25 CONGRESS STREET - INGEMI, ARTHUR - ZBA 1
Congress St. B-4
Arthur Ingemi
1
to.
l
4r
A 1
.. s' Potts of ApprA
CITY FICE
DECIEON,_ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR INGEMI FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 25 CONGRESS ST. , SALEM (B-4)
A hearing on this petition was held on June 20, 1984 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Luzinski, Strout and Associate
Member Bencal, Acting Secretary. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News
win accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
U_ w F
_ o_ w � N Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow a restaurant serving alcoholic
LL
ti.- '-beverages in this B-4
<
w w t= '
a N n `
o The variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Boar:
0
w -o
LL a o maspecial 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;
� o
7 N ti � 4 D C'Yl
N b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and
m t 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 purposes of the Ordinance.
< LL < p L = O
y . fhe Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes
j a
- i�ie following findings of fact:
4J C u J
u 1 . Vigorous opposition was raised by neighbors and abutters;
2. No one spoke in favor of the petition;
` 3 Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof as to hardship;
' ry _ .= w '
t 4. Petitioner failed to submit detailed plans as to, but not limited to,
layout of the _facility, seating and safety arrangements.
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 Variance requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good or without substantially derogating from the purpose of
the Ordinance or the intent of the district.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to deny the petitioner's '
reques for a Variance.
DENIED
ichard A. Ben al, Acting Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK