6 NICHOLS STREET - KOKORAS, WM & JOHN - ZBA 6 Nichols St. R-2
Wm. & John Kokoras
5
o� �P
J�
a
( A
' VV
\e` M
4
i
it
"a
q�
i
<o.o
f` v CjtU of Clem, C ttssutljusettsO¢t 2b os fr, '87
FILE
� S P ourb t1{ � ppral
i1TT CLEa!i/., t.'J FA$R.
DECIISON OI: THE PETITION OF 6 NICHOLS STREET REALTY TRUST FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT OR VARIANCE AT 6 NICHOLS STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held on September 30, 1087, and continued by
agreement to October 7 , 1987 with the following Board Members present: James
Fleming, Vice Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski and Strout. 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 petitioner, represented by Attorney Neil R. Schauer, is requesting a Special
Permit and/or Variance to extend a present nonconforming use and structure, and to
construct a two tier parking facility at 6 Nichols St. The petitioner intends to
rehabilitate and convert the present property to operate a chemical laboratory for
the testing o_` water samples, and to lease spece for general warehousing, light
manufacturing, machine ship operation, non-automotive servicing, assembly work and
offices. Structural alterations and an increase in the area of the total building
would be made, and the two tier parking faci_itp would be constructed according to
submitted plans. The property is located in an R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Soecial Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anvthing to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of
Appeal may, in accordance with Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits
for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes,
enlargement, extension or exoansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and
uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, eniargment or expansion
shall not be substantially more detrimental t.".an the existing nonconforming use
to the nelShborhood.
n more .ne-oral ter-;s, this Board 18, when re'.iew_ln__- 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 Fermit will promote the public heaith,
safety, convenience and ti!elfare of the City's inhabitants.
In the alternative, 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 '_and, building or structure invclved and which are not generally
affectin- other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or Gtherwise, t0 the petitioner;
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying er substantially derogating fro^ the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
�) DECiS7=.. oil _.._ .7.IOT; E 1, CHOLS STRE - RErL7, ?RUST FOR
A SPECIAL PERP:I; OP, VARIANCE AT [vCHOLS ST Ei•.
page two
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was substantial neighborhood opposition to the petition, including
that or Ward Four Councillor Leonard O' Leary;
2. Petitioner was not able to define the various intended uses set forth
above. Without such definition, City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh testified
that the new proposed use would be substantially more detrimental than
the existing nonconforming use to the neighbhorhood. The City Building
Inspector, William Munroe, also testified that it was necessary to clearly
define these proposed uses;
3. The Board determined that there was a hazardous waste or materials
problem: on the site;
4 . Petitioner failed to establish its burden of hardship.
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 do not exist which especially affect the subject
property and not the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not involve substantial
hardship to the petitioner;
3. The relief reauested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating fron
the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted one ( 1 ) in favor (Mr. Luzinski) and
three (3) opposed (Messrs. , Fle_^ing, Bencal and Strout) to the granting of either
_ Variance or a Special Permit. By the vote of 1-3 the reeuested Variance or
Special Permit is denied.
VARIANCE AND/OF SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED _
arses :. Fleming, Esc . , VChairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISIO'.i HAS BEEN FILED iII? THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
7
_ �_ f.'.
�S OLETHL,1[
,-COFU OF
BD;,P,D C; *PEhL
Bruce Bornstein
9 Belleau Rd.
Salem, MA 01970
September 22, 1987
---PETITION---
As
--PETITION---
As abutters to the proposed project on 6 Nichols
Street, "Koko Machine Shop" , concerning hazardous waste
clean-up nand proposed renovations, we have reviewed the
plans prepared by Design Unlimited Architects as drawn and
dated September 15, 1987 and have decided the following :
Name & Address & Signature In Favor No Objection Comments
0------------------ --------- ------------ ----------
o ------ --------- ------
WAIT& -1----- ------------- ---------
---- -----------
--------- ------------- ---------
------- ---------
--- ------- ------
'y
----------sm"AZ- --------- ------------ ---------
OWN,
------------- ------- ---- -----------------------
----------------------------- ----------------------------------
Page 2
Name & Address & Sign-Iture In Favor No Objection Comments
-- ----------- - ------------- ------
--------------------------------------- -----------------------
----------------------------------------