear yard and lot coverage) so as to construct a new church on the
site where a church had stood from 1901 to 1982 at which time it was totally
destroyed by fire. The property is located in an R-1 district.
Section ZX Paragraph E of the Salem Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of
Appeal shall determine that such variance will not be contrary to the public
interest and that, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the
provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship prior to granting
the variance.
Evidence introduced at the hearing showed that the Church explored all other
land owned by it in the vicinity to see the feasibility of using it for the site
. of the new church, but found none of it suitable because of wetlands, shape,
topography and/or the presence of ledge.
The requested variance from the side yard requirement is from 15 feet to 5 feet
and in fact the wall of the new building would be partially located where the
new wall of the previous building was.
The requested variance of the rear yard requirement is from 30 feet to 23 feet,
substantially less than the previous building.
4 The requested variance for lot coverage is from 30% to 45%. This is necessitated
by reason of the growing size of the parish.
The Board also considered the unusual topography in ruling on the requested
variances as well as the assent of all. immediate abutters and a number of other
individuals..
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. The site in question had a church on it for a number of years;
3. That because of wetlands,topography, ledge, size, or shape, no other
1 land is available locally for building a church;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON
FOR VARIANCES FOR 242 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SALEM
page two
4 . That by reason of the foregoing, hardship, in fact, exists as it
• relates to the lot in question.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 - 0 to grant the
requested variances and allow the construction of a new church as shown on plans
submitted. to the Board, provided that:
1 . It be designed in with the plans submitted to the Board;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
VARIANCES GRANTED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOgD AND THE CITY CLERK
rS: I
i
APFFAL FR .1 TH!S DECISICI�. L` A!iY• SHALL. BE MADE PUP.SUANl TO SECTION 17 OF
THE h:AS$.
f EF:EF:AL LA•,•;c•
Lt 63E,&3E. AND SHALL BE P—lb :::TtiI P: 20 DAYS AFTER THE DA ,
OF FI LIQ"o
OF Ti';S DEC;SIO;i It: THE GFFICE CF THE OI1' CLERK.
CPEG!AL FER:7T li
Q Dr TYc' ` ` f
c^_ dEr,`' SHALL I'OT i_1E EffELi UNTIL L,'Y rJ 11'' AI'P.tL HAS S' r N._D?
w. r . 'i AT nE Yo - AV [ci +G I$
i .'i k �r r 1A B 7 n. J.r _. - iER
NA c:i �A� c :�F. T 4.0 i U _d Ui!C '. .. aA.:. 1. Trc
C E:: PcEC C; lil` L:1 J`H MIXictal:ii:i O: �•_.,..
CF REC;;gU OR IS R_C�RDED AN) N5TED C*.-,' WE G',7i:ER S LERTi F1EAiE GF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
� �
��� �9
� Ura��
� ,�(' �
�_
�ty� ` ,f i
' y f1�it IIfttlPmttsSttL uSPtf 13 2 43 PN BS0�7
y f►L£
s c1rr:�2F.',., uEM.1tA6S
TT. ~
•� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES CASELLINI FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 14 KOSCIUSKI ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held July 17, 1985 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.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to extend non-
conforming side and rear setbacks in order to construct porches in this R-2
district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this reouest
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, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No neighborhood opposition;
2. Would substantially improve neighborhood;
3. Other buildings in the area come to approxi-mately the same
proximity;
4. This would substantially improve parking for the dwelling.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed extension of the nonconforming rear and side setbacks
would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than
the existing nonconformity;
2. The proposed plan is in harmony with the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES CASELLINI FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 14 KOSKIUSKO ST. , SALEM
page two
1 •� Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
petitioner the Special Permit requested provided that:
1 . Porches be constructed no closer than eighteen inches ( 1811) to
property line on side;
2. A Certificate of Compliance relative to the installation of smoke
detectors be obtained from the Fire Department.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
17
n
E r ^
6F1EfJ.€. L P f f.6S F.'D S.'iNl .`. '-
fr Tfr D ' f i li Tr'F r C TY C"i C .Y_
?i TY YF .:c`
6G:�,s`i762 H..f,: .; rnhi-6. f.�.. 7N'. Ef E. UF;iil �.1 C ?'
i{tkYr'�i Ci 7Ki (.F!`i CtikVS TH»r 2i LATS HF.1'E EiL+St. A?[; F5 F.=FE;:L HFS 'c_B FL:D.
fP. THAT. If SJ:-1; 1.`! APPEAL HF:i DCEk FLE, THF... IT Ha EEE9 DI"'ED GP, [)EED IS
REb4k6€D IH THE >r'eL?H ES�3CX kEvIST.RI' 6F DEEDS ANC INDELE ''E.-L� THE RaiE Gi THE
Of RWRD OR 19 "RDED AND MUTED OH THE ONNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
BOARD OF APPEAL
I f '
oflem, Ctt��tttl�us�tts
x
• j� . P oarb of 4veal
i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR & ROBERT MARCHAND FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 159 LAFAYETTE ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held June 26, 1985 with the following Board Members
present: Edward Luzinski, Acting 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.
Petitioners, owners of the premises, request a Special Permit to convert an
existing four (4) family into a five (5) family dwelling 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 11 , which provides as follows:
[) T
Nothwithstanding anything to the contrary appe�ri
in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, ir6 ,T —
accordance with the procedure and conditions $7.�t
forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Specht° Permits
for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming N
structures, and for changes, enlargement, extra Sion (�g
expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, ' -n
and uses, provided, however, that such change extensTFbn,
•
enlargement or expansion shall not be substan*ally acme
detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to tie
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 Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City' s inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence, makes the following findings
of fact:
1 . The proposal will have no significant affect on traffic or
or parking 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 . The proposed addition of a fifth dwelling unit will not be
substantially more detrimental to the public good than the
existing premises;
2. The proposed relief is in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
\y I
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR & ROBERT MARCHAND FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 159 LAFAYETTE ST. , SALEM
/ page two
•/ Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the relief
requested, provided that:
1 . The .premises be owner occupied;
2. A minimum of eight (8) parking spaces, non-piggyback, be maintained
on-site;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
1 �
IF A.`71', SHALL BE 6SADE FUP.S'11VT TO SECTION 17 OF THE 6iASS.
FppEAL FRD4' THIS QECI.,YJN.
F,7 FILED VOTF,IN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
GEkERAL LAWS. LHAFIE•R SCS. AnD Sp e L"THE CM CLERK.
DECIS:D\ THE C.. r^ SELTipti 11. THE VARIK:CE OR SPECIAL PFn•1i7
OF THIS �•,T ei Li:ES. CHRPTEP, �.
QUF.SAh? TC C4S.1. C_ . DC?Y OF THE CEC`.SIO\. EEARiHC T"FI ED,'_
c p;1LL 6Lt- -,,I— EFFECT URTiL A �,,' � Ar?EP.'_ HAS CEEi:
6p,At;TED FSEC•' -r� CIS LISSED OR G`E51EC IS
flCATIDZ � THF C!TY L:ER': THA. 2D DAYS H0.VF E3.PSED A`^ ;_
F A:: APPEAL HAS G`�s ft'.S. T✓r Fi HAS 3-• U "ER THE iF:'.E OF THE
pF 7HkT. If Su'.
): RE:.6T 6`'.Ci CE:D"> A`iC INDEXED
SGL.-LA ESSE 11UTED CN THE O.;NER'$ C,RTIFICATE OF TITLE.
OF FLL�- Og LS QECJRDED A•'ED BOARD OF APPEAL
tt� u
m y
� i
� g
C
Q2
t
J 06-
� Q
1p
u �1Tt�T of 1�jcajrm, Cffl, ttL�L18Ptt8
rs PBarb Qftu�sPul y
DECISION ON THE PETITION LAFAYETTE REAL ESTATE?Yr,UST,
GEORGE BELISLE & DAVID JACOBSON, TRUSTEES FOR SPECI&
PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 256-258 LAFAYETTE ST. ,--SA.LEM i„
A. hearing on this petition was held July 17, 1985 aamd co.^.�iued until July 24 ,
1985 with the following Board Members present: JaZes Hac,&-r, Chairman; Messrs. ,
Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of- the homing 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 carriage house to four
condominium units and all necessary Variances in order to construct twelve
condominium units in this R-3 district.
The Board of Appeal, after careful deliberation, established there was a sub-
stantial difference from the petition that was denied by the Board on May 15, 1985,
the difference being two less units on the property. Mr. Gauthier made a motion
to hear the petition. Mr. Charnas seconded the motion. By a vote of 4 - 1
(Mr. Hacker voted in opposition) the Board of Appeal voted 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 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 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.
° DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAFAYETTE REAL ESTATE TRUST,
r GEORGE BELISLE & DAVID JACOBSON, TRUSTEES FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT & VARIANCE FOR 256-258 LAFAYETTE ST. , SALEM
page two
The Board of A.ppeal., after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
I �l hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The total of sixteen ( 16) units requested would overburden the area
and a lesser amount would be satisfactory. The developer agreed to a
total of ten ( 10) units;
2. The Carriage House will be moved to the front of the property as per
plans submitted to the Board on July .24 , 1984;
3. The petition was continued from the July 17 , 1985 meeting;
4 . Approximately two years ago a similar petition was denied;
5• Approximately two months ago a similar petition was denied;
6. The Board voted four to one that there was a substantial difference
from the previous petitions;
7 . Several neighbors were opposed to this petition;
8. Few neighbors spoke in favor of this petition if the total number
of units were reduced;
9. Because of the shape of the land, in all probability, it could not be
• ,i used in a lesser fashion than the ten ( 10) units.
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 affect this lot
and which do not affect the district;
2. The proposed use will not be substantially more detrimental
to the neighborhood;
3. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would work, a substantial
hardship upon petitioners;
4. The relief requested 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 four to one, 4-1 , (Mr. Hacker voted
in opposition) to grant the Special Permit and Variance requested on condition:
1 . There be no more than ten ( 10) units total, as per plan submitted
to the Board at the July 24, 1985 meeting;
y DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAFAYETTE REAL ESTATE TRUST,
GEORGE BELISLE & DAVID JACOBSON, TRUSTEES FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 256-258 LAFAYETTE ST. , SALEM
page three
• \ 2. Carriage House to be moved to the front of the property as per plans
•1 f submitted to the Board on July 24, 1985;
/ 3. Snow must be removed from premises after each snow storm;
4. Drainage must meet all specifications of the City Engineer;
5. A minimum of thirty three (33) parkings spaces be maintained on site,
and of these thirty three (33) spaces, six ( 6) spaces to be used by
neighbors on Laurel, Linden and Lafayette Sts. exclusively;
6. Building to proceed in strict accordance with plans submitted to the
Board on July 24 , 1985;
7. Plans must be approved by the City Planner, Planning Board and the
Historical Commission;
8. A Certificate of Occupancy for each unit must be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE GRANTED
'James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION & PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD
AND THE CITY CLERK
Ap'r .- FR9i4 THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE .:AGE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE A14Sg:
ME ERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECIS'.C' Ur THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PCF:S S,:T T, ifs.S. ENE.RA' LA::'S. CHA?TER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPFCIAL PERh:iT
HER E:.'t. SHALL :'751, T;.i:E EFFECT UNTIL A COPi' OF THEDc�iSi^!i. BE "n Jr� TH: CERT
FL=.TI!.N OF -THE CITi C ZP,, THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED ANO ND APPEAL HAS EEE': FILED,
:.R THAT. IF SU'.;it AN APPEAL HAS BEEN' FILE. THAT IT HkS 5EEN DISL',ISSED OR DE:;;ED IS
Rc::i:^,LEU IK THE S]UiH ESSEX RE�CTE'i OF DEEDS AND IIT DE1ED L't7 ER THE FA%:E OF.THE OWNS,
Q£&a-RC, OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE 07lNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
c,.mviizt'b �
of �$ttlem, �US04C ust##s
A
g a. W
Pourb of
/ o
3
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAFAYETTE REAL ESTATE TaGST,
GEORGE BELISLE & DAVID JACOBSON, TRUSTEES FOV A SPEtTAL e
PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 260 LAFAYETTE ST. , �!LEM[ 3 04pu 61085
A hearing on this petition was held July 17, 198 „fin continued until July 24,
1985 with the following Board Members present: 4e Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. ,
Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. Notice t'Tyt "fir-rtefsent to abutters
and others and notices of the hearing were properly pub is e in e Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners reuest a Special Permit to convert single family residence to a four
unit condominium and variances from all applicable density requirements 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, 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 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAFAYETTE REAL ESTATE TRUST,
GEORGE BELISLE & DAVID JACOBSON, TRUSTEES FOR A SPECIAL
• \ PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 260 LAFAYETTE ST. , SALEM
Jpage two
1 . Most units in the area are three family or less, with the
exception of those dwellings that predate the Salem Zoning Ordinance;
2. Granting this petition would increase traffic and noise;
3. Laurel Street is a small street and not conducive to extra
traffic flow;
4. This is a proposed historical district and the Historical
Commission was opposed;
5. Petition was presented in conjunction with another petition;
6. Petition was filled out in error and incorrect owner was listed.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follow:
i . Desired relief 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;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not
• involve substantial hardship to petitioner;
3. Requested relief is not in harmony with the district and 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 two, 3-2, (Mr. Hacker
and Mr. Charnas voting in opposition) denied the relief requested.
SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE DENIED
James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAWS, CHAFFER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
/ FRANKED HEREIINN, SHALL GENERAL
AP,E EFf CT UNTIPTER L A COPYSECTION
OFITHE DECIASIGN CBEARING E OR ETHE CERT
MIT
y FTCATi^N OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED ANO NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILIS
ED,
.HAI. IF SUCH AC! REPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS DEEN DISinISSED OR DENIED T
OREORDED FCRE ORD IORTHE
SOUTH
RECORDED NOTED,JRYONFTHELOWNER'SDS AND I CERT FDCATE OF TITLE.
NDEXEUNDER THE AM1E OF THE OWNER
BOARD OF APPEAL
2 Gitg of tIIPm, ttSst ,S s
r„x `�o
�► W
m
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAFAYETTE REAL ESITE TRUSS,
GEORGE A. BELISLE, TR. , FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AED A VA;xANCE
FOR 256-258 LAFAYETTE ST. , SALEM CZ
A hearing on this petition was held May 15, 1985 with the following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and Bencal
Notice of the 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 Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert carriage house to a four
(4) unit condominium and all necessary variances in order to construct fourteen (1 _
condominium units in this R-3 district.
The Board of Appeal, after careful deliberation, established there was a substantial
difference from the previous decision that had been denied by the Board on June 15,
1983. Substantial difference being the relocation of the carriage house from its
existing position to that on Lafayette Street. Therefore, the Board of Appeal
voted unanimously 5-0 to hear the petition.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
• for a Special Permit is Section V B 11 , 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, ex-
tension 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 Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the 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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAFAYETTE REAL ESTATE TRUST
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE FOR 256-258 LAFAYETTE ST. , SALEM
page two
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was some neighborhood support;
2. There was major neighborhood opposition;
3. Petitioner was unable to meet the requirement of Chapter 40A
regarding 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 relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good or without substantially derogating from the intent
or purpose of the Ordinance;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not
involve substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. The requested relief 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 in favor of granting the
• petition, two (Mr. Hacker & Mr. Luzinski) voting to deny, denied the petitioner
the relief requested.
SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE DENIED
James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
� a
r c.o
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL EE MADE FURSU:•.Y,T SECTION WDF 'HE
GENERAL LA>:S, CH Pi_ 808, AND SHALL BE F,L" ',;;'r:IN 20 D MASS.
OF THiS DECISION [!ti THE DFF:CE C= THE CITY CLERK AFTER THb CA.TE CF Fi;i:S
PURSP.I`IT TO 6t ASS. ^E';E!:AL LA-,�S. CH:;PTER SOS, SCi T!i''N 13. THF'AF!wv-E t?CCIAi i._'Y;T
GRA'rii ED HE6EGi, S'r.ALL fi;, Tu,:E EFFECT UNTIL A CCPV - THE9'S L)4. EE4i.i;;{ TnE C'Er;'G
FICATIJA OF THE CI.' CHER: TXA. DAYS PAVE �_ ,r, I "�APP�A� HSC : ' EO
OR THAT, IF SUCH Av APP-f. H?a BEG F.!E. Ti Fi:a L t :;d.a$SED CR c:.iiCD i3
RE RECO DIN THE S00?H ESS Ei' RE'd ISTRY OF LEEDS AJ Ii,CEXED J ✓ER THE NALrc OF THE OL�;lER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AtrD NDiED ON THE ONNEP,'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
V BOARD OF APPEAL
y ftlit of Salem, gassachusetts
,>
,• ;,r ~1�s curb of &Appettl K m
h`ct,ms.fi` 1 ry
co
W
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAFAYETTE REAL ESTATE TRUST,
GEORGE BELISLE, TP,. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND WARIANCE6
FOR 260 LAFAYETTE ST. , SALEM z 3
z
A hearing on this petition was held May 15, 1985 J%th theiollowing Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , 'Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and Bencal.
Notice of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A..
.Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert single family residence to
a five unit condominium and all necessary variances relative to density requirement
in this R-3 district.
Petitioners requested Leave to Withdraw this Petition Without Prejudice. The
Board unanimously granted their request to withdraw.
