Loading...
APPEALS DECISIONS 1987 � �� � ��7 �� r BOARD OF, APPEAL DECISION--, 1987 - ADDRESS PETITIONER PAGE • 21 Arbella St . Janet Fraser 1 2 Balcomb St . - Charles Brett 2 122 Bay View Ave. - Everett Dawkins, Jr. 3 19 Becket St. Michael Spector 41 7 Belleview Ave. - - - Andre J. 14orin ` . 5. 75 Boston St . - - Dean T. Boucher - 6. 100-102 Boston St; Gary A. Nadeau 7. 100-102 Boston St. Donald R. Burnham. 8. 165 Boston St . Judith Gianareles 9. E 165 Boston St. ., Judith .Gianareles - 10. 5 Brentwood Ave. Charlotte A. Shea 11 . Cor. bridge & Ash Sts.. Salem Housing Authority 12. 3 Bridge STreet - Richdale DAiry 13. 19 Bridge St. Paul Fraser 14. 25 Bridge St. Jean & Evelyn Palardy 15. 37 Bridge St . John Maye 16. 64 Bridge St . William D. Little 17. ,• 89 Bridge St. Gail DeForrest 18. 107 Bridge St . Ron Trippett 19. 132 Bridge St . Shirley & Mickey Benson 20 151 Bridge St . Julianne Kallas 21 313 Bridge ST. Joseph E. Griffith, Jr. 22. 333 Bridge St . Joseph & Edmond Morneau 23 333 Bridge St. Stanley Tarnowski 24 3 Broad St . - Salem Housing Authority 25 14- 16 Buchanan Rd-. Albert 7 Yvonne Dumas 26. 20 Buena Vista Ave. Arthur & Elissa Simard 27. 4 Burke St. Raymond McDaid 28. 1-3 Cabot St. Dana P. Lothrop 29. 18 Carlton st . Phyliss Olbrych 30. 31-33 Cedar St. Leon Jalbert 34. 12 Cedarcrest AVe. Jean Poirier 32 16 Cherry Hill Ave. Paul & Marie Buonfiglio 33. 2 Cheval Ave. Richard Bresnahan 34. • 6 Cheval Ave. Thomas P. Stevens 35. Clark Ave. David & Paul Colpitts 36. 5 Clark St. Paul Searle 37. 7 Clark St . David Ferragamo 38. BOARD OF APPEAL DECISION - 1987 Page Ewo • ADDRESS PETITIONER PAGE 9A Cleveland Rd. Ext. David & Kerry Fladger 39. 9 Colby -St : . Richard Conway & Charles Brennan 40. Colonial Rd. Hamblet & Hayes CO. 41 . 92 Columbus Ave. William & Sallie Cass 42. 29 Congress St . Shetland Properties 43. 100-102 Congress ST. Salem Harbor Comm. Devlop. 44. 142 Derby St . Jonathan Reardon 45. 142. Derby 9t . Jonathan Reardon 46. 1 Devereaux Ave. Ilene Talkowsky 47. 23 East Collins St. Joan McCarthy 48. 5 Emerald Ave. John & Kathleen Walsh 49. 11 Essex St. Scott Keaton 50. 20 Essex St . Michael & Debra Cardella 51 . 46'2 Essex St . Jacqueline Hemeon 52. 69 Essex St . Maria L. Marquez 53. • 96 essex St. R. Aimee Benoit 54. 203-209 Essex St. Endicott Rlty Trust 55. 234 Essex St. Urban Action Dev. Group 56. 331 Essex St . Frederick D. Small 57. 331 Essex st . Frederick D. Small 58. 397 Essex St. Vincent McGrath 59. 122 Federal St. Margaret Twoohey & Darrow Lebovici 60. 31 Flint St. John & Marjorie Ross 61 . 33-35 Forrester ST. James Harrison 62. ,rye �'ntN,L pntoinl 10a� 77 R Fort Ave. Mary T. Carroll 63. 9 Foster St . Michael L'Italien 64. 12 & 14 Foster ST. Richard Lutts 65. 19 Gables Circle Gaetano A. Stocco 66. 18 Herbert ST. Raymond L. Young 67. 74 highland Ave. Acquistion 1987 Trust 68. 81 Highland Ave. Salem Hospital 69. 103 Highland Ave. William & Thomas Katsapetsas 70. • 111 Highland Ave. Edward Zarohian 71 . 114 R. Highland Ave. Robert D. Farley 72. 333 Highland Ave. Philip, Mary & Thomas Mcauliffe 73. 333 highland Ave. Philip, Mary & Thomas Mcauliffe 74. BOARD OF APPEAL DECISION - 1987 Page three • ADDRESS PETITIONERS PAGE 382 Highland AVe. John P. Keane, Jr. 75. 441-445 Highland Ave. Extra Space Assoc. 76. 50-52 Howard ST. Thomas Pelletier 77. 18 Intervale Rd. George & Michelle Girard 78. 210 Lafayette St . Calvin Mugford 79. 441 Lafayette St/ Marquis Magee 80. 95 Lawrence St . Napoleon LeBlanc 81 . 89 Leach St. Jean-Guy Martineau 82. 94 Leach St . Richard Dedschene 83. 47 Leavitt & 50 Palmer Sts. John Keefe 84. 3 Leval Road Leon B. Kostan 85. 4 linden St . Bruce & Jeannette McLaughlin 86. 181, Linden St . Joan & Paul Price 87. 410 loring Ave. Michael Fusco 88. 5 Maple Ave. Alice L. Johnson 89. 18 Maple Ave. Christos Lirantonakis 90. • 152 marlborough rd. Thadeous & Felicia Weaver 91 . 163 marlborough Rd. John & Maureen Ouellette 92. Lot 475,Margin St . City of Salem 93. 13� Meadow St . H. Drew Romanovitz 94. 4 Moffatt Rd. Marilyn Maguire 95. 68 Moffatt Rd. John & Frances Nutting 96. 6 Nichols & 12 Hansen Sts. Brentwood Structure Inc. 97. 6 Nichols St . 6 Nichols St. Rlty Trust 98. 38 Nichols St . Robert E. Gauthier 99. 141 R. North St . J.B. Herbert Assoc. 100. 9 Northey St. James 5 Catherine Adams 101 . 19 Oakland St . Robert & Helen Abraham 102. 24 Ocean Ave. Mary Adams & Vincent Dowd 103. 173 Ocean ave. Lionel Pelletier 104. 11-13 Oliver St. Joseph L. Jones 105. 25 Osgood St. Mary Coughlin 106. 31-33 Osgood St . Frederick & Geraldine Ayers 107. • 10 Paradise Rd. Bursaw Realty Trust ` 108. 7-9 Piedmont St. _ David perkins 109. 31 Pierce Rd. Steven Hensley 110. '� 10 Pleasant St. Alden Quirk, Jr. Ill . J J BOARD OF APPEAL DECISION - 1987 Page Four ADDRESS PETITIONERS PAGE 2 Prospect Ave. Michael Benevento 112. 12 & 14 Porter St . Paul & Paula Lavoie 113. 11 Preston Rd. Richard D. Sanford 114. 8 Ravenna Ave. Richard & Cheryl Krisko 115. 7 Roslyn St. Manuel & Olivia Machado 116. 4 Saltonstall Parkway Byron & Marrguerite Alpers 117. 5 School St. City of Salem 118. 5 School St. City Of Salem 119. 14 Scotia St . Richard & Kathleen Plante 120. 1 Smith Ave. Patrick J. Farrell 121 . 7-9 Stearns Pl. Peter & Janet George 122. 59 Summer St. C. Theodore Sillars 123. 83-83'2 Summer St. Anthony C. Takis 124. 8 Taft Rd. James Burkinshaw 125. 10 Tremont St. Constantinos Georgakis 126. 22 Tremont St. Thomas & Michael McGinn 127. • 31 Union St. Raymond L. Young 128. 24 Valley St . Petro Theophilopoulos 129. 44 Walter St . Helen Jiadosz 130 23 Warren St. Stephen M.Limon 131 . 25 Washington Sq. , No. George Gagnon 132. 60-62 Webb St. Richard & William Quirk 133. 32 Webb st . James & Beatrice Rudolph 134. 6-8 Wheatland St . Charles L. Brett 135. 34 Willson St . Roger & Sandra Tremblay 136. 3 Winter St . JPS Realty Trust 137.- • �%. �. ONoegs alert, �ttssrz�llusp#�� • �� nttr� of c�yyvd Bff*§hyq:#,w • DECISION ON .THE,PETITION OF JANET FRASER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR: 21 ARBELLA ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 29, 1987 with the followiniz Board'Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal,. Luzinski and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance;:with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner,, owner of the property, is .requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request 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 non- conforming-;s;tructures,and for changes, enlargement„extension or expansion of non- conforming lots; land, structures and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension;, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board 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 major opposition; 2. Previous denial of this plan was due to an .unworkable parking plan; .3.. Current plan, as modified, has addressed the parking 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 granting of the Special Permit requested will .promote the safety, convenience and welfare of the City's, inhabitants; 2. The proposed three family dwelling will not be substantially detrimental to the public good and will not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JANET FRASER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 21 ARBELLA ST. , SALEM page two t Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Parking for five (5) vehicles, legal sized spaces, must be maintained on site as shown on plan submitted and modified for spaces number 3,4 & 5. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. must be adhered to; 3. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction; 4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. 5. Property must be owner occupied at all time. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED /dames B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECIWN, A_dv, SHALL DE MAD' PURSUANT TO SECTICN 17 OF THE :''iA33. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER SCS, AND SHIALI E' "9 WITHIN 20 DAY'S AFTER 1'HE DATE CE OF THIS DECISION IN THE GFFI';E SF THE C: CLERK. PURSANT TO 'FAGS. G� L;'. .. '.'„ 'il0il it. THECr, FP-C: rE2?.111 GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL a, T:'.�(E T OF TFIE -.T- FICATiON OF THE CI-il L 'P;AT i; !;:• .� -i r.r OR THAT IF E'-Lh AN APPEAL HAS E .. .. EE711 RECGHDED IN THE SCJ H ESSEX R -IS-Ri OF �E ' - - ED jNDEHErIA61E uc iiiE L: :tER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND HUED ON THE 0-,71NER"S i;ERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL 1 k Titg of ttlem, ttssttcllusecc s 3 8 ai b!4 8 ftu4f Pourb 0{ �kppvd CITY CLB$f..•SALEW.FIA55. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES BRETT FOR VARIANCES AT 2 BALCOMB STREET (B-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held September 30, 1987 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, represented by Attorney George P. Vallis, is requesting Variances from lot size and rear & side setbacks to allow construction of three townhouse units in this B-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; • c. desirable relief may be granted iwhtout 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 proposed three units would be of a lessor use than other uses that are allowed in a B-1 district and would be better for the neighborhood; 2. The existing building on the property is in serious disrepair and the proposed changes would upgrade the neighborhood; 3. There was support from the neighbors for this project. 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 in general; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; • 3. The relief requested can be granted without detriment to the public good and without nullifying or derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. c Y� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES BRETT FOR VARIANCES FOR 2 BALCOMB ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Building to be constructed and landscaped in strict accordance with the plans submitted to the Board; 2. Trees currently existing on the east sideline must be preserved and maintained; 3. Property numbering be obtained from the City Assessor; 4. All work be done in accordance with allow State and Local building codes; 5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau be adhered to; 6. Parking be in accordance with plans submitted; 7. A building permit be obtained; 8. A Certificate of Occupancy for each unit be obtained. GRANTED • ames B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. APPEAL FRO.' THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 805. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILIN- OF THIS DECISIOir' IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO ^^/.ASS. GEiiERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 805. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER.'11T GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TARE EFFECT UNDL A COPY OF THE OECISION. BEARING THE CERT- MATION OF THE CITY CLER% THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS".;ISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED Iii THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF LEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE O''NNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • DEC 15 3 04 Ph '67 Ct " of ttlem assac use##g t : � � l � � -FILE'S oxrb of tral ITY CLERK, S!LE4. Md45S. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EVERETT DAWKINS JR. FOR A VARIANCE FOR 122 BAY VIEW AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held December 2, 1987 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 request a variance to allow an existing two family dwelling and a variance from parking. 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 Ordinance would involve a substantial hardship to the petitioner; • c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intend of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition; 2. Evidence submitted showed the property had been a two family since 1936. 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 a substantial hardship on 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 and the purpose of the Ordinance. • 1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EVERETT DAWKINS, JR. FOR A VARIANCE FOR 122 BAY VIEW AVE. , SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Bencal voted present) to grant the relief requested, on condition all requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau are met. 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 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 DECISICt; IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PJRSAF'E TO '4%SS. CENERAL LAFVS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER%1IT CRANTED HEREI6. SHALL NOT TA4:E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISC�N. SE.ARiNG THE CERT FiL 4.i N OF 7HE CITi CLERK THA; 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AN-) NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FRED, OR )HAT, IF Sl.' . Al APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAI IT :t:3 BEEN DIS.,,:;SSED OR DENIED IS RECCi;D O IN THE S, UTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS ANO INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE 01l111i1ER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • V•L rf."; +v1b .{n• Y !. `kS l •d"Y"rX' 6,eF•• S" � .,y}�, ,�`re��hyw 4'Tyi`ya. �yyy� RY }N A. ti S9 �5�+�. ��ki '4• )q Nf� Zy.ywy}r�V ��R y�: .� .. �'ta+b 4.YibiYT4i �i\2"tL _ JL� �6T°lY�. 6 (di#g of 'Salem' 'ffin66Z'r luse##4U It II io Lq '07 Y3 �DMrll of �ppvd... FILE# 5 \ +eal"INS CITY CLERK,SALEM.MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL SPECTOR FOR A VARIANCE AT 19 BECKET ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 27, 1987 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 allow property which does not meet density and setback requirements to be converted to a two family dwelling. The property is located in an R-2 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; \ b. literal enforcement of the provisions of,,the Zoning Ordinance would 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 opposition; 2. The driveway, which is a common driveway between 19 & 21 Becket Street, does not meet the requirement of the ordinance, 12 feet. 3. Petitioner proposes to cut two (2) feet off the building in order to enlarge said driveway, however, the driveway would still be too narrow. 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 and not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement 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 the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. r i • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL SPECTOR FOR A VARIANCE AT 19 BECKET ST. , SALEM page two ' •� Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one, 4-1 , against the granting of the requested variances. Mr. Fleming voted in favor. The request for a Variance is therefore denied. VARIANCE DENIED i Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK i I i APPEAL FROM THIS DECISIvN, ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE VACS. GENERAL LAYlS, CHAPTER 8JF. AND SHALL BE F._ Vi ITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS D`_CISON IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT) CLERK. PURSANT TO CLASS. CENE?Ai. iE.ilS, CHA.°TEP, 805. SECT!'-:: 11, THE VAP•IAiXE OR SPECIAL PER`flT GRAS DHS' SF'. LL i ' E' 'T 11-I L F COPA OF HE ,!S 4 - THE ERT- FILAT !, OF THE 71 C. F. P .AYS h cl. PIHD y.- A o HL H-. E'E FI E4 OR IHIF S,'I AN Ph 'L '' S 5 • RIE Th Il h BE_N DiS D OR P'' D IS P•ECOf. n IN 1'H_ S1-:H ESSD Rc OF „BEDS f.ND INDEXED Lie F .H_ kA'-c OF THE OV7N- OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED A!;D NOTE ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL i \ .• +.WN4I4� (9i#g of Salem, fflttssadjust"O Jut Z 8 23 ,M '8] 9 'l PDMtD of Appeal FILE • f �� "" °v CITY CLERK,SALEV. HgSS. / DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDRE J. MORIN FOR VARIANCES AT 7 BELLEVIEW AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held June 24, 1987 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. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from side yard setback to allow construction of a two story addition, also, a variance to allow a deck around an above ground pool in this R-1 zone. 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 involve 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; ` •, 1 c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the 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 . Opposition to the deck was raised by the nearest abutters; 2. No opposition was voiced to the addition; 3. The two story addition is necessary for family considerations; 4. While a hardship was presented for the addition, none was present, nor exists, for the pool deck. 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 involved 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 • r 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 ANDRE J. MORIN FOR VARIANCES AT 7 BELLEVIEW AVE. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the '' • Variance requested for the two story addition, subject to the following conditions: 1 . A legal building permit be obtained; 2. All construction to be done as per existing City and State Code; 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department in its letter to the Board be adhered to; 4. All outside building addition coverings are to be comparable with the existing building; . 5. Addition to be used for family use only; 6. A Certificate of Occupancy for the addition be obtained. The Board of Appeal also voted unanimously, 5-0, against the granting of a Variance to allow a deck as the petitioner failed to prove hardship. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION - GRANTED VARIANCE FOR DECK - DENIED oO � ! fi chi. ental, ecretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED YJITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, PURSANT TO MASS. CE';ERAL IA':J CHAPTER SOE. SFCTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL FER AT GRANTED HEREIN_ SHALL NO, IAnE EFFECT UFITIL A COPY OF THEDEC!S�C N, EE,-'s llfl IHC "ERT- FICATION OF THE CIT' CLER,i THAI 23 DAYS HWJE EIA?SED Aia i1 iC3 APPEAL HAS SEEIi FILED. OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT VS SEEN D;-,iSSED OR GER!E!: IS RECORDED IN THE SOUFH ESSEX RE3' STRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAk1E OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL I I • � t of "Sttlrm, 'Massar4usetts OCT ISI 3 24 PH X87 FIDE# s varb of �1p}'tA '<a.,,,.�m*' ©ITY Ci€J1K.SALEM.NAS.°.. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEAN T. BOUCHER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 75 BOSTON STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 5, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, 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 accord- ance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner, represented by Attorney George Vallis is seeking a Special Permit and Variance to allow four (4) residential units to be constructed on an undersized lot at 75 Boston Street, which 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 procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures,a nd for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, ,that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more • detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In mroe 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 hearing the evidence, and after viewing the plans presented, makes the following findings of fact: • 1 . No opposition to the petition was presented at the hearing; 2. Councillor at Large Robert Gauthier spoke in support of the petition, indicating that the proposed four (4) townhouses would be an appropriate development in one of the main entrance corridors of the City. i DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEAN T. BOUCHER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE AT 75 BOSTON STREET, SALEM: page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed development 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 of purpose of the Ordinance; 3. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 4. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial economic hardship to the petitioner. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Varaince and Special Permit, allowing the construction of four (4) residential units on the undersized lot, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All construction be done as per the plans submitted to the Board; 2. Fourteen ( 14) off street parking spaces be maintained, as per the parking plan submitted to the Board; • 3. A right of way from Putnam Street, allowing vehicular access, be created by deed, and properly recorded in the South District, Essex County Registry of Deeds; 4. All the requirements of the Salem Fire Department, relative to fire safety, be adhere to; 5. Proper numbering of the four (4) residential units be obtained from the Assessors Department, City of Salem; 6. All construction meet the requirements of the State Building Code; 7. Building be obtained from the Salem Building Inspector; 8. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each unit prior to occupancy; 9• The four (4) residential units have exteriors that blend with the existing neighborhood; 10. Al vehicular access and egress to and from the site be from Putnam Street, vehicular access and egress being prohibited to and from Boston Street.Street. VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED C "" APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, I; AIYY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SE ,"1 N 7 OF _ GENERAL LnY S CHAPTER 8G£ P D SHALL BE FI!EL ViIT HIC 20 DNY afes M Fleming, ESq. , ViC Chairman • THIS DECISION IN THE OF I P OF THE CITY CLFRn PU SANT iGA;;; ggP�E 1.�H�S DEf�w7©1tEHAB REENT x L STTAIINING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK i;P.r.Pt1 GD HERTZ v, Sd aLL WCi i. _ UIML A COPY OF TEL tic o � _ r` �`:.:_ PILED. FIL?t l:is OF 1'Hu C Y CLEP.f 7H. 20 U.3S ME ELS PS a Nu F ' H;= OR TH%1', If SUCK F4 APPEAL h. ''='1 E A Ii k 5 Eil D' Lf !% IS F,��D I: EED Ut.^- �h- OF THE .,V _ RECOnDED III THE SOUTH ESSL% Rc-ISIR, u- ..C.CS :, TITLE. OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AIID NCIEJ OH THE O'ANC EP'S CERTIFICATE BOARD OF APPEAL Ctv of �$ttlem, Anssuchusetts fy Poxra of �Apveal MAj 02 NN h`s OFFICE �....• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GARY A. NADEAU FOR AC9P$C{7.U(t PERMIT FOR 100-102 BOSTON STREET (B-2 & R-2) SALEM, MASS. A hearing on this petition was held on January 21 , 1987 with the following Board Members present; James Hacker, Chairman; 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 the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. The petitioner, represented by Attorney Phillip Moran, is requesting a Special Permit to operate a used car sales business. The intended use is not allowed by section V5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The location of the site in question is located for the most part in a B-2 District, and partially 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 V111 F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconformaing 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 detriment'althan the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. Y 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 one other than the petitioner, spoke in favor of the petition. 2. The petitioner was opposed by Raymond Morton, representing the abutting property, belonging to the Ancient Order of Hibernigns. 3. The petition was opposed by the City Planner, Gerald Kavanaugh, on the basis that Boston Street was an entrance corridor to the City and that the type of business proposed by the petitioner was not proper for said entrance corridor. On the :basis of the. above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: A , .l . The proposed addition will be substantially more detrimental. to X�1 the neighborhood. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GARY A. NADEAU FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 100-102 BOSTON STREET page 2 r 1 . The proposed addition will not promote the convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants; Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unamimously, 4-0, to deny the granting of the Special Permit . SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED James M Fleming, Esq. Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DE 01J-N, 6 .:;Y, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTIO! 17 OF !�!E S.! GENERAL LAMS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED Pi(THIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE Cff THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO WASS. CB;ERAL l.fS'!S, 0,1PTER 805, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPEC".IAL P,1! :1T GRAN(ED FER F-. SHALL v"i 'ii,!'E EF -.L UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISEIN EP - FICATION F 1PC C.!z ;'LFR' rti'•L 1 v HAVE ELAFSLD .1 N APPEAL HAS E'EN F '?. i!!!!; "`• UR THAT HF Su AL AP 11 'I LE. 4 T rL'LS B N D� 'IISoEf CR -a C) !� . RECOF: . iN TH S' JL4 ESS . R i <i OF ND 11-IDE%ED UIi DER THE 4A.AE LF llid - OF RECiRD OR IS REC.,RDED AND NW ED CN ( i u,, cR'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE BOARD OF APPEAL .,.y t � �,,.codoRl� t Titg of "ittfem, 'fflttssar4usetts z s Pnxrb of 4pml DEC 9 2 ss Py '8 FILE# DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD R. BURNHAM FOR VARIANCES AT 100-102 BOSTON ST. (R-2/B-2) CITY CLERK.SALEF,. MASS A hearing on this petition was held November 23, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming,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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from use, lot area, lot coverage, front yard depth, side yard setbacks, rear yard depth, height and parking to allow construction of eleven ( 11 ) residential units. Petitioner is also requesting a Variance from use to allow existing building to be used as an auto- mobile parts store. Property is located in an R-2/B-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; 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 . Parkin is at a premium in this neighborhood; g P 2. This is a main corridor into the City and is a highly congested area, the granting of this project would exacerbate this situation. 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 but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; ^� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD R. BURNHAM FOR VARIANCES FOR 100-102 BOSTON ST. , SALEM page two 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 4-1 against the granting of the requested variances (Mr. Labrecque voted in favor) . The motion to grant failed to carry the required four votes needed to pass, therefore, the petition is denied. VARIANCES DENIED Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROZ.1 THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE WADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 0: THE ASA�S. F NERAL LA'W'S, CHAPTER 803, AND SHALL BE FILED 'ilJIDJN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING GF ?Til$ DEC:S'O1. I'. THE DF>!CE OF THE CITY CLERK. r:EA'-eR Ln'. C4:°TPP. 803. S C !CI 11. P'E 1r-2 A-�C� OR �PEC�AL L'�RT�11T L! I �,..E EFFEr, GIT!L A C } OF THE DEMS cr s. f i' A_ H C r ; R'_ 0 H n. CI =D i4 L r ED IS r IF c - F,P? F c rHN F E I � . ,��U lig 1H. Sw fH ESSEX RE:,ISiki Gr -rEDa 'ND INDEXED U - R , E 0;..E OF THE OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE ONNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL i of 'Salem, Ansarlluse##s 2 q Poxrb of real ,IUM 3D 8 So �M 187 - DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JUDITH GIANARELES FOR VARIANCEL.E# AT 165 BOSTON ST. (B-2) CITY CLERK.SALEM.MASS. A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski 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 Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from density and setbacks to allow construction of a two story building and to use second floor of building for her business which is graphic designing. Property is located in a B-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 in- volve substantial hardship to the petitioner, financial or otherwise; 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 . Lot size is very small, 1 ,874+; 2. Applicants husband currently operates, under a previously granted Special Permit, a used car business at the location; 3. Incomplete plans were presented; 4. Property is used and can be used in its present condition; 5. No hardship was presented.' 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; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not involve substantial • hardship to the petiitoner; 3. 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. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JUDITH GIANARELES FOR VARIANCES FOR 165 BOSTON ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, against the granting of the requested variances. VARIANCES DENIED 1 /'James B. Hacker, Chairmaan A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 1 APPEAL FROM. THIS DECISION. IF A'IY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER SOs. A:,C SHALL EE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE 0r FILING OF THIS DECISION Hd THE OF:ICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSA:7T TO B"-S. GENERALLA:�S CHAPTER SOB. SECTI79 ll. THE VARIANCE OR SPEC14L PER;11T CRAP 1F II '�l�f nP. L N"-, i. Ft_LT UNTIL A COPY TH[DELI tF =RT' F u�c Atr N;l AF AL HAS CF.' I Ep, FICATIDN OF THE CI!1CLER6 ic;. 20 DAYa HAV_ OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL R"S SEEIJ FILE. iHA7 IT HFlS BEEN OIS-'.iSSED OR ncp;'OF T RECORDED If: THE SCUTH ESSEd. RE-ISTR'i OF DEEDS AND INDEY.ED UNDEF; F'-'L OF THE DV11y.P. OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL f ° Ti#g of ttlem, ttsstttljuse##s °� s �nxrA of ��eri! •< °�. `� DFc 9 2 sg PM '81 III w y, DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JUDITH GIANARELES FOR VARIANCEFILE# FOR 165 BOSTON STREET (B-2) CITY CLERK.SALEM.MASS. A hearing on this petition was held November 23, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, 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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from lot area, width, coverage, front yard depth, side and rear setbacks to allow construction of a two story building. The second floor will be used for graphic designing and the ground floor will be used for the purpose of storing automobiles that are part of the used car business which is presently allowed there by Special Permit. Property is located in a B-2 district. Petitioner was denied a Variance for this property on June 17, 1987• The Board of Appeal, after hearing evidence and after reading communication from., the Planning Director regarding substantial change, voted unanimously, 5-0, to re-hear this petition. The Variance which has been requested can be granted upon a finding of the Board that: . Jj1 a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally < affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the 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 opposition; 2. The proposed construction will be in keeping with the existing neighborhood; 3. Will not impact the traffic flow into the City. Boston Street is a main corridor into Salem. 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 i� but not the district generally; 1 , DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JUDITH GIANARELES FOR VARIANCES FOR 165 BOSTON STREET, SALEM page two 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 and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 , (Mr. Hacker voted in opposition) to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner obtain a building permit prior to construction; 2. Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau relative to fire safety; 3. Structure be built as per plans submitted to the Board; 4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained; 5. The granting of this Variance in no way expands or affects the Special Permit granted in 1983 regarding the sale of used cars. VARIANCES GRANTED ) Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK FROCI THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL DE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 0- T'-' -. _? ._:-;AL LA�'dS. CHAPTER £GS. AN', SHALL 1E RLEu V.:'i,:i. 20 DAYS AFTER THE DF.L E: 'JNG �.,.5 EC SM N IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLFRK. T. __. e[a6?S' UAPT=R CO2- SEC 'I 11, THE VA^,A:WE C _' -. -C.... FEREr . SH! L ., _.. EFRCT JIML N CC,-:: O` THE � . EE --_ CEET- ;ie P,Fi5 C!h CLEP T _., 2J 0 7� H-.'.'E Hl„ F-- - .. Al IF AN APPE," HAS. E.E% FILF THA i? . D!1.1JSSED OR L'E...== 1SJ EL' P—ED IN THE S:_iTH ESSEX RE=iSTFY - F DEHIS - D r- _F.ED :-JE.I THE n ...E _F THE 01 OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNERS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF AP?=."_ � (di#g of '$ttlem, Attssxr4use#fs 3s po$rb of �1IPM� '8) F,P, 28 N9 :1t DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLOTTE A. SHEA FOR A VARIANCE AT 5 BRENTWOOD AVENUE (R-1 ) CITY A hearing on this petition was held April 15, 1987 with the:ifoliowing: B " d 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 side yard setback requirements to allow construction of a two story addition, namely a one car garage with bedroom above. Property is located in an R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building. or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; 9 c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the \ •!% public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition to the plan; 2. The proposed addition 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 CHARLOTTE A. SHEA FOR A VARIANCE AT 5 BRENTWOOD AVENUE, SALEM Fs- 3 page two 1 - .r Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the requested variance, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All work comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. 2. Legal building permit be obtained; 3. Construction be done as per plans submitted; 4. Exterior to conform with existing house; 5. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. VARIANCE GRANTED ato�� Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal �• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRO!" THIS DECISICn I. 71 SHSHL`BEBFILE' WIMADE THIN 20N DAYS AFTER SECTION THE DATE HOF BILI NG GENERAL LAW'S. CH,.PTER 8_8• AN OF THIS DECISIO'r IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT.c C�LEIRKj 11 PF VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER?.71T PURSA.N( TO .':ASS. GEN ERA.I. LA'�15. EFFECT SOS. GRAIeTED HERE.;:. SHALL @01 TAi(E EFFECT Ut:TiL A COPY Of THE DEC!SIDn, BEAT BE= THE C•D, THAT IT HP.S BEEN DIS:iISS'D OR DENIED IS GRANFICAED OF THE SH CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPS'_D /u•iD NO APPEAL HFC 6E[id FILE OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HA EEE11 FILE AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAcSE OF THE OWNER RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RE,-ISTRY OF DEEDS OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL i :. '87 FEe 20 P ' '7 (fi#g ofttlem, ttss4 { se##s , Paxrb of �Vpr l y DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT AND VARIANCES AT THE CORNER OF BRIDGE & ASH STS. (B-5) A hearing on this petition was held January 14, 1987 with the following Board Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming 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 William J. Lundregan, are requesting a Comprehensive Permit to allow the construction of thirty five (35) elderly units, in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, Sections 21 to 23 inclusive, Variances from the rear setback and side yard require- ments of Table III, Section VI of the Zoning Ordinance, and a Variance from the parking requirements of Section VII of the Zoning Ordinance. The locus of the property is in a B-5 district. The Comprehensive Permit and 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 *A7 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 to the petition was presented ai the hearing; 2. Several City Officials spoke in favor of the petition; 3. The petition has the approval of the Salem Redevelopment Authority and the Salem Planning Department. 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; C' 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. f -; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT AND VARIANCES AT THE CORNER OFF BRIDGE & ASH STS. page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the • requested Comprehensive Permit and Variances, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1 . That all the requirements of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, design and otherwise, and those of the Salem Planning Department, be complied with by the petitioner; 2. That the building be constructed as per the plans sumitted to the Zoning Board of Appeal; 3. That all the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire prevention safety be adhered to by the petitioners; II 4. That all necessary building permits and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT AND VARIANCES GRANTED es M. Fleming, Esq. ember, Board of Appeal {' f A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK dPPL=L FRO;:! THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF TSE C F.I�SSAl LR'4S, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE Dn7i: OF .._ .F TH!S DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PL"i:Sv�l1 TO PASS. GENERAL L4W1 CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11. THE VAF.IANCL OR SPEC!PJ. c4 N;l ED HE F.EiN. SHn.LL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OP THE 1h' C i!CCTICN 61' THE CITY CLEkK THAT '0 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED ANJ NO APPEAL H.'' BFE!T FEED. CR THAT, IF SJ,.H AN' APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE THAT IT HAS BFUi CIS'S;KS D OR '.:E.uiED IS RE.; RUED IN THE S'U;H ESSU REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE IiAh1E Or 1HE 0., OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OY4NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. E? 05 v BOARD OF APPEAL C rQ C V LJ ,C-1 1 K1112 I I dil '81 e3+`w � FILE# (gi g tu o+j *lent, tt9$ttt ${t%K.SALEM.MASS. • 'z pnxrb of ( "Vd '�a ��0141Mt ^ li I DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHDALE DAIRY STORES FOR A VARIANCE AT 3 BRIDGE STREET (B-2) I A hearing on this petition was held on April 29, 1987 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 the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. I Petitioner request a Variance to allow construction of a canopy over the pump island in a B-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 the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, The Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact; 1. No major opposition to proposed plan. 2. Letter on record in favor; 3. Addition of canopy to said location would enhance the appearance of property and shield customers and residents of the City in inclement weather. 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 is in harmony with the district and will prorate the convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants; 2. The variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. 6 .. 1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHDALE DAIRY STORES FOR A VARIANCE AT 3 BRIDGE STREET (B-2) •=' Page 2 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following condidions: 4, 1. Construction as per plan shown; 2. Microphone or intercom system, required by City & State Statue, be turned away from the street and used only for public information and f safety purposes. 3. No advertising or entertainment is to be provided from these speakers; 4. All conditions and concerns of the Salem Fire Dept. must be adhered to; 5. Signage on Canopy be limited to two (2) signs ("Self Service") ; 6. A Building Permit be obtained prior to construction, ( no closer than 1' ft. from lot line. VARIANCE GRANTED I � s B. HaCKER, Chairman A CDPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISIC'N IF ANY. SHALL BE I:",ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MA-S. GENERAL LAPIS, CHAPTER BG2, AND SHkIL B`_-FILED W!1 HIY, 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF NUN] OF THIS DE.!SON Ii THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. _ P nS .'i TO A, Ci cR 1i, THE VAR NCE "IA! -.... CS.i., C HEP '1a.LL i -.E -r T UTII A COPY r THE ! C 1 IICAI '.+ CF THE CM '.:LER I+A� 20 C.4!S H+ilE c D A!;, H3 A° ,'aL I E OR 1HU, IF cJ !:' A.Pr F- H 5E r. TAT 11 H-S bEC\ DI., SED .,R OLS ED IS RECOU''ED I . THL Sid,11 ESSEX R IEn 1 .ir DcEC ArO INDEXED UI;DER THEE t1AlE OF THE G1::-" OF RECORD OR IS RE65RDED AND ;NTED GJ THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL •I e Ctu of Salem, 'Mttssadjuse##s 6 IM 's • � .� PDara of Appeal f DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL FRASER FOR VARIANCES AT 19 BRIDGE ST. (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held April 29, 1987 and continued until May 27, 1987, with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and Strout. At the April 29, 1987 hearing, the petitioner waived all applicable time requirements under Chapter 40A. 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 William Donaldson, is requesting a Variance from all applicable density and setback requirements and a Variance for use to allow construction of a single family dwelling on the property at 19 Bridge Street, which is located in a B-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, building and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would l involve 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 . There was no opposition presented to the petition at the hearing; 2. 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; 3. The construction of a single family dwelling at the locus will be an asset to the other residential properties in the neighborhood; 4. The petitioner has the approval of the Salem Planning Board for his plan; 5. Adequate parking is provided on site; 6. The prior existing building on the locus was destroyed by fire; 7. The petitioner modified his initial plans at the request of the Zoning Board of Appeal in order to provide for the safety of the public. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL FRASER FOR VARIANCES AT 19 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM page two �\ I • 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 Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and with 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 to Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All construction be as per plans submitted and modified; 2. The petitioner obtain the necessary building permits and occupancy permit from the Salem Building Inspector; 3. Parking for one car be maintained on the site, as per plan submitted; 4. The petitioner adhere to the requirements of the Massachusetts State Building Code; • ` 5. The petitioner meet all the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety; 6. Petitioner obtain proper street numbering from the Salem Board of Assessors. VARIANCES GRANTED aures M. Fleming, Esq. Vice Chairman, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLER-K APPEAL FROM THIS DECISID4!. IS ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 805, AND SHALL BE FILED P:ITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE CF THE CITY CLERK. PUP.SAI:T TO '1A-S. GENERAL LAY6. CHAPTER 808, SECTGN 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER;WIT GRANTED HEREEF, SHALL 10; TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPT' OF THE DECUIG ?. EEARiaa THE C=RT FIUATIJN OF THE CI[Y L'LER.i THAI 2J DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AN) NO APPEAL HAS SEF.i? FILED. OR THAT, IF SU.:H AN APPEAL Hu BEEN FILE, THAT IT ti";S BEEN D!S:<!SSED CR ii EiJ!ED IS ,� •� RECUR5ED IN THE S'UTH ESSEX RE:;ISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER i OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTE ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. i BOARD OF APPEAL `,s o fitg of �ttlFm, � ttsttclj�ze# s�c11i 3 of DECISION, ON THE PETITION OF JEAN & EVELYN PALARDY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 25 BRIDGE STREET (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held October 7 , 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and w :< w 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 GeneralLaws Chapter 40A. Peftitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setback to allow cosntruction of a 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: U 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 changes, extension, enlargemet or expansion shall not be substantially more r ` detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. q _ 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 the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, G ='- fety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. _ -Me Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence and after c - ewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: _ - 1 . There was no opposition: 2. Would be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The granting of the Special Permit request will not be detrimental to the public good and will not nullify or derogate from:, the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau be adhered to; 2. Construction and placement of deck be in accordance with plans submitted; 3. Construction conform with city and'state building codes. Peter Stout, Member,Board of Appeal COFY OF THIS DECISION•: _AS :`bi FILED WITH THE PLANv'NING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ey r'Cox Tito of '$ttlem, 'MttssadjusetteDu 1 818 A# #87 Poxrb of FnE# �1ppvd CITY CLERK.SALEM.MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR INGEMI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 29 BRIDGE ST. (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held November 23, 1987 with the following Board members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Peter Strout and Associate Members Dore and Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and -others an-d notices 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 petition to be withdrawn without prejudice. James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK L•.%r APPFAL fLtOBS itfl3 DECISION, IF ANY, SIIAEC BE MADE PURSUhNT TO SECTION 17 G.'- THE MA'S. GENERAL LA. .d C-._ -=" 8D8, AND SHALL E: FILES W:T:=:IN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING CF THIS DE•'f '. . . THE OFFICE OF TEE CITY CLERK. FURSAN: TC __RAL LAMS, CHAPT� SECT! "!. THE \=R A°:CF OR SPECIAL PERMIT ORANILD HF?.': ALL NOT TAKE EFFE:. THE CERT- FICATION OF -'Z_i:FTY CLERK, THAT 20 :--.L Y.P.0 [E'_N PLED, OR THAT. IF SC_H AN APPEAL HAS F.- - - - "Fu DEI:ED IS RECORDED IN TIF S""UTti Ei SEX F ...3 NA:::E OF THE OWNER OF REAM Q 6 K- F cD AI:_ 0, TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL `. l yq.coxMA6A.� (tai#g of �ttlrm, 3 oa PH '81 • , s Poxra of �ppral W.4 " ���"`~ SITY CLERK. SALEH, MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN MAYE (PETITIONER) , B & M GARAGE (OWNER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 37 BRIDGE ST. (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held September 29, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Strout and Associate Members 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 allow premises to be used for the sale of tropical fish, exotic birds and supplies in this B-4 district. The property is owned by B & M Garage. 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 setforth 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 ,A•� 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 . There was no opposition; 2. The use is in keeping with the existing business area. 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 be in harmony with the existing district and will promote the convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants; 2. The Special Permit requested can be granted without detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 1 - DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN MAYE (PETITIONER) , B & M GARAGE (OWNER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 37 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All required State and City Licenses be obtained; 2. Dumpster be emptied on a minimum bi-weekly basis; 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau be adhered to; 4. Minimum four (4) parking spaces be obtained and kept available for customers; 5. A Certificate of Inspection be obtained from the Inspector of Buildings. GRANTED Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRO'.' THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FLED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. � PO P.SAiJT TO ':.ASS. GENRAL LASJS. CRAFTER 808. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION, BEFRiNG THE CERT FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. IR SHAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAI IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS REL7iiCEO IN THE SOUIH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWN-P. OF REC:.RD OR IS REC:IP.DED AND NOTED OIJ THE O'J:NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL (Jo / of �$ttlrm, ttssttcllusr##s SA 4Y �• '� PnxrD of MAY 11 5 so PM '81 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM D. LITTLE FOR A FILE* VARIANCE AND/OR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 64 BRIDGE STREET (R-2) ' CITY CLERK.SALEM,MASS- A hearing on this petition was held on May 13, 1987,with the following Board Members present; James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Fleming, Luzinski, Strout 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 provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. The petitioner - represented by Attorney David Hallinan, is requesting a variance and/or Special Permit to convert funeral hone into professional office space 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 or structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise,to the petitioner; •' c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the k47:-"'' public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. a 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 Variance, not a Special Permit, is required; 2. No opposition. 3. Curmnt proposal would add to City tax base. 4. The property currently not being used as a R-2 area exclusively, as there are many business located in the immediate area. 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 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; i ) 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the �,,• 4/ public good and without substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. l DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM D. LITTLE FOR VARIANCE AT 64 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM PAGE 2 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1. (Mr. Hacker - opposed) to grant x the petitioner the requested Variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. No more than 3 offices to be built on the property including both the dwelling unit and garage. 2. Minimum of 10 legal size parking spaces be maintained. 3. Signs be limited to the current Sign Ordinance; 4. Existing green areas be kept and maintained; 5. Proper Certificate of Occupancy be optained from the Building Inspector; 6. Exterior of Building be maintained to current fashion and keeping with neighborhood appearance. 7. All Fire Safety Rules and Regulations must be strickly adhered to. VARIANCE GRANTED 112 / James B. Hacker Chairman, Board of Appeal �a 1� 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 07 TEE !^A"•S. GC:K'.L IA--, CHAPTER 808, AND SHP1L BE FUD WITHIN 20 DAYS AriE iHC OA1L . ..,• U: THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. i. . . i=:LL .: -i'E, _EF(EGT UNTIL A COPY OF iP : 61i: R :HPl90 DAPS HAVE ELAPSED A ... H , .. -.. ! VEAL HAS EEEI FILE, TIUT IT HAS e :. F . SSEX RE;.iSTRY CF !:2E;15 AND IND .. OF kECJKU OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERI'IFICATc 0: NILE. BOARD OF APPEAL "4 I4 Nov 19 2 57 PH '87 0a R Ctv of �$ttlem, 'Masstuchuse##sFILE# •�j��"r�aN Paurb of (Nvv� CITY CLERK.SAi,EM.MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GAIL DeFORREST FOR A VARIANCE AT 89 BRIDGE ST. (B-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held October 28, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Vice Chairman; Messrs. , Luzinski, 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 Massachusettes General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from density and parking to allow property to be used as a three family in this -B-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; 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 to the petition presented by abutters and neighbors. Councillor Kevin Harvey, by letter to the Board, opposed the request due to existing parking problems and character derogation; 2. Petitioner did not know if off street parking requirements could be met. Submitted plans did not indicate a parking plan. 3. One abutter spoke in favor of the petition; 4. Petitioner failed to prove substantial 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 do not exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not work a substantial hardship on 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. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GAIL DEFORREST FOR A VARIANCE AT 89 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM page two •� Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, against the granting of the requested variance, variance is therefore denied. VARIANCE DENIED n f, ii/VVV Peter Dore, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK •� .VIPPFAi FROM THIS DE'C1S70N, IF ANY, SflALC BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS GENERAL LAWS, CWTER 83S, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING (IF �� THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. pUFt ,T TU VASS. CE.A'ERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTER TiERRUM $HALL N--; IA::E EFFECT UNiiL A COPT' OF THETIECIEiA�s 'HE .CERT- FIOA7.-Tx!OF 462 C-Pf CLER T;:A7 .._ DAtz HA`- E_A<.E: `.� D N H PELF P E D FiLED, OR ,fi. '.. V`- 3J_PAN APP, kl'.Y � - i '!_E. "inA� I ''.5 a C' :.'n`. P f? �-.4:1ED IS @,E:..^,vt'JEro IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RE�iS!Rl CF DEEMS AND li 0.i.tD C J C F. hr..`.E OF THE OY!NER 08 RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL f66 LC � OE r�; Ut %pG "f it I of � ttlrm, _JJa55aC4USrt$At_EM. MASS. A ` '- _ Pnarb of hupettl DECISIOI'� ON THE PET IT I0 OF RON TRIPPFTT AND MARK PETIT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 107 BRIDGE ST. A hearing on this petition was held February 18, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Luzinski , Strout and Associate Members Labrecque and 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, owners of the property , are requesting a Special Permit co allow an existing fourth apartment 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: Not';Jthstanding 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, enlarge- ment, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and ceuses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or exuansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing ::onconforming 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 would be sufficient parking; 2. The fourth apartment has been in existence for over twelve yea=S; and 3. One abutter was in opposition. c::.i 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 four family will be in harmony with the neighborhood; 2. The relief _requested can be granted without substantial detriment to she area or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance. arafore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant ,_.e Special Permit subject to the following terms and conditions: l � 1. Six legal and unobstructed parking spaces must be � provided. 2. The building must be in compliance with the Salem Fire Prevention Code, Salem City ordinances and Massachusetts General Laws relative to fire safety. 3. Occupancy permit must be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED. Peter A. Dore, Associate Member Board of Appeal Ac M of �$alPm, C uSsttt u8Ptt8 Pnttrb of 4pral DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SHIRLEY & MICKEY BENSON FORfj�E SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 132 BRIDGE ST. ps CI'Y :. A hearing on this petition was held January 21 , 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; 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 are requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming structure and use to allow construction of 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 noncon- forming structures, and for changes,_ enlargement, extension or expansion of noncon- forming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be more detrimental than the existing nonconform- ing use to the neighborhood. `• In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the 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. The owners have operated there business at this site for the past seven (7) years without complaints from,, the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The granting of the Special Permit requested :ill promote the convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants; 2. The relief requested can be granted without substantia'_ 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 SHIFLEY & MICKEY BENSON FOP, A SPECIAL PERP;IT FOR 132 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM fir page two � •s.. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . A building permit must be obtained; 2. Must comply with all regulations and requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau; 3. Construction to be done in accordance with plans submitted; 4. Exterior of the proposed addition must conform with the finishes of existing building. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED i Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK U o i r �w - 987 APR -8 A P :53 / e e 1t1 tv o �$Hjr21L, tI$$Mt CI$P ft$: ;r c circ '`• � � err'._� • r • L � Paurb of ( 1"Vd �Y DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JULIANNE KALLAS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 151 BRIDGE ST. A hearing on this petition was held March 25, 1987 with the following Board Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman; Peter Dore, Acting Secretary; Messrs. , Fleming & Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notice of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, represented by Attorney Daniel Reich, is requesting a Special Permit to allow the existing two family dwelling to be converted to a three family. 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 VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, en- largement, 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 . There was no neighborhood opposition to the plan; 2. There would be adequate off street parking; 3. A Special Permit for the expansion had been granted on March 18, 1981 but did not go forward with expansion at that time; 4. There are numerous two and three family dwellings in the area. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The granting of the Special Permit 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 JULIANNE KALLAS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 151 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Special •� Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The conversion be constructed according to plans submitted; 2. The building be owner occupied; 3. The dwelling be in compliance with all the requirements of the Salem Fire Department; I 4. Building and Occupancy permits be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED Peter A. Dore, Acting Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ♦4 APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 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. GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF PUP.SANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT THE DECIS IOLi, BEARING THE CERT. FICATION OF THE CITY CLER.i THAT 20 DAPS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS'IISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL 1 • (gi#g of iplem, Httssttclluse##s I� :r,ra l_ s �nxrD of �}rfreexl Ari L'� o I � '�•re � i i 0 AM 187 CITY y t,,''o Jrtlys DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH E. GRIFFIN JR. (PETITIONERfALEt4,'00 EDWARD W. WOLKIEWICZ (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE FOR 313 BRIDGE ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 18, 1987 and continued to April 15, 1987 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 a Variance or Special Permit to allow building which is currently being used as an auto repair shop to be used as an auto body shop. Said property is located an 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 or structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; 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 Variance, not a Special Permit, is required; 2. Odors and toxic fumes could adversely affect the neighborhood and the health of it's inhabitants; 3. This is a very dense, older neighborhood with many wooden structures; 4. There was major neighborhood opposition; 5. Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof with regards to legal 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 do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; I DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH E. GRIFFIN JR. (PETITIONER) , EDWARD W. WOLKIEWICZ (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE FOR 313 BRIDGE ST. (R-2) page two r 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one, 4-1 , against the granting of the requested Variance. Mr. Luzinski voted present. VARIANCE DENIED i 4 VW r, ames B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK F.PPEAL FRO-'A THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE PLASS. GENERAL LAV5, CHAPTER 808, AND SF.'.LL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF TLUS DECISION IN THE OFFICE 01- THE CITY CLERK. TO F6 5. CEN-RL LA+'!S. r}' ,75. SF.CilJN IL THE VA4'ANCE OR SPEC!A.L PERMIT 't F ai TH CERT- GF;, GF;, .ED HEi ,IN• SHAL rOT TAKE ''.L A CeF GF Th U c. , RCATTON OF THE CITY' CLERK THAT ?. :-...`. Hi-::E ELA.PSEO A:v'7 No A.rv9_ A. F4EDH OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HA:: .. . -,HA; IT S.lS BEEN DIS:::!SSED OR DE::I-=D IS RECORDED IN THE SOU1H ESSEX F.- : .-ECS AND INDEXED UNDER THE IiArSE OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND ::— CN Irl': OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL Ctv of �tt ' lem gassuchusetts o REIVI_D i I poxrb of A"eal JAN 26 3 0l M '87 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH & EDMOND MORNEAU FOR A CITY CLC z) OFFICE SPECIAL PERMIT AT 333 BRIDGE ST. SALEM, MASS. A hearing on this petition was held January 14, 1987 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 are requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear setback and use to allow construction of 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. 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 . The current use of the property as a gas station has existing for over twenty five (25) years; 2. The proposed addition to the building will increase the tax base; 3. Increase in the building will improve services offered to the citizens of Salem. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed addition will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants; 2. The Special Permit 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 Dot Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH & EDMOND MORNEAU FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 333 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM U110page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one (4-1 ) , Mr. Bencal voted present, to grant the Special Permit requested subject to the following conditions: 1 . Plans are to be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to issuance of a Building Permit; 2. All construction conform to Massachusetts State Building Code, the Salem Fire Prevention Code, City Ordinances, and Massachusetts General Laws relative to fire safety; 3. The proposed addition is to be used as auto repair only; 4. The addition to be constructed of the same material as the existing building and be painted as to blend in with the existing structure. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED es B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK r APPEAL FROM THIS DECISIOi A,:y , $i-' 1 +�_ P c G E1Fr L LAWS CH—U, T -ii;-;N 17 OF -9E OF THIS DECIS.Oi C;'.� OF FIJ;iG PURa i<T TO i-I S GRA;_.Eu HERE!.':, QIi - PERP,iT FICAT-.q{ 0. THE Cl _ `Ei21 OR Td. T. 'F SU", FILED,RECOR,. C IN Tf S .. Gg IS OF RECCRC OR IS -.� 'G :nE i OF THE 0.11—R OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL ~` flit of Salrm, mitts r�s tts P i C tEB 'J 31 y SPT :$ Putts of cP'JTe41LE;P C4� L DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STANLEY TARNOWSKI (PE�TIT'TONER), JO�EPHS AND EDMOND MORNEAU (OWNERS) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 333 BRIDGE ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held January 14 , 1987 and continued until January 21 , 1987 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. The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the rental of limousines 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 Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures,a nd for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit 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 at the hearing,makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There are other businesses in the immediate area; 2. Both support and opposition to the plan was presented. 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 business will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood; 2. The proposed business will promote the convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. DECISION 01' THE PETITION OF STANLEY TARNOWSKI (PETITIONER) , JOSEPH AND EDMOND MORNEAU (OWNERS) FOR 333 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit to allow rental of limousines, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner and/or Bridge St. Amoco has right to use the rear parcel described as a parking lot at 333 Bridge St. ; 2. That continued licenses be obtained from the Salem Licensing Board and the Salem City Council; 3. All regulations of the Salem Fire Dept. , relative to fire safety be strictly adhered to; 4. Any and all permits be obtained for operation of said business; 5• No more than two (2) limousines be parked on the front or rear lot overnight. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED P,i'chard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK T < - gG� of �alrMl c�a55UC U!Drf6 FE' 19 F2 5y N \tom J JJ Poxrb of '�}rpenl C" - � t DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALE-! HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 3 BROAD STREET (R-2) 1t A hearing on this petition was held January 14 , 1987 with the following Board lk Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal; Fleming 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 William J. Lundregan, are requesting a Comprehensive Permit to allow construction of sixteen (16) units of congregate housing, under the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, Section i 21 to 23 inclusive, and a Variance fro.:, the parking requirements of Section VII of the Saler. Zoning Ordinance. The locus of the property is in an R-2 District. The petitioners plan to construct congregate housing for the elderly by rehabil- itating the existing Oliver School House. The Comprehensive Permit and the Variance 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 •r 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 to the petition was presented at the hearing; 2. Several neighbors and city of_`icials spoke in favor of the petition; 3. The petition has the approval of the Salem Planning Department and the Salem Historical Commission. 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; f 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve • subtstantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the 'r 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 THE SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR A CO';PREHENSIVE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE AT 3 BROAD ST. , SALEM paSe two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the =" Comprehensive Permit and the requested Variance, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1 . That all the conditions of the Salem Historical Commission be adhered to by the petitioners; 2. That the petitioners maintain not less than three (3) parking spaces on the site of the rehabilitated building, said parking to comply with all the requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance; 3. That the building be rehabilitated as per the plans submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeal; 4. That all the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety be adhered to by the petitioners; 5. That all necessary building permits and Certificates of Occupancy be obtained. COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT & VARIANCE GRANTED games M. Fleming, Esq.' Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK °PEAL FRO`.' THIS DMSION, IF A%: , SHALL BE NAD_ PURSUANT TO SECT!0': _- T'(ERAL LAV:S, CHAP,=C CO', A'.L' SW,'L St F.L,.. W'„I:J2 0 CAY_` C7 THIS DECISION IN THE CM-E OF THE CITY CLE RII. P._i,SANi TO LASS. OEFi ERA,1 is CHAPTER 805. SEC719.'i ll. THE V'7f4';CE C trktlTED RERUN SHALL NOT Tl'.-.-:E EFFECT ONPL A COPY CF THuL. '.I;is t F .ATI„N OF THE CICY C LEP': HAVE L_yFe^ ` l I rA, LF, THAT, IF SCJH AN APPEAL HSS SEEN RLI. T4.-','_. .T EI D” R;(OSDED IN TH- SOUTH ESSEX RESISTRY OF O?Er-: AND J.ND[1_O OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL - AZO 3acP� 'Bl a � � coyoT,, �° ftLitg of ".5' ttlem, ttssttrllu� a � Off ftWK,SAI-FO!,Mets. Pourb of p}renl • �t0/I11M[ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALBERT & YVONNE DUMAS FOR VARIANCE TO CONVEY A STRIP OF LAND FROM 16 BUCHANAN ROAD TO 14 BUCHANAN ROAD A hearing on this petition was held September 29, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal , Fleming, 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 of the property located at 16 Buchanan Road, are requesting variances from lot size and frontage to allow them to convey a strip of land, approximately 608 sq. ft. , to 14 Buchanan Road,which is owned by Randall and Loretta Wieting. Said conveyance will further reduce the existing undersized lot. Both parcels are 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 sane district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the 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 proposed transfer of land would relieve the petitioners of the burden and hardship of maintenance; 3. The proposed transfer would allow better access to 14 Buchanan Road and would result in the upgrading of both parcels. 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 properties but do not affect the district in general; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve a substantial hardship to the petitioners; 010 3. The relief requested can be granted without 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 ALBERT & YVONNE DUMAS FOR VARIANCES FOR 16 & 14 BUCHANAN ROAD, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the variances requested in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board. GRANTED 'Peter Strou , 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 MAS! C EN'ERAL LAYJS CH;PTER 808. A\'D SH.;LL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE C. THE CITY CLERK. FUP$ANi TO L:S^$. GEM,ERAL 808. SECTION 11. THE VASIANCE OR SPECIAL PERVIT CRA::TED HERE.N, SHALL N)I TAKE ERECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISICi;. BEARING THE CERT- FICA-110:1 OF THF CITY CLERX THAT -0 04S HAVE ELAPSED A%) NO APPESL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT. If SUCH AN' APPEA' HAS FEE!, FILE, THAT IT H'S BEEN Di S:,;ISC=D OR 3-:;IED IS RECORDED A IN THE S, 'FH ESSEX P.ECISTP,'f OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAI;E OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND N01ED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL I ,�.COVpgA � , of tt1Pm, 3 PQMrb of A"vd CITY CLERK,SALEM,.� MASS. „e'?x DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR & ELISSA SIMARD FOR A VARIANCE AT 20 BUENA VISTA AVENUE A hearing on this petition was held July 15, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Vice Chairman; 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. .The petitioners, representing themselves, seek a Variance from rear and side yard setbacks to allow for the continued use of an existing deck. The locus of 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 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 invol 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 of 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 opposition to the petition was presented at the hearing; 2. The deck has existed for a considerable length of time; 3. The petitioners cannot sell, or otherwise encumber the property without the requested relief. 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; I 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. n ; 6 y. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR & ELISSA SIMARD FOR A VARIANCE AT 20 BUENA VISTA AVE. , SALEM page two � Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the •' Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The deck is to remain as it currently exists; 2. The petitioners must comply with all the requirements of the Salem Fire Department, relative to fire safety. VARIANCE GRANTED ///James M. Fleming, Esq. Vice Chairman, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRC,., THIS DECIS N, IF ANY. SHALL BE h.'.ADE PUP,SL!ANT TO SCUMN 17 OF THE NM S. GEN10A:L LAMS, C!?,-TEA °03. ?SID .,.`i.ALL __ ...`_D yl!T.`!itJ DA'(S AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS FECIS:O"I .N THE OFHCE GF THE CIT'! CLERX. PUR°ANT TO ",Ov SEC :11 '.l. THE "f.RiANCE C, SPrl AL "'ERn)T GRAfiiEO HEn'E!I;r SP:',LL NM! TARE EFFECT Uf!TIL .A 0'�PY' C'r T:.E DEC:P1O'I. BE .ii."i THE CERL FICATiON OF T-:I :.T 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AiiD %0 APPDAL HAS FILED. OR THAT F ^.` PPLA HAS S EN FLE. I rT IT .'I'--ED OR !ED IS RECORDED IN !- SOS H E Y. RE Ia f C.' r'--DS AND N c.ED HIE r a-a OF PIE 0701ER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL I � t `�.COvq,4 0' o7 (1�i#V ofttlem, ttsstttl�use## c pf1 '81 ��41Mt S puxrb Of &APPPI[1 FILE*' Y +� �4 C f T DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND MCDAID FOR A SPECIAL PERMITYCLERK. SALEH,MASS. FOR 4 BURKE ST. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held November 23, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Strout, Associated 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, is requesting a S ecialPermit to extend non- confroming setbacks and density 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 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 . Neighbors submitted a petition signed by six individuals and families in favor of the proposal; 2. Councillor Leonard O' Leary spoke in favor of the petition; 3. There was no opposition to the petition; 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 be in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants; 2. The Special Permit 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. 1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND MCDAID FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 4 BURKE ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested subject to the following termis and conditions: 1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau must be adhered to; 2. A Building Permit must be obtained; 3. Exterior finish must conform with existing dwelling; 4. A Certificate of Occupancy. GRANTED Peter Dore, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK GENEEAL FrAW1BIS DECISION, IF ANY, SPALL BE MADE PURSUANT TD SECTION 17 OF THE MALS. DF TRIS LAWS- CATER 818, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILINS ION IN THE OFF,CE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT YO &ASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 858, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAI- PE- :!T ORAN7EO CF THE SHALL NO', TAKE EFFECT UN'TII A COPY OF THEDEC!SIDn. EEAP:Ii;. THC FIC.ATIAT E4* THE CITY CLERH 7:ii,l LJ On"i S' HA.E E�PSED AND N0 APrc. OR THAT, IF SUCI; n"'" AN APPEAL ICAs BEE'4 FILE, T&A'. 3T HI:i Ec EAL HAS Bpg; p— IN RECD;7ED IN THE SLDTH ESSE% RESIC?R'i Ofy - E!i O!S:".:52 -p C.;j;:C: !^ OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON 7i{E OWNERTICERAFICAiE'OF 717iE. NnI:E OF THE =F BOARD OF APPEAL ��.CoxM4 v i# the � � of � m, 'Mttssttcljuse##s • ,'�.,,o ,9 Poxrb of �ypu l DEC 9 2 SO FM 'D] DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANA P. LOTHROP FOR A SPECIAL FILE# PERMIT AT 1-3 CABOT ST. (R-2) CITY CLERK.SALEH.M4sS. A hearing on this petition was held August 8, 1987 and continued until November 23, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, 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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is seeking a Special Permit to allow the premises to be used as a three family dwelling. Property is located in an R-2 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. 1 •v. 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 . There was no opposition; 2. Evidence presented at the public hearing showed this to be a pre-existing, nonconforming use; 3. Off Street parking will be provided; 4. There will be no changes to the existing structure; 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 be in harmony with the existing neighborhood; 2. The granting of the Special Permit will promote the public health, d r • safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants, ,1 3. The relief requested can be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance and without substantial detriment to the public good. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANA P. LOTHROP FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 1-3 CABOT ST. , SALEM page two � \ ' Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the ._ 1 special permit request, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau relative to fire safety; 2. Five (5) legal parking spaces be maintained on site. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED cam) Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 1:PPEAL F1,051. THIS DECiSIOid, IF ANY, SHALL BE A(AOE PURS"ANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE h'.P.,S. LA�rS.�Eiv ER^.i ut EOb. A !D SH7.LL D_ Fi i.__ "1:71j! . LC DAYS n.:ER 1HE 0^.1. OF F111^:G n_ C.. .?: CTHIS DELIS -j:: I!^. THE CFFiiE DF THE CITY C1 E5r;. i1;AT, _F P-. PLI.. HF:S G ._c. TI IT r _ CI,:. :,,_ ..'u. IS kr . :-)EHI SS : RE � r ' Ci : H'- -OFCERTIFICATE RECGRD OR IS REDCRDED AND NOTED ON TGE G`':ERS CER IFICATE OF TITLE. • BOARD OF APPEAL 36� f t Ctv of "Sttlem, 'Mttssuchusetts Oct 13 I I of dPi 'B7 FIt ;¢ P �� 1TY ottrb of eal 9 c DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHYLLIS M. OLBRYCH FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 18 CARLTON STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on June 24, 1987, continued by agreement to July 15, 1987 and further continued by agreement to September 30, 1987, 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 eharing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner, represented by Attorney John Serafini, Sr. , is seeking a Special Permit under V B 10 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for a change in nonconforming use and alteration of nonconforming structure to change a single family dwelling into a two family dwelling. The existing structure is a nonconforming use because of existing rear yard and side yard requirements. The 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 contrary appearing in this Ordinance the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions f set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for • , alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for �. , a✓ changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such changed, 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 present and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was neighborhood support of the petition presented at the hearing, although one anonymous letter was received in opposition; 2. The proposed plan rehabilitates the existing dwelling substantially, improving the neighborhood; 3. The petitioner has suffered severe economic loss by not having been able to occupy the dwelling for the past several months; 4. The petitioner's proposed use will not be more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use; • 5. The parking plan proposed by the petitioner will held alleviate a shortage of parking in the area. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHYLLIS OLBRYCH FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 18 CARLTON ST. , SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed rehabilitation would improve the property; 2. The proposed use will promote the welfare and convenience of the City's inhabitants; 3. The proposed use will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, including the maintenance and completion of the existing porches on the rear of the property which provide a second means of egress for two (2) dwelling units, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner maintain six (6) angular parking spaces on the property as per the plans' submitted; 2. Petitioner is to obtain a building permit from the Building Inspector of the City of Salem for all the work finished and to be finished at the locus; 3. All work is to be done as per the plans submitted and in accordance with the provisions of the Massachusetts Building Code; - i 4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety be adhered to; 5• A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained by the petitioner prior to occupancy. GRANTED James M. Fleming, Esq. , ce 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 EDE. AI:D SHALL BE FILE! WITHIN 20 DAPS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DEOIS:O:d IN THE OFFICE CF THE CITZ CLERK. PGRSFfiT TO L:�,SS GEVRAL L-^.';:5, GF:rTER &,'. SECTION 11 THE VARIANCE OR. SPECIAL PERMIT _RX'TED HEFEI.,, SHALL NC. TAKE EFFECT UCTP: A COPY OF CERT FICATION OF THE CITYCLERK TEAT 2O DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AF:9 NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. OR THAT, IF Sa1_H Ail APPEAL HAS B:EN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DIST' SSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THIS SDTH ESSEX RE'-'ISTRY OF 2-ECS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER �• OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. 7 BOARD OF APPEAL T �jG e,..00Y0RA.. L Cto of `+alPm, assttr4usetts AUG 6 se PH '07 t°t�E P` ~� 7s axrb of {�rzd 1y. • � '+ro,.,,xamw`� � �TT CITY CLERt;.SALEM. MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEON JALBERT FOR A VARIANCE FOR 31-33 CEDAR STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 29, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from density and setbacks to allow property to be divided and to construct a two family dwelling on Lot A. Property is located in an R-2 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involv 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, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Dividing of the large lot will produce two small lots that will be consistent and in harmony with other lots in the area; 2. When originally purchased by the petitioner it was two lots, as shown on the Assessor's Map; 3. The neighborhood is primarily a two family neighborhood; 4. Petitioner has owned this parcel for over thirty (30) years, which predates the current Zoning Ordinance; 5. No major 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 the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial `•.S hardship on the petitioner; and 3. The relief requested can be granted without detriment and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the public good, intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. T .\r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEON JALBERT FOR A VARIANCE FOR 31-33 CEDAR STREET, SALEM page two Therefore the g Board of Appeal ppeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the • Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . A preconstruction survey must be made of the retaining wall located at the rear of this property which abuts numbers 6 & 8 Fairfield St. 2. Written agreement must be made between petitioner and the owners of numbers 6 & 8 Fairfield St. holding said owners harmless in the event any damage to the retaining wall is caused as a direct result of construction of this proposed dwelling. Said contract shall place the entire burden and cost of repairing said retaining wall on the petitioner. The contract must be signed prior to construction: 3. In the event this property is sold or transferred or is no longer maintained under common ownership, a right of way must be obtained to allow three (3) parking spaces for each lot, for a total of six (6) parking spaces, on site; 4. Six (6) parking spaces be maintained as per plans; 5. Dwelling to be built as per plans submitted; 6. A building permit must be obtained prior to the commencement of any construction; ~ 7. Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau; 8. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. VARIANCE GRANTED I G tt James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MA--S. GENERAL LAYJS, CIiRPTER 308. 1f10 SHn LL BE FILED MTH[N 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, PUaSANT TO :SASS. ;'NERAL LA'::5. CHAPTER SOS, S'CTI'il 11, THE PARI—"CE OR SP4CIAL FI-2::11T CPA:i .ED "`_1t(.. FH i'Df lA' E EFFECT U Til A. COPY OF F:F',Ti. :rH= -LT ., 1 0:1r., HIS OR .. S-,., r P2'_;', F _. il.E Hi. I'. „r1 D REi C, H .� ,-�:,: .LA .J 6.0 �'I:. H i:,lE JF I'"c OF RECORD OR IS�R_wOROED AND HOILD iiiN THE ONNER'S CLRTFICA'c OF "i ITLE. • - = BOARD OF APPEAL DC I Ctv of *Itm, AU6SZ1C U6PttJ*N 30 302 FX '87 f °a q Poxrb of �"wl FILE# �• �I4M CITY CLERK,SALFH. H!S5. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEAN POIRIER FOR VARIANCES AT 12 CEDARCREST AVENUE (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held May 27, 1987 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 William DiMento, seeks Variances from lot size, frontage and rear setback to allow the property at 2 Cedarcrest Avenue to be divided, and to construct a single family dwelling on lot A, as shown on the plans submitted. The property 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 1 substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The two new lots to be created are representative in size to the other lots in the neighborhood; 2. The existing topography dictates that this is the best use of the locus: 3. No opposition was expressed to the petition at the public. hearing. 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; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEAN POIRIER FOR VARIANCES AT 12 CEDARCREST AVE. , 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 Variances requested allowing the subdivision of the lot as per the plans submitted, with Lot B having an area of 14,435 square feet and Lot A having an area of 8,438 square feet, a frontage of 98.65 feet, and a rear setback of 16.47 feet, subject to the following conditions: 1 . That the petitioner secure the required building and occupancy permits from the Salem Building Inspector; 2. That the petitioner secure proper numbering for the proposed single family dwelling to be built on Lot A from the Salem Board of Assessors; 3. That all construction be done in accordance with the provisions of the Massachusetts Building Code and be built as per the plans submitted to the Board; 4. That the petitioner adhere to all the requirements of the Salem Fire Department, relative to fire safety. -\ VARIANCES GRANTED • James M. Fleming, Esq. "Vice Chairman, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROY. THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. ' GENERAL LA:'1S. CHAPTER VS. AND SHhLL BE FILED WDHII! 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DEC!S!uN IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PU C;SAt;� ?8 s.=.i S. 'v;°R?L. LAr!S. CHATEE E�5. SE:iIC i� ]1. THE VFR L4fCC` 0" $^SCI°' Pcr,.;,!t CRASTED HERE-L. SHALL Nia iAXE EFFECT UNTIL A CO'r1 OF THE C_C r. E-''.'t: i fhC ;FRT- i CATIWN OF TH`_ CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED P.:{D NO APPE.L HSS BEEI'I FILED. OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEF: DISd�!SSED OR DEN!RD IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. • BOARD OF APPEAL F An 1 {Drwettlem, tt�sttrl �##�0 se AN 'B] rl�e� a ' 'L � FILE# PDura of LAppea1 1Y h-l"'°" CITY CLERK. SAI_.cM. MASS. 61TY CLERK.SALEM.MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL & MARIE BUONFIGLIO FOR A VARIANCE AT 16 CHERRY HILL AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held July 29, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Secretary, Messrs. , Luzinski, Fleming 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 lot area to allow construction of a single family dwelling in the 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 is 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 Wt � 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 lot in question is unique in size and shape; 2. No opposition was raised. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not district generally; 2. Literal enforcement 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 and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. IreI DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL & MARIE BUONFIGLIO FOR A VARIANCE AT 16 CHERRY HILL AVE. , SALEM page two h' 4 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimous) 5-0 y, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All construction be done as per existing City and State Building Codes; 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. in its letter to the Board be adhered to; 3. Property street numbering be obtained from the Salem Assessors Office; 4. All construction be done in compliance with all provisions of the current Zoning Ordinance except for lot size; 5. 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 u ?., GP.YS AFI-P THE D4TE GF FILi'v'u APPEAL FRGh1 THIS CeCISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MAGE PUP.SUAYT TO SECTION ll OF THE F1A9S- CENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER SGS, AND SHALL BE FILED 61;T..�N o Frk-JT OF THIS D:CIS O'i i': THE OF°IG OP THE CIT't CIFRK' V. 11 1 _ " -RI E' ra �. iIS h r q is nPY -L u;S E '_r• L`�r ^ Fc .k4.n 0 JHi C;! CR Rr,.: I. g�.:f.H E a' r:c u OF RECORD OR i5 RECORDED AND NJi LJ 01v T Jv'•I�E�S 'CER�IrI i+" OF 71TLE. 60ARD OF APPEAL ' • f J411i Cffv of ttlem, ttsstt #��20 MN 81 � 9 Poxrb of �kppv 1 FILE# +� CITY CLERK.SALEM.MASS, DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD BRESNAHAN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 2 CHEVAL AVE. (R-1 ) I A hearing on this petition was held on May 27, 1987 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, is requesting a Special Permit from rear and side setbacks to allow construction of a porch on the side and a patio in the rear, also from density. 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 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 . After explanation & clarification, one neighbor appeared in favor of the plan; no one appeared in opposition; 2. The addition of the porch would add to the property; 3. The proposed patio would help relieve a soil erosion problem. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed porch and patio will not be substantiall 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. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD BRESNAHAN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 2 CHEVAL AVE. , SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested subject to the following conditions: 1 . The patio, as shown on the plans, is to be at ground level; r 2. All construction to be done as per the plans submitted; 3. A legal building permit is to be obtained; 4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department are to be adhered to. �f SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED i 'RI-chard- A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK i i SECT!0,1 17 CF THE hh?..5. PUPSUAI T TD AF`ER THE SH4LL BE M� DHV 'IS DECISI 1' Q A ,� S,�4 L 6F FL E C cFk.. APPEAL fRO C RP.`R Sv THE CIT( CEtAERAL �DErlB Cir I;d THE CFF.CE C c_r r0:1 p THIS "r,T 8D9 cr cCT U'iL P Pop` CF ' H CE' P ' is PILL 7 _ c �. r. L LIE OVl7. C'S �� -. L R - TF PIE i. ._ uc. T = TITLE. GR '.d4T. Ir SJ-H A11 APi Ec,_�!S1 R1' OF D c c Ai+O CE F1aA,E D} ESSc%. t1V�� 7HE OJaER'S REC`.F.CEp I\ IS RECORDED AWD ' `D IN•! Of APPEAL - Of RECORD OR BOARD of Aem (I�i#tt , ttssttc se# �L 8 2 a P!1 '81 s; t 5 L �ILE L S Poarb o{ '4veal CITY CLERK.SALEM.MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS P. STEVENS FOR A VARIANCE AT 6 CHEVAL AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held June 24, 1987 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 and setbacks to allow construction of a deck in this R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; • ', 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. All the lots in the area are small with very little usable space, this deck would be the best use for the land. 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 out not the district generally; 2. 'iteral enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardshi- on the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance and without substantial detriment to the public good. • .r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS P. STEVENS FOR A VARIANCE FOR 6 CHEVAL AVE. , SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . A legal building permit be obtained; 2. Work be done in accordance with plans submitted; 3. Construction conform with the existing finish of the existing house. VARIANCE GRANTED Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK e Ir ANY 54�LL BE PUP.SUANT TO S'cCi J 17 D- IHOF Ac F i 1VI-H J, 20 DA`S A�cF D...: APPE4L FROM TPISS A, 5c GEKER.4L -ER e C � - CITi CLER6. cag7,a Sr_Cili'J 0, 7YIS C i�0:1 I �4 C U :7 . 4 COPY C TTP.1 Lr �cJ r' Tl C, 1 HR E - Ur T, DI iY_E. "n c c L.;C s -1 �? r .i D cCS A":U IIT.E. I+Ciu 01: Ifi_ 0�.NERS CERTIFICATE D R.i i�ROE:; I'.� iH_ SJU a ESSEX. F OF RECORD OR IS RECOROr ED ANO BOARD OF APPEAL f'} (gtfv? 6f 'Sttlen , Caesttt�usn l # 3 P 3 :n 'y •R � � Poxra of A}r vd �I4M6w�'' CIT`' f CL ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID & PAUL COLPITTS FOR VARIANCES AT CLARK AVENUE (R-1 ) A hearing on the petition was held March 25, 1987 with the following Board Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman; Mr. Fleming, 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 petitioners, represented by Attorney John Vallis, are requesting a variance to divide seven (7) existing lots on Clark Avenue into four (4) lots, one of which will not have the required frontage or lot size. The property is located in an R-1 zone. The one (1 ) undersized lot would contain ninety feet of frontage and have 14,800 square feet of land. 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; f � b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve • substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the 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 opposition to the petition presented at the hearing; 2. Three neighbors spoke in favor of the petition; 3. The requested variance of ten (10) for frontage and two hundred (200) square feet for lot size is a minimal deviation from the requirements of Table I, Salem Zoning Ordinance. 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 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. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID AND PAULA COLPITTS FOR VARIANCE k AT CLARK AVENUE, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the �• petitioners the requested Variance, subject to the following condition: 1 . The petitioners must submit their plan for subdivision to the Salem Planning Board for their approval. VARIANCE GRANTED (///_lames M. Fleming, Esq. Member, Board of Appeal iI A COPY OF THIS DECISION. HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK f Y f 4 k i APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, E: ANY, SHALL BE ?FADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE h1A38. i GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 803, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PJRSANT TO !.`.ASS. GENERAL LA"VIS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11. THE VAP,!ANCE OP, SPECIAL PERMIT CRAY?ED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECIMN, BEARIiG THE CERT- FI"ATI` OF THE CITY CLERK THAF 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED ANO NO APPEeL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH, AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS,"ASSED OR DEN!ED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED ON DEF. THE NAFnE OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL - w of "FBittlem, Cfflttssuchusetts ` �axrD of �p}�eul FEB 3 3 3'- FILE i DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL SEARL (PETITIONER) , FERRAGAMO FAMILY TRUST (OWNERS) FOR VARIANCES FOR 5 CLARK ST. CITY CI V_MASS. A hearing on this petition was held January 21 , 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; 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 Saler:: Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner requests a Variance from all applicable density requirements to allow construction of a single family dwelling on this undersized lot. Said 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 i'n- •* 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 of 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 size of the lot is in keeping with other lots in the vicinity; 2. Single family home, as per plans, would be in harmony with the neighborhood and would enhance the City of Salem tax rc11; 3. If a single family house is not allowed to be built the lot would have no value; 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 properte but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial c hardship on 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 PAUL SEARL (PETITIONER) , FERRAGAMO FAMILY TRUST (OWNERS) FOR VARIANCES FOE: 5 CLARE; ST. , SALEM w page two ^• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the relief requested subject to the followingconditions. 1 . If blasting is necessary, permits must be obtained from the Salem Fire Department prior to any blasting; 2. All necessary building permits must be obtained prior to construction; 3. Plans are to be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit; 4. The proposed construction shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Massachusetts State Building Code, the Salem Fire Prevention Code, Salem City Ordinances and Massachusetts General Laws, relative to fire safety; 5. Proper street numbering be obtained from the City Assessor; 6. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. VARIANCE GRANTED � � I a, ames B. Hacker, Chairman IFS• i.a . A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ------.. Bi I•`AD p c -.':T TO crTiGt, 17 CC TyE AoP--i FF.''..' Tr s!'_- r .' D .c AFT EP TF t. E Di iii ` C RECORD On S PcGOnD F i,_ J, Tr: 0 9 .na bcFSin��, BOARD OF APPEAL ( '06 04tg of $31rm, 'Massar4usetts �. Poxrb of �"vd � - �•� �JCI TS 687 MRP, 31 P3 :00 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID FERRAGAMO (PETITIONER) , FERRAGAMO FAMILY TRUST (OWNERS) FOR VARIANCE AT 7 CLARK STREET CITYLLE+i OFFICE A hearing on this petition was held March 18, 1987 with the f' howing' Board S' Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice 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 variances from frontage, lot size and area per dwelling unit to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this R-1 district. Said property is owned by the Ferragamo Family Trust. 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 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. 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 . Opposition was voiced by the abutters; 2. A concern regarding blasting on the site was noted; 3. The traffic problems would be increased by the building; 4. Further development of the neighborhood would be detrimental. 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 do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district generally; 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 or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID FERRAGAMO (PETITIONER), FERRAGAMO FAMILY TRUST (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE FOR 7 CLARK ST., SALEM page two # Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, against granting Q4`J the Variances requested. VARIANCES DENIED. Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal 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 MASS. GENERAL LAWS.CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION, BEARING THE CERT- FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL ( J-. 12 20 IM | ^� � �y | 0U���� ��� ^5��rU����� ������/������m*�������1LE�� ^/ ' / ��°°� ��~°°�°°° ��°°_— ,~���������� �� �� �� �& �°y CITY CLERK,$ALE�� ��G� / ��e��r� ��� ������ � � ~ � , , DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID & KERRY FL&DGCB FOR & SPECIAL PERMIT AT q& CLEVELAND RD. EXT. (D-l ) & hearing on this petition was held May 27, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Backer, Chairman; Richard Boucal, Secretary; Messrs. , Fleming, Luuiuobi and Strout, Notice of the bearing was sent to abutters and ntborr and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening 0onn in accordance with Massachusetts General Lawn Chapter 408. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting o Special Permit to ortoud u nonconforming rear setback to allow construction of an 8' o 20' deck 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, *biob provides an follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth is Section VIII y and IX D, grant Special Permits for alteration and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for cbau5eo` enlargement, ex- tension or azpauoinu of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses provided `\ ' ' ' . � however, that such change, extension, enlargement or ezpouoino 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 he 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 bearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: l . No opposition; 2. The addition of the deck would promote the convenience, safety and welfare of the City's 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: l . The proposed deck will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood; � 2, The relief requested can be granted without nullifying or substantially derogatiug from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ` Ordinance. .~r ' i DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID & KERRY FLADGER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 9A CLEAVELAND ROAD EXT. , SALEM page two I i Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit requested subject to the following terms: 1 . All construction be done as per the plans submitted; 2. A legal building permit 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 APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, G ANY SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PU'-ANT TO F"QS_ GENERAL LAYS. CHAPTER 803. SECPOJ; 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAI. PERMIT F.RANTED HFREIIa. SHALL NOi TAi:E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, BEARIi,. THF CERT- FICP.TION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL H'S BEEN FILE. THAT IT F1-.S BEEN DIS?IISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER,S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL i (9i#g ofttiem, ttsstttljusP##s } v;_a .z •o, eR L _. �tF�CE PnxrD of �ppcl APR R ['y THE PETITION OF RICHARD CONWAY AND CHARLES BRENNAN L�Lri _ WrP. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 9 COLBY STREET (R-3) $Alfr?'1,,44SS, �Cf; A hearing on this petition was held on March 18, 1987 and continued to April 15, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. , Fleming, Strout and Associate Member Dore. Notice of the original hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner are requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a second story addition 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: j i 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 i of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. i In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the 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 proposed addition would be in harmony with the area in general. 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 welfare and convenience of the City's inhabitants; 2. The proposed addition will improve the property. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The building must meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Department; 2. All construction conform to all applicable provisions of the Massachusetts State Building Code; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD CONWAY AND CHARLES BRENNAN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 9 COLBY ST. , SALEM page two i � 3. Proper street numbering be obtained from the Salem City Assessor; 4. Fifty eight (58) legal parking spaces be maintained on the site with three (3) of them reserved for handicapped. 5. All construction be as per plans submitted; 6. A maximum of eight (8) physicians be employed on site; 7. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained; 8. A drainage plan for the addition and the parking lot be reviewed by the City Engineer. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED chard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 0 APPEAL FRD;11 THIS Dn^ GENERAL LAV's ccIS10.11 I A!. PUR THNS GECIS p HAP M1cITHE Iq F,,2[SO ALL ALL BE V DE PURSUANT TS HFCTIOIJ 17 THE R+4SS. GRA Cv; rr TPc 20 DAY OF FICA1 t0 He iH °HALL FnE rl P SEC ERN. ER 'HE DAA (LING O r OF L 'A cR SD&, c Or F CEO CfTHAT, IF RD SJGNCAM1 ITYCL ERr TNA* 2"ENA�ED IN EAL Uh'IL A COPT' CF 1' THE VAOIAIIrF OP S .... HAS B SOCT C ORD OR IScRECCRDEDSEX AND RE"El 7YSEENEDEED�Lq'JDE IT If:SE d D,�'PSSED ro' 'z T" L.DRPa1T OfJ THE OWNER'S CERT, ER THE N, NO THE Dk'Jk5% E OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL 00 - (gi#g of "Salem, 'fflttssadjuse##fir 8 II 36 AN '07 • L � Pourb of Appv l FILE# �b unarm CITY CLERK.SALEM,MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HAMBT—F'T' & HAYES CO. FOR A . VARIANCE AT COLONIAL RD (I) A hearing on this petition was held on April 29, 1987 withe 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 the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner requests a variance from minimum setbacks to allow construction of. a solvent tank storage and packaging building on an existing containment dike in this I 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 nullibying or substantially derogating fran 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 finding of fact: 1. The proposed addition is in harmony with the petitioners present business. 2. No support or opposition was voiced at the hearing. 3. The proposed project would have close proximity to an existing rail siding. 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. The Variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating frau the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HAMBLEP & HAYES CO, . FOR A �y VARIANCE AT COLONIAL RD (I) f) PAGE 2 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 - 1 (Mr. Hacker opposed) to grant the variance requested subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions and concerns of the Salem Fire Dept. must be adhered to; 2. Approval must be given by the Salem Board of Health; 3. All construction be done as per plans submitted; 4. A legal building permit be obtained. VARIANCE GRANTED Ri hard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRO,,,'. iP!S CELLiOfi. !� `nY. SH.A_L GE PURSOA:"!T TO SECTIOi! 17 OF TF.- GENLRA_ :.A;:Y. DF F:LE': 20 DAYS AFf:R IFT E OF OF THIS DELIS.:., i.; iH2 ..F:::F Th' CIT'i CLERK. P�dGI Tc _ 'f;:�� C''i ' E" ,^;C$, ii. THE l .zCE °`.r.;ii F CR"IED H-F,E .._L N.s 1..E UE UNTIL A C P RK:r.- F OF RECORD OR IS --',-'RDED Aku Idui L;i moi': 'i liE CW:TER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APFEAL U OcT 16 3 os P8 '01 1� (fi#u of �ttfPm, ttssttcffusP##sF,LE,* 1 °� 3 CITY Cloth:. P.LFu., MAS£. .9 Poarb of '4pral ..G'A �t011/i4[ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & SALLIE CASS FOR A VARIANCE AT 92 COLUMBUS AVENUE (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held October 7, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Vice 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 Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioners, representing themselves, are requesting a Variance from setback requirements to allow for the construction of a temporary boat shelter at 92 Columbus Avenue, which is in an R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not, generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district: b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the • public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the 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 strong neighborhood support for the petition expressed at the hearing, including the approval of all the abutters; 2. The plans proposed are in harmony with the neighborhood are relate to the ship building history of 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 . Special conditions exist which affect the subject property but which do not affect the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would work 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. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM, & SALLIE CASS FOR VARIANCE AT 92 COLUMBUS AVENUE, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the requested Variance, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The temporary boat shelter is to be built as per the plans submitted; 2. A building permit must be obtained from the Building Inspector; 3. This Variance is to expire on December 31 , 1990. VARIANCE GRANTED ages M. Fleming, Esq. , Vice airman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK THIS nE, .t, SEAL FE ROE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE i"nS C N R:,L c CEF'TC S- 5' .L CE h: THE p;;I_E Or THE CITI' CLEfcK, c0 DAYS AFTER THE DATE 0- n_IN6 F THE VF ;'CF DR sf-.C. 7 R',IT ELTA is y Ur TF_..�, ST ...n.1 A F ._ . �a- r_ _. e 4 PEU HAS F F. IS II �i:.- 6� DI SSE CR . '__' F f Dc I Th S ''.1T ESS }. i E;u Ri C, D_ DS .1'10 II rrTHE .L' ,> 11 OF RECORD CR IS R 'OROED AND NOTED Or THE 0„ ,ERS CERTIFICATEOFTITLE.( .E OF THE OL7.';Eta BOARD. OF APPEAL .J (tutu of 'Sttlem, 'fflttssadjusrtts tI�• °� � �varb of �ppenl X61 58 Ali Nor 30 2 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SHETLAND PROPERTIES FILE# FOR VARIANCES AT 29 CONGRESS STREET ( I ) ^1ITq CLERK. SAI-EH,MASS. A hearing on this petition was held November 23 , 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Peter Strout, Peter Dore and Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General laws Chapter 40A. The petitioners, represented by Attorney William F. Quinn, are requesting Variances to allow lot coverage in excess of the 45% maximum in the Industrial District; a front yard setback from Pingree Street of 15 feet, (being less than the 30 foot minimum required for this District) , and to allow parking stall design and dimensions different than those specified in Section VII of the Zoning Ordinance, and as shown on a plan. These Variances would be used for the construction in two phases of a structure at 29 Congress Street, said property being located in the , Industrial District ( I ) . The intended use of the new structure w is as an accessory use parking garage to service the Shetland _ Industrial Park. 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 do not generally affect other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. a 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 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 petition presented at the hearing; the City of Salem Planning Department, the City • Councillor for the ward in which the project is to be located, and an abutter all spoke in favor of the proposal . DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SHETLAND PROPERTIES FOR VARIANCES FOR 29 CONGRESS STREET, SALEM page two 2 • Parking in this area is at a premium and construction of the facility shown �• _ will greatly improve the parking both on the , street and in the complex. 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. These special conditions include the substantial size, shape and location of the existing structures on the property; the nature of uses and tenancies at the property; the proximity and design of the existing roadway system serving the property, and the lack of alternative places where a parking garage of these dimensions could be located on site. 2 . A literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner in that complete conformity with these provisions would either force the petitioner to build a garage with much less space than would be financially sound and inadequate for tenant needs, or would lead to a significantly taller building which would be very unattractive to the nearby residential neighborhood. 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, because it would serve to improve significantly the parking on site for uses which are contemplated by Industrial District zoning. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant the requested Variances, so as to allow the construction of each phase of the parking structure as shown on the plans of Vitols Associates as filed with the Board. The variances are granted subject to the following conditions : 1 . that the petitioner obtain a Site Plan Special Permit from the Planning Board, a building permit and all other required permits; 2 . that the structure comply with all pertinent fire codes and regulations; 3 . that all lighting fixtures be directed downward and inward from the perimeter so as to minimize affecting the neighborhood, and 2 - DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SHETLAND PROPERTIES FOR VARIANCES FOR 29 CONGRESS STREET, SALEM j/ page three l •, 4. structure be located no closer than fifteen ( 15) feet to the lot line; iw. 5. existing green space be maintained and expanded as shown on the plans and be installed as part of the construction of the first phase of the structure, all under the direction of the City Planner; 6. A Certificate of Occupancy be issued. VARIANCES GRANTED ✓:James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLE AFP--AL FROJ1 THIS DKISIO:I. IF ANY. SHLLL 5E L:AOE PUR3UNT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. 'N'F,4 LU'S. S_", AdIO SHALL OE FSi�l '0 DAYS A�1iER. THE DATE OF FILING Cr Tfi'S DEC''.S:C'I I:: 114E DFi ISE GF THE Ci?! CLCPK. F_iS= :i C^' E r? -Tr--I' i Flo IT Ei Ei.T L' . t, ,.. . _ '._.7T _? i:v -,r,: ,._ _abc.1 LEs..,:rcl' „D u_cDS N.0 r:C6_E0 J..__.. .r -;A.:E LF THE C;iN EF. OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNERS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. r✓' • BOARD OF APPEAL •Y OcT 11 3 01 PM 187 Ctu of '�$ttlem, Httsstttlluse##s yV A 9 pOMTD of k pVwl @ITY CLERK. S.AL!h'. H SS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HARBOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. (PETITIONERS) , JOSE DOMINGUEZ (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 100-102 CONGRESS ST. (B-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held October 7, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Vice Chairman; Messr. , 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 Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners are requesting Variances from density and parking to allow two residential units and a day care center in this B-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners; ` 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 . For this building to be utilized for any allowed uses would require variances from parking requirements and density; 2. The building is existing and the proposed uses are allowed uses in this B-1 district; 3. This is a congested area and this use would have less impact on the neighborhood and other allowed uses; 4. On abutter appeared in 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 the subject property but not the district generally; fr 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship • on the owner and the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. ' y DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HARBOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. (PETITIONER) , JOSE DOMINGUEZ (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 100-102 CONGRESS ST. , SALEM • page two Therefore the ZoningBoard of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Variances from density and parking, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau be adhered to; 2. Building Permits for any structural work be obtained; 3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained; 4. Certificate of Inspection be obtained; 5. All required local and state licenses for the day care be obtained; 6. The hours of operation be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday; 7• Minimum of two legal parking spaces be maintained on the side; 8. All as per plans submitted. 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 DEti3ICN. :- VPY. SHALL BE f!ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE !—S. CENERAL L"VS. CHAPT 80E, AND $H=U_ PE CO DAYS AFTER THE P=TE OF CF THIS DEC:SICf H, TH_ CF;c" ..,F THE CITY CLERK, P;";✓,,I 1„ J.S S. R.._ KIS c;'i.:'I: n THE lRr;'iE r F;;+. CH. UL C, 7v 'i Ug7ML AC`P"! :r THE- h I!."Tl' LF TH'1. C17i 'i i.R. ,H= It S"i 4Pr...�L H''a 'Y F!L_. T i:. LTSCi� _ R .,_.__ THE �-.'r^ SE): PtcT'�I`.� VF �_ � A� a tD i;P.i, ...,,.t l,i ,,,....... OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND \'DIED CK THE MMER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL s" i p Zi os Ctu of "ittlem, 4&60ar4ujifs CITY C4Ej r,'c UFFME t • :'�", �Oxta Of �.VpzaI SALEM MASS. t ,y R=cums cQ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JONATHAN REARDON, TRUSTEE, REARDON REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE FOR 142 DERBY ST. A hearing on this petition was held February 18, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Luzinski, 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 Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from parking require- ments to allow the existing retail use on the first floor to be changed to a residential use. Property is located in a B-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise; to 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, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no major opposition; 2. Reduction in use would be in keeping with the area as business use has been decreasing; 3. There are no open spaces in the immediate area to be purchased or rented for parking space. 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 Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on 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. } i. t 1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JONATHAN REARDON, TRUSTEE, REARDON REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE FOR 142 DERBY ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board .of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance v"` requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . A Building Permit be obtained; 2. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained; 3. Plans are to be presented to the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. VARIANCE GRANTED ames B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROS: THIS DECISION, IF UY, SHA!"L BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF TI:- GENERAL LAWS. CHF.FTER 2D5, A13 SHALL BE FiLb CVITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER. THE DAiE OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSA;'J TO fIASS. GE:';ER d LA"K. CHAPTER 500, SECTION 11, THE VARIANSE OR SP`CIA'_ F= CRA'-iED HEREIN, SHALL NDT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF IHEDECISION, EEARI!ia TFIE L HCATION OF THE 01' CLER:; TH 0.T 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL Hi;S BEEII FILED, OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISIdISSEO OR DENIED !S RECORDED IN THE S2.'JTB ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAiLE OF THE i:' '. OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL �y. r" r, of ,§aIrMGil it r tts5ttt�use �� E i SALEM, MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JONATHAN REARDON, TRUSTEE, REARDON REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE FOR 142 DERBY ST. A hearing on this petition was held February 18, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Luzinski, 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 Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from parking require- ments to allow the existing retail use on the first floor to be changed to a residential use. Property is located in a B-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise; to 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, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no major opposition; 2. Reduction in use would be in keeping with the area as business use has been decreasing; 3. There are no open spaces in the immediate area to be purchased or rented for parking space. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at t' 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 Ordinance would work ,.; a substantial hardship on the petitioner ( • 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to t*:e public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from t- intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. ,v DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JONATHAN REARDON, TRUSTEE, REARDON REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE FOR 142 DERBY ST. , SALEM page two / •a Therefore, the Zoning Board .of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance''. °- requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . A Building Permit be obtained; 2. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained; 3. Plans are to be presented to the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. VARIANCE GRANTED Rares B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK i AFPEA.L FRO;' TH:S DSi_D5. C '.;Y, SHAD BE M OE PL!RS7ANT TO SECTIO'.: 17 OF TO r " GENERAL LAWS. CHT&M 233. A':;, SHALL EE naD Wi':!i U1 2U DAYS AFTEP. :EE E'O: 01 F.. CF ThiS DECISIT: IN THE CFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. P•,,._...,: TD LAST GE'.EP.'._ QW3 CH°TER SCD, SECTMA IL THE VARIANT ,.? SP_^h - iF «-". k:'' T'.I'.E EFFET UPITiL A COH OF iH`_J AT M - Fr.-TIi{. C THE 0 , CLEP.', TH=.i 20 DA.S HAdE E�,.��`_D H 'G 6., APF-Al HrS .E ..._'J. CR. ',H-T. Ir SGL!' -.Y A?FEEL H:.S BEE; FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DI`LLISSE'J OR' L'EI"EJ :S P,ECOWED IN THE SITE ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDENED UNGER THE NO! Or NE i. n OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL q k 1 *.Cow 417 Ctv of "Salem, C USSUC jusetts Jax 19 8 35 kh '88 • � S Pourb of � PIIl FILE# / CITY CLERK.SALEM uASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ILENE TALKOWSKY ( PETITIONER) , MAX TALKOWSKY (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES FOR 1 DEVEREAUX AVENUE (B-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held October 28, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming, Vice Chairman; Messrs. , Luzinski, Labrecque, Dore 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 John Serafini, Sr. , is the owner of the subject property and requests Variances for lot area, rear yard setback, and frontage to allow for the construction of a single family dwelling at 1 Devereaux Avenue, Salem. The property is located in a B-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 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. 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 strong neighborhood support for the petition at the hearing; 2. The proposed use is in harmony with the existing 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 this property but do not generally affect other properties in the same district; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would work 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. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ILENE TALKOWSKY ( PETITIONER) & MAX TALKOWSKY (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 1 DEVEREAUX AVENUE, 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 . Building is to be built as per plans submitted to the Board; 2. All the requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. must be adhered to; 3. The petitioner must obtain a building permit from the building inspector of the City of Salem; 4. Proper street numbering must be obtained from the City of Salem Board of Assessors; 5. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained from said building inspector; 6. All construction must conform to the requirements of the Mass. Building Code. VARIANCES GRANTED 4 1 ames M. Fle ing, Esq. , VicZDAND hairman • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOA THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROA'. THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE 6:A:E PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE L,.,. =. GENERAL LA:1S. CHAP EP K-,. AND SHALL BE F:_t_ 'L 4HIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DVE OF THIS DEC:S:::N IN THE OFF; OF THE CITY CLERK. P ._ � is lb$. L.?:FR1 _?Y:E. C -ES CSE. ll, THE HEREIN r�_. ALL NC: TA__ EFF-C-, UI:TIL A CCPV OF THE (.F THE CITE 'L'Rai ''i ,? iH1'.. IF SJ, PA' APP61!. fi;..S E'.": F;LE. RPCG F:C ED IN THE S5U'.H ESSE). RE61SiRf OF L'ELDS ;T D OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE Of7NERS CERTIFICATE Ov TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • (tai#g ofttlem, ttsstttl#use##s . 9 Poxrb of '4vexl Jul 18 3 11 PH '87 ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOAN MCCARTHY FOR A VARIANCE FILE# FOR 23 EAST COLLINS ST. , (R-1 ) 61iT CLERK, SALEM., MASS. A hearing on this petition was held July 15, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Vice 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, owner of the property, is requesting a variance from side and rear setbacks to allow construction of a 12' x 16' shed in the rear of the property. 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; z c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 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. Owners are faced with serious storage problem as there is no attic or cellar; 3. House was built of a very small lot. 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 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 fr intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOAN MCCARTHY FOR A VARIANCE FOR 23 EAST COLLINS STREET, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the r.r. Variance requested, subject to the following conditions. 1 . The shed is not to exceed 12' x 161 , as per plans submitted; 2. Shed to be erected as per plans submitted; 3. Property comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. ; 4. A building permit 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 Ali 1APPEAL 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 W:ASS. GE3IERAL V.:':>. CHAPTER 898, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT _ GRANTED HEREi;;, SH=-.LL L-- �,..,E EFF=:T UNTIL A COPY OF THE DEC!SIC`L 5EAR!X: TH_ CERT FICATION OF THE CI'i CLEKr. i'anT 20 DRYS HAVE RAPSEB `..!u NO APPEAL HAS BBT FLED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN .APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. TIi.Ai 1T H'`' LEEN DIS r:ISSED OR D-NIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOU111 ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEPS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA"IE OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL �'r A COV Ctv of ttlem, 'Massar4a whe ii PH '87 y9, Pourb of �ppeal FILE* h�IMM6 CITY CLERK.SAL EK,MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & KATHLEEN WALSH FOR A VARIANCE FOR 5 EMERALD AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held July 15, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Vice 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance from rear setback requirements to allow construction of a deck in this R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Opposition was voiced because of abutter losing privacy; 2. Petitioner agreed to install a six foot cedar stockade fence on the rear boundary to insure the neighbors privacy; 3. Hardship would result with locating the deck anywhere else on the property because of ledge. 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 1 intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. i DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & KATHLEEN WALSH FOR A VARIANCE FOR 5 EMERALD AVE. