36 DEARBORN STREET - SAVICKEY, RICAHRD - ZBA 36 Dearborn St. R-1
Richard Savickey
FDI
cT
i
. aFomiy�
(Eitg ofttlem, ttssttc�use##s
3' �uxrD of �}r}renl
�GLTT.�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & RITA SAVICKEY
FOR A VARIANCE FOR 36 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM Sir 25 3 oo PM '85
A hearing on this petition was held September 11 , 1985 with ThS Ifollowing Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, 6Fy,y,L<.4n'q eh
Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others an o��es
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioners are-requesting a Variance from side yard setbacks in order to
construct a two car garage in this R-1 district.
The petitioner requested permission to withdraw his petition. The Zoning Board
of Appeal voted unanimously 4-0 to allow petitioner Leave To Withdraw Without
Prejudice.
WITHDRAWN
Richard A. Bencal, Associate Member
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM, THIS CEc!S!-,j, IF ABY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUAh,T TO SECPnN 17 OF THE Li`.FS.
GENERAL !AVIS, CHAPTER S' . AM SHALL BE F1L171 W'HIN' 20 DAPS AFTER THE DATE OF FILI"G
OF THIS OECIS!CN IN THE CFi!CE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURS.4NT TO L','JS ;SEN_Rid [x:13. CHAPTER SOS, SEMON 11, THE VA".IEGCE C2 SPECIAL FERh;IT
GRANTED Ht G;. SY �L i T." EFF_CI U'dH A COPY OF THE GECt E .. .';7 THE CERT-
GRANTED
OF HE CI f CMT.Ai lu DAYS HAVE 6.P.°SEO A.47 NO A.PEA, H"S BEEN FILED,
OR THAT. IF SUCH AF. APPEAL HAS BEEN FILL THAT IT HAS OEE!i DIS'.!iSSEO CR DENIED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUIH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UKOE.'. THE KAW.E OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
flZitg oftttem, Cussttcu�etts
Y i
F A
Pourb of L rettl
H
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & RITA SAVICKEY FOR r�-r� M
A VARIANCE AS 36 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM (R-1 ) 3a a C7
A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1985-with the fongwingjoarr
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Gauthier, 1.29.1 kiy Street and
Associate Member Bencal. Notice of the hearing was sent to abusers end others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the SalemrRveniPg News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance from side yard
.setback requirements in order to construct a two car garage 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 which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
bffi literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
volve substantial
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intend of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Petitioner had been denied variance for two car garage on
September:1 , 1982;
2. Petitioner failed to prove hardship as building could be located
in other section of the property.
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 affect the premises and not the
district generally;
2. Literal enforcement. of the Ordinance would not involve substantial
hardship to petitioner
3. The requested variance could not be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good or without substantially derogating from the intent
and purpose of the Ordinance.
Il
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & RITA SAVICKEY
FOR A VARIANCE AT 36 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Board of Appeal by a vote of three (3) in favor, two (2) opposed,
denied petitioners request for a Variance.
VARIANCE DENIED
)74� /I
`Tames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Dc� F'l't
rr
nm a .7
3 S P�J 71
�CD t
��1 N
W
m �o
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAIRS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF T:..S DECISMIN IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PJSS:JTi TO MASS. CEWERAL LAWS, CHAPTER VS, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE CR SPECIAL PER-MT
GW.7ED HEREIN. SHALL NCT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISI011, FEAR!':-. THE CERT-
FICATIC`! OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELA?SED AND NO APPEAL HAS CEEN FILED.
OR THAT, IF SUCH A% APPEAL HAS SEEN FILE, THAI IT HAS BEEN DI -,:ISSED OR DEWED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRf OF DiEOS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER.
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. _
BOARD OF APPEAL
} Ctu III o,alnn, AinquLl���s����
y t m a
�H r .
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD E. SAVICKEY REQUESTING
A VARIANCE FOR 36 DEARBORN STREET
$�0 7 I
A hearing on this Petition was held on September 1, 1982, !R3r,1j;' the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, :Messrs. Hacker, LaBrecq�igYS
Feeherry and Associate Member Luzinski. Notice of the hearng^was
sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing -were published
in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petition of Richard Sayickey requesting a variance to build a two-car
garage to within three feet of the side yard property line.
A variance is required because the proposed garage would encroach into
the side yard restriction in an R-1 district.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented
at the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following
findings of. fact:
Because of the size and configuration of the - -
Petitioner's lot, it is not necessary for him
to construct the garage at the proposed
location. The garage could be located on the
property in a manner which would not violate
minimum side yard requirements.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and other evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
A. The Petitioner failed to establish circumstances relating to the
land or structure which affect that property but do not generally
affect the zoning district in wich the property is located.
B. The Petitioner failed to establish that a literal enforcement of the
provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance as applied to the site would
involve substantial hardship to the Petitioner.
C. The Petitioner failed to establish that the requested variance could
be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and
without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent
and purposes of the Salem Ordinance.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted in opposition to the granting the
requested relief. The Board denies a variance to the Petitioner.
Messrs. Hacker and Luzinski voted to deny. Messrs. Hopper, LaBrecque r
• and Feeherry voted "present". `.
,knthony M. Feeh7'rry, See I(tary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS PAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
td'PEAi frnra T!IiS DELI.i".il, -
PVA� too
OR loi--
cv
Fi
no O
OF RECO& CR WtiE ?CA:;C a CN T _ .... w
OF
BOARS OF APPEAL r