95 OCEAN AVENUE - GLYNN, THOMAS MANNING & ERNEST J - ZBA 95 Ocean Ave. B-4
Thomas Manning and
Ernest J. Glynn
6�
`J
a.cn>m4b
Ctv of ttiem, ttssttt usP#ts
, F poarb of Appeal
Rtrbm7.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS MANNING AND ERNEST
GLYNN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 95 OCEAN AVE. (B-4)
A hearing on this petition was held February 22, 1989 with the following Board
Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, and
Associates Dore and Labrecque. 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 petitioners, represented by Attorny Scott Grover, are requesting a Special
Permit to expand the use of an existing two family building to a three family
building. The petitioners are also requesting a Variance of the requirements
of the Parking Ordinance relative to aisle width, driveway width, and driveway
entrance requirements.
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 neighbhorhood.
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 involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;
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.
'SL'C�"r91X3"i8310 A110 .
681111ISII
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS MANNING AND ERNEST GLYNN FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 95 OCEAN AVENUE, SALEM
page two
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The parking plan presented by the petitioners was inadequate to park
five cars on the property;
2. The granting of the requested Special Permit and Variance would have
a negative impact on the neighborhood, which is quite dense;
3. The petitioners failed to prove hardship;
4. Granting the relief requested would be substantially detrimental
to the neighborhood.
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 provisions of the Ordinance would not involve
a substantial hardship to the petitioners;
3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
4. The granting of the Special Permit will not promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3-2 (Mr. Bencal and Mr. Luzinski
voted in opposition) to grant the relief requested. The petition, failing to
gain four affirmative votes, therefore, is denied.
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED 1
ames M. Fleming, Esq�1Chairman
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 SECTIO.'I 17 OF 'liE "... .
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER E^.S. AND SHALL BE F:!ED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE
OF THIS DE ISION IN THE CFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
1-';:`,ART TO icASS. BESERAiI. CHAPTER V.S. sFr !,i 111, THE VAPIA:;`
.RANTED H-REi N. SHALL ;VT UNTR. A COPY u T9'..... .. ._. ...
to FIC;J LF THE C.",7 ':LERS THAT 20'DA'YS iU,:E -10.4`9_0 '::v�N! A," i!
3 'i HAT, IF SUC3 Ail APPEAL 413 B:c3 -HA, IT
RECORDED IN THE PUTH ECSCA RE 7.. Uc:
`RY OF -..__3 ANO I::DUED u.: ; AE .._ .. ..... ..... .
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NUTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TIFLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
i
i
I
j
}
i
1
{
i
i
Loi 3s
MA1~QU�537�u�
411
G\ 19A9 k wq
0
a. ZD.
1
n�{ ! 2'ogeN 4�
` ti -
PR
i P t
M�,�ra �r.1Ti reu�-r
if(oQy wcor 97 04QI L1VeNJE
} 73C7aAU AtAe- il '
113-6
Q
poly-A7,55
43.P
i 4
i
AV614WApo'
1,/o>E: Co-f NUMBC,es ,��x'�lL. ?e T,uE
CI>y of 54t�M A55EShc,ZS '
MAP 3? .
rLAN LAWC
IN
5 AL6M
��P,�H.' •Mq�s TIaoM1�5 �11�t1.11N1�
9
�o ERT nye
oWMaN H xQCC' �� = 20�
r��l� aNov. R. i[lee ea � e
ps �FCISTERE�hyo MOZ-r { SNQk�e WYCV4ry !Ne,
t t
IF
0414
F