1 ROSLYN STREET COURT - BUILDING INSPECTION } ROSLYN STREET COURT
�� S� o ��.���� n.�-�
.�.,4b
Ctv of ttfem, 'Massarflus s ��JVVVV
'h
.'. F Bottrd of Aupenl
�l..I�T1
DECISION-ON-THE PETITION• OF-SUSAN RUTKOWSKI FOR A VARIANCE
ATJ 1 ROSLYN STREET COURT (B-4)"
A hearing on this petition was held June 27, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Vice Chairman;
Joseph Correnti , Secretary; Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. Notice of
the hearing was sent to 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 construction
of a deck in the front of the structure which is located in a B-4 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings 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.
2. The granting the variance would enhance the quality of life for the occupant.
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 by not the
district in general .
2. Literal enforcement of the provision of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief 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 SUSAN RUTKOWSKI FOR A VARIANCE
AT 1 ROSLYN STREET COURT, SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petition comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department
relative to smoke and fire safety.
2. All construction be in accordance with plans and dimensions submitted.
3. All exterior finishes be built in harmony with existing structure.
4. Petitioner obtain legal building permits.
5. All construction comply with city and state building codes.
VARIANCE GRANTED
R chard Febonio, 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 OJ
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.
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance
or 1pecial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record el
is recorded and noted en the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAU