330,72 CANAL ST LORINA AVENUE - ZBA I
r.
��TT V 3 of fI't '89
Ct II{ t jrm fflttssac uset 9
t C FILE ,"
Paurb of Avpeal ;Irr c .,;K. ss.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE JEFFERSON TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 322-330
CANAL STREET/72 LORING AVENUE (B-2) .
A hearing on this Petition was held on April 19, 1989 with the following
Board Members present: James Pi. Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Vice
Chairman; John R. Nutting, Secretary, Edward Luzinski; and Peter Dore,
Associate Member. Notice of the hearing was sent to all abutters and others
and notices were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance
with M.G.L. C.40A.
Petitioners, represented by Attorney John R. Serafini, Sr. , are requesting a
variance from Section VII B of the Zoning Ordinance to allow division of land
into four (4) lots in this B-2 zone as shown on the submitted plans.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances 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
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to Petitioners;
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.
At the hearing, evidence was presented that the configuration of the three
lots presently approved were configured in conformance with Section VII B
of the Zoning Ordinance relating to gasoline service stations. Under that
Section of .the Ordinance, minimum lot widths of 120 feet were required. The
Petitioners demonstrated that the use of the property as it related to the
two buildings already constructed did not strictly fit the definitions of
the gasoline service stations, that the use of the buildings was oriented
towards the sale of certain automotive products and certain limited services,
and that there were no gasoline tanks or pumps to dispense gasoline.
Evidence was further introduced that a proposed third building would be
devoted to general B-2 purposes, which were a permitted use on that parcel
of property, and further that the lots in question were of such size as to
exceed area requirements in B-2 zones. It was further pointed out that to
permit four lots with 100 foot lot widths was in keeping with general re-
quirements in a B-2 zone, which requires that minimum lot width be 100 feet
per lot. It was further indicated that there was no intention on the part
of the Petitioners to utilize Parcel II as a gasoline service station. The
Board, after considering all the evidence, made the following findings of fact:
1. The present three lots are very irregular in shape and the proposed
plan would allow better use of the property;
2. Petitioners previously had to comply with zoning provisions relating to
service stations even though the buildings constructed were not auto-
motive service stations in the strict sense of the word;
3. Concerns of neighbors and abutters regarding fences and shrubbery
would be met by the Petitioners;
4. The requirements of lot width under Section VII B of the Zoning
Ordinance created a hardship, since the land was not being used for
automotive gasoline service stations and that to hold general retail
uses, which were permitted in a B-2 zone, to a higher lot width re-
quirement than was normal under the B-2 zoning requirements created
hardships for the Petitioners.
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 and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land involved which are not generally affecting other lands,
buildings or structures in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial and otherwise, to Petitioners;
3. 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.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting
the variances requested subject to the following conditions:
1. Parcel II, as shown on the plan submitted, shall not be used as a
gasoline service station.
2. Petitioners and/or assigns to repair and maintain the fencing in the
rear of the property abutting land as shown on the plans, as N/F
Bedard; Adams St. ; N/F Crean and N/F Ferrier. The fence shall be
stockade type along the Bedard property and chain link type along the
others. The obligation to repair and maintain as it pertains to the
abutting Crean and Ferrier property shall be subject to the Petitioners'
ability to obtain cooperation and assistance from those landowners.
The Petitioners shall only be obligated to use their reasonable best
efforts to obtain such cooperation;
3. All lot width dimensions to the new lots are to be per the plans
submitted.
4. Appropriate shrubbery and trees are to be placed along the rear of the
property at 7 Kimball St. and as reasonably possible along the rear
of the property as shown on the plans as N/F Bedard; Adams St.;
N/F Crean and N/F Ferrier. Shrubbery and trees shall be as in the
reasonable judgment of the Petitioners is adequate. The area between
the Petitioners' land and the land of Crean and Ferrier shall be
governed by the limitation set forth in condition 2 as to cooperation
from them;
5. Petitioners and/or assigns shall install and maintain a bituminous
curb at the end of Adams Street;
6. All conditions of the previous decision of this Board dated January 23,
1985 shall be made part of this decision;
7. Proper numbering for the lots shall be obtained from the Assessors
Office, City of Salem;
8. No storage of vehicles shall be allowed on any of the four lots shown
on the submitted plans.
VARIANCES GRANTED
Richard A. Bencal
Vice Chairman, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE
CITY CLERK.
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE NIAn
GENERAL I-XVS, CHAPTER 803. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PL'RSANT TG 'BASS. CEP:ERAI. L.44S, CHAPTER 803. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SP'r_".'_ §SRMIT
GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TF2lE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THECECISI 3N. EEA R;:;; 1.. 7-
FICATION OF THE Ct""f CLERK TB.4i 7.0 DA';S HAVE "c'.:PSED .;t:'J Nd APPAL HAS 97,-
OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL FIBS BEEN FILE. THAI 1'f HAS LEEN DIS:IISSED OR
REOt:ROEO IN THE S_U:H ESSEX REIISTR'! - :IL7od; A.:';O INDEXED UNDER SHE KACIE _ i•NE
OF RECORD OR IJ n;URDED AND NOTED CN THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
T�RTNTTL� 70,
TO hdT/ES /ViF
• �i �R�,�-/isms suRv� y�o.
• � 'f(/ � /cEr i y � /s c/ua/ :Sc/rve'y i-;os
modem Qn grocir-7671 ice( / CC/
II I,
descr 1, fio� axe' is orrCC7; �f �/l '
rr�2�7Croc�chmCn�
-\ 4
occro as -0 �fc /ir7 5 ¢xCC 7` 05
�i
T ,
O
R�
h
For Registry of Deeds .Use
Only
,
S
h
me
z
4 -
z
8-
S
cc
�C,�R, �•0 .. 20.00 � ti -� 't/
'Yi2:3�Q3"� ,� �� �� 1 certify that this plan was prepared
in conformity with the rules .and
a
-�I '� L �� regulations of the Registry of
� '� �•� Deeds..
.f.. 8 may. ��
�'���D. h �� � X636
-cam D
TC
r45. r7
i o h
ti o
h
m �ijy O � �N TRUST v �1PPKOV�JL UUD�F{ SUMO/v/S/OV COtITROG
RaQU/RSD
6764-1, L.4 Y-/,5 - Sir--C T. <6/'o
72i 04 Tici
----
lop
��.�
-
O
- / o
eJ � � � Sp �3�� ;�j jC2? / � � U o� �% - IQL�,(./ PGd/✓N/N� �G24R0
o ti >
_ C
N
o00 �6. ti F��,4/v OF Z-,4 rVD /X/
0
0
4 8 o /p0.DD T PR,&PA RE-o FOA
'
�sI 3T ioo.00 moo/5400 'g TE t- i/ - ERSOiC/ TRUST
�.X242
8./20. 57
T 8 M ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.y10,
r 83 PINE STREET PEABODY, MA
7/ ._/6 �5So/V TR(/.5T :_/uric /6 /599
7"�i�/ Svci�/ /c�; /lssoc%4T s, /uc. R�vireo V671 ch /Q /989 V 9�3