APPEALS DECISIONS 1986 � `j$6
BOARD OF APPEAL DECISION - 1986
ADDRESS PETITIONER PAGE
(� Lots 48 & 49 Almeda St. Mar ibito & David Tremblay 1
Lots 48 & 49 Almeda St. Maribito & David Tremblay 2.
43 Appleton St . Thomas & Theresa Sinclair 3.
23 Arbella St. Robert B. Bowman 4.
5 Balcomb ST. Richard & Linda Latouch 5.
18 Barcelona Ave. Robert J. Pitreau 6.
5 Barnes Circle Jospeh D. Miraglia 7.
47 Barr STreet C.F. Thompkins 8.
33 Barr Street Paul Emelian 9.
50 Barr Street C.F. Thompkins 10.
29 Barstow St Lucy Coleman ] 1 .
51 Bayview Ave. Marian Hosman 12.
"t 182 Becket St. Jeffrey M. Mold 13.
ie
24 Belleview Ave Herbert & Mary Conforth 14.
8 Boardman St. Arthur Bates 15.
100-102 Boston St. Lobrida Realty Trust 16.
121-123 Boston St. Norman & Thomas Tache 17.
122 Boston St. Richard Leblanc, Tr. 18.
122,, Boston St . 11 Realty Trust 19.
i
34� Bridge St. John Spinale 20.
34%2 Bridge St. John Spinale 21 .
34%2 Bridge ST. John Spinale 22.
79 Bridge St. William G. Rowe 23.
83 Bridge St. Vincent Sanzari &Patrick Ryan 24.
83 Bridge St Vincent Sanzari & Patrick Ryan 25.
o • 18 Briggs St-; Timothy Berry 26.
55 Broad St. Robert Kobuszewski 27.
20 Broadway Michael Cormier &Paul Beaupre 28.
J
DECISION 1986- page two
ADDRESS PETITIONER PAGE
• 108 Broadway Albert & Elaine Minotti 29.
9 Brooks St. David & Linda Pydnkowski 30.
18 Brown St. Robert Welch & Wm. Lundregan 31 .
I1-13 Bryant St . Richard Varney 32.
4A Buffum St . Henry Bernson 33.
4A Buffum St. Henry Bernson 34.
19 Buffum St . John & Jean Walsh 35.
26 Buffum St. Robert & Valerie Peterson 36.
1 Butler St. Nichols & Deborah Marotta 37.
1 Butler St. Nichols & Deborah Marotta 38.
51 R Canal St Anthony J.P. Cariello 39.
143 Canal St. Pub Realty Trust 40.
143 Canal St. Pub Realty trust 41 .
• 15 Carlton St. John E. booth 42.
Champlain Road John & Cynthia Buonfiglio 43.
23 Charles St. Adelbert St.Pierre 44.
46 Charles ST. William & Constance Willis 45.
14 R Cherry St. P:J.Hannaway&G.D.K.Hopper 46.
15 Churchill St Elizabeth J. Reckis 47.
37 Clark St. Edward Colbert 48.
40 Clark St . Ralph F. Salvo 49.
118 Colonial Road Hamblet & Hayes 50.
95-101 Congress St . H & R Realty Trust 51 .
'J 2 Crescent Drive Bryan Corriveau 52.
77 13 Crescent Drive Richard Watkins 53.
• 57 Dearborn St . Scott R. Harrision 54.
158-162 Derby St . C. Anderson Inge 55.
DECISION 1986 Page three
ADDRESS PETITIONER PAGE
20 Dow Street Paul & Lucille Tremblay 56.
23 Dunlap St . Kenneth W. Andrews 57.
11 Essex STreet Scott R. Keaton 58.
20 Essex Street Michael Cardella 59.
188 Essex Street Mall Realty Trust 60.
188 Essex Street Mall realty trust 61 .
234 Essex Street Urban Development Action group 62.
289-293 Essex Street Elaine Finbury 63.
313 Essex Street Roger L'Hereux 64.
76 Federal Street Dz.,-Gregory J. Gordon.-_ 65.
183 R Federal Street Robert J Metzger 66.
51R Canal St .j/ka IFlorence St . Anthony J. Picariello 67.
• 32 Forest Avenue James McDonnel 68-.
33-35 Forrester ST. M & Y Realty trust 69.
56 Forrester St . Fred J. Cardella 70.
10 Foster STreet Amy Chevoor 71 .
20 Francis Road Anthony Pizzo 72.
8 Freeman Road Steven Pintop 73.
3 Friend Street Paul Ferris 74.
3 Friend STreet Paul Ferris 75.
8 Freeman Road Mary Pinto 76.
9 Gallows Hill Road Epaminondas Pyliotis 77.
21 Glendale St. Joseph F. Kerwin 78.
19 Green Street Peter Harriss 79.
10 Greenway Road Jean M. Deschene 80.
• 3 Hamilton Street Richard B Paul 81 .
3 hamilton Street Richard B. Paulq 82.
15 Hancock Street Mary Lou Sorgini 83.
DECISION 1986 - page four
ADDRESS PETITIONER PAGE
• _ 6 Nichols St. & 12 Hansen ST. Delta Design Builders 84.
73-75 Harbor Street Michael Marfonselli 85.
94-100 Highland Ave. Charterhouse Devlop. Corp. 86.
103 Highland Ave. William & Thomas Katsapetses 87.
204.Highland Ave. Mary Jane & Robert J. Kart 88.
204 Highland Ave. mary Jane & Robert Kart 89.
220 Highland Ave. Sunburst Fruit Juices 90.
394 Highland Ave. Mike Stasinos 91 .
394 Highland Ave. Michael Stasino 92.
459 Highland Ave. Charles & Alexander Hincman 93.
461 Highland Ave. Robert Vigeant 94.
461 Highland Ave. Robert Vigeant 95.
462 Highland Ave. Paul Sudenfield 96.
• 1 Holly Street Michael 7 karen Lehman 97.
3 Irving Street David Haight 98.
42 Jefferson Ave. Carlo Marfongelli 99.
98-102 Lafayette ST. Jonathon D. Light 100.
260 Lafayette St. Greystone Rlty Trust 101 .
363 Lafayet'e STreet Danny Y. Wong 162.
414 Lafayette STreet Roger & Coleen Ryan 103.
2 Lawrence $t.a/k/a :65 Ocean Ave. Robert M. Maguire Tr. 104.
8 Lawrence St. Eleanor Scialdone 105.
291 Jefferson Ave.&99 Lawrence Raymond Pinault 106.
2 Lawrence St.a/k/a 165 Ocean ave. Robert- M Maguire, Tr. 107
1 Lemon St. _ James T. Mahoney 108
24 Lemon St. William & Patricia O'Keefe 109.
• 10 Leval Road Richard & Marie Denis 110.
2 Liberty Hill Ave. John B. Gwinta 111 .
9 Liberty Hill Ave. Elaine Jones 112.
DECISION 1986 —page five
ADDRESS PETITIONER PAGE
• 112 Linden St. Peter Wong 113
8 Locust Street Raymond J. Landry 114
180 Loring Avenue Dr. John A. Fallon 115
217-219 Loring Ave. John W. Velardi 116.
217-219 & 221 Loring Ave. Kenneth Provencher 117.
410-412 Loring Avenue Michael & Josephine Fusco 118.
42 March Street James D. Santo 119.
Marcia Ave/Vinnin St. Maine Post & beam 120
79 Marlborough Rd Arthur & Deborah Alexander 121
82-90 Marlborough rd Robert E. Theriault 122.
90 Marlborough Rd. James E. Flynn 123.
45 Mason Street Stephen Haley 124.
65 Mason Street Leonard S. Bonfanti 125.
• 6 Nichols St. & 12 Hanson Delta Design Bldg. 126.
137 North St. Edward Keogh & Donald Mahegan 127.
148 North St . Robert & Sophie Harris 128.
5 Nursery Street Thomas & Constance ,Moulton 129.
1 Oak Street Donald Bates 130
6 Oak View Ave. James & Susan Gauthier 131 .
20 Oakview Ave. Edward Gilmartin 132.
18 Ocean Avenue Edward Gilmartin 133.
47 Ocean Ave. T. Ford Co. 134.
9-11 Ocean Terrace Mark Liptak 135.
a 5 Orchard Terrace Tadius Sadosky 136.
33 Osgood Street Frederick & Geraldine Ayers 137.
34 Peabody STreet Frederick D. Small 138.
• 7 Pickman Road Ralph Lipsett 139.
35 Pleasant St. Nile Shipka & Kathleen Teetsel 140.
60 Proctor Street Robert A.Cohn 141 .
J
DECISION 1986 - page six
ADDRESS PETITIONER PAGE
63 Proctor St. B&M Realty 142.
• 24 Puritan Road Anna M. Paradis 143.
9 Rice Street Fred. C. Page 144.
15 & 15� River Street Loraine Gadala 145.
5 Riverbank Road Monique Caron 146.
7 St. Paul St. Paul Connolly 147.
56 Salem Street J. Alan & mary Hezekiah 148.
59-59i Summer St. Frank Wallace & Nancy Knowles 149.
70 Summer St . Steven & Patricia Hemphill 150.
75 Summer ST. Steven J. MAvarro 151 .
51 Summit AVe. Donald & Ida McEwan
152
Szetela Lane/Memorial dri. McNeil Assoc. - 153.
8 Taft Road James E. Burkinshaw 154.
• 10 Upham street Patricia Anketell 155.
50 Valley St. Leonard & Diane Redican 156.
2 Waite St. Ron McElwain 157.
2 Waite St. Ron McElwain 158.
7 Wall Street Lydia King 159•
30 Walter St . Alberta & Ashley Hall 160.
24 Ward St. Salem Harbor Dev. Corp. 161 .
118 Washington St. China Square 162.
19 Washinton Sq. No. Donald E. Turner, JR. & Sr. 163.
25 Washington Sq. No. Norman Labrecque & Richard Marrs 164.
3 White St. Robert Ouellette 165.
i
3 White St. Robert Ouellette 166.
12 Willow Ave. Raymond Emery 167•
"• 3 Winter St. JPS Realty Trust 168•
7 Winter St . Sally Flint 169.
50 Winter Island Rd. Park & Recreation Commission 170
si /aDF/ 4DoNnrO /706exT5- /7/
24'z VV
.a.eo nek�
ZHU of '�$ttlem, Attssuchusetts
G1 s Potts of '4vad Oct 3 Q 44 AMcBp
FILE#
DECISION ON THE PETITION. OF THOMAS MARIBITO & DAVID TREMBLAY WYCLfh;
FOR A VARIANCE AT LOTS 48 & 49 ALMEDA ST. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held on September 22, 1986, with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary, Messrs. ,
Luzinski, Strout and Fleming. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of'the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners request'-a' Variance from frontage, specifically 20 foot frontage for
Lot #2 to allowsthe 'property to be divided and to construct a single family dwelling
on Lots 48 & 49`Alneda St. in this R-1 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be graned 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 4relief 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 . Support of the plan was voiced by neighbors, abutters and others;
2. Almeda Street as it now is planned will end just in front of the
subject property;
3. The plan, as now presented is the best plan available that will
meet the needs of the petitioners and the concerns of various
City Boards;;
4. The-'size,and.<location of the lots make this the only practical
plan'.for the subject property.
On the basis°oflthe 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'do'not affect other lands in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS MARIBITO & DAVID TREMBLAY
FOR VARIANCE FOR LOTS 48 & 49 ALMEDA ST. , SALEM
page two
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
' i 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, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Any on site blasting be done with the approval of the Salem Fire
Dept. in accordance with existing City regulations;
2. Proper numbering be obtained from the City Assessor;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each dwelling;
4. The plan must meet all existing conditions of the Salem Planning
Board and the City Engineer.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Richard A. Bencal, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AND THE PLANNING BOARD
DEC1SIOid. IF A'Ff. I 17 OF
SHALL RE,,.AAD.,IPHIPv20 DAYS APTIEFFTHE 9r-TE OF F!LIVG
APrEAL FROM THIS SHALL R.
D:rtERAL LAWS CHAPiE'r. 60c c Oc SHE CITY CLERK. � ia_ F n-1T
IN THE u i .P c OR
Og THIS DECIS OP eF,Po cg 603. SEC t H 11,
THE 1 ` TH� ;,�RT-
7 Ec-E T UNTIL A COPi OF 7HE�c
SH'+,L n� i o H.r
CF _ Fp ELP . J P is
J A5 HP _ Htc `R
f`1P i C.ER - r 1 r -i� U� ! 'hc r�,,;EDF THE u+':NEF.
r AFP P\J it -�t
IF S - c --
-'..IP. SS T' E OWNERS CERIIFLA,,E OF TITLE.
lid 1 fLiE_ O
OF RECORD OR iS R£C'ORDEO Aab BCARD OF APPEAL -
li
\1
Dfttlem, ttsstttl�usP##s
'\ r'4i-7' `'$ attra of �} ettl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS MARIBITO & DAVID TREMBLAY
FOR VARIANCE AT LOTS 48 & 49 ALMEDA ST. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held June 18, 1986 j%th9th4jf0�1Wf% Board Members
present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. Fleming
and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abdFf3tfe#s and others and notices of
the hearingwere properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
P P y P ter 40A. CITY CLF".. a," EM.MAS&.
General Laws .Cha
Massachusetts P
Petitioners are requesting a Variance from frontage requirements to divide a parcel
into two lots, and to construct a single family dwelling each lot at Lots 48 & 49
Almeda St. , which is located in an R-1 district. Property is currently owned by
Mario DiVirgilio.
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. '_iteral enforcement of the provisionof 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 the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Neighborhood opposition to the plan was answered at the hearing;
2. The size of the two lots would be larger than required under
present zoning;
3. The lots in question are currently vacant;
4. The lots are near a wetlands area and this plan is the only one
feasible without infringing upon the wetlands.
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 parcels in question but do not
(. 1 generally affect other lands, buildings or structures in the same district;
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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS MARIBITO & DAVID TREMBLAY
FOR VARIANCE AT LOTS 48 & 49 ALMEDA ST. , SALEM
page two
iherefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-0, to grant the Variance requested,
subject to the following conditions:
1 . Any blasting on site be done with the approval of the Salem Fire
Department and in accordance with existing City regulations;
2. That a driveway thirty five (35) feet wide be built from Almeda
Street to lots 48 & 49. Said driveway to be built to accomodate
Salem Fire Department equipment and be maintained by both lot owners.
Said driveway shall also be a right of way for the lot shown as lot
two (2) on the plans submitted -to the Board;
3. Proper street numbering be obtained by the City Assessor;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each dwelling.
VARIANCE GRANTED l
ichard A. Bencal, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLEF
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE O" F!L I:'2•;
OF-THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSANT TO VASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 838. SECTION 11, THE VADIA9CE OR SFEf r' �:"'�.'''
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECIS73177, EEA..^.:!•: '•5 -
FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS EEE '
OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DE'';--. !-
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED 'UNDER. THE NA51E OF i, 'i ER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
• j
of 'Salem, 'fflttssachusetts
rid
�; .c Poxrb of Appeal
y wpm„ JAk 7 3 0i. ?M 187
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS & THERESA SINCLAIR FO) ILPE
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 43 APPLIETON ST.
CITY . °c.. :M.HAS,
A hearing on this petition was held December 17, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Strout and
Associates Iabreoque & Dore. 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 allow a
single family dwelling to be converted to a two family dwelling in the R-2 district.
The property is presently nonconforming with regards to the density 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 an thin to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of
Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section
VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non-
conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of
nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change,
extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental
than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
`� In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of City's inhabitants.
The BoardofAppeal, .after careful-consideration of .the evidence presented, and after--
viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition;
2. The increase would benefit the owner;
3. The use is an allowed use in this 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 . The proposed use of this property as a two family dwelling will not be
substantially detrimental to the neighborhood;
2. The relief requested can be granted without nullifying or substantially
derogating from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance.
�•J
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS & THERESA SINCLAIR FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 43 APPLETON ST. , SALEM
page two
•e Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special
Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Three (3) legal size, nonobstructed, parking spaces be
maintained on site. One ( 1 ) parking space to be inside the garage,
the other two (2) spaces to be behind the house, as noted on the
plans submitted;
i
I
2. All construction be in compliance with the Fire Prevention Bureau
regulations and the State Building Code;
i
3. A legal building permit must be obtained;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
i.ti=kL FG2}S THIS DEEGf^C;, I7 A J. SrftIL PE i:. E P2CSJACT TO SEC?IG:: 17
OD" F. Sr 20 DAf� HE C'''-_ fi
OF THh DEGiS'..,.. I.. THE OFFIT'dE C!T1CURS.
&SA C :S H.7ER SOS, 1 THE 10E CR SPE""!, F-P!
P:..,'.Gi T.. .ASS. Ge; EdA_.L'.. C SEC�I�:'E 1, VF.P,'AF. _ _ .'l _
moi.- I.,- �.i. • i. . ..r • __ �?f 1 Lf.0 .:
R-'bR_LL IN THE L.' fn ESS>a F RT c - .�u C:.`C :6Y_ _F ...•.._,
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND N'-'ED ON THE U2.PocR'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF F.PP';d
cc ,f
J.
e =-
C;
r�
r
F
� � L
Sf *Iem, ttssttcl#use##s
r
.,3 oxrb of �}rpezil
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT B . BOWMAN FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 23 ARBELLA ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was 1#d gun � AM9%with the following Board
Members present: James Backer,`J' airman; essrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and
Strout. Notice of the hearing pFL:E#ent to abutters and others and notices of the
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Mas P P Y P S , g�{,M►56.
Massachusetts General Laws Chap$a1' 90Yr�P
owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to convert a
Petitioner, P P Y�
two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to thisrequest
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 TX 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 evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following find'_n_s of fact:
1 . The will be adequate parking;
2. There was no major 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 Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial
detriment to the neighborhood and without nullifying or substantially
derogating from the intent of purpose of the district.
' DECISION ON THE PETITION OR ROBERT B. BOWMAN FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 23 ARBELLA ST. , SALEM
-page two
I\ •J Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one, 4-1 , Mr. Hacker voted
- present, to grant the Special Permit requested provided that:
i
1 . Existing trees and shrubs be kept and maintained;
2. Premises must be owner occupied or it will revert back to
a two family;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
/Tames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
r '. LL 6E IF^JE PJP,SJAAT TO S OF THE MSS
APPEAL FRO-"+ THIS DE IS r n -- -,� IE OF HUNS
rEI.EF.,L l.A4JS CH oT P ... . ' 5 FFu t-.:n.,J 20 GArS . _ .
To. CITY CLERK.
OF fl. D`_i S:' r. IN c ;' F^•!li
FO- Q TO J. fP:: - ' e S. SSO �N li. HE .
i,L A Pa T` iti_ C_'T.
Cr TED HEF i S,. LL - ti„�c EIHF,c .: - -
FICA7j :! OF IPC Tf C r L, .ILE, TH.,1 IT HAS 6E`i " C IS
OR THAT. IF SUCiH ;IN Ar r � CF THE NINE..
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSD• R '.dS RT OF DEEDS AND INDEED
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O'JJNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
i
of Zttlem,
PD2ITb D{ upral FILE ;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & LINDA LATOUCH
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 5 BALCOMB ST. (B-1 /R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held October 29, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. ,
Fleming, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioners, owners of the property, have requested a Special Permit in order
to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling. The site is
zoned B-1 /R-2.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B110, 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
• '1 nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, ex-
tension, 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 the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . a petition of support signed by neighbors, abutters and
others was presented;
2. No opposition was presented at the hearing;
3. The petitioner purchased the property approximately six (6)
years ago when it was in disripair and has made the property
very presentable.
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 third unit will not be substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood;
2. The proposed third unit will promote the convenience and
welfare of the City's inhabitants.
DE.CISION.ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD AND LINDA LATOUCH
FOR A SPECIAL PF,Rh!IT AT 5 BALCOMB ST. , SALEM
page two
• I
/ Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested subject to the following conditions:
1 . A legal building permit be obtained;
ion must be done 'as per the plans submitted and
2. construct
amended at the hearing reflecting the change of the kitchen,
living area and bedroom area;
3. Five (5) legal size parking-spaces be maintained on premises;
4. All construction conform to all applicable provisions of the
.ruc � P
Massachusetts State Building Code;
5• . All provisions of the Salem Fire Department regulations relative
to smoke and fire detectors be adhered to;
6. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
ichard A. Bencal, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAi FRO' THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF.THE WAS"
G EHERAL LAWS. CHATTER 803. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS 0ECiSION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSAIJ TO LASS, CENIP,AL L:11_'. CHAFTER SOS, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERI.7
GRANiEO HCREIN, SHALL NOT TAF.E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION. BEAR'!CG THE CERT•
FICAMN OF THE MY CLERK Tr..AT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSE: AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED,
OR THAT. IF SuL'H AN APPEAL HAS BEEP FILE. THAT IT HAS BEET! DiS;11SSEO CR DENIED IS
RECORDED IN' THE S^UIH ESSEN REGISTRY IF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAVE OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
.� a
9 Ctg of ttlem, Massachusetts If
.s•,�' t,/�s Paura of '4peA
ms.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT J . PITREAU FOR A VARIANCE
FOR 18 BARCELONA AVE.
A hearing on this petition was held January 15, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messr A9aroqy7ki and Associate
Members Bencal and LaBrecque. Notice of the hearin was sen td mbutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properlyF�Wished in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General ]Lgys Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the premises, is requesting a Variance from side and rear
setbacks to allow existing dwelling and decks 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 Ordinances.
r
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition;
2. Neighborhood showed major support for petitioner;
3. House was built prior to the Zoning Ordinances and apparently
constructed in violation of new Zoning Ordinance;
4. Building and decks are currently existing and were built many
years ago.
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 affect the lot in question and do not
generally affect the district;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would create a substantial
hardship on the petitioner;
l �
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT J. PITREAU FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 18 BARCELONA AVE. , 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, 5-0, to grant the relief
requested provided that:
1 . Building to be used solely as a single family dwelling.
, ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
SHALL BE WADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE t:1ASS
APF EAI. ROr.'i DEE
,,,, � f.FJY. .
CE!JEnAL LAWS,, CI Ci1APTER 238, AND SHALL BE FO-ED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE Or FILIf:�
OF THIS DECISION IN, THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PO;SANT TO MASS. fEIi ER.AL LAMS, CHAPTER 808, SECTG:N 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL. PER"!T
^RANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TASE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE EC'SIO�:J. EEARi FIS iHF CERT'
FILATION OF THE CRY CLERI! THAF '20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED A"JD tJ0 APPEAL HAS BLEU FILED,
OR 'FHAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS B`_EN FILE, THAT IT NAS BEEN DISMISSED OR ED vi IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE D'r2
OF RECORD,OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
7,
.. `f�fAVMf4�
ofttl�m, ttssttrl�use##s
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH D. MIRAGLIA FOR VARIANCES
FOR 5 BARNES CIRCLE, .SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held March 19, 1986 witthe following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Chahs� L4ib�kp'u Strout.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others FV notices t hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A. C17'yCL<.K S.LEN.MAS
Petitioner, owner of the property, requests Variances from density regh rements in
order to divide an existing lot into three lots, all as shown on a plan submitted
to the Board. _ Property is located in an R-1 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to, 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 lots in this area all contain approximately five thousand
square feet;
2. As a twenty thousand square foot lot in this area the lot would not
be marketable for use as containing only one single family home;
3. No opposition;
4. One neighbor spoke in favor.
�'On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented al 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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH D. MIRAGLIA FOR
VARIANCES FOR 5 BARNES CIRCLE, SALEM
page two
�I Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief
requested provided that:
1 . Plans for the proposed construction are present to the Fire
Prevention Bureau, showing type and location of automatic smoke
detectors to be installed, prior to the issuance of a building permit;
2. The owner of such properties obtain proper numbering from the City
Assessors, and that compliance with the City Ordinance relative to
house numbering be adhered to.
3. All Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations of both the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and the City of Salem, pertaining to fire safety, are
adhered to;
4. ;Planning Board approval be obtained prior to issuance of building permit;
5• A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each dwelling.
VARIANCES GRANTED
OR
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
AFP-A'. FR^_id THIS A", SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE K"'S.
CE::ERAL LAC';S, CHA'r;ER BOB, AND SHALL BE FILED WRHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
_ CF THIS CECiSIGN UI THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.,
Fl,'R�P.PiT TC +VASS. GE:iEEAL LA�:S, CRAFTER 808, SECTI?('! 11, THE V•ARIME OR SPECIAL PEW".
CRM. ED Y.ER`_I::, SHALL N T TA°E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY CF THEDE=MSV, BEAP,IiiG THE CERT-
RlA.il'Jid CF 1HE CITY CLERK ThAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NC APPEAL HF.o BEET! FILED,
CR 'NAT• IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT R H'.$ BEENCIS'ESSED CR CEF:IED IS
-' RECORDED IN THS SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED U':DER THE NA!E OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND 170TED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
�I
(�i#g IIfIem, � ttsttrlj�zse##s
• $ Pourb of �ufrenl
N 2 52 P
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF C.F. TOMPKINS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FELE n`
FOR 47 BARR ST. C;TY Cl.:-'! :"MASS
A hearing on this petition was held October 15, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to convert a
warehouse to be converted into a three unit dwelling in this R-2 district.
At the request of petitioners counsel, Attorney Robert C. McCann, the Board of
Appeal voted unanimously to allow petition to be withdrawn without prejudice.
WITHDRAWN
i
-
,James B. Hacker, Chairman
' A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
of �$ttlem,
of
rr
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL EMELIAN FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 33 BARR ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held May 28, 19 �yw h gh 7QHlTang Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Benc , ecretary; Messrs. , Fleming and
Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to ahytl�prs and others and notices of
the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. CITY CLE'.` StticH,MASS
Petitioner, owner of the property, requests a Special Permit to extend a non-
conforming side setback to allow construction of a deck on the second floor 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,
• 1 provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or
expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental that the
existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is., when 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 support or opposition was voiced at the hearing;
2. The deck will add to the convenience of the inhabitants.
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 deck 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.
..
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL EMELIAN FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 33 BARR ST. , SALEM .
• ' page two
Therefore, the Zoning board of appeal voted unanimously, 4-0 in favor of granting
the requested Special Permit, subjection to the following conditions:
1 . All Salem Fire Department regulations relative to the installation
of smoke detectors for this type of residential unit must be met;
2. The deck must be built in accordance with the plans submitted,
12' x 12' and 10' off the ground on the second floor at the
rear of the building.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Richard A. Bencal, 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 ;+:ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MP.SS.
GENERAL LAMS. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED P;IT411N 20 DA5'S Ar T'ER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLEFK. TII- `, _I ..E _ SP.,,•T, cIYIT
TO (AoS. C^ R4L LA iC, CHAPTER SO8 L . .. , 11 F r._RT
LEF:'.Ti1 S'i'ts N C l..tc Ci U`1L1 A COY Tn H.., •. T.ED,
FI 'it
:-F Ih .I Y i EP I' v
uR HAT, IF SU PP-AL L1S G F;Lc. 1 Tl�_ NA,!E OF HE Eli .d
RECORDED IN THE_ SDC•n ESSEX RE..ISTRf GF DL vS AR SI CcRTIN.A:E OF TITLE.
OF RECORD OR
IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNE
BOARD OF APPEAL
of �ttlem, &4*ftt9sttr4u6e##6
3 Paura of Appeal
� ��
JAN P., � o_ P H 81
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF C.F. TOMPKINS & CO. FOR
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 50 BARR ST. (R-2) &EATr
CITY '" ' m .YASS.
A hearing on this petition was held December 17, 1986 with the foliowing Board
Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. ,
Strout and Associate Members Dore 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 the Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to convert an
existing warehouse into three residential units in this R-2 district.
The provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of
Appeal may, in accordance with the the procedure and conditions set forth in Section
VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non-
conforming structures and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of
nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change,
extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than
the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
', �y • 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 petition is support of the plan was presented by the petitioner;
2. One letter of opposition was sent to the Board;
3. The warehouse is located in a residential neighborhood;
4. The proposed residential units would be more in harmony with the
neighborhood than the present warehouse.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed use of the property will not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood;
2. the relief requested can be granted without nullifying or substantially
derogating from the .intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
u
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF C.F.TOMPKINS & CO. FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 50 BARR ST. , SALEM
page two
s Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special
Permit• requested subject to the following conditions:J 9 J
1 . All regulations of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and
fire detectors must be adhered to;
2. Petitioner must meet with the Salem Health Dept. to devise and
carry out a plan for any rodent problem on this lot;
3. All construction be done as per plans submitted and in compliance
with all City and State Codes,
4. Parking in the rear of the lot is to be within two (2) feet of the
rear lot line;
5. A Certificate of Occupancy for each unit must be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Richard A. Bencal, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
AFPESL FP.O.M THIS Cc A:CY. SHC:I 6- "E PHPS?iAV TO SEUMN 17
CFNER4L LAV,S U.P[FC glFI F:'=. ":;T.3: : 21 DAYS *Fci ,HE
CEC "'! iF _-F!CE OF Tii_ CI'i'i CLERK.
P .... -
I
LIP I' _ IFS r-_- F" .. - -
RE 0 DED IN THE S Di`
OF RECORD OR IS RLCORDE AND NOTED 0+ THE u.;REn_ C_.i IFI n L it"i�
BOARD OF A?FEA_
�rmngt
b�
TitU ofttlPm, � ttssttcl�usPtts
�n;3put0 6
. `tite r uttrD of LAppeal
lk`'oms. FILE
DECISION ON THE PETITIONOF WILLIAM AND LUCY COLEMAN FOR A C!1Y ']_` Fr µat$
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 29 BARSTOW STREET
A hearing on this petition was held August 27, 1986 with the following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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 extend
nonconforming side setback to allow for the construction of a two story addition
in the rear of the premises at 29 Barstow Str7et, said building being located in
an r-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as. follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
of Appeal may, in accordance with Section VIZI 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
• 1 . 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 Baord that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Apepal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no !ooposition to the petition;
2. Upgrading of the building would be a substantial improvement to
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 will not be substantially detrimental
to the neighborhood;
2. The relief requested can be granted without nullifying or substantially
derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the
•�`_ Ordinance. .
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & LUCY COLEMAN FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 29 BARSTOW ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested under the following terms and conditions:
1 . The proposed two story addition be building as per the plans
submitted to the Board;
2. The side setback for the proposed addition be no more than
six (6) feet;
3. The petitioners must comply with the requirements of the Salem
Fire Department, the State Building Code and obtaine necessary
_building permit;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy must be cLined.
SPECIAL PERMIT ,GRANTED /
yJ42��, ��i1
�ames M. Fleming, Member
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEi.1 FF.Otl THIS DE`ISIDN. IF ANY, S""LL BE NIADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF T'r.T_ LS;YS.
APNEFLL 311 T IS D'IS13N°. AND $HAL. EE FILED %'CTHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE 0j FMN
OF TH:S DECIS!O'V Uv 111E CFFICE C, TP.E CITY CLERK. THE h O" SFE.'=L PF":�T
,. i. C:SF
PJ PSF -
14,iE E:ic... L.ITIL A Clr� OF
CPQ c ,Hc - SH 1LL N�
CI i CLEFn Th_ 'C G > A'dE EL4PS`_0 Ah., r IS
OF ,H T IF SJLH AN APP A F:C B=E'. r. ` THAT IT HA° Ect O 7F. A E . THE C1 .
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REI:STx' OF DEEDS A" UtO.".D L
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O'NNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
y ctg of obttlem, � ussttcl�usefts
a
Poara of �p}�ettl
i _`�'-c
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GERARD AND MARIAN HOSMAN FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR 51 BAYVIEW AVENUE. �C
A public hearing on this petition was held &CAY fi Za ��th the following
Board Members present; James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs: Bencal, Fleming,
Luzinski, and Strout. Notice of the hearin6114 .� sent to abuttors and others,
and notices of the hearing were properly.pu�yyte�d�in ,t,. l La% Evening News
in accordance with the provisions of Massac se Generaws, Chapter 40A.
The petitioners, represented by Mr. Gerard Homan, requested a Special Permit
to extend and existing non-conforming rear and side setback to allow for the
addition of a half bath and mud room. The rear set back is currently twenty
feet, six inches (20' 6") and would be sixteen (16') feet with the addition.
The side setback is one foot, eight inches (1' 8") and the addition would
be two feet, six inches (2' 6") . The premises in question is located in an
R-1 District.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for aSpecial Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this
• 1 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 non-
conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension
or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement, or
expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terns, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may b= 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 proposed addition would not be more detrimental than the
existing non-conforming structure.
2. Abuttors and others stated approval to the addition.
3. No opposition to the plan was expressed.
i 4. The upgrading of the building would be an improvement to the
I
• neighborhood.
";F
f
DFY;ISION ON THE PETITION OF GERARD AND MARIAN HOSdAN FOR A SPE)CIAL PERMIT
FOR 51 BAYVIEW AVENUE.
•
I
�— On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The proposed addition to the property will not be substantially
more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure.
2. The relief requested can be granted without nullifying or
substantially derogating from the intent of the district or
the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Board of Appeals voted unanimously, 5 - 0, to grant the
Special Permit requested under the following terms and conditions:
1. The rear and side setbacks be as shown on the plan submitted.
2. That all construction meet the requirements of the
Massachusetts State Building Code and the requirements of
the Salem Fire Department.
3. That any new exterior be finished in the same material as
the existing structure.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
James M. Fleming ✓U/%i
Member, Board of Appeal
I'r ANY, SHALL 8E MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION TION 17 OF THE MASS.
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, r - V.JITFIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND
SHALL 6E FILED
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFiCE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSAIJT TO [;',ASS. GENERAL LAVi'.i, CHAPTER 808, SECT!^N 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER:"IT
f.l I.)J BAT?INd' THE CERT
SRANTEC HEREIN, SHALL NO1 TA:(E ,FfECT 0^ APPEAL HA BEEN FILED,
UNTIL A CCPYOF THE
FICATIDN OF THE CITY CLERK PFA: DAYS HAVE EL'*• :: °�J DIS:::ISSFD OR DENIED IS
r AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER
OR THAT, IF SUCH AIJ APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAM If
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF G�E.S
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
I
Ctu of �/Sttlem, '4fflttssar4usetts Jtti
•�;, rs Pnxrb of c ppral _
mss.
DECISION ON PETITION OF JEFFREY M. MOLD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AT 182' BECKETT ST.
A hearing on this petition was held December 17, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear setback to
allow construction of an egress in this R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of
Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section
VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruciton of non-
conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of
nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change,
extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than
the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
/ In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the 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 • Property is currently zoned R-2;
2. There was no opposition;
3. Second egress will act as a major safety factor and structure was
built many years ago in its present state.
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 egress will promote the public health, safety convenience and
welfare of the City's inhabitants;
2. The proposed egress will not be substantially detrimental to the public
good and will not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or
/" + , purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEFFREY M. MOLD FOR A SPECIAL
Y PERMIT FOR 182' BECKETT ST. , SALEM
a'a' page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
relief requested subject to the following conditions:
1 . A legal building permit must be obtained;
2. Construction to be done as per plans submitted.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
�}ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLE=K
Y_{
_ rpc.f FROM, THIS DEC'Ci"1 {•.:', SHALL NA DE PUPSIAW TO SECT!J"! :7 Cr --
:r{ Frl to :y Wi ri_R F;" S-il!. _5 cJ!T.. 20 DAYS � T�p .HE DAI F .
li. THE n,. TH. :iTY
F J i I -AL r C r ri -
RECOPDTD IN T.,LL
OF RECORD OR IS RECURDED Av I; O; _ `.-
I u.SER a C FIIHCH, OF TILE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
"
H 1.WN1411i
`�. Ti#q of ttlem, � ttssttcl��zsetts
s
Puxrb of '4peA
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HERBERT & MARY CONFORTH FOR
VARIANCES FOR 24 BELLEVIEW AVE. pp iu1
A hearing on this petition was held June 18,' 1986 wiAL th`a A 23w1 g0�ard Members
present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman; Messrs. , EftF�1, Fleming an Strout.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News iA1bfcpr!daW with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A. EM,MASs.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting variances from all applicable
density and setback requirements to divide parcel of land into two lots, lot A & B
and to construct a single family dwelling on lot B. Property is located in an
R-1 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and
c. desirable relief may ge granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the 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 . There was no opposition;
2. The size of the lots would be the same size as other lots in the
same area;
3. It is not financially feasible to maintain this property as a single
lot, it is much more suited for two lots with a single family on each
lot and would be more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
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 affect the property in question but do
not affect the district generally;
• 2. Literal enforcement would work a substantial hardship on petitioner;
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent or purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HERBERT & MARY CONFORTH FOR
VARIANCES FOR 24 BELLEVIEW AVE. , SALEM
. page two
� J .
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Variances
requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . A Certificate of Compliance for the existing dwelling be obtained
from the Salem Fire Department;
2. Plans for the new structure be submitted to the Salem Fire Dept. for
their approval prior to the obtaining of a building permit;
3. All work be done in accordance with plans submitted;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• J
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISIC N. G Sf:,'.-L BE !,iADE PURSUANT TO SEC71.�ti lE �F E OFTHE IFI ISIS ..
GENERAL LAWS CHAP R ° - c° F'.ED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFT—'- '
t.'.E CITY CLERK. --IAL PEP.:.IiT
OF TNiS CECiS CdJ I1 THE c'S SEC.TIDN 11 THE VF
P RSA 'T 1C ASS GE J�4r.. . ` -RT
CRA.".TED Hc4Elii. Si .L R' 7 U 'T A COPY Cr rD ,, ` PLED,�
�c F.c Ei e�3_J .. i ;: r _ n IS
FICATiD"J or iNE CITY L Ph r; C -
,F IT 1;:,:' Dr-; i iE . . G'r THE 07.'':'
OR THAT IF c_L_N J AFFr c iiD 'DE.ED
REOOSCED IN THE S iH °SSE r ' r EOS
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND •—� EL) ON TF° OWNER'S CERTIf lCA1c OF 7i i��i..
BOARD OF APPEAL
ofttlPm, � tt55ttcfjuSPts 3� 2 Ba
ourb of 4PPA FI_ ..
•j kms.� `
fC
- CITY „-
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR BATES FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR 8 BOARDMAN ST.
A hearing on this petition was held August 20, 1986 and continued until October
8, 1986 with the following Board Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman;
Messrs. , Bencal, Strout and Associate Member Dore. 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.
The petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to allow an
existing three family dwelling in this R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, . in accordance with the procedure and conditions
set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations
and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement,
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
provided, however that such change, extension,, enlargement or expansion
• ` shall not be substantially more 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 the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The existing structure presently in its use as a three family
dwelling is not detrimental to the neighborhood;
2. There was no opposition.
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 neighborhood and will not derogate from the intent or purpose of
the Ordinance.
s
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR BATES FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR,8 BOARDMAN ST. , SALEM
page two
j
.Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Special
Permit requested to allow the use of the property as a three family subject to
following conditions:
1 . Property must be owner occupied;
2. Must meet approval of the Fire Prevention Bureau;
3. Obtain a building permit for the demolition of the existing garage;
4. Maintain five (5) on site parking spaces, which must be delineated
and meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
6/6)
Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• j
APPEAL FR047 THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS,
CENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 908. AND SHALL BE FILED lViTHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILIJG
0 THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
FS^nSA.RT TO 6:ASS. CE:CEF.AL LAWS. CHAPTER 903, SECTION 11, THE V;.%IA:XE OR SPECIAL PERiSIT
G^AE R
u;IED HEIC. SHALL Nl T,':XE EFFECT W;TIL A COPY OF THE LEC:";",B. SEA?,f%S THE CERT-
FIOATi:'!,I OF THE Ci T'i C_[3" THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED /;, • i
CR-THAT, IF SJiY i,PPE`--L H S BE N' FILE, THAT I HAS EECiI,O A e.OH :S -'r FUD.
ROR
E Ono D IiJ TE S UTH ESSEX RECIS,F_. OF LEEDS A?
INDEXED U..,,cR ihE f.n i., J IS
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. ° OF THE
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
1/a • i
45 (fit of '5ttlem, ttssttc[luse##� 3 PYI '86
ultra of eul
FILE f�
. ' �
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LOBRIDA REALTY TRUST FOR
A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 100-102 BOSTON ST. j
I
A hearing on this petition was held July 16, 1986 and continued until August 27,
1986. The following Board Members were present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. ,
Bencal, Fleming, 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 and Variance to create a mini-mall by
altering and expanding the existing garage in this B-2/13-2 district. Property
is owned by Lobrida Realty Trust, Ira & Judith Rosenberg, Trs.
At the request of petitioner's Counsel, Attorney George Vallis, the Board of
Appeal voted unanimously to allow petitioner to withdraw without prejudice.
WITHDRAWN l/1
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
r...... - c IF ANY: SHALL S' 1:1GS PI:-.;"%NT iC -!G.'7 17 OF THE h!':SS•
,RIS DECISION, _ THE DATE OF FILING.
t.'nAPTER SOB. AND SP.:...
IN THE OFFG`_ .....E eP c?SCI"-,L P--":T
r, ..s'S GE',ERAL L - - .. EE' THE = i-
�: i SHALL NC, is E _. _. _EEN F''_D,
'F -iHE CIT)' CLEP., T`: ..
OR ;,;AT, IF SUCH AN AFPc'.' . .._c-. THE OP1I4ER
RECi;i:DED IN THE SOUTH ESS'!:A i.. _ GF TITLE.
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND IiBrc� �••
BOARD OF APPEAL
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF A.NY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE-
HE
GENEPAL LF S 'Ct•A.P^cp gng A"i0 SHALL BE FILED VAiHI 20 GAYS AFTER THE DATE Of FILL 'G
• OF THIS DEC S OJ IN THE OF CE OF THE CITY CLERK E CR
pUF; hili iJ Fc.' L L 'iS CHAPTER 8O8 SECT'1N 11 THE VAR n. h T
EFFECT U: L A C'
nl Cr THE u_C'S E FILED,
' „Air . -
SHoLk?- F
7.. IS
-4 iL1 f1 tL Fi=a c1 c -.fE DF THE C''�. 'i..
F", IN J I'; i::_ 5•., �iH
ESS[ u SiPI F i L
f", ..
FFa,uRD OR in P:EL.;RuED Ai:O .vL�L9 C'J THE OWNERS CERTIFICATE Gr (TLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
i
of "'5ttlPm, ttssttc�use##�
17
:�
Pourb of �}r ettl
I
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NORMAN & THOMAS TACHE FOR
VARIANCE FOR 121 & 123 BOSTON ST.
A hearing on this petition was held April 30, 1986 wik the falTM�Ng°pard Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski, Strout and Associate
Member Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to abuteAtu 'rand others and notices -
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Eva�pipg,News in accordance with
El9assachusetts General Laws Chapter- 4OA.
a c;,N _Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting Variances from any and all
- tapplicable density and setback requirements in order to divide property into two
= C
O U S
- "' aots.¢aProperty is located in a B-2 district.
V$riance 'which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
- o
o - E F-tEat•-
tz
¢
N > W o 1 . special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
W
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
z
ZYZO ` = oy
W o a W 2. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
3 "•' W a o o volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and
y F W W
C C 2
3. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
P r LL public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
d-
s intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
W Z
- 4 ¢
sle Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
J
i a z W � fearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
w
d - o E 1 . There was no . opposition;
N
= 0
3 W z u _ ti z o 2. Petitioner has failed to show sufficient facts for this Board to find
that substantial hardship would result from the denial of this request
ti for a Variance.
¢
wLL � � v z �.,W
°Of? the basis of the above findings of fact, andon the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Petitioner has not met his burden of proof as regards to legal hardship.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Strout voted in favor) against
granting the Variance requests.
DENIED
. 1 Peter Strout, Member Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
b
of '�itzlem, ttsstzc[ju�etts
nxra of Appeal
r
jn F 3 0- IT '81
FILO `
CITY 1.: 5: ;; N,M',SS.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD LEBLANC, TR. , GATEWAY II
REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 122'' BOSTON ST.
A hearing on this petition was held December 17, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming front setback
to allow construction of an egress, a Special Permit to allow an existing five
family dwelling and a Variance from parking requirements in this B-2 district.
At the request of the petitioner, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to
grant leave to withdraw without prejudice.
WITHDRAWN
Richard A. Bencal, Secretary
t
r
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
AFPLAL FRDrA THIS CEi;lSt2ii, IF F.I:'. SHALL BE C:ADE PURSUAU TO SEOT10°J ll CF THE t.:_'
GEKEr.i:L LF.:;S. CHUTE, Er.' P.SD SHALL EE F;LE"- fi il';P: 20 DAYS.AF—IJ-r!AF—IJ-r! THF DmTE
!f THE Oi- OF Tilt C.IT: CLERi(.
T . ::5. C_ ... t . �rEo Fig C THE \ _.
LE i LI _ .i
d��JrcJED h THE SOUIh ESS RE SIR r 1 J IND J
V RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND FQ-,ED ON THE OV,NERS CERTIFICATE OF TITLL
BOARD OF APF E.AL
• .i
,o
I
-00',", �T
~` �Lltf1 IIfrzlPm, � tt552ttllusefts
oarb of PXpenl
T Q
Oc3 2
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GATEWAY II REALTY TRUST FOR A FiLS 4
SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 122 BOSTON ST.
C1T1, V, �tpcc,
A hearing on this petition was held October 15, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. '
Petitioner, owner of the property, requests a Special Permit to allow an existing
five family dwelling and to extend nonconforming front setback to allow construction
of a second means of egree, also, a Variance from parking in this B-2 district.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the application read by the Acting Secretary, I
James Fleming, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Neither the petitioner nor any representative for the petitioner
was present at the hearing.
i
On the basis of the above finding of fact, the Board of Appeal concludes as
follows:
•> 1 . There was no evidence presented or plans available to enable
the Board to grant the petition.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, against granting the
Special Permit and variance requested.
DENIED
l�✓cam//�i /%"Lt�%% '
Names M. Fleming, Acting ,Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
-
APPEAL FRDki THIS DECISION' IF• r SHALL 6= FILEu ,iL,q 20 DAYS Ahilt. SHALL BE ''�^`'JEPURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE LIASS.