WITHDRAWN
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
c ':4ASS
"y c ;AJ. PLRSJANT TO SECTION 17 O r-,'SE
FILING
SHALL E
F. ;ti.'�R 20 DAYS NFTECHE TDATO
k FAL c ii S. Ci, A-9 i.-.L
TH
rc,C. �F @ GTY CLCEK. nic .CE CZ �o. .I p,L FLP '.li
JF ill° Gd'S!'�p li HE THE vc Bci \ F` C''.:T•
rt h..L L C c I r• F _D,
,;Tc�
PvF chl � N ;::�� c °rFcCT U Tic F CO Y FiT'"I� HAc
HEREIY SHALL N21 L �_ C
J 0A c rc-t� Ci Ia,ED Cc - J IS
n E E E
FICAl 36 Of THc CIiY CLERK k ' FILE. ` - H ,, THL nAn,c OF THE OYlNER
l` A? T
DEEJS I i�IDE?:ED
CR THAT. IF SUCH A;J APPEAL HA
NOVON THE OIC;tER'S CERTIFICATE OF TIL
RECORDED
RECOkOED IN THE SCUTH ESSEX R- Sik'! OF
OF RECORD OR 1S RECORDED AND BOARD OF APPEAL
.c<n>uitt. n ILII
` . M fllitg of �5: ttlrm, Cttgsttcl�usetts
Poarb of e2s1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LOUIS GOUTZOS FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR 332 LAFAYETTE ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held June 26, 1985 with the following Board Members
present: Edward Luzinski, Acting 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 Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the premises requests a Special Permit. to construct an
addition in the rear of the premises in order to expand his photography business
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 11 , which provides as follows:
c
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appeaarinr r
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 Permil3
for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming
• structures, and for changes, enlargement, ext6,Yision oro
expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, 3
and uses, provided, however, that such change4l�extens=' n,
enlargement or expansion shall not be substanl'ially 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, makes
the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition was presented to the plan;
2. The proposal will have no significant affect of the neighborhood
or on the abutters.
On the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing, and on the above findings
of fact, the Board concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed addition will not be substantially more detrimental
.� to the public good than the existing premises;
2. The proposed addition is in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LOUIS GOUTZOS FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 332 LAFA.YETTE ST. , SALEM
page two
• / Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the
requested Special Permit, provided that:
1 . The addition be designed to blend architecturally with surrounding
buildings;
2. The ridge line at the top of the addition be no more than one ( 1 )
foot higher than the existing dwellings ridge line;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
6
Scott E. Charnas, 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 TD 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.
F THIS
D ISIONJASS GEKERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 878, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
GRANTED HER't!'�, SHALL NOi TAKE EFFECT UI(TIL A COPY of
THE DECtSlO. 6`.A°iRC THE CERT-
FICATION OF THE C!1'i CLER�i TriA' 20 DAYS HA`il ELAPSED AND tvO AP'rEAL H:.i BEEN FILED.
c
OR 'H IF S7CH AN' APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HHS BEEN D'S;:IISSED OR DENIED I
RECORDED IN THE SOOTH ESSEX RECISTRI' OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA::E OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE Of TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
6ne
m
S �
m w
Ln
(V
a
tJ
s
�R rca
J 1--
-7 4. z;
A f1lit of $ttlem, Answr4use##s
,f.w3 Vis` Paurb of 4vzal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT MAGUIRE FOR VARIANCE
FOR 2 LAWRENCE ST. a/k/a 165 OCEAN AVE. , SALEEpMMu- rr
A hearing on this petition was held NgVe24era W Fy5! frith the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Bencal, Acting Secrft�k#. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing„wa� W� �perly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance witPRa06Ad's'e££ s eneral Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting variance from all applicable density and setback
requirements in order to construct a duplex in this R-2 district.
The Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to hear this petition. There was
substantial change from a petition heard September 11 , 1985 regarding the same
property.
The Zoning Board of Appeal, upon request of the petition, and after hearing the
evidence presented, voted unanimously 5-0 to allow the petitioner to Withdraw
Without Prejudice.
WITHDRAWN
i
/ Richard A. Bencal, Acting Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
BE FILED WITHIN LFROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE IkRSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE I
APPEAL LAWS. CHAFFER 80, AND SHALL N 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF
GENERAL F
ECISW DC,SHE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. I NCE OR SPECIAL FEtt:lIT
THIS D r V :t A
OF .t THE _ ,
PURSAHT TO 13 - GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER BOB, SECUNTIL A TION 111,
GRANTED HEREIN” SHALL H`''r THAT IANE EFFECT HAVE ELAPSED FANOENOCAPFEAL HAS18LEOl{FILED,T•
FICATION OF THE AN CLER.. HAS BEEN DISIHSSED OR DGIiIEO IS
OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEE-4 FILE, TNAi'fF UNDER THE
>RECORRDE DIORTHE
RE�DESSEX REGIS-61 ED AND NOTED ONRY FTHEEOWNER'S CERT FDS AND ICATE OF T TLE.NAME OF THE OWNER
BOARD OF APPEAL
�itv ofttlem, ttssttcu$etts
Paurb of �p iral
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT MAGUIRE FOR AN
ADMINISTRATIVE RULING REGARDING THE DENIAL OF A
BUILDING PERMIT FOR 2 LAWRENCE ST. a/k/a 165 OCEAN,pVE.
J.�F 2S 3 00 PH. ' 5
A hearing on this petition was held September 11 , 1985 with the n Board
followi
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , CharFS#Strout and Associate
Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abuttgs and others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Eve J 4Ws-S1rf At%4 fiance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner appeals from an administrative ruling of the Building Inspector denying
it a building permit in regard to the subject premises. The premises is owned by
the 165 Ocean Avenue Realty Trust and is in an R-2 district.
The ground for denial of the permit was that the plot plan submitted for the proposed
building does not satisfy the setback requirements of Section VI, Table 9, entitled
Residential Density Regulaitons, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance.
Petitioner contends that the setback requirements do not apply to the subject
premises because because it is a nonconforming lot within the meaning of Section
VIII B ( 1 ) of the Ordinance.
This Board, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing
the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The proposed building does not meet setback requirements of
Section VI, Table I;
2. The lot does not have at least 50 feet of frontage as required by
Section VIII B (1 ) in order to be exempt from setback requirements.
The Board of Appeal, based on the above findings and on the evidence presented at
the hearing, concludes that the Building Inspector acted properly and pursuant to
the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in denying petiitoner a Building
Permit.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 4-0 to deny the appeal.
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FRO , TH,S L-uISISi, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
C EN EF AL LAY:S, CFL':PSER 8--8, 0D 9tiALL BE FILED W!THiN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
Pu IE TO !:'AES. G`+'IERAL L.'*3, C::F,.FF:ER £D5, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
EJ HEREa:, SHALL N": MIE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THECECISIO::, BEARING THE CERT-
F!CA.T!.N OF THE CITY CLER.'. HViT 20 DAYS HAVE EU-.PSED =ilJ FiO APF`_AL HAS BEEN FILED,
�R -f!=!-.T. IF SUCH AU A.PPEA'_ HAS BEa. FILE, THAT IT HAS EEEt: C!S'.:ISSED CR DENIED IS
REC F=EO IN THE Sr'.ITH ESSEX REGISTRA OF CEEOS AND INDEXED UN ER THE fcAME OF THE OWNER
OF RECCRD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
Ctu of ttlem, � ttsstzc�ju�P#ts
^_ Psara of �Vpral
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID & PAULA DONALDSON
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 59 LEACH ST.., SALEM '85 iG,„• 23 A55'
A hearing on this petition was held January 9, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Charnas, Cau h eh;`Luz nski
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 are requesting a Special Permit to allow six unrelated persons to
reside in a dwelling unit in this R-2 district. Petitioners are the owners of
this 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 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.
s
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing presented
at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . In granting this permit the Board of Appeal would actually
be granting a rooming/lodging house in a residential area;
2. There was vigorous neighborhood opposition;
3. There is not sufficient parking for rooming/loding house and
this would exacerbate an already congested area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at
the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
� 1 . The relief requested creates a substantial detriment to the
public good;
/ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID & PAULA DONALDSON FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 59 LEACH ST. , SALEM
page two
4'
2. The granting of the Special Permit requested would not promote
%
�
the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of thle3
3 L r
inhabitants; ,85 "''
3. � The relief requested would substantially derogate .f'ro.D the Zntentr
of the district and purpose of the Ordinance. ct.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal by a vote of 5 - 0 unanimously voted
against the granting of this request for a Special Permit.
aures B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
APPEAL F'nUF:i L BE P..%:'E FUCSiIfiIT TO SZ+TI ;: 17 3c iE zl.SS.
CEURAL iAl:i. GHAPT:P, SoS. A.`;? S:J:LL FE F." ..: 2D DAYS %7En THE CE GF Fi L!';3
OF TXT.-, �_: S..,N INi:.E r'r i:,E CF THE Ci1CLERi.
:i_ . .__. 11. THE ',,._ D' C. . _-..:iT
:F. . HR-;;:. SH.EL I, EFF: 'T 1 .'.,. P. THE _ .. .
S'r.E QEF.'. I.. : .. .y -E '_ .e:EDF.
F.E. EJ 1:: THE S"9.H ES_E>: F.EiiiT.
CF RECORD OR IS RECORDED`A!,D NV1EV O:: TnE G-uiiER'S CERTIFr ASE GF iiTLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
�i#V1 of '�ttjpM, 41FnssUC4UorttB T
Foam of �ppeal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANCIS WARREN FOR A j
VARIANCE FOR 28 LEAVITT ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held January 16, 1985 with the following
Board Membrs 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.
The petitioner is requesting a variance from all density and setback requirements
in order to construct a garage in this R-1 district.
w = Ve Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
c - -
f6at:
- a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
w m the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
` _ < affecting other lands, building and structures in the same district;
p F G
- b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and
« :; o c' desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
> w public good and without nullifying or substantiall derogating from the
4 '; z intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and
- " r after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact:
E n w '% W 1 . There was no opposition to petitioners plan;
oma = rte = _ o
2. Petitioners property abuts a baseball field and petitioners
have suffered damage to their cav due to children playing ball.
N 1' -
1�
s �
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 and not the
district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work substantial hardship;
3. The relief requested can be granted without derogating from the intent
of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 - 0 to grant the Variance requested
from all density and setbacks to construct a garage.
Peter Strout
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
(flit ofttlem, � ttssttcljugetts
r. 4 C-- r
3. P
uttrD of
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH SKOMURSKI FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 14 LEMON ST. , SALEM (R-2) m
A hearing on this petition was held January 16, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman; Messrs. ,Gauthier, Strout,
Associate Member and Acting Secretary 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 petitioners, owner of the premises, request a Special Permit to extend and
alter a pre-existing nonconforming use by replacing a second floor window with
a door leading to stairs and a deck in the R-2 district.
The provision of the SalemZoningOrdinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Sectio 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 opposition was presented to the plan;
2. The structure has been used as a two family dwelling for
several years;
3. The alteration will add a second egress to the second floor to
bring it in compliance with present regulations.
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 JOSEPH SKOMU13SKI FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 14 LEMON ST. , SALEM
page two
�j Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 - 0 to grant the relief requested
provided that:
1 . The deck must be 16 feet long and 6 feet wide;
2. Other alterations must be per the plans submitted.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
chard A. B ca , Acting ecretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
c
Ln
L OF oE
AFTER THE GATE DF
APFE;,L FPA'„ THIS DcCISICti, G AtiY, SMALL BE 'rAADE PURSUANT TO SECTIO^I
CHAPTEf. SC2 A?;a SHALL EE FILE" CLERK.
20 DAYS
GENEP.4L L,V,S Dr=10E OF TO CITY c OR
SECTIRN 11. THE Y'ARIAPIC. - V
;!F THIS DEC S!'L. Iti THE u L..
•, c L �.S CHAPTER E-S' C`'PY OF TV cC.c..• Ec
TC t.._S A rElL F'
V C h nE r HAL' FjC, 7n E EFFECT U'�LLcA ELAPSED At7� t J I ._
c D;S: U
Cf 11:E CITY
CLEF.t. THAT 27 DAYS HA'T ANC 1l U�EXEp tiJE•. ihE I4,j OF TEL C
pF DEEDS
TEAT. If SCCH Aa IRF£F,L H:$ BEE� FILE
OYIWER'SSCERTiMAI OF TITLE.
RECODUO lit THE SOUTH ESSEX Rt'T ON
�' .� DF RECORD OR IS RECORDED At:D BOARD OF APPEAL
69
_i.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF .ROBERT & F. KAY FOUHEY
FOR A VARIANCE FOR 4 LOONEY AVE. , SALEM
A Public Hearing on this petition was held August 14 , 1985 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 Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a variance from rear and side
setback requirements in order to construct a 8' x 12' shed. The property is
located in an R-1 district.
The Variancte 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.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing,tgd aftg viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Ene abu�aaer appeared with major opposition;
{C w
2. ,,�uildir;� had been partially erected without building permit;
3. _.House ifi not in compliance with Fire Department code relative to
`"tnA alation of smoke detectors.
On the bsi5- ofnthe above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which affect this lot but do not
generally affect the district;
2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would work a
\ substantial hardship upon petitioner;
• \ 3. The relief requested 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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & F. KAY FOUHEY
FOR A VARIANCE FOR 4 LOONEY AVE. , SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
variance requested, provided that:
1 . The 8` x 12' shed be constructed no closer than ten (10) feet from
side or rear lot lire;
2. Shrubbery must be planted at least ten (10) feet tall between the
shed and the side line of property listed as Hillside Ave. ;
3. A Certificate of Compliance must be obtained from the Salem
Fire Department.
VARIANCE GRANTED
i
times B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
OR
APPEAL FR04I THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE VASS.
CENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER SCS, Ar+D SFr .,.L EE FLED X;.'.IN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF HLIIdC
„�APL PEP,
TER EDS. SELT.10;; ll. 7HE VARII'.!CCE_DR 'SPE THE CERTeIT
OF THIS DEC1S C 1 THE DFF ` G= TPE CIT)' CLERK
PLPcA NI TO F' - , E.FE LI T L A. CO°I cF THE { AL H Y FILED.
GRANTED HERE � r' � ,ED IS
vc rn:' ELhr>-D A �
FIGATI^N OF 71 CI C cR �'' D FIE Tµ„T IT
y° LEEr CI M1LSEC CP D
OR THAI. IF SGC=1 AT,: APPS" HAS Ei°_•
OF RECORD 1111E vDLIIH
RECORDED ESSEX
AN DRNDiEDYONFTHELOWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.nuc CF THE OWN u
BOARD OF APPEAL
.J
s
.�„cmmrt �O
b Ctv of ttiem, ttssttt use##s
Poxrb of Appeal
/ 'oms.oa'
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & F. KAY FOUHEY
FOR A VARIANCE FOR 4 LOONEY AVE. , SALEM
A Public Hearing was held July 24, 1985 with the following members present:
James Hacker, 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.
Petitioners are requesting a VAriance to allow construction of a shed in this
R-1 district.
After noting the petition was incorrectly advertised as an 8' x 10' shed when
. it should have been an 8' x 12' shed, the Board unanimously 5-0 granted
petitioners leave to withdraw and to be heard at the August 14, 1985 hearing.
WITHDRAW
r
• o � 16�z' e�
o ames B. Hacker, Chairman
qk m
A COPY Q THJS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
� U
t
3
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAYS, CHAPICR EOS, AND SHALL BE FGE.D V(l.HIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE 01 FILIPIG
OF THIS DECISION Iii THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSANT TO MASS, CENFRAL IAt CFPP E RUF I ! 11 THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
GRANTED HERDN. SHALL N TE C -tr 1 UNTIL A PY r TIE BFA THC CERT t
FICAM;N DF THE CFI CL'P. r f (. ( AL HAS C_i,N FEED.
OR THAT. IF S+SF. An API EAL H%'e C It rig .1 ., � � 0.. :S-Ll) OR D:GIED IS
RECORDED IN THE S7UiH ESSEI', RE':J-TIV OF UEE: .ND IP:JEXED UNDER '.HL :,•4;.:E OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. ;
i
.� BOARD OF APPEAL
i r
Ci#g of "Sttlem, f ttssuchusdis
3 y <
�varb of p}ten[ '
\ ^A
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES THIBAULT (PETITIONER) ,
CHARLES DUBROW (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE FOR 509 LORING AVE. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held January 16, 1985 with the following`Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinski and Associate
Member and Acting Secretary 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 allow a commercial. structure and a
_ ! Variance from all applicable density and setback requirements for a lot located
W aV 509 Loring Ave. and in an R-1 district.
Tlge Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
LL BBard that:
` �2 a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
o = wry = c the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
o w affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
N � U
w b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and
N o z c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
N intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
w Z3 w W makes the following findings of fact:
U G
1 . Much opposition to the plan was voiced by neighbors and
- y other concerned people;
2. The granting of the variances would be a detriment to the
- - = neighborhood and its quality of life;
3. The granting of the variances would worsen a very poor traffic
situation already existing and create a hazard for the neighbors
and other travelers in the area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The granting of the variances requested would be substantially
detrimental to the public good;
/ Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 4 - 0 to deny the
variances requested. I
'Richard A. Bkncal, Acting Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
of ,$ttlem, Cttasttc�ju$e##s
RECEIVED
Poxrb of '�Pp
-
08.5 APR 30 P3 :03
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK KLAMAN TR. FOR VILLAGE REALTY
TRUST FOR A VARIANCE FOR 600 LORING AVE. , SALEM CITY
CLERK'SSFFICE
SA
A hearing on this petition was held April 24, 1985 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.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance to allow the portion
of the premises which is located in the R-3 section to be used for parking. The
premises is located in a B-2/R-3 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by the Board
that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the 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 and
after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Abutters are in favor of the petition;
2. Petition was presented with all abutters and most neighbors in favor;
3. The land, in all probability, could not be used for anything other
than parking.
