72 BRIDGE STREET - SULDENSKI, JOHN J - ZBA 72 Bridge St. R-2
John J. Suldenski
«, O
\ l�
St
/dnTq�
Tits of 'Sttlem, �Rttssac4usetts
Poarb of �Fpvd
Ali ( 5I Il E
"
DECISION �A��92 TION OF JOHN J. SOLDENSKI FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR 72 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held on October 17, 1984 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and
Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent 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 him to alter the already noncon-
forming 10,192 square foot lot by dividing it into two lots containing 6,202 square
feet and 3,990 square feet. The petitioner also asked that a Variance be granted
from rear yard setback of 18 feet for the construction of a single family dwelling
on the lot containing 3,990 square feet.
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
and 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.
After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing the Board of Appeal makes the
following findings of fact:
1 . The proposed division of the property will create two lots
which are consistent with the surrounding lots;
2. There was no neighborhood opposition;
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 would not be more detrimental
to the neighborhood;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN J. SULDENSKI FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR 72 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM
page two
LIJ 3i j .11
2. The proposed change of the nonconforming lot by dittyping it into CE
two nonconforming lots would. not be substantially moray A�Pcri�'.�R$�W
to the neighborhood;
3. The extension of the nonconformity of building located at 72 Bridge
St. due to the present nonconforming setbacks will not be substantially
more detrimental to the neighborhood;
4. By the Board allowing a rear yard setback of 20 feet rather than the
required 30 feet the proposed use of the property will promote the
health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants;
5. The proposed division and the construction of a single family dwelling
on the lot containing 3,990 square feet does not violate the intent
and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to grant the Special
Permit requested under the following terms and conditions:
1 . On the lot containing 6,202 square feet eight on site parking
spaces be maintained as shown on the plans submitted to the Board.
The Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to deny the petitioners request for
a Variance for the rear yard setback of the proposed single family dwelling to
be constructed on the lot containing 3,990 square feet. The petitioner was
unable to prove a hardship. The Board found that although it was desirable for
a single family dwelling to be constructed on the undersized lot, it concluded
that a building could be erected that would conform to the front, rear and side
setback requirements.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
VARIANCE DENIED
2l
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 LAVAS. CHAPTER E08. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER, 809, SECTION 11• THE VARIAN
OR SPECIAL PERId1T
SHALL NOT TAI(E EFFECT U'n'TR. A CUP'Y OF THE D`CISION. EEARILiC THE CERT-
CF
ERTCF 111: CITY CLERK, ,H4T 20 CAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APP-41- HAS EQEN FILED,
OR THAT, IF S:'JH AN APPEAL HIS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISISISS:D CR CDHED IS
RECOF.DED 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
h^ry
t a .
P so ReFT , sa c
j yy Cb
P' kh r
c 4 0ti1)
/ 3
3 R� TO �ti /5q CROyK fC oqc so s
0 0 N 1??3�e J 8i4 4T-940C_ ns
< rR
b K7/
�O
'�BAc ?5r
o /4. h tq
K 6 s
sol53 R .0. W
6
^d�e l5/
'�El � S T B� 452 rP 1500
R F 9oc '4i/
lea eO �sqp /39
qtr 9 019E /3 /3 atiwr4�tisi i w .9° 9 R Q P
/28 s?V o
/ N� �0 9p `34l
( tib : y Oar / Ff r as $ Q� C o ryhtia
/ PARr:,NG w �soo o° eo
rA.
ry l �J
ra ° �3/ M1 4l /k 0 �D V.p
'/c-S)
r
-le JS /amu rrr r Par, , Vii« %S �. QP!�S:S
-ate T
'
�- - - - J � -- - J. r
Lxci'S7en� y oo /'i"Crpr�t•"r _\
l�.
f
y-} DOrG
tiI. J J
S
1 41
1600II I S7 �\
s /-QE_ R Y �S 7-.
L
OF M ,
oBEKf
y �40WMAN y .
No. 18887
�OI G�/ SURA
NoTcs : FLoTP �. AN OF LAND
L acus !j Sr a ;ni A-5 Lo- 136, �a
�.q< rry�14 .,� -�AccS -S<=o°iJ,,I ASE �rGPo>� -l�cr J OA/nJ SwLD�"nISFfI
>' Yiti3 "
eco le- 1"= 20r f/uq /�/98Y
LO"".S 7�� ql`s- rj/Z-0!>QS�� �-SJ °'e-T S:��VES� J:= IZVIG�, Z/✓G .
/✓/5/o J OF /J/foz '-si` Lam 4/7 C"ae/ern/ S�- .So/Pion
' 10. 98
c