13 CRESCENT DRIVE - DIBIASE, UGO - ZBA 13 Crescent Drive (R-1 ) '
� Ugo DiBiase
5-"
� / 'b ,.v ,.�,
( 2e1
1 _ _ _
13 Crescent Drive (R-1 )
Ugo DiBiase
�vcl.�c� w�-�m.� CPa�a-tt•u�
i
'10%IIINg
KEVIN T. DALY3'Jyy ',:' ? LEONARD F. FEMINO
ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR J ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
um¢�aJ`.
93 WASHINGTON STREET 93 WASHINGTON $TREET_..—
AND CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS AND
ONE CHURCH STREET ONE SCHOOL STREET
MICHAEL E. O'B RIEN '-
SALEM. MA 01970 BEVERLY. MA 07915
745-4311 CITY SOLICITOR 745-4311
745-0500 93 WASHINGTON STREET 921-1990
AND
PLEASE REPLY TO ONE CHURCH STREET 81 WASHINGTON STREET PLEASE REPLY TO ONE SCHOOL STREET
SALEM. MA 01970
745-4311
744-3363
PLEASE REPLY TO SI WASHINGTON STREET
March 7 , 1988
James B. Hacker, Chairman
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Re : Svend Madson
V
Board of Appeals, et als
Essex Superior Court #86-871
Dear Mr. Hacker:
For your records please be advised that the Appeal in
the above matter has this date been dismissed. The matter
involved judicial review of a March 19, 1986 grant of a var-
iance at 13 Crescent Drive to divide one lot into two build-
able lots.
Kindly note the same in your records.
Very truly yours, PV,
i
M' chael E. O'Brien
City Solicitor
MEO/jp
<r Puxrb of ' }Fvud
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD WATKINS (PETITIONER) ,
UGO DIBIASE (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE FOR 13 CRESCENT DRIVE
A hearing on this petition washeldMarch ,29982 �$tPHJK following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; iessrs. , harnas, Bencal, Luzinski
and Strout. Notice of the hearing was seME4 abutters and others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 404,T.YCL7P.` `.LEM.MASS.
Petitioner is requesting Variances from dimensional requirements in order to
divide property into two lots and to construct a single family dwelling on
each lot. The premises is located in an R-1 district and is owned by Ugo DiBiasE
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 in-
volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to 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 plans of the property, makes the following
findings of fact:
1 . This is a heavy residential area;
2. One Neighbor was in opposition;
3. Several neighbors and abutters in favor and a petition was
submitted in favor;
4. Area is a blight on the neighborhood due to dumping, broken glass
and minor vandalism;
5. These were set up originally as two single family house lots during
the sixties when the Witchcraft Heights subdivisions was proposed
and constructed;
6. The hardship is due to the topography, as witnessed by members of the
Board of Appeal, i.e. , steep slope and odd shape of the lot. If in
fact, one house were to be constructed on this lot, the outcropping
of ledge would have to be removed, or if left in place would create
the same dumping area as currently exists.
7. A variance would be required for the building on one house.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD WATKINS (PETITIONER) ,
UGO DIBIASE (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES FOR 13 CRESCENT DRIVE, SALE;
page two
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 . Special conditions exist which especially affect this land but do not
generally affect other lands in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial detriment to the petitioner; and
3. The relief requested may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from
the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one, Mr. Charnas abstained
from voting, to grant the variances requested on condition:
1 . Plans for the proposed construction are presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau, showing type and location of automatic smoke
detectors to be installed, prior to the issuance of a building permit;
2. Owner of the properties obtain proper numbering from the City
Assessors, and that compliance with the City Ordinance relative to
house numbering be adhered to;
3. All laws, Ordinances, and Regulations of both the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and the City of Salem, pertaining to fire safety, are
adhere to;
4. A Certificate of Occupancy for each dwelling be obtained.
VARIANCES GRANTED
,,//James B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERI
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
CENEP,AL LAWS, CHf PTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
LF THIS DECISIC'I IN THE OFRCE OF THE CITY CLERK.
F:I:SAhT TC ....,.0 C'ESEPA. IAI:C CA AP-ER 508. SECTION 11. THE VARIl.:ISF_ OR SPECIAL PER:.:IT
";:Eli HE..EiIL SHALL lia TACE WELT UNTIL A COPY OF THE CZE ISIC THE C'ERT-
..',tliiz.; •'F THE CITY CiEP.i( THA- 20 DAYS 64.'E ELAFSED AND %1J AFPE=.'_ H=) EEEN' fiLED,
41 ';-",T. IF SU:.ii 0 APPEAL HAS BCE:. FILE, TH�.T IT i,S CEE7 CISA'ISSFD CR F-ib-D IS
P.'_:::.!L Ci TH= SOJTH ESSEX RESISfR'i CF E-ECS A%D INDEXED 'JX_'E.'. TH'_ Nn1:E CF THE C'1::""
OF EE-�ORO OR IS REC"RDED AND NbTED Oii THE O'.YNER'S CERTIFICATE DF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
14 Crescent Dr.
Thomas H & Barbara A. Newman (own)
� C
V
Jnr 13 5 57 PN °89
M (gitn of �&Jiem 4Htt55Zjr4U6etts F1L€C
e hF ] -n C
�dtlfD of 11Veal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS & BARBARA NEWMAN FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 14 CRESCENT DRIVE (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held May 31 , 1989 with the following Board Members
present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal , Luzinski and Associate
Member 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, owners of the property, representing themselves, are requesting
a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure by adding a second story to
the existing dwelling at 14 Crescent Drive. The property is located in an R-1 zone
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, 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.
The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented and
and viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition to the petition, and Councillor O'Leary
spoke in favor of it.
2. The addition is necessary so that the petitioners growing family has
adequate living space.
3. The addition will be in harmony with the existing neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . 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.
2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS & BARABARA NEWMAN FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 14 CRESCENT DRIVE, SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the relief
requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction and dimensions be as shown on the plans submitted to the
Board of Appeal .
2. All the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety, be adhered to.
3. Petitioners obtain a building permit prior to construction and all
construction be as per City and State Building Codes.
4. All exterior finishes of the addition be in harmony with the existing building.
5. Building is to remain a single family dwelling.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
GRANTED
0
(/James M. Fleming, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
,. UPpbial from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
I"Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
After the date of filing of this decision in the office of the city clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. Generl Laws, Ch=pter 808, Section I1, the variance
or Special Permi!grame'l herein slr::, rt take effect until a copy of the
decisicn, cOa rind the c-rtil.caflon o. '.ha City Clerk that 20 days have
'elaosec .:nom' rn anraal ins been t5 d, or that, if such appeal has been
filed, (`mt it F;�,r heen d:er.rssad Or ::anied is recorded in the South Essex
Renispry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
is re.:crded and noted on the o•nner's Certificate of Title.
nOARD OF APPFAL