347 ESSEX STREET - KELLEY & O'MALLEY, EDGAR & JAMES - ZBA 347 Essex Street (R-2)
347 Essex St. Realty Trust
—..
Edgar Kelley & James
O'Malley, III, Esqs. TRS.
1
f
I
�: � � r
�'
�J ,
� �
I
347 Essex Street (R-2)
347 Essex St. Realty Trust
Edgar Kelley & James
O'Malley, III, Esqs. IRS.
i
I
I
r IIi
` yz Tito of 'Salem
L S ' Puttrh of
'83 FFA "HECISTON ON THE PETITION OF EDGAR KELLEY AND JAMES O'MALLEY, TRUSTEES,
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 347 ESSEX STREET
CITY C-
A hearing on tg}S.Tetition was held on January 26, 1983, with the following -Board Members
present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Hopper and Piemonte and Associate Member Luzinski_
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was
published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to enable them to use the premises as a
law office.
In general terms, this Board is, .when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the
rule that a Special Permit 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.
The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter, makes the
following findings of fact:
1. The Petitioners' proposed use of the site will. have a negative impact on the residential
character of the area.
2. The proposed use of the property will worsen parking and traffic
problems in the area. '
3. The proposed use of the property was opposed by numerous neighbors and others.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the public
hearing, the Board of Appeal finds that the proposed use of the property will not promote
the public health, safety, convenience and welfare and that the proposed use of the property
is not in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board unanimously
denied the granting of a Special Permit to the Petitioners.
Furthermore, the Board notes that although the Petitioners styled their petition as a
request for a Special Permit, the Board believes that the Petitioners should have
requested a variance. Had such a request been made, the Board finds that the property irk
question is not.unique and that no special hardship was shown by the Petitioners.
Thus, Petitioners failed toestablisha right to a variance.
Anthony M. Feehtrry
,. Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DgCISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD & .CITY CLERK
APrcA!• rR•„ i E C:,10H. IF ANY,-SHALL BE FADE 1`4SUAHT TO SECTICH 17 OF THE MASS.! 0, AND SH.'.LL 5E FILED W:THIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE GATE OF FILHIG - -
Of Tr S, T-,c CFF!CE OF THE G!TY CLERK. -
PJB. 'rD To G-:. )..-l. 3. 1P °R Sd+' -,� .1 11, THE VATAI,f,E OR <"P_C!=.L P£R'1M -
C�A.ti EO ii -I, SHAL_ rl', 1.:L :FET U;41L A COPY OFStCiQi�!!, E- -
F' ;u!diC Or IHE CifY CLEP.d TEAT 2^ i AY y. C. I,
h. 'E E APS i A.•., NO APPAL HAS
OR THAT, IF - A7 APPEAL 4:15 0° ' ELLE MAT IT H S 5£EM1 CiSGi1SS'D CR r°-I°U '$ - -
RECORDED IN THE SDUTH ESSCZ Y REMSIR OF DEwo ANN INDE.:ED U@CEC THE NAME OF-IH'c.07/:;EB -
OF_RECCR,D OR IS.UCGR,DEO A':u iICTED Cil THE Of NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
3244 -
a is a=
IvL . . �I YY�J�1.•/� .
o
j,
ROBERT _GN
JAMES
SOTIROS -
ft2 .0
y Cs�yTER Off'
VJJ :.
- � .� ;fir Ar�r���Ir�aoer��ndbaaq 1t�-
sv,+�' ANvuA►re..99bk pAon k �'. �i.
Q eAX �re� *.mss -
?n�tbdvt axr epf. �.Altr >
• SJR • � _- g_ - '_ ,;. q- _
IZ
,G" �*o'h9s''�oatotn �pvJsps BonR,�!3g
�`�� T' ' �s�+e®p�etiJjj fat'!llavo aurd�J> �lil
_ %• o<i0 n!! :e*idnifwfs encrobrJ�n►a►It�t' and
�q!!®+tvrgs, -clrs .4?s®1�d cn Yba ,�roNad�l -
;aa1b�► i;��6od•Jluianl r�e�das' �#bt
p
� � �I
,� �Y►
`�I�
� '� ��I `�
� ! II
. i
.,ill
,\ ,�
��
`� �
I�
to ttssttcl�usQ s
ropre �E MrfmPn#
ing �E�J2LY I tPYtf
iBER 10,1982
AT CITY HALL ANNEX, 1 SALEM GREEN
-
16W16-04,,,t