1 FLORENCE STREET - PICARIELLO, ANTHONY J - ZBA I Florence St.
a/k/a 51R Canal St.
a/k/a 22 Porter St.
/ \ Anthony J. Picariello I � \
(fit" of iWem, � Httssttthusetts
3Boarb of A"ral
OCT Zj 1Z OV FIN
DECISION ON THE PETI-TION OF ADMIPACION_MUTUA_DE_LA SOCIEDAD
CORPORATION ATSR51 CANAI`STREET]/, FLORENCE STREET.1 R4 AND R2
r'
4 hearing on this petition was held October 18, 1995 with the
following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary
Barrett, Nina Cohen, Arthur Labrecque Albert Hill . 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 Variance for a CHANGE OF USE to allow for a
Television Production Studio and Singles Dances with a Liquor License
for rroviding refreshments.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding
of the Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially
affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not
generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same
district.
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the
petitioner.
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 pians, makes the
following findings of fact:
1. No-one spoke in favor of the Petition.
2. Attorney Philip Moran, representing Mr. Anthony 1. Picariello
spoke in opposition to the petition.
3. Mr. Peter Vaillancourt spoke in opposition to the petition.
Additionally, Mr. Vaillancourt submitted a Petition with 19
Signatures to the Board voting in opposition to the Variance
requested.
DECISION CK THE PETITION OF _=DMIRACICN MUTUA DE LA SOCIEDAD
CORPORATION FOR A VARIANCE -- R51 CANAL STREET/i FLORENCE S-REST.
page two
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence
presented at the hearing, rh-- Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the
subject property and nor the district in general .
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 and
substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the
purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5 against
the motion to grant, having failed to garner the required four
affirmative votes to pass , the motion is defeated and the petition is
denied.
VARIANCE DENIED
October 18, 1995
Albert C. Hill , ]r
Member, Board of Appeai
COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS SEEN FILED WITH THE PLAN•:ING BCARD AND
THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, _F ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT -^ SECTION
17 OF THE MGL CHAPTER GOA :.ND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS =.FTER THE
DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSUANT TO MGL CHAPTER LOA. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL
PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE
DECISION BEARING THE CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS
HAVE PASSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH APPEAL HAS
BEEN FILED, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED 1N 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 CERTIFIC-.TE OF
TITLE.
0
BOARD OF APPEAL
_ fV
- O
TI
N
,rco>nr,�M. r i
y Flo 13 6 h� ����� of 'Salem, Assar4uhtfi '85
S yy
r T
Paurb of Cp1FpPHj rt�E
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHONY J. PICARIELLO FOR AN
ADMINISTRATIVE RULING REGARDING PROPERTY AT 1 FLORENCE ST. ,
a/k/a 51R CANAL ST. , a/k/a 22 PORTER ST. (R-3/R-2/B-4)
A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1989 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Strout, Luzinski
and Nutting. 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 an Administrative Ruling that
the proposed use as a machine shop, a food provision warehouse and an engraving
business were included in the Board's intent at the time this Board granted a
variance to the same petitioner for the same property on November 19, 1986. In
the alternative the petitioner requests the Board to grant a variance for the
uses set forth in the Zoning Ordinance in B-1 , B-2, B-3, B-4 and I District with
certain restrictions set forth in his petition.
The petitioner submitted a summary of the inherent power of this Board to take
such action as set forth in the case of Board of Selectmen of Stockbridge v.
Monument Inn, Inc. , 8 Mass App. Ct. 158, 391 NE 2nd 1265 ( 1979) by the Massa-
chusetts Appeals Court.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and
after reviewing the alternatives and discussing its prior action, makes the
following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition;
2. One abutter, as well as the petitioner, spoke in favor of the ruling;
3. It was the intention of the Board at its earlier hearing to allow the
uses set forth in the petitioner's request for an Administrative Ruling;
4. All findings set forth in the original variance still apply.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed use as a machine shop, a food provision warehouse and an
engraving business are in keeping with the intent of the original
variance granted November 19, 1986.
