42 FAIRMOUNT STREET - MUROE, JOHN L - ZBA .� � Fairmount. St. R-2
John L. Munroe
v
�b Ja 18 8 29 All '89
(fi#g of '$tt1em, '�Httssar4usr##s
r FIIE-fi�'
c F �pFif�t D{ �1IT�JP211 WTY3LERK. SAil�r1.MASS.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN MUNROE FOR A VARIANCE AT
42 FAIRMONT STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held on July 19 , 1989 with the
following Board Members present . James Fleming , Chairman ,
Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman , John Nutting , Secretary , Messrs .
Richard Febonio and Edward 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 themselves , are requesting a
variance to allow construction of an existing deck at 42
Fairmont Street .
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 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 consideration of the evidence
presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans , makes
the following findings of fact :
1. No opposition was present .
2 . That the deck already exists .
3 . The addition to the structure would enhance the property
and quality of life for the said petitioner .
On the basis of the above findings of fact , and on the evidence
presented at the hearing the Board of Appeal concludes as follows :
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject
property but not the district generally ;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN MUNROE FOR A VARIANCE AT
42 FAIRMONT STREET (R-2)
page two
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 .
Therefore , the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously , 5-0
to grant the relief requested , subject to the following
conditions :
1 . All construction must be done as plans submitted and by
legal building permits .
2 . That it be built in harmony with the existing structure .
VARIANCE GRANTED
Richard T. Febonio , Board Member
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.
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws. C11-1 Iter 808, Section 11, the Variance
Or Special Permit granted herein sh.—I aot take eft_ct until a copy of the
dec!sion, ba,IWI- tl:e certiCcation Ot the City Clerk that 20 drys have
c;rpsed 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 or
is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
MORTGAGE INSPECTION
BAY STATE SURVEYING SERVICE INC.
234 CABOT ST., BEVERLY, MA.
i
LOCATION /ll _ m�_ s NOTES
-
• This is a Mortgage inspection survey and not
SCALE : I =zD FT. DATE ; y /4 _per-
REFERENCE (<_ �/ Z an instrument survey,therefore this plot plan is for
. .5!" G'""q'"""'....".""""" mortgage inspection purposes only.
..ZP.LST. - - ..--- • This survey is based on survey marks of
. .. . .. .. ......... . ..... .... .... others.
To fa /T 1
_- _c� -��___�Q��_ _�(v,V,__ ______ _____ • Bushes,shrubs, fences and tree lines do
I hereby certify that I have examined the premises and that the not necessarily indicate property lines.
building(s) shown on this plan are located on the ground as
shown and that they conformed to the zoning setbacks of the • The building(s) are not located ithe special
• flood hazard zone, as defined by H.U.D.
....... .�E en co strutted.
/V67-,Dcfr ��,/T
PIS
69,96
N
PT
wi�"�S Lal
C* 1-51y-w 0 l�J
Z # yZ
Wj
W
r � �
Oyl G..
dC] v .U71Fi ,y
en60,Do
Wzw
wJ U.1
ss f E o o `
?
W
ZO � p„
= +1Wa FA)RMOvNT ST.
'MAKEVEACE