160 LORING AVENUE - DEFRANCESCO, PATSY & JOSEPHINE - ZBA 160 Loring Ave. (R-11
_. Margaret Hartt-Petitioner
\ Patsy & Josephine
\\ DeFrancesco-Owners
�� ��
� � � �
i
i
,�
f
160 Loring Ave. (R-1 )
Margaret Hartt-Petitioner
Patsy & Josephine
DeFrancesco-Owners
t
y..t opaRl. �
cif of '5alem,
A.
�zss r4�u Q�t#$
.. Puttrb of Ljr
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARGARET HARTT (PETITIONER) TlgF
JOSEPHINE DEFRANCESCO (OIdNERS) FOR A VARIANCE FOR 160 L N iv -6 P 3) '016.
AVENUE, SALEM
CITY Cc
A hearing on this petition was held December 21 , 1983 with the goSlowing""Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski
and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of said 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.
Petitioner seeks a variance from sideline, density and frontage requirements to
allow her to divide a parcel into two lots in order to construct a single family .
dwelling in this R-1 district, all as shown a a plan filed with the Board. The
property is currently owned by Patsy J. and Josephine Derrancesco.
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 or structures in the same district;
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petition;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.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence present at the hearing and after
viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition was presented to petitioner's plan;
2. The presence of extensive ledge on the property makes it difficult,
if not impossible, to construct the proposed dwelling without
violating minimum frontage and sideline requirements;
3. Prohibiting petitioner's plan because of insufficient density would
prevent the appropriate use of the property in this neighborhood; .
4. The above conditions especially affect the property and do not
generally affect other lands in the same district.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at
the hearing, the Board concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land involved and which do not generally affect other lands in the .
same district;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARGARET HARTT (PETITIONER)
PATSY & JOSEPHINE DEFRANCESCO (OWNERS) FOR A VARIANCE
FOR 160 LORING AVENUE, SALEM
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to appellant;
3. The relief may ge 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_
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously to grant petitioner's
request for variances to allow her to divide the property and construct a dwelling
as set forth in the plan filed with the Board.
Scott E. Charnas, Acting Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
A
y, C
APPEAL FR07:1 THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE ivIADE PURSUANT TO SECTIO3 17 OF THE -
GENERAL LAd:S, CFAPC"n 803, AND SHALL BE FILED :11THU1 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF lC.
O�
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIN CLERK. - - -O
PU:1.SAjjT TO BASS. GENERAL IA?IS, CHAPTER 8G8, SECTPDN 11. THE VA3IANCE 01? SP. WI 1'E-''..I- W
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEGEC!S!`J7. tHc•,={y"
FICATION OF THE CITY CLEM THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APP .L KS N S�71
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT Ti HAS BEEN DIVISSED fR IS - -
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RMSTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER Th.; NA--41i OF THE 8" -
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED Oil THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE" _ -
BOARD OF APPEAL
A
L00A 0) .r:
yq ti
NDEC 21' �, ��� �I�tttttittg �Uartl
Jnr Mrm (Srrrn
December 19, 1983
Mr . James Hacker, Chairman
Biaard of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA . 01970
Dear Mr. Hacker:
The Planning Board has reviewed the petitions scheduled to be
heard before the Board of Appeal on Wednesday, December 21, 1983 ,
and wishes to express general opposition to the increase in den-
sity of residential areas because this practice in time could
create de-facto zoning changes . Our opposition to petitions 1,
5, 6, and 7 reflects this opinion. It runs contrary to the City' s
planned zoning for speciric residential densities , tends to change
the quality of life in the neighborhoods , and exacerbates the
parking conditions.
This policy is the Board' s general view; however, we are hes-
itant to issue blanket opposition without knowing all the factors
involved. There are many properties in the various zoning classi-
fications that are under-utilized and could be upgraded to reflect
the surrounding density. We , therefore , respectfully ask that
the Board of Appeal take our concerns into consideration in making
their decisions on these types of petitions.
Regarding the petition of Mr. Stasinos (#8) , the Planning
Board has been presented with a preliminary plan only by, the
petitioner for this proposal. Therefore , we do not feel we have
had enough information to comment in a responsible manner. The
project conerns us, particularly as it spans three .zoning dis-
tricts, it is being located in a sensitive area, and we wish to
make sure the commercial section is well-planned and the quantity
and quality of the housing units is compatible with the area.
Therefore , we respectfully request the Board of Appeal consider
continuing this petition beyond the December 21, 1983 meeting to
allow us proper time to give constructive input.
The Planning Board would very much like to meet with the Board
of Appeal after the first of the year to discuss issues of mutual
interest, and in particular to review our role in commenting upon
the various petitions pending before the Board of Appeal. Because
_2_
.our areas of interest and jurisdiction are very often concurrent
it would seem to be valuable to both Boards to become more familiar
with the aims and policies of each. The Planning Board feels
understanding of our mutual goals for the City would be beneficial.
If the Board of Appeal agrees, I would be pleased to arrange
a mutually convenient time to meet.
ourWaSincerely yours.,-
Walter
lter B. Power, III
Chairman
WBP :dey
L: _ f
LOCUS
'�-9TY Rp
5%GMKEI,E NN61
q-i-40EN� �
M f''
�U
°a �EO�GE
;( KATNRy'V M CPdK/p/5 , e/ O S 88043 44"E
PV �-01 ✓p65c0
9091
0 Q
L OCUS A"10 ti
.SCALE /" =2000, N
N 24'O '_ �9 03 / o 4RC,4 = 32, 759 +S F.
9
Oh' /N S.B.
ZON/NG �SET� 4o B �Fo.) L o r
/P / - .P£S/DENT/ALQj
lk
Ll
N ill
� S 87-24- 10-
� O
N !�
� fo.ov
s
1 ,C(2,0
- —- -- -
3ET1 /70 B2 /Rov R (sir)
Q 8500 /V 87024' /0 "'W
,De 4/N (sEr�
\ c E J -- -- Ems{ S EM6ti 7 —
Ilk
}� ^ M,41'/L YN G - --- - - -
O MAaU//PE SAL EM 4C PF5 //VC
G
f NJ
H
ON
O (FOl
O
O
/ cE,eTiFY 7W,47- TWis / LAA/
WAS PREPA PED /N ACCO Pp41VC6-
W/Tf✓ THE .PUL ES ANO PEGL/L,4-
T/ONS Of THE PEG/STERS OF
DEEO5
PLAA/ of Z_ 4/VD
oar rs
P,CEP.�.�EQ
FOS 7zEG/sTTry usE � /N
OF Gqq\
54 L E"M, MA S.S.
Ori ROBERTB.
/t� •� P.POPE.PrY OF
y` PP4T.SY T. �' TOSEP�///�✓E DEF�PANCESCO
� $OWPAAN
,p No. 1WS7 O
FCPST�F`�0`t SCALE / " = 20 ' SEPT 2&, /983
AVD suoll
S io zo as sr
ESSEX 561RVE7-�' SERVICE, INC .
47 FEOE/2AL STPEET� SALEM MA55
103 7