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 but
not the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardshipt to the petitioner;
• \i 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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF VILLAGE REALTY TRUST
FOR VARIANCE FOR 600 LORING AVE. , SALEM
I page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the petitioner
the relief requested under the following terms and conditions:
1 . Snow be totally removed from parking area;
2. Norubbish(dumpsters and/or containers) be kept in the rear of the
building.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Gdames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
OF THE AMASS.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 DATE OF FILING
SHALL BE MADE 2D DAYS AFTER THE
CISIDN, IF ANY, FILED WITHIN
APPEAL FRO'd, THIS DEQ R RDS. ARD SHALL 6E CITY CLERK. _
�- AL LAPS. CHAP, 1111 ll, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER!•I
GENERAL THE OFFICE Ot THE 808. SEC R'N�
OF THIS DECISION IN c CRAFTER GOPY OF THE DEC1S107<. B`-A BEEN FILED,
}:.,SSS. CE..,--RAL L!,:•..• \TIL A AI;7 ND APPEAL HAS pENiED IS
PURSAIiT TD c u,All I,, .,AF.L EF"-CT ECT U'c ATHp�cSED ,01.SED
OR OWNER
GRANTED HER.F`' S ';I;A, %J OATS li P,A$ BEEN Di. NAME OF THE
n y OF THE CGt "LE c-� nL_, Al- IN UNDER THE
FICATIO AN AFP'PL Rhs B"' DEEOS OF TITLE.
OR THAT, IF SUC•• IS-RY OF g CERTIFICPTE
SOUTH E„SEA R NOTED ON THE OWNER'
o RECORDED IN 7H' BOARD OF APPEAL
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND
C')
CS
—"1 V1
rm n
Y CD
NT LJ 11
n
C7 C:)
m �'
of "Sttiem, assuchuseffs
RECEIVE-n
psarb of �Pveul
'85 APR 30 P3 :03
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LUCILLE A. CYR FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 2A LINDEN ST. , SALEM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM '`';V
A hearing on this petition was held April 17; 1985 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.
Petition requests a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into
a three family dwelling in the R-2 district. Petitioner owns the subject 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,
j' • enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the
neighbohrood.
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 plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition was presented to the plan;
2. Adequate on premises parking will be provided;
3. The dwelling will be owner occupied;
4. The are already has a significant number of three family dwellings.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes that the proposal does not depart from the
intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and is not substantially detrimental to the
public good.
• 1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LUCILLE A. CYR FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 2A LINDEN ST., SALEM
page two
• I Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-0 (Mr. Hacker voting present) to
/ grant the relief requested, provided that:
1 . Smoke detectors appropriate for a three family dwelling are
installed and plans for such installation. are provided to the
Fire Prevention Bureau;
2. The premises are owner occupied;
3. A minimum of five (5) parking spaces are provided on the premises;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy -is obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
OF THE NASS.
SECTION 17 DpiE OF FILII'JG
,,DE ructs'1ANT '? ER THE
GIST SS. AND SHALB fl, c� CLERK. 20 DAYS PFT
IF ANY, cpEC1Al PER'A'T
THIS DE SHALL VARIANCE OR THE C`R7
APPEAL FRT"l CHAPTtR THE CITY
\VS' IN THE OFFICE OF Bns, SECTIO"I 11, THE cI510';, 6EAn:iGcF,j fIL_D,
GENERAL lA ITER F THE C''
GF THIS DECISIONc A,_ LAJlS, CHF p CO?Y 0 .� tJ2 psPEFL HAS DENIED IS
PURSANT SD tAASS.S��'EptJCil TAY.E LfDFECT U HA`E ELASSED p!. iJ DIS:-HSSED OR OF THE DYJNER
ALL DAYS HAS BEE c Pit+A"'E CLI
HEREIW' CLER` 1P,Ai IHHT It7 aE0 11;,
GRAi:7ED CIT, HFS gEEN FILE. AND TI'fT+hCh
FICATION OF 7 dE H AN APPEAL ISiRY OF p�EDS 1 ER'S CERTIFICATE OF N��7,
DR THAT, IF g' .. SOU(FI ESSEa REG THE OW RORRV"F AP !'Tl _
ItJ THE N07ED ON
RECORDED IS RECORDED AND rnrn
OF RECORD OR _ 3 WG rt'1
u, <
o _0
� n W r]
_n
n W
rn
ofttlem, ttssttcuse##s
Pnxra of '4FVd
ILI
- DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RONALD & PAMELA JALBERT
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 36 MARCH ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held November 13it t wing Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. "GaU�higr;lu in i, Strout
and Associate Member Bencal, Acting Secretary. NAto=e of the hearing was sent
to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with MassachusettovC=LeMI-:L8gV4 A&pter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to allow
construction of a stairway which will encroach on the side yard setbacks in
this R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Sectioq 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The current stairway is narrow, steep, dangerous and
encumbersome;
2. A petition was submitted signed by all abutters and most
neighbors in favor of the petitioner's plan;
3. There was no opposition;
4. Petitioner has invested considerable time and money to upgrade
and improve said property and locating stairs in slid area is
most appropriate.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and or the evidence presented, the
•�i Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially
derogating from, thEt intent or purpose of the Ordinance;
2. The Special Permit requested will promote the public health, safety,
convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RONALD & PAMELA JALBERT
<' FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 36 MARCH ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Bcard of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the
'+ relief requested on condition all work be in accordance with plans submitted.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• APPE;L FRO,'; THIS DECISJJNC IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE ':ASS.
CENERAL iF.C:S. CHAPTER S,-S, AND SHELL EE FILED 1'/:';iii; 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILIN3
OF 7:1'3 IN THE OFF!6E OF TEE CITY CLERn.
4'; a oro S-$ SE:-i" E �,R;
L C- a - v 7] TEE 1 A 'EE OR cP ' d F.P'1T
54iL _E t F G U:TIL P. CCP',' Or TH`c _..._ . E n, 'HE '�'T.
Ft. Th L!TY CLLRd THAT 20 MY7 hWE E!-°SED A':D 7 APPEAL H;.3 u :ICED. .
Or: Tl-;G.. IF SJ;B F... APPEl:L HAS BEEil FILE. THAT IT WS VEN D!S::.SSED CR LLiPED IS
REPCF.6ED C; TIi2 S'UTH ESSrn RE',I'TRi OF DEEDS AND UNDE,:ED i. iDER THE NA*.iE OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RE'DRDED AND NOTED OIC THE 0,WN'ER'S CERTi FICATE OF TITLE.
f BOARD OF APPEAL
Tifg of '5§ttlem, C t255r�tl�u5Ptf5
PnttrD of �u}i
10,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD & PAULA MARSELLA FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 36-40 MARLBOROUGH ROAD, SALEM
"85 Jh Z�
A hearing on this petition was held January 9, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , CharneFs,, Gauthier, Ii4zinski
and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters andcothbrs and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem EveningNewsin accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners request a Variance from lot size requirements regarding Lots 28 and
29 on a plan submitted to the Board, specifically a reduction from the 15,000
square feet needed, approximately to a roximatel 9,967 square feet
as shown. the lots are
currently owned by Alfred D. & Ellen F. Gemma and are in an R-1 District.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by 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 provisionsof 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
viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition was presented to petitioner's plan;
2. The area is swampy and finding sufficient buildable land to
satisfy the Ordinance is extremely difficult;
3. The swampiness is unique to the area of the lots in question and
is not generally characteristic of the area;
4. If the land is not buildable, this will result in great financial
hardship which would run with the land.
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 affect this lot and
do not generally affect the district;
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD & PAULA M,ARSELLA FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 36-40 MARLBOROUGH RD. , SALEM
page two
2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would work a substantial
hardship upon petitioners; and
3. The Variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment
= . to the public good, and without substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 - 0 to grant the
petitioners a Variance from lot size requirements for lots 28 and 29 depicted
on the plan submitted with this petition provided that a Certificate of Occupancy
be obtained. The Board specifically notes that this Variance now renders lots
153 and 154 on said plan conforming to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
1 •
c IF ANY. SHALL 6E MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE 61ASS.
APPA FRO.'f. THIS DECISION,
GENER'L LA.�iS LHAPTEF. 908, AN SHALL BE FILED WITHiii 20 DAYS AFTER THE GATE OF fILII;;
OF THIS OEC:SION U; THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
4
FBF .�iT
10 S"'E. CE';EPAL U,4 CHAPTER SO& SECTION 1' THE 1'ARIAi r GR SPELIFL PER
ti F+o1�D HERE Ii„ SHALL NOT TAh E°FELT U(TL f rD�Y �F THe-j APPEAL 6HAo'6EP PIED.
CF THE UTl CLERK THA' 20 DAYS Hx. E- SED i_: IS
Z- UC SHST. IF SUCH AN APPEAL Hi:S BEEN FILL :HAI IT HAS BEEN
Pli 1 �'� �R C
_ RE�:UitDED IN THE SGUTH ESSEX RU::STRY OF DEEDS AND 119EXED GI{D'c F. THE 'C�'�'.E CF THE ECil.:c
_^ OF�ECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED OK THE OWNER'S CERTIfiGAiE OF TITLE.
;x+ SGARO OF APPLU
of $afem, usstttfjuse##s
}
PaxrA of '4pett!
\ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOYCE BUTTNER MALLARD FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 174 MARLBOROUGH RD. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held September 11 , 1985 wilt f and
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charna rS ou�� �iate
Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutterVLE* othe QQ tices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Eveniflk E*ws in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. CITYaCo=,r E_LEM.11ASS.
CITY C..S--;f CitKAASS.
v G L O
LL y Lztitioner is requesting a Variance from all applicable density and setback
EequirelSments in order to construct a single family dwelling in this R-1 district.
w " -- tropey is owned by William Buttner.
C
z X14 V£iiance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
'tnt:
= a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
- _ the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
- c affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
` b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
Ll
n-
U i
r volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
= b public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
-= intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
iV Z
c - �e Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence and viewing the plans presented at
P.;t8e hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
- - - _ 1 . Petitioner did not have the required 50 feet of frontage;
F - i
= _ - � 2. The lot size was under 5,000 square feet;
_ - 3. In accordance with the new ordinance the two lots would
revert back to one.
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 would not pose a hardship on petitioner.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3-1 (Mr. Strout voted in favor) against
granting the Variance requested.
VARIANCE DENIED
Peter Strout, Member
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
.4 m /
of C)
> � t
.T. �
CA
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEFAN M. HEDIO FOP A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 8 MEADE COURT, SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held May 15, 1985 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 Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioner requests a Special Permit to covnert a two family dwelling into a
three family dwelling in the R-2 district. The premises are owned by petitioner.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 11 , 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 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 raised to petitioner's plan;
4
2. The presence of six (6) parking spaces helps ensure
that the requested relief will not exacerbate parking
problems in the area;
3. There are already other three family dwellings in the area.
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 will not be substantially detrimental to the
neighborhood than a two family dwelling;
2. The relief requested may be granted without nullifying or
substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the
Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEFAN M. HEDIO FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 8 MEADE COURT, SALEM
page two
•i/ Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the relief
requested, provided that:
1 . The premises remains owner occupied;
2. Six (6) parking spaces be maintained on the premises at all times
(non-piggyback)
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED /� p
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK,"'-
s;
S
� m <
r ca
v
N C+J
w
X
R.
S �
APPFALFROV TtM MM'ON, IF F"..Y, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 77 A THE FILING
6FgEP.AL lAA'S, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED Y11i HIN 20 DAYS FFTER THE DATE OF FILIiM
OF THIS Dar joCtl IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CCLERK.
PURSF;:T TJ .ASS. CENTRAL LA'.':S, C".APTEP. 874, TIC.I :1, THE VARIA'JCE OR SP:CIAL PERMIT
OBFP H i�4d. SCE"' F'.' i:.KE EFF.CT W:i L A CC°1 OF TPE'JELt.-.Ri TP.E CERT,
HALL
FiUTI.,J OF THE CIFf b-ER'd 1hA' ". Cr`.S hA:E EJ P7E'
�� NJ APPEAL AL H S t rr cFJ SD.
OR THAT. IF S'JCH AN APPS HAS Eff'; FILL THAT ' 'r.;S SEEN C IE �� E
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REJISTRY CF DEECS M. D IGDEY•"L L"-ER THE inn..:E OF THE D'N t:ER
OF RECORD-OR H RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OVINE R'S CERTIF"ATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
fi/i#g of �$ttlem, � tt$sttc�u$e##s
• ' . ?i`,,� uttrD of ��reni
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF-RICHARD S00 H00 (OWNER) , DR. "' ='
ALVIN ROSEN (PETITIONER) FOR A VARIANCE FOR 21 NORTH ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held February 20, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski 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 to allow the premises to used as a dental
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 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 . The was no opposition to petitioner's plan;
2. Would be in harmony with the neighborhood;
3. Variances have been granted on either side of the property for
expanded use other than R-2;
4. House has been vacant approximately two years;
5. Abutters appeared in favor;
/ • 1 6. This use would generate less traffic than other commercial uses.
On 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 RICHARD SOO BOO (OWNER) &
DR. ALVIN ROSEN (PETITIONER) FOR A VARIANCE FOR
21 NORTH ST. , SALEM
page two
1
\ 1 . Special conditions and circumstances 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
3. The Variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent
ur ,
•,. of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance;
p
4. This would be the best use for the property.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimousl 5 - 0 to grant the petitioners
the requested Variance to allow premises to be used as a dental office under the
following terms and conditions:
1 . Seven (7) parking spaces be maintained on site;
2. Automatic smoke detectors be installed in accordance with the
Salem Fire Department.
VARIANCE GRANTED
/411mes B. Hacker, ChairmanjJ�
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIT`_' CLERK
APPEAL FRO'l, THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURS'j* T' SECTION E OF THE i�NUN
F E;EF.AL LS;fS, CH APiER EOE, AP1D SHALL BE NIUE, Y:F.P:IN 20 DAPS AFTER THE DATE OF NUNS
OF THE CIT'i CLERK.
( I° L'cCla'v. I'J -H° OFF CE n
TO %'ASS
HCCJ IWL [I-," 1 '4E EFFECT UNTIL A C °Y C TI -D'
a."D
iH CIT C:: .1 T..Ai :0 JF( , AIV EL
�P-'rD t� 1 r
n Y i. IF r APPEAL �S EE" IE '°'A L..�D INDEX`D- N'DER, THE LASE OF
R._ -1. I, T"_ ,..-:.. ESSEX kEGISIR, OF f EE's I
OF RECORD .; E RECORDED AND NO
ON THE 04NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. �I .
BOARD OF APPEAL =`
;V
l.Ti
Ctu of 'tslem, gassadjusetts
Paurb of Appvd
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAWRENCE RUSSO JR. , FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 164- NORTH ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held November 13, until
December 4, 1985 with the following members prese James Hacker, Chairman,
Associate Member Richard Bencal, Acting SecretaryVj"rs. , Gauthier, Luzinski and
Strout. Mr. Gauthier was absent at the continued hearing on pp&�t#�8 4, 1985•
Notice of the initial hearing was sent to abutters�nd;W�er`s and notices of the
the. initial hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accord-
ance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A.
4.
Petitioner requests a Special Permit to convert a two family dwelling into a
three family dwelling and a Variance from parking requirements in this R-2
district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to thisorequest
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 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 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.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes
the following findings of fact:
(� 1 . Significant opposition was voiced by neighbors, abutters
and others;
2. The property, located on a main thoroughfare, North St. , is
a highly traveled artery in and out of Salem;
l DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LAWRENCE RUSSO JR. FOR
i A SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE AT 164 NORTH ST. , SALEM
page two
3. Petitioner failed to provide the Board with specific information
• regarding any parking on the premises.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1.. The relief requested creates a substantial detriment to
the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal unanimously, 4-0, voted against granting the relief
requested. Petition denied
DENIED f
Richard A. Bencal, Acting Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
ArFLnL FROM THIS DECISION, i' ANY, SHALL $E MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE GlSG.
::EtiEP.AL LA; S, CFAP',ER EG8, A59 SHALL EE FILED 17ii HIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF Fi Lli <
CF THIS OECISiJN IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
TC CE'ZRA: LA, CHAPTER E08 SEC'IJD: 11, THE SARWNCE OR SPECK,[
P E r-R IN, SHUL NC: TA::E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE OEL,Sh.r, EEA'(:':" InE C::u-
r;�A.1�Ci; CF THE CM CUR-: IY.:T 29 DAYS 9A:E ELUSEO AND .NO AP'E;L H:.- . ii_ED,
R 1H'.T, :F SOCH A:2 AFPEA: FAS SEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS 3°Er D:S:::iS CCD CF. DE;:iE� IS
i.::*::)E-' III THE S:;JiH ESSzX REPISTRY OF DEEOF AND RIDE<ED L%)ER THE ?i;:.:E u: THE
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE 6WNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. ..
BOARD OF APPEAL
flit of t%ttivm, Massac4untts
(, JUL 23 2 43 PH IS
�narb of
CA
FILE�
J
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM CORBETT JR. FOR A CITY {7C..SALEN.MA'S.
VARIANCE FOR 243 NORTH ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held July 17, 1985 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.
Petitioner requests a Variance from use and minimum parking requirements to
allow him to operate a bookstore in a garage on the premises. The property,
owned by William Sr. and Marcella Corbett, is in an R-1 district.
The variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and
• c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appea; , after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes
the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition was presented to the plan;
2. The subject garage is extremely small, and its size makes it
unsuitable as a modern day space for storing an automobile;
3. This condition is unique to the neighborhood;
4. This condition creates a hardship if the Ordinance is enforced
literally, as it makes a portion of the premises unusable for its
intended use.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions affect this lot which do not generally affect the
district;
.'\ 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship
upon the petitioner;
r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM CORBETT JR. FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 243 NORTH ST. , SALEM
page two
3. The Variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment
1 • to the public good and without substantially derogating from the
intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
relief requested provided that:
1 . A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained;
2. A Certificate of Compliance be obtained from the Fire Department.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
N)PEt1 My. THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL FF "DE PUESJAb''•• TO SECTION 77 DA THE NFILFI
GENEP.A! LBWS. CHSFTER SDS. ASO SHALL 6E FIL`1D 14ii^'jN "<i, DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FI LINO
. (
Cr-"CE OF THE CITY CLER`.