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . A six (6) foot cedar stockade fence be installed on the boundary line of the Abraham/Walsh property; 2. Deck be built as per plans submitted; 3. All construction comply with state and local building codes. VARIANCE GRANTED C� eter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 17 OF APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL B, EDDY I?HRSU2 DAYDS AFTER ITHE DATE OF FILING GEY.ERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 309. AND SHALL 8= nP, SPECIAL P3\11T $ECTiC'.: il. THE VA..IANC'E R.i(„ TH'. CERT OF -'HIS CECi51"^' r crITHAI LAr•'SE CHAPTER cTHE 61�Y CLERK. h ,::..'.'L E-- THE F. 9'..ED. PJRS'IT Ti a _R Tk<,E Er-E 7 UdTiL A CCFf ;RAd.ED F:ERci Sh;LL N' =-�� nIS".SS`_D CR L_i;;.D IS fiC�.TiON OF 1Ht t' I CLER R. ' 20 D i1 nAVE EL _ c.__ N'S 3`_N ° IY.A7. I THE itA;,4E OF THE OWNER OR THAT. IF S.._H A'.': APPL- � Cr DcEDS l i DEAE� C ' RECGRDEp IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RNOTEDYON THE OWNERS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND BOARD OF APPEAL ce)- (tLitg of '$ttlem, 'fflttssar4usdis Vt r ' f Poxrb o �ppvd ,lAN LA ,J Ol DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SCOTT KEATON FOR A VARIANCE CITY "_!r, ,' NFFICE FOR 11 ESSEX ST. SALEH. HASS, A hearing on this petition was held January 14, 1987 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 a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. A petition to convert this property to a three family dwelling was denied by the Board of Appeal on November 19, 1986. The Board of Appeal, after hearing evidence regarding substantial change, said change being an acceptable parking plan, and after receiving Consent from the Salem Planning Board, v6ted unanimously that there was substantial change in the petition and they would re-hear the case. 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 •a 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 and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was major neighborhood support; 2. By allowing a three family dwelling it would enable the owner to substantially improve the building and thereby improve 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 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 nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SCOTT KEATON FOR A VARIANCE FOR 11 ESSEX ST. , SALEM page two I • Therefore the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the Variance requested and allow property to be converted to* a three family dwelling, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Property must be owner occupied; 2. Parking plan be designed so that cars will park at an angle away from Essex Street; 3. Property meet all regulations of the Salem Fire Department relative to the installation of smoke detectors and fire alarm configuration; 4. A building permit be obtained for all construction; 5. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained prior to proposed unit being occupied. VARIANCE GRANTED ames B. Hacker, Chairman�r A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK .=":L ri, TH13 „ii"I_L DC tn_ PDRS - T2 .- _ ;g;c DE-'S,M. ! 'F-:% THE LI'/ .C-ER?:- t ' J `h_ L+. 1'.10. u,. tL-,i'.;FC .. . : L HH' ;J-1) t' SL n°S_X F GF `[ c OF RECORD OR IS R,GDRDED AND I G " Di: TI-E OVINERS CF R11F1C..7E D° 1 �E. BOARD OF APPEAL u :` • Ctg Of ttlPm, tt8$ttt usPttB RE !dl_0 t ; ''••�,��. "� �DttrD of �► ettl AYR iy oc' QH '91 C17SAL '.,r'`w GrF10E DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL AND DEBRA CARDELLA N, NA$$, FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 20 ESSEX STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on March 25, 1987 and continued until April 15, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. Fleming, Strout and Associate Member Dore. Notice of the original hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the original hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owner of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming density, use and side setback to allow construction of a two story addition 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 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 a:,• to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Letters of support from the City Health Officer and [lard 2 Councillor were submitted; 2. A petition signed by neighbors, abutters and others was submitted; 3. A letter of opposition was submitted by one abutters; 4. The bottle deposit law and an increase in business has caused a lack of storage space; 5. The loading area would be moved off Essex St. thus alleviating a traffic problem; -�� 6. The plan was approved 9-0 by the Planning Board; • 7. An increase in the family has caused the need for more living -- space on the second floor. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL AND DEBRA CARDELLA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 20 ESSEX STREET, SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the `� •' hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed addition would improve the property; 2. The proposed addition will promote the welfare and convenience of the City's inhabitants; 3. The enlargement will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All work be done as per the plans submitted; 2. The addition for the first floor be used for storage only; 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department in its letter to the Board regarding this petition be adhered to; 4. All construction be done per all existing State Building Codes; 5. All delivery trucks must park on Forrester Street while making deliveries at the store; •' 6. A legal building permit be obtained; 7. A Certificate of Occupancy for the second floor residential space be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED 10) 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 A?11'. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAVIS, CEA.PTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECIS;ON IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PUP.SANi TO MASS. GENERAL LA'AS. CHAPTER 808, SECTIGN 11. THE VA7.;ANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NO7 TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDEC6FONi. BEARINIR THE CERT- FICATI3N OF THE CITY CLERK, THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED ANO NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN: DIS:�ISSED OR DENIED IS _ RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNER THE NA:.iE OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE DYJN ER'$ CERIIFICATE OF TITLE. a y�:� - BOARD OF APPEAL Co��4 Iffitg of ttlem, Htt88ttt usE#� � I O 2 55 PM 181 � A • ;' s Paurb of '4veal FILE# 'QO�MIM6 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JACQUELINE HEMEON FOR A CITY CLERK, SALEM% XASS, VARIANCE AT 462' ESSEX ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held December 2, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Vice Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. , Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notice of the hearing was 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 setbacks only to allow existing lot in this R-2 district. The variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; • c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The building and lot has been in this condition since Planning Board approval in 1983; 2. Without relief subject property would be unsaleable; 3. Support of the plan was voiced by neighbors, abutters and others. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and other 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 Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on 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 JACQUELINE HEMEON FOR A VARIANCE AT 461 ESSEX ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the • variance requested on condition no new construction be done on the site. GRANTED chard A. Bencal, Secretary J A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL ATCIF ANY, LBOSNT TO SECTION THE K GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BEFIEDWITHN20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING F THE CITY CLERK, OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE 0 PURSART TO MASS. GENERAL LAY.S. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT CFF.NTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISIO:"1, BEARING THE CERT- FICATIIiN OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILIS ED. CR -H=T. !F SUCH AN APPEAL. HSS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISNi1S$ED OR DEE OF T OF THE SOUTH S REGORGED ESSEX REGISTRY NOTED YON F THE EOWNER'S NO I CERTIFICANDEXED TE OF TITLE.ER THE NA OF THE DYl Fi=F. BOARD OF APPEAL e e Ctv of �$ttlrm, 4RUSSUr4usettS � �� X10 3 � PlI `�i s Poxrb of &Awd e0141M6� �'l��t i CITY CLERK,SALEM.. DECISIHAWON ON THE PETITION OF MARIA L. MARQUEZ FOR A VARIANCE AT 69 ESSEX ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 29, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow the property to be converted to a two family residence 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; 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 . Support or the plan was voiced by neighbors, abutters and others; 2. The convenience store, recently closed, posed a traffic problem to the area and the conversion to a second dwelling unit will help alleviate this 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 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement 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 and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. ii 3 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARIA L. MARQUEZ FOR A VARIANCE FOR 69 ESSEX ST. , SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following Conditions: s I 1 . A Certificate of Occupancy for the second unit be obtained; { 2. All work be done as per existing State & City Building Codes; 3. Petitioner maintain and provide three (3) legal non-obstructed parking spaces on site; 1� 4. Plans be reviewed and approved by the Salem Historic Commission; I 5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. be adhered to. VARIANCE GRANTED ,�'RiChard A. Bencal, Secretary 1 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS D CJS!OF; IF ANrY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. OF THIS DECI CHAPTER E ' AP;p c,Hp,LI BE FILED 4'i.?HIN 2D DAYS ATTER THE DATE OF FILING Of Tris UEC!S!ON lii THE CPILRSA�jFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. TO GRANTED Hu'_-F.�Srr; PG_ LA ?P. Che r R 893. S:,;i IL P� 11. THE V.431ANCE OP `P"C!AA!_ PER:':;IT FICATION OF THESHALL fv 1 T,f'E EF ELT UiMfL A C o/ OF 7H CI.II N. 6E .1 .. OR THAT, IF SU''H AN APPRS_ F'1c BF DAYS HATE LAr� u A;:D NOP P:ilL THE CERT RECORDE0 Ihi THE SOUi EN FILE. THAT IT rifts BEgY DIS- ,.cr\HAS E_EN, FILED, OF RECORD H ESSEX: REGISiRP OF DtrD$ AND INDEXED MED IS OR IS RECORDED AND NOi EU ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. ER TFIc C,,.;,L Cr iHc" D'VifJER BOARD OF APPEAL i �3'"� ``^r► (fi#u oftt#em, Httssttcljuse## � �M IN It Pnxrb of §AL€M:MA§§: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF R. AIMEE BENOIT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE AT 96 ESSEX ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1987 and continued to June 24, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski and Associate Member Labreque. Mr. Labrecque, however, was absent from the June 24, 1987 meeting. Notice of the original hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow a three family and is also requesting a Variance from minimum parking 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 is 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 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, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Evidence submitted by the petitioner in the form of copies of • the "Polk Directory" and City Directories indicate the building has been used as a three family since before 1900; a i i DECISION ON THE PETITION OF R. AIMEE BENOIT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 96 ESSEX ST. , SALEM page two • 2. Utility meters for three residences are and have been in place for a long time; 3. Presently, no parking exists and the three family use would not change this; 4. No opposition was presented. 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 condition 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Special Permit, subject to the following conditions: • ` 1 . All conditions of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be adhered to; 2. No exterior additions are to be made to the building; 3. A Certificate of Occupancy for each unit be obtained; 4. A legal building permit be obtained; 5. All renovations be done as per all City and State Building Code and as per plans submitted. The Board of Appeal also voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Variance requested subject to the following conditions: 1 . The petitioner obtain three parking spaces from the Salem Off Street Parking Commission at its nearest facility if said Commission agrees. SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE GRANTED R hard A. Bencal, Secretary APPEAL FROs7 THIS DE-ISD,`!. . ;C;Y. SHALL DE :SAD p�ft °" ",LAWS. CF.tVrpOM. @EI JESBpEk-'��?w �� �'la BTW-StHE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • 'DEC!S!C;N IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. A t ATE OF FILING TO MASS OE_.'iERAL 1:9i1S. CHAPTER SOS. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERI:?IT G,___.J HERE N, SHALL NOI TARE ERECT U14TIL A COPY OF THE PECISI'OBEAR!Nu THE CERT- FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED ANO NO APPEAL HAS DEEP: FILED, OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT If HAS BEEN DISN.ISSED OR 0.NIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. ROCpn nr eporn, r (gi#v of �tt1Pm, Httssttcliu�r##s Aug6 so PH 81 PDMrbi of CAPPettl ME# CITY CLERK,SALEM, MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ENDICOTT REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES FOR 203-209 ESSEX ST. A hearing on this petition was held July 29, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinksi 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 Variances from density, setbacks and parking to allow two stories to be added to the existing building known as the Newmark Building. Said building to be used for a mixed commercial and residential use in this B-5 district. The Board of Appeal, after hearing evidence, and at the request of the petitioners Counsel, Attorney Roger Soderberg, voted unanimously, 5-0, to allow petitioner Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. WITHDRAWN Fd A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK IRSUANT TD SEc N c A'iY SHA 1 E P1ADE P_ n! CD DAYS AFTEq FNE nA � ILI4G APPEAL FRC^ THIS Dtila A.D n'- c� ril !.F°'.C`_ il FF CI-Y t ri. GENERAL U Ic LNI?Pi�t L1 7L.E 01-- Cc r OF 7HiS UcPURSAN IU GRAfSEC 'i:i Efc ' FICAT!JN OF F.3 ° • _ i _.p..� D OR THAT IF SI�Ch A? ,tPPti F u. :c RECORD„D IN THE SUJ.H i�DtEU UN THE WIUcR.. EP, IE OF IITL� APPEAL OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND BOARD OF 3 DEC 3U 2 s9 Ph'8-i (9TtV of Salrm, tt3stttlluSetts FILE# 15-61 • 3�, -9 poarb of '4pu l CITY cLFf:K `J.ss. ���I41ML DECISION ON THE PETITION OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GROUP, INC. FOR A VARIANCE AT 234 ESSEX ST. (B-5) A hearing on this petition was held December 2, 1987 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 variances from density requirements established by Table III, Section VI as follows: 1 . As to an existing building located at Washington St. and 234 Essex St. in a B-5 zone and known as the "Kerr Building"; a. maximum lot coverage; b. minimum width of side yard; c. floor area ratio 2. As to the proposed new building; located at 90 Washington St. and also in a B-5 zone; a. minimum lot area per dwelling unit; • b. maximum lot coverage; c. minimum width of side yard d. maximum height of building ( feet) ; e. maximum height of building (number of stories) f. floor area ratio 3. Petitioners are also requesting a Variance from minimum parking requirements for sixty nine (69) residential units. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. r' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GROUP, INC. FOR A VARIANCE AT 234 ESSEX ST. , 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 . The building is located in the B-5 area; 2. Petitioners plans provide for sixty-nine (69) parking spaces in surface and underground parking; 3. It is impractical to maintain the entire existing structure and provide on site parking due to the close proximity at the train tunnel which runs under Washington Street; 4. Construction as shown on the plans will retain and add to the current retail activity and stimulate small businessess; 5. This project will provide for new business to locate in Salem and therefore create jobs; 6. This project will substantially increase the tax revenue on the property; and 7. There was community 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: • 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 petitioner; 3. The relief reqeusted 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 Variance requested under the following terms and conditions: 1 . Petitioner must include in the Condominium Documents the provisions for the Condominium Association to purchase from the City of Salem a minimum of thirty-five (35) parking spaces at any municipal facility; 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 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; 4. The City will not, now or ever, be responsible for rubbish and • trash removal; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GROUP, INC. FOR VARIANCES AT 234 ESSEX ST. , SALEM page three • 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; 6. Petitioner will provide sixty-nine (69) on site parking spaces in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board; 7. Petitioner will provide in the Condominium Documents for the parking spaces to be non-severable from residential unit ownership; 8. Petitioner will comply with requirements of the Salem Fire Department; 9. Petitioner will obtain and comply with the requirements of all building permits; 10. Construction shall be in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board; and 11 . The building shall be numbered in accordance with regulations. VARIANCES GRANTED . James M. Fleming, Esq. Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILIN3 OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, PURSAN'F 1J ;:ACS. CENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL FEP' IT HAii!ED HEREIN. SHALL IVa! IA EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DE CISH N. SEAR.':.: THE =ERL rILATi,o iC C4 THE CIIl CLERK TEAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED A79 NO APPEAL HAS 5-EN F .,D. cR THAT, IF SULH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS SEEN DIS?,ISSED :;F. ;.=':IBJ IS RECORDED IN THE SOUIH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE N;:.;E OF THE OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • i o' w r7 iii#g of Am, JU 1 2 59 Phi '87 co ' t ^ Tourb of C`�FP� FILE;k � `$ ��� - CITY CLERt;.SALEN.t9A55. AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FREDERICK D. SMALL FOR A VARIANCE AND/OR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 331 ESSEX STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on April 15 1987, with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs.; Fleming, 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 the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. The petitioner, represented by Attorney John Serafini, is requesting a Variance and/or Special Permit to convert a roaming house at 331 Essex Street to six. (6) residential units. The 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 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,afet convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings .of fact; 1. Several neighbors and abutters spoke in favor of granting the Special Permit,..and-stated-that they favored the granting of a Special Permit fo`r four (4) units. 2. The petitioner, after several neighborhood meetings, agreed to Permit for only request the Special e y four (4) units. 3. The petitioner plans to restore the historic exterior of the property and to provide green space. 4. Adequate on-site parking is shown on the petitioner's 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 the subject property but do not generally affect the district; AMENDED DECISION ON THE PEI'ITIUN OF FREDERICK D. SMALL FOR A VARIANCE AND/OR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 331 ESSEX STPEEI (R-2) • PAGE 2 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 district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1, Mr. Bencal Opposed, to grant'.-.- the rantthe petitioner�a9Special Permit to allow the property to be utilized as'four (4) residen£ al_units,and for relief from the provisions of Table I of section-VI o'fy-the-Zoning-Ordinance relative to Lot Area, Lot Area per Dwelling Unit, Lot Width, Front Yard Width, Side Yard Width and Minimum. Distance Between Buildings, on a lot, as per the plans sula fitted, subject to the following conditions: 1. All the construction at the locus must be done in accordance with the provisions of the Massachusetts Building Code. 2. All the requirements of the Salem Fire Department, relative to Fire Safety, must be adheped to by the petitioner. 3. All necessary building permits and occupancy permits must be obtained from the Building Inspector, City of Salem. 4. Eight` (8) `parking spaces must be maintained on the property of the petitioner. 5. Any work on the exterior of the building must have the approval of the Salem Historical Commission. 6. No exterior stairways shall be added to the property. 7. The green space be maintained as per the plans submitted and as modified at the public hearing: 8. All other work at the locus be performed as per the plans submitted, and as modified at the public hearing. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED s M. F1 g, Esq. Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK A'.1' SHALL BE t ' _ P. T S CF _.. D ShL.L. Nc Flic ... . Tr. OF THE Glil I f TC: 4$ F . S l oTEo 8� r _ T. iF ;J C H Rrl�. �F c EFFECT UNIL `. Ih FI I' OF The rin r i 20 O::\$ H ` H B '1. FILE lF it r ' L: S> In P1If SUi.H 4 � . c 6r1� . ..,_ .c0 l tF F, i ;. Oi 1)ED I" THE S �i': RE `SMI f c OF "nEwkD OR IS kc,,:.:,.: F.iJ 11�i ED On Ti c O� nER S (.u;I IFI�F E Gr iliLL. BOARD OF fa"':'E": (9i#g ofttlem, ttssttcllusp##� �nxrD of �p-pud by 17 1 136 M 81 FILE# DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FREDERICK D. SMALL FOR A VARIANCE AND/OR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 331 ESSEX STREET (R-2) CITY CLERK.SALEM.MASS. A hearing on this petition was held on April 15, 1987, with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs., Fleming, Bencal, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the learning were properly published in the Salm Evening News in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. The petitioner, represented by Attorney John Serafini, is requesting a Varianre and/or Special Permit to convert a rooming house at 331 Essex Street t9 six- (6), residential units. The property is located in an R-2 District. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact; 1. Several neighbors and abutters spoke in favor of granting the-Variance;,) and stated that theyfavored the granting of a Variance for four (4) f r units. 2. The petitioner, after several neighborhood meetings, agreed to request the Variance for only four (4) units. 3. The petitioner plans to restore the historic exterior of the property and to provide green space. 4. Adequate on-site parking is shown on the petitioner's 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 the subject property but do not generally affect the district; n DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FREDERICK D. SMALL FOR A VARIANCE AND/OR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 331 ESSEX STREET (R-2) • PAGE 2 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 district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 -1, Mr. Bencal Opposed, to grant the,pettioner-a-Variance to allow the property to be utilized asyfour`(4 residential units and for relief from the provisions of Table I f'&-Section VI bf--the-Zoon g-Ordinance relative to Lot Area, Lot Area per Dwelling Unit, Lot Lot Width, Front Yard Width, Side Yard Width and Minimum Distance Between Buildings, on a lot, as per the plans submitted, subject to the follwoing conditions: 1. All the construction at the locus must be done in accordance withe the provisions of the Massachusetts Building Code. 2. All the requirements of the Salem Fire Department, relative to Fire Safety, must be adhered to by the petitioner. 3. All necessary building permits and occupancy permits must be obtained from the Building Inspector, City of Salem. 4. Eight (8) parking spaces must be maintained on the property of the petitioner. 5. Any work on the exterior of the building must have the approval of the Salem Historical Commission. 6. No exterior stairways shall be added to the property. 7. The green space be maintained as per the plans submitted and as modified at the public hearing. 8. All other work at the locus be performed as per the plans submitted, and as modified at the public hearing. VARIANCE GRANTED James M. Fleming Esq. (/ Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK: APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, is 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 / \\I OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL N0: TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. BEARIN; THE CERT- FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS.'91SSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL Ctu of "Salem, ffl 1 OR Puxrb of '4FVd !-ff I I'll,• 1 O��lNIML �1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF VINCENT MCGRATH FOR VARIANCES AT 397 ESSEX ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held Tuesday, September 29, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming, Vice Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Peter 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 seeking a Variance to allow an existing four family plus five rental rooms and a Variance from parking in this R-2 zone. 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 sane district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve / substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to tile t public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating froP the " intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The property has been used in its present conditions for many years; 2. No support or opposition was voiced or presen-edo 3. Petition has owned this property since 1978. 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 property but not the district in general; 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 detriment and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district 1� �} or the purpose of the ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF VINCENT MCGRATH FOR VARIANCES FOR 397 ESSEX ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the �. ` relief requested, provided that: 1 . All conditions of the Salem Fire Department in a letter to this Board, be adhered to; 2. Three (3) legal parking spaces be maintained on site; 3. Proper licensing for a rooming house be obtained from the Salem Licensing Board; 4. A Certificate of Inspection from the Salem Building Department be obtained. VARIANCES GRANTED i hard A. Benca , Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 1�?PC3tli�tpB 34lS�':S . IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. �EA'EftA1 a t'S.fCissvR 898. AND SHALL EE FILED MTH!N 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING 9F T#:IS =-'E_71 IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT) CLERK. ?,,URSM TD'7:;:.S, is C:`S P4L LAYS, CRAFTER SOS. SECIi3'! 11. THE V%rE:AFICE OR S°ECIAL PEP;4IT ZRAf,FED SHAL! N_-. T KE EFi i.^T UNTIL A COTE GF THE Ic:o?!. EEAR;'ice TH— LE%iT• FICT,wr:; ff ?HE. C!Ti CL.E�B.Tni,T Y9 DAYS HAVE r. °FS-O A.,i) .,S A.'FE.AL H-.S ES9 FILED. �R Tri AT -n SUCH AP! Apr..,L w, E-ra FILE. Tr! ' ! !4 $ E-EN .:IS=-^ OR rJ7ED IS �r^r QED !N THE S: TH ESSEX RE: ISTRY C% DEEDS A", INDEXED '%-r- SHE Ivti!;:E OF THE OWNER WFTuDRD.CR.IS RECORDED AND NOIED 014 TnE CWNER'S 0ERTM1-'..E OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL Ctv of ttlem, ttsstttl� s PH '07 IEE# �• ' S PDurb of Appvd C Y 6LEQy f d y c �. 2tt01411:6�4Y Vl�r VICE{P:v7 f�'�El�i,l'R a��. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARGARET TWOOHEY 8 DARROW LEBOVICI FOR A VARIANCE AT 122 FEDERAL ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 15, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Vice 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance from setbacks to allow construction of a porch 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 involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise,to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Subject property is unique due to lot configuration; 2. Proposed addition would add to the aesthetics of the building; 3. Approval of the design was given by the Salem Historical Commission in the form of a Certificate of Appropriateness; 4. No opposition was presented to the plan. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which affect the subject premises which do not generally affect the district; 2. The variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARGARET TWOOHEY & DARROW LEBOVICI FOR A VARIANCE AT 122 FEDERAL ST. , SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the petitioners the Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The proposed addition be done in harmony with the existing building; 2. The proposed addition be no closer than eight (8) feet to the property line on Lynn St. ; 3. A legal building permit be obtained. VARIANCE GRANTED l i vfdt.% l Richard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROW. THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MS. GENERHL LAIVS. CHAPTEP. 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PU'j ! T� '!'SS CFH'' H Li !S. C APTLR. 308 S,J!'JN It THE 0A SN CIA PERMIT CRANfEO HEcr . SHALL PJB TA ` E ii UNTIL A COPY' 0 THE . ISi TF .t.- FICATi N OF THE ' ICER`.; 'i t"^ '; DYS HAV- ELAPS_LC J NO k d H' B" FILtD, CR 7H! IF Sj'''n, PP-AL h o u_E:1 r A- IT NQ 3,[EDI IS E D OR DENIED IS RPT L: THE S " TH ESSE RE1ISTRP C` C- A:1D E"ED J' D 14_ E OF THE 07.;iER OF RECORD OR IS RLLORDED AND NDIED On THE OVINER S 'ERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL j rj) of Salem fflassar4usrtfs tL6 Lu 08 of �pprzd OFFICE SALEM, MASS, DECISION ON THE L:CJS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOP. 31 FLINT STREET A hearing on this petition was held February 18, 1387 with the following, Euard Members present: James Hacker, Chairman-, !Messrs. , Luzinski, Strout and Associate Members Labrecque and 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 and vdriance from parking to, convert a single family dwelling into a two family dwellina in this R-2 district. 0 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, 00 grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconformingstructures, and for changes, enlargement, structures, and c,xtensicn or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, 0 uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement cr expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to. the neighborhood. 0 In MOTe general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests , Ruided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding f the Special Permit will promote the cy Lhe Board that the granting o W W I bcaith, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants. The . which has been requested may be granted upon a findingof VFriance the Board that: a CDC-Gial conditions and circumstances exist which especial] affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not ­P.erally affecting other lands, buildings and structures In i the same district; b. literal erforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would 0 i:,.vclve substantial hardship , financial or otherwise, to petitioner; C. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment, to ti,e public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating 0 from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 0 e Board of appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented a rI U, after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: There was no neighbcrhoo(f opposition to the plan. The A2rd councillor spoke in favor of the plan. Ij ;he s'.­tePr. room home was formerly used as a two family . 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 will not substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioners; and 3. Special conditions exist which affect the building involved but do not generally affect other buildings in the same district. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously , 5-0, to grant the Variance and Special Permit requested. Relief is granted subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The proposed construction shall 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; and 2. A building permit be obtained and a Certificate of Occupancy. GRANTED. ; ^ Pet A. Dore, Associate Member Board of Appeal �y (ilTtg O f �ttlem, Massachusetts • i OPaxrb of �kppeal {, 2 3 Ol u 7 ti'•.nrns. � ,JAN LO 11I 181 j DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES HARRISON REQUESTING ZiTY iLIL • Ilc OFFICE REMOVAL OF A CONDITION FROM A PRIOR DECISION FOR 33-35 SALEM. MASS. FORRESTER STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held January 14, 1987 with the following Board Members present : James Hacker, Chairman; Richard A. 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 MGL, Chapter 40A. The petitioner, who is under written agreement to purchase the property, requests the removal of condition number five (5) that upon completion, each unit shall be owner occupied, from a decision made by this Board on October 15, 1986. 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 . Both support and opposition to the plan was voiced by neighbors, abutters and others. 2. The ability to acquire a mortgage is extremely limited with this condition for 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: I . The relief requested may be granted without substantially derogating from the original decision. Therefore the Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the relief requested. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED I. Richard A. Bencal, Secretary 47,1-2-' A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK P P o - THE 10C f THL iR n c F THL OF RECORD OP. IS R LCRDLD A u kr„ED + nS CERTIFIUC.E Or TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL j �a ..coNonl� of ttlem, Httsstttliuse##s Auc 6 q se PH '87 3 FILE# Paxrb of �"ett! CITY CLERK.SALFM..-uASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CRAIG DEROIN, TRUSTEE, 56 TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 56 FORRESTER ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 29, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the petition and at the request of the petitioner, voted unanimously, 4-0, to allow petitioner Leave to Withdraw his Petition Without Prejudice. SPECIAL PERMIT WITHDRAWN James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERF APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE NIA%. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. ANO SHALL BE FILED 71THM 20 DAPS AFTER THE DATE OF FILMH OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLRK. PNRSANT TO I.^ASS. GENERAL I AVS. CHAPTER EO3, SE1-71',N 11. THE l?--ICE DR SPML:L Pc'?IT GRANTED r'_REI71 SHALL NOT TA,E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF TH�J-' r3 E_.. .,.i _ESG- FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAI2) DAYS HAVE ELAPSED ;PID NO APPEAL HAS E-FN F:!---D, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN GILE, THAT 17 HT`S BEET! OiS:::iSCED CR "AIED IS RECORDED IN THE S(i&fH ESSLX RECISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED SLIDER THE NAt,IE OF THE Ol'IP1Ei' OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL pit 11 (gitg of �$Nlrm, efHttssadjusett Poxrb of �Vpettl of DECISION ON PETITION OF MARY T. CARROLL FOR A VARIANCE AT 77R FORT AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held on September 29, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Bencal, Fleming, Strout, and Associate Member Labracque. 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 petitioner represented by Atty. Robert A. Ledoux, is requesting a Variance from front and side setbacks, and lot size to allow for an existing dwelling at 77R Fort Avenue. The property is located in an R-1 District. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by the Board that: a, special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b, literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; • 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 opposition to the petition presented at the hearing; 2. If the petitioner were denied her requested Variance, she would suffer substantial hardship. 3. There was neighborhood support for the granting of the petition, including that of Councillor Leonard O'Leary. On the basis of the above finding of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect this property but do not generally affect other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; l8. 20 Il El 1�0 DECISION ON PETITION OF MARY T. CARROLL FOR A VARIANCE AT 77R FORT AVENUE SALEM (R-1) {�^ page two 3. The relief requested may be granted without substantial detriment to • ' the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating ti. Y s 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, with no conditions. VARIANCE GRANTED nn James M. Fleming, Esq. Vice-Chairman, Board of Ap al A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK c;}', SHALL BE M1SADE PURSUANT TO SECTION D OF THE TEE DATE D-, MASS- ILING APPEAL FRO-It THIS DFISI�..S, 'del: ZG DAYS hFfER GENEPA' U."is Gn ? _ ('4 Th° CITY CLEF cP ! FER"d IT CF IP THE r r {{qER &4D S:i"i'' '1 Td° •':n C f CEn'r C-- TI 'A-�' OF THE OViNER IS FI"S' L'_ Clic t,�E4. ' h $ N DIS 6 rO OP, C OR 'I : IF 'UCH A'.d APPEAL Hn u_E!d FI - - IT c = !;�':.c RECC!?5=� IN THE SDUTH ESS,, RS;i STRY OF DEECS ANO IICERT ERTIFID DIt OF RECORD DP, IS RECORDED AND NCiED ON THE OWNERS CCATE Of TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • II l (ilit of �$ttlrm, assachuset#s 3. Poxra of �kpprA • ,m JAN Lo J 01 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL L'ITALIEN FOR A CITY i. ,!,' u:=FICE SPECIAL PERMIT AT 9 FOSTER STREET (B-1 ) SALEM, MASS. A hearing on this petition was held January 14, 1987 with the following Board Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretrary; Messrs. , Fleming 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 The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the premises to be used as a woodworking and storage facility in this B-1 zone. f 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: f 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 building is now being used for storage; 2. There is another woodworking type business in close proximity; 3. Both support and opposition to the plan was voiced at the hearing. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The 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. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL L'ITALIEN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 9 FOSTER ST. , SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The building must meet all provisions of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety; 2. The hours of operation shall be 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays; 3. No lacquer of paints shall be used in the building; 4. All parking is to be done in the building; 5. The westerly side of the building must be soundproofed with a 3''" wall and the windows on that side must be blocked up; 6. All modifications to the building must be approved by the Salem Building Department. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED Richard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK { E APPEALFRON) THIS F=CJniLNIF A^iY. SHALELF5E'-r C P 2G Dr�S _. PE E GENERAL LAVAS CHAFE R AP.O OF THIS O°CIS'_ i� I;( HE OFF-CE r^ nTNn SCtJn CG _- 11 _ PJ'SA^.: TO r._ LSV S. c .. Flr .':Chi c - - t 02 'HAT , S N rL HrS r _ RECORDED IN RE S` n ESEE1: RSL nu V . r Lr OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NO ED ON TRE 0 _RS C`RTvi� BO RDD } BGARD OF AFFE:'L i i r.cowmrt� Ctg of 'Sttlem, 4Rttssar4usetts DEc 14 3 of PH '87 nxrb of ud � �� FILE# L, 1 +b�MIM6� s. CITY CLERK. SALEM,MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD LUTTS FOR A VARIANCE FOR 12 & 14 FOSTER ST. (B-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held October 28, 1987 and continued until December 2, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Stout 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, owner of the property, is requesting a variance from lot area requirements to allow construction of three residential units in a two story building. Property is located in a B-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the 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. Parking in this area is at a premium and on site parking would help alleviate this situation. 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 a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the Q •. intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD LUTTS FOR A VARIANCE FOR 12 & 14 FOSTER ST. , SALEM page tw Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the variance l✓ requested , subject to the following conditions: 1 . Building to be constructed in accordance with plans submitted; 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau be adhered to; 3. Proper numbering be obtained from the City Assessor; 4. Six (6) on site parking spaces be maintained as per plans submitted; 5. Landscaping be done as per plans submitted; 6. Building Permit be obtained; 7. Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each unit. GRANTED J James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL 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. PUP SANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PEF4f:T GRAiNTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UITTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION' BEAR:NG THE CERT HCATIuN 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 0'6Ci32 OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL NAY 8 1136 AM '87 FILE# ��.co.oel Ctg of '*Iem, SALEM.MASS. +�alNIM6 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GAETANO A. STOCCO FOR A VARIANCE AT 19 GA$TFG CIRCLE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held on April 29, 1987 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 Salm Evening News in accordance with the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner request a variance from side yard setbacks to allow construction of a garage in the R-1 Zone. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, the Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact: 1. Support of the plan was voiced by neighbors, abutters and others: 2. The shape of the lot is unique and any position the garage would be put in would require variances. 3. The proposed garage would enhance the property in question. 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 lot which do not generally affect the district; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship upon the partitioner; 3. The Variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent • " and purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GAEPANO A. SZOCCO FOR A VARIANCE AT 19 GABLES CIRCLE (R-10 Page 2 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested subject to the following condition; 1. The proposed garage to built no closer than 3� feet from lot #13 as shown on the plan. 2. All construction be done as per the plans submitted; 3. All requirements of the Salm Fire Dept. relative to smoke detectors be complied with; 4. All construction be done per all applicable State Building Codes. 5. A legal building permit be obtained. VARIANCE GRANTED chard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 £08, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECIS:OC IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO icASS. CEHERAL LAVAS, CHAPTER 838, SECTION 11, THE VAP.IANCE OR SPECIAL PER; ?IT GRANTED HERE::;, SHALL NOT TVE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE CECiSiJ: . EE421N!? THE HDT- FICATI^oN OF THE MY tI.EP'.. T iA.f 2.: DAYS HAYS `_LA?SED f::U NO APPEAL HAS 5EEi FILED, '2R T. IF SD.:I A.. APP-- iL FII•.S DcE:i FI'_E THAT IT U_-'N DIS'{ISSED 'R IS REZ':`.CEh i ,' TV. S'J H ESSEX 'r.EGIS?Rf CF LEEDS AND INDEXED UNDEi, THE GF THE CYiI �Fi OF WIZZI , OR IS RMIRDED AND NOTED Ci: THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.1 BOARD OF APPEAL t Ctg of Salem, tt$stttljusP 15 3 04 lei 167 , s Pourb of '4rral FILE# ���I41M6 .ITY CLE;1r_ S4i ' ;�. DECISION-ON=THE_,EETITION OF RAYMOND L. YOUNG FOR A VARIANCE ATt18 HERBERT S_T& 31 UNION ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on December 2, 1987 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. Petitioner, owner of said property, is requesting a variance to allow subject property to be used for off street 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 involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; • c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The use of the area as an off street parking lot helps to relieve a congested area of some vehicles; 2. Support of the plan was voiced byneighbors, abutters and others; 3. , The lots had been used as a parking lot by previous owners for many years. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal relief of the provisions of the Ordinane would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the • public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. l DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND L. YOUNG FOR A VARIANCE FOR 18 HERBERT & 31 UNION STS. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Eight (8) parking spaces be dedicated to the building known as 82'-8A and 8 Herbert St. ; 2. The lot be landscaped appropriate to the neighborhood; 3. A maximum of twenty (20) legal parking spaces be maintained on site as per the plans submitted. GRANTED Richard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK AFPE46 FROS. THIS DESISIJ't, I: ANY SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTIO!t 17 OF THE ... GENERAL LAJi S. Sib. AICD SdA:L EE FILO V:'flt; 20 DAYS AFTER THE SS'C OF -. ( TnIS C:Ei.5 iG4 IN i!iC .-5:I0E OF THE CITY CLERK P.'+;7 L �.SE C.C.:r'F'" lt,PlS. f.'!A,`TER 50:;, "NIC-N It. THE VrHIAS•'E '1C >. . _ t -?: S tt� N' I t EF,,:"T U`.':! A CEPY _. dC^E I �J F . 1'd �! 1 ILES tI U,i'.$ HAVE :'�V ^ Al i- f FUA H .'.. I T EEC: FILE. THA; II HA'S 'Jr C'. ITIS 4;S..5 '.'F RE:..-.._.. I:, THE J(UJi ESSE:( HCiSTS! OF CE:9S o!!D IG CEPS) is."„•E 7. L'r THE ... OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERT;Fii ATL OF TITLE BOARD OF AFPEA. • �,CON Wt4 DEC Z 8 18 AM X67 (9itV of ttiem, ttssttc�u�e##�I E 6�- 42 9 20oxrb of � Vpvd CITY CLERK.SAL EM.MASS. w 4 _.� wl41Mt' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ACQUISITION 1987 TRUST FOR VARIANCES-_AT .74 HIGHLAND AVE. (R-2) A hearing was held on this petition November 23, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Mr. 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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting variances to allow the property to be used for a parking area. Property 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 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 4 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. Neighborhood appeared to be in favor; 3. A severe parking problem currently exist and this additional parking will help to remedy this situation. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. The relief request 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 ACQUISITION 1987 TRUST FOR VARIANCES AT 74 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM page two 6 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimous) �• t y, 4-0, to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . A demolition permit be obtained prior to the commencement of the actual demolition; 2. Removal of asbestos, if any, be done according to all state and local regulations; 3. Parking be installed as per plans submitted, including green space and plantings; 4. Eighteen (18) parking spaces be maintained; 5. Positively no access directly to Highland Avenue from the parking lot. GRANTED 3 ames B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK f: APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. ( GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FLED WiTHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PU RSAfJT TO MASS. OE iEF..4L LA. ,'S, CH4PTER SCB, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NO1 TARE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECiSION. 6EARIR'; THE CERT FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS H.A`;E ELAPSED AN9 NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SJCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS"ISSEO OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER BT RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL W; (gi#g of ttlem, ttsstttl#use##s 3 � fILE# • ,'� y Paurb of �ppwl 6(TY CLERK,EtiL:)i.KASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 81 HIGHLAND AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held September 30, 1987 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, the Salem Hospital, represented by Attorney John Serafini Sr. , is requesting a Special Permit to allow renovation and additions to the Emergency Department, Macomber 4 and the Power Plant, also, a Variance from parking. The property is located in an R-1 district. The Provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a SpecialPermit 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 expansions shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighbhorhood. 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 findings 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 especailly 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 a 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. 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. Two power generators are badly needed by this facility; 3. Maternity and Emergency will be upgraded; 4. Daily census of patients will not be increased dramatically. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM HOSPITAL FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR 81 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM r — page two w t . r Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance and Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All exterior of new construction match as closely as possible to the existing building; 2. A building permit be obtained; 3. All work comply with State and Local building codes; 4. Compliance with all requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau be obtained; 5. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. GRANTED AameslIB-P. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SBALL 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. T,,• 1 BURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL L.WAS, CH4FTER 803, SECMI! 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PgR%'J r. . GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TATE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. BEAgkIi, THE C=BT FICni ON OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN F;'--'D. THAT. IF S'u'!.H AN APP-'�A HAS BEEP! FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS.';ISSED OR DENEED IS REC:;DED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA.,;E OF TF.- OF REDORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL Ctu of 'Sttlem, 'fflaagn l %s tsrF 13 P J :0: ��• i s PnxrD of Apvettl DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & THOMAS KATSAPETSAS f FOR AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTORS DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR FOR A VARIANCE FOR 103 HIGHLAND AVE . ( R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held February 18, 1987 and continued to March 18, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , 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, represented by Attorney Emmanuel Papanickolas, are appealing a denial of the Building Inspector of the City of Salem for a single family residence at 103 Highland Avenue, or in th ealternative a Variance from lot size, density and setbacks to allow the construction of a single family dwelling the that location. The property is located in an R-1 zone. The Variance ;jhich has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration c= the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was substantial neighborhood oppo; _ __on to the petition, including Ward Three Councillor Vincent. .)-faro; 2. There was evidence presented that there is a serious water runoff problem which would be compounded by development of the lot in question; 3. The Building Permit #375, City of Salem, dated June 3, 1986, and issued to a previous owner of the lot in question was not legally transferred to the petitioners. Furthermore, said permit was issued for construction of a building utilizing different plans than those submitted by petitioners. 4. The petitioners have substantially completed work on the building without a building permit and in disregard of a Stop-Work order dated September f� 23, 1985; 5. The Board further finds that the lot in question does not contain 5000 square feet of land, a condition necessary for the petition to be considered under the provisions of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A. , Section 6. In making this finding, the Board relys on the calculations and measurement performed for the Board by the Engineering Department of the City of Salem DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & THOMAS KATSAPETSAS FOR AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTORS DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR FOR A VARIANCE FOR 103 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM page two AWN 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 espectially affect the subject property and not the district generally; 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. 4. The lot in question does not meet the minimum requirements to be treated under the provisions of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A. Section 6. The Board,, therefore, upholds the Buildings Inspector's denial of a building permit to the petitioners. Therefore,the Zoning Board of Appeal voted two (2) in favor (Messrs. , Fleming and Strout) ; and two (2) opposed (Messrs. , Hacker and Dore) ; to the granting of the requested Variance and to overrule the decision of the Building Inspector. By the vote of 2-2 the Variance is denied and the decision of the Buidling Inspector is upheld. VARIANCE DENIED r•• DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UPHELD es M. Fleming, Esq. Member, Board of Appeal A COPY :r,IS 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 809, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSAN'T TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISIOf7, SEARIi4G THE CERT- FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL /71t 1 i' (fitg of 'SaIrm, assachusetts Poarb of 4VCaf Ff s q 3 2 N,961 fl!� r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD ZAROHIAN FOR A VARTAKE kA55. AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 111 HIGHLAND AVE. A hearing on this petition was held January 21 , 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming,Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearinc were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance to encroach on side yard setbacks and a Special Permit to extend nonconforming use in this R-1 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such ,. change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. u 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 affect 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; 3. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 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. It was determined that the project in its current plan would be detrimental to neighboring property values; 3. Petitioner failed to meet his burdon of proof with regards to hardship. p DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD ZAROHIAN FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 111 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 proposed plan would not be in harmony with the district and would not promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants; 2. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district generally; 3. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 4. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating froer the intent of the district and the purpose of Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, against granting the requested Variance and Special Permit. DENIED ames B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK S1- 17 I, 7HE _ I' RECORD OR IS nE`' uF s.w .L -E 0.. r r7�i- i1T_E. _. .._ •. 60ARB OF APP—, 1 M ��.004M1 _ t Titg of §3ttlem, Aussar4usetts Orr /q 3 os Pourb of Aertl DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT D. FARLEY (PETITIONER) , CHERRY HILL REALTY TRUST (OWNERS) FOR APPROVAL OF A REVISION OF SITE PLAN AT 114R HIGHLAND AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held Tuesday, September 29, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Vice Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Peter Strout and Associate Member Arthur LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly advertised in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petition, Architect for Cherry Hill Realty Trust, is requesting approval of revision of the site plan, originally approved by the Board of Appeal on January 21 , 1987 for this property which is located in an R-1 zone. The Board of Appeal, after hearing all of the evidence presented, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The change in the position of the building on site was requested by and done to meet the concerns of the City's Public Works Department; 2. No opposition or support was voiced to the proposed change. i . Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes that the proposed change will not adversely affect the original plan submitted and will better serve the needs of the area with the building moved to the new location. The Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the requested revision on the following conditions: 1 . The location of the building be moved to the new site as per the new plans submitted at this hearing; 2. Twenty two (22) legal spaces be maintained on site. GRANTED Richard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND 4F CITY CLERK O -C � .t r L m APPEAL FROM, THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE !:ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. W CENER.4L LAWS. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FLED W:71LE 20 DAPS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING s C3 rn OF THIS DECISION IN 4-10 1"THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. ,1 r ' P SA' i C ,���,S. C FKL Lf C� r �R 805 TCN L T IG VARI�F EOR SP�E�I�L PERMIT S SH �L N I-:FE ErV '.i UNTIL I C CFf C TH De g� ALD i 1 APP 4L H S ` LED d' m FIL T1-N CF iH+ GIT CLLF 1'f„ D Lf H A J w �! 2 c r R - ii IF SUCd Ni APPEAL 'r.. J E ! °;LF I'I. J 1 HAS -J P ,I« G CR DEIi� J IS R�COP.DED IN THE SAliH ESSEX rt I`ia, u. '� S FrD If'D-rE0 I:N DEiF_ �..4F1E OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NDTFD ON THE EMNER S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL a r z<tD-bc%!'N'� situ of 'Sttlem' cmttssadjuse##s Jut 1 8 42 X4 '87 Ir DECISION ON THEE PETITION OF PHILIP, MARY AND THOMIELECULIFFE TO AMEND VARIANCE AT 333 HIGHLAND AVENUE (BPD) CITY CLERK.SALEM-NABS. A hearing on this petition was held May 27 , 1987 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, represented by Attorney William Quinn, are the owners of the property located at 333 Highland Avenue. They seek to amend a Variance previously granted by this Board, relative to the subject property, which allowed two principal buildings on one lot. The site plan has been revised to allow greater � landscaping and open space than the plan originally submitted to the Board . This petition seeks to allow construction under the revised site plan. The property is located in a Business Park Development District (BPD) . The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after reviewing the revised site plan, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The revised site plan has the approval of the Salem Planning Board; 2. The revised site plan shows that the lot will have significantly more land area and that the new building will be set further back from the side lot line than the original plan proposed; 3. The revised site plan will allow a better landscaping at the lot, with more open space; 4. No opposition was presented at the hearing to the revised site plan. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to amend the . previous Variance, dated January 14, 1987, allowing the revised site plan, dated March 24, 1987, to be substituted for the original site plan. All the other conditions of the previous Variance are to remain in full force and effect, and are incorporated herewith. VARIANCE AMENDED James M. Fleming, Esq. ,' Vice Chairman ADDFAL FRO'.: THIS AECw:?Y_*NY IPANYT§WL;Fq A;49NSW I�iI Tr ESTHE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK . 'd LAIYS. CHAPT'_R 908. AI¢D SHALL BE FILED C;ITH:N 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING DECISION IN THE OFFICE CF THE CITY CLERK. TS ..:"'<.SS. •._„Eknl. LA,',”, CHL.-'ER ECi£. SEC,.—N 11. THE V0: A';CE CP £PE^IG.L FE7.'4 T CR 1TEs" EE:.:i1:. .HALL FfJi ',d`.E Er.':.':T L''JT:L A COPY 0, THE DECiS is C: ill('. THE CE^L THE C!TY 'LER:; Trai 221 DAPS HriE EL;PH D AN-I C7 APPS:L HS" F! D, OP. iH.J. IF SUCH A!; APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. TFHA.T IT n.,S bEER C:S':'.iS QED CR C;NiE.^ IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX. P.EC!STRY OF DEEDS AND INDE):ED UDicEP THE IlAL:E OF THE m%ra; OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OW'NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL ` ftt of �ttlPm, Ctt55ttth1TSP3 7 tuff FEf' 11 �2 •� Pnttr3 of �tr�Pnl DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS, PHILIP AND h;ARY MCAULIFFE FOR VARIANCES AT 333 HIGHLAND AVENUE (BPD) A hearing on this petition was held January 14, 1987 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, represented by Attorney Quinn, are requesting Variances to allow two (2) principal buildings on one ( 1 ) lot and a further Variance from side yard setbacks to allow the construction of building at 333 Highland Avenue, said property being located in the Business Park Development District (BPD) . The in- tended use of the new building is to house medical offices. The Variancesw ich 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; t 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 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 petition presented at the hearing; 2. The petitioners have secured approval from the Saler Conservation Commission, which has placed an Order of Conditions an the proposed 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 especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve i substantial hardship to the petitioner; • Jj 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the �• / public good and without nu'_lifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS, PHILIP AND MARY MCAULIFFE FOR VARIANCES AT 333 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM page two } Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the requested Variances, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1 . That all the requirements of the Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions be complied with by the petitioners; 2. That the building be constructed as per the plans submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeal; 3. That a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained; 4. That all applicable provisions of the State Building Code, Fire Prevention Code, City Ordinances, and Massachusetts General Laws relative to fire safety be complied with; 5• That all the requirements of the Salem Planning Board be adhered to; 6. That the new building not be occupied by more than sixteen (16) physicians; 7. That the petitioners maintain not less than eighty nine (89) parking spaces on the site of the new building, said parking spaces to comply with all the requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. y VARIANCES GRANTED dames M. Fleming, Esq. Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK F ._ T . TS_ i,.= Ti CL.F:L. : . a _.,uR-- OR IS RL.,-:n, Zo A;,- r � li:Er J Co i .,..��E u- Ti-LE. EDARD 0; APPEAL f (flit ofttlemttssttrlju$ 3 os PA '81 Paurb of 4veal 9 S •�'Jpeo/MINE�M1M FILE! 6dTY6LERr,, .{.ir+'. Lcc. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN P. KEAN, JR. REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF ELEVEN ( 11 ) CONDITIONS ON A VARIANCE GRANTED JANUARY 6, 1984 FOR 382 HIGHLAND AVENUE (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held on September 29, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; `= Messrs. , Fleming, Strout and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing = w= w was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published a in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws w ¢ . - Cfapter 40A. LL < w ¢ p T o Petitioner has requested the removal of eleven ( 11 ) conditions placed on a o r w Vt� iance granted by this Board on January 6, 1934 for property located at w r w ti w o 3& Highland Ave. , zoned B-2. Y W Ll C G = U The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No support was presented to the request; N " 2. Overwhelming opposition by neiLghbors, abutters and others — ° - was presented; J W C N = L 3. The property has not been maintained in the agreed to condition `. W by the petitioner; c .� i _. c, u z w 4. Petitioner has not made a good faith effort to live up to the conditions of the original decision; 5. The failure of the petitioner to adhere to, and comply with, the v a = provisions of the prior decision has adversely impacted the quality of life for the neighbors, abutters and others. a - r Based on the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, a motion was made to grant partial relief as follows: 1 ) relief from condition ,#1 of the original decision as to use; 2) relief from condition f7 of the original decision as to hours of operation; new proposed hours to be 1 :00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. , Monday to Saturday & 12 noon to 6:00 P.M. ; Sundays; 3) relief from condition #8 of the original decision completely provided that the signage comply with the Salem Sign Ordinance. The motion was duly seconded. The Board voted as follows: Messrs. , Bencal, Hacker and LaBrecque voted in opposition to the motion; Messrs. , Fleming & Strout voted in favor. The motion having failed to carry the four necessary votes in defeated and the petition is denied. DENIED 41char4Bencal, Secretary t� A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK , 1 4. Titg of �xlem, � 166ac Tusetts DEC 10 1131 AN 87 Potts of �kppvd FILE# �Y �01111NL� rf CITY CLERK.SALEM.MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EXTRA SPACE ASSOCIATION FOR VARIANCES FOR 441-445 HIGHLAND AVE. . A hearing on this petition was held November 23, 1987 and continued until December 2, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, 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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners are requesting Variances from lot coverage, frontage and use to allow construction of two building on one lot in this B-2 district. Buildings will be used as storage facilities. 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 structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the • p, 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 . The City of Salem Planning Department is in favor of this use; 2. Property is currently being used as a junk yard and is not in harmony with the existing neighborhood; 3. The property is currently poluted according to EPA standards and environmental studies; 4. The neighborhood is in favor with limiting conditions; 5. This is, in all probability, a use that will have one of the least impact on the area; 6. Proposal would generate low amount of vehicle traffic. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: •� 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; t DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EXTRA SPACE ASSOCIATION FOR VARIANCES AT 441-445 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM page two 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioners; 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, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Two buildings, two stories each, to be built per amended plans; i = 0 2. There will be absolutely no entrance or exit to this property via LL W o Clark Street; LL J W w 3. Parking to be as per plans on file; H 6 !n W W W 6 6 4. A retaining wall is to be constructed on the entire rear property line and W m g to be on grade level with abutting lots; O y 5. A six (6) foot chain link fence shall be placed on the rear lot line and y w P W appropriate noise abatement procedures be approved by the City Planner; '. G r• W W X Y� ° N 6. All lighting be places so as to shine towards Highland Avenue direction; " 3: 7• No laud speaker system is to be in operation; - W - ' W $ W W rz ¢ ~ 8. No heavy equipment is to be used on the property; z x i o i LL o W N w 9• The hours of operation are to be Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m. z to 7:00 p.m. No Sunday operation. 10. No building permit to be issued until the Salem Fire Department and w Q DEQE requirements are met regarding MGL Section 21E. s z y,;, W 11 , Construction be as per plans submitted and amended; U O N N 0 3 w o23 = 0 12. Proper numbering be obtained from the City Assessor; O ¢ � W w W c Q 13. Appropriate landscaping be done in cooperation with the Planning Dept. 14. A building permit is to be obtained prior to construction; 15. A Certificate of Occupancy and Use is to be obtained. GRANTED p APPEAL FROM THI -r�q� CTION 17 OF THE IAA7S ..-., E 8, AND AY['Dt rFILrE}Tl°1AfF Wao DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF �'• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HA FILINU aFP' �, I I4 SEE I&AMIf18' DGALD AND THE CITY CLERK PUP.SANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT •. (RANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, BEARING THE CERT - FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE S3UIH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNEF OF RECORD OR IS REOURDED AND NOIEU UN THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL j?. Ctu ofPoarb of tt1Pm, 2ISSttt 1lSPttB R��, ��.. p Ma o $4,'Ek �'Moss FicF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS PELLETIER FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 50-52 HOWARD STREET A hearing on this petition was held February 18, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Luzinski, Strout and Associate Members LaBrecque and 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 ptoperty, is 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 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 V111 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 granting of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, c mvenience and welfare of the City 's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful considering of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact : 1 . No opposition 2. The balance of homes on that street are three family homes. 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 . 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: •r 50-52 HOWARD STREET •" Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to moi grant Special Permit requested. Relief is granted subject to the following terms and conditions: 1 . The proposed construction shall 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, and 2. A building permit be obtained and a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. All Exterior finishes to conform to the existing finish. GRANTED Peter Strout, Member Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 4v� APPEAL FROM THIS DE JSION. ! SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF TH`_ "•:.. APPEAL F LAWS, IS DE:IR L08, Ai;C SHSH "cE P,L,i; lV!?HIN 20 DAYS AFTEP. THE DATE OF I' '• - OF THIS DECISION IN THE C F CE OF THE CITY CLERK. E TO \iASS. GE:i°RAL L. 'S, Cti AP R 878 Sil rl 11. THE VAP' ."ClE R r r Hr. _ `�P!J N APPEAL r ': F ANTED HEP,Ei SHNL N 'ISnE F_Frr f J ITIL A CIHfS D RA .Pr OF TNv1 FIC�iION OF THE C Ff C RA 1dA' 2J DAYS dAVE CLANS t:.R THAT, IF SL,H FS APPEAL HAS C 'f' IL TFiA IAiv'D I NDCf EDOUf.DJI-, Th EE NATE OF IFr_ • RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEE RE'"+ISTRT FiF UE yS OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE BO TITLE. ' BOARD OF APPEAL f Titg of '*ttlem, Anssttchusetts Puxrb of Appeal RAY 36 161 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE & MICHELLE GIRARD FOR A FILE# VARIANCE AT 18 INTERVALE ROAD CITY CLERK.SALEM,MASS. A hearing on this petition was held May 13, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Fleming, Luzinski and Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Variance to divide parcel into two undersized lots to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this R-1 zone. The Variance 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 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 at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the subdivision plan. 2. There are smaller sized lots 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. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject but do not affect 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the 1�.Atnl Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: i 1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE 8 MICHELLE GIRARD FOR A VARIANCE AT 18 IN=VALE ROAD (R-1) •. ' PAGE 2 ti 1. That the subdivision and construction be carried out in accordance with the plans submitted. 2. That a building permit be obtained. 3. That a certificate of occupancy be obtained. 4. That proper numbering be obtained. 5. That the dwelling be in compliance with all the requirements of the Salem Fire Department. 6. That the provisions of the Massachusetts Building Code be followed. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Pete Dore, Associate Member A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. APPEAL FROFA THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAYS, CHA°TE:'. SOB. AND SH;LLL BF FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FiLINO OF T41S DECIS OIt IN THE OFFICE CF Lh_ CITY CLERK. Pt PSiJLTTO G:5 C_:.�. ':'._ L1' S C-=..=.''. SS" SFCocN 11, THE VARIANCE Op _ . Gk.' :ED HERE C°ALL !i_1 T F:Ei:T UFTiL A. COPY OF Fl,,TiN OF THE Cif iLcR THAT 2 DAYHAVE ELAPSED ANO NO APPEAL HAS F =D. „4 'HAT. IF .PPE H." 9C,'.:! FiIE, 1'hAT 11 HAS BEEN D-'I:cSED OR DE 'E� REC,:-P'D IN THE S_J;H ESSt Rn_ISTRi OF OEEGS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA,:E CE T',IE .._. OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED ANU NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL + Ctg of Salem, cfflttssadjusetts j" 30 8 so AN '61 Paxrb of 4prA FILE# CITY CLERK,SALEM.MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CALVIN MUGFORD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 210 LAFAYETTE ST. (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Mr. Luzinski and Asspciate Member Labrecque. 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 4OA. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to allow portion of the building to be used as a beauty salon. Property is located in an R-3 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, en- largement, 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. • 1 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 raised to the plan; 2. There would be tight controls due to the fact the premises would be owner occupied; 3. The petition has upgraded and maintained the property as evidenced by a petition presented to the Board; On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Petitioners plan would not be substantially detrimental to the public good; 2. The plan does not substantially derogate from or nullify the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETIITON OF CALVIN MUGFORD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 210 LAFAYETTE 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 . Hours of operation may only be from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. , Monday to Saturday; 2. No more than two persons may be employed; 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department be adhered to; 4. Present on site parking be maintained. SPECIAL PERMIT REQUESTED i Richard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEALFRS ' THIS DE^_ - IF WtY SHALL BE i, TO Sc ST .! J CF T'r. "E _. S-;.. ;T r r- CITI� CrR.'. v.,,. OR Fh R c. T v ray RF d 0 r Ind r -_7 r .:9 R 0 rECORO OF I_ R.COPDED AND N TED DN Tri Du _NS CES ri _ OF BOARD OF APPEAL i t fQi#� of ttlem, us$ttclfuse# 2 59 PH '81 f • ��. $e FILE# Pourb of Appnd CITY CLERK.SALEH. P+ASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARQUIS MAGEE FOR A VARIANCE AT 441 LAFAYETTE STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held May 13, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming Luzinski, Strout and 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 side and setbacks to allow deck in �N 9 Y 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 petitioner; �.•s c. desireable 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 northwest corner of the existing deck was constructed 8 feet from the side line, two feet closer than allowed. 2. Building was constructed in accordance with a building permit issued August 7, 1979; however, plot plan submitted to building department at that time did not show the deck. 3. Original construction plans submitted to the building department could not be located. 4. Neighborhood opposition was recorded concerning potential use of the building as a multifamily unit and tideland encroachment. 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 but do not affect the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship �����" to the petitioner; DECISION ON THE PETITION uF QF07 KAGE7 -Ohs A VARIANCE AT 041 LAFAYETTE STREET, S�7­ • page two � __�." V 3. The relief reCL,._�'.�C can be =.._ �ed Without -iiJ�La'^:i '_cl_ qe'.^1'7cn� to public good and wainout nullifying or subsyantiali} derogating frog, th-- intent of the disirfe! or _:t.e pvrpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Boa'_ of Appeal v.. ed unanimously, }-O, to grant .the Variance requested, subject to the following "._=_tions: 1 . That no changes not er.:.nvez ty the current Zcnin( Ordinance be made to the existing str dare. 2. She engineering liens me rip rap by the Eur'ie yrs be removed within thin: . K) days . VARIANCE GRANTED -7z Peter A. Dore, Associate Member A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLEFK o �_� r: gal P WNi APi44. FRO"'. "HIS D L_ . .. . .. 2.9 Ck7S E C"- - - 0-7.. c. OF RELORD OR IS CER c: n;_.. 60AED Qi" APPEA! �•`°""'`_� �� � 661 gyp' k Ctv of tt1em, ttssttrl�u�e##s� �N ; y •nya �. �S PuxrD of '4verzl �t4�•�:�4f�s•, . \'VJ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NAPOLEON LEBLANC FOR VARIANCES FOR 95 LAWRENCE ST. (R-2/B-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held September 29, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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 variances from lot size, density, setbacks, lot width and area per dwelling unit to allow parcel to be divided into two lots, A & B, and to construct a single family on lot B. Property is located in a B-1 /R-2 district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: :d m a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect Za the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally CL_ 3i affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; O J 4 "tib d b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to c� p, petitioner; ♦, N c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the o 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 opposition to the plan; 2. The proposed division would create two lots that would conform with other lots in the area; 3. The configuration of the lot makes it difficult to maintain. 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 in general; the 2. Literal enforcement of Ordinance would work a substantial 0 c hardship on the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without 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 NAPOLEON LEBLANCE FOR VARIANCES FOR 95 LAWRENCE ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All work be done in strict accordance with plans, as amended September 29, 1987 and submitted to the Board; 2. Plans for construction be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to issuance of a Building Permit; 3. Proposed construct conform to Massachusetts State Building Code; 4. Property street numbering be obtained from the City Assessor; 5. Building Permit be obtained prior to construction; 6. A driveway large enough for two (2) cars be provided; 7. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. GRANTED Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRO:`,, THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS, GENERAL LAYS, CHAPTER 804. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING • OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY" CLERK. PURSAN'T TO ;LASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 805, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER LIT CRANED HEREIN, SHAL_ NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION. B-Rlli:; THE CERT- RCATIZiN OF THE CITY CLER3 THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN F11-ED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISN'ISSED OR DEN"D IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS ANDINDEXEDUNDER THE NA;lE OF THE OWNER i RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL 1 L • . (llitv of Salem, Anssar4n 1 •_�` �O[MM1M1 t lL J DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEAN-GUY MARTINEAU FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 89 LEACH STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on September 30, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Vice 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 the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. The petitioner, representing himself, is seeking a Special Permit to extend a non-conforming side setback, in order to construct a two-story addition at 89 Leach Street. The property is located in an R-2 District. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be 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. The proposed addition would be in harmony with the area in general. 2. The petitioner's existing house is too small for his growing family, and that the proposed addition would allow the petitioner to expand his kitchen and bedroom space. 3. A large smount of support for the petition was expressed at the hearing, including that of several city officials. 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 welfare and convenience of the City's inhabitants; The proposed addition will improve the property and the neighborhood. 1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEAN-GUY MARTINEAU FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 89 LEACH STREET (R-2)SALEM +{ ., Page 2 . Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4 - 0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the addition be constructed as per the plans submitted to the Board of Appeal. 2. That all construction be in compliance with the provision of the Massachusetts Building Code. 3. That all the requirements of the Salem Fire Department, relative to Fire Safety, be adhered to by the petitioner. 4. That the petitioner obtain a building permit from the Salem Building Inspector. 5. That the petitioner obtain an occupancy permit, prior to occupying the addition, from said Building Inspector. 6. That the exterior finishes of the exterior of the addition conform with the exterior finish of the existing dwelling. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED • James M. Fleming, Esq. � Vice Chairman, Board ofi�peal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FFO1f THIS DECI::ION, I: A'- SHA''! E`_ MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE NSASS. o; ^ SH+L. 2c _N W:I c!;; 27 GAY'S AiT`tR THE DATE OF FILING GENERAL LAY'!S. CHF:PTEE: .. .. OF THIS DEC!SIO;; IN THE :FFIC'E GF T}!E CITY CLERK. r -R 4;. Ln S;S SEC-,I',I I!. THE V'R ANCE DP °P 'd PER, PJ"F E'vT T: '� - Gr� COPY OF THE CERT FRk:AEU HEtt4i.�. SH._L NC in�c EFFECT !'c ELAFSd AND N6 APPEAL HAS 6cEJ FILED, IS HUTI-N OF THE CITY G..ER':; I PO "' Ham', OR TH�T. iF SOSfi ?."