The URL can be used to link to this page

4 LOCUST STREET - CHRISTOPHER, PETER - ZBA 4 LocusTSt. R-1 —� Peter Christopher ,I of 5ajem, 4)n-TEc -1111c. oarb of ct Fpertl Feb. 6 '84 DECISION ON PETITION OF PETER CHRISTOPHER FOR A VARIANCE FOR 4 LOCUST STREET, SALEP9 CIT ' ,'_` ' CE A hearing on this petition was held January 25, 1084 with the follo:ain- Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman, Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing taere properly published in the Saler? Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40.4. Petitioner requests a Variance from lot coverage and side setback: requirements to allow him to construct an addition on the premises in this R-1 district. ' The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board - that: - = _a. special conditions and circumstances exist whichespecially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings, and structures in the same district; ` literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- < -- volve substantial hardship, financial or other:rise, .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 purposes of the Ordinance. ^e Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after 1 w _;'r -- _ _ Aiewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Vigorous opposition to petitioner's plan was presented by neighbors; y o _ = 2. The addition proposed will seriously encroach upon the neighbors C4 11 y ' brivacy; -- G 3. The petitioner has not demonstrated that a literal enforcement of the Ordinance will cause hardship to petitioner. =; 7bii the basis of the above- findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the r,=ring, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: - _ = 1 . Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance t;ould not =.,or:-c a substantial hardship upon petitioner; 2. The Variance cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the . public good. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted two in favor and two against granting the petition. Having failed to carry at least four votes in favor, the petition is denied. Scott E. Charnas, Actin;; Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED UTITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK f. Na 2853 �sz rt- cx h 1_l! • a ! - cL_ - - -- _ _ - — ---- - - }- -�_ _ __r •s c �� ,, 1, i.- � o ul Ul 13 105 .4t Z I A r �, 1 X � ' U��Pa 5•t`� ( \ I \\ \\\ o f AV It — �EKsu AltC,r;. pf� JAQUITH Ha 2453 ) I \�f.,.�.. (T'��'•"i G.�'.•� j�T`-.�(/ /ri'� % i Bova 0,om./1 w t I i �t �I 4-1 � li � � �%'•� -��/1s , Ivy � � � �� -rt I I t !E J 11;GE ter'"i �— - --- ------ -- � � X11 kk 1, It -- - - - - - - -- - --- - - - - �1L - _ _- _- _--_ --- -- =_ _ �} �Fil �- - - -- - _----------- ---- _ -- -_-_ - --- - - fl ----- - --- ------- •.�,.� �.1� TRI►-' I � �E�� Cvt,1G _ �� , '� t� 1a � �1 I I V Oki kr;cD bT) I hamµ 7 Vo le POP 1 , i i I ��.�. arse � � ,• � �� f a I I � © i I t�wl�tq o.