FTER THE GATE OF FILING
GENERAL LAWS. CHARIER 30r. A.vJ
OF THIS GEC'S''ON IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
E r• !e;'c CHA°TEF €23, S=KT 11, THE VARIA'(CE OR SPECIAL rPER."aIT
PU.,.Ai,: TO E..S. THE
IG "-LT Ui�TiL A CCP1' O. TI4E CE�:S!''�• -
GnL\iEJ HU'U', SH ! 1 E`'= E D "�.) Iv: A?F FL P. ' " v FLED: .•
\ FIC T:J 1 OF HE CIT.,' CLcP'. 1 T:' C4tS H� �' _ r C y., Sal) OR L ,'E.. IS
OR THAT IF SJC,' AN APFEFL E,- BIM FILE. ,.-
Rc.ORCEO IN " S J1H ESSv; r r L Rf OF LE ✓a Ado INDEXED ir� i '•'E OF Tc DVli43
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON IHc O.iNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
of '§Arm, C ussttc�usr##s
Paara of '4pral
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SPINALE RELATIVE TO THE
DEMOLITION ORDER OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR .FOR 3412 BRIDGE ST.
The petitioner, John Spinale petitioned the Board kL 3peJ2 mO ?29486uct the
Building inspector not to go forward with his order to have the building at
3412 Bridge Street demolished. FILES
A public hearing on the petition was held July 16, ,13 2';6 witi�!them 6llowing
Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming and
Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 4OA.
The petitioner, through his Attorney, Gary S. Sackrider, explained that the
petitioner was originally granted a permit by the Building Inspector, said
permit having been subsequently revoked by order of the Board of Appeal. However,
by that time a new building had been substantially built.
A a public hearing on February 26, 1986, the Board of Appeal voted to deny the
petitioner, John Spinale, a Variance from density, height, lot size, lot
coverage and any and all applicable setbacks in order to construct said building.
The petitioner filed an appeal of the original Board of Appeal action in the
Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The building at 3412 Bridge Street has not been adequately
secured by the petitioner;
2. The unsecured building is a danger to the health, safety and. ..
common welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Salem.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 2-2, threby denving the petitioner his
requested relief.
//James M. Fleming, D°ember, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
°Al FRO.'A THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
\- "RAL LAWS. CHAPTER 308, AND SHALL BE FILED INITBIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
THIS DECISION 17 THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
Ti; !ASS. = :: RAL LA:;S CHdPTER £G8, SECT!Oii 11. THE VAPIANCE CB SPc"IAL PER'"'
J HERE r SF EL N."i i ' EFFEC U'ITIL A COPY CiEE. n r_ CERT
. I JP "n U n v ER L ,_ "S"D R ri,' CIS
.: APF' hA of:' - °. 1H 1 �i - _
- e Cr 1-E S P .D I DEXED J . E-R .5
I _ - CF THE C.
F
h i !F S
.;=C H a J!H E c r
OF RECOP,D OR IS RECJDED AND ND.EJ .::! THE Of�NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL —
A
co n,��
(` Tity of ' $ttlrM, 'Mttssxtllusetts
h .
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SPINALE RELATIVE TO THE
DEMOLITION ORDER OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR 342''n BRIDGE oST.
The petitioner, John Spinale petitioned the Board Ja 3142 mO N186uct the
Building inspector not to go forward with his order to have the building at
342' Bridge Street demolished. FILE
x
A public hearing on the petition was held July 16 C13y$�rWith' th��c�l�lowing
Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming and
Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioner, through his Attorney, Gary S. Sackrider, explained that the
petitioner was originally granted a permit by the Building Inspector, said
permit having been subsequently revoked by order of the Board of Appeal. However,
by that time a new building had been substantially built.
A a public hearing on February 26, 1986, the Board of Appeal voted to deny the
petitioner, John Spinale, a Variance from density, height, lot size, lot
coverage and any and all applicable setbacks in order to construct said building.
The petitioner filed an appeal of the original Board of Appeal action in the
/ Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The building at 342' Bridge Street has not been adequately
secured by the petitioner;
2. The unsecured building is a danger to the health, safety and
common welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Salem.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 2-2, threby denying the petitioner his
requested relief. /
�nv.�i{ice 12
,/Jam,/James
es M. Fleming, tuber, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
r^ IF ANY SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
ZP ER FROM THIS CHAPTER
80
_ GE;!ERAL L0.61'S, CHAPTER 308, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
\'r THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
�• IF Ali TC ASS -.¢-ERA LA CP v ER €O3.
SECTION' 11 THE fAP10.`7CGrARiNG CR SPECIAL
CERT
/. A - ;.D HERE;N. $H_LL N E EF E UNTIL A COPY OF 'hE
F 1H: CFi't CLLR' - `?. D.,fS HkJE E -0 rh-_ A FLED,
LAL H ° c'
CR DEi ,-D IS
o -H,11 IF IF S N APF fl h6 Eir 1
:ED IH ii ASH ESSE. i C' ECS AND INDEXED E4 T.' (rt,.E GF THE
OF RECORD OR ISR 'jRDED AND NCl D c"! TRE UiNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
•s f1�i# of Mem, ttssttt�juse##�
Psarb of
vrr•.�Tt-�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SPINALE FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 341 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM,
yy J," roocc
A hearing on this petition was held February 26giiflQb w3oo tfGtR��uu f�Vllowing Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Bencal, Charnas, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing wfd;tknt to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly publisP � jlr}.^t�hg,$ 'ening News
in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws C �apter 40A.
z
Petitioner, owner of the premises, requests a Variance from density, height,
_ = lot size, lot coverage and any and all applicable setbacks in order to
= w - �Dmplete construction of a building at 341i Bridge St. , which is in a B-2 zone.
r c r w • lie Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
tE
c c W
Ebard that:
c_ GNo W S
v c < v a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
z z o the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
o = o w affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
r W z 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
Q W r LL > o public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from
o W v the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
x H o makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Substantial opposition was presented to the plan;
N 2. Petitioner has failed to show sufficient facts for this Board
U C N O
v o to find that substantial hardship would result from the denial
- _ of this request for a Variance.
c = On the basis of the above finding of fact, and on the evidence presented at
the hearing the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Petitioner has not met his burden of proof as regards
legal hardship.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, against granting
the petitioner his requested relief.
VARIANCE IS DENIED.
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
i
y (flit of 1�ttlem, ttssttcljusetts
nPoarb of 4PeA
3 F
kr'.a.ms ca"
jus J I 3 00 PM '86
FILE j
CITY
Ci ��.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM G. ROWS RR- V`A14FAN6c>j;sgS
AT 79 BRIDGE STREET. (B-1) .
A hearing on this petition was held May 28, 1986 with the following Board
Members present; James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary;
Messrs. , Fleming and Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters
and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Law
Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow an existing store
and three apartments and a Variance from minimum parking in this B-1 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 I% D,
grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of
nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension
or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
provided, 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 eh grant of the Sepcial 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. The petitioner purchased the property in the as is condition
in 1979.
2. Four electrical meters are in place today and currently in use.
3. Letter from pervious 'owner and tenant stating this store and three
• '' apartments were existing prior to the purchasing this building.
4. No neighbors opposed.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM G. ROWE FOR VARIANCES
AT 79 BRIDGE STREE.
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 changes 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.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 4-0, to allow the
existing store and three apartments to be continued being used as such. ,
subject to the following conditions:
1 . All Salem Fire Department regulations relative to installation
of smoke detectors must be met.
2. Removal of any unregistered vehicles.
3. Minimum of three parking spaces to maintaned for residents use.
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS GRANTED
J S B. HACKER, CHAIRMAN
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
IASS-
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT 70 SECTION E OF THE FILIR
' GENERAL LAY;S, CHAPTER 805. AND SHALL BE FILED VJ III N 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
SEDT!^H 11. THE VAR1A?ICE OR SPECS°.L FER31R
OF THIS GEC!SION i! THE OFFICE Gf THE CITY CLERK. „ TtiE CERT-
. ..c L6. $ C` EB 408 - "it I. v r
¢n1? TO (E c T + !L A e Pr
`D.
PaAi::�= °4niL i,-'; _ 2f r.•. � � � t � r .. >
� _ -_ Cr!\ER'SCEnifFicnTE OF TIi LE.
..
OF RECORD OR IS REC:CRDED AND NuiE� ��' T' BOARD OF APPEAL
' • 1
4:
of $a1em, tts�ttclj�z�efts
Pourb of
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF VINCENT SANZARI 8, PATRICK RYAN
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 83 BRIDGE ST.
�(� rr
A hearing on this petition was held April 30; &1 6 i itZ t5'8 Phlj6wing Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrijf,:4Charnas, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly publiC�"djLi-r,„the. Sg lem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts .General Laws Chapter 40A." ' F .PASS.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit from density
requirements toallowa two family dwelling to be converted to a three family
dwelling in this B-1 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with Section VIII F and IX D,
grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming
structures, and afor 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 the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition;
2. Upgrading the building would be a substantial improvement
to the neighborhood.
of fact
On the basis of the above findings , and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed use of the property will not be substantially more
more detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood;
2. The relief requested can be granted without nullifying or substantially
derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
• r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF VINCENT SANZARI & PATRICK RYAN
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 83 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit' requested under the following terms and conditions:
1 . A minimum of five (5) on site parking spaces be maintained in
the rear of the building in such a manner as to enable vehicles
to turn around and not back onto Bridge St. ;
2. Parking area must be paved and parking spaces must be lined;
3. Premises must be owner occupied;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy for each unit must be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Ll
101 ames B. Hacker, Chairman
Q 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 LAIRS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED W TH!N.20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECIS!ON IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PUP,SANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPEC!P.L PERMIT
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT iAi:E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THECEC!GI-N. SEAR!li THE C rcT.
FICATION OF THE UTY CLER6 THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAFSED AND NJ AFPIAL HAS BEEN FILED.
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN D13:11SSED OR DEiIiED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED U::DER THE NA':'.E OF THE OV.N_
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O'dNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
`� frit of ttlem, as�ac4u$eits
C R. Ic PQttID of �ppeal
DECISION 014 THE PETITION OF VINCENT SANZARI & PATRICK RYAN
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 83 BRIDGE ST.
�
�y CC
A hearing on this petition was held April 30, 74ts26 i� t$2 8186wing Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messptjf,�Charnas, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly publiC�7T3-`i-rh the SS ler:, Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Ffat.MASS.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit from density
requirements to .alloia a two family dwelling to be converted to a three family
dwelling in this B-1 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B .10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this•Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with Section VIII F and IX D,
grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming
•, structures, and afor 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 the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition;
• 2. Upgrading the building would be a substantial improvement
to the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal 1 concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed use of the property will not be substantially more
more detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood;
• 2. The relief requested can be granted without nullifying or substantially
derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
C
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF VINCENT SANZARI & PATRICK RYAN
• FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 83 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit'requested under the following terms and conditions:
1 . A minimum of five (5) on site parking spaces be maintained in
the rear of the building in such a manner as to enable vehicles
to turn around and not back onto Bridge St. ;
2. Parking area must be paved and parking spaces must be lined;
3. Premises must be owner occupied;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy for each unit must be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
• 4 COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE N:ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAVIS, CHAPTER 838, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN,20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF 1HIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PUP,SANT TO SiASS. GENERAL LAV;S. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER§'.IT -
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TA:(E EFFECT UI.-TIL A COPY OF THECECLICid. BEAC6i" THE CE?T•
FICATIOH OF THE CITY CLER!: THAT.20 DAYS HAVE ELAFSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED,
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS SEEN DIS,'KSED OR DENIED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESE% REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE Nom!.E OF THE OV.::_
• OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OVlNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
4 fdi#u of 'Salem, ttsstttlluse##$
• v .r
Oct 3 8 hn Ab Ts
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF TIMOTHY BERRY FOR A FILE
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 18 BRIGGS ST. CITY
A hearing on this petition was held September 24, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and
Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the
.hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 4OA.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to extend non-
conforming side and rear setbacks to allow construction of a deck in this 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, 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 the plans presented, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition;
2. Proposed deck will enhance the property value;
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 deck will not be subtantially detrimental to
the neighborhood;
2. The deck will promote the convenience and welfare of the
City's inhabitants and will be in harmony with the district.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF TIMOTHY BERRY FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 18 BRIGGS ST. , SALEM
page - two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested subject to the following conditions:
1 . The deck is to be constructed in strict accordance with plans
submitted;
2. Deck and stairs shall not encroach more than four (4) feet on
the side yard on the northeast property line and shall not
encoach more that four (4) feet on the rear property line.
3. A Building Permit must be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
,/James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY Ct3::
I
FRO;' TH.'S DECISION. IF ANY, SHAL! BE 6.ADE PURSUA."1T
SEC
- , . • L., � _
vTO Ei^fl 17 OF TH:CENRAL SS. AND SH[LEE FILED iB 2` DAYS AFTER THE DATEOF THIS DEO!SIONIi: THE OFFICE OF TEE CITY CLERK. OF FC'i'=L
'i:';
P S. T
TO t."SS C°?ERn L4 :S. CHAPTEP SDE. SEMDN 11 THE VA '.�.E CP coc Cl_i! c
'i LJ HER S4- L D. - i :-•E EFFECT U". TI! A COP O `!-.��
Y f iiE ? u:
Ci TF- Y CLEF,,-. Tn=i 20 L,... 4'•}rL E F.cD , - "I
OR it'='.T. IF SUCr. . pL .�+i F o _ - -
RE _l, _ _ PEA_ HP'S ELLi. -,E. .'.q' iT Eh$ DE='i 0:S''._.r? - -r
0 D _D IF: THS S:UTH ESSEX BECISfP OF A r rXED �.
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED A70 P:OTED ON idE OV:NLRS CLF,TIFIGAiE OF TIT_2. -
BOARD OF APPEAL
= Cgitu of �Iem, c' tt��ttcljus�tf�
1 1nxrD ofp�renl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT KOBUSZEWSKI FOR
A VARIANCE AT 55 BROAD ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held Julv 23, 1986 with the following Board Menbers
present: James Hacker, Chairman; MessrAL�f, B�nca3,JgRttf Lczinski and Strout.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others an notices of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem E444* f News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
CITY ;a.zH.HA55.
The petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance to allow a
Carriage House to be convert to a single family dwelling in this R-2 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 in-
volve substantial hardship, finanical 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 and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There is sufficient parking on the premises;
2. Carriage House could be used for garage and/or stcrage as in
the past;
3. Building is currently not in compliance as it is;
4. No hardship.
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 provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not
involve substantial hardship to the petitioner;
2. The relief requested cannot be granted without su`stantial detriment to
the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from
the intent of the district or the purpose of the Crdinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT KOBOSZEWSKI FOR
• A VARIANCE FOR 55 BROAD ST. , SALEM
Jpage two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted three in favor of granting the
requested Variance (Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski & Strout) ; one opposed to granting
the Variance (Mr. Hacker) and one voting present (Mr. Bencal) . Due to the lack
of the four votes necessary to grant a Variance, the Variance is denied.
VARIANCE DENIED 1
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FRO'.1 THIS DECI d:^!. C a5ALL BE .BADE PORS'IANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE ".ASS:"
UNZRi,L U1iJS. CH`.F'FER E'JS. AND SHALL BE FLEL 1",'.THIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FMfiO
,HTS DECISiM IN THE OFFICE CF THE CITY CLERK.
P*:Ei1'iT T3 r:6.SS- M!F.RAL LA Vi S. CHA?+;_R S@3, SECT:]ii 11, THE VARIANCE 03 SPECIA1. PERCSIT
S :nLL7:!.. RJ' O.7I1 A C^P, IPEA.�;... -HE --ERT.
THE r Y ER.; -.0 D;,rc HALE ..I r.YCJ N1 :PF'..:L HAS EE FI ED,
r A^PEN' F ' ji:7. 03A7 IT H CIE W D 'R F:j IS .
T— IN THE .,..,-rl ESSEX RE.ISIMY CF -ECS AND I J_�ED Ui,JE. Id'� r.1.1E 0r THE O./NER
QE R-C'RRD OR IS RLJRDED AND NOIED O';i THE ONNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
�J
of '$Arm, �tzssttt�use##s
02irb of � tenl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL CORMIER & PAUL BEAUPRE
FOR A SPECIAL .PERMIT AT 20 BROADWAY (I)
A hearing _on this petition was held May 14, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. , -
Fleming, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapte 40A.
The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow a miniature golf course.
Property is owned by George Feeney.
The petition requested from the fLoard permission to withdraw the petition. The
Board of Appeal vote unanimously, 5-0, to allow the petition to withdraw.
WITHDRAWN
�J
Richard A. Bence4k, SecrSt ry
ra
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANN;IG BOA. THE CITY CLERK
Z
co
T
r»
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 1: OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER BOB, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 2C DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSANT TO !'C,CS. CE'..ERA,L LA-S. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL FERItiT
THE CEni-
Gi,.^.iiTF ' FiERE;i:, SHALL GCf Ll::E EFFECT 'UNTIL A COPY OF THE
FiCAa OF TH2 CITi f iER*K T!'7!'A7TO DA':S HAVE ELAPSED A}i7 PiD APPEAL HAS 8_Eii FILED.
TIO
CR THAT, IF SUCH FIN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS SEEN DIS':Z"ED CR
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE O'J,'NER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE 0WNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD'OF APPEAL
t • )
of 1-$njeM, C ttSSMt lt82ft8
`; 3 ultra of �ppral
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALB$RT & ELAINE ^iINOTTI (PETITIONERS)
ROBERT MA.GUIRE (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE FOR 108 BROADWAY, SALEM
A hearing on this .petition was held April 30, ,)98 wi th� folllowing Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Mes i'. 2Ch rf� .luaSnski, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing was -sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly publisheg ��the Salem Evening Neots in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Ch. =r 40A.
Petitioners are requesting a Variance to allow an existing trailer to remain
on the premises and to make said trailer a permanent structure by removing wheels
and adding foundatidn. Property is located in an Industrial .district.
A The�Jariance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Boa6i that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure invoiced and which are not generally
w affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district;
`= �E 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.
_ ; �L - 9he Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at
_ = - w' �t he hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 Substantial opposition was raised to the plan;
_ = 2. .The Board felt it would be setting a precedent by allowing a .
trailer to be used as permanent structure in the City as there
are _none currently in use..
g)n the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
c r _ - `__ ,tearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detri-
ment to the public good or 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, against granting
the Variance requested and to direct the Inspector of Buildings to take appro-
priate action to have the trailer removed from the premises.
DENIED
C
Peter Strout, Member Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
T
�• ti, (1Zit� ofttlem, Ctt$$�zthu$Ptts
ottra of �ppeul
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID & LINDA PYDYNKOWSKI
FOR A VARIANCE FOR 9 BROOKS ST.
p 0pt
A hearing on this petition was held Apri%aot 192%%M 91 following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. Notice of the heflttk4 was sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published in ZhEt.AS, a�s.Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General La lP strapEer I;N.'
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance from lot size in
order to construct a single family dwelling in this R-2 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon .a finding of the
Board that':
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which 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 . There was no neighborhood opposition;
2. The size of this lot would be substantially the same size as
other lots in the area;.
3. Currently this is a vacant lot and a dwelling unit would improve
the neighborhood;
4. A variance would be required to build anything on this lot and
without variance this lot would be virtually useless.
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 property but which do not
generally affect other lands, buildings and structures in the same
l district;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
volve substantial hardship to the 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.
.3 �w
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID & LINDA PYDYNKOWSKI
• FOR A VARIANCE FOR 9 BROOKS ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variances requested, under the following terms and conditions:
1 . Plans be submitted to the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau regarding
the installation of smoke detectors;
2. Work be done in accordance with plans submitted;
3. A Certificate o: Occupancy be obtained.
VARIANCE GRANTED
'_ 6ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
OR
APPEAL FROM. THIS DECK;i. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 CF TtiE " ....
GENERAL LA'NS, CHA7�c4 °L:. AND SHALL BE FILED W!THIN 20 DAYS AVER THE DA?° i'i i"
OF THIS DEC0CoN IN TEE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
. PUP.SANT TO CHAPTER COS. SECTM! 11. THE PA.'.iANOE C:; SPEL'IAL f.'.,!:T
GRANTED HEREIN, SH?1L Y,v.- TARE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE CEC'S!ON. @Ed.'.':L THE OE .T-
FICtU13% OF THE CITE Ci IF., 1 n: 20 GAYS HA•iE L i�:ED A4D :1: A.-PEA; H -:_IJ F!1=O,
OR THAT, IF S_Cd Ai: FPP=A' H.-'S BEE? FILE, THAT IT r,'.t: 2EE7: eibi'LSS`_G CR EE`L EG 1:
RECORD EO IN THE SPJTH ESSEX. RESISiRY OF LEEDS AND RXEAED U!i DER TEE IrAiLE CF THE DNIt'
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND ACTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTiFir OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
3
ofttlem, � ussttthusP##s
ottrb of vd
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT WELCH & WILLIAM LUNDREGAN
(PETITIONERS) , GEORGE HASKELL & KAREN LAWRENCE (OWNERS) FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 18 BROWN ST. , SALEM gg&&
A hearing on this petition was held March 19, 198Yp�I& t3e§�o24'oW-ing Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman;- Messrs. , Charna�„Encal, Luzinski and Strout.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and o r and notices of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News tacgordanFq� k". Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A. ¢ 1(
Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to utilize the building located at
18 Brown Street for professional,. non-professional and non-retail offices. Property
is located in an R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this
Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the
procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D,
grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of
nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, 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 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 intended use is not more detrimental than the present use;
2. There is parking for at least nineteen (19) vehicles in
the rear of the building;
3. The plans, as submitted, will help to preserve the building
and the unique architectural features;
4. Concerns that were voiced by an abutter will be addressed
by the petitioners;
5. Support for the plan was submitted by neighbors, abutters and others.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, in favor of the petition subject to the
following provisions:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT WELCH & WILLIAM LUNDREGAN (PETITIONERS) ,
GEORGE HASKELL & KAREN LAWRENCE (OWNERS) , FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 18 BROWN ST. ,
SALEM
page two
1 , The property may be used as prufessional, non-professional
and non-retail offices;
2. No other commercial use of this property shall be allowed without
prior approval of this Board;
3. The property may not be used for residential units;
4. The petitioner shall maintain at least nineteen (19) on site
parking spaces;
5 An occupancy permit must be obtained by the petitioner for the
use of the building;
6. The building must be in compliance with State and local fire
regulations;
7. Petitioner must make any and all attempts to keep the driveway
for St. Peters Church clear from any vehicles making deliveries
or otherwise servicing the building at 18 Brown St. ;
8. Any signage must be approved by the Salem Planning Board.
_ •
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED_.
Richard A. Bencal,,• Member Boar of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROr.i THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 CF THE
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED VITHiN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FiJd7
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSANT TO .',:ASS. GE3=RA: L4�S. CHAPTER 808, SEC7I01d1 11, THE VARIAUE OR SPECIAL PFF.Y!T
GM:,ED HEREIN. SHALL N•DT TA!;E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE TI1E CERT-
FICATION OF THE CITYCLERK TH.Ai 20 DMS HAVE ELAPSED ANO NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED,
OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEE': Fi_E. THAT IT H.=.S DEE:: DISCJ G'EO CR DENIED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND IN9EXED GuDER THE %w.E OF THE CG:SER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OVINER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
(gifV of ,�Jttjrm, � ttssttt�jusOffs
Poxra of '4peul
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD VARNEY FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR 11-13 BRYANT STREET, SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held Rgr�ry2l¢q RMS�Baith the following Board
Members present: Edward Luzinski, Ac ng Chairman; e'ssrs. , Charnas, Strout and
Associate Members Dore and LaBrecquepILEIPtice 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 Mas sac husett61Tt5eri�R%1`Law KU*ter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the premises, requests a Special Permit to allow him to
convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions
set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for
alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for
changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots,
land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, ex-
tension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more
Jdetrimental 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, conveniencenience and welfare of the City's's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing,
and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The premises can accommodate at least seven (7) on site parking
spaces, which is more than adequate for the proposed three family use;
2. An additional unit in the building will not appreciably increase the
traffic' or density of the neighborhood;
3. A three family dwelling is not out of character with the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed use of' the premises will not be substantially more
detrimental to the public good than the existing use;
•� 2. The propose use will promote the health, safety and welfare of the
City's inhabitants.
�I
,r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD VARNEY FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR 11-13 BRYANT ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief
requested provided that:
1 . No less than seven (7) non-piggyback parking spaces be provided
on the premises;
2. Access to the parking spaces be hottopped;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained;
4. The premises be owner occupied.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
00
_ EF i. �E Pi:-Si;A'T TO S_.7
,._ 2u D
c A'TEf
.E, jjF IT. CFF°
,.
is
E Ttic
i'.i _.....,.
ER IS F.E'„i:3OEU A.^.0 .D ON ir:E OJncER'S CER11FIC—E OF a LE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
3
`. Ctv of ttlem tt5$ttc usetts
J Poarb of �kpvenl
w Mm
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HENRY BERNSON FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 4A BUFFUM ST. (I��'')""'' Ll
A hearing on this petition was held Juk1E, 1yu¢5w&M4*e following Board Members
present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman- Richard Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. ,
Fleming and Strout. Notice of the heI440 was sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly p�� pshed in rthe Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General S-Chapt2r$MOS.
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side and rear
setbacks in order to construct an addition in this Industrial district. Petitioner
is the owner of the 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
orocedure and conditions set forth in Section VIZI F and IX D,
grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of
• i nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension
p
or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, _
provided, >
ovided however, that such change, extension, enlargement or
substantially expansion shall not be s y more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant..of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the -public
hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition or support was voiced to the plan;
2. The addition will benefit the resident of the building.
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 will not be substantially more detrimental
to the neighborhood;
2. The proposed addition will add to the convenience of the
residents of the building.
c
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HENRY BERNSON FOR A
• SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 4A BUFFUM ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the
Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear and side setbacks in order to
construct an addition, subject to the following conditions:
1 . A Building permit must be obtained;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained;
3. The addition is to be no closer than three (3) feet on the
south side of the property; eight (8) feet on the east side,
thirty seven (37) feet on the north side of the property on
the 11 ft. 3 inch long boundary;
4. The addition is to be one story and measure 14 ft. wide
by 18 ft. long.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED /)
• R chard A. Bencal, 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 IL.ADE PURSUANT TO °:':''._;:_ !7 GF THE L'RSS. ,
--
C Ei4 ERAL LA'XS. CHAPTER 2C4, AND SHALL BE F L6 ti!'Hiii tC D^��' �' ._ � .. " E 0% FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
L',:`S Ci1AFT`-. °':i. '! I! T`.. -
p ..- -LRT.
F_ ; D FEM1EII, SH:AL 1-.'.lE E`F C :T,L •• ' ._.. _ F1--D,
iS _
`/ rHAT, IF SSLH Au APF:-..-, H:,S BE[:. CF Fii. Gic^:tR
R--1 i-.'-D IN THE S::UTH ESSEX REGI R� -F C' �� ''
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND N I D ON THE 0 n.LR S CERiIFILIiL Gr" I E.
BOARD OF APPEAL
I •�
1
.a.cma,y�
A (tlitg of �$ttlrm, Massachusetts
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HENRY BERNSON FOR A Zq 3 0 TUU
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 4A BUFFUM ST. FILE
A hearing on thisetition was held on April 160iT1�9�Fr wiCh;_ lowin
P Pr �k?TP� g Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Charnas, 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, being represented by his brother-in-law, requested leave to
withdra:, his petition for an addition in this (I) district.
The Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant this request to withdraw.
WITHDRAWN
Achard A. Bencal, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
Itti *W IIS
CI 1Q:SE DI Ti
Q#
&E TOADE
`Ntin'r
Ri? E FR.'3fiL` Eww�a�- R- SL'.lrr � 1� �E1�- a
�(E>"FL QFD7y5 PF �`— • � YF.F.�F4'C,t Q
Dbctl TL'h'I d ., '• 4
PilRsArtif i D' tu. . �c. � Y U'B°Tll p COY ®f�ilicPt'� R AiRN9.S e"'� Fl �
'r ""FlO NE681'f. cr:z?1G'. 7;. -c D:S:�:.ISS'4 OR UEES lS
i F :i1S OF y{{_ qi'i C�7•TNF.. YS HRYE
ELM Rk
2u OF. HAS Ba.R THE OF1N
pllD IHDD(ED UNDER THE C14RuE
OR THFT. IF Si1::H R RPPc?1 ilFS Bait Fl?E.TEED R
apt REGlVRY DF THE
� "TE OF 11EL6.
ROI�ORAND hD(ED Dn n1E ;
a
i
4: Ti#g ofAUG 02
uiem, � ttssttcljuse##g
�uara ,7f Appeal
FILE$
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & JEAN WALSH FOR ACITY CL,::
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 19 BUFFUM ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held on August 20, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Member
Strout and Associate Member Dore. 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, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to extend a
nonconforming side setback to allow an addition 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 till promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing,
makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No support or opposition was raised to the plan;
2. The addition will promote the welfare of the inhabitants.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed addition will improve the property;
2. The proposed addition will promote the welfare and convenience
of the City's inhabitants.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & JEAN WALSH FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 BUFFUM ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested, subject to the following terms and conditions: .
1 . Addition to be built in accordance with plans and dimensions
submitted;
2. A legal Building Permit must be obtained;
3. Exterior finish of the addition must conform to the
existing structure.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
v
Richard A.' Bencal, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• i
P: PURSUA^!7 TO SEC1.01 17 OF TP �`S. .
_ stn 20 DX1S FRc THE C'.� Or
APPEAL FROM THIS DELI IO, IF
GEItEF'.A LH CP'r Ek e. v .- S C
OF TIi., �._IS Dn I iH °
-I ,t 1 IF c. ,, S I. 0 IILE
REJ7`.��D IN Tr'- S�OR E A Pr.]�ED Oi. r �';RERS ffR71f,i;G`c O
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND
BOARD OF
U _ _
J ,
q Ctv of ttlem, 'Mttsstttllusetts OCT 3 8 40 AN 'B6
f Poarb Df c1ppPMl FILE ,
CITY
/
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & VALERIE PETERSON
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 26 BUFFUM ST.
A hearing on this petition was held September 24 , 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, 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 Special Permit to allow
construction of a second means of egress to allow the property to be used as a
two family dwelling in this R-2 district.
The-provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
forffa Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
_ _ w
M Wotttithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of
may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section
w SII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non-
N = - xonforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of non-
LL � stonforming 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.
- z w
J
an 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
m W
the Board that the
_ .. y grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
- _ - 9
w Nhe Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence and after viewing
the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
= - n <
- 1 . The proposal as presented would adversely affect the neighborhood;
1 x
2. The area if very congested with parking at a premium.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
_• Board of appeal concludes as follows:
u c 1 . The proposal would be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood
and would not promote the safety, convenience and welfare of the
City's inhabitants.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted three in favor of granting the petition,
Mr. Bencal voted present, petition failed to carry the four votes necessary to
grant so the request for a Special Permit is denied.
DENIED
Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
74
of �$ttlem, �ssiirljuse##s
Pourb of E�1ppett1
k
Mir 18 8 f,R A.P,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NICHOLAS & DPRP?Ai-I MAROTTA
FOR A VARIANCE FOR 1 BUTLER ST.
C!TY S .ItN,NeSS.
A hearing on this petition was held May 21 , 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski, Strout
and Associate Member Dore. 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
an existing three .family dwelling in this R-1 district.
The petitioners requested leave to withdraw their petition without prejudice.
The Zoning Board of Appeal unanimously, 5-0, granted leave to withdraw.
WITHDRAWN
r6mes B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
AFFEAi.FR.,! TYI!a C_. ".'i .T 1"'. SHA!L BE k'A.DE FJFS.ANT TO SE<T....i 17 '
_ - LENc'k- J` Cnr 'r U-P, A U S"':LL LE F,UD L'.:r.6 20 D;,YS
OF THIS D_bl.."N Ii! THE OFFICE OF Tri`_ MY CLE%K.
PLRSANT TG k`.ta CE �._ Ui i C`A'TvR FOC SciT ] TYE l A.. ° Cf c
.ra LE
6P.ACTE9 FEREi:• ".,LL M1Ci TP•,E EFiiCi 01,'TIL A C:.rf OF iPc"=C
FICATiON OF THE CIV CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAI'E ELAFti`_;i ,:u0 !-C' <�rc`i HP.0 L ` E• ' _
OR THU, IF SOC. AE! APPEAL H1S B`EN FILE THAT IT r N L IC_-D l� D I `
RECORDED IN THE S'UV ESSEX REC:STRY OF DEEDS AND L:SEXED L D S THE I .`_ OF �d '
OF RECOP.D OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OwN'ER'S CERTIMAiE OF TITLE.
BOARD. OF APPEAL
I
vn
Ctu of tttem, ttssttcttu�e##s
Y
Paura of Appeal OCT 3 8 42 N 186
waos.�.
FILE$
DECISION 014 THE PETITION OF NICHOLAS M. & DEBORAH I. MAROTTA
FOR VARIANCES FOR 1 BUTLER ST. CJTY Cl-"'` s4t£M,k1 st.
A hearing on this petition was held on September 17, 1986 and suspended to
September 22, 1986, with the following Board Members present: James Hacker,
Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Bencal, Strout and Luzinski. Notice of the hearing
was sent to abutters and others, and notices of the hearing were properly published
in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
The petitioners, represented by Attorney Michael M. McArdle, requested a Variance
for the building located at 1 Butler St. to be used as a three (3) family dwelling
and a Variance from the required on site parking requirements. The property is
located in an R-1 district.
The Variances 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 petitioners; 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 area, although designated R-1 consists substantially of two (2)
and three (3) family dwelling units;
3. A denial of the Variance would work an economic hardship on the
petitioners;
4. A two family use would not derogate the value of surrounding
housing;
5. There is room for three (3) cars to be parked 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
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the property but do not
generally affect other lands, buildings and structures in the same distric_ :
2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial
economic hardship to the petitioners;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NICHOLAS M. & DEBORAH I. MAROTTA
FOR VARIANCES FOR 1 BUTLER ST. , SALEM
page two
• i 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.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 , Mr. Hacker opposed, to grant a
Variance to allow the property at 1 Butler St. to be used as a two (2) family
dwelling, provided that:
1 . The property remain owner occupied;
2. Three (3) spaces for automobile parking be maintained on the property;
3. That all the requirements of the Massachusetts State Building Code
be adhere to;
4. That all the requirements of the Salem Fire Department regarding garding fire
prevention' be adhereed to;
5. That the petitioners obtain an Occupancy Permit from the Building
Inspector for each unit.
The requested Variance from the parking requirements is not granted since the
petitioners can meet
the _one site parkin requirements g q ents for a
two2
that is three (3) spaces. two (2) family use,
. ` VARIANCE, AS MODIFIED, GRANTED
y'fj
dames M. Fleming, Esq. , kmber
Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECIS6CN. IF ASY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTIO- 17 OF T",E
C ENER.AL LAWS, CHAFTER SCE, k: D SHSLL BE FI:_ED WITHIN 20 DAPS WEk THE DATE OF F:-'1;'
OF THIS DE^iSIC!J IN THE OFFICE CF THE CITY CLERK.
PL'2°'.I;T TO ,','ASS C-E'-EFAi LAFi7,. C°''orE' e^.° SECT}:ir! :I. THE
i nF ED fiP•t" S5. I r�Cc T. r - Vn +�-= C SF IAL
L F CCPr ^ V.'
FiLATIX- Or THE M _rP'.
• REC n IN Tnr S1�iH ESS c. R E I A ^ _
OF RECORD OR IS RE6.,r.DED AND I.JTED ON ThE O YNER S'CERIIF,CA E Or 'I , c
BOARD OF AFPEAL
l
/' ftlitg oftttem, ttssucl�usefts
• �; %'� �uttra of �1�ex1 .. .
Dec 5 3
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHONY J. P CARIELLO IYOR
VARIANCES FOR 51R CANAL ST. a/k/a 1 FLORENCE ST.
A hearing on this petition was held November 19, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. 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 variances from dimensional
requirements to allow reconstruction of a building which was destroyed by fire.
Said building to be reconstructed on the same footprint and is located in:an
R-2 district.
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 Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and
•
C. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detrimental 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 . There was no opposition;
2. The building proposed would not exceed the one destroyed by fire;
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 the subject property
but does not affect the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. The relief requested can 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.
' • 1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHINY J. PICARIELLO FOR
VARIANCES FOR 51R CANAL ST. a/k/a 1 FLORENCE ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variances from density requirments and parking, subject to the following terms
and conditions:
1 . Building to be constructed on the same footprint;
2. All applicable provisions of the State Building Code, Fire Prevention
code, City Ordinances and MGL relative to fire safety must be
complied with;
3. A building permit and a Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained.
VARIANCES GRANTED
Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF AF;Y, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER SGS, AND SHALL EE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FIL'HG
OF THIS DECISION iN THE 0FF'.CE OF THE cDE, SE CLERK.
11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL FECi.',11
PURSRNT 70 k:.SS. GE:ERAL LATS S. CHAF'.ER "G"
C
E T-
GF.AP;TED HEREIi•i. S'dA!_L 't J' T7.i;c EFFn yUFTIL_AEL.A?YED ri:ITHE
i�0 APPEAL HAS OEERH FILED.
F�ATIO.J OF THE C!.7 C E - iF c li F:-S ° N PiJ:IC FO CE D`_N q
Lr ,H',T IF SLICE' A' nrPtR FSS c ` in AND INDEXED ONDER 1H HA'L �r Ir- 0%P(E�.
IEC .-:CE7
Ii,; THE &SJiH ESSC: RE �°.':�i OF D_ua
iflE DvlNER'S CERTIFICATE Of TITLE.
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED Cl
BOARD OF APPEAL
of "ittfem, tt$stttfiu$e##s
3Ocr 9 ,
, F Paxra of 1 ett1 $ 4P �H eg
\ • �L'L.TT�' (ILC
/ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PUB REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANC4BYCLck� tiL[M.
AT 143 CANAL ST.
A hearing on this petition was held on September 17, 1986 and suspended to
September 22, 1986 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman;
Messrs. , Fleming, Bencal, Strout and Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The petitioner, represented by Thomas Powers, Trustee, requested a Variance so that
the first floor of the building located at .143 Canal St. could be used as four (4)
apartments. The petitioner further requested a Variance from the requirements of
on site parking, as required by the Ordinance. The property is located in a B-4
district.
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 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 No opposition was presented to the plan, except as to the number
of units.
2. Petitioner has made a good faith effort to lease the premises as a
pub, but has been unsuccessful;
3. The property, as large Pub/Restaurant is unique to the district;
4. The only financially viable use of the premises, particularly given
the overall problems of the existing small businesses in the area,
is as a multi-residence building;
5. Four (4) additional units would impact the area too severely, but
two (2) additional units would not have such an impact;
• ', 6. Such a use would provide additional affordable housing in the area,
promoting the best interests of the City.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PUB REALTY TRUST FOR
VARIANCES AT 143 CANAL ST. , SALEM
page two
. 1I 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 the 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.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 , Mr. Hacker opposed, to grant a
Variance to use xhe first floor premises at 143 Canal St. for two (2) additional
apartments and to grant a Variance from the requirements of on site parking, as
required by the Ordinance; provided that:
1 . All the requirements of the Massachusetts State Building Code
be adhered to;
2. All the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to
fire prevention be adhered to;
• 3. That the petitioner obtain all necessary building permits and
occupancy permits for each unit from the Building Inspector.
VARIANCES, AS MODIFIED, GRANTED
(J7
ames M. Fleming, Esq. , mber
Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLEFK
APPEAL FROM, THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE
CENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 809. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AMR THE DATE OF`FiLCiG
OF THIS D`_CIS13N IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
P.€SANT TO .'.'ASS. CE'iERA' I?i:'S. CHAPTER 803, SECTi;i+ 11. THE NARiATiSE_OR SPECIF.L PT..'.'iT
i F,ACTED HEREUd, SHALL N2 T'+ = EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE`'EC'S'='' +" ��- THE C_RT•
RLAI'ILN LF 'i HE CITY CLERi "THAT 20 LAYS HAVE ELAPSED N' AFPEAL HA.i LE`_N FILED,
CR THAT IF S'-'-H A APF:Ai. H'. GE`d FILE, THAT IT Hca BEEN ^R Cc ,,FJ IS
.:
R�ilh OEu IA' THE SCU:H ESSEX c JETRY OF DEEOS AND INDEXED UNDER THEIIAi"c OF THE-',
HE Ol\
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
L�
f1lit r of §§aIem, ttsgttcl�usetts
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PUB REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCE
FOR 143 CANAL ST. (B-4)
A hearing on this petition was held July 16, 1986 with the following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, and Luzinski.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others andnotices of the hearing
were properly published in- the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting Variances to allow four apartments and a variance from
minimum parking requirements in this B-4 district.
At the request of petitioner's Counsel the Board of Appeal voted unanimously,4-0,
to allow petitioner to withdraw without prejudice.
WITHDRAWN
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
• '! A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
Ai P- �,^• *`�6 ..^,E"61Oir, Su ti aE -DE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE
Cb' v>5 Sri LL F -' w,17M R 20 DAYS A�r.R THE DATE OF FILI iv
C_ �,r T�: ;!iY CIL-RK. ,.r cSP:C F� PER:tiT
Cr . �.S�.. I, =ric _ ., r;3 o;CiC ^. 11 .ur y ol'.. C
HE rERT-
c
Syr THE CITY Lccn.� -R
E.c isCF THE R
DR THAI S':�H A"7 APPEAL X P
R-C, DEO m THE S311:H ESSEX P.cCISTRY 14 HE I-,_E,
Of REC OR IS REQC}RDED AND NOTED ON THE OKIicRS
BOARD OF APPEAL
•�I
y 4Q f�tt of ` 2IIPm, � tt8gtttusPftS
Pattra of �ppettl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN E. BOOTH FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR 15 CARLTON ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was he Fel�,ugy5&T,�1W with the following Board
Members. present: Edward Luzinski, ting Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Strout and
Associate Members Dore and Labr-ecguAtEVotice of the hearing was sent to abutters
and others and notices of the hearing were properlxx�pplablished in the Salem
Evening News in accordance with MasoglMxssdtts%Geh�e�`a3 'Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the premises, requests a Special Permit to allow him to
have a two family 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, extension, enlargement
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 and viewing the plans, makes
the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition was presented to the plan;
2. The proposed use of the property will have no appreciable impact
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 proposed use of the premises will not be substantially more
detrimental to the public good than the existing use;
2. The proposed use will promote the health, safety and welfare of
the City's inhabitants.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
• relief requested, provided that:
La
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN E. BOOTH FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 15 CARLTON ST. , SALEM
page two
1 . At least three (3) non-piggy back parking spaces be maintained
toward the rear of the property;
2. 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
I•
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE
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.
PUF,SAN TO ?`.ASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
GRAtf�ED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPT OF THEDECISION. BEARING THE CERT.
F1CATiLN 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 O7,-- -
OF RECORD OR IS"RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
,Wv
fluty ofttlem, � ttssrzc!#use# s
s
t�
•, c y . Poura of Appeal
Jw�omv6f
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & CYNTHIA BUONFIGLIO FOR
A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT ON CHAMPLAIN ROAD
A hearing on this petition was held October 29, 1986 and continued, with the
consent of the petitioners, for additional public hearing on November 12, 1986.
The following Board Members were present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal,
Fleming, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and
others and notices of the .hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioners, represented by Attorney Robert A. Ledoux, are requesting a
Special Permit to subdivide the existing lot, resulting in one further noncon-
forming lot (Lot A on plan submitted) and a Variance from minimum lot area, lot
width, front yard and side yard requirements of the density regulations of
Table I, Section VI of the Zoning Ordinance, allowing construction of a single
family dwelling on the second lot, (Lot B on plan submitted) . The existing lot
is partly in an R-C district and partly in an R-1 district
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in
• Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction
of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion
of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such
change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more
detrimental that 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 the petitioner;
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
U1^:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & CYNTHIA BUONFIGLIO FOR
A VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CHAMPLAIN ROAD, SALEM
PAGE TWO
•� The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing and after viewing the plans submitted, makes the following findings
of fact:
1 . Substantial opposition was presented by abutters Stephen
and Joan Lovely;
2. The plan, as presented, would adversely affect the neighborhood,
possibly encroaching on wetlands which are part of a local drainage
control project;
3. The petitioners have failed to show sufficient facts for this Board
to find that substantial hardship would result from the denial of
the request for a variance.
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 grant of the requested Special Permit would not promote the
public health, safety, and welfare of the City's inhabitants;
2. The relief requested cannot 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 not
involve substantial hardship to the petitioners.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted three to two, 3-2, (Messrs. , Fleming
and Bencal voting in opposition to granting the requested Special Permit and
Variance) , the petitioners failing to carry the four (4) votes necessary to
grant the requested Special Permit and Variance. Therefore, the Special Perm_t
and Variance are denied.
SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE DENIED
i L—
1^aL717
(�Iames M. Fleming, ` sq.
Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, I, ANY. SHALL EE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE rv'A:`..
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER, 8'133, At:[) SHALL EE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILIIiG
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURS ANT TO HSS tui PAL Lf C� EP KS, SECTION 11 THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER.;iT
CRA' IED HSP I'. S7 LL P , EFFECT L' J IL A COPY OF THE MS OEArP..iN HE C-RT-
FILATH d Cr THE 1 k:. 'A1S `,%1V7 ELA?`_' '1 VD N ' �1'P i L HAS 3 - FILED.
GR THAT, IF S_:i s APPEA!. HA.S F +_ THAT IT W3 EEEN DI c ED (`1 t' ED IS
RECC'F:ED IN T6E Sl:—.H ESSEX RE6iSTRi CF LEEDS AND INDEXED 1NDER THE I:.,...F. OF THE CANER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED CN THE 0'4NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
(1�itg of "Salem, 4Rttssttt4usetfs I
s
"� �axra of �p#renl
r ,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ADELBERT ST. PIERRE FOR A VARIANCE
AND/OR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 23 CHARLES ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held February 19, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: Edward Luzinski, A ig�he r imHsrs. , Charnas, Strout and
Associate. Members Bencal. Notice of he hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were propgplF-_Ladvertised in the Salem Evening News 'in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
CITY C'_C='V.S5IEM.MASS.