QF THIS DEC!S:OI; m TH
ior SPECIAL PERMIT
C8 THE CERT-
PUSTJ: Src cRA_ LCNAPTER S
CRAF ito inER tp. SHALL NOi TA E EFi--ECT UtvT L P CI° nrt' u� nr�
_ L.SED OR LE'iitD IS
FIcITL.. EF THE Cl_'" PER: T AT Civ h .
OR iP:,T. IF S'JCH Al APPEAL H.A3 Eat .' E c cIAI�D...l _R THE NA::E OF THE OW4E
RECORDED lit THE SOUTH ESS E): RE�iSTF.Y Of OE_O- F_-_
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OV:NER'S C-r''IcICATE OF TITLE.
- BOARD OF APPEAL
of $alrm, 4Rttssttchusetts
v
CqT
Poara of Appeal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILL BROOK REALTY TRUST FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 15 NORTHEY ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held July 24,1985 and continke Istis app 11 ,
1985 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker Chairman;Chairman; e s ,
Charnas, Strout and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the 'H tkng was sent to
abutters and notices of the hearing were properly published the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter £ `ALaMAAS S.
Petitioners are requesting a Variance to allow a total of six dwelling units, two
each in the existing dwelling, carriage house and the garage, and to allow a two
story addition to the garage; also a Variance from all dimensional 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 Permit for alterations and reconstruction of
nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of
nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, howeever, 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, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . A Special Permit rather than a Variance may be granted as petitioners
lowered the total units to four (4) instead of the six (6) originally
requested;
2. Neighborhood supported four (4) units;
3. This will substantially increase the tax base;
4. Will allow for off-street parking in a congested area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed plan will not be substantially detrimental to
the neighborhood;
• 2. The proposed use of the property will promote the health, safety,
convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants;
1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILL BROOK REALTY TRUST
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 15 NORTHEY ST. , SALEM
page two
• 3. Petitioner's plan is in harmony with the City of Salem Zoning
Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0 to grant the
petitioners the relief requested, provided that:
1 . There be two (2) units in the carriage house;
2. There be two (2) units in the main building;
3. The garage remain one story;
4. Twelve (12) parking spaces be maintained on site at all time;
5. Six (6) foot stockage fence must be erected and maintained on the
south side of the property extending fifty (50) feet from the
carriage house towards the north;
6. Roadway must be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in width and must
meet all specifications of the Salem Fire Department;
7. Parking will be allowed only on the approved maintained parking
spaces and not on the driveway;
8. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained.
• SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
jures B. Hacker Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
TO SECTtoN 17 OF 7NE MASS.
MADE PURSUANT
AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
ANY, SHALL BE uj Y!!THIN 20 DAYS EGIAI PERMIT
oN.
IFSP
RE6RDED
z„IOI ASE ERK CERT'
D- SH CL pI IA� THE
fftOM THIS pND OF THE Y1i1.,
CITY THE � ,. E`_A
APPEAL LA4YS CHF,PT ERTHE OFFICE 808. SEC TIDNOfLTHE DECISI c BEEN FILED,
GENERAL CHAPTER GOPYc A APPEAL HF..
THIS DECISION IN .ERAL EA1'IS' c CT UNTIL A X10 NO cc OR DENIED IS NER
OF To MASS. CEN TA':E EF.E HAVE EEp3SHAS gEEN Di5"oS�'THE NAME OF THE OW
PURSANT HALL NCT THAT 20 DAYS
HEREIN.CITY CLER'A gEEN FILE.THAT IPND INDEXED UN OF TITLE.
GRANTED OF THE S CERTIFICATE
REGISTRY OF DEEDS
FIGPTI0' SUCH Azl APPEAL HAS THE OWNER' SpRO OF APPEAL
OR THAT. IFIN THE SOUTH ESSEX NOTED ON
OFGRECORD OR IS RECORDED AND
ofttlem, ttssttcuse##s
Paurb of 'cel PNd
- --'/ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & RONALD MARSILIA FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 5-7 OCEAN TERR.., SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held on December 4, 1981 ��,t¢�{tFjfollowing Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messiftt,lTba , uzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly publiglpfl'kn the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A� ., ._;� tR.1�aS5•
wN
Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to allow the conversion of an existing
two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-1 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this •
Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the
procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D,
grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of
nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, ex-
tension 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 . There was no support or opposition to the plan by
neighbors, abutters or others;
2. The property has been used as an illegal three family since
before the petitioner purchased the property over five (5)
years ago;
3. The petitioner did not purchase the property from a family member.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The relief requested can be granted without creating a substantial
detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating
jam• `�, from or nullifying the intent or purpose of the Ordinance.
7 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & RONALD MARSILIA FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 5-7 OCEAN TERRACE, SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the
h • Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Five (5) parking spaces must be maintained on premises;
2. The building must have smoke and fire detectors approved by
the Salem Fire Dept. suitable for a building of this type;
3. The property must be owner occupied;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED / l /
Prichard A. Benca , Associ a Member
Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
A"E L F52-?4 THIS UETF34M, IF ANY, SHALE BE VAOE PORSd=TO SECTICr:Y 17 OF THE
ar_Ncr.`L IA` S, Ci -,zR I-:. A" SFi i-L EE RLL VfNM 20 DAYS AFT= THE DATE OF FILI'
1. TdES OF-W32. M THE CME ZE CF TH= C t CEERF
�-K. E%:7? . LCR"i G'-:.i.=iT.a ME, SECTTJ:i 11. THE YA.'.ANCE O' SPE-C',' PE"':'R
Ei✓F1:;. S-LA11."Y TAi:E EreECF WMIL A C-rPT Of THEDEUS;_%: EE47:ii'Z Ti:F CERT-
FiZ: :::, CF THE CTT CLEF.+ Tri: Z0 DA:'S H"YE "TA'nED OND 90 AFFFAL 1113S E =:: FILED,
Ci'. :ri;J. IF S:CF A:. APKU R+S ISMN F::_E TKU IT 1LM1S BEER D=ISSED CR Dci:En IS
R_.:: -Ea In TiE SwTH ESSEX Rc LS'IRT OF DEMAnD IY'S'JCEi: URGE. THE Kkw.:E OF THE OYiRER
OF RE=a OR IS REWRDE,D AND KUM ON THE OWNER'S CERnFICATE OF TRE -
BOARD OF APPEAL
I
of Salem, Cflttssar rugs
* ¢ m
Paura of �kpreal
DECISION AN THE PETITION OF FRANK W. CHANDLER FER A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 80 OCEAN AVE. , SALEM > ''
v o0
A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 1985 with the`j?ollowing 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 Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the premises, is 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 11 , which provides as follows: `yt
Y�µ
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 nonforming 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 . All abutters were in favor;
2. There was no 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:
1 . The petitioner's plan will not be substantially more detrimental
to the neighborhood than the existing use;
2. The granting of the Special Permit will promote the health, safety,
convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants;
3. The relief requested is in harmony with the purpose and intent of
1 Zoning Ordinance;
I
DECISION ON THE _PETITION OF FRANK W. CHANDLER FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 80 OCEAN AVE. , SALEM
page two
1
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 - 0 to grant the
Special Permit requested, under the following terms and conditions:
1 . Twenty foot width driveway must be maintained;
2. Five (5) defined parking spaces must be maintained on site;
3. Must be owner occupied;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained;
5. If any of the above conditions are violated the property will
revert back to a two family dwelling.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
R O�
_ APPEAL FRO':! THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 CEVTHE MASS
GENERAL' LAY,'S, CHAPTER 205, AND SHALL BE FILED V,97HIN iJ DAYS AFTER THE D!;E 0: FILII�
OF THIS O S N IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK,
PJB Al i SS _ Fr L I.—S. GHAP 7R F2 SECTID'i 11 THE VARIAn E OR PE
GRA '.EC R Sh—LL 1 r.-�: EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF TFEDE0iS,` BE .RTTHa CERT
OF fhE LiTI' CLERK THAT 20 DA,1S HAVE ELAPSED A'i0 NO F.Pr"'olL HAS t% FILED,,
OR THAI. IF SL:=h. i.h' APPEAL HAS BEEN' RLE. THAT IT HAS BE'N DIE`I!SSED OR 1I IS
RECORDED IN THE SJU'H ESSEX REGISTRY OF FEEDS AND INCEXED UNDER-THE F",!E 0. THE OV,N,-:
OF RECGRD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O'SNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
ffyit of %5� ttlem, gtt5sac4usefts
n+ v
a Poara of �Pveal RFCEfVED
T5 AN 30 P3 :03
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SULDENSKI FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 95 OCEAN AVE. , SALEM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM MAS:'.
A hearing on this petition was held April 24, 1985 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, owner of the property, requests a Special Permit to convert a two
family dwelling into a three family dwelling 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 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 use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing and
after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Building would not be owner occupied;
2. Would not substantially increase the tax base of the City;
3. Residential neighbors were not in favor of the petition;
4. Would not substantially improve the character of the neighborhood.
-0n 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 not promote the public health, safety, convenience
and welfare of the City's inhabitants;
� \ 2. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment
•' to the public good.
DECISION ON -THE PETITION OF JOHN SULDENSK-I FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 95 OCEAN AVE. , SALEM
page two
1
•_ Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal by a vote of three (3) in favor (Mr. Charnas,
Mr. Gauthier & Mr. Strout) and two (2) opposed (Mr. Hacker & Mr. Luzinski ) denied
the Petitioner the relief requested.
SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED.
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
1 . •
RPPEAL FW9 THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
LUEM LAWS, CHAPTER BCS, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
()F THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE GF THE BCITY SEC7 ON Il. THE VAR iANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
PURS.ANT TB K: SS. CE;;ER'.L CP,AFTF.. 08,
GRANTED H.Enai', SHALL li;�i _. r?E�? UNT!L A COPY OF THEDECIS!'':', BE%^.LIS THE CERT-
`i c n r•+ 3 HA EE d FILED.
FICATI ..+ ::F 'u Cul .Er -SAT c A,S HT, 'E '_LA' En. IS
OR HAT, IF S 7 .� rPP�K P. ° o._N ri-c i_A' I, +S BEEN DI .'� -e _n ^ :ED T
R ECi"D`_J IF; THE SOUTH ESSL. P.r,ISTR CF DEEDS TNrJ IN DE> u V u T THE OF THE Ol4!i"cP,
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED Df: THE DYl IqER'8 CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
—i Vcis1
BOARD OF APPEAJ,.{
D n a
rr ��
rnm
C:)
n o
m w
Vrd
,z a� (1lit ofC3
ttlem, � ttsstttlfsetts
� N
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EVERETT & PATRICIA MITCHELL FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 178 OCEAN AVE. , SALEM Z•
A hearing on this petition was held January 9, 1985 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 side setback requirements in order
to construct an addition 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 purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing and
after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition to the petitioners plan;
2. It would be impossible to place this addition on any other portion
of the property because of the current location of the doors and
windows.
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
3. The Variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent
\ and purpose of the Ordinance.
I
� * DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EVERETT & PATRICIA MITCHELL FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 178 OCEAN AVE. , SALEM
page two
j Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimousl 5 - 0 to grant the
Variance requested. on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Y
ces B. Hacker, Chairman.
i
3
ACO?Y OF THIS DECISION' HAS BEEN FILE:) iZ':i i'r.c ?LA`iSi':C 5?.J :;
;s
5
co
f
C_
�7� v
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF L[tt MASS.
CE(ERAL LAK'S. CHAPTER EDS, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DAT"F FILIP.H.
OF T.`:IS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CRY CLERK.
P,'F.S=.\T TO E'.A.SS. CENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER SCS, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
CCA':-E7 HEREIN, SHALL NCT UUE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION. BEARIF:� THE CERT-
v;
U 1H: CITY CLERK THAT :O DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NJ APPEAL HAS BEEN FLED.
IF S'J:!1 A'. APPEAL HF.S EEEN FiIE. THAI IT HAS 6EEt: DISS!ISSED 09 OEt:iEG IS
t Ai':? :1 Tr!C S9'J! ESSEX I FC:STFY OF DEEDS AT;D I:DE%ED UND'.R THE N•...E OF THE 07:;;E
Ct t F .JRSE ?'•> t.;itD 0'. THE Oh NEF.S CEFTIF::A7E OF TITLL
60.SF0 OF !.°Pi,J�
3
//-0
Titg of *Iem, ttsstttljuset#s
ourb of &Appvd
10
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALVATORE BONAIUTO FOR
A VARIANCE FOR OCEAN AVE. EXT. a/k/a 198R JEFFERSON AVE. ee
A hearing on this petition was held September 11 , 1985 with�e?bol1jcdi®p%og5d
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Strout and Associate'
Member Bencal. 'Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters NPA*thers and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening�Nff: ,.aa,c�LWWjjg with
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting an extension of a Variance which was granted January 24,
1979 to allow the garage to be used for minor automotive repairs for a period of
five years. The property is located 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, 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 careful consideration of evidence presented at the
hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition;
2. Several neighbors appeared in favor;
3. The repairs will be done inside the garage and no vehicles will
be displayed outside;
4. The property is toos small for a dwelling and access to the
property is limited.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which affect this lot which do not
generally affect the district;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial
hardship upon petitioner;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALVATORE BONAIUTO FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 'OCEAN AVE. EXT. a/k/a 198R JEFFERSON AVE.
page two
�. 3. The Variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent and
purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 4-0 to grant the petitioner
the relief requested provided that:
1 . Variance is for the use of the garage for minor automotive repairs
by the petitioner only and does not apply to any other person;
2. The Variance is for a period of five years only and can be
renewed only by the petitioner;
3. There shall be no signs or advertising on the property;
4. Petitioner must keep holding tanks on the premises for all oil
and grease and shall formulate a proper method for their disposal
as per the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau.
VARIANCE GRANTED
James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
A:PEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PUF.SU0T TO SECTION 17 OF TBE MASS.
GENERAL LAWS,
CH ER 80'. AND SH�.:L BE FILED V:THIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
CrERAL AWS,iO. IT THE DFRCE OF THE My CLERK.
r H TC 'C: S H i`. ='E' 80S SEC ' 1i THE v r,, w'CE OR SP- IAL PERSTF
,iE C:RT•
CEf. .. ,
HERE;%. S � �L N^T cFFE T J' � A C.°Y G THE �gLr L H!.-
D7!
C ` FILED,
Fi STI"k OF THE Cl,? CLEfi TF. O rc -.c E�r�. - 7 N! ' cc
:R ,H%.T. IES 4 4.;J AP7ESL BE iilE TIJ�- I� Fl. L E;J D I .0 R ,:_� IS
RECORDS RECORDORIS RECORDED,AFDEX P NOTED�O'1 ETH EcOWNER'S DS AZ�3 ICERTI FICATE OF TITLE ~ OF THE 0'd I:ER
OF
BOARD. OF APPEAL
of !-5tt1Pm, C �StttE�usPffs ��
PaxrD of �p�ettl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HENRY LABRECQUE FOR A _
SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR 16 ORD ST. , SALEM •s5 ,fit , 23 I.
A hearing on this petition was held January 9, 1985 with the Following Edard
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas,Q6hier,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 increase an existing ronccnfcr-ity
by subdividing an already undersized lot into two lots and a Variance fro- tide
setback requirements on the lot containing the two family dwelling in erd r to
construct a single family home on the second lot in this R-1 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to tni_ rc::.;cst
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the
Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth
in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and recon-
struction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension
or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however,
that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially
`. more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be-granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare 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 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 considering the evidence presented at the public
hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The current lot is the largest single lot in the area and by
dividing the lot as shown on the plan would create two. lots the
approximate size of neighboring lots;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HENRY LABRECOUE FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR 16 ORD ST. , SALEM
page two
. 2. This is a residential neighborhood and little or no extra traffic
would be generated;
3. � On a deed dated August 28, 1981 shows the proper y I,: ntwp;lots.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: C;-.
C7 .
1 . The relief requested may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good;
2. The granting of this petition will not nullify or substantially
derogate from the intent of the district or the purpose cf the Ordinancc ;
3. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial
on petitioner;
4 . The proposed use is in harmony with the City' s Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the
requested Special Permit and Variance on the following terms and conditions:
1 . The existing two family dwelling be owner occupied unless the
single family is owned by the same person or persons;
• 2. A Certificate of Compliance relative to smoke detectors must
be obtained;
3. Oil burner installation and oil storage records must comply
with requirements of the Fire Department;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained;
5. Drains or culverts must meet with the approval of the
0 Building Inspector.
GRANTED
es B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
AFPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF TV.-
CENERAL LAPIS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED V.,TTHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE CP F:!
:'•� CF THS DECIS'CN IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. _
r- n SECTi5N 11, THE VARIANCE OR SFiCI:'_
Pi: CU
UM,TO IzF.SS. CERAL LA'.'P, CHA. �cR 8.8.
TES HEREIW, SHALL NOT T.,.XE EFFECT UNTIL A COPE OF THED-41!0, 5;,,-!!;3 71
pF "I HZ C!Tl' CLER% THAI 20 Cl,TS HAVE ELl:?SPO 6•N� "0 APPEAL^H'S
_ NS
^,L E
L IF SL'3H A.A. hFPiJ.I HAS BEEN c, THAT IT i;S BEET: Di i D �R
< "!S1CY o= LEEDS AND 1, OEYEO Cf.^c' TH. !. .. CF 7H_ ...
