260 LAFAYETTE STREET - BELISLE, GEORGE - ZBA 1
260 Lafayette St. R-3
Lafayette Real Estate Tr.
George Belisle Tr. --
r
�i
ry A
i
( tt of '�5- ttfem, � i�ssrE�us�tfs
Psarb of
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAFAYETTE REAL ESTATE TaGSST,
GEORGE BELISLE & DAVID JACOBSON, TRUSTEES FC A SPEt?AL p� C
PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 260 LAFAYETTE ST. , � �
UCS 3 Ou P� '85
A hearing on this petition was held July 17 , 198 , continued until July 24,
1985 with the following. Board Members present: james Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. ,
Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. Notice tTrtw-Dar}Pgigs sent to abutters
and others and notices of the hearing were properly put-- - in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners reuest a Special Permit to convert single family residence to a four
unit condominium and variances from all applicable density requirements in this
R-3 district.
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 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 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. the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAFAYETTE REAL ESTATE TRUST,
GEORGE BELISLE & DA.VID JACOBSON, TRUSTEES FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR 260 LAFAYETTE ST. , SALEM
page two
T . Most units in the area are three family or less, with the
exception of those dwellings that predate the Salem Zoning Ordinance;
2. Granting this petition would increase traffic and noise;
3. Laurel Street is a small street and not conducive to extra
traffic flow; .
4. This is a proposed historical district and the Historical
Commission was opposed;
j. Petition was presented in conjunction with another petition;
6. Petition was filled out in error and incorrect owner was listed.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follow:
Desired relief 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;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not
involve substantial hardship to petitioner;
Requested relief is not in harmony with the district and will not
promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of
the City's inhabitants.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal by a vote of three to two, 3-2, (Mr. Hacker
and N.r. Charnas voting in opposition) denied the relief requested.
SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE DENIED
James B. Hacker, Chairman
A CO?'s OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK
-.:PEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
r.ENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL E4 FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
P0110.MT TO MASS. GENERAL Lk�NS, CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11. THE BEARING THE CERT-
VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
CF ED CERT-
HEP-IN. SHALL fX TAY` EF."T UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION
. rii N OF THE CITY CLERC TiAc 23 Dv c^4 FiL HATHATVE LAFSIi HtiSID AE cc10 n DISPF55EEAL0 CA CAS EI NED IS
JR '.HAT. IF SUCH AN APPEA. HA., - pN0 IN OEXED UNDER THE NAIAE OF THE OWNER
RECORDED IN THE SODTH ESSEK REGISTRY OF DEEDS
' - OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
Ag
A ww.:
• y.
4
{
r
j
ii
s1 _ T-truer
'_4444
I1
.a 6
11
-d - I
4
t • 7- 2812
Lbl� ie, i-7 L
� � �Ui :off
�
LI �'•r' I t(J �' ' ( -- .'*-- - L �r- , � Al
'tk ee&-Lr K Q' ., s •h .. L.
�-rA. L 1 t 0 �.S l ✓✓(�! u f i� � 1 •,_'L71 f t<.k-,G 1� y p .,1� �._+ 1 �` t[}
ell
vil
1 r
/J f'' ' LT ALivti1 `�UtJ �xt51 /> Erb lFiOc11'E 1 } E
Ar FI V-aI-�(t � \VffFi
ALL A410114 F_OH
dt.L tsvl �L�G`t�iG �i,Y�+/iCC+ TG e Ti -
4 4�orla Wa��
.h �l
i 11n�✓ 2_ L �► D . _� O.O rs1C1 -4 19 �V
� � - A 1
' �n 2.G.�L Nl� �— -'!4 rG�,�.L '�I-���- 1 �_ I T � � i�� `'��-- -�------- •
, , -7