Petitioner, owner of the premises' ' requests a Variance and/or Special Permit to
allow an apartment to be constructed over an existing garage 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 Permist 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 Perr.,it 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 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 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, and
after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Vigorous opposition was presented to the plan;
•� 2. The garage predates the effective date of the Ordinance;
/ 3. The garage is right on the lot line of the premises, and is close to
the house of an abutters;
4 . Use of part of the garage as an apartment or dwelling unit would
greatly impact on the aforementioned abutters privacy_
L�
' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ADELBERT ST. PIERRE FOR A VARIANCE
AND/OR SPECIAL .PERMIT FOR 23 CHARLES 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 appropriate relief petitioner seeks is a Special Permit;
2. The relief requested would be substantially detrimental to the
public good, and would not promote the health, safety or welfare
of the public.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, against granting
the relief requested.
SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED
211
cot .
� r
St E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
fPrEL' 'rfi�a T!;!S v=LlC ivr; it 5: SHALL BE MADE PCPSDAN'T TO SECTION 17 OF THE l:i;.S'.
iH`:P:.R S68, AND SHALL DE FILE"u 1711HiN 20 GAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 1`11-1:
GF TF!,8 GECtSTN IN TIE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
F CS AG:T T_' ....SS. LU.r;A.L ,. CHATTER SDS, SECTION 11. THE YA'1ANCE CrP _"MA: PEP,2IIT
l L -FE SHALL NOT 19-1 EFFECT UNTIL A CCPf OF THE Cr : fEA. " ,.E '"[PT-
F:i;T IN OF TH` Chi CLERK iii.T 20 DAPS H41.E ELAFSEO Ai+J lib ( FFAL HAS F - FILED,
'LF; 1HAT. IF SD(:H Add APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BE_I. DIS';ISSED UR IS
RECORDED IN THE S';aTH ESSE>' HEOISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA'niE LF THE
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
y�
P
-� k (.9itu of 'ttlem, ttssttdjusetts
J Y9 Paurb of �A"vd
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & CONSTANCE WILLIS FOR
VARIANCES FOR 46 CHARLES STREET, SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held March 19, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Charnas, 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 premises, request variances from any and all applicable
density and setback requirements in order to be allowed to convert an existing
three (3) car garage into a single family dwelling in this R-2 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 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 . A three (3) car garage standing alone on this lot has no
financially viable use consistent with the residential
character of the neighborhood;
2. This situation is unique to the district.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, toe Boarg of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special �z onditions exist which especially affect this property but do
&t generally affect other lands, buildings and structures in the
Mme diskrict;
2. ,•U teral_gnforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial
hharnhi� to petitioner; and
Q
� • 3. The relYef 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 WILLIAM & CONSTANCE WILLIS FOR
VARIANCES FOR 46 CHARLES ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief
requested, provided that:
1 . The dwelling be owner occupied;
2. The dwelling conform to plans submitted to the Board;
3. A minimum of two (2) parking spaces be maintained on the premises;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained;
5. Plans for the proposed construction are presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau, showing type and location of automatic smoke
detectors to be installed, prior to the issuance of a building permit;
6. The owner of such properties obtain proper numbering from the City
Assessors, and that compliance with the City Ordinance relative to
house numbering be adhered to.
VARIANCES GRANTED
22.t azo
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
TF: D°C1310f:, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTIO'; 17 OF THE MASS.
gOg, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS APER THE DAiE OF Fl .�5
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. p. rc OR SP F P..'•ilT
E;;'.'. CHAPTER SOB, SECTIO'? 11, THE l' _ ERT-
1
n'L 1 '4 'lAriE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE
� , .
F r CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED P`-'. . ., ac cD IS
Ok
A. ,F
�., APPEAL HRS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS L it :.n..E Cf THE OWNER .
is LO li. THE SDUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND 1%._QED LN.
r- i::C'ORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATEr TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
Ctu of ttlem, ttssttt�juse##s
snttra of � rttl J',� ' L) `8
FN 7
'
•� [mt� fi�F.;.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF P.J . HANNAWAY AND G.D.K. MWP.ER 1GSS
FOR A VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT AT 14E CHERRY HILL AVE. CFS-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held December 17, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. ,
Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent
to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner requests a Variance from lot frontage requirements and a Special Permit
to allow construction of a medical office building in this R-1 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 non-
conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of
nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change,
extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental
,mow 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.
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 letter from the Salem Planning Dept. in favor of the proposal
r was submitted;
e�
iO
2. The proposed medical building would be within 1500 feet of Salem Hospital;
,J. 3. Property is land locked and there is no other accessabilty than from
Highland Ave.
4. Opposition to the plan was presented by one abutter.
l\
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF P.J . HANNAWAY AND G.D.K. HOPPER FOR
A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 14R CHERRY HILL AVE. , SALEM
page two
^ -6 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 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 of the Ordinance;
3. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship
on the petitioners;
4. The proposed use is in harmony with the City' s master plan.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
requested Special Permit and Variance subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction to be done as per all applicable provisions of the
State and City Building codes;
2. The building be in compliance with all regulations of the Salem Fire
Dept. relative to smoke and fire detectors for a building of this type;
3. Any outside light be directed toward the building and not toward any
abutting property;
4. Property street numbering be obtained from the Salem City Assessors
` • office relative to this property;
5. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained;
6. Twenty six (26) legal size parking spaces be maintained on site;
7. All construction be done as per the plans submitted.
GRANTED ///J
chard A. Bencal, Secretary J
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FRO,f THIS DECISION, IP ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE
- GENERAL LA'dS, CHAPTER 809, AND SHALL BE BLED MTH!N 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE CF FILINo
C; THIS DECISION H; THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
P,];SANT TO LASS. CESEf S:_ LAY'S, CHAPTER ECA, SECTIO!! 11, THE VARIAFlCE M _. ..L P:."'':I:
CEANTED HEREIN. SHL'_ N.'i TA;1E MECT UNTIL A COFY D-F P� CE.RT-
yr. FICA!I: OF THE CM CLEPA 1-HAT 20 DAPS HA ELA -J fC. AEPEL HIS c ._ :ED,
OR THFT IF SU:.H G APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE FIAT !.PS - -N D! o CD r I '
RECORDED lir THE SD'
RDED AND NOTED 06 THE H ESSEX REI:STRY OF DEEP' N.J INDEXED L.cD TILE f,G.iE J.- WC OCf
• OF RECORD OR IS RECOOWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
L�
aron„��
fPli# of "Salem, ttssttcfjusetts
Poarb of �Pveal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ELISABETH J. RECKIS FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 15 CHURCHILL ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held J*E 1p, �� yothe following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Be c 1 ng, Luzinski and Strout.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abUbLEIP and others and notices of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A. CITY ClI SG .FM.MASS.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit from noncon-
forming rear and side setbacks to allow an existing deck in this R-1 district.
The provision of the Saler- Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
ofor a Special Permit is Sec-, Jon V B 10, which provides as follows:
c — `
appearing in this
Notwithstanding anythin_ to the contrary app_ g
` J � Ordinance, the Boars o= Fppeal may, in accordance with the
procedure and condit_en; set forth in Section VIII F and IX D,
grant Special Per:,,its :`or alterations and reconstruction of
_ a nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension
25
or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
4i L C_
�, •. ` c � = j provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or
- - exoansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the
o _. P z t o w existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
Mn 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
n L r .; ¢ y _by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
=_ ` ' _ '"safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
�he Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
L �Iearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . This condition has existed for over twenty (20) years;
O W —
: cGZ,� Z =
z
2. Petitioner is seeking to clarify the zoning in order to
obtain new mortgage.
Ln the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
fearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
u o = r 1 . The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment
to the neighborhood and without derogating from the intent or
purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, in favor of granting
• \ to Special Permit to allow and existing deck to within 612 feet of the side line
and 41 feet to within the rear line according to plan submitted.
frames B. Hacker, Chairman.
Lk A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
ofttlem, � {ttsstttl�usPtts
P
axrD of
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD COLBERT FOR A .
VARIANCE AT 37 CLARK ST. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held July 16, 1986 with the following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal; Fleming and Luzinski. Notice
of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notice's of the hearing were
properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
At the request of the petitioner, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to
allow petitioner to withdraw his request for a Variance from frontage to allow
division of parcel into two lots and to construct a single family on lot B.
WITHDRAWN
I`ames B. Hacker, Chairman
\ A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPE7:. FP.Oi? THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS,
CENE"RAL LA'P:S, CHAPTER SCS, AND SHALL BE F;LEu 1'lH
i" IN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
IRIS G '= INI THE 0 ICE OF THE CIT'( CLERK. '
r';RSAN IS C`APTEP EDS. SEC :.'i 11. THE VARIAS.,",E OP. S'_:'=L PER.•.iT
F'_F,_I SW-LLT '[ EF^;.%T UNTIL A CGrI 0 Tr,E - - - 711-ED,
FIAT .N OF Th T1 CLEF, 20 D:: .S nLE Eir J -� S r .: H,
BEEN .ILE i5.' IT h E_Er. IS
S-y:H ESSEX P,EOiSTP,i OF DEEDS '!,D INDEX'O L''INC_' THE i:.,...E OF THE
OF RECOiiLiOR IS RECaRDED AND NGTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
� S
ac BOARD OF APPEAL
O —
O J
J w r
J C-
�� 1� U
Z119.
01� eu
of '$ttlem, Aussuchuse##s
poarb of �ppeal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RALPH F. SALVO FOR A
VARIANCE AT 40 CLARK ST. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held July 16, 1986 with the foll*nJoBoa�9 d M hers
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. ,,Lu'�iukry#6
Fleming. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and othersF"*.notices of the
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. CITY ;;_c, �.
t„r,,M4SS-
Petitioner is requesting a Variance from frontage to divide a lot into two lots
and to construct a single family dwelling on each lot. Each lot would have approxi-
mately 75.5 feet of frontage.
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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Support for the plan was voiced by neighbors, abutters and others;
2. The existing lot is 43,447+ feet with frontage of 151 ,22+ feet.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the land involved but
do not generally affect other lands in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment and
without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district of the purpose of the Ordinance.
1\
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RALPH F. SALVO FOR VARIANCES
FOR 40 CLARK ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the variance
requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . The division of the lots shall be a per the plans submitted. One lot to
have square footage of 22,894+ and the other having a square footage
of 20,553+. Each lot to have frontage of 75-6+ feet;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Richard A. Bencal, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FP,JL! THIS DECIS!CN, IF ANY. SHALL BE :.IADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE E?ASS.
CENEAL MAS. CF;1PTFR 8OS, AND SHALL BE FiLE`i WTH!N 20 DAPS AFTER THE DATE OF FI L!'riC
CF T}i!S CECT iG": F4 THE OFF!C`_ OF THE Glif CLERK
P"IsAiJ, 7O .� L
RAW 2. P L.. SF ALL h 1 T. :E r f.� J.+TL A GOF+ OF , e F_!u HAS BE" : i_ D•
F r L F: 0 6 Ciif b Ei F�AF ZJ DAYS F Y� T AjPgA, B ',ISS R D ED IS
LR THAT. IF SUJH AN PP AL hl:C SCES PTL_ � I � ND--, I I'4./.E GF THE OVINiR
RECORDED IN THE SD'JfH ESSE:%: RE -STR( OF DEEDS AND I''�
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFF:=SE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
�\
of "Salem, ttssttclTuset#s
(' v
V l
Paura of �kppeal r
R`cnms.R'� DEC e5 I1�. Q" GQ
P,
�'— DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HAMBLET & HAYES FOR Fli.L ,
VARIANCE FOR LOT 118COLONIAL ROAD
CITY C.L: F1G;
A hearing on this petition was held November 19, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. 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 minimum front
setback to allow construction of an empty drum storage shed in this Industrial 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 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 the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition was voiced to the plan;
2. The problems expressed,as to odors, would not be increased because the
drums stored are to be empty, new and only for the use of solvents to
be directly shipped after filled.
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 subject property
but not the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. 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.
l\
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HAMBLET & HAYES FOR A
VARIANCE FOR LOT 118 COLONIAL ROAD, SALEM
page two
• .I Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
\ / Variance from minimum front yard setback requirements to allow front yard depth of
ten (10) feet for the construction of an empty drum storage shed, subject to the
following terms and conditions:
1 . Empty drum storage shed is to be constructed in accordance with
the plans submitted to the Board;
2. All drums stored in the facility shall be new and contain no
inner matter;
3. Construction shall comply with Massachusetts State Building Code and
Salem Fire Prevention Code;
4. A Building Permit must be obtained.
VARIANCE GRANTED
�l�J 2+tC
Peter Strout, Member Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
IF ANY, SHALL BEMADEPURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. _
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, ARS SHP'LLTNc CITY
Y CLERK. 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE Of FILING
OF THIS GECISICN IN THE Cf,l`-go'kPTEP. 602, SECTION 11, THE VARIAiTEcpR SpECH�L Cc2T,PEW'IT
PURSHNT TO "ASS LE"iEtt
vALt F 7 ,egE EFl-E:i ULPL A COPY OF 1HEDCC'SIO"+. 6 N Fi'_ED,
FRANTED HEREIN, S - •�D CA HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEfl Hh B
B,." FCE, iH A7 IT HAS BEE[, DIS,.."ISSED OR u'
°IIE6 IS
FICATIDN GF THE CITY CLERti 1rA�
OR TH:1T, IF SUCH A.i'; A?PE6L HAS BE_t:.
R THA EC• IN THE SCUTH ESSEX RE.- OF DEEDS AND Ii:DEXED UP:DER THE l Ai:?E OF THE GI'1f:E:,
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AI40 NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF
DLE.
OF APPEAL
i
5
i
l
Qlitg of ttlem, f ttssuchusetts
; � F Poarb of �ppeal OCT 3 8 36 AN 'Q�
FILE #
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H & R REALTY TRUST FOR
VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 95-101 CONGRESS ST. (B-1 ) Ed'NIbS
A hearing on this petition was held September 24, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Secretary,
Messrs. , Strout, Fleming and Associate Member Labreque. 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 request Variances fromminimum lot area required, maximum lot coverage,
rear yard setback, side yard setbacks, maximum height and parking. Petitioner also
requests a Special Permit to allow for the expansion of an existing nonconforming
structure to allow the construction of ten ( 10) dwelling units in this B-1 zone.
0
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 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 provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable, to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10,which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of
Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section.
VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non-
conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of non-
conforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change,
extension, enlargment or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental
than, the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public
• hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Support to the petition was voiced by abutters, neighbors and others,
as well as a petition, signed by neighbors, abutters and others;
lc
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H& R REALTY TRUST FOR
VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 95-101 CONGRESS ST.
'1 page two
2. The plan, as presented, will increase the number of affordable
residential units in the city;
3. There will be no change in the existing building other than upward;
4. The present grocery store and laundry clientele is mostly walk in
and the need for parking is minimal.
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 the property in question
but do not generally affect other lands in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would work a
substantial hardship on the petitioner;
3. 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 purpose of the Ordinance;
4. The proposed plan will promote the convenience and welfare of the
City's inhabitants.
Therefore the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the following
Variances:
1 . To allow 13,604 square foot lot size;
2. Maximum lot coverage of 40.4%;
3. Zero rear yard depth;
4. Zero side yard depth on the north side of property;
5. Maximum height of 38 feet;
6. From the required parking of 46 spaces to the proposed 27 spaces.
The Board also voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit requested to allot,
for the expansion of an existing nonconforming structure. The Variance and Special
Permit are subject to the following conditions:
1 . The addition must be built in accordance with all applicable provisions
of the Massachusetts State Building Code and in compliance with all
Salem Fire Department regulations;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy for all units be obtained.
i •\ PI F.d FROM, THIS DECF10. ANY SHLL 9E F.!A')E PURSUANT TO SECTiCN 17 OF THE Y'.:,
C EMR L LAWS. CN-P ER 8", AND SHAL' ° F'LEL t � 29 CATS AFTER THE DATf_ OF FW\:;
('F THiS DECISION IN THE OFFCE OF T CIiS
10 P +SS. `:''d. c' S. C44. SOa Xl! + „_•�'
K;.-!::, SF. Ll
Or in_ C;!Y is 2 _ ii SSE EL- S_� ° h H:: FILED.
A COPY OFA TaSS' I$YOtd ItAS 138v- FFTL$b WITH q�RE 14ELANN'iVG BOWR1) AND' THE CITY CLER,
:JED
IN TF'_ SD,;!H ESSEX R_i7 iS, LF G=:_> A J .ISL: ' .._ .E OF Tr`_
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON TEE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
Ctv of Salem, Aussarhusetts
Poxrb of �"vd OCT 3 8 42 AM '86
FILE 41
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BRYAN CORRIVEAO FOR A CITYC,c&R sl.
VARIANCE AT 2 CRESCENT DRIVE Ek,MlbS.
A hearing on this petition was held September 24, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Lusinski 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 property, is requesting a Variance to allow an existing
shed which encroaches on side line requirements and distance to main building 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
i
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 . No opposition was presented;
2. The layout of the land presents a problem placing the shed in any
other area of the lot.
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 property in question
but do not affect other lands in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve a
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment or
without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district of the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BRYAN CORRIVEAU FOR A
VARIANCE AT 2 CRESCENT DRIVE, SALEM
page two
•� Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance
requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Shed remain located as per the plans submitted;
2. A Certificate of Compliance be obtained from the Salem Fire
Department relative to the installation of smoke detectors.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLEEK
APPEAL FRO69 THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
CENERAL LA::S. CHAPTiR 832, AND SHALL BE FILED WTHIN ^_0 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
O: THIS DECISION is THE OFFICE OF THE CITY" C!EEK.
P J:..'A 1T T ''.LASS. GEN-RAL LAWS. CHAPTER SOS, SECiI2:; 11, THE V'.D!AF:C:_ OR SPECIAL PER.',:IT
0 h`, CiSIDN, °'�RI'.G THE CE."-.T.
C R;:ii.. _ EI k. SHALL NOT i:;`:E EFFECi UNTIL A CC"! CF THE _
FICATO?; OF THE CITY CLERK THAN,- 20 DAYS HANE +`P:.'U '";`1 N'.; AI'KU HAS BEES F!,ED,
CR Th AT. IF SLC' AN APPEA. HP° BEEN FILE THAT IT h PEE" D ^ ,SED OR N:ED IS
RECORDED IN THE S:'UiH ESSEX RE�]ISTRY OF DEEDS t!!D _;:ED _—ODER THEN ^ OF THE OWii ER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
• I
-
�` of $alem, tt88ttcljTTSPt�$
• ` 1? Puxrb of '�Vvez1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD WATKINS (PETITIONER) ,
UGO DIBIASE (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE FOR 13 CRESCENT DRIVE
A hearing on this petition was held March$p,2g9a2 * tHHt1Sfollowing Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; essrs. , harnas, Bencal, Luzinski
and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sepk.Etf abutters and others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 4CTTYCL�?.K. 5"IEM,MA55.
Petitioner is requesting Variances from dimensional requirements in order to
divide property into two lots and to construct a single family dwelling on
each lot. The premises is located in an R-1 district and is owned by Ugo DiBiase.
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 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 . This is a heavy residential area;
2. One Neighbor was in opposition;
3. Several neighbors and abutters in .favor and a petition was
submitted in favor;
4. Area is a blight on the neighborhood due to dumping, broken glass
and minor vandalism;
5. These were set up originally as two single family house lots during
the sixties when the Witchcraft Heights subdivisions was proposed
and constructed;
6. The hardship is due to the topography, as witnessed by members of the
Board of Appeal, i.e. , steep slope and odd shape of the lot. If in
• fact, one house were to be constructed on this lot, the outcropping
of ledge would. have to be removed, or if left in place would create
the same dumping area as currently exists.
7. A variance would be required for the building on one house.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD WATKINS (PETITIONER) ,
UGO DIBIASE (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES FOR 13 CRESCENT DRIVE, 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 . Special conditions exist which especially affect this land but do not
generally affect other lands in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial detriment to the petitioner; and
3. The relief requested may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from
the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one, Mr: Charnas abstained
from voting, to grant the variances requested on condition:
1 . Plans for the proposed construction are presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau, showing type and location of automatic smoke
detectors to be installed, prior to the issuance of a building permit;
2. Owner of the properties obtain proper numbering from the City
Assessors, and that compliance with the City Ordinance relative to
house numbering be adhered to;
3. All laws, Ordinances, and Regulations of both the Commonwealth of
(• Massachusetts and the City of Salem, pertaining to fire safety, are
adhere to;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy for each dwelling be obtained.
VARIANCES GRANTED
James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FR041 THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS_ - -
CENERAL LA'i:$, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
LF THIS DECISSON IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PLi:SAi:? .0 .,.A.S. CESCP.A:_ IAC::. CRAP-ER S38, SECTION 11., THE YARIA:;CE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
0'i:ED HE,.EiiL SHALL 10 IAEE EFTECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE ECISIO7. THE CERT-
CF THE Ci l CLERK THA-. oO PAYS 647E ELAPSED AND NO W H.-IS E P' F:',[D,
0F T IF SU-4 FN APPEAL HAS S-r ' FILE. THA' IT HAS CEEN CIS �0.ISSED �.R D h IS
R:..:,!;.;_G CI TH"c SvUIH ESSEX REoISfRY OF ['.ECS AND INDEXED 0O_E. THE NA,.E CF THE
OF EECURO OR IS RECORDED AND NDTED Oji THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL -
syr
Ctu of 'k5ttlem, 'Mttssac4usetts
S
3 l paura of ckppzal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SCOTT R. HARRISON FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 57 DEARBORN ST. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held M 8,p}�1 twthe following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Rich% Banc ;S ry; Messrs. ,Fleming and
Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was ,,1;o abutters others and notices of
the hearing were properly published i1J 'e Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40ACj7y k•( ;, :_EM.M4SS
a,HASS.
Petitioner, owner of the property, requests a Special Permit to extend a
nonconforming side setback to allow construction of a single story addition in
the rear and a bay window on the side 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 IXD,
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.
Ir_ 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 support or opposition for the plan was voiced
at the hearing;
2. The proposed addition will enhance the value of the property
and be for the convenience of the inhabitants;
3. The bay window will add to the aesthetic value 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 . The proposed changes wil promote the health, safety,
III • convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants;
1 2. The relief requested may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good.
........_..__.
ice(
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SCOTT R. HARRISON FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 57 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM
page two
•'� Therefore,the Zoning Board of appeal voted unanimously 4-0, to allow the
construction of an addition at the rear of the present building, subject to
the following conditions:
1 . The addition to be 161 x 14' as per plans submitted;
2. The addition to be no closer than 31 feet from the property
line facing lot #27 as shown on the plans;
3. All Salem Fire Department regulations relative to installation
of smoke detectors must be met.
The Zoning Board of Appeal also voted unanimously, 4-0, to allow a bay window,
subject to the following conditions:
1 . The proposed bay window may come no closer than 212 feet from
the property line of lot #27 as shown on the plans;
2. All Salem Fire Department regulations relative to the installation
of smoke detectors must be met.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
f�ichard A. Bencal, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FAD;: THIS DECISION, IF AN1'. SHALL BE vADE PURSUANT TO SECT-CN- 17 OF Ter
GENERAL M.S. CHAPTER 523. AI'!D SHALL BE FiiED};I'H'N 20 DAYS ArIER THE DATE OF Fl:iid:
OF THIS D-M!CH GI THE OFFICE OF THE CITI CLERK.
PURSANT T7 !::AIS. CESS !'. LA'. 5, CH-FTER 308. S CT!:;; 11. THE 1"?..A°'JE G.. rpm IA!_ PE":T
GRANTED 141--SEI)., SIi6LL N11 TA.:;E EFFECT UBT,L A CDPY OF . THE C=RT•
FICATIDN OF THE Ci'it' C'_R+. �'r- ���
_ i.:.�: [^ ^AYS !i?S'i .Sr'1 ^!'J A., SAL H:;'> CEEli R__D.
OR THAT. IF SU:ii E:i A.°F:.�! FA5 iEE�: HLE, 'i:Ai IT KU: D:i'.3 SliE^ CR DEN!'- IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUiH ESSEX REC;STRt OF LEEDS AND G:DENED U.'15ER rHE rA:dE OF THE OV,';-P.
RECORD OR IS RECORDED MID NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
\� BOARD OF APPEAL
hitt of 17§tt1em, � tts�tttlluse#fs
�`�`�3�: 2'`1 attrb of ett1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF C. ANDERSON INGE FOR A
VARIANCE/SPECIAL PERMIT AT 158-162 DERBY ST.
A hearing on this petition was held August 27, 1986 and continued until October 29,
1986 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. ,
Bencal , Fleming, 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 and/or Special Permit from any and all
applicable density requirements to allow building to be used as combination, retail,
commercial, office or+ cafe and residential in this B-1 district. The property is
owned by the St. Josephs Polish Catholic Society.
At the request of petitioners attorney, John Serafini, Sr. , the Board of Appeal
voted unanimously to allow the petition to be withdrawn without prejudice.
WITHDRAW".
� , .( 'lam 'moi- �//1i;✓ �_
61�
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
� � c
s
a
m
e KYtiy Lel "ittlem, Cffiazsar4usdts
C ! 7
3,, s Poxrb of '4VVd
- DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL & LUCILLE TREMBLAY FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 20 DOW ST. (R-3)
A hearing on this petition was held March 26, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Acting Secretary, .
Edward Luzinski and Associate Members Dore and LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing
was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published
in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the property, have requested a Variance from rear and
side setbacks in order to allow an existing carport in this R-3 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
N
a. �ecial!:onditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
44€fectirik other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
N
O
b. � teral 'enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and
T �
c. dasirabl�V relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
i( • lig g®d 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 . No support or opposition was voiced for the carport;
2. The carport has been in use for fifteen (15) years;
3. The petitioner would suffer financial hardship if required to
remove the existing carport;
4. A garage or carport could not be constructed in any other part
of the property without requiring a Variance.
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 property in question is unique due to the configuration
of the property;
2. The desired Variance may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from
•� the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance
I �
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL & LUCILLE TREMBLAY FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 20 DOW ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variance requested to allow the existing carport to remain in its same size.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Richard A. Bencal, Acting Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
�iPUR A DAYS AFFER THE DATE OF FILING
SION, IF At1Y, SHALL BE LEDDY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE f;
LED
FROM THIS DEC F THE CITY CLERK. IAl PER:I7
GENERAL LAWS. THE OFFICE THE VARIANCE OR SPEC CERT-
IN 808. SECTION 11• ECIS":'s. BEF,RT�; THE
of THIS DECISIOtr IN COPY OF THE^- fl'!_ED,
• PURSP.N7 TO CLASS. GE,RAL IA':IS. C,.` c� ARO i:1 APPEAL HA:. Ccct`IED IS
c P,Ei:Eiid. SHALL W ' 'fP.SE EF`ECT UtJT`;'AELA.FS-' `N DIS'.l.ISSc.D OR CE
GRA;11ED 23'
DA'S HA;' F;,\S E`_. IBE O17NER
FICATI::N OF lHE CITY CLER'ti THf.S O c„ FILE. IWO li
AJJ APPEAL HAS Bca. AND INDEXED UtJDEi( 7HE NA'.
D
OR T6.'+T..IF SUCH DN THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RNOTEDY 14 HE OV
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND
BOARD. Of APPEAL
O
�r7
1. _.
Titg of ttlem, 'Mttssar4usetts
86
FILE
CIT)' i.Fs,HAJS-
DECISION ON THE PETITION KENNETH W. ANDREWS FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 23 DUNLAP ST.
A hearing on this petition was held October 29, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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, is requesting a Variance to convert and existing
two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-1 district.
At the request of the petitioner, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, 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 FROGS THIS DECISION, iF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE '.
GENERAL LA'aS, CHAPTER S1'3, ASD SHALL EE RLED 171IMIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF F:'e;N'
OF THIS DECIS,ON IN THE 'JFFi;E OF THE CITY CLERK.
PUPSAP,T TO ii.A$$. rUaSP LAA' CHAP`ER COG, SEZT1T: 11 THE MW:CE SP-r'''
GRAK IED HEniiiV. SHALL t:Di T.'.:E EFfECT U:T,L A COPY JF tH..^.
FICATiUN OF THE CITY CLERti i,i ST 20 Cn'S ,.2: !P A4D PD AP' i H
R FI--D.
OR THAT, IF SOCH AN APPEAL HAS G O ' FL T.iA7 IT `' ,S 6EEN EIS.: SSED CR
RECORDED IN THE SOJTH ESSEX REGISTR( CF DEEDS AND INDEXED D'+Dc" THE F'.W•IE CF tn- O8,--
OF
8,.--OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
Poarb of �rr Cal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SCOTT R. KEATON FOR A SPECIAL FLES
PERMIT FOR 11 ESSEX STREET
CITY C!-
A hearing on this petition was held November 19, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. Notice of the 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, 1-s requesting a Special Permit to convert a
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�s _follows: _
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
gf Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in
` - y �ection VIII F and IX D, gre,nt. Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction
Qf nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion
$f nonconforming lots,. land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such
�,,iange, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
• c
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
- o w guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
H by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
r U a z safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
w " The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
Ez
1 . The submitted parking plan was inadequate for an area that is densely
_ populated and without sufficient parking;
, w W 2. There was no neighborhood opposition to the plan.
= ' ' On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
( N V
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
c 5 = LL r 1 . The proposed conversion will not promote the public health, safety
- < o 8 convenience and welfare of the City' s inhabitants.
L R Y 6 U LL
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted three to two (3-2) , (Messrs. , Fleming,
Strout and Dore voted in favor of granting the petition; Messrs. , Bencal and
Hacker voted in opposition) , petitioner failed to carry the four voted needed to
grant the Special Permit, the Special Permit is denied.
DENIED _
Peter A. Dore, Associate Member
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
of ttlem, � ttsstziljusetts
Y'$` 1S �ottra of �Pvral
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL CARDELLA FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 20 ESSEX ST. , SALEM y
A hearing on this petition was held April dAt t71862wiGTMlt�� ollowing Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, uzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. Notice of. the hea l4rg*.,as sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly publ�vfo in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A .MASS.
Petitioner, owner of the property, requests a Special Permit to extend nonconforming
side setback and any -and all applicable density and setback requirements in order
to construct an addition in this R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions
set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for
alterations and reconstruciton of nonconforming structures, and for
changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots,
• land, structures, 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. A petition signed in favor by customers of the store was submitted;
2. There'was neighborhood opposition;
3. Abutters view would be blocked by the addition of the structure;
4. Would lose a minimum of one parking space;
5. This is a congested area and this would exacerbate a bad condition;
G. Plans submitted were noTcomplete.
\ On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
• 1 Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL CARDELLA FOR A %
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 20 ESSEX ST. , SALEM
page two
• 1 . The proposed addition 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 or without nullifying or substantially derogating
from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance..
Therefore, the Zoning board of Appeal voted three to two, 3-2, (N.r. Hacker and
Mr. Dore voting in opposition) against granting the Special Perrit requested.
SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED
CJ%ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
THIS G A!iY, SHALL BE ''. DE PCFSUAI;T , Sc__!c'THE DATE OF 17 OF THE !FIU:,•
nrE;;L FPp', .HIS DECIS.DY.
SS-
2
c iA;c rH. ° LR EC5. k'J S14L 11 F:LED 0 CAYS
II- TH. r = C T CITY C:
. �. :
C'E n
i^ S (r:i^,: L '. .. `c.`,r cN. 6j, SCT TN c
.F c -- S !L t`.i i iCi Li i;L A - `l IICD.
l r ,E 14 r;J n
TH ii CLc i ,� A - li c q E'.!ED IS
FI ti tc FIIE. IT ''C C iD
_ .R iP i. !F Su-H Rii A'Prk I' °..' F E _ n AJ 11Dti.cD LL�_R 7H° Gn- E OF THE 0..i:.R
r
RECCRDED !.r THE SDC-fH ESScX RESiS:RY OF D-LUS
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NJTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD Of APPEAL _
•
r�
ofttlem, ttssttthuse##s
� C c ? 3 , 1
;,s CVs Poarb of enl ? : 6
F;LE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MALL REALTY TRUST FOR
VARIANCES FOR 188 ESSEX STREET CITY C'il `' • i�
A hearing on this petition was held November 19, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. 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 formerly known as the Almy's Building, are
requesting Variances from lot area, lot coverage, side yard setbacks, height
requirements, floor area ratio requirement and parking to allow existing building
to be demolished and to construct a new building consisting of 107 multi-family
dwelling units, retail space and a health club.
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 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--care€ul-consideration-of-the--evidence -presented-at-the---
hearing,
presented-at-the -----hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . This property is located in the downtown area of Salem and
abuts buildings on both sides;
2. Zoning is currently B-5 which provides for a variety of uses
including residential and commercial;
3. The City of Salem has a strong interest in the development of
this area as it is a key feature in trying to bring back activity
in a critical part of the downtown;
4. Due to the configuration of the lot and the proximity of the buildings
and the fact that work has to be done between two of the main
thoroughfares of the City, development becomes quite difficult both
physically and economically;
•, 5. Several people spoke in favor of this project, including representatives
of the Salem Chamber of Commerce, neighboring business people, the
City Planner and the Mayor;
6. Petitioner plans to petition the Salem Parking Authority to secure
parking for the project.
<r
` '' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF. MALL REALTY TRUST FOR
VARIANCES FOR 188 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 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject
property but not :the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to the petitioner;
3. 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 unanimously, 5-0, to grant the following
Variances from Table III, B.-5 Density Regulations:
1 . Paragraph (2) . Minimum lot area from the required 500 square feet
per dwelling unit to allow 107 dwelling units to be constructed on
48;762 square feet;
2. Paragraph (4) . Maximum lot coverage from the required 50% to 60%;
3. Paragraph (5) . Minimum side yard setback from the required
five (5) feet to allow side yard of zero;
• 4. Paragraph (7) . Maximum height requirements to allow portion
of the building on the Church Street side to have seven (7) stories;
5. Paragraph (10) . Maximum floor area ratio to allow floor area
ratio of 4:1 ;
T 6. Paragraph C of the .Parking Requirements for B-5 District.
Above/Variances are granted, subject to the following terms and conditions:
V 1 . A 12 foot strip on the westerly side of the project by maintained
as a public walkway unless it is determined that this public walkway
becomes a nuisance;
2. Plans be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval
prior to the issuance of a building permit;
3. Design Review approval be obtained prior to the commencement of
the project. Prior approval of any other City Commissions and
Boards that may be required;
4: Construction conform to all applicable provisions of the Massachusetts
State Building Code, Salem Fire Prevention Code; Salem City Ordinances
and Massachusetts General Laws relative to fire safety;
i
..�j
'�--DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MALL REALTY TRUST FOR
VARIANCES FOR 188 ESSEX ST. , SALEM
page three
5. The Condominium Association shall bear the responsibility of
all rubbish and trash removal;
6. Proper addess numbering be obtained from the City Assessor;
7. All construction must be done in accordance with the plans submitted;
9� 8. A minimum of 107 parking spaces must be obtained in the parking facility
• ajacent to the project for use by the individual owners of the dwelling
units. Each unit deed shall contain a requirement that each unit shall
purchase a parking space in the parking facility so long as the facility
remains in operation.
rJames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE
GENEF.11 LACaS. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FM 13
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PJBSA.NT TO i.:A-S. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER SOS, SEGTIGN 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL FER:%:IT
GF.ANTED HEi;EIG, SHALL NIT -.A;;E EFFECT CNTIL A COPY OF THE CEC:S!OV. BE:Sa F.'" THE C-,tT
FICAT16N OF THE CIIf CLER:; TH.A'. 20 DAYS HAVE ELMSEC ^':D NO AFPEAL HAS EEE- FILED,
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN Fi LE. THAT IT ii',S BEEN D:` ISSED OR DELI.ED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RE::ISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE GA],E OF THE DP:'v:.`F
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
z
«,.,,.
of "ittlem, � ttsstttljuse##s
Puarb of Appeal
FIS: ;.
AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MALL REALTY TRUST FOR
VARIANCES FOR 188 ESSEX STREET CITY ctF '.MASS.
A hearing on this petition was held November 19, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. 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 formerly known as the Almy's Building, are
requesting Variances from lot area, lot coverage, side yard setbacks, height
requirements, floor area ratio requirement and parking to allow existing building
to be demolished and to construct a new building consisting of 107 multi-family
dwelling units, retail space and a health club.
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 wh idt 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 degrating from the
intent of the district or the purposes of the ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presentec at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . This property is located in the downtown area of Salem and
abuts buildings on both sides;
2. Zoning is currently B-5 which provides for a variety of uses
including residential and commercial;
3. The City of Salem has a strong interest in thedevelopment of
this area as it is a key feature in trying to bring back activity
in a critical part of the downtown;
4. Due to the configuration of the lot and the proximity of the buildings
and the fact that work has to be done between two of the main
thoroughfares of the City, development becomes quite difficult both
physically and economically;
5. Several people spoke in favor of this project , including representatives
• of the Salem Chamber of Commerce, neighboring business people, the
City Planner and the Mayor;
6. Petitioner plans to petition the Salem Parking Authority to secure
parking for the project.
J
AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MALL REALTY TRUST FOR
VARIANCES FOR188 ESSEX ST. , SALE,
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 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject
property but not 'the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to the petitioner;
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or stbstantially 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 following
Variances from Table 111 , B-5 Density Regulations:
I . Paragraph (2) . Minimum lot area farom the required 500 square feet
per dwelling unit to allow 107 dwelling units to be constructed on
48,762 square feet;
2. Paragraph (4) . Maximum lot coverage from the required 507 to 60 %;
3. Paragraph (5) . Minimum side yard setback from the required
five (5) feet to;allow side yard of zero;
• 4. Paragraph (7) . Maximum height requirements to allow portion
of the building on the Church Street side to have seven (7) stories
5. Paragraph ( 10) . Maximum floor area ratio to allow floor area
ratio of 4: 1 ;
6. Paragraph C of the Parking Requirements for B-5 District
Above Variance are granted, subject to the following terms and conditions:
1 . That the walkway as shown on the plans submitted be maintained with
access to the public during reasonable daytime hours so long as such
maintenance and access does not become, in the opinion of the
Condominium Association, an unreasonable burden.
2. Plans be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval
prior to the issuance of a building permit;
3. Design review approval be obtained prior to the commencement of
the project. Prior approval of any other City Commissions and
Boards that may be required;
4. Construction conform to all applicable provisions of the Massachusetts
State Building Code, Salem Fire Prevention Code, Salem City Ordinances
• and Massachuetts General Laws relative to fire safety;
AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MALL REALTY TRUST FOR
VARIANCES FOR 188 ESSEX ST. , SALE,
• page three
5. The Condominium Association shall bear the responsibility of
all rubbish and trash removal;
6. Proper address numbering be obtained from the City Assessor;
7. All construction must be done in accordance with the plans submitted;
8. A Variance from the parking requirement of the B-5District so as to
permit all parking for the project to be located in the Municipal
Parking Garage with the requirement that a minimum of 107 parking
stickers be obtained from the Parking Authority for use by the
individual owners of the units for as long as the City of Salem
operates its Municipal Garage adjacent to the site. Each unit deed
shall contain a requirement that such unit shall purchase a parking
sticker from the Parking Authority so long as the City of Salem
operates its Municipal Garage.
GRANTED
aures B. Hacker, Chairman
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
A.PE;L FROST THIS DE�iS4AL EE :`ADE PURSOANT TO SE.'Ti ,.: 17 OF THE
GENERAL LA'i:S, CHAPTEP, eOS. AND SHALL E_ °.'.ED P!^HiiV 20 DAYS AFT--3 THE CRATE OF
OF THIS DECISION IIC THE OFFICE OF THE CIT' CLERK.
PUP,-4!:-- IG P.^.ASS C.E:E^n 1. !S :. OHA.P:E& EOE, 11, THE VAF3Pp^E na SPEL!AL FER'SIT
..LD hE EI SH!-,LL N EFF- :';TIL A COPY 0= THE E'_:: HE C?T-
F CAT!, , OF rH ,._ER i ii 6 r - . .._ . :'! - _IFIL H'S __ 1 F! ED.
OR IHAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL H''iS E'E:`., -!i E, T!i:,, li ii,1J DIS::.S SEO OR N$LD IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RE ISI'P.Y OF DEEDS AND INDEXED Ui,C ER THE i A:LE OF THE C6N--R '
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
b (1Zi# of '15ttlem, � ttssttchuse##s
3
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GROUP, INC.
FOR A VARIA.7C . AT 234 ESSEX ST.
A hearing on tnis petition was held Junei,�, a98�1 J,R46following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. , a ca , eming, Luzinski and Strout.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutte Weed others and notices of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A. CITYC1,7Pr +'..Ek,M'SS'
Petitioners are requesting a Variance from minimum parking requirements to allow .
thirty four (34) dwelling units in this B-5 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
that:
a. special conditions a..d circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building, cr structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lnc_=, 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, and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The building is located in the B-5 area.
2. It is impractical for underground parking due to the close
proximity of the train tunnel which runs under Washington Street;
3 No existing business will relocate and existing businesses will be
allowed to operate as they are presently with the exception of the
furniture store w!ilch has already announced it's intention to close;
4. Construction as shown on the plans should retain or add to the
current retail activity and stimulate small businesses;
5• This project will provide for new business to relocate in Salem
and therefore create jobs;
6. This project should substantially increase the tax revenue on this
property;
F \
• 7. There was major neighborhood support and petitions presented 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:
" DECISION ON THE PETITION OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GROUP, INC.
FOR A VARIANCE FOR 234 ESSEX ST. , SALEM
page two
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect this building but
\• / do not affect the district generally;
/ 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to the petitioners;
3. The relief requested can be granted would 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 . Petitioner must include in the Condominium Documents the provision
for the Condominium Association to purchase from the City of Salem
a minimum of eight (80) parking spaces at either Riley Plaza or the
City of Salem Parking Garage annually;
2. Petitioners are to work closely with the Salem City Planner so that
he will approve the final plans for the street scape at the rear and
the side of the building other than the Washington and Essex Sts. side;
3. Mall area as indicated by plans are to be opened to the public so as
to assure access from Washington St. to the public parking lot;
•\ F 4. The City will not, now or ever, be responsible for rubbish and trash
removal;
5. If the City chooses to put a second tier for parking on the Sewall
Street parking lot, the developer will work with the City Planner
to arrange an agreement for the developer to help defray the cost
to .the City of Salem.
VARIANCE GRANTED
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLE..". .
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MAS:.
C EN ERAL U:'iS. CHHPTEF. SOS. A!i7 SHALL BE FILED Y;1"::IN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FHI:i3
OF THIS DECIS'OR I� T ^.F:COF Tr.c CITY CLE K.
r
.'Ara FED h - .ED,
rc
\ i:. ATI ,'. FTh- ' :Y L rc i� ., iJH v . _tri R IS
bk HA* IF SJ:- . A? PP ' f-.:° rlt E. r' li c'.
( .1 REC ,CED IN Tri. S^otH [SS.,. F...aTRt OF U EDS A- D IN
CE1EJ U of i° ..+.GE or THE CVi tiEl
• OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL.
h
: 1 (1Lit ofjt
ttlem, � ttssttclju�e#ts
Poara of
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ELAINE FINBURY FOR
VARIANCES FOR 289-293 ESSEX ST.
APR 19 3 6 p� Fpps�
A hearing on this petition was held Apri�� , 1986 WI t9'r� following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; ssrs. , Bencal, Charnas, Luzinski and
i Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent WY0utters and others and notices of the
hearin_ were properly published in the Salem Evening N .in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter, 40A.
Petitioner requests .Variances from density and parking requirements in order to
convert this property into forty one (41 ) dwelling units. The property is owned
by Salem Theatre Corp. and is located in a B-5 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;
rr 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 . The neighbors who appeared at the hearing were, with little
exception, in favor of the proposal; _
2. Petitioner has made a valiant, good faith effort to operate the
premises as a theater, but has been, unsuccessful;
3. The property, a large theater, is unique to the district;
4. The only financially viable use of the subject premises, particularly
given the overall problems of the existant small business in the
area, is as a multi-residence building;
5• Such a use would promote the best interests of the City, which
includes having a liveable downtown area with increased residential
density.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ELAINE FINBURY FOR
VARIANCES FOR 289-293 ESSEX ST. , SALEM
page two
. . 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.
Therefcre, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief
requested, provided •that:
i . The City grants the petitioner a right of way through the municipal
parking lot as shown on the plan;
2. The mode of access through said right of way be approved by the
City Planning;
3. A minimum of thirty (30) parking spaces, the size of which are to be
defined by the size requirements of the Ordjnance, be maintained on site;
• 4. The percentage of lower income dwelling units proposed in the petition
be always maintained for such low income use;
5. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each unit;
6. Plans for the proposed construction are presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau, showing the type and location of automatic
smoke detectors to be installed, prior to the issuance of a
building permit;
7. The petitioner obtain proper numbering from the City Assessor, and
that compliance with the Salem City Ordinance relative to the numbering
of buildings be adhered to;
8. All Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations of both the Commonwealth and the
City of Salem, pertaining to fire safety, are adhered to.
VARIANCES GRANTED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
FPEA! 1`1161„ THIS DMSIX;, ;° ANY, SHALL BE I.MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
NERIL LAr,S. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
tit THIS GEZISi^R If. THE Z.T!:E OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURL/.CT 01 ' ':SS. CEN-RIt.''S. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERM 1T
RA::i ED HEii E'!:. SHALL Nu: T=.`:E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECIS!ON. BEARING THE CERT
FICATION OF THE CITY CLER:. -i=:i 2C DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED.
R ;HAT, ;F S.>_R AN APPEAL HSS BEEN"FILE. THAT IT FIAS BEEN DIS!ISSED OR DENIED IS
F !!!; T-= S--I)'-'H ESSEA REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER, THE NA";E OF THE OWNER
OF RE,;TRU CR IS RECDRDED 'r.'i7 NOTED ON THE 0WNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
!-� ('gitg of $afem, �fttssachuot�,
pourb of �Fvenl FILO e'
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROGER L'HEREUX FOR A CITY u
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 313 ESSEX ST.
A hearing on this petition was held December 17, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert a lodging house into five
dwelling units in this R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this regeust
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of
Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section
VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non-
conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of
nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change,
extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than
the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
,.a
• In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
t 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 inhabitiants.
