CHAMPLAIN ROAD - BUONFIGLIO, JOHN & CYNTHIA - ZBA Champlain Rd. RC/R-1
John & Cynthia
Buonfiglio — _ -- - —-- — —
v
U
i
Ctv of "ittlPm, fflU59Ur4USrt* 7 Z o2 PM '88
FILE#
�Suxrb of tAppz l
ars R.s+a.�l.acus.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & CYNTHIA BUONFIGLIO FOR A
VARIANCE AT CHAMPLAIN ROAD (RC/R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held on June 29, 1988 with the following Board
members present, James Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman;
John Nutting, Secretary; Edward Luzinski and Associate Member Arthur Labraque.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notice of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance to permit the
division of the existing lot into two lots, Lot A and Lot B, a variance from
maximum lot area, lot width, front yard and side yard, from a density
requirement from Table A, Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance and a Special Permit
under section VIII F and IX D, to permit construction of a single family
dwelling as shown on the plan sulmitted on Lot B which is partially in aRC
district and partially in a R-1 district.
The variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by 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 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 provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section VB10 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, 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 request
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 prorate the public
health, safety, convenience and welfare', of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, makes the following finding of fact:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN 6 CYNTHIA BUONFIGLIO FOR A
VARIANCE AT CHAMPLAIN ROAD, SALEM
1. No opposition was presented to the plan.
2. Letters in support of the plan were presented.
3. Previous opposition to the plan has been appeased.
4. Approval, with proper safeguards, has been gained from the Salam
Conservation Crnmission.
On the basis of the above finding of fact, and on the evidence presented at
the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1. Special conditions exist which affect the lot and do not generally
affect the district.
2. Literal enforcement of the zoning Ordinance would work a substantial
hardship upon the petitioner.
3. The Variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good and without substantially derogating fran the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the
petition , the relief requested, subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction be done as per all existing city and state building codes.
2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire
safety be adhered to.
3. Proper street numbering be obtained from the city Assessors office.
4. All set backs and lot sizes be as per the plans suhmitted.
5. All conditions of the Salem Conservation Commission regarding this
petition shall be included as part of this decision.
6. Relief is granted subject to form A approval from the Salem Planning
Board as to the parcel.
7. All terms of the agreement suhmEitted between petitioner and abutters
be adhered to.
GRANTED
Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chas
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AMID THE CITY CLERK
AP` . .--,`;:. 1 '"A Fr L'DE P .J'.NT TO SECT^R 17 Or _
DAIS A' .R 'r1E D-
Of i cl_r,
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AIiD fl�1EO ON THE 04NEF.S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . ... . . .
(gau of '�$ttlem, Anssuc4usefts
�aonrb of &Appea
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS:
The Undersigned represent that „hg is are the owners of a certain parcel of land locate(
at NO. ,CbamplainJU..,. S'aem. . ;_ Street; Zoning Districtaisac
of the Massachusetts State Building nCodeid parcel is affected by Section(s). . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .
Plans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in
accordance with Section IX A. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Direct Appeal
The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following
reasons:
(See Attached)
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to
approve the application fee permit to build as filed, as the enforcement of said
Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially dero-
gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for
the following reasons:
Under Agreement
Owner. !. , , John aCynthiaBuonfiglio
.
Address. . .
Telephone. . .
?45-094 . .
Petitioner. . Same,as,At;ove. . .
Address. . . , , Same as Ahoye
Date. . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. .. .
Tele h ne Same above,
r;9y , John R. � Cr.fti 4- . . . . . . . . . . .
Serafini , Sr. Es
� _ Serafini, Serafini�and 'Darling " � � ��� �'
Three copies of the application must be filed withbtheegecretary'oat�e' Board�of o21z
,�elopeals with a check, for advertising in the amount of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The
fvenina Newt.
i
lY �h
John and Cynthia Buonfiglio
Petitioners are the purchasers under agreement of Lot B as shown
on the plans submitted herewith. The entire parcel is owned by
the Mother of Cynthia Buonfiglio. The Petitioners desire to
build a single family dwelling house on Lot B. In order for this
to occur , the Board of Appeal is respectfully requested to grant
a variance to permit the division of the land into two lots, Lot
A and Lot B, as shown on said plan . The Petitioners were
previously before the Board and by its decision dated December,
1987 , the Board on a 3-2 vote in, favor denied the Petitioners
because of the failure to obtain the four votes necessary to
grant the variance and special permit requested. One of the
problems that concerned the Board was the concern of one of the
abutters, Mr. Steven P. Lovely. Since the date of that hearing,
Mr. and Mr. Buonfiglio have reached a written agreement with the
abutting landowner under which the concerns of Mr. Lovely have
been resolved. It is submitted that the variance requested can
be granted without derogating from the zoning ordinance as the
use is to be a single family use. Lot B, which would be the lot
to be built upon by the Petitioners, will contain 24, 000 square
feet of land. Because of the topography and the proximity of the
wetlands, the proposed dwelling can only be placed as shown on
said plan. Thus it is a hardship which effects that particular
lot of land . It is submitted further that a single family
dwelling house certainly is in keeping with the surrounding
neighborhood. The remaining Lot A, which is occupied by the
Mother of one of the Petitioners, will have more than 10, 000
square feet in excess of many existing lots in that area of
Salem. It is submitted that based upon the change in conditions
because of the agreement of the abutter under which a parcel of
land is being transferred to the abutter together with the
relinquishing of rights the Petitioners have in the unpaved
street, namely Champlain Road, that there was a substantial
change in the petition as previously presented and that on that
basis the Petitioners should be permitted to file this appeal
with the Board of Appeal. The Salem Planning Board has found a
substantial change in the new plans from those previously filed,
based upon the foregoing, and has made the necessary finding so
that the petitioner can apply to the Board of Appeal. Therefore
the Petitioners respectfully request a variance to permit the
division of the existing lot into two lots, Lot A and Lot B, a
variance from maximum lot area, lot width, front yard and side
yard, from a density requirement from Table a, Section 6 of the
zoning ordinances and a special permit under Section VIZI f and 9
d to permit construction of a single family dwelling as shown on
the submitted plan on Lot B partially in an RC District and
partially in an R1 District.
�lT
Ir
e �
Yl 4k�LV
Fe
�2 Tp OG �d
lh4 h O
a /
4 � Q
LU
SQA
PIP
7,
4 �I" � 3) o a 1 � �J �`Pi4� `ec `\�'a , ly �sv►Slo.�s
'LI\� `,Sr 1\Iti �G(/G;1 __ r 1 ✓ T 31 8 _i!_1m
,9�` // 'F� \ � I +��`�? �,�•� .G�u ''' '. � Sr 'ter. \/ / '� �`�/8b '►'uM
_ p 4 1 M i op
N 1 G rs
d°' -J41 ty ! ,i 4. Date
pyel L
'
baa(/ ' 1 �P Q!T� i �`� / �� S ya.• Revised--- by
ly
o.,
3vEg. i3 196'1 sl!
OV
%N ILI
CZ ^ c
.1 'I / � � /%'o�i� � 1c�• D`° �y''��• Ar3L►TTOQs ��� � e 06C/)
/Q,
�(! / // / i"" (1 Q ��/ it. F"KNNCIS A. $ OITA. M- -TL>,2 p1FF f C
� / //, � � �-�T7 12• L�UElE1Z s. .# o�.IV�T'fE -T�{EQ 1�UL'T T
/
IS- zoSe..INA L�v�SQu>=,L � i � �// �� v' f -Ta•IFJZESs yu7C+-I1* ISO..►.
110 STEP�EiJ P. W DQQEN ti LOV�� ( 4
Il• M.
Ig. JC79E.Py Q• *��.F'o2RF�S-{ c�
�oTE oJ� zs- 208Fs [ -1- 4 goz)s l �t. L svnssEu>zco
za- U-gn>`go t. I9A Sheet No.
Pd¢CE%- D -ro 13t CoNv6-jrmo 24 ^ /
35 L�OEL�NT� cLt>E.yES �T si S ,J - l
TO S7'>LcPHEN P. 1..OV1isL`( G, �1••. Ztv ZEA � \ ata. ►��1EK Y• 14 ►.Ilg6 M 3�.eNort�
SJp.licCT TU OL.L ¢►G.►.�TS .�► l9 � sv
1. EL7—=V4TIQUS Q(-_IPM. TO CIT of SbI-E^ j\ �df1►�.
P�¢.C.�cL G TO tL►PG CO'JYE.`��r4 �(� (�/ Z. P20P> >ZT�( L-1�1E5 laNp --(1STlmCt ToPOGISZ�DLa� t>L.C�uE
"o S7rPiaew1 p. A.L. �\ !. T3��1.1 o�t�I�D F�Co� S>J>zV>a�(S 8�( orTUFQS.
p/Sa�CE�S a A410 o po slot corr+ vl�Sb ` 3• Zo>\11ntC Sheet 1 of--j
1
C3uI�aAa�S� �oZ, , p►Srr�Icj 1S zC • omm.No.
Irl Cl)