II: TIIZ S'I; F.c..
OF FEi SRD OR 1S RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTi FICATE OF TITLE. -
BOARD OF APPEAL
n 1
�� f1lit of SaIrm, ttssttcljusetts
c�
• :\ ;1� PnttrL of
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & CAROL MUISE
FOR. A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 2 ORLEANS AVE. , SALEM
u (p� `` 9rr aH'b5
A hearing on this petition was held November 6, 1985 t ftAhe' Snowing Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Chr�a , Gauthier, Luzinski, and
Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters a 1hers and notices of the
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening I� sgjak� NEiSNith
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to allow and
existing shed in this R-1 district.
The provision of the Salem^Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions
set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for
alterations and 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 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 Beard of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing_, and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings
of fac=:
1 . Said structure was constructed prior to the petitioner
purchasing the property;
2. Water in the basement of the main dwelling necessitates applicant
to find storage on his property;
Any other location on his property would also require Variance;
4. Petition was submitted will all but one abutter in favor, most
of the neighborhood was in favor;
5. No major opposition.
• One the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board cf Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The relief requested is not substantially detrimental to the
public good;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & CAROL MUISE
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 2 ORLEANS AVE. , SALEM
page two
• 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not nullify or
substantially derogate from the intent of the district or the purpose
of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the Special
Permit- to allow the storage shed to remain in its location under the following
terms and conditions:
1 . Shed can remain in its present location as long as it is attached
to the main dwelling;
2. Shed must be shingled and painted to match the shingling and paint
presently on the house;
3. Planting of shrubs on the rear lot line as to shield shed from
the view of abutter at 11 Marlborough Rd. ;
4. Because of the current season all conditions must be met by
Spring of 1986.
bines B. Hacker, Chairman- -
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
�Dr PORS'DA^;T TO SEC110N 17 OF THE MASS.
i c�.�Ll 6'c M1`. . DAYS AF ER THE DATE OF FILL"1C
. Ao?.ht FROM THIS DECISION. IF AI:Y. -� " F•��ED IVITH'dt 2G
E? SD?'. AND SHA.1 6r 'S CLERK. cF�CIAI PEV!,
63iEP.AL 1A14S. CHAP" DE THS Cd: mAtSCE GP. o- (.E';T-
rugFTEF S^ S`CT:CI; 11_TdE \'A.,• E :-.v,i; i..c
OF THIS OECIS!0K IN THE 0rF{Cc
fr' Lt
` c crc„T U iL
TC - .. N-.
r�r C
tl'r C' __ - IS _
�rL..c N tE GF THE
TITLE.
OF•P.ECDR010R IHE S &OROED,AieD
ND-'LD
ON T"c G'tB.ER'S CERTIFICATE OF
BOARD OF APPEAL
c1 Ad CiN of �ttlem, ttssrzr��zsetfs
J'l , dJ Pnarb of �Fpettl
PETITION OF PAUL EMELIAN, TRUSTEE OF P S J RUG ffffjI
ItJ
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 OSGOOD STREET, SALEM. LO U 17 fl
Q
A Public Hearing on this petition was held AugustL 4, 1985 with the
following Board Members present: James Hacker, Lff_jrman;_M�1s$Charnas,
Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing were properly
Published in' the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Law Chapter 4OA.
Petitioner, requests a special permit to allow him to convert the existing
two family dwelling into a three family dwelling. The premises, owner by
the PSS Realty Trust, is in on 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 IY, D, grant Special Permits for alterations
l . and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement,
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to
the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board, after learning the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the
following findings of fact.
1 . The premises can accommodate five (5) piggyback parking spaces;
2. Traffic and parking problems in the neighborhood will not be
substantially affected by the addition of one dwelling unit.
On the bases of the above findings of fact and on the evidence at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows;
1 . The petition can be granted without disjecting from the intent or
purpose of the Ordinance;
2. The proposed change to a three-family dwelling will not be
• \ substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood or public
good than the existing two (2) family dwelling.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the
relief requested, provided that;
PAGE 2
PETITION OF PAUL EMELIAN, TRUSTEE OF P S J REALTY TRUST, FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 OSGOOD STREET, SALEM.
1 . Not more than nor less than five (5) non-piggyback parking
spaces be maintained on the premises;
2. The premises be owner occupied;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
S 0'tt E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
Tr.S CE�IoiC'l, If A.'1', SHAU ° .:loc p .pg 'i 1.'S SECTION 17 OF THE
c �'._ c - DAPS k iEG. THC CA?E OF Fl:::io
C.`�f t' If.. C`- L A S Tt C; r^:
t c
111 LE.
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AI.D IW ED DIG
BOARD OF APPEAL .
;xi
12v14i
3
of 'Sttlrm, t assar4usetts �O
>3z � RFC-EI`Tn
Pourb of 'Apprttl
j '85 WR 30 P3 :03
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN JERMYN FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR 1 OUTLOOK AVE. , SALEM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM MASS.
A hearing on this petition was held April 17, 1985 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, owner of the premises, requests a Special Permit to allow him to build
a passive solar addition to his house as shown in plans filed with the petition.
As proposed, the addition in this R-1 district would violate front setback
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 k
in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in
accordance with the procedure and condition 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 opposition to the plan was presented;
2. The proposed addition will have a negligible affect
on 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 proposal will not be substantially more detrimental to the
public good than the existing nonconformity ( i.e. the density of
the lot) ;
• 2. This proposal does not derogate from the intent or purpose of the
Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN JERMYN FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 1 OUTLOOK AVE. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the
• I • ) Special Permit requested.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
02�
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
c'
>c-) TTl
rr
• :.nom � T,
i .pT W J
f7 �
rn W
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
. GEHEIAL 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. CE61`RAL LA7G. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NU] TiI;;E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, BEARING THE CERT-
FICATION OF THE Ci'1' CLEfi6 T:iA, 2:; DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED,
OR THAI, IF SIT,r. A'; 6.PPEA! H'.S PIE,, FILE THA; IT HAS BEEN DIS:,'•!SSED OR DENIED IS
RECOF.^_iO {!J 1'H= GJUiH ESSEX RE71Si RY DF AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RZLDRDED AND HDTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
i • ,
ofttlem, ttssttt!#use#ts
�oxra of '4VVd
DECISION ON 1HE PETITION OF ZENOBIE DAVIS FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 9 PEARL ST. , SALEM
A hedring on this petition was held �(j�1�l��emtLlrIq" 1155 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chaititian; Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Bencal, Acting Secr(rVry,:. Notice of the hearing was: sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were ., ro erly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance wittCirofficB� ral Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to converta
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 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 existin€ 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 . The Fire Dept. was opposed because of noncompliance with laws
relative tc installation of smoke detectors;
2. Vigorous neighborhood opposition;
3. Premises had been used as an illegal three family for some: time:;
4. Pearl Street is an extremely narrow and widely used street;
5. Added congestion.would only deteriote this precarious: situation.
On the basis of the at:ove findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The Special Permit requested in not in harmony with the neighborhood;
• \� 2. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good or without substantially derogating from the intent of
the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
,.1 DECISION ON THE PETITION (iF ZENOBIE DAVIS FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 9 PEARL :STREET, SALEM
page two
• j Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to cne 4-1 against granting
the Special Permit requested. Mr. Gauthier voted in favor.
SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED
James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BCARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• e
AFPE:�L FFSh THIS IS;11;, A:1Y. SH4U BE EL'3E PS"SUAHT TO SEC7MN 17 CF THE
GEI::RC.L :Alii. C"".PTE Ai .n..__ GE FF Ei' ...., 20 DAfS F.;'.., THE D,,= Cr Fu....
or,WS GEUSCr: IF: THE SS;'CE .,; THE CITY CLEF.
P - .,i TC: ,_ . _'._R '. L... 1 .5 EJB. SECT! 7: 11. E ✓,-,i,.�i211 P_,:^T
(r EE ...._ .. .... E E" _l.i L':11L n C'- 'F'• Or TI._ .. ,_
E
;F nr _ TILE, flit I h S ::,.. ,R _i :.i,: IS
F :E I„ ir:� ___TH E'SE' rE'.!:.i'. r' ___ „ A'o I: is :v':;E CF THE Ct_.
OF RECORD OR iS KL 6ROEO A:iJ NjrED Cr, TH.-- ERS CERTIFILTE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
I
e o
t qq 9
i
(flit ofIem, � �sstzt�jusetts
% Poarb of �ppeal
PETITION OF JANET DOUCETTE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
13 PEARL STREET, SALEM.
An 28 10 is AM 'BS
A Public Hearing on this petition was held August 14, 1985 with the following
Board Members present: James Hacker, ChairmA{LEfessrs, Charnas, Gauthier,
Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly publisheVMCI�WSa ��e ing News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the premises, requests a special permit to allow her 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 e
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
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 request
may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special
Permit will promote the Abulic 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 plans;
2. Traffic and parking problems in the neighborhood will not be
substantially affected by the addition of one dwelling unit.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the hearing, the Board concudes as follows:
1 . The petition can be granted with out disjecting from the intent
or purpose of the Ordinance;
2. The proposed change to a three family dwelling will not be substan-
tially more detrimental to the public good than the existing
two family.
PETITION OF JANET DOUCETTE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PAGE 2
i 13 PEARL STREET, SALEM.
Therefore the Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0, to grant the
• relief requested provided that;
1 . A minimim of five (5) non-piggyback parking spaces be maintained
on premises;
2. The premises be owner occupied;
3. A Cerifiicate of Occupance be obtained.
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
C.
(situ of Arm, ttssac4usetts
1= 3;
'Poarb of Appud
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT COHN FOR VARIANCE
FOR 56 PROCTOR ST. , SALEM `� ��r
A hearing on this petition was held November 6, NNBy Dwit�7 2�AT��Zowing Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier Luzinski and
Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutEand others and notices of the
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening N_ewsj{��g£dance with,
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. CITY
Petitioner is requesting variance from density, lot size and frontage in order
to construct a two car garage with an apartment above in this R-3 district.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing evidence presented and after viewing the plans
submitted, voted unanimously 5-0 to allow the petition Leave To Withdraw Without
•
Prejudice.
WITHDRAWN
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD ANT THE CITY CLERK
L'AN7 TO SECTION *OF THE K*A
aa;Y. SHALL FE MADE PJRSAFTER THE GATE OF FlUti�
APPEAL FRDiA
.IS
GEC131^ll. RK-.LL
BE RLED Vili H1N 20 DAYS u
502, P.i;D OF THE CITY CLERK. SPECIAL PE37(R
GENERAL LAV75. GHF.PTEn O;-ICE g^3, SECTJIi 11. THE VARIANCE OR .- THE CERT•
Of THIS DECIS'�D\ P;! THE r �.uAF7Efi Pl' 0' THE DECISIC';J.
1.`A� t E°cR L .� BEEN FILED.
PURSAN1 10 Tr,_E EFFECT U:�� L A AND NO APPEAL HAS
GRAN HERE:1: SH U ( - DA:r4 h. J l F.PSEO c OR DENIED IS
GRA,JTED cILE. THA' IT H,AS BEEN CIS',ISS.D c E OF THE OWNER
FICATION U'r THE L',7i GOER'' SiR DF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER TH. NA'"
.. GR THAT. IF SO-ti PN Ac"'r�-'- H-:S 6E"r
RECORDED Ct THE SCUiH ESSEX RE'..I THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
OF RECORO OR IS RECORDED AND IiGTEp ON
BOARD OF APPEAL
i- f�itu of �ttlem, ussttt�jusPtts
� "�� s �nxra.rrf �1�ettl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT MAGUIRE FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AND/OR VARIANCE FOR 63 PROCTOR ST. , SALEM
A Public Hearing on this petition was held August 14, 1985 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 Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit and/or a Variance to construct six (6)
townhouse units in this R-2 district. Property owned by O.F. Goldsmith Leather Co.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this recuest
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
Secion 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 Vartence wh%�h has been been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board t rfat: a
S a
a. acspecia� conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
-the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
N-affectYgg other lands, buildings and structures. in the same district;
L�
b. e:5-it*ralYenforcement of the provision of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
QolYe 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was neighborhood opposition;
/ •�, 2. The general area has a history of drainage problems;
3. Plans were not submitted complete.
100
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT MAGUIRE FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AND/OR VARIANCE FOR 63 PROCTOR 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 . Desired relief cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good or without substantially derogating from the intent or
purpose of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal by a vote of 5-0 denied the petitioner
the relief requested.
DENIED
/
, J`ames B. Hacker, Chai an
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
OW
DE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION.
IF ANY, SHALL BE MAAFTER THE DATE OF FILING
GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER GJB. AND SHALL BE FILED CLERK. 20 DAYS
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
PO PSANT TO M„'SS. GENERAL LA71S, CHAPTER BOB. S`_CTIJN 11. THE VAP.IAHCE OR SPECIAL ERTM
GRANTED H`_KAS SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A CCPY OF THE DECISION. BEARING THE CE
r;D APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED.
"i FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DI NCE^ETHE N4MEI OF is
THE OWNER ”
FICATION uF THE CITY CLERK THAT ^.0 DAYS HAYS ELAPSED Af"
OR THAT. IF SUCH AN A.°PEi: HS B=t' _LS AND INDEED U:'
RECORDED IN THE S`O�'-H ESSEX RR'EO YONrTHE�OWNER-S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
OF RECORD DR IS RECORDED AND BOARD OF APPEAL
�T
Titu of 15ttlem, Pttssar4usetts
dura of CAPPeal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MIKE KANTOROSINSKI (PETIT.IONER)
STANLEY KANTOROSINSKI (OWNER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
tQ4 PROCTOR ST. , SALEM
NOV t0 II 26 4M Its
A hearing on this petition was held November 6, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnaft�F&uthier, Luzinski and
Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notice f the
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News�r Vtc6`1^�AEVR �
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the first floor or the premises
to be- used as a doctors office in this R-2 district.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and condit:sons
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 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, and after viewing the plans of the property, makes the following findings
of fact:
1 . There was vigorous opposition presented tot he petitioners
plan by neighbors and others;
2. The character of the neighborhood is residential;
e the character
would tend to chap
3. Allowing the relief requested g
o a more commercial use;
of the neighborhood t ,
4. The premises is located at a dangerous and highly traveled intersection;
5. Allowing the relief requested would dangerously increase the traffic
there.
One 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 not be in harmony with the district;
2. The relief requested cannot be be granted without substantial
detriment to public good or without substantially derogating from
intent and purpose of the ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MIKE KANTOROSINSKI (PETITIONER) ,
STANLEY" KANTOROSINSKI (OWNER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
104 PROCTOR ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 against granting the
Special Permit requested.
SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
cti::LL 6E F1LED 'N:TE!Li ZD DAPS ArER THE C'•TE OF FIJi:C
A°F Elft THIS pECiSlDi4, IF P.!:Y, SHA!L BE MAC PL'fi$L1A`!T TO SECTICt7 17 OF THE FFIJ:.
�EH� LA"Vs, CFF. r.. Tt!E C1T CLERK.
C3
r
OF THIS p.0 SIGN IN TSdr
. r THE_ t =3T"
!
-.:. it _....
1 1. ii _ LF iiiE �l J.
F' -u rtic F rF-r L u FI 44p In ur'F� _
FS .-
R:L,C=;7ED lt. THE S,';-,Li ESSE) c .. c.; HE Ov
Or @ECORD OR IS R[GORDEp AnL trl-ED OI. 7Hc OVrWERS CcRTIF IL„�E Cr TI
A,
BOARD OF APPEAL
-�•I , ,N:IMW�
q
� Y
�Roxrb of �ppvd
• �LbT4�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BENJAMIN HERNANDO FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 47 RAVENNA AVENUE, SALEM
^^uu �
A hearing on this petition was held Decem% p 1V�5)'GIth L following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; ssrs. , Charnas, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the heara'rIg was sent to abutters and others
n were ro erl ublished in em Evening News in
and notices of the hearing p p Y p „ ,?Kph
Massachusetts General Laws ,.�A '
accordance with C��
Petitioner, owner of the property, requests a Variance from all applicable
density and setback requirements in`order to allow single family dwelling in
this R-1 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
•
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
provisions of the
Zoniin 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 . The presence of ledge on the premises makes it virtually
impossible and financially impractical to locate a single
family house in accordance with Ordinance setback and
density requirements.
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 this property but do
not generally affect other lands, buildings and structures in the
same district;
2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to petitioner; and
3. The relief requested may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from
the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
I �
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BENJAMIN HERNANDO FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 47 RAVENNA AVE. , SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning. Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the relief
requested, provided that:
1 . Rear setback, be 22' except that it be 13' at the deck depicted
on the plan submitted to the Board;
2. The dwelling only be used as a single family house;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained;
4. All laws relative to the installation of automatic
smoke detectors be complied with.
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, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MESS.
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
Gf THIS .O ECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PUGSAI:T TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11. THE VALIANCE OR SPECIAL P--',"T
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE CECT 57D!I. 6EAfi^:C THE CERT-
FICAT!SH GF THE CITY CLERS THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELA?SED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED,
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS`•!ISSED OR DENIED IS
RECCRCED IN THE SL'JTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA(:lE OF THE
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
0*7
y (fitU of jl�jttlem, ga9sar4nutts
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANA & CLAUDIA NICGORSKI FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 20 RAWLINS ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held June 26,Juudd wi2h56TeM f' owing Board Members
present: Edward Luzinski, Acting Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Strout and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hear%Ekas sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly putc�_inh�else Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Law Ch p er 4A.