2. The granting of the Administrative Ruling 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.
3. The Board determined that the relief the petitioner could be granted
was on the Administrative Ruling and not on the Variance requested in
the alternative.
L
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHONY J. PICARELLO FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE'
RULING FOR 1 FLORENCE ST. , a/k/a 51R CANAL St. , a/k/a 22 PORTER ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore,the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Administrative Ruling allowing the petitioner to use the premises for a
machine shop, a food provision warehouse and an engraving business as requested,
subject to the same conditions granted in its original variance granted
November 19, 1986.
ADMINISTRATIVE RULING GRANTED
Jamds Fleming, Esq. , Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. !F ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF 7!-:EiV `.S.
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER ECR, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF F;Llf'
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSANT TO 6,;.ASS, CE;NERAI L7,YiS, CHAFFER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PEP: IT
IRANIED HEREIN. SHALL NO' TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECIS!JN. BEA;; ;i..; THE
FICATION OF THE CITY CLERX THAT 20 DAPS HAVEELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS CEE:V FLED.
GR THAT, IF SUCH Ali APPEAL HAS B.EN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISiYIISSED OR GEN;ED IS
RECCJ,DED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX P.ECISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE .NAME OF THE M,;NE4
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
PHILIP D. MORAN
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR AT LAW
32 LYNDE STREET
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(508)745-6085
PHILIP D. MORAN
February 15 , 1989
GEORGE R.SUSLAK
Board of Appeals
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: ANTHONY J . PICARIELLO
APPEAL CASE NO. 463
Gentlemen;
As you will recall at your meeting held on January 11 , 1989
I appeared before you regarding a clarification of a decision
dated December S . 1986 with respect to the above named client.
The issue. was whether a use variance, which had been discussed at
an earlier hearing on November 19 , 1986 , but determined not to be
necessary at that time , was now necessary for Mr . Picariello to
lease the second floor to a prospective tenant who would use the
space fpr an engraving business , Mr . Munroe has refused to issue
an occupancy permit for said business because nothing was
,mentioned regarding usr-- in, the decision reference,: above. At. the
January hearing T requested an amendment , modification or
clarification which I felt would truly reflect the intention of
the Board at the time the vote was taken in November 1986 .
Chairman Fleining rightfully inquired whether the Board could
take such action without public notice and felt that even if the
Board did what I asked, such action would be a nullity if
appealed. T therefore accepted your recommendation and filed the
petition before you this evening which has been duly published
and posted.
However , in my research, I did discover the following case
law which T believe may be beneficial to my position tonight and
also may be of assistance to you in the future , should a similar
question arise . In the case of the Board of Selectmen of
Stockbridge v. Monument Inn, Inc.., 8 Mass App. Ct 158 ; 391 NE 2nd
1265 (1979) the Appeals Court summarized the inherent power of a
zoning board to amend its decisions as follows :
The law is clear that the board has the inherent power,
without holding a further public hearing, to correct an
inadvertent or clerical error in its decision so that
the record reflects its true intention, ( iony. Board
PHILIP D. MORAN, Esq.
of Appeals of Waltham 344 Mass 547, 552-553 (1963) ,
Burwick v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Worcester, 1 Nass
App. Ct 739 742 (1974) so long as the correction does
nOt constitute a "reversal of a conscirms decision"
(Cassani v. Planning Board of Hltll 1 Nass App. Ct. 451,
456 (1973) , dies not grant relief different from that
originally sought, and does not change the result of
the original decision (Potter v, Board of Appeals of
Mansfield, 1 Mass App. Ct 89, 95 (1973) and so long as
no one relying on the original decision has been
prejudiced by the correction, (Shuenain v. Board of
Alderman of Newton 36i Mass 758, 765 (1972) .
i submit to you that with respect to Mr. Picariello, you
have the inherent power tonight, to allow him to use the building
f Or those purposes envisioned when you issued your decision in
December 1986 , with or without a further public hearing since it
would not constitute a reversal of a conscious decision, would
not grant relief from that originally sought and does not change
the result of tree original decision, Finally, I submit that no
one relying on the original decision could be prejudiced by your
action.
With this in mind I respectfully request treat you act
favorably on Mr . Picariello ' s petition and grant him the relief
he requests either administratively or by granting the use
variance requested in his petition before you tonight , for the
same reasons set_ forth in your decision dated December 5 , 1986 .
Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation,
Very
4D .truly y urs MORAN
cc, A. Picariello
1 ffiif of "F�aIem, � ttssttt�jusPffs
' r Paurb of �upeul P11 Ip.
.J
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHONY J. PLCARIELLO f?OR':
VARIANCES FOR 51R CANAL ST. a/k/a 1 FLORENCE ST.
.'f-V I c
A hearing on this petition was held November 19, 1986 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Strout and
Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variances from dimensional
requirements to allow reconstruction of a building which was destroyed by fire.
Said building to be reconstructed on the same footprint and is located in.an '
R-2 district.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detrimental to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition;
2. The build`-ng proposed would not exceed the One destroyed by fire;
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evie.ence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property
but does not affect the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intend of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
i
DECISION 014 THE FETI:iO!; OF' ANT::INY J. PICARIELLO FOR
VARIANCES FOR 5iF CANAL ST a/k/a 1 FLORENCE ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variances from density requirments and parking, subject to the following terms
and conditions:
1 . Building to be constructed on the same footprint;
2. All applicable provisions of the State Building Code, Fire Prevention
code, City Ordinances and MGL relative to fire safety must be
complied with;
3. A building permit and a Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained.
VARIANCES GRANTED
Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLEP,i;
F�.I''ss
AFFE:.L FRO". TP.:S C°^S•^-!�� IF Ai:°.. SHALL BE 6!AOc PUP.S'JANT TO SECTION 17 OF T' I..
GE.�EnnL LAW-3. CRAFT"F. 5:.: t"@ Sti�LL EE F••__� li"alit CAIS F.iiEfi THE GATE OF
.c C- THE 'T" CLE"' _ �i "'r.. '.{T
�- OECIC._n I!i T. _ Tf,_ l'i.::.}^.Gc r _ JJi .
P .,cF,..' TO o EC1121 CF 'p---
C'
P
i
FC r -
i
OF F.EwRC GR 6 F.::.:i:Dc_D A:iC t..,_S C:.
BOARD OF APPEAL
4�
>. pt,.hr,� , t3oo>✓ Zs tol tic( . 1�r7 _
1 ,o
t2
- "
CAI
DATE
Oc. , 2,1 `c�Lo
F _ Revised By
m o
N v 1
2
44 o° 3 .
vp �
• W p Cf
LA
�o
421
vlz, !an
40
1 � 0
02�
o L�
Yf
CE-e'rlc"-( -rL;u--r `fl E X1gTtV)c� "f oU7�i71�'(Ifa�,� 1�� LocZ.-TFC
f .,a> w��, `a,� cs�ma moo• uI et✓rnE err"�
rr
d7 1►.�� � 1w'`E_' o;-
t�('> nt./�Ml L�,1::.�'. ($�[..1 J CCr't7 Pf�.5.O,: .�=w Q l� ' pl-Lw-t Cj 1Z� � T�=.Pj�.\"-•.1.,w-Cd �1-�C17 _ '
L�l�Z1�P� . ZG�.t G • '
dFCCIJP�-CIC1(J y
b�.(77 rY�7\ll�r� `t f`� I:r."GY,i.131sti7 ra�� Q111C►2S �'.EJCj e�.-ewa
SHEET. N0.
Sy LLL wl�t. -•iac ce+.�C72iJGD �s�- Q CCYY11'LET�. rJ'��"'!,,•y< . :��/�l�iW :_,��/E���-H,nr�- .e.� .._
LN
�C/- G�'•��: �� �'Cit�`[�� l%° ,� f`\r0 7122E 4� - '� 04 ,�—Sfi,ac4• . Sheet I 0(COMM. NO
I
:
•• :9•.:,,'' . : � f ZSR
,
I
- r
<
` _
i