12 CEDARCREST AVENUE - POIRIER, JEAN - ZBA (2) 12 Cedar crest Avenue F
Jean Poirier
I
I � �
V
4
v
I`
I�
j.
DfIT1P 1� 1U�51i58'S IO 56 aM X88
S �OttrP1t } P2I� FILE*
7 1Y
•!a4 zee' 07TY'CL"..tn,'�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEAN PIORR E�*'` •�"" A C
AT 12 CEDARCREST AVENUE (R-1 )
A hearing was held on this petition on June 29, 1988 with the following Board
Members present, James M. Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. Richard Bencal , John
Nutting, Edward Luzinski, and Associate Member Arthur 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 the
provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioner, represented by Atty. William R. DiMento, is the owner of
the property. The petitioner seeks to amend a Variance granted to the
petitioner on June 30, 1987. Due to inadvertence, a foundation was
constructed 14.4 feet from the rear lot line rather than the 16.47 feet
permitted in the original Variance. The petitioner seeks to Amend the
original Variance to reflect the actual location of the foundation.
The Amended 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 stricture 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 hearing the evidence presented at the hearing
and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1. No opposition to the petition was presented at the hearing.
2. The foundation was mistakenly located because of an error made
in staking out its location.
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 and 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 detriment to the public
good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
�i
DE)CISION ON THE PETITION OF SEAN PIORIER TO AMEND A VARIANCE
AT 12 CEDARCRFST AVENUE SALEM
PAGE TWO
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant
the relief requested, subject to the following conditions;
1. That all the conditions of the Original Variance be adhered to.
AMENDED VARIANCE GRANTED
n
). a4rres M. Fleming, Es
hairman, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
_..ALL K n..ADE PU,S 'AIT T. _E:T" ' :7 OF TH.
r :i �asr:i'( .:15. [,YU $P.._ c_ !1'., 'r'7:i'.:: 20 D Y :�I,:._
DEC'S!:N I'; 1H€ L,..__ „" 7HE i