34 BRIDGE STREET - SPINALE, JOHN - ZBA 34 Bridge St. B-2
John Spinale
1 � I
v\ \
J
V
.ccow�q
T ; (9itU Of ttlem, la96aC4U69tt5 DEC 06 J' US i"ii '69
3�
%rF Poarb of �ppeal FiLr='
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SPINALE FOR A VARIANCE AT 34 BRIDGE
STREET (B-2)
A hearing on this petition was held on November 29, 1989 with the following
Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chair-
man; John Nutting, Secretary; Richard Febonio and Associate Member LaBrecque.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, requests a Variance to allow construction
to be completed and to allow storage and retail at 34 Bridge Street (B-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; 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 of fact:
1. No opposition was presented.
2. Abutter spoke in favor as well as City Counselor Harvey.
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 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 JOHN SPINALE FOR A VARIANCE AT 34 BRIDGE
STREET (B-2)
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the
relief requested, subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner must comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept.
2. All construction and renovation be performed by all existing City and
State Building Codes.
3. Petitioner obtain a Certificate of Occupancy.
4. That the lot be maintained in a clean and orderly manner by petitioner
and/or assignee.
5. Repairs of vehicles shall not be allowed on site. Petitioner titioner shall
place signs both inside and outside in a conspicuous location "stating
the above condition in 115.
6. No single unregistered vehicle shall be on the property for more than
seven days total including Sat./Sun./Holidays on adjacent lot.
7. No more than 20 vehicles shall be placed on the adjoining lot.
GRANTED
Richard T. Febonio, Board Member
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
�esea! from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
ass. Ganeral Laws, Chapter SOS, and shall be filed vathin ?.0 days
,Io-i 'd,,e dale or filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Cr-.p=er 203 Section 11. :he Variance
�,ercin lnot take effect L t i a copy of the
shall
hwe
.,.r+Mica F,on of the City Clerk thal, 2Csys
„cs beep i,ed or that, if such s been
�o tia an d:mi;aed or denied is records I I, f. .._o[th Essex
Ree:str; cfC_eC.. and indeed under the name or t'r o 'nar of record or
is recorded and noted on the own.ar's Certificate of Tittle.
BOARD OF APPEAL
V
DATE OF HEARING
PETITIONER ni,L,C_P.p
LOCATION &-// �� v
MOTION: TO GRANT___l J/ _SECOND
TO DENY SECOND
TO RE-HEAR SECOND
LEAVE TO WITHDRAW SECOND
TO CONTINUE SECOND
ROLL CALL PRESENT GRANT DENY WITHDRAW RE-HEAR CONTINUE
RICHARD BENCAL J
RICHARD FEBONIO
JAMES 'FLEMING
ED
JOHN NUTTING
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Pi*klA
AR4'HU*=L�UE
CONDITIONS:f//2 lam/ z�
}
r.= b Ctu of �551em, C assachusetts
_ F
s nttrD of APVVA
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NONDAS LAGONAKIS TO APPEAL THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S
GRANTING OF A PERMIT FOR 34 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM, MASS.
A hearing on this petition was held on September 19, 1984 with the following
Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman: Messrs. Charnas, Gauthier and Strout,
Associate Member, Richard Bencal. 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 40 A.
The Petitioner is appealing the decision of the Building Inspector to issue a
building permit to Kenneth Surrette to construct a building at 34 Bridge Street
(Permit No. 139) . Petitioner alleges that the permit violates Section VIII D of
the Zoning Ordinance which provides that no structure destroyed by any means
to an extent of more than fifty percent of its replacement costs, or more than
fifty percent of its floor area at the time of destruction, shall be reconstructed
except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance.
After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal makes the
following findings of fact:
remises in terms of floor area and
The existing building ,
1 g g on the p
replacement costs, was more than fifty percent destroyed at the time
the Building Inspector issued or modified the permit which allowed
construction on the site of the destroyed building to proceed;
2. The Building Inspector issued or modified the permit, after the
building was destroyed, in utmost good faith, but in derogation of
Section VIII D;
3. The person or persons to whom the permit was issued never intended to
rehabilitate or restore the existing building, instead they intended to
raze the building and induce the Building Inspector to issue a permit
to allow new construction in derogation of Section VIII D.
4. The building to be constructed does not conform to the Ordinance in that
the minimum required lot stie is 12,000 sq. ft. and this lot contains
6,000 sq. ft.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes:
1. The deception on the part of the petitioner is indicated by s2he d&Les
on the permit and the date on the lease.
n -�
f
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NONDAS LAGONAKIS TO APPEAL THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S
GRANTING OF A PERMIT FOR 34 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM, MASS.
page two
2. Permit NO. 139 should not have been issued or modified to allot; construction
of a new building at 34 Bridge Street.
Therefore, the Board voted unanimously 5 -0 to revoke the permit in question, thus
upholding the appeal of the petitioner.
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
- U
;.1
C
I -
L L
G I—
� U
SHALE BE MADE K=UA`M TO SECTION IE DTE OF FILING
u
RM THIS pEtlSiO0 IF ANY. -
UX� LAM pIAPFER SDS. PND SHALL BE CITY WN'HIN 20 DAYS
AFTER OR SPECM PER'AT
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CtERIL
SEE'1"7 ll.SNE YAR' ' - CERT-
' >DE THIS DECTS�' TCISICti, BEA;85? ;RE
PIIRSANT TO :'AASS. GEIIERAL VCfJS. CHAPTER SOS. OF
THE'
_p AND NO APPEAL HAS BE
RIED IS BRANT HEREIiI. SHALL N(%T TA3E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY
THAI 1- Hr:S BEEN DIS•�:11SSED OR C°
FICATIDN p'F SUCH IE APP"cALI HAS BEEN FILE,Ve EL^ANC INDE%ED UNDER THE NA61E OF THE OI'JNER
(,R THAT. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE'
OFCRECORD I OR IS RECDRDEDN IKE SOUTH SAND R NOTED ON
BOARD Of APPEAL
J�_rco>m4b
Ctg of �$ttlem, 'Mttssar4usetts
PuttrD of tAppettl
December 6, 1989
Notice is hereby given that as of this 'date the decision
of the Board of Appeal has been filed in the office of the
City Clerk to grant the petition of John Spinale for a Variance
at 34 Bridge St. to allow completion of construction and to use
building as retail and storage in connection with the existing
automotive business.
BOARD OF APPEAL
Brenda M. Sumrall
Clerk of the Board
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, Chanter 308, 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
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 Esser
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
i
i
Otu of ttlem, ttssttcljusetts
r= ,
? pnxra of '�Fpenl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SPINALE FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 342' BRIDGE ST. , SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held February 26NA9c9 w9thOM K lowing Board
Members present: James Hacker., Chairman; Messrs. Bencal, Charnas, Strout 2nd
Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing rid;t�nt to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly publis�g Ar}.^t�T, ,. N,%� fening News
in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws C dpter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the premises, requests a Variance from density, height,
Lot size, lot coverage and any and all applicable setbacks in order to
�omplete construction of a building at 342' Bridge St. ,. which is in a B-2 zone.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
c LL &,ard that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect.
y > G G
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
w r w w r affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
�
C LL G p W
` Z U
L E b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
3 5 N volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and
C N �• W G p
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
J, c -
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from
o = W the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
woo - o
V 'W y W Z
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing, �
_ sWz
r o makes the following findings of fact:
w W
rs cJ cc = o
- _ ❑ � > � � � 1 . Substantial opposition was presented to the plan;
7 C N C
j
r _ H r - 2. Petitioner has failed to show sufficient facts for this Board
to find that substantial hardship would result from the denial
0
of this request for a Variance.
c r On the basis of the above finding of fact, and on the evidence presented at
the hearing the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Petitioner has not met his burden of proof as regards
legal hardship.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, against granting
the petitioner his requested relief.
VARIANCE IS DENIED.
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
;.;d—�.�4
=` fL N of 'Wem, - as5ac(1u5effs
, p aara of hm l
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SPINALE RELATIVE TO THE
DE40LITION ORDER OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR 342BRIDGE ST.
The petitioner, John Spinale petitioned the Board Ja 3jeJ2 CSb Ply �&ct the
Building inspector not to go forward with his order to have the building at
34'2 Bridge Street demolished. . FILE
A public hearing on the petition was held July16CIT�86r't:, ' - the M�lowing
Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming and
Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioner, through his Attorney, Gary S. Sackrider, explained that the
petitioner was originally granted a permit by the Building Inspector, said
permit having been subsequently revoked by order of the Board of Appeal. However,
by that time a new building had been substantially built.
A a public hearing on February 26, 1986, the Board of Appeal voted to deny the
petitioner, John Spinale, a Variance from density, height, lot size, lot
coverage and any and all applicable setbacks in order to construct said buildinK.
_ The petitioner filed an appeal of the original Board of Appeal action in the
Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The building at 34'2 Bridge Street has not been adequately
secured by the petitioner;
2. The unsecured building is a danger to the health, safety and
common welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Salem.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 2-2, threby denying the petitioner his
requested relief.
James M. Fleming, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
=Ef:L iRG S; THIS DECISIO!d, IF Af:Y, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE !LASS.
LA;.S. OF:=Fi FR S7S. AND SH"'LL BE FILED V11i HIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF F1LI'
i;!S
D_:ISION I;; THE C;F;'E GF THE CITY CLERK.
_
< r:;-.Eg SSS. SCT! 11.I1. cc VA-! '.CE CR °r '..IAL PEP, '.iT
`_ - SrETT U:•T IL A C.iPY C- ThE L_-•� - .�• E'
L S. IS
'01; APFTI.� W113iN
IT
AND �.. GF T
HE
Cf RECORD CR IS R__— ED AY.'D rJ:EJ LN TLE O(r 1ER'S CERTIFICATE 0: TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
r
z LLI
W a
I -0 F F in
HtnNo
H Q D Q
uNi N N0
q
P�UILDING , l O W v
� • IIS G,S.F. 0 Lu
99
ji:
_ a
-- --- — �� rlPes °
Jr oh PIfE o
TE�
o - j�OTE' plMEN51aNs �
Ilji � ►►� � �f�oPOhEp � `-- � ' PETEfZMI fyED � I'tf"P-fzl�oN
ill ° - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - � W �
1,1I;
; ,, - � � I TE• f'L�N O W U
I
llll' O � v1
to
1" -` Gt91`lG. �I,.�`J ' j P�PHfLT hf-IIN�cL�,� ►� �
I GrJLIJMN M
14 �,
,�� '� PIPE S)I - W
�, toO• G• I V " C/1 M C/1
'Jill22.E �
2X Io IuNw JvI��T. I��o.o,
W ITM P LYvloop
- 1 1 k 6f�IGYi'NG Zp7PI�INro
T 2x
_ki p
G.M.U . W/4-,LA, � �
I - Lp LPLLY GoLUMN � -
Lf1 '�vll ,ijil In V T
,LI B' a101/ZII .,1,411 Ej•p�/ .° 2"PJ I Y
dz
' �X15TIi�l� r�x�� PI�t�N �UIIDING S�GTIOI zl� �
I ,{ s I1 �II F-
Y ll DI N
I I
Z W P
� n
W ~
H F
_Q W
N
I VOf KLU 0
V Q
Q N N 'p
N W N �O
F F Q C
P�2�H�LT `-� flN�il�FF� O LU
v C4 im
oe 40
0
-- WINrl W
— - — -- -- c -- --- -- e
W �
� Q �
i
II ' I ;
I I i I
I \
li I li t '.
�� Ni-LT SHIN�iL� i I
-
I
WINDOW - -- -- WING2w✓ D'ENINro WINR/W aFfNIN&
V411 I