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 Salem Fire Department supports said project, with conditions;
2. A letter from abutters in favor was submitted;
3. There was minor opposition to five units;
4. Structure is currently used as a fifteen (15) unit rooming house;
5. Planned reconstruction and use change would improve the neighborhood;
6. Overwhelming neighborhood support for four (4) units as opposed to
five (5) units;
7. Four (4) or five (5) units would substantially stabalize the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
r r Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
i � • 1 . The proposed use will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood
than the existing nonconforming use;
2. The relief requested can be granted without nullifying or substantially
derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROGER L'HEREUX FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR 313 ESSEX ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one, (4-1 ) to grant the relief
requested. Mr. Bencal voted in opposition. Said Special Permit is granted subject
to the following conditions:
1 . A minimum of seven (7) parking spaces be maintained on site as per
plans submitted;
2. Plans are to be presented to the Salem Fire Prevention Bureaur for
approval prior to the issuance of a building permit;
3. Construction conform to all applicable Fire Dept. regulations and
the State Building Code;
4. A Building Permit must be obtained;
!
5• A Certificate of Occupancy for each unit must be obtained;
6. Approval of the Salem Historical Commission must be obtained for
and exterior work.
7• Special Permit is granted for four (4) units only.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
/,games B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FRDLi THIS DEC!SIO.`,, IF ANY, SHELL BE MADE PU"SUANT TO SECTION 17 C:- THE
LENEP.AL LABS, CHF° E £ °, Aih Sr:. DE f i' - 20 DAYS :.—'? THE
OF LiIS DEC,S'0'. I ih OFFICE a T? CATS Or FN:IF
I -;.'T TO !; S, SHALL
�L r
t_i �E r'tI L FECA PER';iT
FIC..IICi 'Ii THE CI: ir'.i20 Lz - L THE CCRI-
OR 'NAT IF S' .,H Al APF,1` HAa ,L E. i ( ! t .r. ' 6 L— Fi IE D.
ReOOP,CED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RE ISTR'i OF C AN,;, !;' P7 .:E _ t, E S
OF RECQRD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED Oil T'E'E OF'vNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE � 1 OWNER
BOARD OF APPEAL
f •
1
-�` �- f�tt� IIr �ttlem, C�ttsg�tE�use#ts
• �j OttTD Of peal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DR. GREGORY J . GORDON FOR
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 76 FEDERAL ST. (R-2)
IL:
i
A 'hearing on this petition was held November 12, 1986 with the follow}ng__P..PA o;
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal,il59cretary; Messrs. ,
Fleming, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A.
The petitioner requests a Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear and side
setbacks to allow construction of a second floor deck in this R-2 zone.
The provision of the Salem �Zoning Ordinance whichis applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding. anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in
Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction
of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion
of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such
change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
• In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Neighbors and others were in support of the plan as presented;
2. Opposition was presented by one abutter;
3. Support of the plan, in the form of a letter of approval was
sent by the Salem Historical Commission.
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 addition will not be substantially more detrimental
to the neighborhood;
2. The proposed addition will promote the convenience and welfare
of the city's inhabitants;
• 3. The proposed addition will be appropriate to the preservation of .
the Historic District.
i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DR. GREGORY J . GORDON FOR A .
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 76 FEDERAL ST. , SALEM
Daze two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0,, to grant the Soecial
• J . Permit to extend nonconforming rear and side setbacks to allow construction of a
second floor deck subject to the following conditions:
1 . The deck is to be constructed as per plans submitted;
2. All dimensions must be as Der the plans submitted:
3. The building must be in compliance with all provisions of the
Salem Fire Dept. regulations relative to smoke and fire detectors
for this type of building and use;
4. The deck must be constructed as per the Certificate of Appropriateness
submitted by the Salem Historical Commission dated June 1986.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
/ � I
Richard A. Bencal, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
J
APPEAL FRI. TH!S DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE 11A11.
11.
GU;E :L LA:1S, CHAPTER Sirs, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILIN:
C= 1P11S CEC1SiCt": I: THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
P Cia:i:T TC, r.-ISS. GEiiERAL lA'.':5. CHA?TEF. 808. SECTiDS: 11. THE 1'ARIP.;;CE OR SPE^IAL PEE 17
..gyp cin,.. Lir.'T,: is'_ CE-T.
R SY7Ei HEFE:.E, FHALL N^_T P,::E EFFECT UNTIL A CDPY C. THE:=-I' -
OF THE CI-1' G ER3 1P.A7 2C DAPS HPyE ELFPSED P.::C Ni; A`PEAL H'.S sEE'; R'_ED.
U" Tri T. !FSCH Aii APPEAL
&-,;, FILE. THAT IT HAS SEE.-
DiB;'it:SCD OR OZi:: D IS
EX R"ISTRY
OF CRECCPDIORT IS RECORDED, r
RFCRDEDAND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTI
I x- THE FICATE OF TITLE.
� Or THE OYCN E%
BOARD OF APPEAL
flltt of "Salem, 4nttssar4usetts
Poxrb of Appezil
I
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT J. METZGER FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 183R FEDERAL St.
A hearing on this petition was held July 16,1986 with thefoollAinQ b%" %bers
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming)) uzinski. Notice
of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices Fai the hearing were
properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance it Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A. CITYC EH.NASS.
-,
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow premises to be used as a
three family dwelling. Property is located in an R-2 district.
The provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a, Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions
set forth in Section VIII F 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, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition;
2. Neighbors spoke in favor;
3. Has and is currently being used as a three family and was used as
a three family prior petitioner purchasinS 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 . The proposed use as a three family will be in harmony with the
neighborhood and will promote the convenience and welfare of the
City's inhabitants;
• 2. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment or without
nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of
the Ordinance.
r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT J. METZGER FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 183R ,FEDERAL ST. , SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Special
^� Permit requested to allow premises to be used as a three family dwelling, subject to
the following conditions:
1 . A minimum of six (6) parking spaces must be maintained on site;
2. Must be owner occupied;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained.
q;.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
games B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
-- 17 OF 355.
7HE �
�EDTIt71: r _ FILING
E iA ADE PURSUANT TO DAT. Or
,. IF A.tV SHALL BP,LEi� :THV3 :G DA'S AF'
AFPEF.L Fes';'' 7H15 OECISP..N, -
c+L .:.nS C� , p7D SHALL OE rIT( C'=_R pc i.. PER5:17
S , HL OPF: t (.%° Tdt li THE %' _ 4 r •'.T
:, .,
d C,
I , c, . ,,F,THC
FI Jrt[n ['
5 r n J I
�.E,Sr CERT:FiG..T: v, IIi.E.
p_C' -- 11 '" AND NCiEG GN :ht O't.L
OF RECORD
OR IS RECORDED gDARp OF APPEAL
2,
of �iem, � ussttc�u�etf�
•
,:.t. .,J, Poxra of A"eal
DLC
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHONY J. PIC_ARIELLO F? V!
VARIANCES FOR 51R CANAL ST. a/k/a //1 FLORENCE ST.
A hearing on this petition was held November 19, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. 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 variances from dimensional
reouirements to allow reconstruction of a building which was destroyed by fire.
Said building to be reconstructed on the same footprint and is located in.an
R-2 district. -
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 Ordinance would involve
• substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detrimental 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 folloi,,ing findings of fact:. .
1 . There was no opposition;
2. The building proposed would not exceed the one destroyed by fire;
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Soecial conditions exist which especially affect the subject property
but does not affect the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. The relief requested can 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.
'DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHINY J . PICARIELLO FOR
VARIANCES FOR 51R CANAL ST. a/k/a 1 FLORENCE ST. , SALEM
page two
• / Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variances from density requirments and parking, subject to the following terms
and conditions:
1 . Building to be constructed on the same footprint;.
2. All applicable provisions of the State Building Code, Fire Prevention
code, City Ordinances and MGL relative to fire safety must be
complied with;
3. A building permit and a Certificate of Occupancy must be. obtained.
VARIANCES GRANTED
Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
i
„ prlc I IF 4iiY, SHALL B: FSRDE PURSUANT TO SECTIOY. 17 Of E 0 LF!L!'
APPEAL FROG,. THIS D_...,.10•�, ..
P!L'.'Cn
GEKERAL LAWS. CHAFTEF. EOZ. A'{Dc£cc CTr: `CITE, CL'cP.YV1IHJJ{ 20 DRYS F.iTER THE DP.ic 0
�, .S OEC'St01{ Iti THE0 CTI'li{ 71 Tr l Rr r r r C1 ' FP7: T
-.
1.
L - �_ A COPY OF TH E I c ' O.1
EC d'Ho; �riR_ n�i c �.�.t tLRP,EO : 7 ' A"PEAL h ;,
P HST. I F1 AYPEAI Fri o
S AND 1HLc';ED U'.„Eh IH Nr
L - F r TITLE.
!. T -4 C E- C
O'rP,ECGRD G^n IS RECGRDEp RitO LILTED C:v TriE 0,1,t EP.'S CERTIFICATE 0
BOARD OF APPEAL
E (Q N
Ctv of '�$ttiem, 'fflttssac4use##s
• <$ 'Puttrb of '4pud
hOINIFL N�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES -MCDONNELL FOR VARIANCES
FOR 32 FOREST AVE. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held March 19, 198 wi h the following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Benca1gFfQrna3,OQ6 Wg6i, and Strout.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening NewNVaccordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.. CITY
Petitioner requests a variance to allow him to divide lot into two lots, and
variances from lot size, setbacks and density requirements to construct a two
family dwelling on one lot and to allow an existing two family on the second lot.
The premises is owned by Diane Rhatigan, and is in an R-2 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would 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 current use of this lot, containing a two family dwelling, is.
an adequate use and financially viable in this R-2 district;
2. Petitioner has not demonstrated any hardship within the meaning
of the Ordinance which would justify the Board granting the
relief requested.
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 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 no substantial
hardship to petitioner; and
3. Desirable relief 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.
r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES MCDONNELL FOR
VARIANCES FOR 32 FOREST AVE. , SALEM
page two
.' Therefore the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, against granting the
relief requested. The petition is denied.
VARIANCES DENIED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
SECTION 17 OF THE G1F.SS.
PURSUANDHS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
IF ANY. SHALL BFILED WITHIN 20 APPEAL FRLA THIS DECISION, AND SHALL BE I`yE G cper.l-.L piR;;y;7
GENERAL LAt:S, CHAPTER OFFICE CF THE CITY CLERK.
IN THE SECTIGi1 11.THE \'ARIA c0.:`,::_ 7u= CERT.
OF THIS DECISION. ,js CH.\o-ER BOB. „ "..�CISIO•:. B- FILED.
it TIL A CCPV Lr E HAS BEE':
PURSA�;T TO C;ASS.SHM1LL Sr.'E�A'E EFFECT CL D 5.,._.. cSED CR CL,'::E� IS
GRAGiEO
HEREIN, R THE Nk;.E OF THE C,iiC;
THE CITY CLEP,n THAT ZD FILE\7i A' h iF' `..:. D L D
FIi:0.1iC.N OF .� HAS BEEN DECO- ."RS
A"'` OF TITLE.
pR THAT, IF SUCH A.: APPE.'L .II?RY OF
RECGRDED IN THE SOOTH ESSEX RE` ON THE OY� QRS CERTIFICASE
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AtiD NOTED
BOARD OF APPEAL
j
ofttlem, � ttssttc�juse##s
Paurb of Appeal QCT �(� 2 53p� '96
FIL=
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF M & Y REALTY TRUST FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 33-35 FORRESTER ST. CIT),
A hearing on this petition was held October 15, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. 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 convert an j
existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district.
I
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
1 . 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 the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Minor neighborhood concern and opposition;
2. Six parking spaces to be provided on premises;
3. Several three dwellings are already existing in the
immediate neighborhood;
4. No abutters opposed the proposed plan;
5• Units are to be condominiums.
On the basis of the above findings of fact„ and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial
detriment to the neighborhood and without substantially derogating
from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance;
2. The proposed three family will be in harmony with the district.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF M & Y REALTY TRUST FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 33-35 FORRESTER ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Existing garage is to be demolished and parking for six (6)
vehicles to be provided according to plan submitted;
2. Stockade fence on each boundary line will be erected as
per plan;
3. Building permit must be obtained prior to any construction and
prior to demolition;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy for each unit must be obtained;
5. Upon completion each unit shall be owner occupied.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
?James B. Hacker, Chairman
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISi2R, IF ANY. SHALL EE L'A.DE PURSUANT TO SECTIO;; li OF THE f:1fiSS.
GENERAL LRS:S, CH.'.FT°R 223. A:iD S.':= FJ
LL K FiiH! VPTHRI 20 DAYS AE= THE CATE OF FILI ;G
OF THIS DEC0JN Ci THE OF F;CE OF THE C17( CLERK.
F !RP-NT TO _ S� TH7 O
FA _D HEHU:. S°ALL L ... E LF; T U..i.: A CCFY f- iH. F� E i rTHE -RT.
F7CATic.. OF THE CITi CLER' TE',; 20 C.n" V.A.. __.A? _C .. ,. ..- n.=r.-._ Hf,.: En_'. F;:ED.
CR TH;;?. IF SUCH AN APPEAL H:S B.Er: 'iLE. ;:,. IT H'.S i:E N S_=. iR )-;:;ED IS
RECO"DED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RE:2ISTR! OF u;E'�S AND I HXED THE iNA;.:E OF THE C:
74
y ('gi#g of *Iem, � ttssttcl#use##s
Pourb of ' }Fpeal
DECISION, ON THE PETITION OF FRED .J. CARDS kf MR 4R �PE'C'IAF
PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 56 FORRESTER ST.
FILE
A hearing on this petition was held May 21 , 1986 wi-thUv,0611owing Board
Members: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , ITA erring, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. Notice ,of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly, published in the Salem Evening News
in accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special. Permit to convert
a two family dwelling into a 6three family dwelling and a variance from parking,
requirements in this R-2 district.
The petitioner requesting leave to withdraw his petition. Accordingly, the
Zoning Board of-Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant petitioner leave to.
withdraw without prejudice.
WITHDRAWN
//James B. Hacker, Chairman '
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE VA.SS. -
GENERAL LAPS. CHP,PTER 8&9&. AND SFi"LL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF NLINS
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSANT TO N:P.SS. CENE!:A!. UP S, CRAFTER 8D8, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPMAL PER::IT
GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOM TAtiE EH ECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DEGS!CF', EEARIi;G TFL CERT-
' FICATION OF THE CITY CLER:; MHA, 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEE!: FILED,
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN OIS`.:ISSED OR CEidJED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDEC'THE NA-',;E OF THE 01:"10E4
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OW'NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
,y (fi#g of 'Sttlem, C ttsstttl#use##s
J
Psora of '�Fpettl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AMY CHEVOOR FOR A VARIANCE pp '
FOR 10 FOSTER STREET JR4 39 $ 43
A hearing on this petition was held January 15, 1986 wi � V following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Char , Luzinski and Associate
Members Bencal and LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing wasClj�rkt abu,44arn Sand
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting variances to allow parcel of land to be devided
into two lots in this B-1 district. Owner of the propery is Richard and Betty
Lutts.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing evidence, at the request of the petition,
voted unanimously 5-0 to allow petitioner to withdraw without prejudice.
WITHDRAWN
I- �t ames B. Hacker, Chairman
i
c „ IF �!.':Y. SHA!L BE 1,1ADE PURSUANT TO SECTiG:: 17 O•`
APPEAL FROA! THIS D:CI„I�.f,
DAT( GF t!Jiil.
C INE RAI if " nHi.i^EItT£E OAND JFLcTH: rCITi CICRI(I 20 DAYS AFi ER THE T
r.F THIS L' r., r S CUOiJ 11 THE IA.BIA �E -P�'-
o
IID
1 rR1' L1' 3, C
CA 0 H RFI- S'u',LL I f t E!'.f,1 UI.T'. A COPY DFI THE END Ur,_ L H c - '
FI L 1L:; r r TNI 'IT)' ..LEP Ih1i
r H6J INDEXED Uhi:E' THE n.... c1F Tri OW:;=
,d in;L Ir SUCH AN APP:4_ Hac 6_E�• III F TI AT IT HAS BUl DI .iSEc iE to
RECDP.:'Rl IN THE SOUTH ESSE;( RE-!.TRY OF E.OS
E OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOT ON THE
BOARD OF APPEAL
1
(gity of ttiem, ttssttcl�usetts
ottrb of ral Nov 25 3 0, P11 186
FILL.
" DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHONY PIZZO FOR A VARIANCE CITY
FOR 20 FRANCIS ROAD
. o y A hearing on this petition was held November 12, 1986 with the following Board
s ° r L�hemto rs present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and
r 'Str&t. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the
,y
„ c a ;_ ,_ Chewing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
N Q
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
a - n LL
tE' 3etitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from density and
-
4setback requirements to allow construction of a stairway and deck in this R-1 zone.
K ; �the Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
J r
khat:
= � a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
z _ " the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
_ _ • ; w o 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
• ,_ o public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
= t; intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and
z after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition or support was voiced at the meeting;
2. The stairs and deck are needed for egress purposes.
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 affect subject property but do not
affect the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the 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.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to allow sideyard
. setback of seven (7) feet on the easterly side and to allow existing deck as per
plans on file.
GRANTED
Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Ct of alrm, nssar us
a
h �- °14
• 3y Poura of ApVvd F LE r
R"Cums.��
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN PINTO (PETITIONER "'
i
MARY PINTO (OWNER) for VARIANCES FOR 8 FREEMAN ROAD
A hearing on this petition was held November 19, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James B. Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Variance from density and setbacks to allow property to
be divided into two lots, lot A & B, and to construct a single family dwelling on
lot B and to allow existing 1112 story dwelling on Lot A. Property is located
in an R-1 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would 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 the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition and many neighbors spoke in favor;
2. The lot size would be the same as most lots in the neighborhood;
3. Hardship is related to the location of the 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 the subject property
but not the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. 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 of the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN PINTO (PETITIONER) ,
MARY PINTO (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES FOR 8 FREEMAN ROAD, SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
\ / Variances requested, subject to the following terms and conditions:
1 . Plans for the proposed construction shall be presented to the
Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to the issuance of a
building permit;.
2. Correct street number shall be obtained from the City Assessor;
3. Construction shall conform to all applicable Building Codes,
Salem Fire Prevention Code, City Ordinances and MGL relative to
fire safety;
4. Topography of the lot not be changed except for the foundation
of the house;
5• Existing garage is to be removed;
6. A building permit and a Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained.
VARIANCES GRANTED
• \I Peter Strout, Member Board of Appeal
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 (,!A.':'.,
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 802. AND SHALL BE FILED WITH:N 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILIFrG
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OF ,,,E OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSANT TO %:ASS. GENERA! LAC?-', C ;APT.ER 808, SE-1;3:1 11. THE VARIANC`_ OR SPECIAL PER'.;IT
GP,-'.';TED HEREM, SHALL f;_'1 TG:i,T_ '.-LCT UNTILLA COPY OF THEOESIS!-.•N, EEAMN,; THE CER1'-
FICATION OF THE CITY CLER.S 76AT 2C; C-, o HAVE ELAPSED AND iP0 AFPEP,L HAS
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HIS cEE; RLE, THAT !T H;u" EE9: Fi L`J,
SEEN DIS?.i!SSED OR OHiIED IS
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RESISTRY FF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NARff OF THE
AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
�
Gifu of �ttlem, �tt8sttt�usrf#s
r' Paurb a4 �p eni
1
pac 6 3 ii ?N '86
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL FERRIS FC&t #7ARIANCE
FOR 3 FRIEND ST.
CITY CI`_' •,
At the request of petitioner's Counsel, John Serafini Sr. , the
petition of Paul Ferris was Withdrawn Without Prejudice on July
23, 1986. Said petition was withdrawn prior to the hearing so no
vote was taken.
dame B. Hacker, Chairman
1�
of ttlem, h OcT 14 8 os QM 6,
ttssttt use##s
• jos 3 Paxrd of (4pvd Filf
CITY CL€'RK. SAL6Fl,MAS€
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL FERRIS FOR VARIANCES FOR
3 FRIEND STREET
A hearing on this petition was held on September 24, 1986 with the following
Board Members present; James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. Fleming, Bencal,
Strout and Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abuttors and others,
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News
in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The petitioner, owner of the property, was represented by Attorney John Serafini.
The petitioner requested Variances from lot area, rear yard, lot coverage, and
other density requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, in order to construct a
duplex-type, two (2) family dwelling at 3 Friend Street .
The property is an R-2 district .
The variances which have 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 sustantial 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 Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and
after viewing the plans, makes the followingfindings of fact :
I . There was substantial opposition to the plan, but that opposition
generally approved the compromise of the plans that the Board
arrived at.
2. There is sufficient parking on the premises , a condition that
generally does not exist in the neighborhood.
3. There is no other use for the land, so that , if the petitioner
were denied his requested variances , he would suffer substantial
hardship.
4. The proposed duplex and its landscaping would enhance the
neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
• hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
I . 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.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
variance requested, those being variances from lot area, rear yard, lot coverage,
and other density requirements, provided that :
I . The new building be placed on the footprint of the prior building,
exceeding such foot print only by the dimensions of the compromise
plan.
2. That the petitioner maintain four (4) parking spaces on the premises.
3. That all construction meet the requirements of the Massachusetts
Building Code.
4 . That all the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative
to fire prevention safety, be complied with by the petitioner.
5. That the petitioner obtain all necessary building and occupancy
permits. /
q �0 —
- aurEsq
M. Fleming, Esq..///
ember, Board of Appeal
i',DE P ..V;T TO S<<;'10 17 OF THE MASS.
AL .4•GE, (, o. .-. ._ i .J P,': t'i ' 'i'r.E DATE O� FILING
F';. 6$: - —„ - ..,_L PF.R;.fiT
L H`.., 'J F9i-SD.
OR 1H-:L IF SL�.I FF EiJ- .. _ ,. i`i� .::.0 CR DE):!ED IS
RECO ' D !N TH_ -_ RH ESSE RE 1- R'r L ° •ti.`';J "Dc%ED UNDER T;IE NVIE OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NLQED UN Tic OWNERS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
• BOARD OF APPEAL
7 .\i
«.,,,,.�
y Cid ofttlem, �; ttssttch�zsetts �
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY PINTO FOR VARIANCES
FOR 8 FREEMAN ROAD (R-, ) JUL 30 12 o7 PH '66
LE
This petition for a Variance to divide F1 and
p parcel into two lot and to construct
CITY CLE?" `' ,f.N,Mi55
a single family dwelling on lot B at 8 Freeman Rd. was allowed to withdraw
without prejudice upon written request from petitioners counsel. Petition
was withdrawn prior to hearing, no vote was taken.
d' es/B. Hacker, Chairman
•
I
• '``:. Ctu of ttlem, ttsstttl�ugetts
Poxrb of �ppevd P
SEC � 3Z1 M p5
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EPAMINONDAS & CECILE PYLIOTIS RR
VARIANCES FOR 9 GALLOWS HILL ROAD FIL=- CC
A hearing on this petition was held November 19, 1986 wi�h t�e foliowing-Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. 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 side yard
setbacks to allow an existing shed and deck. Also requesting Variances from
density and front yard setback to allow existing single family dwelling in this
R-1 district.
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 Ordinance would involve
j • 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 . There was no opposition;
2. Structure was built as is in 1970;
3. Existing shed and deck were constructed and in place when the
applicant purchased the building in 1973.
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 subject property
but do not generally affect the district;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
i
• I 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating
from the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EPAMINONDAS & CECILE PYLIOTIS
FOR VARIANCES FOR 9 GALLOWS HILL ROAD, SALEM
page two
t • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant Variance
from side yard setback to allow deck to encroach to within six (6) feet of
easterly property line; Variance from side yard setback to allow existing shed
which encroaches to within two (2) feet on the easterly side of the property
line; and Variance from front setback to allow existing single family dwelling
to within eighteen (18) feet of the front property line; as per plans presented.
GRANTED
lames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
i
APPEAL FRJ.I TY.!3 CcLIa'.;I.. .._i. SH bLL :_ r'CCSJ;;;T TC SP,' N 17 OF THE
GENEK 0 [P:-,.-. K3, i.: SH-.LL FL -A THE DATE OF F,C:'';3
OF THIS DECISIOid IN THE 0-;!" THE :iT'i C_E:—. .•
PU2SANT TC E: SS. ,.=.:Ef:SL L �.,. ....,.' S C _. ....., .. 'tA`ICE 0' . r-CIAL P nA:!T
GRAVTED HFi F1:J Srr L NO1; c EF CT Ui r A C_F. THE:.Et CERT.
FICATI04 OF THE CITY ERF: Ti'.�.i 2D .,A4S F " _L-. c__ ') ;.. ,l eFE =0,
OR THAT, IF SIKH AN APPEAL HAS 6EEN FHE. THk.i IT h+3 EDN OIS'IISS:.D Cn' [5"I!ED IS _
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX Rc !S7P.1' OF DEEDS AND INDEXED W.;DE N ;..S..:E CF THE OWi:ER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
mco>inkyy '9�
�= CHU of *Iem, �ttssttthuse##s
Jaa 9 3 0- Ft! °g1
- � Pnttra of AppCal FiLE
DECISION. ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH F. KERWIN FOR VAFL�QNCE: ;.;: � ' rhf.MD.SS.
AT 21 GLENDALE ST. , R-1
A hearing on this petition was held December 17, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. ,
Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent
to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner requests a Variance from density, rear and side setbacks to allow an
existing garage to be demolished and a larger garage to be constructed 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 involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and
�N c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
4) 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 present garage, constructed almost 100 years ago is in
disrepair and presents a hazard to the petitioner and others;
2. The present garage is suitable only for one car and the new
one would accomodate two vehicles.
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 the subject property but
do not generally affect other properties in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve a substantial
hardship to the petitioner;
3. 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 of the purpose of the Ordinance.
z.�p%
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH F. KERWIN FOR A
VARIANCE AT 21 GLENDALE ST. , SPLEN.
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
jVariance requested, subject to the following conditions:
./F
1 . Petitioner must comply with all regulations of the Salem Fire
Dept. relative to smoke and fire detectors for this address;
2. All construction must be done as per the plans submitted and must
meet all City and State Building Codes;
3. The roof of the new garage must be guttered in the rear and the
downspouts are to drain on the petitioners property;
4. A legal building permit must be obtained.
VARIANCE GRANTED
ichard A. Bencal, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLEHK
F?PEAL FROLS THIS DECISIPPI. IF ANY, SHALL BE -.A.D'c PURSUANT TO SECTIO' 17 C- THE
c,'I.ErcAL LAWS. CBAPTEC EOE. WIT; Sh�.L D. r._d W'T.u. ;, 20 DAPS A',-.LR INE F? Or FIJI G
°E This
)Mc'0.. III THE OFr � - THE CMCL,RK.
:n S.a I'C. 11 THE 1!E n p c T, oE1T
.ich A Cr Pi Cc T14 t'I' ..T-
::I -�L I. h EE. - !C S C . L1 IS
F �i'ii IF S ''..H A APF-A'E h Et
REiCnDFD IN THE SJUIH ESSEX It RY U- ' ::S A•d0 I .DEXED UN h Ii _ 0- - G"."'.
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON ih OWNERS CERTIFICATE Or TILE. lh
BOARD OF APPEAL
,b
` fit of 'Sttlrm, C ttsstttl�usetts
•-,� , � ,??� �uttra of �}r}1ett1 j
i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER HARHISS FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 GREEN ST. , SALEM yy � o
A hearing on this petition was held April 30, 1986 VRhUheJf®1?1pYi %Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , R glias, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing was sen "to abutters and others, j
and notices of the hearing were properly published C4fiyrhe Saiem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property is requesting a modification of a Special
Permit granted April 25, 1984 allowing premises to be used as, a three family.
Previous Special Permit was conditioned upon premises being owned and occupiec
by the petitioner. Petitioner now wants to sell-the property which is located
in an R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this reauest
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 Boardthat 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
heairng, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was not neighborhood opposition.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at
the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed use will promote the public hearlth, safety, convenience
and welfare of the City's inhabitants;
2. The proposed use is in harmony with the City's Zoning Ordinance.
i •�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER HARRISS
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT- FOR 19 GREEN ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, in favor of
granting the Special Permit requested to alloy: premises to be used as a three
family dwelling on the following terms and conditions:
1 . Two parking spaces shall be maintained at the site;
2. The use of the property is conditioned upon its being owner
occupied. In the event the property ceases to be owner occupied
it shall revert back to its prior use as a two family dwelling.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED \
Peter Strout, Member Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY C1-=.%
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE F(ASS.
_ 6ERERA! LAWS. C!iP,«'Eri SJc. F':C S!:=!L EE FILED YATY.II2T DAYS AFTER THE DALE OF FILI::G _
• OF THIS D GIS! 0.F"-'E C T ._ CITY CLERK.
E Epi Oi.Tip A
F: A-, CF TF i c _
1:1 THZ "n c ) 6 ;la ,1 F D_` 5 ..•
OF RECORD OR IS RE0RDEO AND NO,ED OR THE OV NER'S CErtiIKATE OF TITLE.
BOARD. OF APPEAL
y �Ci[f T Of *Irnt, C 2IS5FItIj1ISPffB
S
"'3 F nsrD cf �Fprzl
• � C
� �!UTT.�T•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEF'i M.. DESCHENE FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 10 GREENWAY RD.
A hearing on this petition was held Ju'__ 23, 1Attr;tpY �'j�ing Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messy=. , Benca , lelfiing, u ski and Strout.
Notice of the hearing was sent to atutters anq�jq�{ rs and notices of the hearing
were properly published in the Salee E%ening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A. CIT' _L- Lr ' -,l FH, !?6SS
The petitioner is requesting a Variance to convert a two family into a three
family in this R-1 district.
The Variance which has been requested ray be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circums-ances exist which especially affect
the land;, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildir=s and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the prc:isions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
volve substantial hardship, f-.ancial 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 Durpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, makes the following findings cf fact:
1 . Neighborhood equally divided in support and opposition;
2. Petition submitted in opposition appears to have questionable
signatures;
3. Letters submitted in favor of Petition are questionable due to the
fact that neighbors stepped fc=ward and stated they did not under-
stand said petition;
4. Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof with regards
to legal hardship;
5• Location of the parking spaces set forth by the petitioner on
the corner of Cottage St. and C-reenway Rd. is a dangerous situation.
_ On the basis of the above findings cf fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludeS as follows:
1 . Literal enforcement of the pr7-,isions of the Zoning Ordinance would not
involve substantial hardsh=p =o the petitioner;
2. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good or without nu-lifying or derogating from the intent of
the district or the purpose_ of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEAN M. DESCHENE FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 10 GREENWAY ROAD, SALEM
page two
• Therefore, -the Zoning Board of Appeal voted three to two, 3-2, (Messrs. , Fleming
/ and Luzinski voted in favor of granting the petition; Messrs. , Bencal, Hacker and
Strout voted in opposition) , petitioner failed to carry the four votes needed to
grant the Variance, therefore, the Variance is denied.
VARIANCE DENIED
James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEZ FROM Th"S r ,131O'i. .SCALL °= PAPE PURSUAi! TO SECTION 17 OF THE MSS.
GENEEAL LAV.S. C.. :':if; 5:.,, AryO SH=.__ CE F:LEC ',J(;4I11 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FiLIXG
OF THIS DE-;S;-'. i`t T'HE'GFFiCE G THE CITY CLERK.
TER 808. SEC"!L`. 11 THE PER".IT
CRA:!J he Sii.-LL C,- � - .- 1 L'TILA CC.P LF iH SELTHE FL
F CF''_.. .: P. C!T'! CLEF.
T. -.1 _ +S H f:E r t r 'd 4 FILED.
OR .v4;. liC APrn . c_
: E H:T IT rvS E_,; LI _SED LP DZ%iED IS
RE:.0"r. .D !i; T.=rESSEX S_£a RE':_iri G CcEw AND U.CE `^ J'i.O.P TH. ` OF THE CJNEB
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
O�UIy
•� 1 f�it� oftt�em, Ctt$sttclj�zsef#s
Pour3 of �Fpral OCT 30 2 53 FM '06
FIL: .,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD B. PAUL FOR A CIT;'
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 3 HAMILTON ST.
A hearing on this petition was held October 8, 1986 with the following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski, Strout and Associate
Member Dore. 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 setback to allow construction of a single story deck 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 the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition;
2. Previous approval was granted for a 10' x 10' porch was
granted.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial
detriment to the neighborhood and will not substantially derogate
from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance;
2. The Droposed deck will promote the public health, safety,
l • convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
1
DECISION; ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD B. PAUL FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 3 HAMILTON ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special
Permit requested on condition all work be done in strict accordance with the
plans on file.
A,ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE (SASS.
CENERA.L LAWS, CHAPTER SDS, AND SH-11- BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AF—,ER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION II: THE CFFi GF THE CM CLERK.
FGCS.-,tT TJ :(i'.SS. GE;•:i R!:.. L='.Yr.. 0n.-..:ER F.^•3,CI U,'i1lL A C SECT; '
_., 11. THE VA71A.,CE OR cor,^"IAL FE'..IT
C RHCiED h �' 1. SY.ALL N T �. .. 'iCF T
cI �
F N -F ME C' R' iii H S HA` .. D i. HISv.
OR TH: ' It J:- AFr-v, HAS E J FPL_, 1HA T H%S IN c ." CR :ED IS
RECCi_DED IN THE S-Q,H ESSEX ',-:-!STRi OF AND INDEXED L '��;: H .,.::E GF T!E Ct:
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NGTEO ON TH: OMHER'S CERTIFiCklE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
�a.
ti
b }� t1lit ofttlem, ctteueM 'P�
UmF.
C11Y C'L. 4.kes5
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD B. PAUL FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 3 HAMILTON ST.
A hearing on this petition was held August 27, 1986 with the following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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 extend nonconforming
side setback to allow construction of a single story deck 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 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,
• 1 extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, the Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare 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 . There was no opposition.-
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed deck will promote the convenience and welfare of the City's
inhabitants and will be in harmony with the neighborhood;
2. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment or
without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or
purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD B. PAUL FOR A
• SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 3 HAMILTON ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special
Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . A legal building permit be obtained;
2. Work be done in accordance with plans and specifications submitted.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED Q 1
Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal
y
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
-.!;Y. SHALL DE I,1ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE Lli.SS.
L.:S. CHA.:-Tc. EDS. A.': SF.�.L! BE FILE" \',IT.HIN 23 DAYS AFTE'n THE DATE OF FIL17:C
CF in.E S:Of: i.c THE OFf:C- OF THE CITY CLERK
FD �. iG.S$. °i:°'�L .. C'o!n:TER E:,B. SECT`ZN I1 T:E V'R x.-.E CP .o_CIAL PER':IT
c ,r;;;T E EFFECT U!:;IL k CCP' OF T-`_d'C C THE CERT.
FICA1io!, JF .H': Cliff L'IRK 1!i'.; 2i1 DAIS "VE ELAP:ED 7?„ .:v Ar"(LAS H! FILED.
U2 THAT a ci:_5 AN A°PEA h O-F ! FILE, THAI IT HA3 Cc6. D" "c ii -D IS
RECORDED IN THE SO---.H ESSEX. F;_i,l_,Ri CF DEEDS AND INDEXED D E , .E N ..E OF THE O..N--R
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OW'NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
f1�i# of Salem,
curb of ppeul
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY LOU SORGINI FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 15 HANCOCK ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held February 26, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , B ''�uaj? Cgpr"4M t&6out and
Associate Member Dore. Notice of. the hearing was sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published in thEMem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
CITY SCIE!i.►IASS
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 request
for a SDecial 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
• r and reconsstruction 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,
makes the following findings of fact:
1 . . No opposition to the plan was raised at the hearing;
2. The premises contains adequate room for parking;
3. Granting the relief requested will not appreciably impact of
the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
Lj. 1 . The proposed use of the property will not be substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use;
2. The proposed use of the property will promote the health, safety,
convenience and welfare of the' City's inhabitants.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY LOU SORGINI FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 15 HANCOCK ST. ; SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one, 4-1 (Mr. Bencal voted
in opposition) , to grant the relief requested, .provided that:
1 . A minimum of five (5) parking spaces are to be maintained on
on the premises, and a plan delineating such spaces is submitted
to the Board;
2. A Certificate of Compliance is obtained;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy for each apartment or unit is obtained;
4. The premises is owner occupied.
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 PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE G:ASS.
GENERAL :A,/S. CF;A?TER 808, AGO SH.SLL BE FILED YCIT'H,ifP 20 DAYS AFTER-THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DEt SIGN IN THE OFFICE CF THE CITY CLERK.
';u ILeSG. G:.'iE RA'. LA':7S. :HAPTER 898, SECTIO.'! 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER—IT
X—REIi.. SY,ALL NOF T,'JiE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THFDEC'ISIDN, THE CERT-
FiL.lTI:;!: C; THE C:FI1 ELE4K THAT 21 DAYS HANE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS Er II FI:ED,
CSR ",H''T. IF SM: A;: APPEAL HAS BEt,I FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR CEMED IS
RECORDED IN THE S7JTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA.,:E OF THE CV."i EF;
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
BOARD OF APPEAL
` `� ~ "\ I�LTt�1 III �ZT�PTIt� Ctt8521t�125EffS
Pottra of OCT �-
-- FILE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DELTA DESIGN BUILDERS FOR Cliy C'..= A,
VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 NICHOLS ST. & 12 HANSEN ST.
A hearing on this petition was held October 15, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners under agreement, are requesting Variances & Special Permit from
use and density requirements to allow existing factory building to be converted to
twenty two (22) residential units in this R-2 district.
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 petitioner; and
i
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogatinve from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this
Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the
procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D,
grant Special Permits F(or 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 request-maybe 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 . Several neighbors 4nd abutters spoke in favor;
2. There was no opposition;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DELTA DESIGN BUILDERS FOR VARIANCES
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 6 NICHOLS ST. & 12 HANSEN ST. , SALEM
} page two
'• \� / 3. There will be adequate parking;
4. The property cannot be developed for its allowed use because of
the existing building and the nonconformity and because of the
shape and rear of the existing land without substantial hardship;
5. The proposed plan will help alleviate problems with smells and
rodents by removing the business and replacing with residential.
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 property involve
but do not generally affect the district;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve a
i
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. 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;
4. The granting of the relief requested will promote the public health, safety, j
convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
i
` Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant Variances
and Special Permit requested for use, Height, side & rear setbacks, density, front
yard requirements to extend nonconforming structure to allow existing factory
building to be converted to twenty two (22) residential units within the same
footprint as the existing structure. Relief is granted under the following
terms and conditions: M
1 . The pro?osed construction shall conform to all applicable provisions
of the Mass. State Building Code, Salem Fire Prevention Code, Salem
City Ordinances and MGL relative to fire safety;
T
2. Plans presented to Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit;
3. A building permit be obtained and a Certificate of Occupancy for j
each unit be obtained; pp'
I
4. All work to be done in accordance with plans of file.
GRANTED
APPEAL FPO11 THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OFH
GT' LAWS, CP.APTER 804, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DA A �`L rOtlt, Member Board of Appeal
C S'C IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
1TC A `ffft bF �I�Ts el s"p€a' 'g F Et4 �D;. `;`
�j S(�� PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
4. SH'. L h. i TA.:�E EFFECT UNM A COeY OF
t. F H` �I1'1' CT R. 7!:A( t. EMS r'ANE OL. cS') f i N' PPPEAL W3 n.F^I FILED. !
F z'- Iq APP ! H;S r T FI E. IT F C DIS_:iS D 0R Drt:ED IS {
Id T S:::iiH ESS R °''RT C EEAi ) P ..7 c'4.-E i. NA;.:E OF ThE CV:I..ER I
OF R.:' RD OR IS R-:: RDED AND I...TEID ON TI{ OWNERS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
i
BOARD OF APPEAL
• �J
.......
•y `-. �i# of *Irm, � ttssttcljuse##s
• ,_r Pourb of
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL MARFONSELLI FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 73-75 HARBOR ST. , SALEM ^'
Afh 24 c. Py r
A hearing on this petition was held April 16, 1986 wi hb f owing Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; McBH , Charnas, Bencal, Luzinski and
Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the
hearing were properly published in the SalemCibef_ng Newq,&V,4�Scordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter, 40A.
Petitioner, Trustee of Marfonselli Family Trust, owners of the premises, is
requesting a Special Permit to allow the premises to be used as a rooming house/
inn 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.
TheBoard 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 . The property was previously used as a rooming house for twenty (20) units;
2. This would be an appropriate use for the building and the area;
3. There was no opposition.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, andon the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal _concludes as follows:
1. The Special Permit requested will not be substantially detrimental
\ to the neighborhood;
• % 2. The relief requested can be granted without nullifying or substantially
derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the
Ordinance.
j
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL MARFONSELLI FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 73-75 HARBOR ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one (Mr. Hacker voted present)
to grant the petitioner the Special Permit requested provided that:
1 . No more than fifteen (15) rooms be leased;
2. A Certificate of Inspection be obtained;
3. Fifteen (15) spaces be provided on site specifically for tenants;
4. No cooking facilities and no cooking in the rooms;
5. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for the entire building;
6. All applicable state and local fire codes be strictly adhered to;
7. Limited to one person per room.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
, Ames B. Hacker,.Chairman
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DE, li ;.`iY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE fFILIN
GENERAL LAWS. CHAPiEP, 808, AND SHALL B: FiLEO Y:!THII: 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS GECIS!ON IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSAIQT TO h°.ASS. 6E'iERAL IAV.S. CHAPTER 808, SECTIL,I 11. THE VARIANCE OR <cECIAL PERLIIT
CRANED HEREIk, SHALL NOT TA., E-FEC1 UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISI'�P1. BEARfI(:; THE CERT.
FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS EEEIN FILED,
OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT H::S BEEN DIS'AISSED OR DENIED IS
AND
ICORDED RECORDIORTHE
S RECORDED AND NOTED 01DEEDS
DEXED UNDER THE
4 THE
OFOWNER'SCERTIFICATE OF TITLE. OF THE OWNER.
BOARD OF APPEAL
J
Ctu of Sittlem, assacllusetts
PnttrD of
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARTERHOUSE DEVELOPMENT COPR.
(PETITIONER) , RONALD J. GAUTHIER (OWNER) FOR SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR 94-100 HIGHLAND AVE. (R- I) Juy If
3rr
A hearing on this petition was held May 28, 1986 withFkk following to�6d Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming and Luzinski. Notice
of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and nccj*?e-4F$r the hearing were
properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance wlt�l=3fatgtusetts
General Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a medical
office building/private clinic in the R- 1 district . Property presently contains
a gas/service station.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this permit
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
procesure 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 ,a nd uses ,
provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargemnet or
expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental that the
existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms , this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
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 neighborhood.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing
and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Support for the plan was voiced by interested and concerned
residents and others: ;
2. A doctors office as shown on plans would lessen the traffic
count by approximately four hundred cars per day.
3. New Building as shown on plans and described by petitioner would
significantly improve appearence of the neighborhood.
On the
basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
• , 1 . The proposed changes 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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARTERHOUSE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
r' . (PETITIONER) , RONALD J. GAUTHIER (OWNER) FOR SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR 94- 100 HIGHLAND AVE. (R-1)
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 4-0,to allow the
construction of. a medical office building/private clinic , subject to
the following conditions:
1. Copy of revised Purchase and Sales Agreement.
2. All Salem Fire Department regulations relatived to installation
of smoke detectors must be met.
3. Six to ten feel deep planting or shrubs to be placed as a buffer
zone of the side of the property border of Almeda Street.
4. If any lighting is to be placed on the perimeter they should
be placed so as to shine towards the new building being constructed.
5. Any and allconcerns within the culvert found on this property or
across the street must be resolved to the satisfaction of the
Building Inspector bound to the Certificate of Occupancy
being issued.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
AMES B. HACKER, CHAIRMAN
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
17
- -
' JniS
CERT-
C D TH o�cy Y � c.EN fI�ED.
CF TL.S L A FE c
h _ r S.L A LAr„EUrA'� Iccc� OR �.. .E OF THE DWOER
PJnSAS7 ts
TD SJ.�L f - L�1� ri S. c " IT ccE Dlc,. THE tip"
GRANTED H¢nEu.. M'�S bli�
FICATIDIJ DF THE 0 1 CLER7. 1 Hf: LEc:a F;LE, TIicGS Af.D IncEa`D ;1Z OF TITLE.
pR THAT, 1F SOCH pfd l,AP ESSE. c D' D'tlJNER'S CERTIFICATE
SD'JTH l ISi..tO1J THE
IN THE D p;iD MUTED ��p. DF APPEAL
OF. aWFD,OR IS RECORDE
..n.anmRb
ERR of Salrm, � ttssttc�usrfts
1, Dttrb of �ppeul
,r 6 2 sit,, Pm
fyLE+�
May �I II:986 : 7.. EH.MhSS.
Josephine Fusco -
City Clerk
City of Salem
Dear Mrs. Fusco:
The petition of Charterhouse Development for a Special
Permit for 94-100 Highland AVe. was withdrawn prior to the meeting
of April 30, 1986, no vote was taken.
BOARD OF APPEAL
Brenda M. Sumrall
Clerk
I \
(Ilifu ofttlem, ttssttcliusetts
• ,••�l/ x
PaxrD of '�F}reul
March 11 , 1986 MAP, 12 9 51 AM '06
FILE
Josephine Fusco CITY C:-E t S'LEN.MdSS
City Clerk
City of Salem
Dear Mrs. Fusco:
This is to advise you that the petition of William and Thomas
Katsapetses for a Variance for 103 Highland Ave. , was withdrawn. No
vote was taken as petitioner withdrew prior to the hearing.
• BOARD OF�APPEAL
j f/
Brenda M. Sumrall
Clerk
y (1�it ofttlem, ussttcusetts
R
An 6 3 �ii PH 10F
FILE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY JANE AND ROB-��,J,� ,DART , M MdSS
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 204 _HIGHLAND AVE. (B
At the request of Petitioner's Counsel, Attorney John A. Whipple,
the petition of Mary Jane and Robert J. Kart for a Special Permit
for 204 Highland Ave. was withdrawn without prejudice. Said
petition was withdrawn prior to the hearing so no vote was taken.
WITHDRAWN
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
CCU of *Iem, Massachusetts
; ' s Paxrb of &Appeal pct 8
FILE 'R5
CITY C. _
• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY JANE& ROBERT KART FOR Fti �iSS
A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 204 HIGHLAND AVE.
A hearing on this petition was held September 24, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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 allow
construction of a building to be used as a kennel/shelter for the premises known
as Northeast Animal Shelter and located in a B-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions
set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations
and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement,
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, 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.
