29 CONGRESS STREET - ZBA (2) 29 Congress St. (I)
Shetland Properties
r
t
r
City of Salem Massachusetts
Board of Appeals
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SHETLAND PROPERTIES
FOR VARIANCES AT 29 CONGRESS STREET ( I )
A hearing on this petition was held November 23, 1987 with the
following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman;
Messrs. , Peter Strout, Peter Dore and 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 Massachusetts General laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioners, represented by Attorney William F. Quinn, are
requesting Variances to allow lot coverage in excess of the 45% / •
maximum in the Industrial District; a front yard setback from 2
Pingree Street of 15 feet, (being less than the 30 foot minimum
required for this District) , and to allow parking stall design
and dimensions different than those specified in Section VII of S
the Zoning Ordinance, and as shown on a plan. These Variances
would be used for the construction in two phases of a structure
at 29 Congress Street, said property being located in the
Industrial District (I ) . The intended use of the new structure
is as an accessory use parking garage to service the Shetland
Industrial Park.
The Variances which have 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 do not generally affect other
lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. a literal enforcement of the provisions of the
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 findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition to the petition presented at the
hearing; the City of Salem Planning Department, the City
Councillor for the ward in which the project is to be
located, and an abutter all spoke in favor of the proposal .
2 . The proposal will also require a Site Plan Review special
permit from the Salem Planning Board, as well as a building
permit.
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. These
special conditions include the substantial size, shape and
location of the existing structures on the property; the
nature of uses and tenancies at the property; the proximity
and design of the existing roadway system serving the
property, and the lack of alternative places where a
parking garage of these dimensions could be located on site.
2 . A literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance
would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner in
that complete conformity with these provisions would either
force the petitioner to build a garage with much less space
than would be financially sound and inadequate for tenant
needs, or would lead to a significantly taller building
which would be very unattractive to the nearby residential
neighborhood.
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, because it would serve to
improve significantly the parking on site for uses which
are contemplated by Industrial District zoning.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant the
requested Variances, so as to allow the construction of each
phase of the parking structure as shown on the plans of Vitols
Associates as filed with the Board.
The variances are granted subject to the following conditions:
1. that the petitioner obtain a Site Plan Special Permit from
the Planning Board, a building permit and all other
required permits;
2 . that the structure comply with all pertinent fire codes and
regulations;
3 . that all lighting fixtures be directed downward and inward
from the perimeter so as to minimize affecting the
neighborhood, and
2 -
V'
rf
4. that all landscaping as shown on the plans be installed as
part of the construction of the first phase of the
structure.
VARIANCES GRANTED.
Member, Board of Appeals
3 -
i
SHETLAND INDUSTRIAL PARK
I I
PHASEI PHASE II
x;
c�
a
1
` 4
1 PINGREEN� STREET - - - - - -
l a ❑_ y F
N
y PERKINS STREET x
11 cr Y
B
LL 1 J
J �I
_ I,I1
.__E
J /
CONGRESS STREET
STpEET / 1�
ONGRESS '1
O
N' i