`. A.PPEA! HAS EEE;; FCE. THAI IT D^IN DEXEDOUSdD ER S-Iss�OHE NOR A' F THE OlS!;ER RECORDED Ili TRE SOUTH ESSEX ^nESISTRi O' D=EDS OF RECORD OR IS REGORGED AND NOTED QI: THE O'vh'NER'S CERTIFICATE Of TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL 1. • ;t /� �4 f1lit of Salem, &4Rttss-t1juse 9, , ,,. Poarb of FILE r�IY .: ..M&SS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD DESCHENES (PETTION) , KAREN HALLINAN (OWNER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 94 LEACH ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held January 21 , 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. , Fleming and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert a two (2) family dwelling into a three (3) 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 consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No support or opposition was raised at the hearing; 2. There are other three family buildings in the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and ont the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed addition will not be substantially mor-: detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood; 2. The proposed addition will promote the convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD DESCHENES (PETITIONER) , KAREN HALLINAN (OWNER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 94 LEACH ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit to allow the conversion of a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling, suject to the following conditions: 1 . The building is to be owner occupied; 2. Renovations be done per all City and State codes; 3. all applicable provisions of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to fire safety be adhered to; 4. A Certificate of Occupancy for the third unit be obtained; 5. Five (5) legal, non-piggyback, parking spaces be maintained on site. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED Richard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Ft a O D � : C C 4D ORD 60F.Fp OF FPPL�'. 9� ap fdt#u ofttlem, ttSstttl�uSP##s Paxrb of �Vtettl " ^' 087 MF 31 P3 :nn DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN KEEFE FOR A SPECI_AL,.PERMIT—AN-D/OR VARIANCE FOR 108 Congtmss/• ,;,_ VF rE 47 avitt &'SO-Palmer=Streets ��. , ` . A hearing on this petition was held March 18, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker., Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, .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. The petitioner, represented by Attorney Kevin T. Daly, is requesting a Special Permit and/or Variance to divide property at 108 Congress/47 Leavitt and SO Palmer Streets in this B-1/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 granting 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 v;hich especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and struc-Lures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and C. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact. 1. There was no opposition to the proposal. 2. Division of the property will not change the use of the properties as 47 Leavitt Street and 108 Congress Street will remain as one lot. *On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at this hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes the fallowing: 1. The granting of a Special Permit would promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve a substantial hardship of the petitioner. 3. Special conditions exist which especially affect the properties involved but do not generally affect the district; and 3. The granting of the relief requested would not be detrimental to the public good and would not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the Variance and Special Permit requested. GRANTED. ct�o- Q' Peter A. Dore, Associate Member Board of Appeal 41, 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 VASS. 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.S.4NT TO MASS. GENERAL LANS. CHAPTER 908, SECTIDN 11, THE VARIANCE OP. SPECT"-'. PEP,'I'T GRANTEO HEREIN. SHALL NO[ 'TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPT' OF THE DECISiOfI, EE.RIB'S THS C=RT- FICATI'.',N OF THE CITY CLERn TIiAi 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NG APPEAL H,S OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE THAT IT HAS BEEN DISFMSED OR CENIED IS OREORDEDFCRECORD THE SOUTH ESSEX NOTEDYONFTHEEDS AND OWNER'SINDEXED UNDER CERTIFICATE OF TITTLE.NAME OF THE C17NEP; BOARD OF APPEAL tl tdt#v of �$xlen� 'fflttssar4use##s "• •� s� Pourb of c�Vpexl '87 AP 14 F3 :f�(� �f4Mt� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEON B. KOSTAN FOR A VARIANCE FOR C; T ) ' ` ''" "'F t 3 LEVAL ROAD (R-1 ) q' A hearing on this petition was held March 18, 1987 with the following Board Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice 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. I The petitioner is requesting a Variance from density and side yard setback to allow for the construction of a two stall*garage with living space above at 3 Leval Roard, which is in an R-1 Zone. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; ��'•� 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. 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 condiitons exist which affect the subject property but which do not affect 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. 4„ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEON B. KOSTAN FOR A VARIANCE FOR 3 LEVAL ROAD, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the j petitioner the requested Variances, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The addition is to be built as per the plans submitted by the petition; f I 2. The exterior finishes of the addition are to conform with those of the existing building; 3. All the requirements of the Salem Fire Department, relative to fire safety, be complied with by the petitioner; 4. That all building permits and certificates of occupancy be obtained from the Building Inspector, City of Salem. VARIANCES GRANTED n James M. Fleming, Esq. 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 RADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 838, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11, THE VA?I.A",SE OR SPECIAL PER',?IT GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE OECiSIOFI. BEARIN:' THE CERT FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED ANO NO A=PE-AL HAS BEE:; FILED, OR 1"HAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS":'. SSED OR GE:;IEP IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UEDER THE NAP.',E OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL (gitg of 'SttlPm, f ttssar4us> d 8 so ART ci s �R }r�re IIxrb of &Attl FILE �, �,e✓ CITY CLERK. SALEM.MASS. —" DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BRUCE & JEANETTE MCLAUGHLIN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 4 LINDEN ST. A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1987 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to convert, an existing three family dwelling into a four family dwelling in this R-2 zone. The petitioners, through their Counsel, John Serafini Sr. , requested the Board of Appeal grant them Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. The Board of Appeal by a vote of 3-1 , granted the request to withdraw. Mr. Bencal voted in opposition to the withdrawal. WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRO:'.; THIS DECISION, I° ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION i7 OF THE (.SASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 80c- HO ASHALL BE RLE G' WITHI'J 2C' DAYS Ai,EF. HE DATE OF PILINS OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLEPfi. FJ.RSM, TO !",I'S ;-E ,_F L I;S. CHAPTER 8"3. 11. THE VAR ,CE "n fiRA h ."F.iP SHALL NJ' a!',E UiiCT UNTIL A G:PI C- HE' '- Fi L.:. iH: 'J%- �LER, ,..; 2: FL YS F. T_.-S.., , ,._ _�._,, H.".". CR IF SUI:H AN APPEAL HAS BE:N FILE THAI IT G-E" 1!_ :5. RECORDED IN THE SOU7H ESSEX. REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INOE%ED 2i::3 THii E OF THE 0'.•i:Efi OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE BOARD OF APPEAL ofttlpm, � ttssttchusetts �nttrD of ��ettl FEB ? 3 31 ?N '81 FILE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOAN & PAUL PRICE (PETITIONE$aN,L'PAUL.�ANBJ•t'ASS. PHYLLIS D'AMOUR (OWNERS) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 1812 LINDEN ST. A hearing on this petition was held January 21 , 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; 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 are requesting a Special Permit to convert existing nonconforming single family dwelling into a two family dwelling in this R-2 district. Notiwthstanding 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. 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: qW 1 . Opposition was voiced in regards to future development of the site; 2. Neighbors concerned with units built over garages. 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 will not promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and will not be in harmony with the neighborhood; 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, against the Sranting of the requested Special Permit. Petition is therefore denied. SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED / r D C:"13!.N Ir Fi4.1'. SHALL BE `,P,JE PURS::ANT TD SEC71% 17 Al:;Z,1 :s LE =F+- t, CH i_R 83S. A\D ',LL F r- � :!•'S.H 2D DAYS AFTER THE PZter FStrout, Member, Board of Appeal b T L Sr.i n° C,i Tn CITY CLEF i i .: f- 'Oc r 71 THE V Q A rE L"dST r .,i U T L A C J't ^7 Ti.' E r r, r _D 1.: TH' EES.. fir .Ti OF S =.'•J _ _ ! _ i.. ., C OF REC_RD OR IS RECORDED ARJ 1:"111; ON Ti'E 0,';N1R'S LERJMATE OF TITLE, BOARD OF APPEAL (9itV of Salem, fflttssarl P#93 u PPI E �• J. 2 � aurD CITY ECLERK.SALEM.MASS. ��urva d" DEC1SlON ON THE PET1TlON OF MICHAEL J . FUSCO FOR A VARIANCE AT 410 LORING AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held July 15, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Vice 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. The petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from setback requirements to allow for the construction of a porch in the rear of 410 Loring Avenue. 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 involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petiitoner; 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 . No opposition to the petition was presented at the hearing, and Councillor John Nutting spoke in favor of granting the requested relief; 2. The existing porch is in bad repair, and is quite unsafe, especially for the children who reside in the dwelling; 3. The location of the proposed porch is the best and only location possible from an asethetical, financial and practical viewpoint; 4. The proposed porch will be twenty feet from the rear property line. 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 Ordinance would involve a • substantialy hardship to the petitioner; DEC1SlON ON THE PET1TlON OF MICHAEL J . FUSCO FOR A VARIANCE AT 410 LORING AVE. , SALEM page two t 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 Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The petitioner obtain a building permit from the lnspector of Buildings, City of Salem 2. All construction be in conformity with the requirements of the Massachusetts Building Code; 3. The construction of the porch be in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board of Appeal. VARIANCE GRANTED James M. Fleming, Esq. Vice Chairman, Board of ppeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISL^^i, 1= A,Y. SHALL BE 'MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE F:iA`8, GENERAL LAVi S. C!1^.F iER 6J3. .4"i^ SFI A-LTHL cCITY CLERK. `G DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF RLIN"v OF T IS DLC'SiCN 1 `'HE OF ' - i, o R•Sll PURSu: Ti '..+1,5 �3:A_ C:. G PIER 6d3 S ..Ti? 1. iH r 1'P 4i di Til 1 COPY CF TF C cl �• 1 " M" H E E .."%E7 n v P 4 n yeti UJ. CIS Sc G v c�� PpESSEX F.E�:'SIRYF OF [�D..Lr',d0 IPD XEu UND OF THE OWNER - R-CUD D IN i,.- OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NDIED ON THE 0.4NER'S CERTIFICATE OF tli__. BOARD OF APPEAL JUL 19 10 40 AM '81 Ctv of 'Sttlem, 'Mussuchimtts 26oxrb of '4peal CITY CLERK.SAL EK. MASS. '' t �'� •f0/41M1� DEC1S10N ON THE PETIT10N OF ALICE L. JOHNSON FOR A VARIANCE AT 5 MAPLE AVENUE, (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held June 24, 1987 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 her brother, Attorney Richard Johnson, is seeking a Variance from the side yard setback to allow for the construction of a deck at S Maple Avenue. The premise 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 't • 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, after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition to the petition presented at the hearing, and Councillor John Nutting spoke in favor; 2. The location of the deck is the best and only location possible from an asethetical, financial and practical viewpoint; 3. The closest structure to the proposed deck would be at least twenty (20) feet away. 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 on the petitioner; and i E 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the •� f 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 ALICE L. JOHNSON FOR A VARIANCE FOR 5 MAPLE AVE. , SALEM page two f S, • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the "*- Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The petitioner must obtain a building permit from the Building Inspector, City of Salem; 2. All construction must mee the requirements of the Massachusetts Building Code; 3. The exterior of the deck must conform with the exterior of the existing dwelling; 4. All the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety must be adhered to, including the installation of approved smoke detectors in the existing dwelling; 5. The construction of the deck must be in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board of Appeal. VARIANCE GRANTED a f �\ f ` ames M. Fleming, Esq. .'' Vice Chairman, Board of Ap al 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, CHAFER c.=. "'D SHALL BE FILED W!9F! 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING F TF'S DECISION W iH i. :CE OF THE CITY CLER'd. PP.P.SAGT TO r"ASS. 8G._.. ._ L.'. =. CHAPTER SOP SECiCB 11 THE 'RA: ED PERE '. SHALL _i EFFECT UNTIL P CGPY Or T Er ill H L'RT FiC4TIJN OF 1HE Clil CLE4 . ,� 20 D4YS HAVE `L r EO A r i'A h =1L'D OR ,HAT, IF SU(,H AN APPS HIS BEIN FILE. TH i IT '•A3 KEN OR qEC IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESS=), REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED C..hR m_ THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOIEO ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE Or TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL IN At Tuitu Of "Men , fflassar4usrtts Poarb d LAVVrA logo �iFTi J13 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHRISTOS LIRANIONAKIS MR VARIANCES AT '18 MAPLE AVE. (R-1) P00tCLERK.SALEM.MASS A hearing on this petition was held on April 29, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, ChainTon; 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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner request variances from density and setbacks to allow construction of a single family dwelling and a garage on existing foundation in a R-1 zone. The Variances 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, the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after,viewing the plans, The Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact: 1. No opposition was voiced at the hearing. 2. Support of the plan was voiced by abutters and others; 3. A hardship exists that the foundation is dug and in place and has been for many years prior to Zoning Ordinance. On the basis of the above finds of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which affect this lot which do not generally affect the district; 2. Literal enforecaTent of the Ordinance would work a substantial A2� hardship upon the partitioner; 3. The Variances canbe granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHRISTOS LIRANTONAKIS FOR VARIANCES AT 18 MAPLE AVE. (R-1) Page 2 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 - 1 (Mr. Bencal Opposed) to grant the variance requested subject to the following conditions; 1. All conditions and concerns of the Salem Fire Dept. must be adhered to; 2. The 1'k story building to be used as garage and not as a dwelling unit. 3. Proper numbering be obtained from City Assessors Office. 4. Structure to be built as per plans submitted; 5. A building permit be obtained prior to construction; 6. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. VARIANCES GRANTED 12 Janes James B. Hacker, Chairman • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FIT WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK II APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS Y 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 NIASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. SECTICPI 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PCR!•11T BRFtN'TED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION, SEA.R'.HG THE CERT- VF OF THE C':IY CLERK. THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPcEp AN., GJ A.PPE�+L HAS BEEN FlLEA. OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE THAT IT HAS BEEN D13:A;SSEO OR DENIED i$ RECORDED IN THE SODIH ESSEX RECISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAMiE OF THE OVIHCR OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED CPI THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL tai#g of "ittlem, 'Maelsadjuse##s � � g Pourb of �"vd lir 36 1A DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THADEDUS & FELICIA WEAVER FUR VAM C 152 MARLBOROUGH RD. (R-1) C(n CLERK.SALEM.MASS. A hearing on this petition was held May 13, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Fleming, Luzinski, Strout and 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 withe Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. , Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variances from lot area, area per dwelling unit, and lot width to allow construction of a single family modular home. This property is in a R- 1 Zone. 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 in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; c� t 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. One neighbor was opposed. 2. The proposed dwelling will be in harmony with the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject but do not affect 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 THADEDUS & FELICIA WEAVER FOR VARIANCES 152 MARLBOROUGH RD. (R-1) A PAGE 2 7- 11 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Single family not to exceed 24'x52' . 2. Proposed dwelling be no closer than 33 ft. to the rear property line. 3. Dwelling be placed as per plans submitted. 4. Proper numbering be obtained from the City Assessor. 5. Comply with building codes. 6. Comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau. 7. Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. VARIANCES GRANTED Peter Strout Member, Board of Appeal • ' ' � A CDPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK IY � APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE Grp;ERAL LAMS. CHF?-17R 805, AND SH'!L BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF fiLL"l OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE CF THE CITY CLERK. r: P_.^NT TC 1,ASS CE,,ER.AL LA+'i° CRAFTER SEB. SEC-+N 11, THE VA..IANCE 0 Q CP F ;E^ HEP.Ei:, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE `L` �._.;T "JI OF THE CITY CLERt THAT 2': DAYS HAVE EEA° D A"ij Nj APPEAL AL HAS + IFS :H A+, r'PP-AL HAS R--'r; FILE, THA+ IT HYR EEEN 0 :.!SSEO CR J IED IS IN TH- S,'LI H ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA E CF OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL /I Tito of ttlem, Attssttr4usetts • � � nttrD of �ppeal 2 s! PH '87 'foiwna tPV' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & MAUREEN OUELLETTE FORFILE# VARIANCES AT 163 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (R-1 ) CITY CLERK, SAI.EM, MASS, A hearing on this petition was held November 23, 1987 and continued until December 2, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. , Fleming, 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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting variances to divide parcel into two lots and to construct a single family dwelling on the lot identified as lot 2 on the plans presented to the Board. Property 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 Zoning Ordinance would involve • substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the 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. Petitioner has owned the property in question for over 20 years; 3. Plans to return said property to original lots; 4. New lots will be in harmony with other lots in the area. 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 Ordinance would involve a substantial hardship to the petitioner; • 1 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 JOHN & MAUREEN OUELLETTE FOR VARIANCES FOR 163 MARLBOROUGH ROAD, SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . A building permit be obtained prior to construction; 2. Property numbering be obtained from the City Assessor; 3. Building to be located as per plans submitted; 4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau be adhere to; 5. Petitioner and his successor and interest agree to hold the City of Salem or its successor safe and harmless and indemnify City of any work performed in or on existing easement. GRANTED f1�JV Games B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROG1 THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MA`S. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER EOS. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER. THE DATE OF FILING OF 1H'S DECISION IN THE :FCE OF THE CITY CLERK. P;' ' 4^S. CEN°RAL LA'Y.S, CHAPTER. 809, SECTION 11, THE VAC!AS:CE OR SPECI4L PER'"T T?.gE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE D'c0'SI­':. EEAF-.i f:^ THE CELL 1 70 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPE SL HAS B_`E:J FILED, F. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISi,ISSED OR DEMID IS RECD. „ _ _ 1"HEXED UNDER THE NAir1E OF THE OWNER Of RECORD OR IS REi URDLD ALJ OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPAL �• e Vgb (Qitg of '$ttlrm, Httssttcllusr ,� v,.' �. Poarb of �pyezd c of A14 Ss F C eI DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF SALEM ON MARGIN STREET MAP 34, LOT 475 ( 1) A hearing on this petition was held on January 21 , 1987, with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; 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 the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. The petitioner, represented by City Planner Gerald Kavanaugh, is proposing to subdivide the present 5.06 acre lot located at map 34 lot 475, Margin STreet into two (2) lots. Parcel A-2, (3.725 acres) will be retained by the current owner, New England Power Company, Westborough, Massachusetts. Parcel A-1 ( 1 .337 acres) will be owned by the City of Salem, which will construct a new police headquarters on said site. The petitioner is seeking Variances for lot frontage for Parcels A-1 and A-2, and Variances for front yard depth and side yard width for parcel A-1 , the location of the site is in an Industrial District . _ The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the • r Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist whichespecially 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 sithout 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, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: I . No opposition to the petition was offered at the hearing. 2. The proposed site is the best location for the new police station. 3. If the requested Variances were not granted, the public safety needs of the City cannot be met as desired. 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 the subject property but not he district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF SALEM ON MARGIN STREET MAP, 34, LOT 475 ( 1) page 2 1 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 Variances requested by the petitioner, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1 . That the new police headquarters ve constructed in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board. 2. That the petitioner obtain all necessary permits from the Building Inspector. 3. That the new construction comply with the provisions of the Massachusetts State Building Code and the City of Salem Fire Prevention Ordinances. VARIANCES GRANTED James M Fleming, Esq. Member, Board of Appeal f" • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FR�-0 THi P;IFS,."vT TO 17 OF THE h: CENERAL LAkS, CHAP; ., 3_:.. :,.., ,,... ... .::i! '20 DAYS Ai TE'.-? THE DATE DF FIL;;,S OF THIS DECISION IN "iH"_ CF.-;CE Or TDE �CITi Oi ERY. PU RSAFiT i S. ';E I I..: C ";!.1 ?,S S 11 THE VARIANCE P P-r� AL PER`.1i cRAP�I ED H ntlh, ad' r, .E E c!:::L 1 .,;PV 'J TH._ .v SI (S1.,r: . 14E CERT FICA'^ti OF THE flit _n2, DA l __) ) NC, .APPEAL HAS CEEiJ FILED, OR THAT, IF k! .4N A°ht - f , ;I.; U cr DI '<+USCD OR DEhiEU IS RECORDED IN TFf- SGLiH E Y Rt S E- AN" ND AED LINDER THE NAiIE OF 11HE G-', , OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED A10 NOTE; L.. .,._ D. -NIB'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL F4 Qli#g of "ittlem, 'Mttssadrase##s ju 30 8 so IM '67 flLE# CITY CLERK,SALEM,MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H. DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR A VARIANCE AT 132' MEADOW ST. (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski and Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from any and all applicable density and rear and side setback requirements to allow one parcel of land to be divided into two nonconforming lots. Additionally, petitioner is requesting a second variance to allow an existing deck which encroaches on rear and sideline requirements. 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 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. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The condition of the two buildings on one lot has existed for many years; 2. The deck was constructed prior to the purchase by the petitioner; 3. The deck is used also as a means of egress. 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 . In regards to the division of the lot, petitioner failed to establish hardship; 2. In regards to the deck: a. desirable relief may 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; b. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H. DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR VARIANCES AT 131 MEADOW ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0 against the granting of the Variance to allow division on one lot into two lots. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0 to grant the variance to allow the existing deck, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The deck remain in its present form as provided on the plans submitted to this Board. DENIED VARIANCE TO DIVIDE GRANTED VARIANCE TO ALLOW DECK Richard A. Bencal, "Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ,l APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, V ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MESS. GENERAL LAWS, C4?.Pi'_R 8^8. AND SHALL BE FCBD l'f iT 1iIN 20 DAYS A=iEF THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISICN IN THE OFFICE OE T'"' CITY CLERK. PU oA iT TO t;1F.,�. O_ f L S. :HA?TE4 8'v SECIICN 11 TH^ 1 °i. v�° CF eP I . pcRSG y.r: FRA.. .�D HEREI SH.41 NJ V" [ -i:T U. .� A COPY OF TI C` H-:S. _ FIGAi N OF 1HE CIT) CLEF' . 20 B YS F %1 P_AP D N, c._;C C '.l OR S GR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL H, E_E`; .LE. THAT IT F D v RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESS > REISTRY 0v DEEDS k D INDEXED U - N"z "` OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NO,ED ON THE OWNER S CERIIFICAIE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • +..Wworf4� _ Ctv of ttlem, ttsstttljuse# p 4 p 44 p8 181 s e ! •; b g PDRrb of MrA FILE# H �I4ML� CITY CLERK,SAL -!t. ??ASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARILYN MAMM FOR A SPECIAL PMUT FOR 4 MOFFATT ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held on August 5, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker Chairman; Messrs., Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and 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 the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner, represented by Attorney George Vallis is the owner of the property and is requesting a Special Permit to extend a non-conforming rear setback to allow construction of an addition at 4 Moffatt Road. Petitioner is proposing to erect a family roan to the rear of the existing dwelling which will be less than the required 30 feet fran 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 Section VIII F and IX D, - grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of noncon- forming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or • 1 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 Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the petition. 2. The petitioner has discussed the planned addition with her abutters and others. 3. The petitioners lot is larger than the average lot in the neighborhood. t On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Hoard of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The proposed addition will not be substantially detrimental to q•. to the neighborhood; 1 t DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARILYN MAGUIRE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 4 MJFFATT ROAD PAGE TWO . 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 Zoning Hoard of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 - 0 to grant the Special Permit requested under the following terms and conditions: 1. The petitioner must comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety. 2. The petitioner must obtain a building permit from the Building Inspector, City of Salen, and must comply with the provisions of Massachusetts Building Code. 3. The addition must be constructed as per the plans that were submitted and as amended at the public hearing, leaving a setback of not less than 18.26 feet from the rear yard line 4. The petitioners, and her successors in title, agrees to hold harmless the owners of the existing drain easement, as shown on the submitted plans, if the owners of said easement need access to the easement. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED . I James M. Fleming, Esq. Vice Chairman, Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, MALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAW'S, CHAPTER 8^8. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECSION 1;t THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT T SS. C ^A'. L... S. CHAPTER 808, SE^TION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPE"' L P"i. GR4^.`:[D h �c'i., S� -:,RE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DEC:SID ct .�. + T .... FICATIuN CF TH_ CTE, ;.;FR ':( T 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS n`,'__ OR -.HAT -i "'..K / ^° ' EAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS SEEN D04ISSED OR IJ REC')':' D IF. TH= S";• i E-S_Y P,EGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA-E GF ih: .. .. OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • CtU of Salrm, assuriTnutts AN Z9 8 359 '8B �sFILE# �uxrb of ��Teu1 CITY CLERK. S;,LEt . 4x55. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & FRANCIS NUTTING FOR A VARIANCE AT 68 MOFFATT ROAD A hearing on this petition was held July 15, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James M.Fleming, Vice Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Labrecque, 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, representing themselves, seek a Variance. to allow for the construction of a deck at 68 Moffatt Road. The property is located in a 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 buildingor structure involved and which are not generally g Y 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. 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 strong neigborhood support for the petition at the meeting; 2. The proposed deck is in harmony with the existing neighborhood; 3. There is no place on the petitioner's land to place a deck which would not require 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 . Special conditions exist which afft the subject property but do not affect the district in general; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on 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. • :y DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & FRANCIS NUTTING FOR A VARIANCE AT 68 MOFFATT 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 . The deck must be built as per plans submitted and revised at the hearing; 2. All construction must conform with the requirements of the Mass. Building Code; 3. The petitioners must obtain a building permit from the building inspector of the City of Salem. GRANTED 92Gy " aures M. Fleming, Esq. , e Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRS.' THIS DE'„ISIJN. II ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MAPS. I ETI ERAL LA;:S. CHAPTER S03, AND SHALL BE FCEO WITVIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE Cr FILING CF THiS ; EO.Stl% IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PJ:.S:':i Tp ' =5S GE's"^.A! L ,.S CFiAPiEP. VS. SYCIIGV 11, THE VA3'Atif{ rc �r-: `t °[""IT LF.A.:;:_.. HE2EP1 Sn4'U Ni'; ?'.:`_ Eri ECT UNTIL A COPY CF THE,';J!' • FIL T.,:. _i ih i .,L'R t. "J ; A)S HA E LL? 2Er N0 r! A ''. i H,''. OP 7H Ir S i P F ,° „_c. ML. A, It ':' L DI _J lT F 'S H. THS S—H ESS[; RE,IS-Rf 0 -EDS At ) INDEXED U _i, THE E el THL OF RECORD OR IS RLC RDED AND NCl'EU ON THE =NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • y� (gi#g of Salem, fflttssar4usetts Poxrb of JAPPU 1 Mst Zl 1136 AM 87 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BRENTWOOD STRUCTURES, IIs. FOR PILE# VARIANCES AND /OR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 NICHOLS STREET AND 12 HANSEN STREET (R-2) CITY CLERK,SALEM.MASS. A hearing on the petition was held on 'April 15, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs., Fleming, 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 the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. The petitioner, represented by Attorney John Serafini, seeks the necessary Variances and/or Special Permits to construct a twenty-two (22) unit, multi- family, residential project at 6 Nichols Street and 12 Hansen Street. The location of the property is in an R-2 zone. 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 f � 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. desireable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. No opposition was presented at the public hearing. 2. The City Planning Department and the Ward Four Councillor spoke in favor of the plan. 3. The project will add to the housing stock of the City of Salem. 4. The project will eliminate a source of odor in the area and will be an asset on the Boston Street corridor into the City. 5. Adequate on-site parking is provided. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: ly 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BRFNDWD STRUCTURES, INC. FOR VARIANCES AND /OR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 NICHOLS STREET AND 12 HANSEN STREET (R-2) PAGE 2 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. 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 fmn 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 necessary to change the present industrial use of the property into a multi-family, residential use and to extend the present non-corning structure to accamadate twenty-two (22) units as per the plans submitted, subject to the following conditions: •, 1. That all construction conform to the requirements of the Massachusetts ~„ate Building Code. 2. That all the requirements of the Salem Fire Department, relative to Fire Safety, be adhered to. 3. That all necessary Building Permits and Certificate of Occupancy be obtained from the Building Inspector, City of Salem. 4. That all construction be performed as per the plans submitted. 5. That the petitioner maintain adequate off-street parking, as per plans submitted. 6. That proper numbering be obtained. VARIANCES GRANTED ✓James M. Fleming, Esquire Member, Board of Appeal APPEAL FRUNCO aYD6$I(IIISA�EZW NPPORSMT—m"S PIONTTDF *hAW. ING BOARD AND THE CITY QTR. ��DGENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING F THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT _GRAN"FED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, BEARING THE CERT. FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL � t Ctg of &zIrm, C a95Nr4u5ettjct 26 3 a FA '81 Paurb of �ppwl FILE i jt �4-uiur.cP"~ DECIISON ON THE PETITION OF 6 NICHOLS STREET REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT OR VARIANCE AT 6 NICHOLS STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on September 30, 1987, and continued by agreement to October 7, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Vice 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 Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner, represented by Attorney Neil R. Schauer, is requesting a Special Permit and/or Variance to extend a present nonconforming use and structure, and to construct a two tier parking facility at 6 Nichols St. The petitioner intends to rehabilitate and convert the present property to operate a chemical laboratory for the testing of water samples, and to lease spece for general warehousing, light manufacturing, machine ship operation, non-automotive servicing, assembly work and offices. Structural alterations and an increase in the area of the total buildine would be made, and the two tier parking facility would be constructed according to submitted plans. The 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 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, 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. In the alternative, the Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the • public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. D2CISION ON THE PETITION 6 NICHOLS STREET REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT OR VARIANCE AT 6 NICHOLS 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 . There was substantial neighborhood opposition to the petition, including that of Ward Four Councillor Leonard O'Leary; 2. Petitioner was not able to define the various intended uses set forth above. Without such definition, City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh testified that the new proposed use would be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighbhorhood. The City Building Inspector, William Munroe, also testified that it was necessary to clearly define these proposed uses; 3. The Board determined that there was a hazardous waste or materials problem on the site; 4. Petitioner failed to establish its burden 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: 1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement 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 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 one ( 1 ) in favor (Mr. Luzinski) and three (3) opposed (Messrs. , Fleming, Bencal and Strout) to the granting of either a Variance or a Special Permit. By the vote of 1-3 the requested Variance or Special Permit is denied. VARIANCE AND/OR SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED Fleming, Esq. , V' Chairman vo A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK p .P.n4.v T cr. . 7 OF iPE r;- 1'. .r F ':BE I gni '7, E 4E OF EECORD OR IS REi U--'D Amu i._ _v 0— THE G _R'S CERTI IC lE O" lli LE. • 33ARD OF APPEAL '87 PF 13 P: :nc Cgitg of '*ttlem, ttssttcljuse #s •z s Poxrb of ' p"V l DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT E. GAUTHIER FOR A VARIANCE AT 38 NICHOLS STREET (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held on March 25, 1987 with the following Board Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman; Mr. Fleming 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, represented by Attorney Daniel Reich, is requesting a Variance from rear yard setback to allow the continued use of an existing single family dwelling at 38 Nichols St. The building currently sits only 25 feet from the rear lot line, five (5) feet short of the requirements of Table I, Salem Zoning Ordinance. The dwelling is located in an R-1 Zone. 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; I � 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. 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 to the petition presented at the hearing; 2. If the petitioner were denied his requested Variance, he would suffer substantial hardship. On the basis of the above finding of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect this property but do not generally affect other lands, buildings and structures in the salem district; 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; s" 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 ,ROBERT E. GAUTHIER FOR A VARIANCE FOR 38 NICHOLS ST. , SALEM page two j 04 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0 to grant the y Variance requested, with no conditions. VARIANCE GRANTED s I ames M. Fleming, Esq. Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK f •� APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAR'S, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED VdITHIN 2D DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. 11. THE VARIANCE OF. SPECIAL PER-., PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LA'NS, CHAPTER 8.C8, SEC C-,AiITED HEREIN. SHALL NO—, TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEUECIS!07d, BEAR;NG THE C--RI -AL HAS VICATICN OF THE CITY CLERi THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED f.ND ,CAPnSSEO OR DEiillc'16151. uR .HAL IF SUCH Aid APPEAL H:1$ BEEN RLE. THA; IT HAS B=` NDEY OF VRECORDIORT S RECORDED SAND NOTED YONFDEEDS THE OWNER'S CERTSICAT FE OF TITLEyH'�E OF 7P.. BOARD OF APPEAL Idd, �. (9i#V of N 8 U AN '67 HUIfir olwnQfTY BLEdtK.SALF.N.MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF J. B. HERBERT ASSOCIATES FOR A VARIANCE AT REAR 141 NORTH STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on September 30, 1987 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 the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner, represented by Attorney John R. Serafini Sr. , is requesting a Variance to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling at Rear 141 North Street. The property is located in an R-2 District. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a, special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b, literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and • c, desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The shape of the lot is unique, unlike any other in the same zoning district. 2. The property is currently in a state of great disrepair, and the petitioner plans a complete rehabilitation, adding greatly to the existing neighborhood. 3. A third dwelling unit will expand the city's inadequate supply of housing stock. 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 property but not the district generally; to the petitioner; and 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship • L. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF J. B. HERBERT ASSOCIATES FOR A VARIANCE AT REAR 141 NORTH STREET (R-2) page two can be ranted without substantial detriment to The relief requestedr the 3. g public good 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 4 - 1 (Mr. Bencal voted in opposition) to grant the petitioner the requested Variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Five (5) legal parking spaces be maintained on the property, as per the plan submitted to the Board. 2. The property be fenced with the same type of fencing utilized at the adjoining Cogswell School property. 3. Adequate landscaping be provided, appropriate to the neighborhood. 4. All construction conform to the provisions of the Massachusetts Building Code. 5. A building permit and a certificate of occupancy be obtained from the Building Inspector of the City of Salem. 6. All the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to Fire Safety be adhered to by the petitioner. VARIANCE GRANTED ames M. Fleming, Esq. Vice-Chairman, Board of A peal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FR0M THIS DPCISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 802, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAIS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSRNT TO g.ASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER £O£. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR $PEC;A!. PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY" OFATHEND ��C�p�'pEAL BHAS��REENH FILED. FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IANDRS SEEN INDEXEDDUNDER ETH�RNA'.ELOF THE OWNER RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGIS, , OF DEEDS OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED Cri THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • Ctv of *alem, MU65ar4AtL 1134 M '07 t , $� s FILE# •� �'�m. y �Rnarb of Appu. CITY CLERK.SALEM.MASS. AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES & CATHERINE ADAMS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 9 NORTHEY STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 13, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs., Fleming, Luzinski, Strout and 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 three family to be converted to a four family, located in a R-2 zone. The provision of the Salm 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 B 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 �3 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, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. There is sufficient parking. 2. Will not be detrimental the 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 but do not affect 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 JAMES & CATHERINE ADAMS FOR SPECIAL PERMIT i AT 9 NORTHEY STREET (R-2) PAGE 2 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Must be owner occupied. 2. Parking area be enclosed with fencing to consistent with the existing fence. 3. Six legal parking spaces be maintained. 4. Historic integrity be maintained. 5. Garage to be demolished and a permit be obtained for the demolition. 6. Comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau. 7. Obtain building permit. 8. Obtain Certificate of Occupancy. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED k-J11 WR Gf/li � t�G' Pad' 'Peter Strout Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FIIID WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MA''S. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILM. OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PUP.SANT TO N1.ASS. GENERAL LAWS CHAPTER 505, SECTION 11. THE VARWiCE OR SPECIAL FFR"iT GRANTED HEREPI. SHALL NO'! TAKE EFFECT UY,TIL A COPY OF THi PEC!'1,TN. FE Hr �ER7 F;CF.TION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED ','ID NO APPEAL HAS BEEN F1ED. UR THAT. IF SU:.H AN APPEAL HAS BE 'v FiLE. THA.: IT H,S SEEN DIS'.;ISSED OR DEICED IS RECORDED IN THE SOU,H ESSEX RESISTRY F . INDEXED UNDER THE NA%.E OF [H -- OF Ri.WRO OR IS RECORDED AND NO, a JN T._ L,VNER 3 CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL �t FEe 3 31 PHI '61 �l fit ofttlem, ffia55z1r4"fff6 3 Lr `/ R �: � pattrb ofreal �t7 Mass. C.-r ,. ,..MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT AND HELEN ABRAHAM FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 OAKLAND ST. (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held January 21 , 1987 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 petitioners , represented by Attorney William H Sheehan, 111 are requesting a Special Permit to allow them to change a non-conforming lot by dividing it into two lots in order to construct a single family dwelling on one lot and allow an existing non-conforming two family dwelling on the second lot. In addition, the petitionersare requesting a Variance from all applicable frontyard, sideyard, rearyard and density requirements of Table 1 , Section VI of the Salem Zoning 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 i set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of 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 granting of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: A. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; B. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT AND HELEN ABRAHAM FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 OAKLAND ST. page 2 . The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, make the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no neighborhood opposition to the proposal. 2. Adequate off street parking for both lots would be provided in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed single family dwelling will not change and is in a neighborhood consisting of other two and three family dwellings. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes the following: I . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but does not affect the district generally; 2. Litreral 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 } or the prupose of the Ordinance. �. S •� ,I - i J 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 footprint on the proposed single family dwelling be moved five (5) feet in the westerly direction to improve field of vision for drivers approaching the intersection at Oakland and Balcomb Streets; 2. That permits or certificates deemed necessary by the Building Inspector of the Cit of Salem, if any, be obtained; 3. That the petitioners be in compliance with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department , relative to fire safety; 4 . That the petitioners obtain proper numbering from the City Assessors, and that compliance with the City Ordinance relative to house numbering be adhered to. SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE GRANTED ;,_A _C_OPY, OFJ-HIS;_D$CISION .HAS-B-Edi FiLED'WIT-R,THE PLANNING .BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Peter A. Dore, Associate Member Board of Appeal U e_ _. cGvy-4 ofttl�m, � ttsttcEjueff619 83 �� '6i ru a • $ IIBYD of CITY CLET'•K.SAI.`MI.)AASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY ADAMS & VINCENT DOWD FOR A VARIANCE FOR 24 OCEAN AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held August 5, 1087 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. ,. Fleming, 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 Nems in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners are requesting Variances from use and parking to allow an existing two family which 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 involy 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Building has continuously been occupied as two family since the early 19601s; 2. Petitioner has owned property since 1984; 3. Assessors lists dwelling as a three family; 4. Real Estate Agent represents property as a two family; 5. Bank granted mortgage as two family; 6. No neighborhood opposition; 7. Property has been sold twice in the past few yearsyas a two family; 0 8. Two electic meters are in tact and in use; 9. Many other two family homes currently exist in the immediate area. *0 � 0 e DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NARY ADAMS & VINCENT DOWD FOR A VARIANCE FOR 24 OCEAN AVE. , SALEM page two 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 would work a substantial hardship on 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 relief requested on condition the property be owner occupied. VARIANCE GRANTED n �,James B. Hacker, Chairman • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL F , FROM THIS DECISION, IF MY. 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 "SS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 8J8, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. BEAP.ING THE CERT. FICATICN OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED ANO NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR 11111, IF SOCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS:/:SSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF .BEDS AND INDEXED Ui,'G'R THE NA`SE OF THE 01':NEF. OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL Ctu 'nf '�$ttlPm, ttssttcljusP##s �,; F z, Y9 Poxrb of A"rg APR 4 �. CITr C; �nrl'3 (NEIGE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LIONEL PELLETIER FOR VARIANCfA MASS. 173 OCEAN AVENUE (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held April 15, 1987 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 Variances from the requirements of SEction VI, Table 1 of the Zoning Ordinance relative to lot area, area per dwelling unit and lot width to allow parcel to be divided into two lots, A & B. Also requesting a Variance from minimum depth of front yard for Lot A. A single family dwelling to be constructed on Lot B. Property is located in an R-2 zone. 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 in- t • j;' 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 at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was not opposition; 2. Lots to be divided will be about the same size and in keeping with the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject but do not affect 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 LIONEL PELLETIER FOR A VARIANCE AT 173 OCEAN AVENUE, SALEM page two l h•,4 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . A building permit be obtained prior to construction; 2. Plans be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit; 3. Proper street numbering be obtained from the Assessor; 4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. VARIANCES GRANTED 10 es B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS, GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PILIN OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFRCE OF THE CITY SCCLERK. 11. THE VARIANCE OP. SFE^IAL PFRG117 PUP.SANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DE'0O!J, GRANTED HEFEIN, SHALL NOT TABEf,R!i?S THE GP:RT• YS HAVE OIRATHAT. IF SUCH ITY CLERK THAT 20 AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT JHASFTLID BEENI IUN UNDER THE DENIEDVOF IS RECORDEDIN SgECORDEDSANDR NOIED}ONFTHEEUS AND OWNER'SINDEXED CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NAVE OF THE DW NER OR JS �WQQ OE APPEAR 1p � Nov 19 2 57 PN 87 (fi#g oftt[em, Httssttciiuse##� FILE# Poxrb of �ppettl a^r�41M6�"3~ CITY CLERK. SALEM. MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH L. JONES FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 11-13 OLIVER ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held October 28, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming,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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner, owner of the of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure by adding a room on the first floor. 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 SpecialPermits for alterations and reconstruction of noncon- forming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of non- conforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than • the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. r 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 Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Opposition was expressed by an abutter due to increased density, concern about a change in the dwellings character and an unacceptable view; 2. Petitioner agree to provide trees or shrubs adjacent to the addition to insure privacy and improve the view; 3. The proposed addition would not increase the number of bedrooms in the dwelling. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal, concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed addition will be in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. / F +� 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 JOSEPH L. JONES FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 11-13 OLIVER ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one (Mr. Dore voted in opposition) to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Construction be in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board. 2. Exterior finish of the addition must conform to the exterior of the existing building; 3. Suitable plantings must be added to the side of the addition facing 15 Oliver Street; 4. Construction must meet the requirements fo the Mass. Building Code. 5. All the requirements of the Salem Fire Department must be met. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED Peter Dore, Acting Sectretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSAfiT TO GLASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION. BEARING THE CERT- FICATIDN OF THE CITY CLERX THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, GR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS:6ISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • Titg of $alem, fflttssad1briNts3 it N '67 PDMTIt of �1 P2I1 fILE* 4 � 1.1-TY C4ERK.&4LEf;.MtiSE. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY COUGLIN FOR A VARIANCE FOR 25 OSGOOD ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held October 7, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; 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, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from residential density regulations, Section VI, Table 1 , including minimum lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, and lot width to allow conveyance of approximately 1466 sq.ft. of land to the abutting neighbor at 31-33 Osgood St. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions 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 a I �! substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; ITf 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 . Transferring of property will leave petitioner will an excess or 7 ,800 sq.ft. of land which is about double the size of most lots in the neighborhood; 2. No opposition; 3. Major neighborhood support. 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 subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; • 3. The requested Variance can be granted without 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 MARY COUGHLIN FOR A VARIANCE FOR 25 OSGOOD ST. , SALEM page two Therefore the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance as requested. VARIANCE GRANTED .CSL. James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK T,PPEAt FR-V THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS CE FERAL LAWS. CH:,PTER EUS. AND SHALL BE FILED V.'ITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DEGISIOI4 IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. ;; Tr L��, 5 r-E,dERAL LA�:'S. CHAPTER 80E. SECTION IT. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PEW.M P CIIANIED HEFc I^;, SHALL Nri "IMP EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISIO;7. BEARING THE CE$T- FI_-.TPJ i; OF iH'_ CI-.Y CLEF". THAI 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AiJJ N:^, APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, LRli1A T, I` SUC`'' AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DI SiJISSED OF DEP!IED IS IDIXED UNDER THE OF RECORD TORT IS RECORDED ESSEXHE SO-JH REGISTRY NOTED YONFTHEDEEDS OWNER'S IIAI CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. E OF THE G14^.E BOARD OF APPEAL • k Octt�B 311 # Ctg of 'Sttirm, AassarhUS0 s PH '87 s Poxrb oW'f CA &17:Y 6LFRK.,,dLEM. HA55, DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FREDERICK & GERALDINE AYERS FOR VARIANCES FOR 31-33 OSGOOD STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held October 7, 1987 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 Variances from the residential density regulations of Section VI, Table 1 , specifically, from minimum lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, lot width. Petitioner also seeks variance from use regulations Section V A 2, to allow use of the existing two family dwelling as well as the proposed single family dwelling. 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 structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve ! substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent fo 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 . Most lots in the area are about 3500 sq.ft. ; 2. Said lot is about twice the size of the lots in the immediate area; 3. No major neighborhood opposition; 4. Applicant has a severe, progressive, medical problem which will prohibit himfrom walking therefore, limiting use and enjoyment of his home and property; 5. In the event the petitioners were to remove or demolish the existing dwelling or if the building became more than 50% destroyed, a dwelling could be built at the location where the proposed dwellig is to be located. • rL.. �. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FREDERICK & GERALDINE AYERS FOR VARIANCES FOR 31-33 OSGOOD ST. , SALEM page two . 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 in general; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioners; 3. The Variance requested can be granted without 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, 5-0, to grant the requested Variances, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Construction as per plans submitted; 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau be adhered to; 3. A legal Building Permit be obtained prior to any construction; 4. Exterior finishes of new dwelling conform to existing house on lot; 5. Sir. (6) legal and unobstructed parking spaces be maintained on site; • 6. Height of ridge line not to exceed twenty two (22) feet; 7. Proper numbering be obtained from the City Assessor; 8. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. VARIANCES GRANTED James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK #FP`L FROM THIS DBCISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THF AIA9S EEG ERAL LA'AS. CL1,WTE^: FOS. .4F1D SHAL BE FILED CSTH R; 20 DAYS AFTER THE D'.TE OF FILING CC THIS D=CiS.' IN THE 0: II_t OF THE Clic CLERK. Yom. .,I T'_i C_',;-R'-'._ L C-,:p._T 50,;. S - 11. THE C^ L FFR';%r E Ci UNTIL A C:n.. 'r JH -..r =ET LI H TN CM L-EP. 7HV C? T. SLID Al, APPE6 F-S d F .. I— r e- LI OR CE I4 R �HDEu 1' T _ "0 H ESSEX REGISTRY OF DE*DS `1 IC .-D 0�. IH'. _ THE Cl' BF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED C(f THE S CEP,TIFlCATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF AFPEAL • a�,.wL�L4 OCT 23 8 31 AN '87 (1�i# of �$UJPM, ssttc use##s FILE# CITY CLERK.6AL W.RASS. Poxrb of �Vpvd A�olY1ML DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BURSAW REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES AT 10 PARADISE ROAD (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held September 30, 1987 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 Law Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variances from density regulations, Section VII Table II to allow removal of existing building, island and tanks to allow construction of new facility, use will remain the same. Property is located in a B-2 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcment of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve • substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or 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 . Plan, as presented, is an improved and better use of the land; 2. Plan as presented provides a better and less hazardous traffic pattern; 3. Uses would remain substantially the same; 4. Plan as submitted provides for more parking than what currently exists; 5. 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 . Conditions exist which especially affect the subject property, but not the district generally; • 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship / on the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without detriment to the public good and without nullifying or derogating from the district or the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BURSAW REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES FOR 10 PARADISE ROAD, SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Project comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau; 2. Demolition of existing building and removal of tanks be in strict accordance with all State and Local codes; 3. A demolition permit be obtained from the Inspector of Buildings; 4. A building permit for all construction be obtained prior to commencement of work; 5. All construction be in accordance with plans submitted; 6. Eleven (11 ) parking spaces be maintained as shown on plan submitted; 7. A Certificate of Use and Occupancy be obtained prior to occupying the new structure. GRANTED Ames B. Hacker, Chairman • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Pifr.EAL FROM THIS D[iJS10[d. I% ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. VkERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING U THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. RO'SAS'T TO WASS GENERAL LAVSS, CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT �RMi IED HERE H; SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECI"!DN. BEARING THE CERT- IIi.ATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAPS HAVE ELAPSED .UID NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, CR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISSISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • /41, • L�..b0vpk4. f Ctv of 'Sttlrm, Anss?Ir4usetts 0L, 16 i l 30 IN '81 Pnttrb of �}rpvd r-tM J,�a/111YL P"SY PTY @LERK,£R.LEi. PASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID PERKINS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7-9 PIEDMONT ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held Tuesday, September 29, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Vice Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Peter 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 has requested a Special Permit to allow the conversion of a two family to a three family 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 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, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . One person appeared in favor, no opposition was presented; 2. Adequate parking will be provided. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance; 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and will be in harmony with the neighborhood. iY*• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID PERKINS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7-9 PIEDMONT ST. , SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The property remain owner occupied; 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety be adhered to; 3. All construction be done as per all existing City and State codes; 4. Five (5) legal parking spaces be maintained on site; 5. all construction be done as per the plans submitted; 6. A Certificate of Occupancy for the third unit be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED rN�ly� A hard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DPCISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHARER SOS, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING • OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFRCE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. rb;,aPTEP, 80£, SECTL''N 11, THE VAFIANCE OR SPECIAL PER:,i!T [.RAii'.'ED HEREIN, SHALL IZ: ir.:-;E EFFECT UP:TiL A COFi Ci THE'- ��'.. .. F Tl C: TH '.4 CLER %:, T 'G DABS H -LAPSED N : F'PEP.L HAS E0. LR P,+i. IF S. AN AFFE H °, TH.='.1 IT H�S P""" V S.. SEED CP - 9E� IS REOO:IFw IN THa S"67H ESE f E. S.�i'r FLUS ,D r'_FED U7TF-' A?F.E 0"r THE C'':: OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NJ:Eii 0+lidERS CEfiiI FiCATE OF TiP_E. BOARD OF APPEAL s i Cgt#v of '�$ttlrm, 'Qttssar"Be##s Puxrb of Meal �� AP�t 28 A DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN HENSLEY FOR A VART9I6; ; : ' �= J AT 31 PIERCE ROAD (R-1 ) i A hearing on this petition was held April 15, 1087 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 minimum rear setback requirements to allow construction of a second floor deck. Property is located in an R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the ^F� 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 voiced at the hearing; 2. The deck 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 concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but do affect 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 STEVEN HENSLEY FOR A VARIANCE AT 31 PIERCE ROAD, SALEM page two •� Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the lrf Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . A building permit be obtained; 2. Work conform with all requirements of the Mass. State Building Code. VARIANCE GRANTED Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK y, APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 208, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSAPJT TO i.'ASS. GENERAL Lt, CHAPTER 805, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERILIT GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL I:O� T,.°E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE D-ECISICJ. BEAR M! THE CERT- GRANTED OF 1HE CITY CLEFT TFIAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS 6EEN FILED, OR THAI, IF SUI I i APPEAL HF:$ BEEP: FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS ti,ISSED OR DaNI:EJ S OREORDEDF CRECORDIORT HE SOUTH S RECORDED SEX ANDR NOTED YONFTHEDEEDS OWNER'SINDEXED CERTIFICATE OF TITLE, OF THE OWNER BOARD. OF APPEAL p ° Ci#u of $Arm, �ittssar4usegCT 21 3 oa PN 87 1 f r•Jy ''w• Zi Pourb of � ettl 94TY CLEAK.SALEM.t'(A DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALDEN QUIRK JR. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 10 PLEASANT ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held September 29, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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 an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, y extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more sill f 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 . There are other multi-family dwellings in the surrounding neighborhood; 2. There was not opposition; 3. There will be adequate parking. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The granted of the requested Special Permit will be in harmony with the district and will promote the convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. 2. The relief requested can be granted without 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 ALDEN QUIRK JR. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 10 PLEASANT STREET, SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The second means of egress be placed on the easterly side of the property and not on the southerly side; 2. Property be owner occupied; 3. Comply with the Massachusetts State Building Code; 4. A Building Permit be obtained; 5• A Certificate of Compliance from the Fire Prevention Bureau be obtained; 6. Five (5) on site parking spaces be maintained at all times, said parking spaces to conform with the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 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 • APPEAL PRO:' THIS CKISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LA:.S. Cil,PTE- S03. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DEC',S.SI f: THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS, E .`.' .;S. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PCR".IT CRANTED HEREIN, SF A'�_L I:L! -C'� 'E EFFECT UNTIL A COPSOF THE 9ECISION, BEARINS THE CE:(i- FICATION OF THE CITY t. EF.. .EAT 20 DAYS HAVE EL,:'3CD NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPLE: HAS BEEN FILE. THAT iT H.:S EEEN DU"".ISSED OR DE�f!'D IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESS`_A RE_ISTRY OF DE .` „ND INDEXED UNDER THE NAP E OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON TH; O6NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • ,�corL71 �y ('gi#g of '$ttlem, ttsstttljuge E#18 25ePN 'B7 / s Fourb of �k"rzl .{ •� ',�o �w err' ITT CLERC.SALEt!. MASS. � DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL BENEVENTO (PETITIONER) , GERALD L'HEUREUX (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE FOR 2 PROSPECT AVE. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held October 28, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Vice Chairman; Messrs. , Luzinski, Strout and Associate Members Dore and Labrecque. Notice was sent to 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 Variance from density and setbacks to allow property to be divided into two lots and to construct a single family home the lot identified on the plan of land as lot 2. Property 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 Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantiallyderogating 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 opposition; 2. An existing traffic and parking problem would be exacerbated. 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 in general; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not work a substantial hardship on 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 the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 'f,.7111 y DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL BENEVENTO(PETITIONER) GERALD L'HEUREUX (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES FOR 2 PROSPECT AVE. ,SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one (Mr. Strout voted present) against the granting of the requested relief, having failed to gain the four votes necessary to grant, the Variances are denied. VARIANCES DENIED. Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRDW THIS CEGSI�';, I' gi�iY, SHP.LL BE MAD7 PUF,SU,4ii; TO SECi10(i 17 OF 7Y,E f;;0.SS. OF 7411 ra-I, CH6.r TER 2_L. Ai�S SHAL=_ 6E FILED 1aT..'M 20 DAYS AF7EP THE DATE OF FILING OF TH5 C3;ISIOR M T}i: Ci?ICE CF T'nE Cl—if CLERK. PDPSAS7 iT. d' .So- CE SO S T;);; 11 THE VFF;'AhCE OfBPECIAI FER'N7 . cr Ci J:-TIL A r : FICATION 'Y IF i - �- r„ iH C7j i r.- - E F: TF C_nL OR THAT fl S tr r H., a A. r F 'r Hn. FILED, A^; r,rr' - H'a" 6 I A rr SEL'CkiE_ T1' ^7 TH E St'. RE �S 81 Ft o-E OF DEb,ED IS J F,D I':!G r t:; THE 1;;,,E Of THE OWNER �`- OR IS RECORDED AND NGTED Du ThE O,YRER S GERiIFICATE OF TITLE, • BOA,lD OF APPEAE • t� Ctv of *aIem, Anseadjusetts Poxrb of �ppzal Jo! 13 3 o7 PILE# d� DECISION OHPETITION OF A VARIANCES FOR12PORTERST. & 14 PORTERAST. (RE3MARK PETIT�/6®f�LERK.SAtFH,HASS. A hearing on this petition was held July 15, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Vice 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 Mark Petit, owner of 14 Porter St. is under a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Paul & Paula Lavoie, owners of 12 Porter St. Petitioner is requesting relief from minium side and rear yard setback, lot size, and density to allow lot lines to be redrawn to allow 204 sq. ft. to be conveyed from 14 Porter Street to 12 Porter St. Property is located in an R-3 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; 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 structure on 12 Porter Street was built on 14 Porter Street land; 2. Both structures are well over fifty (50) years old and this error was not discovered until now; 3. There was not 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 the subject properties and not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioners; �•� 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 PAUL & PAULA LAVOIE/MARK PETIT FOR VARIANCES FOR 12 PORTER STREET AND 14 PORTER STREET, SALEM r page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variances requested to allow property lines to be redrawn in order to convey 204 sq. ft. from 14 Porter St. to 12 Porter St. , as per the plan submitted. VARIANCE 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 MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LA'','!S, C9'.PTER 80`5. AIdD $H;.'_!_ BE FILED Yi'TI'.IN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECSIC'N IN THE 07FICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PU �,f' TO ":A S E ;APT R 8:S St°i f:f! 11, THE VARWICE OR cP'C - IAL F7R:1'dT CYn n. i SH LI i !. c EFTECT '. 7!L A LIP) OF THE:c�i 1.11. F_SFJ H E?T. -1. �.,i 1-PEAL H4S B---N. .: , CR N, iF S..- ! LED. , D ED LR � IS LD IN TY -4 ESSLI, I 'F.Y OF D .S FFD INDEXED UVJ h THE NAiLE OF THE C{9NER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND DOTED 01 THE Ov RER S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL of �*ttlrm, 'Mttssachuse##sk 8 2 sv PM '81 �s� Poxrb of Appvd FIL1# • �4aainW"r CITY OLERK,SALIM.HAM DECISION ON THE PETITION RICHARD D. SANFORD FOR A VARIANCE AT 11 PRESTON ROAD (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held June 24, 1987 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 minimum side yard setback requirements to allow an existing deck. Property is located in an R-1 district. The variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of tqe 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 or structures in the same district; b. literal envfrcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition; 2. The deck was existing prior to the petitioner purchasing the property; 3. To force the petitioner to remove the deck would cause substantial financial hardship. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 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 and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the • intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD D. SANFORD FOR A VARIANCE AT 11 PRESTON ROAD, SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the i Variance requested and allow the existing deck, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The structure on 11 Preston Road comply with regulations of the z Salem Fire Prevention Bureau 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 CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISIDN. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER', SDd, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERR.. PURSANT TO WASS. GE:':Efi 4L LACl;. CHAPTER FOS, SEGTi'_�N 11. T-" C-,l'AF.!sYCE CR SPECIAL PE"?RIT G R;itiTEO HH EC E!N. SHALL N,-- T.A:;E EFFECT UNTIL A COP', Of K": NG THE OERT- FICATI_"i OF THE CIT, CLcR.R Ii;AT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAP:ED 1'.F:C P12 APPEAL HAS EEE"! FILED. OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HRS BEEN FILE, THAT IT H<S BE_f! GIS:"!S D CR Dr!V!L'? t RE^_F,DED IN THE SOJTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND ["E",FD ,•'.:,:E OF THE OV:i'::P OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NG ED ON THE OWNEP,S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL / �y flit of 'Sttlem, f ttssuchuse##s Poara of ' p"Vd ...ms,� vN 30 8 sa 8T DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & CHERYL KRISKO FOR FILE# AN A VARIANCE AT 8 RAVENNA AVE. (R-1 ) car CLERK.SQL EM•MASS. A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski and Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a variance from any and all applicable density & setbacks to allow the existing dwelling to remain as is. Property is located in an R-1 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 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, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The house is existing and has existed many years in its present location; E 2. Applicant purchased the house in its current condition; 3. There have been several requests in the immediate neighborhood concerning similar surveying problems. On the basis on the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Bosrd of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship; • 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating I from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. I DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & CHERYL KRISKO FOR A VARIANCE AT 8 RAVENNA AVE. , SALEM, page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Variance as requested. VARIANCE GRANTED �y -moi/ James BL Hacker, Chairman R A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • APPEAL FRGS'. THIS DET!SIO!t, IF ANY. SHAT 6E !i=9E PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS GENERAL LAWS. C.'.=?':Efi 8LS. Ai.D SHc!._L BE F'-ED L'i G'HIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING } Of Tr IS DEc'S ' I, THE OFFICE Gr T i.t CL°rn. . PU'S T-- „�q _o]rR'L L..,;S CH,"._> s . . SEC-r. N 11. THE \ :?is.'"E OR SPM'.L PER '.IT r EFFECT J A C_° 0' iH;C L L�Ri B : -. 7i : � ER, 'ti 20 D::. FIC. p % r 0P IS OR -i Ir S;i 4: ..° .Al Hr;' .`+ N.c ? 1" h S :H ESSEX F IS n i..-,.._ Cr THE OWN OF RrRG OR IS r 'REO n:J IeicG I _ J•1fLn'a OC4 :hCr G TITLE BOARD OF APPEAL V i w ,Te CHC of �ttlem, �ttssttcl�se##s A ^ axrD of �p}�rtt1 21 5 50 PN '81 Mar DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MANUEL & OLIVIA MACHADO FOR FILE# VARIANCE FOR 7 ROSLYN STREET' (R-3) CITY CIERK•SAIEM•MASS. A hearing on this petition was held on May 13, 1987 with the following Board Members present; James Hacker, Chairman; Messers. Fleming, Luzinski, Strout E 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 provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from rear and side setbacks to allow existing deck in this R-3 zone. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a find of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; »� 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. This condition has existed for several years and in no way harms and detractsfron the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of facts, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: IN 1. Special conditions exist which affect the 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. F DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MANUEL & OLIVIA MACHADO FOR VARIANCE FOR 7 ROSLYN STREET (R-3) PAGE 2 • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the petitioner the requested Variance, subject to the following condition: 1. As per plans shown. VARIANCE GRANTED t James B. Hacker Chairman, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 6 F APPEAL FROM THIS DPCISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LA'VVS, CHAPTER SCS, AND SHALL BE PLED 'WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE OATE OF FILING OF THIS DECIS'9N IN iN`_ Ci F,C= ::F THE CITi Re I� i'._ c..o�:. .� ni i'i" __ . . a ,,. --.. _ t.,},:E Cf 'THE OLVNER OF RECORD OR IS REL00ED AND NU.ED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF-TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL 4 AVG 16 g 07 AN ofttlem, ttsstttl#use##s a � ►9LE Poxrb of '4vad ay WTY CLERK,SALEM.MASS. `• - - "- DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BYRON AND MARGUERITE ALPERS FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING FOR 4 SALTONSTALL PARKWAY (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 5, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski and Associated 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, are requesting and administrative finding from the Board of Appeal that said property 'is a pre-existing three family dwelling which is located in an R-2 district. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . According to testimony of abutters the premises is currently used as a three family; 2. The three separate apartments were constructed 50-60 years ago; 3. Testimony cited documents that inconsistently described the dwelling ",•' as both a three family and a two family; 4. There are three electric meters; 5. A deed clause restricting the use of the dwelling to no more than two families is no longer in effect; 6. Neighborhood opposition concerned the lack of adequate off street parking. It was determined by this Board that this third apartment was a pre-existing apartment and the property is a pre-existing three family. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one, 4-1 , Mr. LaBrecque voted present, in favor of the Administrative Ruling request. all, a Peter Dore, 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 MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT 1 GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TA%E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. BEARING THE CERT- ���,,,,....11TT" FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS..°d ISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL Jn 8 2 n 0 '87 s (9'tV of p*1CM, CMUSSHC4USP##S FILE# \ 2 g uarb of Mud CITY CLERK,SALEM.MASS. AMM i AMENDMENT TO A DECISION GRANTED JANUARY 14, 1987 TO THE CITY OF SALEM FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 SCHOOL ST. (R-2) I i The Board of Appeal held a meeting on June 24, 1987 with the following Board j Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski i. and Strout. The petitioner, the City of Salem, and the designated purchaser of the property, represented by Attorney John Serafini, Sr. , requested the Board to delete condition number ten (10) of the previously granted Variance. Said condition states as follows: it 10. The existing right of way be maintained in perpetuity. i The Board of Appeal, after hearing testimony from all interested parties, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The City Solicitor stated that condition number 10 was not one of substance and therefore a public hearing was not necessary; .� 2. The City Solicitor pointed out that while this was not a condition of substance it did however, create an ambiguity because of the fact that the City of Salem had never granted a right of way and in fact had only approved a license agreement between the City and the owner/ occupant of 143-1432' North Street. 3. Said license was approved by the City Council subject to certain conditions and limitations one of which is; that at such time as the property ownership passes to the private sector, said license would be rendered null and void. On the basis of the above findings of fact the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to delete condition #10 from the Variance granted by the Board on January 14, 1987. All other conditions of the January 14, 1987 decision, to re::�ain in force . V//'James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ,.cmni4b Ctv of �$Ztfem, '�Httssnchusetts .� Pours of 'ppeul JAK LL J u1 i'H �8� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF SALEM FOR VARIANCE�IT}' u_:. . s UrFICE FOR 5 SCHOOL ST. (R-2) SALEM. MASS. A hearing on this petition was held January 14, 1987 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 is requesting a Variance from use and density to allow the creation � of eight (8) residential units in this R-2 zone. i The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. spQcial conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involve and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; C b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the 4 �<• public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the r intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. r 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: r i 1 . The existing building, the former Cogswell School is fast becoming in disrepair and if left vacant much longer would pose a health and safety problem; i 2. The proposed residential units will add to the value of the City and in particular the neighborhood near the property; i 3. Support of the plan was voiced by neighbors, abutters and others; 4. The City has met on numerous occasions with neighbors, abutters and others in an attempt to find the proper use for this 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 . Special conditions exist which affect the subject property, but do not affect the district in general; t 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; • 3. The relief request 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. DECISON ON THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF SALEM FOR VARIANCES FOR 5 SCHOOL ST. , SALEM fes_ page two F, Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variances request, subject to the following conditions: 1 . A solid wood fence be constructed on the full length of the southerly side of the property; 2. Sixteen (16) parking spaces be maintained on site; 3. The corner of the property on Buffum and School Streets must be maintained as a green or open space as shown on the plans submitted; 4. A Certificate of Occupancy for each unit must be obtained; 5. All Salem Fire Department regulations relative to fire safety must be adhered to; 6. All construction and renovations must be done in accordance with all City and State codes; 7. The developer of the project must bear the cost of the filing fees to the Board of Appeal prior to the issuance of a Building Permit; 8. The conditions of the Salem City Council in an order dated August 7, 1986 as presented and/or amended must be adhered to; 9• The developer must continue the neighborhood review process currently established, to include a meeting prior to commencement, a second meeting approximately on completion of fifty percent (50%) of the construction and a third meeting no later than one year after the start of construction. Said meetings are to be coordinated by the City Planner; 10. The existing right of way be maintained in perpetuity; tY> 11 . Correct street number be obtained from the City Assessor. 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 CEr:EF LAVS. C; IF r ._ o F RE V;,- Pi r$-'i,iJ TO cEUIOP 17 U R 2, DAYS A'TE° Th_ ^. PL"- CIT... I Cr ftY,. — - S t i IF S E r S 6EGnr C2DL, - 1G. BOARD OF AFP-,'t J9L 19 10 vi AH '81 y�..w.urA. ..' LE# � c e 1!1-ity of *11Pm, Angskos �� �7 SAiEa+.Etnss. e hown:a off" CITY CLERK.SALEM. N45 S. DEC1S10N ON THE PET1T10N OF RICHARD & KATHLEEN PLANTE FOR VARIANCES AT 14 SCOTIA STREET (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioners, representing themselves, are requesting Variances from side and rear yard setbacks to allow construction of a garage, breezeway and deck at 14 Scotia St. The locus of the property 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; 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 to the plan was presented at the hearing, and Councillor Leonard O'Leary spoke in favor of granting the requested relief; 2. The proposed plan would alleviate on-street parking in vicinity of 14 Scotia Street; 3. The pian is the only way in which the petitioners can construct the garage, breezeway and deck. 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 petitioners; 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 RICHARD & KATHLEEN PLANTE FOR A VARIANCE FOR 14 SCOTIA ST. , SALEM , page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The petitioners must obtain a building permit from the Building Inspector, City of Salem; 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety must be adhered to; 3. All construction must conform to the requirements of the Massachusetts Building Code; 4. The exterior of the garage, breezeway and deck must be in harmony with the exterior of the existing dwelling; 5. The construction of the garage, breezeway and deck must be in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board of Appeal. VARIANCES GRANTED y James M. Fleming, Esq. }` //Vice Chairman, Board of A peal `- A COPY OF THIS DEC131ON HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM, THIS DECISI2 N, != ANY, SHA BE A"P.DE INPURSUANT0 DAYS AFTERNHE DATE 17 OF OF flL1fJG GENERAL LAWS, ,,�P',"'' 808. V!D SHALL B: F"L b OF THIS DECIS!G:: C' THE OFFICE GF THE CITY CLEF.K. Scsr f AF.E' kUB. SEC 11 THE V4 ,� pP fER.11T -r iH. ;GT. PURSANT TO !t v i- .. A._ E1.T H' Tt ACC°i L he^ C GRANTED HERE", � -AU_ NGi T' 'E E �, _� t.,9 N_ App P� HAS 5 r,R:c R DLi;IrJ IS FICATION OF THE'C!T l' C:i ER?. TRAT 20 DA• THAT IT :! c BEEiV C!5'•!"S=J OR THAT, IF S,,, 6 AN APPEP.L H:.S B°E>I _ AICD R.DE%EU U.'J`FR THE NAidE OF THE OWNER RECORDED IN THE S'CJ1H ESSEI; RE,STRF IJ OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED ANp NUI ED OG THE pV.NER S CERTIFCATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL ��.w■ari� of �$ttlrm, Anssntlimetts : " � ,•9 Pourb of ck"v i APR �y' lu ss AM `8l DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICK J. FARRELL FOR VARIANCE CITY CLEi%f,.S OFFICE AT 1 SMITH AVENUE (R-2) SALEM, HASS, A hearing on this petition was held April 15, 1987 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 allow existing two family dwelling. Property is located in an R-2 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; g > 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 two family has existing for many years, including two baths and two kitchens, one per unit; 2. There was no opposition; 3. Neighbors and abutters in favor of allowing continued use. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions 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; 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. 4Y�nv DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICK FARRELL FOR A VARIANCE AT 1 SMITH AVENUE, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Three on site parking spaces be maintained; 2. Property comply with all regulations relative to the installation of automatic smoke detectors. VARIANCE GRANTED es 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 31 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. RURSA.NT TO I,,,ASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT DOANiED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDEGISIDN. BEA'r:ING THE CERT- F,F, TION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS 8E" FILEDI DOE THAT, IF SUCU AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS'HSSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER ®`RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL r (9i#V Of ttlem, ttssttct��#its 2 59 PN '87 PDMra of jjpprA FILE# ,�OMIML CITY CLERK. SALEM, MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER & JANET GEORGE FOR VARIANCES FOR 7-9 STEARNS PLACE (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held October 28, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Vice Chairman; Peter Dore, Acting 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. The petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance from density and setbacks to allow parcel to be divided and to construct a single family dwelling on lot two. Property is located in an R-2 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; ^� b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve • substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and f 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. Councillor Furfaro spoke in favor; 3. This is a large lot and hard to maintain; 4. Division of the lot would result in creating two lots that will be as large or larger than other lots 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 exist which affect the subject property but not the district generally; �.� 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result • in 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 PETER & JANET GEORGE FOR VARIANCES FOR 7-9 STEARNS PLACE, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Proposed construction shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Massachusetts State Building Code, the Salem Fire Prevention Code, the Salem City Ordinances, and Massachusetts General Laws, relative to fire safety; 2. A Building Permit shall be obtained from the Inspector of Buildings prior to any construction being started; 3. New construction shall conform with the existing neighborhood; 4. Property numbering for the proposed dwelling shall be obtained from the City Assessor; 5. Petitioner shall obtained Form A approval from the Planning Board; 6. Work to be in accordance with plans submitted to the Board of Appeal; 7. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained prior to the occupying of proposed dwelling. VARIANCE GRANTED Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FR•TL THIS DKISPDN', !° " 37_ I: PL.RSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE 6tASS. GEN,-FAL LAIi—S- .. -� F DAPS Ar`EF. DATE OF FILING OF Tri!; BE:i S::n, IN TH. T6� CL•3:n. PUP.S"i 7i F. t F.,"_ LF.:' ; R : S_. .... 1-1. THS 1', ER'.',IT CFA[.T:ED HcnE!'.. S-. �L t i... D6A ^F• ihE i r- DEBT. FI CAT IOt OF TH_ C":-1 CLP" 1':A -.,E 1; _;.. ,,:F' r f4 P�-'D, OR THAT, IF SJ:.H V AP'E.SL H?S E F'.E. n n i:S'.'I ^ .,_....D I$ RECORDL, IN THE ESSP', F -� _�_ ARD -D—ED L.,;;En iFE Iasi,;E OF THE OWNER QB BFCORR OR I$ RECORDED AND NLTE7 ON THE OI;NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD. OF APPEAE "`. s" va,:�"-' .�' - '.:.:s`- :.r..,a::;.ve',...:i..'. .s...,. .a'A':._:asa..±.L'w: :; - iin`.i2.3.l,.tr°3"i:. ".. aesi:}aGt` s sS..d`.•xz::d73�_u'fr ;e.+e.ia�:.. e (9itg of ttlem, assadjusettaJ811 11 20 M '87 PDurb of tAypettl FILE# • �`°' CITY CLERK,SALEM.MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF C. THEODORE SILLARS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 59 SUMMER ST. , (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 27, 1987 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. Petition, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side and rear setbacks and density to allow construction of a porch in this R-2 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non- conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detri- mental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding of 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. The proposed porch will add to the aesthetics of the house. 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 porch 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. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF C. THEODORE SILLARS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 59 SUMMER 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 . Contruction be done as per the plans submitted; 2. A legal building permit be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED Achard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROG'. THIS DECISION, Ii ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 803. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO ?.,ASS, GENERAL U;;;S. CHAPTER 808, SECTI-ON 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL N.:T 'FAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE OECISSI:N. BEAR!N:: THE CERT- FICATION OF THE CITY CLERF THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED �J) N:i APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HA:; BEEN DIS;IISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND FADE%EU UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNERS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL 4.L..COX W,A� Oct ZI 3 oa FA la k Ctu of 'SaIrm, Aassar etts Poxrb of (�kppeul CITY BLEAK.SALEM.pass. JOINIML DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHONY C. TAKIS FOR A VARIANCE FOR 83-832 SUMMER ST. (R-2) Nancy Perroni (Owner) A hearing on this petition was held August 5, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, 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 accord- ance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The owner and the petitioner, represented by Attorney George P. Vallis, seek a Variance to allow the present nonconforming lot to be divided into two (2) lots, with the existing structures to remain unchanged. The property is zoned R-2. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; • c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nillifying 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 opposition to the petition presented at the public hearing; 2. Both structures on the present lot were built several decades prior to the enactment of the existing Zoning Ordinance; 3. There would be no increase or change of the use of the existing buildings, if the variance were granted, only the ownership of the present structures. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed division of the existing lot 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; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner and owner; . � w I _ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHONY TAKIS FOR A VARIANCE FOR 83-832' SUMMER ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-0, Mr. Luzinski abstaining, to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The existing lot is to be subdivided as per the plans submitted, except rear yard setback for Lot #1 on the plan shall be zero (01 ) feet; 2. The petitioner and owner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety. VARAINCE GRANTED James M. Fleming, Esq. , V31/1 i 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 SOS. AND SHALL M FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. P U R S"N T TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER SG8. $ECMN 11. THE V'MANCE OR SPECIAL PER:"M CRAI:TED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAi(E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISIL:1. EEF„I !`; THE CERT- FICATIDL! OF THE MY CLER;I THAF 20 DAYS HAVE E.APSED AND NJ APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISVISSED OR DEfiIE IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RECISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA'4E OF THE OVJN • Q &iC.OYD 011 LS RECORDED.AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • (Ilitg of �$ttlem, 'fflttssadjuse##s 1' Poxrb of A"eal � Tal�umv�"�" JAN J Gi i DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES BURKINSHAW FOR A SPECIAL CITY L_L L,irICE PERMIT FOR 8 TAFT ROAD SALEM- MASS. A hearing on this petition was held January 14, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and o.bhers and notices of the hearing were properly advertised 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 density and rear setback requirements to allow a deck in the rear of the existing structure. Property is located in an R-1 district. A petition to allow a deck was denied by the Board of Appeal on November 12, 1986. Neither petitioner nor a representative were present at the hearing and no plans or evidence were submitted. The Board of 'Appeal, after hearing evidence regarding substantial change and after receiving a Consent from the Salem Planning Board, voted unanimously that there was substantial change from the previous petition and they would re-hear the case. 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: a !' Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was major neighborhood support for the plan; 2. There was no opposition; 3. Porches existed for many years with no detriment to the neighbohood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: j t} 1 . The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the jrf 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 BURKINSHAW FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 8 TAFT RD. , SALEM, A, page two A� Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All work be done according to plans submitted; 2. The deck shall not encroach on the rear lot line closer than 21 feet, as per the plans submitted. SPECIAL Permit granted ames B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER. 808, AND SHAEL EE FILED VATHIN 20 DAYS AFTER. THE DATE OF FI LI i:G OF THIS DECISION lie THE OFFICE O: THE CITY CLERK. '::ASS. GENERAL I;,i°:S. C4WTER 8D0SECTION 11, THE VA'r.lA'i:E CP SPECIAL PEP' IT !ALL P',.: P:E UrET UNTIL A CG-I' OF THEtC „ :, EE TUE CERT ...:I OF IHE CI`i L:.E�.. i9Ai 7C L SS P:;-E L:A-F"n +I;9 NOF ,ESL W,S Fi'_7D. R iH IF $uJU A!'. APrL'. H`S E-:% ° LE. TH-1 IT EE-; LT,,- t, °C IS F- 'i.CcD IN THE S—T9 ESSEX RE:-iS.RI CF DELLS AND INDEXED i%P THE ..E OF THE OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED DN THE Cr(NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL # /tom Ff / (gitu of '*ttiem, 'Mttssuchusetts „•r 'z,� -s Poxrb of � rexl APR Cy I) oo AM `87 FICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CONSTANTINOS GEORGAKIS FOR A CITY G .SALEM, MM UI�ASS. VARIANCE AT 10 TREMONT ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on March 25, 1987 and continued until April 15, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Secretrary; 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 requests a Variance to allow a single family home to be converted to a two 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 involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and r� • 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 v after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The building was previously a two family; 2. A second unit would increase the amount of residential units in the City; 3. There are no vacant lots adjacent to the property which the petitioner could purchase; 4. The area is zoned two family and thus the petition would be in harmony with the district. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship w A 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 of the purpose of the ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CONSTANTINOS GEORGAKIS FOR A VARIANCE AT 10 TREMONT ST. , SALEM 6^ page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the • � petitioner the requested Variance, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Three (3) legal parking spaces be maintained on site on the Sylvan Street side of the property; 2. All parking on the Tremont Street side of the property be eliminated; 3. No exterior changes to the building be made; 4. All work be done per proper code; 5. A Certificate of Occupancy for the second unit be obtained; 6. All requirements of a letter to the Board from the Salem Fire Department relative to this petition be adhered to. VARIANCE GRANTED 2chard 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 MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE M1!= GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILH.3 OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PUP.SANT TO MASS CENERAL LA l:S. CHAPTER 803, SECTIC'r 11. THE Vn'A E ORiiSPE"'AL THE P P!"T GRANTED P.EP.E!N, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF TH:�``-L' S FICATION OF THE C!T5' CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED P.I.'% RT- :w? ArP=^L H'S B.0^! FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE THA? IT HAS SEEN D!5�'.iS`--EB DR OL'n!ED IS ORECORDED NF RECORDI IORT HE SOUTH ESSEX S RECORDED ANDREGISTRY ONFTHEDEEDS OWNERSINDEXED CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.DEI, THE OF THE CANER 6GARD. OF APPEAL A1191 OCT 13 8 3218 '87 (I�i#v of �ttlem, �ttssttcliu$e##s flLO Q Poxraof '4VVd �•'��''J"��iNIwC It�4S 2ItY 6LEPtK, SALE!!.WdSS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS & MICHAEL MCGINN FOR VARIANCE FOR 22 TREMONT ST. (R- 1 ) A hearing on this petition was held September 30, 1987 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 General Laws Chapter 40A. The Petitioners are requesting a Variance to convert a four family to a five family in this R- 1 district. At the request of the petitioners the Board .of Appeal voted unanimously to allow them Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. WITHDRAWN J ames B. Hacker, Chairman Ac ! A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECO - - _.. _ AM' GENERAL LA S CPAF1 fel C CP THIS DECISION I:', S S_-,- r-- II OF RECORD OR Is REOL)RDZD AND 601cO wi THE Dwii`?'S CERIir'' Alt u: lif-E. BOARD. OF APPEAL IV. • fdi# Of *IPM, Aussadjusdb 15 3 ca Pp `81 ' Pourb of �"vd FILE# 7 S j{i u+��NIM6 w_tv CITY CLERK. DECISION ON THE PETITION-OF—RAYMOND L. YOUNG FOR A VARIANCE AT 18 HERBERT ST. & 31 UNION ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on December 2, 1987 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. Petitioner, owner of said property, is requesting a variance to allow subject property to be used for off street 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 involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the 4 _ 1 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 use of the area as an off street parking lot helps to relieve a congested area of some vehicles; 2. Support of the plan was voiced byneighbors, abutters and others; 3. The lots had been used as a parking lot by previous owners for many years. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal relief of the provisions of the Ordinane would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the j public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the .f } intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND L. YOUNG FOR A VARIANCE FOR 18 HERBERT & 31 UNION STS. , SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Eight (8) parking spaces be dedicated to the building known as 8112-8A and 8 Herbert St. ; 2. The lot be landscaped appropriate to the neighborhood; 3. A maximum of twenty (20) legal parking spaces be maintained on site as per the plans submitted. GRANTED Richard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRO3' THIS DECISION, 1% ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTEF. KS. AND SHALL 6E M-.) WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER. THE DA!'E OF GF THIS DECISION IN THE DEVICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PUiiCAfiT TO IiASS GEP:FPAL LAW 3. CHAPTER 803, S"CTION ll. THE VAMANCE OC ;P_gy,l 'PE!" '- . C.Rn ED HEREIN SHALL NC.F f;,",E EFdCT UNTIL A EOPv CF THE PLC 00 9 i C t C - .,L FTHS CITY ER< i'�i 2� DAYS HAVE FLAP A(� N- P P� L H..; BEEN t CR j!'- iF Si_H AN A.PPEA HAS BEEN FI'E, THA IT HAS CEEN DI iS ED OF D- :S RECGE':c i` IN THE SIDTH ESSEX RESISTSi OF DEEDS AND INDEYEJ cl;;iErt ,iIF NA— OF THE - . OF RECORD OR IS RECDRDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TiTLE. BOARD OF APPEAL Ctu of ttlem, 'MaeloadjusP#ig 18 3 ii PH '67 3 � FILE# 'z 9 Puxrb of �ypeal wiwa� CITY CLEP,„+„ $n(Ek. ,v, 4S S. DEC1S1ON ON THE PET1T10N OF PETRO THEOPHILOPOULOS FOR A VARIANCE AT 24 VALLEY ST. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held June 24, 1987 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, representing himself, is requesting a Variance from rear yard setback requirements to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing single family dwelling at 24 Valley St. in order to provide more living space for his family. 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 involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; '� • f 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 to the petition presented at the hearing by several abutters and neighbors; 2. There was evidence presented which indicated the petitioner could add to the existing dwelling at the right rear of the property without encroaching on the rear yard; 3. if the petiitoner were allowed to build according to the plans submitted, such construction would affect the quality of life of his abutter to the rear of his property; 4. The petitioner failed to prove substantial 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 do not exist -which especially affect the subject • property but not the district generally; DEC1S10N ON THE PETITION OF PETRO THEOPHILOPOULOS FOR A VARIANCE AT 24 VALLEY ST. , SALEM �z page two •'� 2. Literal enforcement 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 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. Having failed to carry the required four (4) votes necessary to grant, the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED d/av mes M. Fleming, Esq. Vice Chairman, Board of A peal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK r�I ` vti;HlN zD DAYb Aff" " �A1€ �� �i iiis APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE RURSIIANT TO B�0" " OF THE A4A GENERAL LAV9S, CHAPTER BOO. HES OFF TB` CITY CLERK. cRF� t pEui.iifi Of THIS DECISION li TH'` C' is C4 PIER 8-E `-Cr C'! 11 THE VA°I1C OR F ,cRT. :cIS r— 'i E EFr ECT 'J vTL A w°Y OF TH FILED P dS yl T J KAC$ HA IT R LA .1� N'? A Y a HAS ". 4 RFIi:. crluL N c. 4r1V. ,'SES G7 . ' '= S i .. - IT F .c n.�r� Cl� FO Ui'uF. THt I:;:.,E OF The D.•r:ER ^.R . T IF SUCK 4N P c't F ELIS:° -Rl F 0 . ;c kND IivD REL'On -n IN iH" IA- "'jOF 4 Ec S` P OF P,ECORG OR IS RECORDED AND NOrO Ci. IPt Uv;NER S CERTIRCATE BOARDOFAPPEAL /.3D. O�y.fAM� t�itg ofttiem, ttssxclju$a##s AA w q Puxrb of Appvd DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HELEN JIADOSZ FOR A SPECIALNERF 31NDp3 :1)0, A VARIANCE FOR 44 WALTER STREET Ci`Y A hearing on this petition was held March 18, 1987 with tfib 1`oliowing Soard 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 Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling and a Variance from minium parking requirements 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 Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more •; detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which escecially affect the land, building or structure involved and whicr _re not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in t._e 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 amy be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition; • 2. There will be no exterior changes. a, DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HELEN JIADOSZ FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE AT 44 WALTER STREET, SALEM page two r x' 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 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; 4. The granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one, 4-1 , to grant the relief requested. Mr. Bencal voted in opposition. The Special Permit and Variance are granted subject to the following conditions: 1 . Five parking spaces be maintained as per plans submitted; 2. Construction be as per plans submitted; j • /t 3. Premises remain owner occupied; 4. Meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau; 5. A building permit be obtained prior to construction; 6. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE GRANTED � ,�.1) James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 1i THIS D'C!i!r 1�, t: p,NY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MAF- APPEAL FR0Llliv'�cr: "�' SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING GENERAL L%1 T OF THIS DEC is ON 1', �H- '�Ft�'OE OF THE CITY SECTION 11. THE VARIANCEORSPECIAL THE P RT','IT PUP.SANT TO MASS. (`.` I - ^' S• CHAPTER 808, GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL N E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECIGI APPEALij ' tCATiCN OF HAI IF HE:H IAN APpR r.L Hi�S BEp4 FILE.YS ATHATVE L IT SHASED ABI¢N{CISr,ISSFD fP DENIED IS RECOR OO IORTHE IS RECORDED EESSEX OF AND NOTED YONFTHE EOWNER'S DS AND I CERTIFICATE OF TITNDEXED UNDER THE LE. A.1E OF THE CWi?ER BOARD OF APPEAL ^ � \ ~ ~u of ,— alem�r (�fflU#.5U~4U Betts \ �*. k� | | �� �� »87 ` �Q �� �� & �w� v� �� ~� �� W� ��o��r" �� ������ _ . �{�El� _-_ ` DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN M. LIMON FOR & SPCCI8LCITY CLERK.SALEM.MASS. PERMIT AT 23 g&RKC@ ST. (8-2) ` ` & bearing no this petition was bold May 27, 1087 with the following Board Members . ` present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Beucal, Fleming, Luoioaki and Strout. � Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening 0epo in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40&, Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear & side setback to allow construction of u deck in this > B-2 district. / � / � Tbo provision of the Salem 3noiog Ordinance which is applicable to this request � for for a Special Permit is Section VI B lO, 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, laud, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrineotal 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, rsubes the following findings of fact: � 1 . There was one abutter in opposition; � 2, The proposed deck would be lowered to assure the pr1nacy of the abutting neighbor. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal coocludeo. ao follows: � 1 , The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to � the public good and without derogating from the intent of the district � or the purpose of the Ordinance. 2^ The granting of the Special Permit will promote the safety, ` convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. i � � | ' i _ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN M. LIMON FOR A SPECIAL • PERMIT AT 23 WARREN ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1 . Owner obtain a building permit; 2. A shield to the side of the deck on the 21 Warren St. side of the property be put on; + 3. The deck be not less than 16" from the finished kitchen floor. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED eter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal AA .COPY. OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK AFpEkL FEJ'! iH!S CCljlD;i. 1= Ai('f. SH4C o° :'agDE FO?S.:F.'.T TOSECiIC;; 17 OF THE A1ACi Ci THS C E'EFAL L a'c, CHAPTER 8-S Sy L_ [ . .v CIS ON 1. T..^ . E _' .iS n•l[F 7 'E 'i L��. 4.:L i� LL 11 LFa 4 h;l' c L (:TH- E u:.r ... H. RE - I? F - .� i C,' IS OF RECORD IORTIS RECC'RDED A'.?,PIVCTED OSTRy C �,S 7\, _7 ` OGXEfi S CEr, F1C/ Or TITLE. E `'F TnE C::.T� BOARD OF APPEAL • ,tea e-y�,WpM4� 4e e (gi#v of '$ttlem, AnsstttllusP##s ��'a w! 19nxrb of cApprxcl ee0141N6V+' � 5 so 'M '81 1�j Mir 2 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE GAGNON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT/'LE# VARIANCE AT 25 WASHINGTON SQ. NO. (R-2) ff fCi�Y CLERK,SALEM,MASS. A hearing on this petition was held on May 13, 1987 with the o lowing Board Members present; Jams Hacker, Chairman; Messers. Fleming, Luzinski, Strout 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 provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit/Variance to allow property to be used as a bed & breakfast four roams, also a Variance frau parking requirements in this R-2 zone. The Variance which has be requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; +1 r 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. Major opposition including abutters and aggrieved parties. 2. Major parking and traffic congestion in immediate and general area. 3. No hardship was proved. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously voted 5-0 against the granting of the requested Special Permit/Variance. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED ,C-G' /�J. '/✓iii'+'/,:� Jams B. Hacker Chairman, 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, SHA'L EE ?BADE PIIRSNANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MAS& GENERAL LAWS CPAP - S •fl" CF "P. THE DATE OF FICING OF THIS DECS f • PDRSANi TO i TH tPEC1AL PERMIT J GRANTED H,:! ,t.. ;, - ,. - THE CERT- FICATION Gi FILED OR THAT, IF :.CD IS - RECORDED IN ll;_ .,,.E uF THE OAER OF RECORD OR 13 (I LE. BOARD OF APPEAL (dT of akrll� tI88 tI '�E -4 A10 :00 pmb•' Df-Mvd CITY ERK" 71 r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & WILLIAM QUIRK FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 60-62 WEBB STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held April 29, 1987 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 are requesting a Special Permit to convert a two family dwelling into a four unit residenntial building, also a Special Permit from rear and side setback requirements to allow construction of an addition and decks. 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 B and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non- conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of non- conforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requssts, 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, the Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition; 2. This is a large house that is difficult to maintain in its present condition. 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 in in harmony with the district and will promote the 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 RICHARD & WILLIAM QUIRK FOR A TSPECIAL-PERMIT FOR 60-62 WEBB ST. , SALEM page two - , grant the Special ' Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Property be owner occupied; 2. Parking plan "B" as modified and said plan to be further modified to include three foot buffer zone abutting the Manzi property and fenced with evergreens; 3. Construction per elevations submitted; 4. Construction conform to requirements of the state building code; 5. Conform to allow requirements of the Salem Fire Department; 6. A building permit must be obtained; 7. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED • aures B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL 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 V..ASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, BEARING THE CERT- FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL.HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL 7 e'%�.Lovafl Y Ctv of tt1em, 'fflttssar4uset#s An 6 a 58 PH '81 FILE# Pottrb of '4v4xl � v^ CITY CLERK.SALEM.aASS. e •f DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES & BEATRICE RUDOLPH FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 32 WEBB ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 29, 1987 with the following Board Members present: . James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear setback to allow construction of a second 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 non- conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of non- conforming lots, land, structures and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental F than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. P In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, -' guided b the rule that a Special Permit request may be �, y p q y 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. The second story deck will not extend further than the existing building. On the basis of the above finding of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed deck will be in harmony with the neighborhood; 2. The granting of the Special Permit will promote the safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants; 3. The relief requested can be granted without 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 & BEATRICE RUDOLPH FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 32 WEBB ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Second floor deck to be no larger than 10' x 121 , as per plans; 2. A building permit to be obtained prior to construction of said deck. 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 DECISION, IF ANY, SHA!L BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MAM GENERAL LAWS. CH01ER 208, AND SHALL BE FILED 1ff-'Iitl 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE CFTICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO fIASS. GE°:ERAI. L:A::S. CHAPTER 303, SECTIOIi 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PETIT GRA7n ED HERD;- SHALL NC!i I;G', Er--CT D'fiTIL A C0PY OF THEL_C L THE BERT. FICFi'"'I OF THE Ckt CLErt, TF "0 DAYS HAVE E_A°S .J I" AP EAL HAS E -] FILLD. - OR 'CH/T. IF SUCH A: APPEAL h,,, 6 E FILE. THAT Yi 11P.S DEED DIS',:ISFED CR 1-NI%SD IS RECG',DED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX.. REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAivIE OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED 014 THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL ._ (9itg of ialem, Aussadjusetts � e Poxrb of �Vpeal M41 Z1 11 36 x '81 FILE# DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES L. BRETT FOR A VARIANCE FOR 6 - 8 WHEATLAND STREET (R-2) CITY CLERK.SALEM.MASS. A hearing on this petition was held on April 29, 1987, with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs., Fleming, Bencal, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the Hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salon Evening News in accordance with the provision of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. The petitioner, represented by Attorney John Vallis, seeks a Variance from front yard setback to allow the existing two (2) family dwelling at 6 - 8 Wheatland Street. The locus of the property 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 the petitioner; and c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The building, as situated on the plans submitted, is set back further from the street line then all the buildings on the street. 2. The reason for the front-yard set-back discrepancy was caused by mis reading and misunderstanding of what constitutes the front sideline. 3. No opposition to the requested Variance was Expressed at the hearing. 4. The petitioner shaved sufficient hardship because of the presence of ledge on most of the site. 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; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES L. BRETT FOR A VARIANCE FOR 6 - 8 WHEATLAND STREET (R-2) PAGE 2 1 I 3. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; 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 Variance requested, without conditions. GRANTED 'James M. Fleming, Esquire Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. 17 OF r IF AC;Y, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECT1014 DATEHOF(FILING SPS, D SHALL EE FILED INITHC; 20 DAYS AFTER THIS DE�ISIO,J cr 1 LA''iS C4AR £ 3 rA CITY CL FK DL PENT iF• THE VAR'Fc,Ci CP SP _ i.- CCC( ..-i6a FOB SUI FA- a' I1 T � UFiT- 5- c1 F' IS F c_c F� Tri' f A. CF TdE ON�NER �H `• li „y THAT. IFS F APP F - Oc DEEDS AND I ,DEXED RECORDED IPI 7 B SOUT'd ESSEX RECISTRi OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNtR S CERTIFICATE BOARDLOF APPEAL 3 of PM Titg of 'Salem' ttssttcliu�E#t�r�,E� t3 E37Y CLEpX. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROGER & SANDRA TREMBLAY FOR A VARIANCE AT 34 WILLSON ST. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held on October 7, 1987 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, represented by Attorney John A. Doonan, are seeking a Variance from rear and side setbacks to allow for an existing pool, deck and oversized shed. Property 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; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the ti 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 opposition presented at the hearing; 2. Relief should be granted for the existing pool and deck, but not for the continued existence of the oversized shed. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes, as to the pool and deck, as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which 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 detriment to the public good and without nullifying of substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. �• Additionally, the Board of Appeal concludes, as to the the oversized shed, as follows: 1 . Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROGER & SANDRA TREMBLAY FOR A VARIANCE AT 34 WILLSON ST. , SALEM page two 2. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Fleming opposed) to divide the question relative to the requested variance, and further voted as follows: As to the relief requested for the existing deck, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the petitioners the requested Variance, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The deck is to remain the same as it currently exists, with no addition. As to the relief requested for the existing pool, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-0 (Mr. Hacker abstaining) to grant the petitioners the requested Variance, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The pool is to remain where it is presently located. As to the relief requested for the existing oversized shed, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 1-4, (Mr. Fleming voted in favor; Messrs. , Hacker, Bencal, Luzinski and Strout opposed) to grant the petitioners requested Varaince. By the vote of 1-4, the requested Variance, as it relates to the oversized shed, is denied. • VARIANCE GRANTED FOR POOL & DECK VARIANCE DENIED FOR SHED ?Jam!e;sZ2M—. Fleming, Esq. , ice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEA'- FR'./ TATS DECISION, If .'-"l Y. SH�'! E= L1t..DE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE LU-S. CEIvER�L L� .a C-F.°^E t`'. .IiQ ?O CAIS A'F ER THE CATS C Fi Li�;2 OF THIS D a li( H- i ELE C T CITY C F.4. -.:1; ;1 THE Vr P' ( W TED r i , S i .'L F �,- A C, OF TH t i'.{c �.RT- F'. J: rF THE Cil:) LER . Ci .. EL.: SED W F' H,.' E rf_E 0. i T. Ir t P r .S E° .iF IT H:�,". D!S: S D OP " .:iE IS R EO i7 S:'J N E« +: RE I E u ArD i;� 1 'J C '�t' ri0 ,:E 0 C+li2ER OF RECORD OR IS R_CORDED AND tMED i THE OJ LER'S CERTIPICAiE OF TITLE BOARD OF APPEAL Q Cgitg of '*ttlrm, 'Mttssar4usetts - r ; a � Poxrb of A"vd '87 Mtn 31 P3 :n0 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JPS REALTY TRUST FOR A C"M' VARIANCE AT 3 WINTER STREET (R-2) $ : `; -'. ' "rF!CE A hearing on this petition was held March 18, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. , 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 seeking a Variance to convert this four family dwelling into a five unit condominium 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 involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; • c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantial 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 building is a large structure, too large for a two family; 2. The building when purchased was in disrepair and infected with insects, etc. 3. The proposed renovation would enhance the building, the neighborhood and area in general; 4. Support to the plan was voiced by neighbors and abutters; 5. There is adequate parking on site. 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 property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve x, substantial hardship to the petitioner; L r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JPS REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE FOR 3 WINTER ST. , SALEM page two • 3. The variance 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 Variance requested subject to the following conditions: 1 . The reconstruction be built as per the plans submitted; 2. Eleven (11 ) legal size parking spaces be maintained on site; 3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained; 4. All provisions of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke detectors be complied with; 5. All construction be as per all existing State & City Building Codes; 6. The right side windows of the addition shall be in harmony with the windows of the existing building. VARIANCE GRANTED Richard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING APPEAL FRO;,, THIS DECISION, HAND SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO "ASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER SDR, AND No APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. BEARING THE CER - FICATI`JN OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS NAVE ELAAND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED 1 RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE BOARDOFAPPEAL