Ir. 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 similar Special Permit was issued in 1983 but never constructed;
2. New structure will better serve the residents of Salem;
3. Veterinary Clinics/Animal Shelters are not listed in the
Zoning Ordinance;
4. No neighborhood opposition.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
- 1 . The proposed building will not be detrimental to the neighborhood
• and will not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
2. The proposed kennel/shelter will promote the public health, safety,
convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
r. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY JANE AND ROBERT KART
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 204 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM
page .tiro
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Stucture be built in strict accordance with plans submitted
and shall not exceed two stories with a maximum height of
thirty (30) feet;
2. Structure shall be used as a pet clinic/animal shelter only;
3. Salem Fire Prevention Bureau must approve plans prior to the
issuance of a building permit;
4. Certificate of Occupancy.
s
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
!James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK,
nr o TO SEC7IDN 17 OF THE F'pALI'dI
IF ANY. SHALL B` NA'r PU�.SUANT AFTER THE CATS
APPEAL FRDy. THIS DECISION, i,__ :r�7H!N 20 DAYS
GENERAL LAWS. CHtYTLR 84°. PND SHAL. BE .rc 0?. Snrn .L FERNir
OFFICE CF THE CIT:' CLEr.K. TME `'pc.iSG.._ =
OF THIS DECISION IN THE u„ 7 SEC"I:'s II• THc ([RT-
S
^ac. E.
PURSA47 7G g}ffiS. GE:EP q'_ Lt.':(S. C;."` FP.'8d'. F.7PEFL 4.^.' °rrl( RLD.
T.';!.° rr Ci u•ji._ A COPY Cr THE';^•
4'79
CRANTED HEREi: SH5LL N^T g_E
OF if{E C! CLEP.3: THRi.20 DP. S H.4;'E E:A73_D i� D1;;:'.ISSED CR C:.ia=0 IS
nCATIC.0 r� FILE. TH>'• IT H:" I:4�6E OF THE C%'j
EX iSTR'i OF CEECS AND INDEXED L'NUE:� Tri=
OP. THAT. IF SUCH A!: APPEAL H.^-S 6=J'
OFRECORDDIDR S RECORDEDSAND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
f1�i#g ofttl�m, Cttssur�use##s
2r
• "i7 Pattrb of '�F7ral
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SUNBURST FRUIT JUICES, INC/ FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 220 HIGHLAND AVE. APP 29 3 oo PH '86
A hearing on this petition was held April 16, 191-16 wif4 k#e following Board
Members present: James Hacker Chairman' Messrs. , dal Charnas, Luzinski and
Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters Be26 others alid 11ntltSSes of the
hearing were properly published in,. the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the addition of a second
story in this B-2 district.
At the request of petitioners Counsel, Attorney John Serafini, Jr. , the Board
of Appeal voted unanimously to allow petition to be withdrawn without prejudice.
WITHDRAWN
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE PASS. '
GENERAL LAMS. CHAPTER 303. AND SHALL BE FILED WiTSIN 205 Dl-'.YS AFTER, THE DATE GF FIjC;S
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSANT TO IAASS. GENCPAL LRCS. CHAPTER 373, SECTIOIC 11, THE \'ARIR^.Cc 0-. `, E C Ri_AL ai
CRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NJi -ASE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY CF TiiE C�i:CJ6�+, -c
FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK, TH.♦f 20 DAiS HAVE ELAPSED A=F IL H.:S B: FILED,
OR THAI, IF SUCH AN APPEA! KPI, CEEN FILE THAT IT H c B D� : IS E7 OR DE:- -- IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEA P•EOISTRY OF DEEDS AND INOEAcO :.'iDER THE i:A],c OF THE OVINER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
I� � I
i
Lw Tity of 'Sttlem, as'sachusetts 9
� Y
• " 'isf 29nttra of '4pral
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MIKE 3TASINOS FOR
VARIANCES FOR 394 HIGHLAND AVENUE .
A hearing on this petition was Field May 114, 1986 witM,,,2$ f lgy�i�g rd
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencajj, etdi , lnski
and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abut£t."and others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. CITY C:!u _c•,:_�H
Petitioner, owner of the property, requests Variances to allow construction of
163 residential units in this R-1/R-C/BPD 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 and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was major opposition;
2. _ Small petition of neighbors submitted in favor;
3. No hardship proven.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions and circumstances do not exist which especially
affect the land involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not
involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; and
3. The desired relief cannot be granted without substantial detriment to
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
i •� intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MIKE STASINOS FOR
VARIANCES FOR 394 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM
• page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3-2 to deny the petitioner the
relief requested. Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming and Strout voted to deny, Messrs. ,
Hacker and Luzinski voting against denial. .
VARIANCE DENIED -
A,9� L /7 f'l �G�
s B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FRO'd THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE CiASS.
GENERAL LAV.S, CHAPTER 602, AND SHALL BE FILED VVITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILI;'s
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
I*Ji,SANT TD fLiSS. GEpif;.�.L L.A4:S, i,a,4PTER S-2. SECTIO"' 11. THE \'C.EIA':CE C. .PECI''.L PEfi:'IT
0,A:2TED HE'El le, SHALL Nr-, `1A.-"E EFi ECT UNTIL A. COPY OF THEDEi.:,: ,_ , B.-' :^.;. , ,,,E CERT.
IiCATIOR OF THE Clie CLER' 7ii .li .0 D/'iS PAVE ELe,PCI -k.'iD I ! o`,L H,S FLED,
CR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS GEE.'; G:>::iiS,".ED UR L--I(;--D is
C-CCRDED IN THE S0U1H ESSEX: RP21STRY GF DEEDS AND INDEXED UI;^ER THE NAaIE OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
a.cn.viy ��S Y
fgifg of �$ttfem, .4ffittssachuseffs
s oura of rzd
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL STASINOS FOR A1VARIANCE CFOR
11
394 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM VIG
A hearing on this petition was held November 1 FJL8#85 and continued until
December 4, 1985. Hearing was again continued until February 19, 1986 and
February 26, 1986. At the February 26, 1986 lowing Board
Members present, James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski and Strout ,
the petitioner was unanimously granted Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice .
VARIANCE WITHDRAWN
ll�Fih�s/
/ James B. Hacker, Chairman
. A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
OF TEE
Sc CT10N 17 c qLi",:-
F MADE FURS, DFS AF"ER THE DATE 0 '
IF ANN'. SHALL B- V;ITHIIJ 20 _
SOB. AND SHALL BE FILED
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION
IA THE CITY CLERK. C.p,
LAW'S. CHAP�R7HE OFFICE c %:A ,IANCC _ -_-.-
CEERAL SECT12'4 11 TH.
p THIS DECISION c S Ani`CR Si L A COP` D ,H
S SE;i..P.AI �`'• C7 U1'- rN A-, r H .
11
p nc LtiT TO M,A.S. U.A�$ tik.E ELAPSE') f IJorC RLE _ c
HEnEI',. SHALL NO( T': ErF r''- C'
RAN.c� A` <• r THAT IT h^S C Elv C >.
THE CI�r CLER,� Ta Uf:i!ER TdE
fIC"7121 'OF pq APPEF.L HAS BEET! FLE.DE"S Ai1D 1NDE7(ED 71TLE.
Ld
IF S'J:.l' ESSEX RE"v'.SiR1' OF E OYiNER'S CERTIFICATE-OF
t,3-,ED ON
S77TH TH
RECOP.DED IN THE BOARD OF APPEAL
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND
1
of '�§'ttlem, � ttsgttt �zse#ts
�ppral
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES AND ALEXANDER HINCMAN
FOR AN EXTENSION OF A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 459 HIGHLAND AVE.
A hearing on this petition was held February 26, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker Chairman; Messrs. { �lt, C9a � { �� out and
Associate Member Dore. Notice sof the hearing was sent to abutters"an'doothers and
notice of the hearing were properly published in thpjL em Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
CITY CLI4t t.EM.,MA55.
Petitioner, leasees of the premises owned by Nicholas Fiore, request an extension
of the Special Permit granted by this Board in 1984 to allow them to operate a
business for the purpose of display, sale, installation and service of miscel-
laneous truck equipment and accessories, and to also conduct a welding and
light to medium metal fabricating shop. The property is located in a B-2 zone.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
fora 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,
makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No substantial opposition was raised to the plan;
2. The petitioners have proved themselves to be good neighbors,
and have conducted their business in such a way as to have
a positive impact 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 proposed use of the property will not be substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use;
2. The proposed use of the property will promote the public health, safety,
convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES AND ALEXANDER HINCMAN
FOR AN EXTENSION OF A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 459 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM
• page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
extension of the Special Permit as requested, provided that:
1 . The Special Permit is extended for a period of ten ( 10) years
from the date this decision is filed;
2. No welding, sandblasting, or fabricating of any type be done
outside the building.
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 PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LVNS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FiL"tG
OF THIS DECISION HI THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PL'RSktiT TDi+:ASS. GENERAL IAV.'S. CHAPTER 8DS, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIP.L PEa'i.:T
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NGi T^:SE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OFAN OENO CAPIPEAL EHA516`_ENTHE
FILED.T.
FlCAT'::N OF THE CIiY i:LERk THAT 20 DAYS HSVE ELAPSED
OR THAT, :F SUCH %''� APPEF.L HAS BEER FILE. THAT IT HAS 6EEN DIS...4—D OR DENIED IS
OFCRECORD INTHE
S RECORDED EDESSEX
AND RNOTED YON FTHECOWNER'SDS AND I CERTIFICATE OF TTLENDEXED U;;CEr,' THE V Ai,:E OF THE O'1i::EP,
BOARD OF APPEAL
y �tJ tt J of Salem, ttgs2ttljuSPf#s
Pottrb of �Ppral
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT VIGEANT (PETITIONER)
NICHOLAS FIORE (OWNER) FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 461 HIGHLAND AVE.
A hearing on this petition 1daM8Q �n1%86 with the following Board
Members present: James Hac , hairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski, Strout' and
Associate Member Dore. Notes pf the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly_pP;ljshed in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusettslgerisral` LaWiChapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the property to be used as
a Used Car Dealership un this B-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this
Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the
procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D,
grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of
nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension
or expansion of nonconforming -lots, land, structures, and uses,
provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement' or
• 1 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, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition;
2. No one appeared in favor;
3. Preliminary plans were submitted for a building 80' x 501 ;
4. This type of car sales will not appreciably increase traffic
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 proposed use of the property as a used car dealer will not
f �\ be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood;
• 2. The Special Permit requested can be granted without nullifying or
substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the
purpose of the district.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT VIGEANT (PETITIONER)
NICHOLAS FIORE (OWNER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
.,461 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM
page. two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested on the following conditions:
1 . Special Permit is limited to the storing of not more than forty (40)
cars on the lot;
2. Cars are to be stored only on the area indicated on the plot plan;
3. A license be obtained from the City of Salem Licensing Board;
4. Building to be 80' x 50' as shown on plans submitted to the Board;
5. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED /
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
SECT i^ • E7 C
C 4c l;.e
6r t,.:CE FCPS� F•G;;1S t,FTFP THE C
o A
IN
S4,�. SP. LCr F{ ry C ii <J
iS Ocr�.i^N I 1 LGLrP{
int
F
EDF TULE.
THt OJ.�cR'S GE'r.TIFIGHT
Fw ' Ic SJ�9 1.1 AFrt c A i.¢oliinl Cr L
R TP.�T. _ rv;Ti; ES„E., 'EC 0 OF APP`rAL
G [ Ste= RCS RD
RECGS.C`-� IP1 iH Ar;C SDA
OF RECORD DR IS REGORGED
' rdan•mTa
f
(1�i# of 'Salem' assachuse##s 9�
• ;���„� �nttrD of ��e�tt
� �urwt w
i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT VIGEANT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR 461 HIGHLAND AVE. (B-2)
A hearing on this petition was held March 26, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Acting Secretary, Edward
Luzinski, and Associate Members Dore 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 has requested a Special Permit to allow the premises to be used for
a used car dealer in this B-2 district.
The Board of Appeal voted unanimously,. 5-0, to allow the petitioner to withdraw
the petition without prejudice.
WITHDRAWN
Richard A. Bencal, Acting secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
co
co
m
a =
v.
u
f V
W Y
` AP.j,1LP�,t';' THIS OECISIO?1, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
�G G�f:AL LA':,S. CHAPTER ECS. A';D SiALL BE FILED W';THIN 20 DAYS AFTER'THE D,17E OF HLMG
OF TEG DECIS13N 1." THE CFii::E _OF THE CITY CLERK.
PCR2'•'iT ;,^, r;:;l_S. ._.(ERAL L'..'i CCA;'1'R EC'S, SECTION 11. THE VARA.^CE OR SP_CIAL P-P',-T
S{,„ -1";;E EF=:CT U97:L A COPY G' THE.-G.aiu V, EE .;.!il :HE ..EP.T-
PIC..1 'R 3 C't fl;6'.'E .LilPSED f ) 1:�' ,[AL HAS c'-° !' O,
OR ;r. 1. ;i A:; APPEA! HA.. LEE.. FI!_. TEAT IT hAS 3EE NT C1 ...,.,.EO C2 _.... IS
RECCnC:C Ii:r THE SOU;H ESSEX RECIS"IR1' OF U-C S A?:D IISDEXED U;iDER THE t 's OF THE O::'i:ER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON TLE OONER'S CERTIFICATE OF TTLE,
BOARD OF APPEAL
", "N X86
of '�aIem, C s5tttl�u� tt
n
nttrD of ett1 �i'`
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL SUDENFIELD FOR A VARIANCE
AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 462 HIGHLAND AVE. (B-2)
A hearing on this petition was held October 29, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Secretary; Messrs. ,
Fleming, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Sale, Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioner requests a Special Permit to extend nonconforming use and a Variance
from minimum front yard setback to allow construction of two additional garage
bays in this B-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, enlargement,
• 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,
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;
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 the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No support or opposition to the plan was presented;
2. There is a major outcropping of ledge on the property;
3. A City of Salem easement runs on the property.
_ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL SUDENFIELD FOR A VARIANCE &
A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 462 HIGHLAND AVE. , 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 relief requested may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good;
2. Hardship, in the form of the ledge on the property and the easement
on the property, makes placement of the addition in any other spot
on the property impossible;
.3. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-0 (Mr. Hacker voted present) in favor
of the plan, subject to the following conditions:
1 . A legal building permit be obtained;
2. No painting or auto body repair be done on premises;
3. All construction must be done as per the plans submitted;
4. Plans must be provided to the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau prior
to the issuance of a building permit;
• 5. A11 construction must conform to all applicable provisions of the
Massachusetts State Building Code, 527 Code of Mass. Regulations, the
Salem Fire Prevention Code, Salem city Ordinances and MGL relative
to fire safety.
GRANTED , `
Kichard A. Bencal, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
AFPEAL FRO'.:; THIS GECISIC'.:. iF SHALL
BE N"ADE PURSUANT TO SECT!O'I 37 OF TF- !-
GENERAL LAY;$, CHs.FTER fCS, A.'ID SHALL SE FLED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE CITE OF Ft!:r" i
pF ?HIS DECISIOt: 1N THE OFFICE OF THE CITY TICK 11. THE Yn°'tiCE D:'. F-' - ---
�. GE\ F L :YS C:.AFTER SCB.
P� 'iT TO a ;FP h o -
CF
SHALL tOT T',:.E EF"CAIS h'Iic A°LF,PSE'1F THE _ b
F Cr T4° Clii C�c'',� ii R� B c - b'--f C'
„^ v c,; _{ APP
.AL ti VAT IT Hh C cl '-
OF, u_ c...Tn ESS E). R_ AFF Gr c-t 'S AND INDEX,
--�
OF RECORD OP. IS RECORDED AND NCi ED ON THE EG:.FI1ATE OF TILE
OxCNER'S C .
• BOARD OF APPEAL
or
of "Mem, tt s btu e# s
? k FILE '
�wirb Of � 7P211 :.1.Nt55.
CITY
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL & KAREN LEHMAN FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 1 HOLLY ST.
A hearing on this petition was held August 27, 1986 with the following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal,Fleming, 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 extend non-
conforming rear setbacks to allow construction of a deck 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
i4 • shall not be substantially more detrimental that 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
Special Permit will promote the public health
by the Board that the grant of the pe p P ,
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 . There was no neighborhood opposition;
2. Current dwelling unit is very small and the addition of a deck would
be a major improvement to its inhabitants and will not cause any
detriment to the abutters.
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 will promote the convenience and welfare
of the City's inhabitants and will be in harmony with the district;
2. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment or
.� without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or
1 purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL & KAREN LEHMAN FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 1 HOLLY ST. , SALEM
page two
•� Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special
Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . There be no exterior stairway;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy/Inspection be obtained;
3. Deck is to be constructed as per plans submitted and is must not
encroach more than 2 feet from the rear property line;
4. A legal building permit be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FK'.! Tr IS DECiSIOn, IT A".Y, SHALL BE '1ADE PURSUANT TO SECT!O❑ 17 OF THE 1.
CE:.RAL LA1':S. C .r'i_r. CFiS. A !D SH:.LL 5. F .c_ 1'iI' 2C DAiS rr iER THE Di.TE OF FIU
OF THIO DECI::ON CI THE OFFiCE CF TEE CITY CLERIC.
CR<.:.TE7 PE.'. 5 ND iG.Y7 EFFECT C';T i I A C:.Pi OF Tr'-
F;-.',T- v' r __C.t IFr O DA.IS H':E E A?' 7 °:' _ R:S Fi__D,
QR :H.... iF S:'_.h .c. _._ r.:.,, Ea', F,._. THAT IT �'.
RECCKO_D N S- h ESSC ' °n' '''S !'F _EDS F.i'7 :w�:.EC -�_ ,E OF THE C>
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NS EO OR THE 0a;NER'S CERTIFICA.E GF TIRE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
of *Iem, ttsstttljuse##s
oara of
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID HAIGHT FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 3 IRVING ST. (R-1 )
AFS 19 3D
6w .
A hearing on this petition was held April 16, 198ith the fg2lo i&C Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Y&fal, Charnas, Luzinski and
Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutter and others and notices of the
hearing %•:ere properly published. in the Salem Even itngrNems"in,acpq :ce with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioner, owner of the property, has requested a Special Permit to install
an above ground pool 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, enlar*ment, extension
or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
• provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or
expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of, Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes
the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition was presented to the plan;
2. The proposed pool will not interfere with other neighbors or abutters.
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 relief requested will not substantially derogate from or
nullify the intent and purpose of the Ordinance.
i
i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID HAIGHT FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 3 IRVING ST. , SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the
petitioner the requested Special Permit to construct an above ground pool subject
to the following conditions:
1 . The pool must not be closer than fifteen (15) feet to the
front property line on Irving St. ;
2. The dimensions of the pool must be approximately 12 feet by
18 feet;
3. A Certificate of Compliance must be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
I- f���i
Richard A. Bencal, Member Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
.. 'PURSANT TO i�:ASS. GENERAL LA',VS, CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERid1T
GWINTED HERE!':. SHALL NOi T.-:f:E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, BEARING THE CERT-
' FICATION OF THE C!,Y CLER,: THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FiLSD.
CR THAT, IF SUiH AN APPEAL HAS EZEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DI$aIISSED OR DEGiED IS
RECCRDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA;dE OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
,1
�u.comrt'b
Y9
(Itity of *Iem, Ansoadjusetts
Paxrb of �kppv 1 OCT 14 8 06 Am 'BE
DECISION ON OF CARLO MARFONGELLI, OWNER AND RICHARD DESESARS,SETITIONER
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 42 JEFFERSON AVENUE. CITY SLESf.,St; EM.MASS:
A hearing on the petition was held on September 24, 1986 with the following
Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs, Fleming, Bencal, Strout
and Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abuttors and others, and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News, in accordance
with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The petitioner, representing himself, requested a Special Permit to change
from one nonconforming use to another, namely a freight service to an auto repair
and sales business at 42 Jefferson Avenue. The property is located in on R-I
district.
Theprovision 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 reconstuction of nonconforming structures, and for changes , enlargement,
extensionor expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
• provided, however,that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion
shall not be substantiallymore detrimental than the existing nonconforming
use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit till promote the Public Health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants
The Board of Appeal after consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing,
makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No support or opposition was raised to the plan.
2. The change in use is to a use similar to the existing on-,4 and will
not be detrimental to the welfare of the residents of the City.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
public hearing, thelBoard of Appeal concludes as follows:
I . The proposed addition will improve the property;
2. The proposed addition will promote the welfare and convenience
of the City's inhabitants.
• I Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the
Special Permit requested subject to the following terms and conditions;
T•
• a I . The building is not to be altered in any material way.
/ 2. No vehicles are to be stored or displayed outside the premises.
3. That the petitioner obtain all necessary licenses from the Salem
Licensing Board.
4 That the petitioner obtain all the necessary approvals of the
Salem Fire Department, relative to fire prevention safety.
5 That the petitioner obtain an occupancy permit from the Salem
Building Inspector.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED. _r
, J
�YECi7//, rrC/r
aures M. Fleming, Es .
Member, Board of Appeal
U17 Of
,. • GENERA Lk..*.S. ;.F _. -- ..:.YS SE
;Hr b :_ G. 1.u�.n
OF TH!S 2L c.,.,, 1H - :.. UT( -.C`_'c?;;
Pan:..\�
-
`L LV i-::- iH' ESS_.. ^C - -• '`: i ;4..E U TH_E_. O
tff KLO)R. OR IS R"6-'RDED AND no _D -�Y i _ �a .EF.j -ERTIMATE Or TITLE. . . ,
• - - BOARD OF APr AC
_- Titg ofuiem, ussttcusetts
• .'�� �%�Jv 4'�j l QSI'11 Ql ��GC4
f' l 11 11
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JONATHON D. LIGHT FOR
VARIANCES AT 98-102 LAFAYETTE ST. (B-4) J�JILtP
A hearing was scheduled for this petition on May 28,f II.I A
U6and continued. until
July 16, 1986. CITY C:.'•i"^ '"' ilA.H455.
Petitioner is requesting Variance to allow two additional residential units and
a variance from minimum parking requirements.
At the request of Counsel for the petitioner the petitioner, by a unanimous vote
of the Board, was allow to Withdraw Without Prejudice.
Richard A. Bencal , Secretary
p • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FBC::T Ti!iS DEC'iSIC.'e, IF VIY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE t.1 c,cS_
AND SHALL BE Fi'_ED l'i:THHJ 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILCJO
.. . .� __ - Y CLERK.
,c 'F THE CIT
Or TI:.. �.. . _:i I:. .h_ CFF
s- ��. ._.. SJR. SEiL:.! 11. THE VA.. Ai:C_ CR .,r.CIAL .__
�. _ .. "lin ...
., .�. °.ill -!'e:.. ..
E"rt°Li UN L F C:?5 DF TH.0 .. E-
FI' Cr i u i -F ' i'+Fi - D4iS KA--Tr.nE�I E' S zErN Di SED OR D_:i " iS
EDEN E...E. _ . ._,
IF S'J_i' e-:� 'PE.-,_ Hyo „ .' _,
C THAT. r ._3
_ _. c.._., r!' ilei.:: OF � .,
:�ED IN THE c^7:H ESSE7: RE..:STRf OF OEcDS A'JU IG�...c„ u.:.'u, THE �._ -
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O JNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD. OF APPEAL
AV
Otg of alem, asgac�usetts
' ` F Poura of OCT 30
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GREYSTONE REALTY TRUST FOR A
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 260 LAFAYETTE ST. CITYC
A hearing on this petition was held October 15, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, requests Variances & Special Permit from
density and setbacks to allow a single family dwelling to be converted to a three
unit condominium in this R-3 district.
The Variance which hat been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especiallyaffect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting ether 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
• 3c. 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 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
pPocedure 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 the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Neighborhood was in favor of the conversion;
2. Structure is too large to make it economically feasible to
remain as a single family dwelling
i
i
J DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GREYSTONE REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES
& SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 260 LAFAYETTE ST. , SALEM
page two
j •% 3. This conversion will tie in with the existing development.
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 affect this property but do not
generally affect other property in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would work
a substantial hardship to the petitioner; and
3. 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
4. The granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
I
I
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant a Special
Permit to allow single family to be converted• to three unit condominium, Variances
from minimum lot width, lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit and side yard
setback on the northerly side of the property. Special Permit and Variances are
granted subject to the following terms and conditions:
• 1 . Building must comply with all applicable Massachusetts State
Building Code requirements;
2. All regulations of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau must be
adhered to;
3. A Building Permit for all construction must be obtained;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy for each unit must be obtained;
5• Must meet any conditions of the Planning Board and the
Historic Commission
GRANTED
Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED. WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM, THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE PURSUANT TO SEC T10% 0 OF THE WASS.
GENERAL LAWS CP.'PitR rub AND SHALL BE 6LEG HL"1 20 DAYS AFTER THE PATE OF FILING
_
OF TPS CEC!$!G- hJ THE 04!C Cr THE C!TZ' C-EPR.
P IRSA,NT TC A"S 'IENERAl L,- 'S CHAIFICF. FD', S ,;l J II. THE l'."I"'CE OR SPEC!A.L PERMIT
C RANTED HEREIN, SHELL I`!— 'FA.-E CF,"c;T C`.i iL A C:RY DF TH c "., '.N, THE CE,-,T.
FICATI:i;t OF THE CI'F( CLER.'. 'I NAT 20 D,' H4';E E,,FSED 4.!;) PCP A.. EAE H.� S E 6; F!LED,
GR THAT, IF $Lu:.• A:i F'.PP:^.L HA.,, o_;., Fi_E. iH:T .. Ha. EEL-i; =0 OR LE'.!7D Is
P CL.-;•OED IN iN_ S..G-H ESSEX EF CEEJ D i!�D E`: U,� .c Ti- NA`;E OF THE 01,7NE5,
((F REC P.' OR IS p-CL)RDED A.12 NOIED uJ Ti!5 CitifER's CER-, F!CATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
C(A➢1
q Tito of '*tt1em, Anssttrhusetts
Pourb of Appeal
MAY 6 2 54 PN JR5
FILE
May ,5,W'
&s
CLT^l '.!.r.ti, d 5
Josephine Fusco
City Clerk
City of Salem
Dear Mrs. Fusco:
The petition of Lafayette Real Estate Trust for a Special
Permit for 260 Lafayette St. was withdrawn prior to the meeting,
no vote was taken.
� BOARD OF APPEAL G ��
1 Brenda M. Sumrall
Clerk
t
f
s ,
/ll
.cnvuq� -
i'` y `_ ('gi#g of 'Salem' ttssttcliu�etts
` �Fpe�
Paxra of
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANNY K. WONG FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 363 LAFAYETTE ST. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held June` ga , $gjj 25tV following Board
Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice .rman; Richard Bencal, Secretary;
Messrs. , Fleming and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were prW&& 'J3,. pj¢lished in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Iaws` Ma�440A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, requests a Variance from rear and side setback
requirements in order to rebuild a garage currently in disrepair.
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 distrcit or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence and reviewing the plans presented,
makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The present structure is in very poor condition and is a
hazard in its present state;
2. The cost to renovate the present structure is prohibitive;
�. Neighbors concerns relative to the new structure were
answered by the petitioner.
On t:he 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 property involved
but do not affect the neighborhood generally;
2. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
Ij public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
• 1 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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANNY K. WONG FOR
• A VARIANCE FOR 363 LAFAYETTE ST. , SALEM
'Page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the
Variances requested subject to the following conditions:
1 . No storage of animals is to be allowed in the garage;
2. Residential use of the garage is not permitted;
I
3. The new garage must have gutters that run away from the
abutting property;
4. The demolition of the existing structure must be approved
by the Salem Historical Commission;
5• The foundation of the new garage must be built in accordance
with the State Building Code;
6. The retaining wall on the south side of the property shall be
shored up and maintained.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Tfchard A. Bencal, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
THE MASS.
SECTION 17 DATE OF FILING
k.,y, SHALL BE
"ADE PURSUANT TO pF'ER THE
AND SHA=L BE FiLEU Wli Fiiti 20 DAYS
APPLAL fR0'.t THIS DECISION. 1� CITY CLERK. SPECIAL PER'flIT
LAWS, CHAPTER £D8, OF TFL CERL
GENERAL IN THE OF RCE 896. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR
SIGN APi cF. OF THE OLCIGIOtI, BEAn!''c HFILEO.
OF THIS CEC! N-. CH CCPV B..`Pi
c V:ERAL L.+ <' EFFECT CJ A cD AWD llO APPEAF HDR UEtt1Ep IS
PURSA!1T TO YA..S. LL NUT 7h�.: HA�m PAPS- BEE'i DIS ir.fS.+_D THE OV:NER
GR--'D HEP.EIN, SHA CLERS THA1 20 OA.YS ,D° NAtr.E OF
�L NAS B``-EN -E SHAT IT HAS
FICATiON OF THE Cltt OF DEEDS AND INDE%ED OF TITLE.
OR THAT, IF Sd:,H Atd APPE' THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE
RECGRCEO IN THE SO'J1H ESSE% R NOSED CN
OF RECORD OR lS RECARDEO AND BOARD OF APPEAL
%/)j1
of �$ttlem, C ttsstttl#use##s
• �./,.F. Pourb of c�? peal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROGER & COLLEEN RYAN FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 414 LAFAYETTE ST. , (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was h d J ly 3, �1ppgqqq��RRrr6 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, ran R��WA 86encal, Secretary; Messrs. ,
Fleming, Luzinski and Strout. Notic of the hearing was sent to abutters and
others and notices of the hearinpve;e properly published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachu P�t}�,S: General gi Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert a 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,
extension or expansion of noncoforming 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Substantial opposition was presented by neighbors,
abutters and others;
2. The plan, as presented, would adversly affect the
neighborhood;
3. The area in question is very congested, with parking at
a premium, and the petitioner failed to show adequate
parking plan.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed conversion will not promote the public health, safety,
convenience or welfare of the City's inhabitants;
• \
i
.2.. . The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good. _
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROGER & COLLEEN RYAN FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 414 LAFAYETTE ST. , SALEM
page two
• ) Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, against granted the
Special Permit requested.
SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED
�. 411A y
Richard A. Bencal, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• APPEAL FRO T i AN) SHALL CE 7 PLR—.A';T TO SECTS 17 OF T;1 -.
AERAL �G,4 -- AvE' SH- ..
LL c F;:E' tl Hii7 'c0 DAYS A E. THE DATE OF
O" THIS DEQ � L: r OFICE V THE CG7 CLERK,
PUR-q',i T -7.C. Pr;F ,', cF S°::I'd. 11 Ic_
C :ED n ._ i41"E E -T LI; iL A .
r•. r c.' Tr :4i C DI iSj r Ci _.'.E ' ISJ
rhSRDcD li �r „EL!.TRO C- ND 1"f Ec ED l'.'__.. F ..° OF Inc ^
OF RECORD OR d RECORDED A;YD NOTED ON T9E 'uMER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL ,.
!
y ( it ofttlem, � ttssttrllusztfs
• 4J ?= Foam of ' pFpr zl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT M. MAGUIRE, TR.
FOR A VARIANCE AT 2 LAWRENCE ST. a/k/a 165 OCEAN AVE. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held on July 16, 1986 >K},t�glhpf6jegip5 Board
Members present: James B. Hacker, Chairman; Richard nc e e ry; Messrs. ,
Luzinski and Fleming. This hearing was held due to #Lpider received by the
Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts dated June 11 , 1986.
CITYCL:'-: ` GI FN.MASS
The petitioner requests a Variance from density and setback requirements in order
to construct a duplex unit in this R-2 zone.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted uoon 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 wihtout nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence and viewing presented at the
hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Opposition was voiced by the immediate abutter;
2. Petitioner failed to show sufficient 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 . Petitioner has not met his burden of proof with regards to
legal hardship.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 2-2, Mr. Hacker and Mr. Fleming voted
against granting, Mr. Bencal and Mr. Luzinski voted in favor of granting. Due to
the lack of four (4) affirmative votes, the petition its denied.
DENIED �s�.�,.a� � •,�/��/�� ��
-Richard A. Bencal, Secretary
FROM, THISDF1�1q� �E } �aA � uA�o }pNL4DT#7T THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
LAF:'S, CIA; ER An SH 6c c_ WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILINu .
\ DEJISIGN IN THE OFF;0E OF THE CITY CLERK.
TO I.;.SS. OENERA.L L...>. CHAPTFP. M. SECTION 11, THE VAR!nD,CE OR SPECIAL PER!'IT
C J N..i T . .: EFF'::T iitiT!L A COP'! OF THEDE,!S!'::. EEA ;;_;, THE L,'RT-
.-IC:TI'JN l-,F THE CIS`. ;,LER:. 1 fir„ 2,1 D.A',S HOVE •'_.4F37D A":) GJ AFF7AL HAS BEE:'! FILED.
.R '.H'T. IF 57._. A.; 4PPE.T H:C Di''. i F... T!,A; li !i'S GPEY D'i. ISSED CR IS
RE,-OR,-):ii I.`. ..o `:?J!H E>C_. RE:.'C7R1 " 7`_:DP AND IRC{RED 'JG ER THE FA11. OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS U-RDED AI;D NC1E0 Oil TI:E OiP:7ER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. -
i
@ - Ctg of ttlem, 'ffltIssuchusetts
q
IEE�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ELEANOR SCIALDONE FOR
A VARIANCE AT 8 LAWRENCE ST. ;YGLFnp F1.EM.N►pt.
A hearing on this petition was held September 24, 1986 with the following Board
? Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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, is requesting a Variance from density
requirements to allow a second dwelling to be constructed above the first
floor in this R-2 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that•
j 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was neighborhood support;
2. This is a two family zone;
3. The size of the lot is its own hardship;
4. Petition was submitted in support of this project.
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 in question but
. -,�o not generally affect other lands in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to the petitioner; and
/ 3. 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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ELEANOR SCIALDONE FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 8 LAWRENCE ST. , SALEM
page.two
•
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance
requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Construction be done in accordance with plans submitted;
2. Plans be submitted to the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau for their
approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Tames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
,+ .
;^HIN 2C DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF I"--; 'C
-
APPEAL FP.G6; THIS-DEC6IDN, 1= P.:7Y. SHALL BE MADE PURSUfTO SECTION 17 Of THE I•'->
GE'(E'AL L:;iYS, CPJ+PSE" BcP.. AND SHALL BE FILED Y
,,. SE:.-I-'I 11. ThE \'A. _,E Cc, r i .L ° r"a
OF TniS OISIOi; I': THE OFFCE OF THE CITY CLERK. .
e•pc 'ECEPF LF'.y C nP"�R SOB.
FJRS - T 5 E.. T' D C ' c c - -
CRi. - 1-i°'":. 8 1L ti^l ir'dE rt[�� UNTIL A DOPY OF H
FICAi'
IL .it CLEF 1 Tr? 2u GAYS HA c O,c : ^ CR D D iS
GR iV T IF SU:h A : APr[F.i. '-. c r E.`nA'. AND D O.ncD LN.,_r .HE ���i"E CF i•�E r ..
RECi r`_D IN THE SSuiH ESSr_a REAISTRY Cr tcLS
• OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APRE !
Ctu of 'SaIem, Assuchusetts
• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND PINAULT FOR VARIANCES
FOR 291 JEFFERSON AVE. AND 99 LAWRENCE ST.
A hearing on this petition was held January 15, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Ch na$$ Luh' ski and Associate
AU
Members Bencal and LaBrecque. Notice of the hear, s k�rM Til 4butters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly pu fished in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General LawY hapter 40A.
a
CiTP•C Eit:.L'' fP N'. '
Petitioner, the owner of the property, requests permission tb'W ide his property
into two lots as shown on a plan submitted to the Board, simultaneously he
requests variances for proposed Lot `1B as to lot area, lot width, and front yard
requirements, and variances for proposed lot 2B as to lot width, area, front and
side yard requirements. Property is located in a B-1 district.
The Variance which has been req bested 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 wihtout 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 presented, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No neighborhood opposition was presented to the plan;
2. The topography of the land is such that development of the
property is not feasible under the terms of the Ordinance;
3. There are changes in elevation which make it necessary to locate
the proposed building as shown on the plans.
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 the petitioner; and
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND PINAULT FOR VARIANCES
` FOR 291 JEFFERSON AVE. AND 99 LAWRENCE ST. , SALEM
page two
3. 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 unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
relief requested, provided that:
1 . On site parking be provided as per plans submitted to the Board;
2. The petitioner makes all necessary permit applications relative to
the installation of automatic smoke detectors;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary c—
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK
u N F.N'(, SH='.LL BE K;ADE PURSU'D'
NT TO SECTION 17 OF Tr._
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISIO,..
c !P''J' D DAYS ATTER THE DATE CF FI'•I'.5
GENERAL LAYJS, CHAPi E' 808. AND SHALL 6E F0._u Vf.^.IA:vCE p Si'`_:.I4L PE`:'.".I,
-AP-.ER 898. SE?.TIPN 11. THE
OF TIES' DECI$IDhI IN THE uffluE`Ou THE CIT-1 CLERK. `,cVAMA:. 9E?•inJ_; 11•"- ✓::T-
F r;,�„r;IT 7O :l ASS. =EN-RAL 1;::-i�. .LSD,
;Ai E EFFcCT UNTIL f A`Ci COPY OFATdEf AT L P. ` B
LFa;itJ
HL'—'J, SHALL N v. q;i8 'n ' -� S _
g. j CR
1` i.F TICf1 _F ihE C:I C -R. 1'�. .1 FILE idAi :'
pF..THAT. IF SUZY, AN APRc�L Ff .� 8 c A:ID INDE:.ED U^;OE; 1HE NAdE OF
$SVH'1^✓k"tCBRJEF)+iW'Qd`i.�9 STH ESS'_X RH:ISTRI'. 14 HE NER'S CERTIFICATE
TITLE.
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AIr'D NOTED ON THE OWBOARD OF APPEAL
3'-
3112
9b. No 10 II Ez hvr
0tv of 'Sale m,
• ) PETITION OF ROBERT M. MAGUIRE, TRUSTEE OF THE 165 OCEAN AVENUE
TRUST VARIANCES FOR 2 LAWRENCE ST. a/k/a 165 OCEAN AVE.
A hearing on this petition was held January 15jj wj1h 6 �lowing Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. ,Charnaq, zi'hski and Associate
Members Bencal and LaBrecque. Notice of the t1FtLt Faring was sent to abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General ChG.CCbbbpte4FWAASS.
Petitioner requests Variances from density and rear setback requirements in order
to construct a duplex in this R-2 district. The property is owned by the 165
Ocean Avenue 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 purose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presente at the hearing, .and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Substantial opposition was presented by neighbors;
2. The proposed structure is not in conformance with the other dwellings
in .the area, it is too far from Lawrence St. ;
3. The rear setback is insufficient to give the residents of the
adjoing lot a reasonable degree of privacy;
4. Petitioner failed to meet his obligation to prove hardship as the
building could be located in other area of the lot and/or the duplex
could be built on top rather than side by side.
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 or the purpose of the Ordinance
• 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the. Zoning Ordinance would not
involve substantial hardship to the petitioner.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT M. MAGUIRE, TRUSTEE OF THE 165 OCEAN
,•% AVENUE TRUST FOR VARIANCES FOR 2 LAWRENCE ST. a/k/a 165 OCEAN AVE. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 to 1 , Mr. Bencal voting in favor,
against granting the relief requested.
VARIANCES DENIED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary ,
4
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
0
!
APPEAL FRO%I THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE HASS.
GE;iERAL LAYJS., CIi F.PTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
rORCANI TO F..ASS. EE'''ERA: LAWS, CRAFTER FOE. SECTION 11, THE W. A. CE C. SPECIAL PERlI.IT
?,el E P. RE.ii °Hf L n0 {° EPF:CT UNT L A COPY OF THE PEC;S !4 EEA,,.-X, TI;E CERT-
! CF 1HE I'i ERI( Il!!, °- DAYS F -'VE EL?.PSE1, AND ".' Ar PES. H; ° r E'1 °ICED ..
IF S:!Si All APFEAL HAS KIN F E '[HAT IT HAS BEEN DS 1 cD CR 1' J IS
IN TF!E SCUiH ESSEX REGISTRY OF CEEOS AND INDEXED U.-CER. HL GF 1E OF THE O""!;-P
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED CN THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
SSVH'N3'r.> •,� . �:, Alli
#t Slid
984
Tito of , ttWem, jfflttssac4usetts
aura of ezd
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES T. MAHONEY FOR A
VARIANCE AT 1 LEMON STREET COURT (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held July 23, 1986 with the following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard A(pc 4, 3egfleP.Mrt[gessrs. , Fleming,
Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly publir73hed` in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
CITY CL'= i
The petitioner has requested a Variance from density and setbacks to allow an
existing single family 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
• ,1 c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullfying 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 . No opposition was presented;
2. The structure in question has been in existance for over 100 years.
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 affect the building involved by do not
generally affect other buildings in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
volve substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. 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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES T. MAHONEY FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 1 LEMON ST. CT. , SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, in favor of granting
the variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All applicable Salem Fire Dept. regulations for a single family
dwelling must be adhered to;
2. The dwelling in question may remain on the same footprint as presented
to the Board on the plot plan submitted dated 3/31 /86.
VARIANCE GRANTED
F1chard A. encal, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
TOci '7 F
qrc F rS
E
is f. c ALF _i a lc ,
FRO'
APi c'a ` P1
GE+ r..
OF T S Dia
r
_ rY � =•cE � Cc Ir iL'.TE Cr 717EE. ,.
IS RE'�URDEp A�0 ' uEJ C:. Tri.. LufERS
BOARD OF APPEAL
OF RECORD GR
Clu
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & PATRICIA O'KEEFE
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 24 LEMON ST. , (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held May 28, 1986w- to lre gob a °��t$�g3oard Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, r tary; Messrs. , Fleming and
Luzins'ki. Notice of the hearing was sent to abut�u .,ind others and notices of
the hearing were properly published in the Salem vening News in accordance with
P CITY C'.E`': `` `, V.&Ss
P9assach:s etts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the property, request a Special Permit to allow an
existin= deck in this R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Sc•ecial Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
!ie_withstanding 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
no- conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension
or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
• provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or
ex_ansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the
ex_sting nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided cy 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 hearin , and
after v-ewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No support or opposition was voiced at the hearing;
2. The deck in question was built approximately twenty (20)
years ago.
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 may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good;
2. The proposed use will promote the health, safety, convenience
and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
i • 1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & PATRICIA O'KEEFE
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 24 LEPTON ST. , SALEM
page two
/ Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, in favor of granting
the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . The 15' s 20' deck as shown on the plans submitted must be
on one floor only and be no closer than 7' in the rear and
3' on the side facing lot 445;
2. All regulations of the Salem Fire Department relative to
the installation of smoke detectors must be met.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Richard A. Bencal, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• 1
-TION ll
CF T,
,EIF fly
SHALL EE nn�
E Pi;-1SDA4T TO S.� _
`PPUL FROM THIS DE - g}CALL :.- I':'_Eb2D DPYS A�t`en tNE C
E
G &Rkl_ LACSC - ,� . tF GTt a Rn. � C S.
THIS Gd S' .N I` c-.R.
O' t. Ck. . P.f TH L
i
FnVION . WE t N'. c; t
. IF c '' r.r r ..� t 'iiE _D O
CP � 'S
t :TN E S` F'E'' ;;ER S SERTIFICA1E OP TITLE.
P,dOn DED Vv HE �- O fiDitD C IH� Ct
OF RECORD OR IS REOGitDED Ah BOARp Of.APPEAL
14 -
- (gitg of Salem, gassachusetts
=,e ' '�� Poxrb of '4pu l� OCT 3 8 41 AM 86
'dams.oma'
FUE P.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & MARIE DENIS FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 10 LEVAL ROAD CfTY CLFS>' xll.EM.MASS.
A hearing on this petition was held September 22, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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 extend
nonconforming side setback to allow construction of a two story addition 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 appeaing 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 the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no neighborhood opposition;
2. The Ward Councillor spoke in favor;
3. Applicant has a severely handicapped child and the additional
space is required to promote the general health and welfare of
the family.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed addition will not be substantially detrimental
to the neighborhood;
• 2. The proposed addition will be in harmony with the district and will
promote the convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
- DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & MARIE DENIS
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 10 LEVAL ST. , Salem
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special
• j Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Addition to be built according to plans submitted;
2. The Salem Fire Prevention Bureau approve the plans prior to
the issuance of a building permit;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Fames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
i
APPEAL MOM THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LA.%S. CHAPTER 838. AND SHALL DE FILED VOTHM 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF HUNG
_._-. OF THIS LECIS!ON I: THE OFMIE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSAN TO MASS. GENERA! LkYlf. CHAPTER 808, SEC,-;':q I1. THE VARIANCE OR SP;CIAL PEn.' (T
CRANT ED HEREIN, SHALL N*-, TACE EFFECT UNTIL A C..-. C'F THE:'`-CIS'I,-.Y;. 5ESS I�!'" THE CERT-
DAYS HPE L< - : 7 .^ F.?P'AL HA eESi! BLED.
FICATP--N GF THE CITY CLERii T AT 23 DA S HA. E __-
OR THAT. IF S'J;'H AN APrEAL HAS EE EN FILE, THS, !T '-'EEI^1 GIS! 135x? CP. CE!;!ED IS
RECOP.DED IN THE SOU;H ESSEX R67!STRY OF DEECS t. . UNDER. THE NA�.:E OF THE GM":.^.
OF RECORD OR IS RECDRDED AND NGTED ON THE MNER S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
i
f�ity of Salem, f ttssachusetts
• ' r', Potara of Men,
OCT 14 8 06 AM '86
r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN B GWINTA FOR F!LE$
VARIANCES AT 2 LIBERTY HILL AVENUE MYCLtAl S :I.EM,MASS.
A hearing on this petition was held on September 24, 1986 with the following
Board Members present; James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs, Fleming, Bencal,
Luzinski and Strout. Notice of this hearing was sent to abuttors and others, .
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News
in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner represented by his son, Gerry Guinta, requested Variances
from the density requirements and rear yard setback requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance in order to construct a two(2) story addition at 2 Liberty Hill Avenue,
said addition to be utilized as a second dwelling unit. The property is
located in an R-2 District.
1 •
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 generlly
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 nullfying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
makes the following findings of fact!
1 . There was no opposition presented to the plan.
2. The plan was supported by the Ward Councillor.
3. The proposed addition will not be substantially detrimental to the
good of the neighborhood.
4. The land and its location are unique to the district in terms of
size, and not to allow the construction would be a substantial
hardship to the petitioner.
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 affect the building involved by do
not generally affect other buildings in the same district.
i
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. 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 Vote unanimously, 5-0, in favor of granting
the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions;
I . That the petitioner meet all the requirements of the Salem Fire
Departmentrelative to fire safety.
2. That the petitioner adher to all the standards of the Massachusetts
Building-Code.
3. That the Petitioner obtain all necessary building and occupancy permits.
4. The building be built as per plans submitted.
VARIANCES GRANTED )
/ c
mes M. Fleming, Esq.
Member, Board of Appeal
A?F'i,l J.7 L.+ �CCI:1^i1. G tt�"t. ."9".!.L E: 1:.'.:.E P••":.I.NT TO STCT;T' 17 OF THE
r"IS :.'F_7 THE GAFF LF FF•.!':G
C..;._ T Uri CLE K
^ S701 ' . 1 7.., J ^ 0� cPc to cco';IT
cu iL7"'. [ cF .:.T u T' Y iH'. i. '.
-J ' IZAL HAS KEN FLED.
OR. liA IF S'-'L.4 AN A'PEAL 4^C E-_7 i '/ '
IT H%� oC'.'4 O' _7 OR C i::EO IS
OF TITLE.
R�C'e. DIPJ TIi S'UiH ESSLA I E
,:-
(R1 F _ `E^_, !•CJD ;':OEXED L -' THE NA ,E OF THE OWNER
OF RE::.:RI) OR IS RLCCRDED AND NG._ ON THE U'.JNERJ CEK,IFL,niE
BOARD OF APPEAL
of �$ttlem, ttssurlju$et#� li
Pattrb of ' pPvz l
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ELAINE JONES FOR A VARIANCE
FOR 9 LIBERTY HILL AVE. , SALEM (R-2) JUL IS 11 06 Qtlu
'Q6
A hearing on this petition was held June 18, 19 fj w�th the following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Benc , leming, Luzinski and Strout.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters andFs.an Sof the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News iin, accoraaaHcee with Massachusetts
General Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, requested a Variance or Special Permit from
minimum side yard requirements of ten ( 10) feet, for and R-2 district in order to
allow construction of a single story six (6) foot by twelve (12) foot (61x12' )
laundry room addition to the exiting dwelling unit at 9 Liberty Hill Avenue which
is located in an R-2 district.
The Variance which the petitionerhas 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 . The shape of the lot at 9 Liberty Hill Ave. is irregular and
unique, and its best use is for a sin=le family dwelling;
2. Four abutters and neighbors signed statements that they had no
objections to the proposed additions;
3. The petitioner testified as to the absolute need for the proposed
addition.
On the basis of ,the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect this property but do
/• ` not generally affect other lands, buildings or structures in the same
district;
2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to the petitioner; and
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ELAINE JONES FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 9 LIBERTY HILL AVENUE, SALEM
page two
• 3. 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. Bencal voted present, to
grant the petitioner relief from the ten (10) foot side yard requirement and to
allow the petitioner to construct a single story, 5' x 12' laundry room addition
to the existing dwelling unit at 9 Liberty Hill Avenue, encroaching on the north
side yard to a distance of five (5) feet.
VARIANCE GRANTED
01
flames M. Fleming, member,'., and of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
{ c;.{ALL BE IL;.DE PURSUANT TO SECTiCI` 17 CF THE Id 4S S.
FFDId THIS DEISIi;i'I. I"
c •c-. dIN 20 DAYS kF7ER THE DATE OF i'''•"'�
SL to S [ FTER 50S A'.0 SF L c W .
CITY CLERK. V c l' CF °ECI?. PER'11T
rll.E 11 TP
jc. LE !SION I'.
HE Cc 1 SEC�IC'. cc TF1 C.iRT-
TD iLASS. rE•c, I!J'c cc D �i.,.IL A COPY OF THE r I F LED .
, .7 F, to nEA K..,-� n-tI; 1
LI PGF EhI S'%.L t .c ELF r i- 'fZC IS
Fi ,r�; 2J l Ti'A. IT - c N u .. - .:E CE THE OWNER
FThtUil' = .
F U P AP cri P�:S t, c :i_E.y AND 11DEyc0 TITLE.
I
S.-. H ESS-� 6t ED 07• TH° oYINER'S CERTIFICATE Dr TIT�E.
OF EECDRO OR Is ORDEp AND f.� BOARD OF APPEAL
ttftttem, � ttssttcljue##s
• °� 9 Potts of �Vpvd
j �<y4icL tCL
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER WONG FOR A VARIANCE
FOR 112 LINDEN ST. , SALEM (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held March 26, 1986 with the following Board .
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Acting Secretary, Edward
Luzinski and Associate Members Dore 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, owner of the property, has requested a Variance from rear and side
setbacks to allow construction of a two car garage in this R-2 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 in-
volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to.petitioner; and
'. •
N
a`
c. odesirat%e relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public Vod and wihtout nullifying or substantially derogating from the
osntent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
o L-
The Boarc..gf Appe6al, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing and afterfviewing the plans of the property, makes the following findings
of fact: s ��
IC j
r
1 . tyAEsugpont or opposition was voiced for the plan;
2. At one time a garage was in the same approximate place;
3. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause hardship
to the petitioner.
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 Variance may be granted wihtout 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, subject to the following conditions:
• 1 1 . The garage be the same size in all respects and located in
the same place as per the plans submitted.
.DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER WONG FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 112 LINDEN STREET, SALEM
• page two
2. The property at 112 Linden St: must be in compliance with
Salem Fire Department rules and regulations relative to the
installation of smoke detectors.
VARIANCE GRANTED
-Richard A. Bencal, Acting Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
17 Of THE
APPEGL fkO:S THIS OECISIDN, i` SiJY, SHALL BE
qr ADE PURSUANT TO SECTIOITHE GATE OF MASS-
ALL '
g;v„ AI;D SHF:.L SE FILED C"THIN 20 DAYS AFTER
CEREPAL LA:aS. CH"�.0
OF THIS CEC:S'i."1'L) THE CF`ICE OF THE CITY CLERA.
.,C r ?.ER �nS, $EC1L ^l 11, THE VA.RIA��CE OR SPECIAL PERRtI
c F�,, „ILL A COPY OF THEDECIS�O': BHARI:JG THE CERT
PUR:.h'�T TO ';.° - dEi:A; l4
"cD HEREI J �F_LL IJOi 19.z ;E cL e, �p �3.i NO A"-PEiL HAS BEEN FILED-
,A
Hf.S NEN DIS.�ISSED OR DENIED IS
FICAi IDIv OF THE CIT' CLEfin T'i`c 'c`-El+ F..E_ T'r.AT IT
DR TH:�7, if SUi':c AR AHF ESSEF fiECiSTR'i C'r ::'EEJS P..,JD Ii:DEY.ED Ui2CER THE NAME OF THE OYlNER
RECORDED IN TH. S:J CEJ TH O';lNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
OF RECORD OR RECORDED ANG Ir'DTED BOARD OF APPEAL
Auc 27 3 02
(gi# ofttlem ussucl its
, t �
�• ''3' �4 Poura of LAppeal
CITYCL'L':' `- ', EM.MASS.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND J . LANDRY FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 8 LOCUST ST. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held on August 20, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary, Member
Strout and Associate Member Dore. 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, requests a Special Permit to extend noncon-
forming side and rear setbacks to allow construction of an addition in this R-1 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, enlargement, extension
or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
•. provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or
expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Support for the plan in the form of a petition signed by
neighbors, abutters and others was presented;
2. Opposition to the plan was voiced by an abutter;
3. A stockade fence separates the petitioners property from the
opposing abutter;
4. The proposed addition will help to alleviate problems stated
by the abutter.
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 will not be substantially more detrimental
to the neighborhood;
F
2. The proposed addition will promote the convenience and welfare of
----- the City's inhabitants.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND J. LANDRY FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 8 LOCUST ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Special
Permit to extend nonconforming rear and side setbacks to allow construction of an
addition, subject to the following conditions:
1 . The addition is to be approximately 413" x 12' and is to be
used as a family room;
2. A legal Building Permit is to be obtained;
3. Must be done in accordance with plans submitted.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Richard A. Bencal, Secretary
v
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
i
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURRSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE M11"-.S$.
G EI:ER.,! LA'.YS. CHAPTER E08, AN S:i=LL 6E FILEG YA iHiN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF F.1-11G
OF THiS DEC,Sin7: I` THE ° Cr THE CITY C E:6.
.. cpy A.TER �' S 11 THE VA 0'.P, S, IA PE-.'.IT
H°F iN SnALL I c -T UN iL A Cl f O
fi 4 L" ' CF fnc CITY CLER1 i O 1S FbE EA` -D
C'R T-i, IF c .. Pr ^, H: ° L, Tr . iF-
T
''CORDED L. TI'E S j.H ECC. F .R: CF AIID c? - ," t r o:
.. RE:.DRD OR IS R--CORDED Ai;D ::SED CN THE Oi4:zRS i,ERTIFii.r:iL T,L .
BOARD OF APPEAL
j`�.(nwill''0
Qlitg of �$tt1em, gassadjusetts
w ¢. DCC 15 "'" •pc
• .,` G s Paura of 4vz l
l
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DR. JOHN A. FALCON FOR MODIFIATION " -' '14'
OF A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 180 LORING AVENUE
A hearing on this petition was held November 12, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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, represented by Attorney George P. Vallis, is requesting the
Board of Appeal to modify the terms and ocnditions of a Special Permit granted
. october 17, 1979, which allowed the use of the property at 180 Loring Ave. as a
medical office. The petitioner specifically seeks permission only to modify the
said existing Special PErmit by adding one (1 ) doctor and one ( 1 ) medical assistant.
All other terms and conditions of the said existing Special Permit are to remain
unchanged. The property is located in an R-1 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions
set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations
• and reconstruction of nonconforming structures and for changes, enlargement,
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land., structures and uses,
provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion
shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming
use to the neighborhood..
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may 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
public hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Support for the modification of the existing Special Permit in
the form of a petition signed by neighbors, abutters and others
was presented;
2. The proposed modification is necessary to service the large
practice of the petitioner.
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 . Thero osed addition of one ( 1 ) doctor and one (1 ) medical
P P
• ` assistant will not be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood;
2. The proposed addition of one (1 ) doctor and one (1 ) medical assistant
will promote the convenience and welfare, and public health of the
City's inhabitants.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DR. JOHN A. FALLON FOR MODIFICATION
OF A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 180 LORING AVE. , SALEM
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 , (Mr. Hacker voted opposed) to
• grant the modification of the Special Permit of October 17, 1979, allowing for
the addition of one (1 ) doctor and one (1 ) additional medical assistant subject
to the following conditions:
1 . All other terms and conditions of the original Special Permit
remain unchanged.
MODIFICATION OF SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
ames M. Fleming, Esq.
Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• 1
iF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION.
05. A''JD SHALL BE FILED WITHi
GEN=RAL LAWS, CHAPTER 8 N 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF HL :ic
.OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PUI:SANT TO .l.A.SS. GENERAL LA.! C 'AP'ER BIS. SE_ lO!J 11. THE VARIANCE OF. "
RF:'NTED HEP,EI f:. SHALL N6; i At.E EFFtCi UNTIL A COPY OF THE DEL° CERT-
FICATION OF THE Ll1' CLER'f..iHAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELA.PS°D .`AND NO APPEAL HAS FILM
F!�IS
ED.
OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS!E;SSED OR
C TIED T
OF CRECORD IORTHE
IS RECORDED ESSEX
ANDR NOTED YON FTHEDEEDS
OWNER'SINDEXED
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
A.E OF THE C'J1N EG
BOARD OF APPEAL
._ //k
Tity of tzlem, 'Mttssar4usetts
• `s':"3 :%� �nttr� of 1p�rettl Nov H '? n :"PfI''gF
Fitt' „
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN W. VELARDI FOR MODIFI QN OF__ F,tti.
SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE AT 217-219 LORING AVE.
A hearing on this petition was held November 12, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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, is requesting the Board of Appeal to modify
condition number six (6) of the Special Permit & Variance previously granted
April 20, 1983. Said Special Permit & Variance was granted allowing property to
be divided into two lots, Lot 16 containing a three family dwelling and Lot 18
containing a single family dwelling. Property is located in an R-2 district and
was owned by Kenneth Provencher at the time of the 1983 decision.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, makes
the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition.
• On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The requested modification of condition number six (6) of the
previous decision can be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one, Mr. Hacker voted present,
to grant the requested modification of condition number six to read as follows:
6. This decision to allow the continued use of the three family dwelling
will be in effect so long as the petitioner, his heirs or assigns
continue to own or reside in the adjacent single family dwelling (Lot 18)
or so long as the three family dwelling is owner occupied.
All other conditions to remain as previously granted and are as follows:
1 . Petitioner may divide the property into two parcels, one containing
6,220 square feet (lot 18) and one containing 5,920 square feet (lot 16) ;
2. Petitioner may keep the existing structure on lot 16 within five (5)
feet of the northernmost property line of lot 18;
3. Petitioner must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy and Use prior to the
recording of the plan submitted to the Board;
• 4. Petitioner may never build or construct a driveway within sixteen ( 16)
feet of the northernmost boundary of lot 16;
5• Petitioner must lay crushed stone throughout the parking area at the
rear of the existing three (3) family;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN W. VELARDI FOR MODIFICATION OF
SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE AT 217-219 LORING AVE. , SALEM
page two
• % 6. This decision to allow the continued use of the three family dwelling
will be in effect so long as the petitioner, his heirs or assigns
continue to own or reside in the adjacent single family dwelling (lot 18)
or so long as the three family dwelling is owner occupied;
7. petitioner must limit parking on lot 16 to three (3) spaces, no such
space to be less than sixteen (16) feet from the northernmost boundary
of such lot;
8. Petitioner must landscape the northwest corner of lot 16;
9. Petitioner must obtain a Certificate of Compliance prior to
recording of said plan.
GRANTED
Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
SEC TION 17 GF THE p.._'..
F LEO CJIi HIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DA;E
AF^EFL.RO'.+1 THIS DECISION, IF P.N{. SHALL BE LEACE PURSUANT TO
cR 802, AND SHALL BE CLERK. 0^ �pECIAL PER'9!T
OFFICE 0`- THE CITY _ THE Vi'.^IAiuCE - E<nT.
GEN", LAC:S. GHP.PT_ SECT L^n! 11. "cF 6:,.`;" 1` -
OF THIS OECiSIOIv' IId THE r CF THE DEC.S.•'LI, _-, FILED,
•�c CHr.PiFR £DS
ryT TO cS r9ER 1' L� EFF-CCT O;vPL A C P' - f4J p1 F°fcF,� HF, ci; IS
C P i TF`:E HF.vE ELP SED c_. ��rn CI, " OWNER
LI A LL ' A- 2i D4YS H'w 9EEN DI PIA.E OF THE
c BEEN FILE. TH DSIuyU INDEY.EO UN..ER TH
FICATIOpd Gf
THE CIiY CLERy Dc_ TITLE.
OR
THAT. If SOCii Fid F.PPENL A RNOTED ON T'dE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE Of
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTR'f OF BOARD OF APPEAL
Of RECORD OR IS RECORDED NND
Ctg of iafem, Anssuchusetts
/4
�, �::• s �aarD of �p}ieul
• / DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KENNETH PROVENCHER FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 217-219 & 221 LORING AVE.
A hearing on this petition was held January 15, 1984 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Wi Me-srs. , v t &s41L1��j ! ' rrand Associate
Members Bencal and LaBreCque. Notice of the hearip&-was sent
rlUtbpters and
others and notices of the hearing were propey pu Aed in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General .Law�b,YPc7r 40A.
aLPt_.• S EM.MAS
Petitioner, owner of the premises, is requesting a re-affirmation ot�' a Variance
and Special Permit which was granted �in 1983 allowing parcel of land to be
divided into lots 16 and 18 in this R-1 district. Lot 16 containing an already
existing three family dwelling and a single family dwelling to be constructed on
lot 18.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this-equest
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, ertenstion, enlargement or
expansion shall not be substantiall more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing and after viewing the plans of the property makes the following findings
of fact:
1 . Petition is requesting clarification of previous decision by the
Board of Appeal dated April 20, 1983;
2. No major 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 proposed use of the property will not be substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use;
' • ,j 2. The proposed use of the property will promote the health, safety,
convenience and welfare "of the City's inhabitants;
,• i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KENNETH PROVENCHER FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 217-219 & 221 LORING AVE. , SALEM
page two
3. The proposed use of the property is in harmony with the Salem
Zoning Ordinance,
4. The setback of the three family dwelling from Lot 18 is a condition
which especially affects the land in question but does not generally
affect the zoning district in which the land is located;
The condition just described causes special financial hardship to
5 J
the petitioner;
6. The desired Variance may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit and Variance requested under the following terms and conditions:
1 . Petitioner may divide the property into two parcels, one containing 6,220
square feet (lot 18) and one containing 5,920 square feet (lot 16) ;
2. Petitioner may keep the existing structure on lot 16 within five (5) feet
of the northernmost property line of lot 18;
3. Petitioner must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy and Use prior to the
recording of the plan submitted to the Board;
. 4. Petitioner may never build or construct a driveway within sixteen (16)
feet of the northernmost boundary of lot 16;
5. Petitioner must lay crushed stone throughout the parking area at the
rear of the existing three (3) family structure;
6. This decision to allow the continued use of the three family dwelling
will be in effect so long as the petitioner or his heirs continue to own
or reside in the adjacent single family dwelling (lot 18) or so long as
the three family dwelling is owner occupied;
7. Petitioner must limit parking on lot 16 to three (3) spaces, no such
space to be less than sixteen (16) feet from the northernmost boundary
of such lot;
8. Petitioner must landscape the northwest corner of lot sixteen (16) ;
9. Petitioner must obtain a Certificate of Compliance prior to recording'
said plan.
..10 TH:S Lc:.iSla 1, �. i, SHALL DE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE,45zi?Iies B. Hacker, Chairman
,E'- LA7.1S, C!!A.PIER 838. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FIL!N
;1 CECG-MN IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. �77��
r � A!.r TO WASS, cENE_RA, �PPk CATTEW4W ���StT1�R1H[H�IAP- RP,, f , P P F ITT THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
T HEP•E!N. SHALL Mbl TAPE EFFECT UNTIL A COPT' OF THE DEMIGN, 511,5'1:: THE 1=RT-
lSi7N OF THE CITY CLER:. THAF E2 DAYS HAVE ELAFSED AND NO APPEAL HAS 5EEI1 FILED,
';:1: 1h=,T, !F S::3H AN. APPEAL HAS BEEri FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS' ISSED OR OLI;IEO
F�CUF:'=E0 Ili THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA'AE OF THE 017;:11
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND; NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
i
Ofu of 'MPm,ETC
c,11c 55ML�u5Ptf5 /��
Paarb of Cal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL AND JOSEPHINE FUSCO
FOR VARIANCES FOR 410-412 LORING AVENUE & 3 RIVERVIEWST.
A hearing on this petition was held February 26, 1986 wi&RthZ A U&Ih'8p
Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , ncal ,
Charnas, Strout and Associate Member Dore. Notice of the eging
was sent to abutters and others and notices of the heari� YWQre c.y
properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with ' E4,HA55.
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the premises, request Variances as stated
in their petition to allow them to redistribute the amount of land
in Lots A; B, and C, and to allow them to construct a single family
house on Lot C, all as shown on plans submitted by petitioners to
this Board. The properly is located in an R- 1 district .
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 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 topography of the current (and proposed) Lot C is such
that it is difficult to develop, containing much ledge
and changes in elevations. This finding is supported by
the testimony of Earl Townsend, a Registered Civil Engineer,
who also testified (and this Board believed) that this
topography is unique in the district;
2. The topography of Lot C, and its status as an underdeveloped
non-wetlands property, makes it unique in the district;
3. If the requested relief is denied, petitioners will suffer
substantial hardship, since there is no other financially
feasible and appropriate use of this Lot C other than for
a single family dwelling;
i
• DECISION ON THE, PETITION OF MICHAEL AND JOSEPHINE FUSCO
FOR VARIANCES FOR 410-412 LORING AVENUE AND 3 RIVERVIEW
• STREET, SALEM
page two
4 . There are other similarly undersized lots in the area that
contain development , and the proposed plan would be in
harmony with the rest of the area;
5. The complaints. of the.abutter presented at the hearing
are not valid, particularly considering that the distance
of the proposed house to the abutters lot line is in keeping
with the requirements of the Ordinance.
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 lot in question
and do not generally affect the district;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would create a substantial
hardship on the petitioner; and
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantially
derogating from the intent of. the district or the purpose
of the Ordinance and without substantial detriment to the
• public good.
Therefore, the the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0,
to grant the relief requested; provided that a Certificate of Occupancy
be obtained.
VARIANCES GRANTED
Scott E. Charnas , Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH. THE PLANNING
BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE L::SS. c
GENERAL LAYS. CHAPTER. 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILG(u
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK,
FJFSA'(- TO MALS. ('ENER;' LA7i S. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIASCE OR SPECIAL
HEREIN. SHALL NDT TA::E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE OECISKO`- BEARING THE C'_-.i
F:CAdi^N OF THE CITI' CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN ME.),
LiR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DEN'r'_D r
RECCRDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NATE OF THE O::
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OW'NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
Auc 77
(Gita of osalem, Cus$tttl�u
.�, C1iY C. E8.M�56
F j ? Poar I L Appeal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES D. SANTO FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 42 MARCH ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held August: 20, 1986 with the following Board Members
present: Edward Luzinski, Acting Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Strout and Associate
Member Dore. 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 extend nonconforming
density and side setback to allow construction of a two story addition 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 Section VIII F and IX D,
grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of
nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement,, ex-
. .1 tension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, strutures,
and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlarge-
ment or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than
the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing.Special Permit request,
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 . There was no opposition;
2. No one appeared in favor;
3. The proposed addition would add to the convenience of the owners.
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 will not be substantially detrimental to the
neighborhood and will not derogate from the intent or purpose of the
Ordinance;
1/ 2. The proposed addition will be in harmony with the district and will
promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the
City's inhabitants.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES D. SANTO FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 42 MARCH ST. , SALEM
page two
I • J Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested to allow a two story addition, subject to the following
terms and conditions:
1 . A legal Building Permit be obtained prior to construction;
2. The proposed addition be approximately one (1 ) foot from the
southwest side of the property line;
3. The overhang be no closer than six (6) feet four (4) inches from
March Street;
4. Addition to be built in accordance with plans submitted;
5. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained;
6. Property y..ust comply will all regulations relative to installation
of smoke detectors
7 . Addition is to be used as dining room and study.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
•
Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
R lJ6
APPEAL f".OSt THIS CEC19ON, IF Atw SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SFCTID!1 17 Or T E
CcHEP.AL LAI';8. CH PTER18Gd.OAIID`SHc LTB` CiT( CLERK FIIED "i ZD DAY,
AFTER THE DATE CF
CF THIS v'.'J Ih r ro c:'rin! °-R".`IT
S C iE" SO3
SEFrci JT71_ A rJP} 0
r'. F
C.1.ii �l J:!�c :cr r f w r S.
ATI-':: r�:<
C r IT .-„'i OF TRE O::;2'
r., c U i -F
CF F.`_C]RD GF IS RE„ji�J cJ AND WJIcD CI: THE OV;PER'S CERiIF�AiE ..r iii�t.
\ BOARD OF APPEAL
` ct of ass' d usetts
(�' � ��Iem C 1
• i� f�j% �nttra of �u}rettl '
•m i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MAINE, POST & BEAM FOR
VARIANCES FOR MARCIA AVE./VINNIN STREET �f
A hearing on this petition was held April 16, 19&Ya4 cbn15EnRH(?%til April 30,
1986 with the following Board Members present: Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. ,
o
Charnas, Bencal, Luzinski and Strout. Notice iffhearing was sent to abutters
and others and notices of the hearing were propVlry. ,publishedyin the Salem
Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Cha 40A.
Petitioner requests Variances from all applicable density requirements in order
to construct five (5) two .(2) story wood frame structures for a total of
fourteen (14) dwelling units, all as shown- on a plan dated April 29, 1986 and
filed with this Board. The premises, owned by Pond View Realty Trust, is in
an R-1 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Beard 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 and viewing the plans presented at
the hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The premises contains a 3.1 acre pond, a varied topography,
and is unicue in the district;
2. To build the single family, unconnected homes allowable in the
district, because of the pond and changes in elevation, would
make development of the parcel extremely costly, and would be a
financial hardship to the petitioner;
3. The petitioner has done an excellent job of accommodating the
concerns and requests of the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
--�
� 1 . Special conditions exist which affect the subject premises but which
• do not generally affect the district; and which, in fact, are unique
to the district;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial
financial hardship upon petitioner;
i
I
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MAINE, POST & BEAM FOR
VARIANCES FOR MARCIA AVE./VINNIN ST. , SALEM
page .two
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 unanimously, 5-0, to grant petitioner
the requested Variances, provided that:
1 . All conditions set forth in the attached "Tedesco Pond Place
Agreement with Abutters'-' and "Tedesco Pond Place Covenant Granting
the Limited Access Privilege" are and continue to be met. (Said
documents are 'specifically incorporated by reference in this
decision) ;
2. The pitch of Elm.Street drain toward Loring Avenue when all .
construction associated with the petition is completed;
The site plan for this iproject be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Board of the City of Salem;
4. The City is not required to maintain streets, walkways or sidewalks,
water and sewer systems within the subject development, nor be
responsible for drainage or filtration of the pond - all of these .
things to be the responsibility of the condominium association
created in connection with the subject development;
• 5• The developer of such property obtain proper numbeing from the
r
City Assessor, and compliance with the Salem City Ordinance relative
to_the numbering of buildings be adhered to;
6. All Laws, Ordinances and Regulations of both the Commonwealth 'and
the City of 'Salem, pertaining to fire safety, are adhered to;
7. Plans for the buildings be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau
indicating the type and location of automatic smoke detectors to be
installed, prier to the issuance fo a building permit.
VARIANCES GRANTED
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FRO"' THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE V-V- PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 CF THE r.1-SS.
- FEN EP.AL L4Ff5, CHi'.P-E.". C�. AAD SH'.:L EE r:,EL, 4T.T4;N 20 DAYS AFTER THE D/:�E GF FI LIItS
T+ °I C-ERK
.. -. i - -FIE 4f
i ;,Ass rr e. J- n �C� I � 1 -
• F C' r,F tHE C1 C EU T 1 2 t,,, Hit' n'* LO d I F hu H 1J.
APFiFL hA.
;N THE 5 7TH ESSEX P i' I, r Pc OS -.ND Ii.�..ED Ur ToE Clv _5
OF RECGRU OR IS RECORDED AND NOIEU O:i THE O',;i,ZR S CERTIF IGA�E OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
I
i
I
TEDESCO POND PLACE
. AGREEMENT WITH ABUTTERS
IN RECOGNITION OF THE NEEDS AND CONCERNS OF ABUTTERS TO PROPERTY
KNOWN AS TEDESCO POND PLACE IN SALEM, MA WHICH MAINE POST AND BEAM COMPANY
("mp&b) IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP IN CONJUNCTIO14 WITH THE OWNER, MR. STUART
ABRAMS, mp&b AGREES TO THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS OF TMTAffTT2R�9 PH 185
1 , SEWERAGE TIE-IN: TO MAKE PROVISION FOR Fj�jff TIE-IN TO THE
CITY SEWERAGE LINES BY ABUTTERS LIVING ON CHANDLER ROAD WHO DO
PRESENTLY CONNECT TO A MUNICIPAL SEWECIM111E 'BY`.PROW Ik.
LATERAL EXTENSIONS FROM THE SEWER LINE TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON
TEDESCO POND PLACE TO THE PROPERTY LINE OF EACH OF THESE ABUTTERS
5.:?ICH WILL BE BLANKED OFF FOR THEIR LATER TIE-IN AT THEIR
D=SCRETION AND EXPENSE BUT ONLY AFTER NOTIFYING THE CITY OF THEIR
I:TENDED ACTION. PRIOR TO AND DURING INSTALLATION OF THE SEWER
-?:E mp&b WILL SEEK FROM EACH ABUTTER THE LOCATION ON THE
PROPERTY LINE FROM WHICH CONNECTIONS CAN BE MADE MOST EFFICIENTLY
:';D mp&b WILL MAKE THE BEST EFFORT IN COOPERATION WITH THE
4_TTER TO BRING THE TIE-IN LATERAL TO THAT POINT.
i:_T_WITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, mp&b SHALL NOT BE OBLIGATED TO
LOCATE THE SEWER LINE OR ANY LATERALS IN A PLACE OR MANNER WHICH
IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE OWNERS OF TEDESCO POND
FLACE.
• 2. SEWERAGE LINE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL FEE: EACH ABUTTER WHO
EXERCISES THE PRIVILEGE OF TIE-IN TO THE CITY SEWER SYSTEM THROUGH
THE PRIVATELY OWNED AND PRIVATELY MAINTAINED SEWER SYSTEM ON TEDESCO
POND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH HIS SERVICE
INCLUDING THE COST OF MAINTAINING/REPLACING THE LATERAL- ON THE
PROPERTY OF TEDESCO POND PLACE AND ANY COSTS THAT CAN BE DIRECTLY
ASCRIBED TO THE SERVICE PROVIDED TO HIM. TEDESCO POND PLACE
SHALL GRANT AN EASEMENT TO EACH ABUTTER WITH A LATERAL CONNECTION
WHICH PERMITS THE ABUTTER ACCESS TO REPAIR OR REPLACE HIS LATERAL:
Tri IS WORK SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN IN COOPERATION WITH THE TEDESCO
POND PLACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO MINIMIZE INCONVENIENCE TO THE
• C_v,-cERS: ALL EXPENSES OF THE WORK INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
=.1-STORATION OF THE PREMISES TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITION SHALL BE
^_=:NE BY THE ABUTTER.
3. = CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN
:CCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS: NO CONSTRUCTION SHALL
TAKE PLACE PRIOR TO 7:00 a.m. ON ANY WORK DAY, 8:00 a.m. ON
SATURDAYS, OR AT ANY TIME ON SUNDAYS, PROVIDED THAT NOTHING HEREIN
S4ALL BE DEEMED TO RESTRICT INTERIOR WORK OR .PROVIDED THAT IT IS
EXTERIOR WORK WHICH DOES NOT CAUSE A DISTURBANCE. WORK SHALL
CEASE NO LATER THAT 6:00 p.m.
1
i
4 . mp&b SHALL TAKE ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY DURING THE CONSTRUCTIOI
=ERIOD TO MINIMIZE INCONVENIENCES TO RESIDENTS IN THE I15i•iEDIP.TE
NEIGHBORHOOD. SAID INCONVENIENCES MAY RELATE TO NOISE, VIBRATION,
DUST, BLOCKING OF CITY ROADS OR THOSE CONCERNS DEEMED APPROPRIATE
�Y THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT HEADS OF THE CITY OF SALEM AT THE
TIME OF OCCURRENCE. mp&b MUST ADVISE ABUTTERS OF WORK TO BE CONDUCTED
NEAR THEIR PREMISES AT LEAST TWENTY-FOUR HOURS PRIOR TO THE
COMMENCEMENT OF SUCH WORK.
5. -N RECOGNITION OF THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY
OF A NUISANCE CAUSED FROM DUST CARRIED BY THE PREVAILING WIND
TOWARD 'THE DIRECT ABUTTERS ON CHANDLER ROAD, mp&b WILL MAKE A
SPECIAL EFFORT TO MINIMIZE DUST: IN THE EVENT THAT UNUSUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES CAUSE EXCESSIVE FOULING OF ABUTTERS SWI.1%
POLLS
DURING THE MONTHS OF JULY AND AUGUST, mb&b WILL PROVIDE ASSISTANCE
'N CLEANING THE POOLS BUT NOT MORE FREQUENTLY THAN ONCE EACH WEEK:
IN' THE EVENT THAT UNUSUAL eCIRCUMSTANCES CAUSE EXCESSIVE FOULING
F ABUTTERS HOMES DURING THE MONTHS OF MAY THROUGH SEPTEIBER,
rD&b WILL PROVIDE ASSISTANCE IN CLEANING THEIR HOMES BUT NOT MORE
FREQUENTLY THAN ONCE EACH WEEK AND AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $50.00
PER CLEANING.
6. ACCESS TO THE SITE SHALL ORDINARILY BE GAINED THROUGH THE ENTRY
OFF TEDESCO STREET: PETER ROAD AND THE ACCESS SPUR OFF CHANDLER
• ROAD SHALL ONLY BE USED WHEN NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE EXISTS.
7. ALL CONSTRUCTION RELATED VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PARKED
ON THE SITE EXCEPT WHEN INVOLVED IN ACTIVITY ADJACENT. TO THE SITE
OR WHEN NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE EXISTS.
8. mp&b WILL USE ITS BEST EFFORTS TO MINIMIZE THE EFFECTS OF EXCAVATION
AND REPLACEMENT ON THE EXISTING ROADWAY AND PROPERTY WHEN INSTALLING
THE NEW WATER MAINS ON PETER ROAD AND ON ELM STREET.
4/27/86
• 2
TEDESCO POND PLACE
• COVENANT GRANTING THE LIMITED ACCESS PRIVILEGE
THIS DOCUMENT IDENTIFIES THE EXCLUSIVE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH PERSONS SHALL
HAVE ACCESS TO THE OPEN SPACE, THE POND, AND THE EASEMEN� ARtil
�DING TO
THE OPEN SPACE AND POND (ALL OF WHICH SHALL BE } f�FdED Q05fl AREA"
AND SHALL BE APPROPRIATELY MARKED ON THE SITE PLAN AND IN THE FIELD) ON
PROPERTY CALLED TEDESCO POND PLACE AT VINNIN SQ[FAM04ARCIA AVENUE IN ESSEX
COUNTY, SnL-=M, MASSACHUSETTS. THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY IN TEDL;SYQSPG;D PLACE
SHALL FOR:t A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION ("THE ASSOCKTION", WHICH �}iA�LL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING AND ADMINISTERING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS COVENANT.
1 6NY PERSON WHO IS A RESIDENT LIVING ON MAPLE AVE. , ELM AVE. , CHANDLER -
ROAD, ELEANOR ROAD, LILLIAN TERRACE, LINDEN STREET, PETER ROAD, OR
F:ILFRED TERRACE STREET IN THE CITY OF SALEM SHALL ENJOY T' =E LIh;ITED
ACCESS PRIVILEGE TO ENTER AND ENJOY THE AREA FOR THE ACTIVITIES ANDSUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:
2.. WALKING AND HIKING SHALL BE PERMITTED IN THE DAYLIGHT HOURS Cil
'NY DAY EXCEPT SUNDAY AND THE HOLIDAYS LISTED BELOW:
3. FISHING SHALL BE PERMITTED IN THE DAYLIGHT HOURS ON ANY DAY
EXCEPT SUNDAY AND THE HOLIDAYS LISTED BELOW:
4. SKATING SHALL BE PERMITTED ON ANY DAY DURING THE DAYLIGHT HOURS
• PROVIDED THAT THE ASSOCIATION DETERMINES THAT THE AREA IS SAFE
FOR SKATING AND POSTS A NOTICE TO THAT .EFFECT:
5. HOLIDAYS ARE:
NEW YEARS, MARTIN LUTHER KING'S, LINCOLN'S, WASHINGTON'S,
GOOD FRIDAY, EASTER, MEMORIAL, INDEPENDENCE, LABOP., .VETERAN'S,
THANKSGIVING, CHRISTMAS, HANUKKAH:
• 6. BASEMENTS FOR ACCESS TO THE AREA SHALL BE PROVIDED AS SHOW:; ON
_._B ACCOMPANYING PLAN: THESE EASEMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY DELINEATED
-
r..THWAYS WHICH SHALL BE THE ONLY ACCESS USED.
7. SIGNS SHALL BE ERECTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE ASSOCIATION GIVING
NOTICE THAT TRESPASSING BY PERSONS, WHO ARE NOT A RESIDENT OF THE
LITY OF SALEM AS QUALIFIED ABOVE, IS NOT PERMITTED. ANY USE IS AT
THE USER'S RISK;
8. CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THE AREA SHALL BE
CAUSE FOR CANCELLATION OF THESE PRIVILEGES: WHEN AN OFFICER OF
THE ASSOCIATION OBSERVES AN OFFENSIVE ACT, HE SHALL CAUSE THE
OFFENDER TO LEAVE THE AREA.
•
1
1
9. AN APPLICATION MUST BE MADE TO THE ASSOCIATION FOR A PASS: A
PASS VALID FOR THREE YEARS SHALL BE ISSUED AND SHALL BE RENEWED
ON REQUEST AS LONG AS THE' INDIVIDUAL REMAINS A RESIDENT OF ONE
OF THE ABOVE NAMED STREETS AND ISNOT OTHERWISE DISQUALIFIED;
10. ANY IMMEDIATE RELATIVE OR INVITED GUEST OF A PERMITTED RESIDENT
QUALIFIED ABOVE SHALL BE ELIGIBLE TO RECIEVE A TEMPORARY PASS
WHICH SHALL BE VALID FOR A PERIOD OF TWO WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF
ISSUE AND RENEWABLE ONE TIME WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF THE ORIGINAL
DATE OF ISSUE AFTER WHICH A NEW TEMPORARY PASS SHALL BE REQUIRED;
11 . ANY PERSON PASSING ON THE AREA SHALL SHOW HIS PASS IF REQUESTED
BY AN OFFICER IN THE ASSOCIATION AND IMMEDIATELY LEAVE THE AREA
IF UNABLE TO SHOW A VALID PASS AND ASKED TO LEAVE;
12. AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES TO THESE CONDITIONS SHALL BE AS ACCEPTED
BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF AL' t•`.Ei;BERS OF THE ASSOCIATION, SUBJECT TO
THE SUBSEQUENT REVIEW AND �CEPTANCE BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CIT_ OF SALEM
4/27/86
2
A2 %
_7", (�it� of �$UIem,
FI,-
ottra Df A, peal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR & DEBORAH ALEXANDER FOP
A VARIANCE AT 79 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (P,-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held on October 15, 1986 wii;h the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting a Variance from any and all density requirements and
setbacks, required by Table I , Section VI of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to
allow the continued use of an existing single family dwelling at 79 Marlborough Road.
The property 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 circumstancesexist 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 thepurpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing a plot pian submitted by petitioners, makes the following
--findings of fact: - -
i . No oDposition to the petition was raised and Councillor Leonard
__ . O'Leary spoke in favor of granting the petition;
2. The size of the lot is substantially the same as other lots in
the area;
3. The shape o,_` the lot is unio_ue, and the siting of the present
dwelling in the most practical siting;
4 . There would be financial hardship to the petitioners if relief
was not granted.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
) 1 . Special conditions exist which affect this property but which do not
generally affect other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
DECISION OR THE PETI1101' OF ARTHUR s DEBORAH ALE}:ki;DtR FOR
--
A VARIA.i2CE AT 79 1•ikRLB0R000'i hei. , S=.LEI i .
page two.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
• i substantial hardship to the 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.
_ Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variance requested, under the following terms and conditions:
1 . All the relevant regulations of the Salem Fire Department
relative to fire prevention safety be complied with the the
petitioners.
VARIANCE GRANTED l
,James M. Fleming, Esq.
Member, Board of Appeal'
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED FlITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
—
C
r-na cl_ Iii,:.S. --=
n
.p.
WJi ------ i..,
._ _... . c
.
OR
GP R OOi,O CE IS P w''.,_� •� •-C T, E OWNER g Rn FII..,t i!TLE
..._._ .. BOARD OF APPEAL
e
of ttlem, � tts�tttltu�ctts
f. attrD rrf upeal 17
DESICION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT E. THERIAULT (PETITIONEff)-v
JAMES E. FLYNN (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES FOR 82-90 MARLBOROUGH RD.
A hearing on this petition was held October 8, 1986 with the following Board Members
present: James Hacker; Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski, Strout and Associate
Member Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of
the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. -
The petitioner is requesting variances from front and rear setbacks to allow
construction of a single family dwelling at 82-90 Marlborough Road which is
located in an R-C district.
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 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 the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no neighborhood opposition;
2. Plans proposed clearly are in harmony with the neighborhood;
3. Proposed building lot is in keeping with the size of the existing
lots in the neighborhood;
4. The lot is a valid nonconforming lot under Article VII B of the Zoning
Ordinance. It measures 250 feet by 100 feet. The minimum depth of
rear yard requirement for a building in an RC zone is 100 feet and
minimum depth requirement for front yard is 40 feet. Since the lot is
only 100 feet deep, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance would prevent the construction of a single family unit,
which is the only use allowed. This is a classic case of 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:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT F. THERIAULT (PETITIONER) l
JAMES E. FLYNN (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES FOR 82-90 MARLBOROUGH RD. , SALEM
• page two
J1 . Special conditions exist which affect the subject premises but which do
not generally affect the district;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. 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 unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
petitioner the requested variances, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Appropriate authorization from any other City Boards and Commissions
must be obtained prior to the application of a building permit;
2. Building to be constructed in strict accordance with plans submitted;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained.
VARIANCES GRANTED
4/y-
/dames B. Hacker, Chairman
V
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•_ i
TO S T;M.. T. .F
FFiC TIifS CE Sf i fd-Y,
„Ay
- _� ,: ' :?' 20 DAYS Ar=R T4E DA[ u .
CHAPTER '.' A`:D SH.4�� w. c. • .
L4NS �_"•q- i .c T:;c C1, CLERK.
CIS{ON IiI T. E uFl E. C. \'i.41A"CE C° SP`CY,! FE'
ll TriO
CENER:,
FALL N'.T IACc EFFECT J 'T'L A C^PY OFI TF
S H S rc^ I _JT
- GABS IS
:.F T9E :I-1 CLEF- IdA =`'' c u 1 L n?.S Cc°.:
�R i".i. Ic S.i'F AF APPEAL HAS EEE�I FILE i . ..-..
RECO?DED IN THE SDCTH ESSEX REf:ISTE1 OF CEM SAND INDE),MD DY,D IT NFL:E CF 1^E C
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE O TITLE.
BOARD ARD OF A
PPE
AL
I • i
of 'Sttlem, ttsstttlju e##s �a3
29oxrb of A"vd
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES E. FLYNN FOR VARIANCES
FOR 90 MARLBOROUGH ROAD, .SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held March 26, 1986 With the f'llgwing Bo 'Q
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Richard A. Bencal,A t ng � re6
Edward Luzinski and Associate Members Dore and LaBrecque. VfWie of this hearing
was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published
in the Salem .Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts 6AlyrLagcyL �SEH.MASS.
Chapter 40A.
The petitioner has requested variances from any and all applicable density and .
setback requirements to,divide parcel of land into two lots and to construct a
single family dwelling on each lot in this R-1 district.
The Board of. Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to allow the petitioner to withdraw
the .petition.
WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE
-24
,/James B. Hacker, Chairman
APPEAL FV. f THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MA.SSI -
G6ERAL ILA. S. Cn=PiER E"3, AND SHALL BE FiLEO WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FIL'NO
OF &iiS DECiSVI IE! TEE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
POS:':'T TO %:ASS. r:EN-r.AL LA:'.v, CHAPTER 808. SECTITI 11, THE YA'!ANCE OR SPECIAL PEP,'SiT
�,. •«. "HALL Iii,i T.SI;E EFFECT UI:TiL A LSF.' CF THEL...5P`;. E-1:12;::': SHE -[QT-
1;,%a I'N
ERTt;C.a!:1N CF THE C!-.f CLERK TEA ^_i, LAYS HAVE ELAPSED A.NJ N.' A?PEA'. HAS i EE(i FRED.
C2 'FH47, IF SUCH ATC .APPEAL []AS 'BEET: FILL THAT IT HES D-EN OIS:'ISSED CR DE%;ED IS
RE`.,` DED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RELISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED U7JER THEN SEE OF THE ON4:_1":
OF 'RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
m
n �
r
r7 N
,
9
y Cp
Q7
of 'S' ttlrm, fflassadjusetts
• s Pourb of �} pvd
4��IHl4l
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN HALEY FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 45 MASON 'ST. (I)
A hearing on this petition was held March 19, 1986 witil the following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, ChaAt8s;ZLu8Lrrc ii�Strout.,
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others ,,e�nd notices o "tkf�7hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News in AC��kance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A. CITY CLFF1, y!
EM.MISS
The petitioner has requested a Special Permit from any and all applicable
density and setback requirements to construct an addition at 45 Mason St. which
is located in an Industrial district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance -which is applicable to this request
for a SpecialPermitis 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 on
nonconforming structures; and for changes, enlargement, ex-
tension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures,
i' • and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, en-
largement or expansion shall not be substantially more detri-
mental than the existing nonconforming urse to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request maybe granted' upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing,
makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No support or opposition was voiced by anyone;
2. The addition could not be built in any other practical way.
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 neighborhood and without nullifying or substantially derogating
from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
rSpecial Permit subjection to the following conditions:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN HALEY FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 45 MASON ST. , SALEM
page two
1 . Any flammable material must be stored under the guidance and
regulations of the Salem Fire Dept.
2. The addition must be constructed 'as per the plans submitted.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Richard A. Bencal, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
4SS.
SECTION 17 OF THE M.
F1LEU WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
APPEAL FRO" THIS DECISION, IF AN.Y, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT 70 _
GENERAL LAC:S, CHAPTER 800, AND SHALL BE
DFFiCE OF THE CITY CLERK. vwANCE 03 SFECIRL PER:.:IT
CHRt`TER SDS, SECT!v.7 11. THE
OF THIS DEC+SCM I!! SHE ,-:L A COF1 OF E 6CB7 FILE0.
� OE!ICFAL COF1
DEL!SIO;L EEAR!i1; THE CERT•
PURS4!; iv t(ASS.c FECT U'•�: 4FP..AL HnS
_F,.,LL !J9T TiSE EF niS H1rE ELA?SCD AiD NC r'!rD IS
GRRi: HEREC,. c THA'i IT Hf+S BEEN CIS':IS?ED CR D." - THE
FICkT!Ck OF— CITY" CLER:i T!1RT EE�i`RL_' c 0.!10 I:JDEXED UNDER THE !1A:%:E OF
RP"c E4L HAS O_E - TITLE.