Petitioners, owners of the premises, request a Variance from all applicable
density requirements to construct a 26' x 36' garage in this R-1 district, as
shown more particularly in a plan filed with the Board. The Variance requested
would allow lot coverage to be 37% instead of 30%, side yard setback to be five
feet instead of ten feet, and rear yard setback to be five feet instead of 30 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 or structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the 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 was presented to the plan;
2. The shape of the lot is uniques in the district, and presents an
adequate size garage from being built within the requirements of the
Ordinance;
3. Without a garage, the petitioners would suffer hardship because of
the decreased marketability of the lot.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at
the hearing, Board of appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would create a substantial
financial hardship on petitioners;
01
2. The above described special conditions which affect the lot are unique
to the lot and do not affect the district generally;
r
f
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANA & CLAUDIA NICGORSKI FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 20 RAWLINS ST. , SALEM
• J page two
/ 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 Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one, Mr. Bencal voting present,
to grant the relief requested, provided that:
1 . The entire premises conform to all applicable laws and regulations
regarding the installation of smoke detectors;
2. A minimum of five (5) parking spaces be maintained on site for
so long as the dwelling on the premises remains a three family dwelling.
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. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE TLASS.
GENERAL LAYS, CHAPTER SO2, AND SHALL BE FILED IY THIN 20 DAYS AR THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISIGI IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PUP.SANT TC UASS. CE', �. 1. CHAPTER FCS, SEC' C , 11 T?' \.? 6 OR SPET'HE
C-3,T.aT
GRANTED HERE;!:, SE;LL 1 1kr;E ZUOCT UNTIL A CCP`OF _F �___r.L Hi.S�EEESJ FILED,
FICATIOH OF THE CIT) CLEF" THAT 2D DAYS HAVE ELA._.D "`'' ;
T.:",c cr
OR THAT, IF SU;:H A't 2r'PEAI HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT Hcc:.. E`. OR nE`e:ED IS�.- .
RECORDED IN THE SODTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF LEEDS AND INDEXED OCC"cR 7r;E It1..1E OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
m w BOARD OF APPEAL
$
or
� W
� J
N
%
C
U
J J F
>C-) ro m
Trn c�
(IZitg of *Irm, efttssuchuortts ;� M 9DR
n N
aura of ral Cn
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN REALTY TRUST (PETITIONER)
JOSEPH G. RAGONE (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE AT 30 SWAMPSCOTT RD. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held March 27, 1985 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 security building to be used
for residential use in this Industrial 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;
enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
volveliteral
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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings
of fact:
1 . No opposition
2. Will improve the area;
3. Petitioner will provide his own security, therefore requiring less
frequent patrols by the City Police;
4. Financing agency for the petitioner requires twenty-four (24)
hour security;
5. Parcel of land is isolated thereby requiring around the clock security.
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 affect the. land
involved and which do not affect other lands, buildings or structures
in the same district;
l
, l
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN REALTY TRUST (PETITIONER)
JOSEPH G. RAGONE (.OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE FOR 30 SWAMPSCOTT RD. , SALEM
page two
• 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
volve 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 purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the
variance requested under the following terms and conditions:
1 . Plans be approved by the Planning Board;
2. Plans be approved by the conservation Commission;
3. Residential unit shall be for the sole purpose of security for the
proposed plan on file and will cease if it is not used concurrent with
the plans on file.
4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
VARIANCE GRANTED
James B. Hacker, Chairman
•
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
n
>" m
r r-
rtm
3� A iTl
Ci,
o r,
:nom N
C7 lT1
R7 l..t
APPEAL FRO11 THIS DE�IS!C N, !F A. iY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE MASS.
_ GENERAL LAWS, i;H G.P7-B ESS, AND SHALL BE FLED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
Cc THIS DECISION IN THE OFHCE OF THE CITY CLERK.
&U-?iRiiT TO S;F.SS. f-E:ER"i LA ?. CHAPTER 803, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
HEREL'd, SHALL 11:', i,l E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE^='ISI?.2. BEAB1iv L• T HE CERT
:q•_,;T ;N DF THE CIA �:!ERR� 1n:'J 2G DVS HIVE ELAPSE) NJ N. APPSAL HAS 2ED FILED,
LG :?';T. IF Si(-H fPPEAL HAS B'cF.N f:LE. THAF IT HdS 9EE'r! O!S•.-1SSEO OR !`EP9 E0 IS
RLIL;CDEJ IN THE ` uiH ESS`_A RE: ISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA,.
OF THE OWNER
OF KCORD OR IS R_',..:ROEC, AND NOSED ON THE OWNERS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
' �91
ftlitg of '*Irm, Angleachusetts
Poxra of '4FV l
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MCNEIL & ASSOCIATES FOR
VARIANCES FOR SZETELA LANE, SALEM DDu pp[[
A hearing on this petition was held July 24, 1989U%it� t�e�bR4bv�i�hg Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messr t�ff arnas, Gauthier, Strout and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing �`sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly publish&+Yi& e jEjMr ing News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting variances to allow construction of thirty six (36)
townhouse, multi-family condominium units, garages and clubhouse in this R-1
district. This property was formerly Memorial Drive/Essex St. Ext.
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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The petition was remanded back to the Board of Appeal by the
Salem Court;
2. There was neighborhood petition of most neighbors and all abutters
in favor of this petition;
3. This would not be a suitable area to be developed for single family
homes;
4. Would improve the area in general and clean up a dangerous area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions and circumstances 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
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MCNEIL & ASSOCIATES FOR
VARIANCES FOR SZETELA LANE, SALEM
page two
3. The Variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment
�• / to the public good and without substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the
petitioners the Variances requested on condition:
1 . All conditions set forth in the Purchase and Sale Agreement between
McNeil & Associates and the City of Salem are to be strictly
adhered to. (Copy attached)
2. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each unit;
3. All work must have Fire Department approval.
VARIANCE GRANTED
James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
r
APPEAL FROM THIS DECMN, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL IA9S, CHArm on AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OpF�pTHIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSANT TO R?$S. CV(MAL LABS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
GRANTED F150r, SKILL NOT TA;:E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, EEARz.NG THE CERT•
FICATWN OF THE CJTY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED,
OR THAT. IF W-4 AN APPEAL HAS DEEM FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN D01ZSE0 CR DENIED IS
REDME3 Lit TK SCUTR ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER
OF*MOM, CC LS RECD80ED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
• x
CONTRACT FOR SALE OF LAND
.� FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT, Made on this day of c�1
1985, by and
between City of Salem (Hereinafter called "City" ) , and McNeil & Associates ,
Inc. (Hereinafter called "Developer" ) .
WITNESSETH
_ The City wishes to sell its sur:;lus public property located at Memorial
Drive, Salem, Mass. , which was formerly used as a public health hospital (here-
inafter called "Property") , (See plan appearing herein as Exhibit A).
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Master Plan which projects a housing use
for the heretofore mentioned surplus property; and
WHEREAS, after a request for proposals was advertised , the above named
developer submitted a proposal fora residential conversion of the surplus
• public property; and
`
WHERE , said p Pert to be surplus and no longer re-
ro
_ AS property
, has been declared
qui-red as public property i by the City of Salem Department of Public Property.
.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Developer hereby convenant and agree
with each other as follows :
SECTION I . SALE: PURCHASE PRICE
Subject to all the terms , convenants , and conditions of the Agreement the
y to the Developer for , and the Developer will our
City will' sell the Propert -
chase the Property from theCity and pay therefor, Six Hundred Twenty-Five
Thousand Dollars ($625,000.00) , hereinafter called "Purchase Price" , to be
paid in cash or by certified check simultaneously with the delivery of the
Deed. conveying the Property to the Developer.
• SECTION 2. CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY deed to the
(a) Form_ of Deed-. The City shall convey title to the Property by
called "Deed" ) . The Developer shall ,
Developer without covenants (hereinafter
Y:i thin ne the title that the City is able to
30 days of this Agreement, exami
title
convey to determine whether or not said e is good, clear, marketable, and
insurable in accordance with the accepted standards for Title Examiners in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts . This Agreement is subject to Buyer obtaining a
e insuring fee title to the premises , free from all
policy of title insuranc
ces except as set forth in this Agreement, to be issued to the Buyer
encumbran .
1
by a recognized title insurance company in the standard ALTA owner ' s form.
Such policy must be free of any exceptions which would affect the market-
ability of residential condominiums on the site , except for,
(i ) Provisions of existing building and zoning laws providing the same
are consistent with Section 2(a ) and 4 (a) herein.
(ii ) Any liens for municipal betterments assessed after the date of the
delivery of the Deed.
Such conveyance and title shall , in addition to the conditions subsequent pro-
vided for in Section II hereof, and to all other conditions , covenants, and
restrictions set forth or referred to elsewhere in the Agreement be subject to
the following conditions : -
1 . ) The Developer shall comply with the conditions set forth by the City
Council vote dated April 25 . 1985.
2. ) The Developer shall complete the improvements in accordance with the
approved construction plans ;
3. ) The Developer shall comply with all applicable building and zoning laws ,
rules and regulations.
4 . ) The Developer agrees to construct a gravel pathway along the entire ocean
front perimeter of the subject , as shown on the approved site plan enti -
tled "Collins Cove Condominiums" dated March 22, 1983, Architects; Claude
Miquel�le Arch. Assoc. , an appropriate width, not less than four feet
wide, so as not to cause damage to the shoreline, which shall be open to
the public during the hours of 9:00 a .m. and sunset. The pathway ao:y be
gated at sunset. No picnicking , loitering , drinking of alcoholic bever-
ages , littering , motorcycling , or other such actions shall be allowed on
• this walkway or other public easements . No public boating, swimming,
fishing, sunbathing, or other such use shall be allowed on the property
in conjunction with the use of this walkway.
5. ) The Developer agrees to construct a new building with docking facilities ,
on the pier which is presently encumbered with a structure known as the
• Crow 11 Club. The Developer agrees to allow owners of the condominiums ,
residents of Salem and members of the Crow 11 Club to use the subject
pier facilities, at regularly scheduled hours , on a free basis , for the
sole purpose of providing access for small crafts to and from Collins
Cove. No public automobile parking or boat storage will be allowed on
2-
the pier unless approved in writing by the owner. The Developer further
` , agrees to lease a portion of the new structure to the Crow II Club. The
ill be based upon the actual cost of constructing,
rent for this space w
operating and maintaining the leased area.
6. ) The Developer shall maintain and preserve to the maximum extent possible ,
natural and topographical
natural stands of trees , and shall treat till
features in a manner designed to preserve the presently existing natural
conditions of the Property consistent with the approved construction plans .
B. ) The Developer shall in developing its design and site plans comply with
the procedures of the City of Salem Planning Board.
g. ) The Developer, prior to the date set for delivery of the. Deed shall have
prepared and received the approval of the City of Salem' s Building In-
spector of its final actual construction plans and related documentW
ably with-
he Building Inspector shall not be unreason
• which approval by
held , conditioned or delayed
rior to the date set for the
10. ) The Developer shall , no later than 30 days p
delivery of the Deed , submit to the City evidence of construction financ-
le
ing and/or equity com
te the improvements . The
capital , sufficient reement, means the improvements
term "improvements" as used in this Ag
approved by the City
defined in the final construction documents to be P
P
of Shcem Building Inspector. the Developer and ap-
rovenents proposed by
11. ) The construction of the imP 90 days after the
proved by the City shall be commenced within ninety l )
t forth herein and shall be completed in
date of delivery of the Deed se
approved plans. In the event the Deed is delivered to
accordance with
the Developer after the month oSeptember,tthe Developer shall have the
f
option to withhold the start of construction until March of the following
year.
12. ) The conveyance of the 9.72 acres of tidatheflats
use of saideflasubject
flats any,
easement to the C ty of Salem to permit
ently be used , including
and all purposes to which tidal flats may curr
• shall have the right, consistent %-lith the Zoning
clamming. The City It is
. Board of Appeals' approval , to purchase said flats for 51 .00.
understood and agreed that neither the City or Mctleil 8 Associates shall
fill the subject clam flats .
-3-
13.') No construction other than the docking facilities at the pier shall be
•� located or performed on or in the said flats , dredging shall be permitted ,
subject to approval by the appropriate authorities.
14. ) The Developer shall construct no more than 36 units with garages and a
clubhouse on the property.
15. ) The Developer agrees to reimburse the City Twenty-three Thousand Dollars
($23,000.00) for the demolition and removal of the old health hospital ,
provided all the approvals necessary to construct the proposed 36 condo-
miniums and 4lubhouse are granted.
16. ) The Developer will assume the cost of appraisals of the property in the
amount of Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($5,500:00) .
17. ) L The existing two-story, wooden building, known as the Crow II Club, will
be demolished by the Developer and replaced with a new clubhouse facility,
half of which will be leased to the Crow II Club pursuant to Section 2(2)5
of this Agreement.
18. ) The City agrees to cooperate with the Developer in obtaining moorings ,for
the subject condominiums pursuant to applicable rules and regulations .
19. ) All development will be limited to the 6. 95 acres of upland area contained
in the parcel .
20. ) The cemetery site will , as defined , be restored and retained in per-
petuity and public access will be allowed.
21 . ) Public access to beach areas, as defined , will not be denied.
22. ) Developer will grant to the City a 15-foot permanent and perpetual
easement along the eastern boundary from Memorial Drive to the water (or
the City will retain ownership in a 15-foot area along the eastern
boundary from Memorial Drive to the water) and place no restrictions on
• public access.
i
Developer will construct a gravel path along the entire shoreline and
grant the City a permanent and perpetual easement for public access to
said path (or the City will retain ownership in said path) .
24. ) The Developer and the City agree the aforementioned conditions , as well
• as the conditions in the original Agreement , shall be covenants running
with the land enforceable against the Developer and its successors and
assigns and so recited in the deed to the Developer.
25. ) The Developer shall cause to be prepared , by a qualified Massachusetts
Engineer or Surveyor, a .plan of the Property suitable for recording at the
Essex South District Registry of Deeds . Said plan is to be completed prior
to closing.
-4-
(b) Time and Place for Delivery and Acceptance of Deed. The City shall deliver
the Deed and possession of the Property to the Developer at 10:00 a .m. on
•for before four months from the date hereof, or at such other time or date
as the parties hereto may mutually agree in writing , and the Developer
shall thereupon accept„the Deed and join, as grantee, in the execution
thereof. Not withstanding anything to the contrary contained elsewhere in
this Agreement, upon the Developer's certification to City that all neces-
sary and relevant applications have been filed and actions taken and the
same are being diligently processed by the Developer, the time for the
performance by the Developer shall be automatically extended to the time
needed to complete the determinations defined in Section 4.
(c) Recordation of Deed. The Developer shall promptly file the Deed for re-
cordation among. the land records of the place in which the property is
situated. The Developer shall pay costs (including the cost of the state
• ; documentary stamp tax on the Deed, for which stamps in the proper amount
/ shall be affixed to the Deed by the Developer) for so recording the Deed.
SECTION 3. GOOD FAITH DEPOSIT
(a ) The Developer has , prior to or simultaneously with the execution of this
Agreement, delivered in escrow to the City a refundable Good Faith Deposit
of cash or certified check satisfactory to the City in the amount of
Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars hereinafter called "Deposit" .
Upon.the issuance of a valid building permit by the City, an additional
refundable Good Faith Deposit .of cash or certified check in the amount of
Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) shall be deposited with the
City in escrow. These deposits shall be ( 1 ) applied to Purchase Price at
the time set for conveyance of the Deed in Section 2(b) ; (2) or refundable
to the Developer pursuant to Sections 2(a) , 4 , and 11 hereof; or (3) be
• retained by the City as liquidated damages in accordance with Section llb
as the case may be.
SECTION 4 . ZONINGFINANCING, AND OTHER R DETE
RMI
Iv AT
IONS
,
Developer' s performance of this agreement is subject to the following con-
• ditions: (a ) The final approval of all applicable and/or relevant authorities
of all the subdivision and/or site plans and other applications necessary
for the Developer to develop the subject premises to a condominium community
for a minimum of 36 residential units , (and the expiration of all appeal
periods and no appeals being taken) . This Agreement is subject to approval
pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. , Ch 131 , S . 40, as amended)
-5-
and the Army Corps of Engineers if applicable, and the availability of
1 public utilities. This Agreement is subject to and contingent upon the
Developer being able to obtain a mortgage commitment in the amount suffi -
cient to support the construction of the approved plans and specifications ,
and funds being available at the closing for a first mortgage for a con-
struction and permanent loan at prevailing market rates , not to exceed 14%
from a bank, insurance company, or similar institution.
(b) The Crow II Club shall vacate the property simultaneously with the
transfer of title referred to herein until such time as the occupancy
permit for the new structure is issued and applicable leases executed.
(c) It is understood by both parties that the Power Plant is in the
process of converting to coal . It is recognized that the Power Plant may
have a significant adverse impact on the ability of McNeil & Associates
to market the proposed condominiums . McNeil & Associates , Inc . shall
have the right, for a period of sixty (60) days from the date this Agree-
-
ment is executed, to analyze the impact of the conversion to coal at the
Power Plant, and determine whether or not said impact is too adverse as
to cause the proposal to be unfeasible. In the event McNeil & Associates
determines said impact to be significantly adverse, which determination
shall be notified in writing and this Agreement shall be amended by mutual
agreement within thirty (30) days or, at the Developer' s option, all
Depokits shall be forthwith returned and this Agreement shall become null
and`void. Neither party shall have recourse against the other.
SECTION 5. DEVELOPER'S OBLIGATIONS TO RUN WITH THE LAND
The Developer agrees of itself, its successors and assigns , and every suc-
cessor in interest to the Property, or any part thereof, and the Deed
• shall contain covenants on the part of the Developer for itself and its
successors and assigns , shall promptly begin and diligently complete the
Development of the Property. It is intended and agreed , and the Deed
shall so expressly provide, that these agreements and covenants shall be
covenants running with the land, binding for the benefit of the City, and
• enforceable by the City against the Developer and its successors and
assigns to or of the Property or any interest therein.
SECTION 6. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
Promptly after completion of the construction of the improvements in
accordance with this Agreement, the Building Inspector of the City will
furnish the Developer with an appropriate instrument so certifying. The
Certification by the Building Inspector shall be (and it shall be so
-6-
r
provided in the Deed and in the Certification itself) a conclusive deter-
mination of satisfaction and termination of the covenants in the Agreement
and the Deed with respect to the obligations of the. Developer and its
successors and assigns to construct the Improvements. The Certification
shall be in such form as will enable it to be recorded , If the Building
'rrrlwc. ci 4'i l io prow:de' fly cc;hF,cmi�c� 4.c V4;�d.�r,� In5(Xctoc
Inspector shall`; within twenty (20) days after written request by the
Developer, provide the Developer with a written statement indicating in
adequate detail how the Developer has failed to complete the construction
of the Improvements in conformity with the applicable City of Salem Zoning
Ordinance, Building Code or this Agreement, or is otherwise in default,
and what measures or acts it will be necessary, in the opinion of the
City, for the Developer to take or perform in order to obtain the certifi -
cation. Such certification and such determination shall not constitute
evidence of compliance with or satisfaction of any obligation of the
_ ) Developer to any holder of a mortgage, or any insurer of a mortgage,
/ securing money loaned to- finance the Improvements or any part thereof.,
oci a pdn c�
Said Certification shall not be a requirement relative to the sale�of
individual units during construction, provided the Developer is proceeding
with the construction, consistent with market conditions. Oco,fl ey er,nf;rcleyr+rF ao
6e �Lecl cam .nr� b-s icQ/ un•YS
SECTION 7. NON-DISCRIMINATION ar" c 'nf °few
The Developer agrees for itself, and its successors and assigns , and every
successor in interest to the Property, or any part thereof, and the Deed
shall contain covenants on the part of the Developer for itself, and its
successors and assigns , that the Developer and its successors and assigns
shall not discriminate upon the basis or race, color, creed , or national
origin in the sale , lease, or rental or in the use or occupancy of the
Property of any improvements located or to be erected thereon, or any
part thereof.
SECTION 8. COVENANTS BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST:
PERIOD OF DURATION
It is intended and agreed, and the Deed shill so expressly provide , that
• the covenants provided in Section 21 5, and 7 shall be covenants running
with the land binding to the fullest extent permitted by the law and
U
equity for the benefit and in favor of, and enforceable by the City. It
is further intended and agreed that the covenant provided in Section 7
shall remain in effect without limitation as to time .
-7-
tLCTIGN 9. .MORTGAGEES NOT OBLIGATED TO CONSTRUCT
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Agreement, including but
• not limited to those which are intended to be covenants running with the
land , the holder of any mortgage authorized by this Agreement ( including
any holder who obtains title to the Property or any part thereof, but not
including (2) any other party who thereafter obtains title to the Property
or such part from or through such holder or (b) any other purchaser at
foreclosure sale other than the holder of the mortgage itself) shall not
be obligated by the provision of this Agreement to construct or complete
the construction, nor shall any covenant or any other provision in the
Deed be construed to so obligate such holder. Nothing in this Section or
any other Section or provision of the Agreement shall be deemed or con-
strued to require any such holder to devote the Property or any part
thereof to any uses or improvements provided or permitted in the City of
Salem Zoning Ordinance, and this Agreement.
• SECTION 10. ENFORCED DELAY IN PERFORMANCE
Neither the Developer, nor any successor in interest, shall be considered
in breach , or default of, its obligations with respect to the preparation
of the property for development or the commencement and completion of
construction of the Improvements , in the event of enforced delay in the
performance of such obligations due to unforseeable cause beyond its control
and w4thout its fault or negligence. The time for the performance of the
obligations shall be extended for the period of the enforced delay, as
determined by the Building Inspector, if the party seeking the extension
shall request it in writing of the other party within twenty (20) days
after the beginning of the enforced delay.
_ SECTION 11. REMEDIES
• (a) In General . Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, in the
event of any default. in or breach of the Agreement, or any of its terms
and conditions , by either party hereto, or any successor to such party,
such party (or successor) shall , upon written notice from the other,
proceed immediately to cure or. remedy such default or breach, and , in
• any event, within sixty (60) days after receipt of such notice. In case
such action is not taken or not diligently pursued , or the default or
breach shall not be cured or remedied within a reasonable time , the
aggrieved party may institute such proceedings as may be necessary or
desirable in its opinion to cure and remedy such default or breach ,
-8-
1,
including, but not limited to, proceedings to compel specific performance
• by the party in default or breach of its obligations .
(b) Prior to Conveyance. In the event that prior to the conveyance of
the property to the Developer from the City, the Developer assigns or
attempts to assign this Agreement or any rights hereunder, to an entity
not controlled by the Developer, or there is any substantial change in the
ownership or distribution of the stock of the Developer or with respect to
the identity of the parties in control of the Developer or the degree
thereof, or the Developer fails to pay the Purchase Price and take title
to the Property upon tender of conveyance by the City, or fails to comply
with the conditions set forth in Section 2 herein, then this Agreement
and any rights of the Developer in this Agreement may at the option of
the City be terminated by the City provided that the Ctiy has given the
• ' Developer thirty (30) days notice to enable the Developer to comply with
the applicable provisions , and the Deposit retained by the City as
liquidated damages , and retention of such deposit shall be the City' s
sole and exclusive remedy. In the event that the Developer is unable,
after diligent effort to comply with Section 2(al , 4 , and 14 , herein,
then this Agreement, shall at the option of the Developer be terminated
by the Developer and the Deposit returned without interest, to the
Developer, and this Agreement shall be null and void , and neither party
shall have recourse against the other.
SECTION 12. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: CITY ' S REPRESENTATIVES NOT INDIVIDUALLY LIABLE
No member, official , or employee of the City shall have any personal interest
in this Agreement, nor shall any such member , official , or employee partici -
pate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects his personal .
interests or the interests of any corporation , partnership or association in
which he is , directly or indirectly, interested. No member , official or
employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Developer or any
successors or any obligation under the terms of this Agreement.
SECTION 13. PROVISIONS NOT MERGED WITH DEED
• No Provision of the Ayreemen.t is intended to or shall be merged by reason
of any deed transferring title to the Property from the City to the
'�.
Developer, or any successor in interest , and any such deed shall not be
deemed to affect or impair the provisions and covenants of this Agreement.
-9-
;:. SECTION 14. CONDITIONS
• The performance of the Developer of the Terms and Conditions set forth
herein are conditioned upon the following :
The granting by the authorized municipal boards or officials of all
permits and/or variances necessary for the completion of the construction
of the project.
SECTION 15. MUTUAL RELEASES
Upon delivery. and acceptance of the deed as outlined in Section 2(b) , the
City and the Developer agree to execute mutual releases absolving each
other from any liability which may have occurred in the past regarding
prior agreements regarding the Property.
SECTION 16. COUNTERPARTS.
The Agreement is executed in six counterparts , each of which shall -con-
stitute one and the same instrument.
• IN WITNESS THEREOF, the City has caused this Agreement to be duly executed
in its name and behalf by the Mayor and its seal to be hereunto duly
affixed and attested and the Developer has signed and sealed the same on
or as of the day and year first above written.
ATTEST CITY OF SALEM
IN THE PRESENCE OF: BY:
Anthony V. Sa vo , Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: McNEIL &ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
4Mticha'elE. O' Brie Alexander H. 1 , resident
City Solicitor
•
-10-
(�i#u of �$ttlem, Attssttc!#use##s
�> w
' • �i3axrD of ��ettl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GWETHALYN JONES FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 6 UPHAM ST. , SALEM
't t
lowing Board
December 4 19 w g
A hearing on this petition was held ��{{ ��nn Q�
Chairman; Mes �A Ch�4:7�s, Luzinski, Strout and
Members present: James Hacker, Ch k�•b�
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing wa§ sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly publi§H&*in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws ChapCt' ,V £404" c;try,105V
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to extend
nonconforming rear setback in order to construct stairway 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 termss 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
plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Stairway will be no closer than existing structure;
2. Building is currently used as a two family and will continue
to be used as such;
3. Vigorous opposition to expanding the house to a three family;
4. By adding this, m
eans of egress the
structure will conform to the
City of Salem and State Fire Codes.
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 relief requested be ranted without creating a substantial
questecan g
detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating
from or nullifying the intent or purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GWETHALYN JONES. FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 6 UPHAM ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief
requested, provided that:
T. Staircase to be no closer that six feet (61 ) from the rear lot line;
I
2. Staircase will descend to a landing then make a 90 degree turn into
the petitioners rear yard. as not to allow egress through abutters
property;
3. A Building Permit 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 FROM THIS DECISION, IF AN'Y. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE L:7:Sz
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 8J8, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF Fi C:;.;
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURS!::.T TO !SACS. CENERA_ LAWS, CHAPTER "05, SECT-2i :4 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL FE,
G2A:�TED HEREIN. SHALL NC7 ?r.KE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDFC'SIC", SEARING THE CERT- '
FICATIJN Of THE C!it CLERK THF': 20 DAYS HAVE E'_APSED AND NO APPEAL HAS QEEN F!'-Er.OR 7H ',, !F SUCH AN APPEAL HAS EEEN hLE, THAT IT HAS BEEN 013 11SSE0 CR GEN;ED IS
RECJROED IN THE SO'u,H ESSEX RECISTRI. OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE fWAE OF THE C-";
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O'WNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
r ( i# of �ttlem, � Ssttcuse##s --4
G >�
_ >r,
_4 �J F �II�IZT Df ��1EII1 �mjn Tm
•\I�CUII�4 RT$r ~� N 1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL & NANCY GALLO FOR n "'
:n� N
A .VARIANCE AT VALLEY STREET WAY=.REAR;=SALEM CA
A hearing on this petition was held on April 17, 1985 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.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance from all applicable
density requirements in order to construct a single family dwelling on this under
sized lot 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 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; 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of
fact:
1 . No opposition;
2. A petition was submitted signed by many of the neighbors and all
the abutters in favor;
3. Lot size is approximately the same size as other lots 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 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or stiructure involved and which are not generally affecting
other lands, buildings or structures in the `same district;
n DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL & NANCY GALLO FOR
A VARIANCE FOR VALLEY STREET WAY (REAR) , SALEM
page two
• 2.. 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.
3. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 0 to grant the
petitioner the relief requested under the following termsandconditions:
1 . Building be a single family dwelling;
2. Petitioner will maintain and install all utilities on the private way;
3. In no way is the City of Salem responsible for maintaining said private
way at any time;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained;
5. Building to done according to plans submitted to the Board;
6. Plans to be provided to the Fire Prevention Bureau;
7. Petitioner obtain correct address and submit to the Fire Marshal.
• VARIANCE GRANTED
James B. Hacker, ChairmaID
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
E?
IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. --i �
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, S
CENERAL LAMS, CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED 17+7 HIIJ 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILIfrO S.'? 7n
rr
OF THIS CECISiJN II! THE OFflCE OF THE�CITfS Cy ERK, 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER':!iT frim T
F9RSfi:;T TO F.i.ASS. EE?:ERAL LAClS, CHAPTER 08, 3= IV
TA:. d
i ..E' H 'RE .. eH=.!L NC '1E EFFECT UNTIL A C PY 0` THE °w[!, BE - TH C.ER '
OF THE CIT, CLER.( I + 20 DAYS HA ELAP" +u EEk D°. ISSE DH HAS
-,:;IE- IS C
OR THAT, IF SO'- AF. APPEr"- H..$ •`p E. ' I;.GD INDEXED Du DZR THE ,A JE OF THE'r7,NE: �� fJ
RECOF:DED IN THE SO'IiH ESSE`: REGIS?RP LF :1 cECS _ -,.n
OF
O
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NO7EU DN THE 07,'Iv'ER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. rTl
BOARD OF APPEAL
9
I /O�
Tifg of obttlPm, ttssttthase s
v � Paxrb of ' 1Fv ttl
LO
r W
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAURENT J.BEDARD fOR 3
VARIANCES FOR 17 VERDON ST. , SALEM b. m
N cn
A hearing on this petition was held May 15, 1985 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 notice of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the premises, requests a variance from lot size in order to
divide a parcel of land into three lots, none of which will have the required
15,000 square feet. The lot is 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 or 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 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 raised to the plan;
2. The existing 28,000 square foot lot is very much larger than any
lot in the immediate- area;
3. The lot is too large to be marketed for construction of a single
family house in this particular area;
4. Without the requested variance, petitioner will suffer financial hardship;
5. This situation is unique to this lot and does not generally affect the
district;
6. The neighborhood will not be affected substantially by the dividing
this lot into three smaller lots.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAURENT J. BEDARD FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 17 VERDON ST. , SALEM
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 . Special conditions affect this lot which do not generally affect the
district;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship
upon petitioner;
3. The 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 unanimousl 5-0 to grant the
Variance requested by petitioner.
VARIANCE REQUESTED
zv
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
=+ r n
� m <
r c.o
rr,
x
a
r W
_ m %.0
t �
Z 3'
s
H m
vt
APPEAL FR01: THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PL'SSUA";T TO SECTION 17 OF THE r.SASS.
GENERAL LATS. CHAPTER 805, AND SHALL BE FILED ViITHIN �D DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLEF.',,.
PURSANT TO LASS. CENERA'_ L?::;5. CHAPTER 803, S7C i"'. C�Tu HErVAR,AN CIErc9 SPECIAL PER-
CPi O �_�1..r„iL _ ;NITS THE CERT'
GRAN?ED HEREiiv', SHALL (12i T;.SE EFFECT Ui�TIL ALC t__D ,C ,iC A'PEAL HRS BEE'J MED,
a FICATION OF THE CFiY CLERri 1PAT 2D CAPS F'='dE 5_.fJ C15:.;SS C C3 0`_'d "D IS
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HIPS 6--EN PILE, THAT IT HAS -
RECORDED 1N THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AIiD iS:CEXED UF;CER THE NAI.;E OF THE DI'INER
9F RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OVlNER'S CERTIFICATE Of TITLE.
r BOARD OF APPEAL
rj.
G�T C�
U.it�T of �2IIPItt� �ZI85tit�liSPttS
.3 h
e 9
J �5IIttta of c4pu
PETITION OF CYNTHIA ROWE AND MICHAEL ANGERAME FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR 20 WALTER STREET, SALEM.
Q��
A Public Hearing on this petition was held August 85 with the following
Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; MepjLiEso Charnas, Gauthier,
Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published in LILY C4i"sm'`1(v91iM 1§ews in
accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the premises, request a special permit to allow them to
construct a second story catwalk and a spiral staircase addition to the
already nonconforming premises which would violate rear setback requirements of
the Ordianance. See the plans filed with the Board for this proposal 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
recon-struction of nonconforming structures, and. for changes, enlargement, extension
or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided,
however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be
substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the
neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public
health, safety, convenience and welfare 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 present to the plan;
2. The plan would not substantially affect the neighborhood in anyway.
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 . The petition can be granted without disjecting from the intent
and purpose of the Ordinance;
2. The proposed extention of the nonconforming rear setback will
not be substantially more detrimental to the public good than
• the existing structure.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the special
PETITION OF CYNTHIA ROWE AND MICHAEL ANGERAME FOR A PAGE 2
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 20 WALTER STREET, . SALEM.
permit requested to build the addition described in the plans
filed with the Board of Appeal.
Scott E. Charnas, Secreta y
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
L.0.
Sh.y.L t7 t "c iF
FI Ai'�"i Ci WLGC t.\S 'Gt L. t r ,J E ,.I. 'l L L c THE O.KPic.B
si F. F,Pte. t- 6L F CF.c r iTLE.
Cn r c. ^.Jtny ESS' L: � ' Ra .,L., C" ,.
IHC
lie T.�_ ,t NU [.': Ult '
- 'F.D
LD FtiD
D1 F.-Gu6D DH lS f:w� BOF"nD OF APPEAL'
f
('gi#u of Salem, ttssttcltuse##s
Poxra of '4PVd
rO(nT.�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS LEE BREZINA FOR
A SPECIAL. PERMIT FOR 9 WARREN STREETCOURT, SALEM
A he on this petition was held W&er2ii� ?483CC ith the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Cha:irmag; Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinski, St.rcut. and
Associate Member Bercal, Acting SecAA?y. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of t1i�t} ar;�ng4��q gperly published in the
Salem Evening News in ac.cordar:ce wit Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioner, owner of the premises, requests a Special Permit tc allow the
premises to be used as a Podiatry Office plus two dwelling units 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 tc the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in :accordance with the procedure and conditions
set forth in Section VIII F and I:i L, grant Special Permits for
alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for
r
changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming; lots,
• land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change,
extension, expansi.cn or enlargement shall not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Bcard 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 nresented at the hearing and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Support for the plan was voiced by many neighbors,
abutters and others;
2. The plan, as submitted, will not decrease rental housing stock;
3. There was no opposition voiced to the 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 . Petitioners plan will not be substantially detrimental to
the public good;
• \` 2. The plan does not substantially derogate from or nullify the
intent and purpose of the Ordinance.
_._ -------
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS LEE `BREZINA FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 9 WARREN STREET COURT, SALEM
page two ,
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the relief
requested subject .to the following conditions:
I
1 . The premises must be owner occupied;
2. The podiatry office may occupy the first floor only;
3. Hours of operation are to be 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ,
Monday through Friday only. No evening or weekend hours
are allowed.
4. Three parking spaces must be maintained on the premises for'use
of the professional employees;
5. Smoke and Fire detectors must be approved by the Salem Fire Department;
6. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED /)
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 ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE V:.cS
GENERAL LAe1S, CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF Fl LiiiG
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. `
PL'RSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECibd. P=StHT
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISIDN. BEARING THE CEET-
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 R HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE O''NER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. -
BOARD OF APPEAL
i
Poarb of 'A'VPEA
YJ
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ESSEX INSTITUTE FOR A VARIANCE
FOR 13 WASHINGTON SQUARE WEST, SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held February 20, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski, Associate
Members Bencal & 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, the Essex Institute, requests a Variance to allow it to use the first
floor of the historic Andrew Safford House for commercial,office space. Petitioner
owns the premises, which is in an R-2 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted "upon a finding of the Board
that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would 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, makes
the following findings of fact:
1 . The Essex Institute, a key cultural and educational asset to the City,;
will find it exceedingly difficult if not impossible to maintain its
existence .without utilizing some of its property, at least on a temporary
basis, to produce income;
2. This situation is unique to the district;
3. Commercial buildings already surround the premises;
4. Parking in the area will not be substantially affected, particularly
in view of the fact that petitioner will maintain six (6) parking
spaces on premises;
5. No meaningful opposition was presented to the 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 affect the premises which do not
generally affect the district;
PETITION OF ESSEX INSTITUTE FOR A VARIANCE
FOR 13 WASHINGTON SO. W. , SALEM
page two
' ` • 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would work a substantial
hardship upon petitioner;
3. The Variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 - 0 to grant the
petitioner the Variance requested, provided that:
1 . Petitioner install and/or update the automatic fire alarm system
as required by applicable law;
2. The Variance expires five (5) years from the date of filing of this
decision;
3. Six (6) on-premises parking spaces be maintained at all time.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
•) A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPE9C FRO", THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE-NADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE I::ASS.
1 _ GEITERAL LADS, CHAPTER 80G, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF T_6!S DEC:1'3;J IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PJFZ, TO ia....S. dE: _.'-..,! Iq'."S. CI'SPTER 80S. SECT ION 11, THE VARIA7iCE OR SPEC;q PERMIT
GEJ: E) HEG E�'.. SHJLL N.,'," TAC[` EFFECT U.,TIL A COPY OF THE CEC13:C i:, EEA.;N: Tn_ CERT-
FICA;;-1;
OF THE LIT,' CLE H.'; ,r.,.T 20 DA: r,,.' -
.. "LAPSED 'd;D NO FPPE.AL HAS
OR THAT, IF SGCH J... EPPEAL Hd.;i cEC;S Fill'THAT IT HAS SE_i: DIS::I$SED CR D`c;i,E) IS
RECORDED IN THE SCUTH ESSEX RE3ISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA:JE OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECGRDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
L ca
— lT:
E7 iSi
C /a6
GT} of
'Salem
I �'1itI5�2ILn�lYSP�
R
PIIarb of �F £211
� � t
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL & MARGARET O" )OLE F04F:
A SPECIAL PER11IT FOR 50-50i WEBB ST. , SALEM a, �
A hearing on this petition was held on June 26, 1985 with theCfollow,ng Board
Members present: Edward Beki,
Acting Chairman; Messrs. ,
Strout and Associate Memberer Bencal. Notice the
ublishedginwas
the Salem Ent to venings and
others and notices of the hearing were properly P
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A.
Special Permit to convert an existing two family into a
est a S r ��;
request P petitioners.
Petitioners _ ict is owned by pei
The remises in this R 2 distr
three family. Th P
.. fiance
which is applicable to this request
Of the Salem Zoning
Ord
The provision 1
for a Sp
ecial V B 1Permit is Section , 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
Permits
forth in Section VIII F nad IX D, grant Sp
ecial for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming
structures, and for changes, enlargementextension or
,
• expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures,
extension,
and uses, provided, however, that such change,ex ansion shall not be substantially
more
enlargement or p
`in
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
ermit will promote the public health,
by the Board that the grant of the Special P
safety, convenience and welfare of the City' s inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes
the following finding of fact:
1 . No opposition was presented to the plan;
2. The traffic and parking on Webb St. and the neighborhood
will riot be significally affected;
3. The premises will be owner occupied.
On the basis of the above finealgnd on e evidence presented at
concludes asfollows
the hearing, the Board of App
f 1 . The proposed use of the property as a three unit building will
not be substantially more detrimental to the public good or to
the neighborhood than the existing two unit use;
2. The proposed use as a three unit building is in harmony with
the purpose and intent of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL & MARGARET O'TOOLE FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 50-501 WEBB ST. , SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the Special
I
Permit requested, provided that:
1 . On site parking be moved to two feet from the property-line
bordering lot 227 on the plan filed with the Board;
2. A minimum of five parking spaces be maintained on site;
3. The premises be owner occupied;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary '
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
- OF THE I�ASC*
s
""PDE PURSUANT TO SECTIO THE DATE OF FILtWG
- IF ALY. SHALL E. DAYS AFTER
o kSD SHALL EE F''.LED �"M"BJ 2C
APPEAL FROM, THIS DECISIOIt, rc c SvE'..IAL PEP.'.IT
CENER4L LAYS. CHFPiE�, SOS, v OF THE CITY CL-� K. r C' '
DEC'.SIGN IN THE p•.'^_ _c c,„ SESiIQ; ?1. IH._
OF ThIS Cckc- .
Ii ., ,....SS CGJERk'. 1A c.,_rT J".L P C`:FYhP... E':j FD.ED.
F R
SH'Lt 1
C4. ,� F� H. CI LL+.. _ y cJ 'A.f; v ; L. c I D
.R
T 'A1 W r'A - a\D It ;.ED LIN, iFE NA,�E Ci TRE C'!r
R
CR THAT IF SJCh A N APP.�= n ISiRY TITLE.
RECLRDED I.J THE'SC'IH ESS A^p tfGIEO ON THE OWNER'S LERTIFICATE Of
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED BOARD OF APPEAL -
L�;07
(gi#g of �$aJVM, � ttssttc�juse#ts
x
RECEIVED
F Foam of �Ppvd
'85 W 30 P3 :04
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHLEEN KEEFE-TERNES AND
LLOYD TERNES (PETITIONERS) , PHYLLIS SPILIOTIS (OWNM)f CLEWS OFFICE
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 81 WEBB ST. , SALEM SALEM MASS
A hearing on this petition was held April 24, 1985 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.
Petitioners request a Special Permit to allow them to use the premises as a
combination one unit dwelling and veterinary clinic for cats. The premises, in
an R-2 district, is owned by Phyllis E. Spiliotis and is currently used as a
dwelling/beauty salon.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 11 , 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 . The proposed use of the premises will not significantly increase
traffic congestion or parking problems in the neighborhood beyond
that caused by its present use as a dwelling/beauty salon;
2. The proposed use of the the premises will not result in any
significant increase in noise in the neighborhood beyond that
caused by its present use as a dwelling/beauty salon;
/ 3. The proposed use is not a veterinary hospital as defined in the
Ordinance, because the subject building will not be used soley
for the medical or surgical treatment of animals, reptiles or
birds. It will also be used as a dwelling as proposed by petitioners.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHLEEN KEEFE TERNES &
LLOYD TERNES FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 81 WEBB ST. , SALEM
page two
• 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 proposed use will not be substantially more detrimental to
the public good than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood;
2. The proposed use will not nullify nor will it substantially derogate
from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance;
3. The proposed use does not or will not constitute an unreasonable increase
in the degree of use of the premises over its current use.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 - 1 (Mr. Luzinski voted against) to.
grant the relief requested, provided that:
1 . The veterinary clinc may be open to the public or customers of the clinic
withing the following hours only (except for medical emergencies) :
a. 8:45 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on three weedays per week;
b. 8:45 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on two weekdays per week;
c. 8:45 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays;
2. A minimum of six (6) on site parking spaces be maintained at all times;
• 3. Driveway in rear be crushed stone;
4. Maximum of one veterinary and three employees be on premises at one time;
5• Landscaping be done in accordance with plan submitted to the Board;
6. Any signs advertising the business be affixed to the building itself and
be no more than 18" x 32" and unlit;
7. Smoke detectors be installed in a configuration appropriate for mixed
plans for installation be provided to the Salem Fire
occupancy and p s
Prevention Bureau prior to start of work;
8. Basement to be used for storage only;
--I 89
9. Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
N X
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED 3 z wo E?1
.x j
Scott E. Charnas, Secreta% la
A tlP4EC�6�p1E'NTgIVY'DPM6BDg.A•WUIY-FP ANSDITA`VKS IBEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
-- 'C ,��-q� LOFFSHALL BE FILED IY^ni."i 20 DAYS AFTER 1H D:';:= L. _
THE
i
_. .` TH ICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
�� •' _. .. !_ I-PA S. CHAPTER, SOS, SECTION 11. THE VA'IA7(CE
`(E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECI`_'G::.
_LFII>. "LJ DAYS HAVE EL'..-SED AND I",
:.''.L Hi- FILE, THAT IT H=.S SEUi LR C E'i !:i
.:::%. REGISI':; OF DEEDS AND INDEXED Ufi JE P, THE iiAJi`_ OFiLE .,..
OF RECORD OR IS ...... '.N) NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
cn• :a /Df�
r` Tito of "ittlPm, tt stttljusetts a
3 Pnxra of �JVVz
n� asrn
rn
• r. r i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE WINTER ISLAND COMMISSION 51M
THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT Fj�fP Tv
50 WINTER ISLAND ROAD, SALEM o
m
A hearing on this petition was held on April 17, 1985 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 accord-
ance with Massachusetts General Laws. Chapter 40A.
The Winter Island Commission and the Park & Recreation Commission, as Petitioner,
has requested a Special Permit to allow overnight camping by not more than sixty (60)
recreational vehicles on Winter Island during the summer months. Winter Island is
located .in an R-1 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 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 . A prior request to this Board resulted in the granting of a Special Permit
allowing overnight camping at the site. That Permit expired October 1 , 1984;
2. The proposed use of the site will in no way limit the public's access to
the site and the revenue generated by the proposed use will benefit the
City and provide funds which will allow greater access by the public to
Winter Island.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal, concluded 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 5 - 0 in favor of granting the
Special Permit to petitioner.
The Special Permit is granted in accordance with the following terms and conditions:
1 . Overnight camping of not more than 60 recreational vehicles at one time
shall be permitted at Winter Island during the period May 1 to October 15,198
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;
3. Written approval from the Park & Recreation Commission be submitted to
the Board of Appeal
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, I ANY SHALL BE FADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE LASS.
GEN`"^-1 1A,7S, CFAPT.P ZOS F D SH!,LL BE F;IED 1 ITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE 9qILING
LE r, THE OFF!-'E CF THE CITY CLERK:
• ASS _E,; k4 V..S. CW. ER 858, SECJo'! 11 THE \ %, ° OR Seoamas :5. Hacker, Chair an
SHA ,LL i' . c F'. T :TIL A COPY OF ,H° <E IS: THE :T
11 ;, , tEE'f� �' LEED;tIIf9. THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
9Pi 'i HFT. IF S'tl:H B.i! APPEAL E... E_E:. F:LE. h,�. iT t'-'S o_E. D.:i.bi_D ,R C <I!D IS
REL_^RDED IN THE S:9':H ESSEY REGIS'RY' OF DEEB, A;iD INDEr:ED UG-ER THE iM6 E OF THE OY1NE'
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. a
BOARD OF APPEAL
FA /09
�b fgitg of ulem, ttssttc�u�etts
mm a n
v'
ono -p i.1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE WINTER ISLAND COMMISSION m c
FOR A VARIANCE AT 50 WINTER ISLAND ROAD, SALEM (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held on January 16,- 1985 and continued until
March 20, 1985. The following Board Members were present: James Hacker, Chairman;
Associate Member Richard A. Bencal, Acting Secretary; Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinski
and Strout. Notice of the original hearing was sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioner has requested a Variance to allow the hangar at 50 Winter Island
Road to be used for storage and work space for various tenants in this R-1 zone.
After hearing the petition and allowing the petitioner time to work out questions
and problems which aroused during the original hearing the Board voted 5 - 0 to
allow the petitioner to Withdraw Without Prejudice the aforementioned petition.
WITHDRAWN
Richard A. Benca , Acting Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS�DECISION, IF ANY' SHALL BFI ED'J97HR7 SUA20NDAYS AFTER SECTIONT TO THE DATE 17 OF THOF hIFILING
GENERAL LAS;S, CHAPTER 8D8. AND SHALL BE r c " fA.L P'.CSIT
OF THIS DECiS�GN It THE THE OFFICE OF THE C�IY SCG CLERK. 11. THE VASIANCE :R P'
FY OF THE^EC:S!L1t, 6EI:Ri;7 THE C'
PU:S^YT TG (.' CS. GEEIERt;_ L";'1;;, CHA. iER 8 AND NO APPEAL HAS
GGA";TED H:FEC;, SHt1l IlSi T0.;(E EP"r ECT UNTIL A`LAPDc. D• P.ZD IS
FILE. i'r.AT IT HLS BEEN CIS`.:IS_'ED C•R
GF 'iHE Cl.'Y CLERF, THAT 20 OATS H0.`.
OR THAT. IF S7C{{ At, APPEAL NAS BEE i.
RECORDED
RECORD THE
S3UTHRECOREDSANDRNDTEDYON rTHEEOWNER'SIICERT CERTIFICATE OF TTLE�R..'E CF THE ' =`•
OF BOARD OF APPEAL
�� I
` Ctg of ttlem, assuchusetts
y Paura of �VVv l
Z
_ f
DECISION ON .THE PETITION OF ARGIA MIGLIOCCIO FOR A -'
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 40-42 WINTHROP ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held on February 20, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas ,Luzinski, Associate
Members Bencal & 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 an existing three family
dwelling into a four 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, ex-
tension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures,
`. and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, .
enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detri-
mental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permits requezts,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing and
° after viewing plans of the property,makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no neighborhood opposition to the petitioner's plan;
2. There are other multi-family dwellings in the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concudes as follows:
1 . The proposed use will not be substantially more detrimental than
the existing use to the neighborhood;
2. The proposed use will not substantially derogate from the intent of
the district or purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARGIA MIGLIOCCIO
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 40-42 WINTHROP ST. , SALEM
page two
Ir Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 - 1 , Mr. Bencal voting to deny, to
grant the requested Special Permit to, allow the premises to be converted from a
three family to a 'four family under the following terms and conditions:
1 . The premises remain owner occupied, if the property ceases to be owner
occupied it will revert to a three family;
2. Six (6) on site parking be maintained;
A Certificate of Occupancy ancy be obtained.P
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Bim_
aures B. Hacker, Chairman J
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL I'M4 THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE MASS.
OER•ERAL LAWS, CHAPTER SM. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
CF TH;S DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PJ ii3:..`iT iJ 'V S. GEFIER'',L LA:!:S. CHAPTER, EOS, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PPEP.'::IT
RATTED HSi9(, SHALL N", TA:(E EFFECT Uri TIL A COPY OF TCE_DFCiSI^',. EEARIN2 THE CERT.
PKAT!,) OF !H-E CIT) CLER.; THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AN) N;: APPEAL H.",S ,"P r; FIUD,
JR THAT. IF S1.1; AN APPEAL HAS 2'EFI FILE, THATiT I CEEB DIS:`.ISSED OR ^u EIG EO IS
REC(;H OEO IN THE S JIH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDE%ED UNDER THE NA,'SE OF THE C'i/NER
OF RECORD OR IS RECJRDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
. 2 c6
BOARD OF APPEAL
n
n S.
of *Iem, ttssttclluse##s
(. ri
•";'.�' ���s paxra of �ppenl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W. BURDETT GODFREY FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 25 WISTERIA ST. , SALEM
�
[[
A hearing on this petition was held November 6, 1985 A%*2 nn�he11cW�nn��n1j5Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charna , Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sio abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published incc',���!gSjjye{i ews in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. tw �•
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to convert and
existing three family dwelling into a four family dwelling in the R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applciable 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
7 detrimental than the existing 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,
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and
after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Vigorous opposition was presented by neighbors;
2. The area is very congested already and allowing the relief requested
would exacerbate the parking problem;
3. The rest of the area is primarily two and three family homes;
4. Allowing the relief requested would tend to change the character
of the neighborhood;
5. Petitioners proposed parking would necessitate backing onto the
street which-would create a dangerous condition.
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.cannot be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good or without substantially derogating from the intent
of the district and purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W. BURDETT GODFREY
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 25 WISTERIA ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 against granting the
Special Permit requested.
SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
_ SP r t,.•
-",IT TO SECTION 17 OF THE KCS-
\\\ VPEAL FRO" THIS DECISION, 1F ANY, r;YS AFTER THE DATE OF fll1NG
41ERR_ IF9.S. CHF.PTER 80£, A, SH --
07 T...-, THE OFFICE C •.. a-._ y ,IA+,LICE O'. SP.ClAl PER'dR
PU^' TO FSF.SS GE, FV, THE CERT,
SHALL NT TAkE _. n ht:S BEEN FIi ED,
Fly i - is OF TH_ CITY CLEV �F' - _: !S3ED OR DENIED IS
OR '.HAL IF SJCH AN. APPA_ - - - _ _,,Z„ THE NAME OF THE OWNED.
RECOFDED IH THE SOUTH. ES - - FI�AtE OF TITLE
OF RECORD OR 1£ RECORDED �.-- - - • '
BOARD OF APPEAL
•