. OR •iH4l, IF SULH AN ESSE:; R-,. R', CF
REC0.5Dc-D IN THE SDLIH MUTED 0Y THE OV2gJER'S CERTIFICATE Of
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND BOARD OF APPEAL
ti
ofttlem, ttssttchuetts /�
Pourb of '4p-
s�P io 3 3 ?N '66
FILE '=
CITY _. Sy fazSS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEONARD S. BONFANTI, TR. FOR AN APPEAL
OF THE BUILDING INSPECTORS DECISION REGARDING 65 MASON ST. , SALEM
The petition was withdrawn by the petition WITH PREJUDICE
ames M. Fleming, Membv
I
(f�itg of ,$ttlem, C tts�ttcltuset#s
n -
V,11
1, I - Poarb of hrpeA OCT 30 2 52 PE1 '85
es»,fi. I
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DELTA DESIGN BUILDERS FOR CITY �'"��
VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 NICHOLS ST. & 12 HANSEN ST.
A hearing on this petition was held October 15, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners under agreement, are requesting Variances & Special Permit from
use and density requirements to allow existing factory building to be converted to
twenty two (22) residential units in this R-2 district.
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 petitioner; and
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogatinve from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this
Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the
procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D,
grant Special Permits �or 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 re-quest-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 . Several neighbors Ind abutters spoke in favor;
2. There was no opposition;
DECISIONON THE PETITION OF DELTA DESIGN BUILDERS FOR VARIANCES
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 6 NICHOLS ST. & 12 HANSEN ST. , SALEM
page two .
• ! 3. There will be adequate parking;
4 . The property cannot be developed for its allowed use because of
the existing building and the nonconformity and because of the
shape and rear of the existing land without substantial hardship;
5. The proposed plan will help alleviate problems with smells and
rodents by removing the business and replacing with residential.
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 property involve
but do not generally affect the district;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve a
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. 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;.
4. The granting of the relief requested will promote the public health, safety,
convenience and welfare of the City' s inhabitants.
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant Variances
and Special Permit requested for use, Height, side & rear setbacks, density, front
yard requirements to extend nonconforming structure to allow existing factory
building to be converted to twenty two (22) residential units within the same
footprint as the existing structure. Relief is granted under the following
terms and conditions:
1 . The proposed construction shall conform to all applicable provisions
of the Mass. State Building Code,, Salem Fire Prevention Code, Salem
City Ordinances and MGL relative to fire safety;
2. Plans presented to Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit;
3. A building permit be obtained and a Certificate of Occupancy for
each unit be obtained;
4. All work to be done in accordance with plans of file.
GRANTED /
/J1
AFFEAL FROMTHIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE BADE PURSUANT TO SECiIOn 17 O � iiLCC�/
/P`-R.SL LAWS, CHAPTER SOS, AND SHALL BE "',ED {:'IT9Hl;EO DAYS AFTER THE DAP�et;Og`LC011t, Member Board of Appeal
DEC-SV.; I v THE OI`-;CE OF THE CITY CLERK
ITO FS A'rdluty, PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
F -F. CF 1H`_ LF Y CLER6 !.AF C, [A1'S nA E EL,:FSED A�d G AFFEA, 4..a .`E`! FILED,
be "T. iF SCCH AN APPC!.L HAS t"t! FILE `.Ii:.T IT H7._ L_r:; DIS:..S4ED 03 CEiED IS
R ?F:,TD IN TH' S'JTH ESSE:; RE a; `R'i CF C£ECC A;;l I::GECiD iii'.DER T..'E NA:(E OF THE O'ViNER
GF R:' RD OR IS R-L:)RDED AND t;DIED Oi-I THE OV:NERS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
�> /2 �
NOV Ig 9 1g n.u 'pis
z �ifg IIf �IPm, � tts� t�juPifs FILE
Pourb of �AVPe l
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD KEOUGH & DONALD MAHEGAN
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 137 NORTH ST.
A hearing on this petition was held November 12, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and
Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to
convert a two family into a three family 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 VII 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,
j and uses, provided, however, that such change, extenstion,
• 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented, and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition;
2. There is available space for off street parking a this location;
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, 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 granted without substantial detriment
to the public good and without nullifying or substantially
- derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of
the Ordinance.
i
DECISIO: ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD KEOUGH & DONALD MAGHEGAN
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 137 NORTH ST. , SALEM
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0,' to grant the
J� Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Six (6) on site parking spaces must be maintained as per plan
submitted;
2. Owner occupancy must be maintained by a trustee of the Realty Trust of
a beneficiary. In the event this property is sold this condition must
be maintained or the structure reverts back to a two family;
3. A Certificate of Compliance be obtained from the Salem Fire Prevention
Bureau relative to the installation of smoke detector;
4 . A fence on the Northerly side of the property shall be maintained
as to serve as a buffer zone for the parked cars;
5. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
A/L
/"ames B. Hacker, Chairman
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
t„^Er'.L FROM THIS DECISION, IF A!.Y, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION ll OF TFE )'
;:.N MAL LAWS, CH"PILR E.:]. ANL SHALL BE FiLEL' 4'.iT.`:i IJ 2'
DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF r'.LC73
DF T4:S DE:;IS:OF IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
P;':�S!';T TD .,r,AzS. 1-:-E'r..AL LAT.-i S, CHSFTER 368, SECTION 11. THE VARIAii,CE OR SPECIAL FE''::i
r i:iQ`D HEREIii, Sn.'-LL GOT T Eff C-
-'-GT UNTIL A COPY OF THE C�CISIi i;. ` ._3,�;:: THE C-?,T-
FC OF THE C:14Y CLE'r r. -i FI AI 20 DAPS BA'fc ELAPSED AIJD i1O A?PIAL HAS 5 Eil- '':ISD.
i+ ii:::',, IF SUC:! A. APFEAL HnS UEBi FRE. THAT IT FAS CEEid DIS h`.iSSEO OR 0 -
R. ,.” IP ,H ,j-iH E.� _"IS.RY O.` DEEDS 0D I`.D`_xED U'NDE;. T11-
III
h Df Tri 07i( .
Cr R ;^n^v OR IS R'CORDEJ ANS id0"ED CN THL Ofl.JERS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
/ • ` BOARD OF APPEAL
%W--
�y �° fllitg
of 'Salem' gass'achusetts
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & SOPHIE HARRIS FOR
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 148 NORTH ST. , SALEM
0 PN 'n
A hearing on this petition was held May 21 , 1986 with the following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , FlemirlgiE4Vzinski, Strout and Associate
Member Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices
and notices of the hearing were properly publisheeffl&:the 8kIt;}r tNk?%ing News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A.
The petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to
convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling and a Special Permit
to extend nonconforming side setback to construct a two story addition in this
R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordiance 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 Ordiance, the Board
of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in
Seciton 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.
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 no opposition;
2. There would be sufficient 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 . The proposed use as a three family will be in harmony with
the neighborhood;
2. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to
area or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent
or purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special
Permit requested on condition a Certificate of Occupancy and a Certificate of
Compliance be obtained.
'\FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO 'SECTION'17 OF THE MASS.
/ \ LAWS, CR.APTER 805, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF Fl
• T DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. P ' 3 �. A �
.,1:7 TO PASS. G'EiERAL LA37S, CHAPTER BOB. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR S p�j-/—/
GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT T:,:;E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE••".ECISI?:;. EE::°;F:,", R7_ rout, Member Board of Appeal
FICATION OF THE CITY CLERN, T!iAY 2C UAYS HAVE _`LAPSED A6) NO APPEA: HAS BEEN FILED,
OR THAT, IF SIP'H ANA11Mp+)l..t'P-12ppf3 r}pyii'16103HA&IBEEbt FdbF@EddIjjTH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH.ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEuS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER ,
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - -
S:e ►0 3 i9 PM V
(gitu of ttlem, � tt$stt Z etts
F oarb of Appeal CITY_: 'H.HASS.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS & CONSTANCE MOULTON FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 5 NURSERY STREET
A hearing on this petition was held on August 27, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and
Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioners are the owners of the property, and ae requesting a Special Permit
to allow the use of the property at 5 Nursery Street as a three (3) family. The
property is located in an R-1 district. /
The provision c ' the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special mlvmit 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 Section VIII F and IX D.,
grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of noncon-
forming 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 Baord 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 neighborhood is a heavy residential area, predominently
one and two family homes;
2. Nursery Street has heavy vehicular traffic, being a main route
to Beverly;
3. Serious problems with traffic already exist on Nursery Street;
4. The petitioner offered no parking plan to the Board for its
consideratidn;
5. The petitioner had no plans to keep the building owner occupied.
.A .
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS & CONSTANCE MOULTON FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 5 NURSERY 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 relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good and wihtout nullifying or substantially derogating from
the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore,. the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3-2 (Mr. Fleming and Mr. Bencal
opposed) against granting the Special Permit requested.
DENIED \
,d es M. Fleming, Membe
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
:i F?0:1 THIS DLCIS T I nr;Y. SHALL BE U,ADE PCRS'JAYT TO SECT:CN 17 OF —
Y"IiEfsA� C-APTLF. 67�, A..':'J SH':L BE FIrE'D 2' DAYS AFER THE DATE Cr FaIi 5
.. - i.F -HE CM CLERK:.
IN THE S]3S' . 11 THE 7. \SrlAr J r
Uii IL A i
TEp - -
IF IINEMY ILEP- r
rt.
r. THA I v t1 Pr n F!)3 c� FI:E
P,ECO,OE ' I. in_ S} i E J.% (; Tkt OF vEcLS
r CF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND WCTED ON THE OuAERS CEttT `I laE Or TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
:I
I
of ,4�ttlem, � Ius�ttthusef#s
• '\ ;: Poxrb of Aenl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD BATES FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 1 OAK ST.
A hearing on this petition was held July 16, 1986 with the following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal„alinand ,���on�ski. Notice
of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notice ��� 0088aring were
properly published in the Salem Evening News in AU4 ance with Massachusetts
General Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting atSpecial SPerm'V$fo allow him
to converta single family dwelling into a two family dwelling in this R-2 District.
Two family is an allowed use but lot does not meet density requirements.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions
set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for
alterations and reconstruction on nonconforming structures, and for
changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots,
land, structures, and uses, provided, 'however, that such change,
• ` extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Spqcial 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 . Three parking spaces are currently available on site;
2. There was neighborhood support;
3. There already exists other two family dwellings in the immediate area;
4. Petitioner has owned the property about one (1 ) year.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed use as a two family will be in harmony with the
neighborhood and will promote the convenience and welfare of the
city's inhabitants;
` • 2. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment or
without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or
purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD BATES FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 1 OAK ST. , SALEM
page two
• ! Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the relief
requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Must be owner occupied;
2. Three parking spaces must be maintained on site;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained;
4. Six foot stockade fence be erected to act as a buffer on the
norther boundary line.
i
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS
CcDErCISIONIF ANY,
SHALLBE MADE PURSUANT
TOT17 FTIHI .SE-
G`NEPAL LAWS, g3,, rBE
, AFTER HE DATE OFFI -
OF THIS DtC✓S'3' I FE i':!ZE OF i°:! TH Cirl CLERK.
Cc�L
Cr..!;r_ ! _ `i. r LL 'I'✓`i rc c�T �.r L A LC?Y
OF rr ..r F� . r,S FILED.
tiE rr I p Of,IS Hr rE � .,P � IS
FI Fuc ,T < C' -
IN Fri_ '...H ESS c7 Fc DT.u'! Or LIc -S A"� `�cD '' i� CE THE CV.it=R
OF RECORD OR IS RG�ORDED AND NOTED ON THE Oi'.i�ER 5 CEP,r IFiCAiE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
of "JttlPm, ttfi82ICIIu�Pf#S
i
3 Pourb of �}r}zeeril
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES & SUSAN GAUTHIER FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 6 OAK VIEW AVENUE
A hearing of this petition was held March M862wdtoffl&'ollowing Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Charnas, Luzinski
and Strout. Notice of the hearing was serjglt* abutters and others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening ttdews in accordahce
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40ALTY 'L`_` ` SIEM.MSSS.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to extend
an already nonconforming side setback in order to construct an addition in this
R-1 district.
The provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this
Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the
procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F 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,jermit 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 . There was no opposition presented to the plan;
2. A number of neighbors either spoke in favor or sent letters
favoring the granting of this Special Permit.
_ 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 addition will be in harmony with the district and will
�. not substantially derogate from the intent of the Ordinance.
J DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES &SUSAN GAUTHIER FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 6 OAK VIEW AVENUE, SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the Special
Permit requested on condition:
1 . Plans are provided for approval to the Fire Prevention Bureau
prior to the issuance of a building permit, showing any changes and/or
modifications to the smoke detector configuration which may be
necessary.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM. THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE `!ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 CF THE !.','.'S. ,
GENERAL LA:1S, CHAPTER 303. V!D SHALL BE FUE; WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE.OF_FILC;G _
OF THIS DECISION IN'THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
M,ZANT TO 'r,'.A^•S. GENERAL L?Y;3, CSAPTER 313• Sr-CTIGN Ii, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMHT
H rEY. EH'.LL ND, "i,;:E EFFECT U".TIL A COPY OF THE DECiC1S'!, nEAYi'.� THE CERT- .
FICAT,y: GF THE Citi CLERr. THAT T DAYS HA,,iE __-7SEO AND NO APPEAL HAS SEEN FILED,.
0 THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEA_ HAS BEE:'N FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN Dist^.ISSED OR OE'iiED IS
RECORDED IN THE SCU-th ESSEX RE3!STRY OF DEUS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAVE OF THE OVINER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
P11 'F
Citg of $Arm, �fttssar4usktts
417 C_.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALBERT A. TREMBLAY FOR VARIANCES
AT 20 OAKVIEW AVENUE (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held October 29, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming and Luzinski.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others, and notices of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioner, representing himself, requests Variances from any and all
applicable density and setback requirements to allow the parcel of land at
20 Oakview Ave. to be divided into two lots and to allow construction of a
single family dwelling on Lot B, as shown on plans submitted. The land at
20 Oakview Avenue is located in an R-1 district.
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, building and structures in the same district;
• b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence and viewing the plans presented
at the hearing,'makes the following 'findings of fact:
1 . The present lot is large for the area, and would be divided
into two (2) lots, each of which are approximately the size
of other lots in the neighborhood;
2. There was little neighborhood opposition, and the plan, as
presented, would improve the asethetics of the neighborhood;
3. If the Board were to not allow the petition, the petitioner and
his family would suffer financial hardship.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which affect the subject premises but which do
not generally affect the district; and which, in fact, are unique to
the district;
P
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALBERT A. TREMBLAY FOR VARIANCES
AT 20 OAKVIEW AVE. , SALEM
page two
t
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would work a
substantial hardship upon petitioner;
3. 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 unanimously, 4-0, to grant the
petitioner the requested Variances , under the following terms and conditions:
1 . All construction is to be completed as shown on the plans submitted;
2. All construction must be completed twelve (12) months after the
issuance of the Building Permit;
3. Both lots must be landscaped and grassed;
4. All the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire
prevention must be complied with by the petitioner;
5. Proper street numbering be obtained by the petitioner from the
Assessor's Office, City of Salem, Massachusetts;
6. Curbing, sidewalk and street construction must be accomplished by
i' • the petitioner;
7. All construction must comply with the provisions of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts Building Code;
8. All necessary buildirg permits and Certificates of Occupancy must be
from the Building Inspector, City of Salem;
9• If construction is not completed in compliance with the terms of this
decision, twelve (12) months from the issuance of a building permit,
these variances are to be considered null and void.
VARIANCES GRANTED
/James M. Fleming, Esq. 171
Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROG TtIS DF ,I,:N r!Y SHALL BE FADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF TN ,!;�:
GENERAL LATS CHAFi- &:a t.;c S! F-.D_ B
F!!;',- 1'+I `!N 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE 0 FiLP�rG
'vF THIS DEGSI IN TH I" Thc CI'1 CLERK.
I
Jn F' TO ' �,Sa F- ".; CH-- ER r q S;'. d 11 THE Var F'CF OP SFECI. ! F:%i';IT
I'D It'Ci Uhi L A COPY CE THE1—
APPEAL
E'ER IF idT'
GRA - H�RJ 'Pr L
F.ICAT ;.r. CF THE CITY CLEF 21' C^-Y� HA:E ELAr D --:D N; °P��L HA: D R D.
H,.T IT h LIFE C ,7i Or D - .. U IS
CS HAT. IF S r APPS F y,Fr ir;.
REC.:RDED IN T1 E S-:1H C S r ' TF:1 -ECUS A C f 'c„_� E THE f '.E OF TiiE C1l
OF RECORD OR IS R:bORDEU A;J NO,ED CN THE 0✓'NER S CERTIFICATE OF IIILE
BOARD OF APPEAL
J�
i'
of �ttlem, � ttsstttl�usr##s
%\ Poara of Appez l
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD GILN,ARTIN FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 18 OCEAN AVE. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held Fea19y, WP h the following Board
Members present: Edward Luzinski, Act N Rai N, e s. , Charnas, Strout and
Associate Members Dore and LaBrecque. FW4 ce 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 �ATNet- 4 atS.FP RSBr 40A.
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-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 detri-
�' mental 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.
'n the evidence
rSented at the hearing,
The Board of Appeal, after considering p
makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition was presented to the plan;
2. The plan provides for more than adequate parking;
3. The proposed additional dwelling unit would not appreciably impact
the traffic or density of the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at"the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed use of the premises will not be substantially more
detrimental to the public good than the existing use;
\ 2. The proposed use will promote the health, safety and welfare of
• 1 the City' s inhabitants.
�7
1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD GILMARTIN FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 18 OCEAN AVE. , SALEM
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested, provided that:
1 . The premises be owner occupied,
2. Minimum of six (6) on site parking spaces be maintained;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED n 1
(Nrf'��
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
. F.FFE Al FRO'', THIS DP:ISI^r, IT ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO Si710N 37 OF THE
fENE AL LA•d'S, CHP°T.ER u;:O, A":D SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILL%
CL :n!S DEC!SIDN IN THE O-FiCE CF THE CITY CLERK.
.-... i0 MASS. . iHAFr n 8'88, SECTtTi 11, THE YF.S::.i.::;E O',
C tifi:C;�, SHALL 113T TIKE EFFECT URTIL A CC," OF
OF ThE C:0' C_ERi THA.- 20 DAPS NAYS ELAPSED f ^ .. _ _ H. ; SEEN F1')
Ln "tH=T, W SUCIi idi APPEF.L FfS BEE.", FILE. THAT IT HAS DEE::'! :;._..._rcn C,R IS
- - RE.C,:)ED m THE S;UTH ESSEX RECIFTSY OF DEEDS AI:D N:^EAEO UG)Er, THE NAME DF THE
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
V
Ctu of 0,5ttlem, cmassadjusetts
s PnxrD of '4pP2zl
• \)J 4Y
,�INl1:L
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF T. FORD COMPANY (PETITIONER) , TRUSTEES OF
THE SALEM PUBLIC LIBRARY (OWNERS) , FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 47 OCEAN AVE.
A hearing on this petition was held March 26, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski and Associate
Members Dore and LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the premises to be used
for professional offices 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:
Notw}14stand ing anything to the contrary appearing in this
Ordi@ihce, tre Board of Appeal may, in .accordance with the
proc=ture ani conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D,
granf,'Speciaf Permits for alterations and reconstruction of
noncoDforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension
or eepansion`"of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or
• expaz�icp sP�ill not be substantially more detrimental than the
exist,3n�L,nogconforming use to the neighborhood..
d J i
Q W V
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 . This appears to be as close a use as possible to a public library;
2. Building is in a historic area and can be maintained better by
one owner;
3. The plans was supported by neighbors and abutters.
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 can be granted without substantial detriment
to the neighborhood and will be in harmony with the district;
2. The proposed use will promote the public health, safety, convenience
and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
DECISION ON. THE PETITION OF T. FORD COMPANY (PETITIONER) , TRUSTEES OF
THE SALEM PUBLIC LIBRARY (OWNERS) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 47 OCEAN AVE. , SALEM
. page .two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Acpeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special
Permit requested, subject to the following terms and conditions:
1 . Six (6) on site parking spaces be maintained;
2. No more than ten (10) employees;
3. Approval of the Historic Commission be obtained for any exterior
work on the building;
4. Front lawn area facing Lafayette Street be maintained as a lawn with
appropriate plantings and' under no circumstances shall parking be
allowed on this area;
5. Character of the exterior of the building not be changed;
6. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
• es B. Hacker, Chairman '
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FF,D.'.1 THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE d1ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF TiiE L'ASS.
APPEAL
FROM
LA- TS. G`i!."ri IS ECS. A:70 SHALL BE FILED YJITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF F�i L!�'C
CF THIS CECISION Y.: THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
r A"S. GE:ER W_ L"'.dS. CRAFTER SDE, SEMION 11, THE V?.'iA:iCE 03 SPECIAL'. RC':'
lRAW1Ep F,,REi:!• SHALL N7T TAi:E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE Or C,v ?AL CHAS I6`_E'rnfILE0.'
Fi SATP .r' LF THE CITY CLERi Tl;i 20 DAPS HALE ELAPSED AND K� A
OR THAT. IF SUCH Af: APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DiS!.aSSED OR DE' 17D IS
.OF LRECCRD INTHE
S SOUTH
REC
EX REG;STRORDED NOTED iONFTHE EOWNER'S DS AND I CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
OF THE
BOARD OF APPEAL
of �ttlem, ��ttsstttljuse##s
• ,.$ Pourb of �ppral
D__,ISION 01? THE PETITION OF MARK LIPTAK FOR SPECIAL
PER';IT FOR 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE, SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held February 26, 186 t,9�the )g�'ing Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Me- - 1,1, C�Qr sGUStrout and
Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing wasLeta to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published in he"Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws ChapterCjj9P_t_Ry ;Aj M.MASS.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting modification of a Special Permit
granted September 10, 1980 allowing premises to be used as three fa-,ily 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:
Nc: twithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions
set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special PErmits `or alterations
and reconstruction on nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlarge-
ment, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures,
and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement
• or 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, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition,;
2. Premises has been used as three family since prior decision dated
September 10, 1980.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed use of the property will not be substantially
detrimental to the neighborhood;
2. The proposed use of the property is in harmony with the Salem Zoning
Ordinance.
( � 1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK LIPTAK FOR
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE, SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of 'Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief
requested, provided that:
1 . A Certificate of Compliance relative to the installation of
automatic smoke detectors be obtained;
2. Premises remain owner occupied;
3. At no time shall more than a total of seven (7) persons use this
property as a residence or the property shall revert to its former
status as a two family;
4 . At no time shall those persons occupying this property own, lease, or
have available to them for general use more than a combined total of
four (4) vehicles or the property shall revert to its former status as
a two- family.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
.d;Ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK,
APPE4L Fr, .b Tt!IS DS::S 1'JF.. �: Yell'. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE BASS.
GENERAL LAV.S. CHP.P ER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED 'WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER, THE DATE OF FILI: 6
Cr Tr iS DEC!S!U; rt THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PJ41,',I;1 T LASS. GEi�ERAL LABS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VAPiA,NGE OF SPECIAL PERMIT
:;R 4ED HERD[!. S:iALL f:OT 10.9E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISICII, BEARiN; THE CERT-
CF
ERTFF IHE Cl,' CLERK idAT 23 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED.
OS TH1?. G SJ,� AI: APPEAL HHAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENTED IS
REC' RCEC IN THE SCO",H ESSEX RE'CISTRY 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
City of '*Iem, gassttchusetts
_ J�. Pnxrd of '�kpveal
• I p1, R
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF TADIUS SADOSKI FOR A VARIpO,C�.
FOR 5 ORCHARD TERRACE F(c n
CITY I. i:." C [M MASS.
A hearing on this petition was held December 17, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Strout and
Associate Members Dore and Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutter=
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 Variance from density and settack
requirements to allow construction of a breezeway and one car garage in this R-i
district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the 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 . There was no opposition to the plan;
2. The proposed breezeway and garage would be beneficial to the
health of the petitioner.
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 circumstances exist which especially affect the subject property
but do not generally affect other properties in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship
to the petitioner; and
3. 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 purpose of the Ordinance.
y
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF TADIUS SADOSKI FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 5 ORCHARD TERRACE, SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variance requested subject to the following conditions:
1 . Construction be done in accordance with plans submitted;
2. Exterior finish to conform with the existing structure;
3. All construction comply with Fire Prevention regulations and
the Massachusetts State Building Code;
4. A legal building permit must be obtained.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
'Hi LEI
Ga SNALL BE I
t.i L r ! t of 1 E._ ii- _ POP,-2A'u 70 SECTi 17 �°
I''.S Cc�b Xf IN THE - :�. 'rt' 'G DAYS A IEP .:
S 11011, THE VARIAiV c no ori.
i .;ENrPTI
r
9 .DED 17 7 B I ` ii
�7R JTH ESe G3 $
OR IS RLCORD_J Ahs IVO OnGV:rcR S CERTIFJCi�TE GF TITLE, -
�:
BOARD OF AFFEA_
C� v.
t
S =
d
CD
O
I/ • J` c H
Ctv of �$ttlem, 4Httssar4usetts
�• `-r . = pourb of cAppral nk
w«•m,.oJ FILE
CI'Y r.ess.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FREDERICK & GERALDINE AYERS FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 33 OSGOOD ST.
A hearing on this petition was held October 8, 1986 and continued until
December 17, 1986 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker,
Chairman; Messrs. , Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member Dore. 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.
Petiitoners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance to allow a single
family dwelling to be constructed on the same lot as the existing building in
this R-2 district.
On the request of petitioners Attorney, John Tierney, the Board of Appeal
unanimously, 4-0, voted to allow the petition to be withdrawn without prejudice.
WITHDRAWN
•` ✓dames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
i.?'r EAI FP,C':'. THIS I? .Ai;Y. SHALL BE TO SECTICPi 17 OF -,HE ..
C; THE O:-_- TBE CITi CLEC F;.
t J 1'
. Llfi L iL. A -KE ...
OR A = FJ:' H. . .FC, ill:. T_n" IT �� .
c]_ RY 0, 7H-. OF TdE - .
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND 6'0TED ON THE OWNER'S GEfi TIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
of �xlem, ttsstttl�us>'tts Sir 9 3 0r PH 'B6
r
FILE i;
• T F Pourb of �p7P.A CITY G r:` t_t EN.HAbS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FREDERICK D. SMALL FOR
VARIANCE AT 34 PEABODY ST. (R-3)
A hearing on this petition was originally held on August 20, 1986 and continued until
August 27, 1986 with the following Board Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice
Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Peter Strout and Associate Member Peter Dore.
Petitioner, owner of the property, requests variances from minimum lot size, minimum
lot area per unit, maximum lot coverage, minimum front yard depth, minimum side yard
width, minimum rear yard depth, maximum building height and parking in order to
construct a four (4) story twenty four (24) unit apartment building in this R-s zone.
The variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
that: a
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and
• c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence and after viewing the plans presented
at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Both support and opposition was voiced at the original hearing;
2. The lot in question is 8,600 square feet, vacant and thus unique
to the district;
3. The addition of residential housing is beneficial to the City.
4. The majority of the buildings in this area are multi-family type.
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 general affect
the district;
\ 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a hardship upon petitioner;
• \ 3. The variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public
.good and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose
of the Ordinance.
I
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FREDERICK D. SMALL FOR
VARIANCES FOR 34 PEABODY ST. , SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the following
Variances subject to the conditions that follow the variances:
1 . Minimum lot size from 25,000 square feet to 8,600 square feet;
2. Lot area per dwelling unit from 3,500 sq-ft- to 358.3 sq. ft. ;
3. Maximum lot coverage of 35% to 95%; .
4. From front yard depth of 15 ft. to 0 foot depth;
5• From side yard width of 20 ft. to 0 foot width;
6. From minimum rear yard depth of 30 ft. to 0 foot depth;
7. From maximum building height of 31 stories to 4 stories;
8. From minimum parking requirement fo 36 spaces to 31 spaces
maintained on site.
Conditions:
1 . Twenty four (24) apartment units can be built;
' • 2. Thirty One (31 ) parking spaces must be maintained on site for
the sole use of the tenants at 34 Peabody St. ;
3. A legal building permit must be obtained;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained;
5. Must comply with all fire codes,both local and state;
6. Must comply with all buildings codes, both local and state;
7. All aspects of the plan submitted must be adhered to.
VARIANCES GRANTED
Richard A. Bencal, 3ecretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FRM. THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE WADE PURS'_'ANT TO SECT?ON 17 OF THE
CEdERAL L,%US. CHAPTER 8",, AND SH",LL `E Fil ED V"IT.:!. _^D DAYS AF-i:R THE DATE OF F.::'!�
OF THIS DE !S ON I : THE -_r F I nZ CITY CLERK.
L, ° i E,::,P i. '.r'., SiCT :l i�F l. !'II'.:�E ra S "r F -
" 7Pn'T
"..RE : ALL
FIC Lr u L i , - _
OR -
-- R: -.tO .h iP E Fn hC ei`. Cr ..S f D '! A L JF Ti c
- OF.RECORD OR IS Rcv'-RDED AND Iv DTED 0.. mL ':fincR S .ERuF ,A.'E Cr ili:E.
BOARD OF APPEAL
CHH of �$ttlrm, � us�tttl�usetts
'1;
PIIttrb of ureal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RALPH LIPSETT FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR 7 PICKMAN RD. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held February 19, J.9_86 with the following Board
Members present: Edward' Luzinski, Acting ChairmJW M4ssga.5q*fags, Strout and
Associate Member Dore and LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters
and others and notices of the hearing. were propeF4 Published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General La ha�pter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the premises, requests .a Special Permit to redivide parcels
at numbers 5 and 7 Pickman Street, all as per plans submitted to the Board. The
property is in an R-1 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this
Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the
procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D,
grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of
nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension
or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
• provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or
expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may 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 proposed redivision would have a negligable effect
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 proposed use of -the premises will not be substantially more
detrimental to the public good than the existing use;
2. The proposed redivision of land will promote the health, safety and
welfare of the City's inhabitants.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RALPH LIPSETT FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT ,FOR 7 PICKMAN ROAD, SALEM,
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested, provided that a Certificate of Compliance be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
/ /1t
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, 1F ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE '
GENERAL UWS. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF F;;:'NF
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PJRSAINT TO VASS. CENEEA.L LA;,S, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL FESLkiT
FRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DEC'SION, BEA";'i THE CEST.
F;CATION C•F THE CITY CLERri THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS DER: FiiED,
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED CR 'FRIED IS
RECORDED Iii THE SOUTH ESSEX REG'STR'( OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
I
%=' flZit of �IPm, C �sstttljusPf#$
IIIMTa Of � EIIl
p.:rT 3 q
• �'w. ms vr`M1
i
FILE A
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NILE SHIPKA & KATHLEEN TEETSEL
FOR A VARIANCE/SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 35 PLEASANT ST.
A hearing on this petition was held on October 15, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of .the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 4OA.
Petitioner is requesting a Variance and/or Special Permit to allow existing two
family dwelling to bEs converted to a nine room bed and breakfast in this R-2
district. Propery is owned by Frederick Korzeniewski.
At the request of the petitioner the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to
allow petition to be Withdrawn Without Prejudice.
WITHDRAI2; 1
/dames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY .CLERK
('git of ttlPm, Massachusetts
PQMrb Df
r ki L[n5.ar .
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT A. COHN FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 60 PROCTOR STREET, SALEM
y ^
A hearing on this petition was held February 26, 1986NA R t 581��wtfk
Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Bencal, Charnas, Strout
and Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing waA #t to abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly publi�� c�t Cl,tppi Ap.W%evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chap er 40A'.
Petitioner, owner of the premises, requests a Variance from .any and all
= _ c density and setback requirements in order to construct a two car garage wir
an ,apartment above in this R-3 district.
7S E
`< t f LL The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
o Board that:
G - s o a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
o h > L, the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
:5o _ LL dow
N r
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
•1 volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and
c. . desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
U o C CS
w � � public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
= y _ � z
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
U U w o L co 0
; ;, '4 Z h � = The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes
= W, g the following findings of fact:
:_' _ _' � - � 1 . No opposition was presented to the pian;
su y 2. The lot is virtually unusable without the requested variance.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at
the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
- '- _ `` = 0 1 . Special conditions exist which affect the lot in question and do
not generally affect the district;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would create a substantial
hardship on the petitioner;
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantially derogating
- from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance and without substantial
' 1 detriment to the public good.
l
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief
requested provided that a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
VARIANCE GRANTED
lU.�il1dO�
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
L, r,)7Y OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLER-.:
titu of $Arm, as ' chm etts
-;
1j' '
Poxrb of Arrpetil
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF B & M REALTY FOR VARIANCES
FOR 63 PROCTOR ST. , SALEM A°R_1�. 3 n.j puy
A hearing on this petition was held April 16, 1986 with rVhE?ffollowing' $o '
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencel, Charnas, Luzinski and
Strout. Notice of the hearing was Sent to abutters and d Nf_rs; and notices of the
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening Nevis in accordanq;eS.yith
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of. the property, requests Variances from use, area, setbacks
and density in order to construct six two-bedroom 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 and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . This petition was deemed substantially different from a petition
previously filed and denied by this Board on August 14, 1985 due
to the fact:
a. Petition is filed by current owner;
b. Petition has definite sideline and rear lines defined.
2. The Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to re-hear this petition;
3. Councillor Grace appeared before the Board and stated that the Council
Order dated September 10, 1981 relative to no building permits being
issued for the area of Proctor/Pope Street does not apply to this
property but to the virgin property in the rear;
'.� 4. This proposal will substantially improve the area;
i
5. No opposition;
6. This plan will remove what is currently a fire and safety
hazard;
7. The ledge in the area makes this an appropriate use for the land.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF B & M REALTY FOR
VARIANCES FOR 63 PROCTOR ST. , SALEM
page two
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
1 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 s
3. The relief requested may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating fro...
the 'intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
relief requested, provided that:
1 . ' Plans for the proposed construction are presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau, showing the type and location of automatic
smoke detectors to be installed, prior to the issuance of a
building permit;
2. The developer of such property obtain a proper numbering from the
City Assessor, and that compliance with the Salem City Ordinance
relative to house numbering be adhered to;
•' 3. All Laws, Ordinance, and Regulations of both the Commonwealth
and the City of Salem, pertaining to fire safety, are adhered to;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy is obtained for each unit.
VARIANCE 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 ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. _
GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 903, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE LATE OF Fi LING
OF THIS DECISION if: THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PUit4R;T ?-' I::ASS. CE IFRAL LAMS, CHAFTEP. SM SECTrN 11, THE YA.SIAKCE Oc c?criAL FEC'.;IT
S,{ALL P% T".` CP ECT 0TIL A COPY OF THS i.°-''!:. F T ,E `FP.7-
FiCAT O;t OF lil'_ CiPi CLER-. TI'.AT 20 DAYS HAVE EIi FLED AiiO N.: ..F.CAL KAS � ,i I! --D,
CP TEAT. ff S A:, NPP L' PAS B: FILE T1:;" li
RcLCi DEO 6i TiIE S00 U7H ESSEX P.:CS H! CF DEEDS AND INDEXED L:IZE.. ;r .
. A.$ Or THE 0ll!,EER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFIOATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
i
v _0.
(cif of "�tt1em, C ttsstttljuset#s
• �,�3 ?2< �QttrD of ��eu.(
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANNA M. PARADIS FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 24 PURITAN ROAD
A hearing on this petition was held November 12, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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.
i
Petitioner, owner of the property is requesting a Variance to allow property to be
used as a two family for a period of three years. Property is located in an
R-1 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would 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 Ordiance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was major neighborhood opposition;
2. The addition of a two family home in this exclusively single family
neighborhood would adversely affect property values;
3. This area of Puritan Road is a badly congested section as it is a
major thoroughfare through this area;
4. No plans were submitted;
5• Work has been substantially completed with no permits from the
Salem Building Inspector;
6. Required amount of parking not available;
/- 7. Fire Department in opposition because of lack.of smoke detectors.
• `' On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject
property and not the district generally;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANNA M. PARADIS FOR A
VARIANCE. FOR 24 PURITAN RD. , SALEM
page two
• 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not
involve substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from
the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted two in favor (Messrs. , Fleming &
Luzinski) and three opposed (Messrs. , Bencal, Hacker and Strout) to the granting
of the requested Variance. By a vote of 3-2 the variance is denied.
VARIANCE DENIED
�C 7�u./ /J. f�!-t ':moi✓ ( -57f J
/J'ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
i
SHALL BE A.AC•E PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 CF TN= .'
C ENE'n,L LASS. CHA?,ER Si'S, A:iD SH?.L: BE !'iLEL- Y71?'ri;li 20 DAYS AFTER, THE DTE
OF
FIJ
CF THIS DECIS;ON IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. A
P;R"oF.IT TC !(ASS -FERAL LAVi S, CHA?TER B.S. SICTI:N 11, THE VAPIA:':CE OF. SP=:IAL -ER :IT
FRAYTED HEREitG. SHALL Y:;i iA::E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEOEC!Srr:;. FE:r:- THE
FIAT dt: OF THE CF'i :EP,B T!?,% 2 DAYS HA6` ELAPSED AND Fi0 APPEAL HAS BES'
'FF'T, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT I-, HRS BEENC!S i::SSED GR C°; ^I+'J
R''E"ROED IY THE SJi'TH ESSEX REGISTRY LF DEEDS AND INDEXED UHOER ?:;E N'.v CE OF Ti-
R':CCRD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED Old THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
. BOARD OF APPEAL
/' •� s, f(�it of ,%Iem,
• F pnxr3 rr{ �p}� CITY CL,:'?'
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRED C. PAGE FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR 9 RICE ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held August 20, 1986 and continued until August
27, 1986 with the following Board Members present: Edward Luzinski, Acting
Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Strout and Associate Member Dore. 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 allow a
I
wo family dwelling and a Variance from parking requirements in this R-2 district.
The provision c--f the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special ":rmit 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 procedures and conditions set forth in Section
VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non-
conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of
nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such
change, extension, expansion or enlargement shall not be substantially more detri-
I • 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 nay 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:
\1 1 . Adequate legal parking could not be supplied;
2. Substantial opposition to the proposed two family.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRED C. PAGE FOR SPECIAL
PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 9 RICE 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 relief requested will not promote the public health, safety,
convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not
involve substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. The desired relief cannot 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 three (3) in favor of granting, one.
(1 ) opposed to granting (Mr. Dore) . The motion failed to carry the required four
votes, petition is denied.
DENIED
Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
p—SL'S7T TC SEITITI 17 OF Ti!E
APPEAL FRO;,. THi$ CFr 3!D3, 1= A IY, SHALL BE
,qC.c -��•
; CAiS 41aR THE O9"E C ri
u'ER.;I LF ro i R .
r riE Cili Cc (.
� iilS c�i i 15 - r
5-
F,ii �I
E i r
- Uri4f . Fri i
FI riL"' .H rl-.Y
OUR:, A J F ` H
f. IF CI_.I ?.v °P rL IiA° t-- .:.° r'•'.JF
PIC:i:DED I': THE SUIN ESSEX RE-.I°I,( OF
�. > A:D ` _p in r_. ul T=.E
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOIED DI! THE C,iHER-S uEr TIFI r.1E OF TITHE.
II. /
BOARD OF APPEAL
. I
I
' Ctg of ,15ttlem, Assarhusetts
_ Pnxrb of
, s
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LORRAINE GADALA FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 15 & 152 RIVER ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held September 22, 1986 with the following Board .
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. ,
Fleming, 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 at 152' River Street is seeking a Special Permit
to allow the transfer of a strip of land from 15 River St. to 1512 River St. 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 neighbborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing,
and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Support for the plan was voiced by neighbors, abutters and
others. Additional support in the form of a petition was
presented to the Board;
2. The proposed land transfer will alleviate problems between
petitioner and direct abutter.
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 transfer will not be substantially more
\ detrimental to the neighborhood;
� • 2. The proposed transfer will promote the convenience and
welfare of the City's inhabitants.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LORRAINE GADALA FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 15 & 15r' RIVER ST. , SALEM
page 'two
I`
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special
Permit requested, subject to the following condition:
1 . The transfer must be done as per the plans submitted.
ichard A. Bencal, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
r
APPEPi FROM THIS DECISCN, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PUP.CJANT To SECTION 17 OF THE Cr:SS.
GENERAL LAR'S, CHAPTER 8i:�. A'r'C SHALL 6E F1'-ES 1'r'?Siti 20 DAPS AFTER THE DATE OF FILi :3
0: THIS DEC:S:5�. IN TF:E OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. ^r cp E;1A! r
�...�.. cro SEii'n: ll, THE Y'OIA" OR -.
O SS C � LA' CHAPTER
£�C.
CE( ` P Pu.i SHALL N'.11 TfEf EFFECT U% ;L A CCPI OF THE =�A P fl�tD.
f;-�/,�;,I:: OF 1HE CLY C.ERK THAT 20 DAYS rA"' ELAPSED A !D F.,. 7AL h4.
CR 1HAT. IF SJCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAI, 6E=^ CI""I„°.0 311 oc.iEO IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND ItiDEY.ED UNDER THE NA%iE CF THE "
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
Tity of �`Mrm, CIttssuchusetts
,- ?l Poxra of � e�l
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MONIQUE CAR ON FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 5 RIVERBANK ROAD (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held July 16, 1986 with the of winga d Members
Ws
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secr�ti�r MA(i,. and
Fleming. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening N59 4n accordance with the
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. CITY „L«p ..,j FtALMAS.5.
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming rear and side
setback to allow construction of a one story addition within 10 feet of side lot
line and to construct a wood deck within 30 feet of the rear lot line.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions
set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for
alterations and reconstruciton of nonconforming structures, and for
changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots,
land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change,
.r 1 extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of .the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City' s inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Opposition to the plan, voiced by a neighbor, was satisfactorily
answered by the petitioner;
2. The one story addition will be used by petitioner soley for their
pleasure.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed addition and deck will promote the convenience and
welfare of the inhabitants and will be in harmony with the
district.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MONIQUE CARON FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR 5 RIVERBANK ROAD, SALEM
• page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the relief
requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . The one story addition may be building to within five (5) feet
of the side line;
2. The rear deck may be built to within twenty three (23) feet of the
rear lot line. The deck shall be ten (10) feet b� twelve ( 12 feet
in size;
3. No use other than recreational may be done in the proposed addition;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained;
5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be complied ,with.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Richard A. Bencal, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISICN HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
F.PPEAL F.'.^_.! TH! DECISIDN. IF ANY. SHALL BE -::ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION' 17 OF THE M,;SS;
5. ....1;P7,F V-'d. ANL'SHA,:L BE FILED VlITY.'P. 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE 0." FILIN.
THE OFFE OF THE Cli)' CLERK.
A% 5. CFA
Ctu of '�351em, anac4usetts
z
PottrD of �Fpeul , p1�
OCT 30
FILE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL CONNOLLY FOR VARIANCES
FOR 7 ST. PAUL ST. CITY CI.F_.";• rh.4ASS.
A hearing on this petition was held October 15, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, requests a Variance to allow him to rent five
rooms in this single family dwelling and a Variance from parking requirements.
Property is located in a B-4 district.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
i
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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at. the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was substantial opposition by abutters and neighbors;
2. There is a serious parking problem on the street;
3. There was substantial opposition because the owner has illegally
used the dwelling to house up to thirteen (13) people;
i
4. Relief could not be granted without detriment to the public good.
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 . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and not other lands, buildings and
structures in the same district;
1 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not involve substantial
hardship to the petition; and
3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from
the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL CONNOLLY FOR VARIANCES
FOR 7 ST. PAUL ST. , SALE-11-11
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3-2 against granting the Variances
• requested. Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski & Labrecque voted in favor of granting,
Messrs. , Hacker & Strout voted against granting. Having failed to carry the
required four (4) votes to grant, the petition is denied.
DENIED /
i
Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FRO`i THIS DECISKIN. IF ANY, SHALL 9E :'::ADE PURSUANT TO SEC:71'!, 17 OF THE
LAWS CNA°-cR 8- AND SHALL is FILED 1 H Ii 20 DAYS A'IER THE DATE OF F -
Or IS CEC:�' a f� THE CMZE OF TEE CITY CLERK. ,,,.� r.,
rt L. CF..? c.8, THE 1 . -
F TTu 1 E rp .
S. .-11 "'._ EFFECT W;'111- C
A [;CFY C ThE - _
CF TPS CIT) C!EFt ! :,T' 2C CA1S NS•�: E-��:.-9C �`J i ._ H L'
FILED,
in Tn:'i IF c '' A., APP"4 °-:N FILE. THAI IT h' IFEII C c _N;—D IS _
R_OU DED iN THE S JTH ESS-1X RE..oTF,': OF D'.EDS "D I DE):ED L i•- .E OF THE
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE Oi,NER'S CERTiFICAic OF T;T_E.
BOARD OF APPEAL
{
(tlitu of ttlem, ttss djusetis
s nxrb of
1 • '1JA .. 4Y
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF J. ALAN AND MARY HEZEKIAH FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 56 SALEM ST. , (R-3)
A hearing on this petition was held on March 19, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; MesskR, tenaabn Plia s, Luzinski and
Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the
I
accordance the Salem E News in accord t
hearing were properly published i'n 6g
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. CITY „ •,� r,�{-EMIMASS.
C.�
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit from density to allow a third apartment
and a Variance from minimum parking requirements.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions
set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations
and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement,
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion
shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming
use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Boardis, 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 t11
he
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition was raised by neighbors;
r 2. The building has been used .as a three family for many years;
3. No area, designated for parking, would be taken away.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF J. ALAN & MARY HEZEKIAH FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE FOR 56 SALEM ST. , SALE1
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the
Special Permit and Variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Three parking spaces must be maintained on the premises;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained;
3. All Fire Department regulations relative, but not limited to smoke
and fire detectors must- be met.
GRANTED
Richard A. Bencal, Member Board of Appeal
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
•
GENERAL LAMS, CHAPTER £OS, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILI:'.G
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT' CLERK.
FL'fiSk:T TO £`:ASS. GEL'ERA! LA`.'i$, CH-'TER £02. SECTION 11, THE VPF":CE OR SPi.CIAL PF.7-.IT
C kAFTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECTUNTIL A COPY' OF THE CEC:S!-'�. BELi;iRC THE CErii
FiC='.1 ^N OF THE C17f CLER'Y THA: 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AN) NO F."- 1 HAS L'E ECJ FIIED,
OR 1'H,T. IF SJCii A..r APPEAL HAS BEEi'; FILE. THAT IT HAS ur-EN DIS': SSEO CR D,.!{!.0 .
RE OVE DIN' THEIS
S�UIH ESSEX RECORDED ANDRE0 , YON FTHEEOWNER'SICERT FICATE OF TTLE.A GF T'r.0 OP::
RECO
BOARD. OF APPEAL
Ctg of "Salem, ussttcljusettg `'` "
3; Poarb of �Pvral
pct my o�'� i;��%l r ..� 3 �- [):�,I q n�•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANK WALLACE AND NANCY KNOWLES 0
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE FOR 59-592' SUMMER ST. (R-2) "' E ,,
A hearingon this Cel ?
petition was held October 8, 1986 with the o1l6iing Boar,d�5
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. 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, represented by Attorney George P. Vallis, are requesting a
Special Permit to allow them to change a nonconforming lot by dividing same into
two lots, which would create two nonconforming lots. In addition, the petitioners
are requesting a Variance from all applicable frontyard, sideyard, rearyard and
density requirements of Table I, Section VI of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The
nonconforming lot currently owned by petitioners contains two separate and un-
attached dwelling units. Both houses were constructed over fifty (50) years ago,
prior to any zoning ordinances. The houses are in an R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem. Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in
• Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction
of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion
of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such
change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit rquest 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.
r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANK WALLACE & NANCY KNOWLES FOR
SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE FOR 59 -592' SUMMER ST. , SALEM
page two
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 neighbors who appeared at the hearing were, with little
exception, in favor of the proposal;
2. Granting the requested petiiton would not increase traffic or
parking in the neighborhood;
3. The division of the property will not change the use of the properties,
only their ownership.
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 change 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. In fact, the division of the lot into two lots is not
more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconformity;
3. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners;
4. Special conditions exist affecting this nonconforming lot, which do not
generally affect other lots in the same district.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit and Variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . . That the petitioners create a foot right of way over the front yard
of lot B, as shown on the plans, for pedestrian access to lot A, as
shown on said plans;
2. That the front yards of both Lot A & Lot B continue to have natural
plantings to insure the asethetics of the neighborhood;
3. That all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. , relative to fire safety,
be complied with by the petitioners;
4. That permits or certificates deemed necessary by the Building Inspector
of the City of Salem, if any, be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE GRANTED
�ames M. Fleming, Esq.
Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
ofttlem, ttssttc��zsetts
rAn 12 3 au PH 166
�oxrb of :1ppvd
FILE -44
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN AND PATRICIA HEMPHIgIf R :* s.;�,ME55.
A VARIANCES FOR 70 SUMMER STREET.
A public hearing on this petition was held on July 23, 1986 with the
Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Bencal, Fleming,
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 the provisions of Massachusetts
General Laws, Chapter 40A.
The petitioners, represented by Mr. Steven Hemphill, requested a
Variance to convert an existing four (4) family building located at
70 Summer St. to a six (6) family dwelling. Additionally, the
the petitioners sought a variance from the requirements of Section
VII C, relative to off-street parking. The premises in question is
located in an R-2 District.
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 or
• 1 structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of Zoning Ordinance
would involve substantial hardship, financial or
otherwise, to the petitioner's; and
C. the desired relief may be granted without substantial
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, makes the following findings of fact:
1. There is substantial opposition to the conversion of the
building to a six (6) family dwelling, such opposition being
expressed by both abuttors and residents of the neighborhood
in general.
2. The neighborhood is quite dense, and there already exists
a substantial lack of off-street parking. Additionally,
Summer St. in that vicinity, has heavy motor vehicular
traffic.
3. The petitioners have failed to show to the Board that the
required substantial hardship exists.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN AND PATRICIA HEMPHILL FOR A VARIANCES
• �IOR 70 SUMMER STREET.
On the basis of the above finds of fact, and on the evidence presented at
the hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good or without nullifying or
substantially derogating from the intent of the district or _
the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted, unanimously, 5 - 0, against
granting the Variances requested.
DENIED
aures M Fleming
, Member Board of Ap_ al
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
-E'tC'r.L LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
D Tn':S DECISION IN THE OFFICE GF THE CITY CLERK.
PU Sfdvi 10
!,:ASS. GENERAL LAOIS. CHAPTER SOS, SECTL341 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECSAL PER..""IT
,RANTED HEE.EIN, Si"LL N 1'A:iE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE
C.-RT-
1
OF THE CITY CLER': 1';iAT 2O DA'!S HAVE FLAPSED APPEAL HAS 6E"t FI ..U,
OR THAT. IF SUH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN F-1E, THAI' IT H DISi:,ISSED OR DENIED IS
RECORDED
ITHE
ESSEX
AND
S RECORDED EDOR (VOTED IONFTHDECDL'�'NER'SI CERT FDNAME OF THE OWNER
ICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. .. .^"ANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 81". A.: 'AYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING.
OF THIS DECISION IN THE
PURSA.NT TO MASS. °:;_S< _" "`. nR SPECIAL PERMIT
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL ii . . ":G THE CERT-
- - FICATION OF THE CITY CiER:. .. ." FILED,
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX. REGISTRS UF - .: 'R
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF iIILE.
�� - BOARD OF APPEAL .
111 1..
ofttlem, � ttssttcfiuse##s
1 • - ,.,�`3 � s POara of
r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN J. NAVARRO FOR
VARIANCES AT 75 SUMMER ST. (R-2)
May h 9 f �, '�
A hearing on this petition was held Ma 28 1986 with the o l��i � rd Members
present; James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, SS&Efary; Messrs. , Fleming and
Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of
the hearing were properly published in the Salem EvgjTjn�News inkaF gdance with
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Variance to convert a mixed residential/store building
into six residential units and a Variance from minimum parking in this R-2 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after
viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The plan as submitted will be more in harmony with the area
than the present use;
2. Support for the plan was voiced by interested and concerned
residents and others;
3. The building was vacant when petitioner purchased 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 . The property in question is unique to the area;
2. The desired variances may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good;
\ 3. A hardship does exist not only to the petitioner but to the
i • neighborhood in general.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN J. NAVARRO FOR
VARIANCES AT 75 SUMMER ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, in favor of granting
the Variance to convert a mixed residential/store building into six residential
units subject to the following conditions:
1 . That five (5) units be two bedrooms and the unit, described
as being the store front be converted to a one bedroom unit;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
The Board of Appeal also voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Variance from
minimum parking subject to the following conditions:
1 . A minimum of five (5) unobstructed parking spaces must be
be maintained and the spaces must be delineated and set aside
as such.
VARIANCES GRANTED
Richard A. Bencal, Secretary .
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHA:L SE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE �".'13.
CENERAL LAB'S: CHAPTER KIS, AND SHALL K --O V!,TWN 20 DAYS AFTES THE DATE OF hfd 7:.
OF THIS DECISIOII IN THE CFF'.CE OF T- ::TY CLERK. _
PU.^.S At' 'O '.ASS. (c A', V:T.. H P;ER S CT!_Pi 11 °E VL ... r c_
G6A':TEO FERE CFv t -U! E EFFcU L P C '.'1' THE 'i. �. ._ .
CF THc Ci 7 C!. THA _L L''.%, ` - F. "`a f ) F .:P
'F SUMS F ! APPEAL P' BEE". G;_: it 1,
REi:D9 DEO !N THE SOU'H ESSEX !;ceiSTRY CF .:>v� A;•O`L.Jc<ED
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED OF: THE o'.NNERS CERTIFICATE OF TITTLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
L: a
1 .• of �5alent, Massachusetts la
Pourb of Appvd
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD & IDA MCEWAN FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 51 SUMMIT AVE. , SALEM � ooCC
A hearing on this petition was held May 14, ]gXdglyh jte34 ho' ing Board
Members present: James Hacker, ' Chairman; Mess . , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski' and
Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutf4fe.* and others and notices of
the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening NFWA 4pSfccordance
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. c17Y
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to convert
a single family dwelling into a two 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 is 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 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 no opposition;
2. There are other two family dwellings in the area;
3. Property was used as a multi-family dwelling prior to this
date but use discontinued over the years.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed use as a two family dwelling will be in harmony with
the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience
and welfare of the City's inhabitants;
.! 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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD & IDA MCEWAN FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 51 SU114IT AVE. , SALEM
page two
I • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested under the following terms and conditions:
1 . Three on site parking spaces be maintained;
2. Premises remain owner occupied;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
e
0 ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
1
APP=AL THIS DELI:I-^.i i, IF 1.:iY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENEFAL LA'1lS. C'-". Ti"' 82, AI:D SH .LL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS APER THE DATE OF FILING
OF I; S FI, T.Iv ".FF!:; OF THE CITY CLERK. -
FU:?:C!+; ... ..,:d,FTEG 8", SEMCN 11, THE VAPIA,N'E OR SPECIAL PER?;TIT
EFFEC '. W`?iL P. CCFY OF THE:'_;:.__ crr.. - THE r:PT-
FL°:F ., ;HT .! CALK. - 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AN' I;'0 r ':L H!S n _N FILED.
OR 'i...-.. IF SSG;I i, UYE'.L EF.S EES' FILE. THAT IT HAS DEIN GTS"IisEU OR DE: [D IS
- RECC�F:D,J IN' THE S&�UTH ESSEF RIC:!STR'i OF LEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA1.E OF THE OWNER
OF RECCRD OR IS RECORDED AND DOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
cgity of ".5' ttlem, tts�tttljuse##s
\ 1
��1 �nttrD of ��eul
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MCNEIL & ASSOCIATES FOR
VARIANCE FOR SZETELA LANE/MEMORIAL DRIVE, SALEM
MAYpppp e
A hearing on this petition was held April 30, 1986 with6th? f��IM% Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. jFlLt#rnas, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were. properly publishe617M0thE SajglA AXjjing News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting approval for revisions to
.plan approved by the Board of Appeal July 24, 1985. There will be no change in
the total number of units, the total number of bedrooms will be reduced by two.
The property is located in an R-1 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;.
.. b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
volve a 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 substantiall 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 the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The total unit count of thirty-six (36) remains the same;
2. There will be less building coverage on the site;
3. The distances between buildings 1 , 2, 3, & 4 will be reduced from
40 feet to 37 feet, the distance between buildings 4 & 5 will be
reduced from 43 feet to 40 feet, as shown on plans submitted to the
Board, April 30, 1986. ;
4. Building could not be constructed on present location without
substantial hardship, so revised plans were approved.
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
.VARIANCE FOR SZETELA LANE/MEMORIAL DRIVE, SALEM
page two
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment
I
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
Variance requested on condition:
1 . All conditions set forth in the Purchase and Sale Agreement between
McNeil & Associates and -th-- City of Salem are to be strictly adhered to;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained for each unit;
3. All work must have Fire Department -approval;
4. Work to be in accordance with plans submitted April 30, 1986.
VARIANCE GRANTED
,/3ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
r q•EL BE F.-ED F:Thii; 20 DAYS AFTER THE GATE O° F
AFPE' rr'
T: IS DECISiJ1 1° A`1. SHALE BE WAGE i'URSUHNT 10 SECTIOR 17 04 hF .
D
- c•. I T. 0 r Tr CITY
CLERK. THE Co cr If rE
:eT- C$ °C `I '.7 11. r A C
L
FJf "S t U.,71_ A CC"rL Or Ih —1 PLED.
v .r T r� HS
C.4'iS ELAPLCV �.� eCr cSc� G3
cN 7 i3T IT hAS EEEi, Cln
IF SotI, A..: AErCAI"+r pc�1�1RY OF DEUS A':D I':DEYED LhI.R 'FE E OF THE Cf,'r.ER
REO.:n�E7 I THE S3U1H ES3c..
E.
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED A14D F O D ON 7HE Otiti NER'$ CERTIFICATE BOARDOF OfAPPEAL
00
7 J
Ali '86
ON of ��Iem, C�ttsstt�Ijuse##s
FILE ?�
• 'f' i <I �DXfD Df � ?PITl
CII ,�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES E. BURKINSHAW FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT/VARIANCE FOR 8 TAFT ROAD
A hearing on this petition was held November 12, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming,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 or Variance from density and rear
setbacks to allow a deck in this R-1 district.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the application read by the Secretary, Richard
Bencal, makes the fo4lowing findings of fact:
1 . Neither the petitioner nor any representative for the petitioner
was present at the hearing.
On the basis of the above findings of fact', the Board of Appeal concludes as
follows:
• 1 . There was no evidence presented or plans available to enable the
Board to take affirmative action on this petition.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, against granting
the Special Permit and Variance requested.
DENIED \
t /
✓0 ames. B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
IF ANY.NY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE
AFF EAL FRO!,! THIS DEC1310N
- A D SHP.LL EE FILED M-F!N 20 DAYS AFTER THE DISE OF FILI:JG
. A',�S. CHAPTER 8C8. ,
-- ?F!S DECISION I': THE OFF:CE OF THE CITY CLERK. c r„ SoELI AL PERtt IT
i0 i.'�ASS. SE!t ERAL l:'::�5. C°AFTER. 858. SEOMN 11. THE VS...!A7Ia G?U ' THE iEP.T-
CFA:.^.ED HEE EIN, SBALL 1:01 TA:E EFFE:.T UNTIL A UPPED ANIDcDECIS NO APPEAL HASE PI -LED. _
FIC ATI ITN OF THE Cl-.f CLERK Tti3T 2) DAYS IME ELAPSED
CP IS
iH�.T, IF SJCH AN APPEAL HA$ b-EN FILE. THAT IT H S EEEN DIS='.ISSED OP, GECIEC
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEY "nE315TRY OF DEEDS AND Ii7DEXED UI;DEF, THE i�A1LE OF THE MNF R
OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND,NUTED ON THE
---� BOARD OF APPEAL
I •
/45
Ctg of ttlem, ttssttc uset P!, , 5
�oarb of eal
�� FILE!.i
�cumr. �
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICIA ANKETELL FORA CITY f.lti'.: -?`,Mi•SS
VARIANCE FOR 10 UPHAM ST.
A hearing on this petition was held November 19, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. 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 Variance from minimum rear yard
setback requirements to allow construction of a carport in this R-2 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
• \ public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the 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 . There was no opposition;
2. The-carport would be"a-convenience to the owner -and would not
be detrimental to the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject
property but not the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to the petitioner;
3. 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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICIA ANKETELL FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 10 UPHAM ST. , SALEM
page two
\ • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance
from rear yard setbacks to allow construction of a carport, subject to the
following terms and conditions:
1 . A building permit must be obtained;
2. All work to be done according to plans submitted;
3. All work conform to any and all applicable State & City codes.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
I
ApPEAI FROM THIS DECISION, If ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 DA THE hFILIN
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SH BEFILEUWITH1N20.DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FLING
SECTION 11, THE \'ARIAPiCE CR SPECI;,:_ PERh;IT
OF THIS DECISION II7
THE OFFIC`_ OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSHP7T TD "?;ASS. CEtERAL LP.:.S, C'dHPTER &DS, v P�NO NO APPEAL HS,S BEET!
J n, DAYS HP`%E :LArSED
GRANTED 0ER N. SHnLt NOT A!S EFFECT UP7 Fit A COPY OF THE DEC!SI;T'i. BE..Em", THE C-
EN
FICATION OF THE 0D CLEIS
R:i TH:. �`
OR THAT. IF SUCH P.Y APPEHL HAS B`_EN FILE iF'E IT NAS INDEXED
DIS':41SSEp OR C`i?I`-`�
NOTED Oil THE OIyNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REd75TR1' OF D'cEOS F;iD IiIDEXEp U2E O THE NH.`dE OF THE OY'Il
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND BOARD OF APPEAL
.;F
of "ittlem, ttsSttt�usP#ig f�5 G
Paurb of '�kupettl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEONARD & DIANE REDICAN
FOR VARIANCES AT 50 VALLEY ST. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held May 14, 1986 with the following- card
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard figriAl, Secretary; Messrs. ,
Fleming, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the heari�F-,vas .sent to abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly pu lished `in thE, 952,3:rm Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner requests variances from lot size, frontage and density to redivide
parcel into two lots and to construct a single family dwelling on Lot #84 . Also
a Variance from side setbacks on Lot #,85.
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
affect other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would ih-
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 two lots in question are over 12,000 square feet each and
were purchased as individual lots prior to enactment of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance;
2. After clarification of the plans to abutters no opposition
was voiced.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the land involved
and which do not generally affect other lands in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement' of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involved substantial hardship to the petitioner;
• \ 3. The relief requested may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEONARD 6 DIANE RED ICAN
FOR VARIANCES AT 50 VALLEY ST. , SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief
requested, provided that:
1 . The driveway for the house on lot 84 may not come closer than
ten (10) feet of the southerly lot line;
2. The driveway must be pitched away from the property toward
the street and away from abutting lots;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Richard A. Bencal, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
' SECTION
17 OF THE t5A,SS.
AFTER THE DATE 0. FILING
pppf}lt FRGid THIS DECISION• IF ANY, SHALL BE A"ADE PURSUANT T
OF '
c AND SHALL BE FILE CLERM,+ 2D DAYS ^ SP CIAL PEP dlT
GEtiERAL LAWS. CHF,PT-RTHES,GFFICE OF THE SECTION III THE vARli.'10E C'"- CERT .
OF
THIS DECISION IW c,AP,iNI THE
COPY GF THE DELiSI^`l•
. PCRSYiITTD &TABS. GENERAL LRC!$. CHAPTER 50�. ANO NO ApPEA! HAS DciilED IS
$Rk::� IIERZk-. SHALL NGT Trf.E EFFECT UNTIL A HA$ E'EEti D;S'%!SSED OR THE GVl PIER
CITY CLERi; TH^?. ZG. DAYS HRVE ELAP^SED -E GF
FlCATIOti CF WE { TY ;3PCAl HAS BEER FILE. THAT IANO INDEREp Ui:CER 71TLE.
OR THAT• IF SJ-, 1 TRY OF g CERTIFICATE OF
RECORDED IN THE SOITH ESSEX DRN I' ON THE�Ov"NFR' _
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND BOARD OF APPEAL
}
.vcmmgy4 /` � i
ofttlem, ttssttc�juse##s
Paxrb of Appeal DEC ? 3 ! -;, PH 'P6
FILE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RON MCELWAIN (PETITIONER) , JOHN
BEZZATI JR. (OWNER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 2 WAITE ST. CITY' CLc Eh.M:.S
A hearing on this petition was held November 19, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setbacks,
density and use to allow construction of a two story addition, first floor den
and second floor bedroom. Also construction of deck & stairs on the rear of said
addition. Property is a residential use and located in a B-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this
Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the
procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D,
grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of
• nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, 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 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`wil1'promote the"pubTic-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 . There was no opposition to the plan;
2. This would be an extension of a nonconforming use.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed addition, deck and stairs will not be substantially
detrimental to the neighborhood and will not nullify or substantially
derogate from the intent of the district or the purpose of the
Ordinance;
• 1 2. The granting of the requested Special Permit will promote the
public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's
inhabitants.
0
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RON MCELWAIN (PETITIONER) , JOHN
BEZZATI JR. (OWNER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 2 WAITE ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Addition, deck and stairs to be built in accordance with the
plans submitted to the Board;
2. A Building Permit is to be obtained prior to construction;
3. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained.
GRANTED
James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
FRO;,; THIS DECISii:N, Ir ANY, SHA1 BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE LS,.
GEi:EFi:L
LAW'S. CHAP�Ef. 'v"$. R!:0 Su LEE ':LED V;1WN ZD DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF
OF Tii;S DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY)CL I K. 11, THE VARIANC'e DR SP_rtuL PE"'::IT
Fu'.SAIiT TO :'.:.FSS. CEi;i^..�L LA'-i- C`:ACTFn 8.'�8. F_„_.,ISIG�2. EFA6il;.': 1H'_ C`.RT-
CEi.::TcD HEiEiiv, SHALL NCT TACE EFFLC JUH4VEAELr°YED 01 ---1
ICO APPEAL H.':S E' i! F!-ED.
FT - �0 CF THE Clic ERI: TAF. 20 _ L':. THAT IT H;.S BEEN MQ:JSSED OR DENIED IS
'F. SHAT IF SUCH A' APP 'L HAS E
nn"EJ." DED li! THE SOuir! ESSEX Rt�la..^.i OF DEEDS At•D IIJDEXtD Ur'D`R THE NA?E OF TU CiS'iQE
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
fit ofttlem, CttsSttclju$etts
h Poara of ( iPPCA /
OCT 30 2 52 PN '86
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RON MCELWAIN FOR A SPECIAL FILE ,k
PERMIT FOR 2 WAITE ST.
CITY
A hearing on this petition was held October 8, 1986 with the following 3Hoar6s'
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski, Strout and I
Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
. accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setback
to allow construction of a two story addition in this B-2 district. The property
is owned by John J. Bezzata Jr.
t
At the request of the petitioner, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to
allow petitioner to Withdraw Without Prejudice. j
WITHDRA'AN
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
I •
w. i
fgifU ofttlem, � ttssttcljuseffs
Poxrb of �ppeu!
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LYDIA KING FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 7 WALL ST. , SALEM 11ppCC
A hearing on this petition was held Jun�UL8,819t� n tH following Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and Strout.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abuttEH£ tggnd others and notices of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Ev nin Newsin�Macjjjdance with Massachusetts
CITYGeneral Laws Chapter 40A. -.%I
�
Petitioner, owner of the property, has requested an extension of a Variance which
was granted June 10, 1981 allowing the property to be converted to a two family
dwelling. Said Variance was granted for a period of five (5) years. Property is
located in an R-1 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
1 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, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Petitioner has maintained the structure .in an appropriate
fashion;
2. There was no opposition;
3. There are several other two family dwellings in the area;
4. Continued use of this property as a two family dwelling will
not adversely affect 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 property is question is unique to the area because it is
�• so easily adaptable to a two family;
2. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good and without nullifying or substantiall% derogating from
the intent of the district or the purpose of the neighborhood;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LYDIA KING FOR A
• VARIANCE FOR 7 WALL ST.-, SALEM
page two
3. Special conditions exist which especially affect the property in
question but do not generally affect the zoning district in which
the property is located.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief
requested under the following terms and conditions:
1 . The property may be used as a two family dwelling for a period of
five years from the date this decision is recorded in the office of
the City Clerk;
2. All conditions set forth in the previous decision shall remain
in affect.
VARIANCE GRANTED
a L
4ja�mesB�. Hacker, Chairman
-A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FRC. T !
C EI:rPAI r mlDi4 IF ANY SHALL BE MADE P
AND SHALL BS"""T TO SECTION 17 OF THE hiSF .
OF T,{S of ' c;S, E Ft!EG ,'�* - _
EFFICE OF THE CITY CLP - uAYS ATTER THE DATE OF FIUivG
RECO F d Iri FILET
OF RE GRD or, " " MIRY GF J EL ,.� r' .ED U
- -� AAD NGIED 014 THE U;. Zp, PT;-LnTt GF TITLEvH r OF
BOARD OF APPEAL
��TT r�
b �;. jtI of �njPm, � tt852IC�u8Ptf�
3{ Nov I ? 3 I ; Ft'; `rr
j • pttrD of (�u rral
PILE
CII\.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALBERTA & ASHLEY HALL FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 30 WALTER ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held October 29, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and
Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the
ring were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
hearing p p y g
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property is requesting a Special Permit to convert a
a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling and a variance from parking.
'
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after
viewing the pians, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Parking shown on plans was not laid out to scale;
2. One neighbor opposed;
3. Definite narking problem in the neighborhood.
•
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect this
property but not other property in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not
involve substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating
from the intent of district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
4. Proposed use will not be in harmony with the district and will not
promote the convenience, welfare or safety of the City' s inhabitants.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0,, against the granting
of the Special Permit and Variance.
DENIED
�--
`"EAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE 6.ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION Off-ePgHLSOgPt, Member Board of Appeal IRAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
CHIS DECIS19iN ftfTYrE OFFIgEHpg THE'C�SID&RIPAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
u RS.ANT TO M.ASS. GENERAL LF.'.YS, CHAPTER 805, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OF, SPECIAL PERS;IT
(-RANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT U1-;TIL A COPY OF THE.DECISION. SEA=:N,. THE CE-T.
HCAfICN OF THE CITY CLER.1 THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAF?`_D AND NO A?PEAL H?S BEEN FILED,
OR 1HAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS EEEN DISi.'.ISSED OR CEi;IED IS .,
RECORDED 1N THE SOUTH ESSEX RE''-ISIRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER. THE IiAdiE OF THE OWNIER
OF RECORD OR IS,RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
Ctv of ttlem, ttssttchu$etts ��/
'<, "•_ :_� s �axra of ��ett1
PETITION OF SALEM HARBOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. (PETITIONER) ,
MARCELLA & GLORIA CABRERA (OWNERS) , FOR VARIANCES FOR 24 WARD ST.
A hearing on this petition was held January 15, 1986 with the foljowwhg ard �Dr
Members present: Ed Luzinski, Acting Secretary; Messrs. , Charna , caB &02 PH 00
LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and otherfshnotices of
the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in rdance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. CITY C=•'R ; CzFK,HASS.
Petitioner requests Variances from density and parking requirements to allow a
two family dwelling in this R-3 district, as shown on a plan submitted to the
Board. Marcella and Gloria Cabrera are owners of the premises.
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 . The premises is a very small lot in a residential area;
2. The premises has no on-site parking;
_ r
3. Without the requested Variances, there is no financially viable use
which can be made of the premises;
4. Petitioners proposed use of the premises, as a means of increasing low
income home ownership in the neighborhood, would be a substantial
benefit to theneighborhood and to the City of Salem as a whole.
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 Ordinance would involve substantial hardship
to the petitioner; and
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HARBOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CORP. (PETITIONER) , MARCELLA & GLORIA CABRERA (OWNERS) FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 24 WARD ST. , SALEM
page two
3. The relief requested may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good or 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, 4-0, to grant the relief
requested, provided that:
1 . Each of the two proposed units be owner occupied; s
2. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
VARIANCES 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 R,.ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE
CEI'ER AL LA.19S, CHA?TEP. EDS, AND SHALL DE FLED V..!THIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILCi�
OF THIS DEMION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. cpCl..L pc�,�•,.T
Pff^ IT TO t:tASS. CE""RAL LS 5 CFFE'iEU1Tl P. COPY NOFITHECECIS A CE 0.,
'�
6nS' - v NEF�I N, SWILL G_7 Ta n Cgyc ti",VE CLS°SEC AND I;C A F"AL H,'S D E" FILE[).
H C:Aip. F HE �nY Ci R;. 1- 2_
-r T. F $UCH AN APPE:L H EEE;; FILE. THAT fT HAS`6 EE': DI . SaCO CR .CD i
INDEXEDAND k.
OF CRECORD!ORT S RrLUM
ECORDED SAN DR NOTED,ON FTHECDS OV;N R'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
SE CF THE O.,i,:
BOARD OF APPEAL
n
C—
O O
m N
a �
S Z
h m
�' 0'f
S °covn44 L
(I�i#v of ttlem, ttssttcliuse##s '4
3 Poxrb of '4FV l
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHINA SQUARE PARTNERSHIP
FOR VARIANCES FOR 118 WASHINGTON ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held May 21 , 1986 6to th3� Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Mess , 8�c
, Fleming, ' ii, Strout
and Associate Member Dore. Notice of the heari �EWs sent to abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properlych4b1ished in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with .Massachusetts General Law 6iapterl4_N.VAS&
Petitioner, owner of the property has requested variances from all applicable
density requirements and from minimum parking requirements to allow rehabilitation
of the property known as the Peabody Block and the Post Office Building and to
construct a new building to provide seventy five (75) condominium units and
approximately 12,000 square feet of office space in this B-5 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;
•' 1• 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 the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1.. -No opposition;
2. Salem Redevelopment Authority was in favor;
3. The Salem Planning Department was in favor;
4. Petitioner submitted detailed plans to improve the area including
the addition of ninety (90) parking spaces at considerable expense
to himself;
5. Proposed building would be a marked improvement to the area and
the downtown in general.
i One the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
I � Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
i
. i 1 . Special conditions exist which affect the property in question but do
not especially affect the district in general;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
work a substantial hardship on the petitioner;
e _
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHINA SQUARE PARTNERSHIP FOR
VARIANCES FOR 118 WASHINGTON ST. , SALEM
1 page two
i 3. 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 unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
variances requested from Table III, B-5 density, paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10,
and variance from parking requirements and to allow construction of ninety (90)
parking spaces with a minimum area of 815" x 18'
The above Variances are granted under the following terms and conditions:
1 . Ninety (90) parking spaces be deeded in connection with ownership
of the residential development;
2. Developer work with the Building Inspector to protect the present
tenants and not impede unreasonably with businesses that presently
exist at the location;
3. Developer meet all requirements of fire and building code and any
other City Ordinances and Codes;
4. Site Review and Design Review of the entire development and any
other applicable City Board and Commissions;
• 5. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for the entire project,
-- both residential and commercial
VARIANCES GRANTED
'`�r�J
Peter Strout, Member Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
� EAL FRp?L THIS DECISION. IF ANY. S+!ALL BE h°,P.DE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE A1r.SS.
A=?ERAL LAH'S. CHAPTER SOS. AND SHALL EE FILCD SAITHUI 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILE; 'u
rr OH SPECIAL PER',:IT
G THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLEE'�(. rc^-
PIQSANT D !'!ASS. CE!IERA'_ 1.41iS. CHAFER 595. 11. THE'4A 141CE.. ,_ i,HE _nr
'tri r r A COPT' OF THE=' LL! HAS EEEi FLED,
�cnL�ED HE^n a. SH. L� Ni-", EFFECT v � J !C, PF'
AT v
^F TH= rck(. htT 29 T�r.l� W vHA, IT BEN D S acD DP, L:':'.ED IS
.:R THAT IF Su A:: APPEAL NTJ ELL F F t IG JEXED UN0 F THE f.AeiE OF THE O'NGER
\ LECCRDED IN THE SO'J1H ESSEX REC(S' 1' Cr CEEUS A
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER CERTIFICATE BOARD TITLE.
APPEAL
` R
N.r o>my (Q
of Salem, ttssttc�usQ##s
PDarb of ' FFpv 1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD E. TURNER, JR. & SR.
FOR VARIANCE FOR 19 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH
A hearing on this petition was held Jun;& 18A 1Q 6 with the following Board Members
present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairm L M@ss{{ Z5*M, Fleming and Strout.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abut and others an notices of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Law Chapter 40A. CITY CL Rr S,i cN.M1if,
Petitioners, owners of the property known as the Turner Inn, are requesting Variances
from side and rear setback requirements in order to construct egresses from the
second and third floors. Property is located in an R-2 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especial-.,,7 affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are nct generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the sane district;
• l 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 the plans presented, the Board of Appeal makes the
following findings of fact:
1 . Requested egresses are mandatory to meet state and local building
and fire codes;
2. There was no neighborhood opposition.
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 no affect other properties in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
• 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent or purpose of the Ordinance.
y
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD E. TURNER, JR. & SR. FOR
A VARIANCE FOR 19 WASHINGTON SO. N. , SALEM
page two
j Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the relief
requested, subject to the following terms and conditions:
1 . Rear egress to be no closer than one foot bordering the rear
of Kimbal Court;
2. Staircase in the front to be no closer than five feet bordering
Kimbal Court;
3. All conditions set forth in previous decision are to be upheld;
VARIANCE GRANTED
Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION E=S BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL PRO". THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PLRSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAW'. C`:'=PTER 594, AND SHALL BE FILED C;ITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
i'URSANI TO :' -_ 6_ttER^i LPS1S. CHAPTER SOS, SEC'ii,N 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
GRANTED F.Ei.E S9',1: t;7 TP✓;E EF,-ECT UNTIL A C' Y OF THE DECISIO.'i. BEARING THE CERT-
-FICATION Ci ?',- viii CLER THAT 20 DPAS HAVE EL.':i'9ED r" NO APPEAL HAS DEEN FILED.
OR THAT. IF SLC:, AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAI IT HAS BEEN DIS:LISSED OR DCiJiED IS
RECORDED IN THE S07H ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWN'ER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
of ;$ttlrm, ttssttclj se##s
;,, � �axrD of �1�ett1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NORMAN LABRECQUE AND RICHARD MARRS
FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 25 WASHINGTON SQ. TIOT 32�) '0E
A hearing on this petition was held May 28, >. brith the following Board
Members present : James hacker, Chairman; Ric a Bencall, Secretary; Messrs,
Fleming and Luzinski. Notice of the hearing &tLSQntQ E b tters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly publishet�in the f AU Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting a Special permit to allow four family dwelling
in the R-2 zone district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this permit
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 that the
existing conconforming 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 plasn, makes the following findings of fact.
1 . There was neighborhood opposition.
2. Addition of this many units will make the parking problem
exacerbate.
3. Parking plans does not seem compatible for area.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-4 to deny the
petitioner the relief requested.
SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED
JAMES B. HACKER, CHAIRMAN
MAM
AA �YFd@ TWi�I1cU1 GIBIrt7N Me �EQ3TPEFENT�I� tF�IryIOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
,.•• GENERAL LAWS C73 a ",
YS
OF THIS G -S'G in. idc i CLLP 6.
l THE `i A CF OR SPECIAL PERMIT
- P'i ii4 i iU ::-OS c '.3�. ., ..-1 Z �.�.�., ':-i i L ..''.;li. - Th. C_RT-
_,. 1.
,...., 7 ` ,ciF, l 'UL Fi:'i � C�T � � _., FILED,
F '�ial CLLR;; 1
p :n IF c.';:: A'i APPEAL H li .l
RE—:",DED L. Ti, 5-eiH ESSEX RE, Sirci a _w '-�!�
„EJ h D,, FH° NAJE OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNERS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
g0AR0 OF APPEAL
i
,btt� of �ttiem, � c�55tIt�1T5Pt8
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT OUELLETTE FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 3 WHITE ST.
A hearing on this petition was held July 16, 1986 with th��fg1Tr�)�A�hMembers
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming an Luzinski. otice
of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and noticiFp_p4 the hearing were
properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordangg- with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A. CITY PLL 1.*t[r!,MASS
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to restore and
rebuild structure within the confines of the existing foundation for use as a
single family dwelling in this B-1 district.
The Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, that there is substantial difference
between this petition and a petition submitted and subsequently denied on
February 26, 1986. The Board will hear the petition.
The provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions
• ' set forth in Section VIII F 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, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Parking is available;
2. Single family will conform to lot area;
3. Prior building was a single family in poor condition, new
building constructed on existing foundation would be a welcome
improvement to the neighborhood;
\ 4. If single family is not constructed this lot would be worthless.
DECISION ON THE PETIITON OF ROBERT OUELLETTE FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 3 WHITE ST. , SALEM
page two
• j 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 be in harmony with the neighborhood and will
promote the convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants;
2. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment and
without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or
purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the relief
requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . A minimum of one (1 ) parking space must be maintained on site;
2. Building is to set on exact foundation as shown on plan;
3. Applicant must surrender building permit for two family;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
)aures B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNINGOBOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
:.PPEAL FROM THlS DECISION- G F"1'!. SF;ALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO
SECT!"�' 11 DF T7!E
,PPEAL F OMLA� S. CHAPTER US. A:(D SH''-L �E F'LE'A 'idl'4!Y. 20 DABS A.-ER THE DATE C� RLI:i�
pa, DF TPt CCI�T)'C C�LCRH' ,;. TPc I I ;i.E P r1-L F:'.IT
OF THIS DELIS 0'' I' THE 0 CE L _ T
Yv. .1,.. IU
i.g rf4
IS
E 'i I ti c c is i GF 7H
EDc
P
.lJ n.u. �G �cD
CERTIFI .. E OF TITLE.
IG ,, y_ ..--SD I`.; - .c c c - '' ter, THc 01rM1 R'S
OF FECLP,D OR IS REGORDED AND !"'" BOARD OF APPEAL
5
r
flit of $alem, � ttssttcf�u�etts
'3 3
+ ��J �axrD of r'�p�enl
i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT OUELLETTE FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR 3 WHITE ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held February 26, 1�$6 Vhhe f.Q1;Ruing
Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Me 6 CA r�fls<;1BEAcal,
Strout and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the bearing was sent
to abutters and others and notices of the hearing vfAk*properly published
in the Salem Evening News in accordance with MassaeM,� .F ,,Gej�eLrhplk s
Chapter. 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to recon-
struct a two story building and to add a third story within the same footprint
in this B-1 district . _
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this
request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions
set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations
and reconstruction on nonconforming structures, and for changes,enlargement
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and
uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement ,
or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
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 . Petitioner destroyed more than 50% of the building;
2. Several neighbors and abutters appeared and spoke in favor
of the petition;
3. Abutting fraternal organization and its members spoke in opposition';
4. There is not sufficient parking on this small lot.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
•}� 1 . The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good.
2. The proposed plan is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of
the ordinance and will not promote the safety and welfare of the
City' s inhabitants.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT OUELLETTE FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 3 WHITE ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, against granting
the Special Permit requested.
SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED
aures B. Hacker, Chairma
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERY.
00
FRO'.! TH'S DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 DF THE
EOE. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILM!
. S DFC:S:' ' I': Ti'" C".':5i OF THE CITY CLERK. .
-.n
r, I=.. i. -.TEB E08 S-CT!,N 11. THE VAR;AF E OR S' :lAL PERAiIL '
T 0 + c:,12I BEAT .
ALL 0I`1 C_.h.' .9 L..;S h, ` iA SEO :': fiq AFFEAL H E_ F'_0.
6'r:. ;F:kT, ;F.SL'CH A:'d A.FPE9L H=S. BEE;) RLE. THA'.' 1T .11 6Ed� O!£-^!oSE.^, Cn 0_.6:� IS
RE-::P.CED IN THE SC"I'H ESSJ: R.—iSTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE 1';A%:E OF THE 0'ii Fi ER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O19NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
C�
of ,`�ttlem, � ttssttcl�usetts
Poxrb of �ppral
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND EMERY Fk{ ;A70 p e r
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 12 WILLOW AVE. , SALEM _ '+
A hearing on this petition was held March 19, ?M . and continued until April
16, 1956, with the following Board Members present: James. H3cker, Chairman;
Messrs. , Bencal, Charnas, 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,has .requested. a Special- Permit to convert an
existing two family into a three family in this R-1 district.
At the request of petitioner's Counsel, Attorney George Vallis, the Board of
Appeal voted unanimously to allow petitioner to withdraw without prejudice.
WITHDRAWN _
i
r»�
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
APPEAL FRCS THIS OECISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTMON 17 OF THE II!.tSS.
CH i:E =.L LR,:S. C:'IAPTE EDE. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF RLING
OF THIS DEO:S:=:! Ui THE OFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
F�?::UIT T^ .!A'S. CEIi E. -:L Lni.S. CHAPTER EC2, STMT;;I 11, THE VARI:.t:CE OR SPECIAL PER'd IT
'1 :;;ED HER.E!!;. SHALL RDT TARE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DELIS!`::. 'i_ ,;; THE CERT-
- ^'F THE CITY CLERK ;HF.T 20 DAYS HA,E ELAPSED AND NO ;.Tp--;L Hr'-S BEEN FILED,
:V3. IF S'JC5 ANAPPEAL HAS 6EEN FILE THAT IT HAS BEEN L'IS':I'SED CR DENIED IS.
RP:JRDED IiJ THE S„UTH ESSEX REGISTRY C: DEEDS AND INDEXED U1,1-F THE !:Aloli OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
(fit oflem, � tt�stttf��zsefts
. ;fir =`; �nttrD of c�?�ettl
,;�.� •.I CII ���
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JPS REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIAid_FE„ 0ss
.OR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 3 WINTER ST. C
11
A hearing on this petition was held November 12, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. ,Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and
Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the
hearing Dere properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Variance or Special Permit to convert a four unit
building into a five unit condominium building in this R-2 district.
At the request of petitioners Counsel, Jacob Segal, the Board of Appeal voted
unanimously, 5-0, to allow Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice.
WITHDRAj•;N
Rf,chard A. Bencal, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
1:
ofttlem, Itt�sttcusetts
Paurb of }pea!
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALLY FLINT FOR A VARIANCE
FOR 7 WINTER STREET, SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held January 15, 1986 and continued until February
26, 1986 with the following Board Members present: KiRmP� H 15e���[}�lirman; Messrs. ,
Bencal, Charnas, Luzinski and Associate Member LaBrecque. otii�c Io he hearing
was sent to abutters and others and notices of the F*_j*ng were properly published
in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
CITY CLEF!. S"-!,EH,MASS-
Petitioner,owner of the property, is requesting a Variance to allow a lodging house/
inn in this R-2 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands , buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise; to the petitioner; and
• C. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence
presented at the hearing, and after viewing the property, makes the following
findings of fact:
1 . Several neighbors and abutters spoke in favor of this petition; .
2. There was no opposition;
3. This is a stately historic structure and cannot be maintained by
the current owner, who has owned this property for over twenty years,
because of the exorbitant heating costs due to the size of the rooms.
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 building but do not
affect the the district generally;
2, Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to the petition;
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to
public good or without substantially derogating from the intent or
purpose of the Ordinance.
c,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALLY FLINT FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 7 WINTER ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variance requested on condition that:
i • Parking for fifteen ( 15) cars be maintained in the rear as
shown on plans;
2. Premises remain owner occupied;
3. Continental breakfast only may be served;
4 . Maximum of ten ( 10) rooms to be let;
5: No letting of rooms prior to licensing of premises or before a
Certificate of Occupancy is obtained.
VARIANCE GRANTED
•� Fames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF Fi LINO
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PUFSAGT TO WASS. GENERAL M.'S, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIIL FER":i
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISU.'!. BEARIR' TF- CE�T-
FICn^JN OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HOVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS EEE:, FEED,
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISSMiSSED OR DE:;ED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA'LE C; THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
Ctu of ttlPm, ttSsttt�uSe##�
f .
Pourb of �Fpral
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 50 WINTER ISLAND ROAD
A hearing on this petition was held May 14, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker,. Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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 City of Salem Park & Recreation Commission, as petitioner, requests a Special
Permit to allow overnight camping of not more than sixty (60) recreational vehicles
on Winter Island during the summer months for a period of two years. 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,
makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The proposed use 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.
2. The past performance of the owners of the recreational vehicles that
utilize Winter Island has proven to be .excellent.
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 -i's in
harmony with the Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board voted unanimously,5-0,
in favor of granting the Special Permit requested in accordance with the
following terms and conditions:
an 1 . Overnight camping of not more than sixty (60) recreational vehicles at
one time shall be permitted during the period May 1 , to October 15, 1986
and May 1 , to October 15, 1987;
2 The lcsnation of the recreational vehicles shall be approved by the Salem
c;�)Fire Pplevention Bureau to guarantee access by fire fighting apparatus; .
J
SPECIAL HERMIT GRANTED
APPEAL FRO!d THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SAA'LL 6toMROE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OFT MASS.
� >
CHAPTER 606, AND SHA11iBE Ey,.E,D� bTHIN 20 DAYS AFTE
tYrY c
/ • IECiSiON IN THE OFFICE OPIRE CLERK. ames B. Hacker, Chairman
\ .0 MASS. GENERAL LA'h' IT
$ CHAPTER 608, SECTION 11 , THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER,
GF.h,.O HEREIN, SHALLAN;,GQ�IYE rEC 1�7S7LrAF1rOk1��P�fii�BSIB.'EB�'II.. 'LBII WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE .CITY CLERK
FICATION CF THE CIi ' CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO AFPEAL HAS BEEN FiLEO,
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THgT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF MUS 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
(liifg of Salem, 4ttssttcljuseffs j 7�
• .17%57, Pnarb of �kppral
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ADA & DONALD ROBERTS (PETITIONERS)
VICTOR MAZZARINI (OWNER) FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE.
FOR 242' WINTER STREET, SALEM
MAY 12 3 03 PH
A hearing on this petition was held April 3 1986 with the Following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; MSS s. , Charnas, Luzinski, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearirt)g. was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly pu is ed in tYt�M' �e Ec=_ning News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit and Variance to allow a Bed &
Breakfast Tourist Home and a Variance from minium parking requirements in this
R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable tq this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as folles:s:
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 reconsEruction of non-
conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension
or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement, or
expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit requestmay 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 or the purpose of the Ordinance.
(011
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ADA & DONALD ROBERTS (PETITIONERS)
VICTOR MAZZARINI (OWNER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND%VARIANCE FOR
20P WINTER STREET, SALEM
page two
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and
after viewing the plans', makes the following findings of fact:
1 . This is a heavy residential area;
2: Many neighbors were in opposition;
3. Several people were in favor;
4. Parking requirements could not be met;
5. Serious problem with traffic as it exists, this would only
exacerbate the problem.
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 and without nullifying or sub-
stantially derogating from the intent of the district or the
purpose of the Ordinance;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of. the Ordinance would
not involve substantial hardship to petitioners;
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Luzinski voted in favor)
against granting the petitioners the Special Permit and Variance requested.
DENIED
1 �z ff
Peter Strout, Member Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
AFFEAL FRONT THIS DECISION, IF AN9ASS
Y, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE t .
G EilERF.:. LA::S. CHAPTER SOS. A\D SHALL BE FILED 171'.HVIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE ^FF::E CF i:iE CI^' CLERi
PGR:"RT T i,.�SS. :Lii ERA'_ L`. i3. Ci.�FT_R SCS. SECi!?Il 11. THE VARIANCE0R SPECIAL FER:SIT
T'L t. COFY OF TRE i C - . i, EEA THE CERT.
L Hr, r!; FIIED,
FIC I is C Tc C G r r ..i IT r di Du .. D IS_
OR H T, IF Si; H I APPE. !' ..
REC''6T_D IN Th; a U,H ES - fir ,;iE . - _EP` n.il I ,UJ:D Ur_ER THE NA:,.E OF THE OWriEC
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND pt„ED ON TFE O,`iNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPAL