The URL can be used to link to this page

1988-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ns BOARD OF APPEAL DECISIONS - 1988 ADDRESS PETITIONER/OWNER PAGE 4 Allen St. (d) Dean Boucher/Clart Realty Corp. 1 4 Allen St. (withdrawn) " 2 Ldts 48 & 49 Almeda 'Sts. (d) L. O'Leary/S. Schroeder 3 19 Andrew/7 Milk Sts, (g) Christopher Collins 4 41 Appleton .St..... (g) , . Thanas & Judith Sinclair 4a 26 Arbella. St. '(g) Carrick/Tardiff 5 6 Arthur St. (g) Lento, Giardi & Milbauer 6 50 Balcomb St. (g) John & Esther Martine 7 16 Barcelona 'Ave. (g)' Charles Siderski 8 24 Barnes ,Circle (g) Stephen & Peggy Masella 9 26, 30, 34 Barnes Circle 13 Clark St. (d) Robert J. Stilian 10 • 20 Barnes Road (g) David L. Madsen 11 A. 29 Barnes Road (g) RobertOcchipinti 12 i 29 Barnes Road (g) Robert Occhipinti 13 25-252' Barr St. (g) Barbara B. Bent 14 110 Bay View Ave. (g) Raymond McFarlane 15 f 19-21 Becket St. (g) Michael Spector 16 9 Belleau Rd. Lionel Michaud et al 17 17 Belleview Ave. . (g) William & Donna LACH 18 119 Boston st. (g.) Sotirios Koritsianos 19 i 126, 128, 130 Boston St, (g) Robert E. Gauthier 20 • 4 Brentwood Ave. (g) James & Jean Smith 21 21 Bridge St. (g) Mary & Nancy Burke 22 f NAME ADDRESS PAGE Lot 191 Brooks St. (g) Michael & maureen Kapnis 23 Champlain Rd. (g) John & Cynthia Buonfiglio 23a 16 Chandler Rd. (g) Alfred & Jeannine Berube 24 214 Cherry Hill Ave. (g) Paul & Marie Buonfiglio-. 24a t 20 Circle Hill Road (g) John Douroudis 25 13 Clark St./Barnes Circle (d) Robert Stilian 10 75 Columbus Ave. (g) Frank J. Pierce 26 29 Congress St. (g) Shetland Trust 27 95-101 Congress St. (g) H & R Realty Trust 28 6 Cottage St. (g) Ronald & Barbara Pelletier 29 44 Crowdis St. (g) Petro & Anastasia Theophilopoulos 30 1144 Dearborn St. (- ( ) GDonald&& JJnoannegCharette 30a 222-Z2�r Derby Sta�(g) Derby StudiosaPhotcoygraphy Inc. 31 8 Essex St. (g) Craig Deroin, Tr. 32 289-293 Essex St. (d) Essex House Associates 33 27 Fairview Rd. (g) Stanley & Theresa Bekeritis 33a 6 Flint St. (g) Raymond & Margaret Farmer 34 1 130-32 Forest Ave. (g) Michael. & Diane Rhatigan 35 i 11 Foster St. (g) Robert T. Marsilla 36 I 18 Foster St. Gerren Realty Trust 37 24 Gables Cir. (g) Paul & Nanette Valaskagtis 38 50 Gallows Hill Rd. (g) Stephen & Paula Tassinari 39 2 Goodhue St. (d) James H. Weener 40 32 Hancock St. (g) Andrew J. Wood, II 41 32 Hancock St. (d) Andrew J. Wood, II 42 55 Highland Ave. (g) Salem Hospital Realty Trust 43 • 55 Highland Ave. (g) Salem Hospital Realty Trust 44 55 Highland Ave. (g) Salem Hospital Realty Trust 45, - F y 1!1 BOARD OF APPEAL DECISIONS - 1988 , ADDRESS PETITIONER%OWNER PAGE 128 Highland Ave. (g) Robert Alexander & Brenda Stillman 46 462 Highland Ave. (d) Paul A. Sudenfield 47 110 Jefferson Ave. (g) Moffat Realty Trust 48 202-204 Lafayette St. (g) Hugh F. Mulligan 49 i 6 Langdon St. (g) Edward J. Santos 50 t 5-11 Leach St. (g) Five Eleven L. Realty Trust 51 17 Linden St. (g) William & Elizabeth Coombs 52 { 75 Loring Ave. (g) John Toy 53 I 528 Loring Ave. (g) Gerard Alimenti 54 12 Madeline Ave. (g) Charles M. sissian 55 32 March St. (g) Mark Petit 56 ' 4 Milk St. (d) Roland L'Heureux 57 19 *.Andrew/7 Milk St. (g) Christopher Collins 58 • i 73 North St. (g) Gabriel P. Rossi, Jr. 59 130; North St. (g) Nina T. Buba 60. ,{ 217 North St. (g) Peter & Anastacia Scangas 61 39&41 Northey St. (d) Robert & Patricia Gonyea 62 18 Porter St. (d) John Smith 63 18 Porter St. John Smith 64 13 Preston Rd. (g) 'Gary & Marleen Sewall 65 1-16'-Prince St. (g) Salem Harbor Comm. Develop. Corp. 66 { 22 Proctor St. (g) Joseph O'Neill 67 34 Proctor St. (g) Shawn Michaud 68 7 Ropes St. (g) Dennis & Martha Pelletier 69 i 1 Rosedale Ave. (g) Alice L. Johnson '70 �f 24 Saunders St. (g) Salem Shoe Manuf. Co. 71 • 1103 School St. Sarah M. Hayes 72 ( 21 Station Rd. (g) Charles Ward 73 BOARD OF APPEAL DECISIONS - 1988 NAME PETITIONER/OWNER PAGE 31 Summit Ave. (g) Florence Greto 74 17-19 Summit St. (g) Phyllis McLaughlin 75 14 Sumner Rd. (g) Jeanette Carson 75a 3 Thomas Cir. (g) Richard & Roberta Williams 76 11 Vinin St. (g) Thomas & Nancy Kelly 77 51-53 Washington Sq. North (g) Arvinder S. Bahal 78 155 Washington St. (g) Salm Evening News 79 191-211 Washington St. (g) Minoan Realty Trust 80 & 29 New Derby St. 152 Williams St. (g) Raymond L. Young 81 7 Willow Ave. (g) Lanning Levine 82 16.'Winter St. (g) Ada & Donald Roberts 83 • : . (Qi# ofttlem, ttssttcljuse##s Se► 19 Poarb of '4pe l PILE# PITY 6LEAL 9A1BM,-N4, j. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEAN BOUCHER FOR A VARIANCE AT 4 ALLEN STREET (R-2) CLART REALTY CORP. OWNER OF THE PROPERTY A hearing on this petition was held August 24, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Luzinski, Nutting and Associates Dore and LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly advertised in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner under agreement, is requesting a Variance from density and setbacks to allow construction of a two family dwelling in this R-2 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; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial dr 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 of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Lot area is 3,516 square feet whereas the minimum lot area in an R-2 zone is 15,000 square feet; 2. There is no existing dwelling unit on the property which is located in a congested area; 3. Petitioner, who did not own the property, proposed the construction of a two family dwlling on the land; 4. Councillor George Nowak was opposed to the proposal; 5• Nearby homeowners and abutters petitioned the Board to grant the variance; 6. One abutter spoke in favor; 7. Petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial 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: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEAN BOUCHER (PETITIONER) FOR A VARIANCE AT 4 ALLEN ST. (R-2) PROPERTY OWNED BY CLART REALTY CORP. • page two 1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not involve a substantial hardship to the petitioner; 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 1 to 4 (Mr. Fleming voted in favor) against the granting of the. requested variance, therefore the variance is denied. VARIANCE DENIED Peter. Dore, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FPD,',; THIS DECIS103. IF ANY. SHALL BE &!AD- P'!P.'LJAYT TO SEC^PPI 17 OF THE f.'. S. AND TH.- E Tii- ^�S %�Fi iF.9r:E CATE OF F:LHIG i:: Ti?iT". OF RECUR) OR IS RECORDED E7i : ORDED AHD NUfED ON THE U.,i(ER'S CERT1F:CdicOi TITLE. BQARQ OF APPEA • 3�.to.ut4 v ofttlem, ttsstttllusP#ts ' ' i'• p-� Poarb of c4pral �� •• �OI4rvlP'- Jn i6 2 ii N '88 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEAN BOUCHER FORFAt" VARIANCE AT 4 ALLEN STREET, SALEM g71Fr'6LfrP,K.SA!., :•:. R1tvl: A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman, Messrs. , Bencal, Nutting, 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. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from density and setbacks to allow construction of a two family dwelling in this R-2 district. Attorney John G. Vallis, 1 Church St. , Salem, representing the petitioner requested Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. The Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-0 to allow petition Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. *JsM. Fleming, Chai A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DE:^.ISI^3, I'' ANY. SHALL RE h•A^E PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 mF TRE Rios. CEI:CRAL L4c(S. �.. �.'.. ...... E:f}+: i.0 'r::!: a!;'f�: ZJ CAPS hfT;F ill: PACE of TILING OF lFiu CEJ:T.,::: IN .flit bf CF,E ^i TCC :' ' C!ERS. u ._...... .: .... :ER a"i;, II. :i!f 1';,^!n '.!T OR T!;;J. ii E:•: •' • : _ ':': !:.E:: r:_:. C:'4; i. ILLS F:;Til T.!'iJ'L_.6 fSr.' :_:::;'! ;y REOLFDED I:: TtiE S::L CSEcl EE]!L';fi'r :iF OLE:'S ',::'U ?:OC rrp OS:;;R i:C :;. ..: OF THE O'.:RER OF RECORD OR IS RECURDED -01) NJICU ON THE U.'iBER'S CCRTIFICAiE OF TITLE.,•• 8WQ OF APPEAL D (9ity of ttlem, Massachusetts nxrb ETf enl r� Dec 9 8 ze 9N '88 FILE# CITY GLER.K. Say E4. r.ASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEONARD O'LEARY AND STEVEN S. SCHROEDER FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AT #48 & 49 ALMEDA ST. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held September 14, 1988 and continued until October 26, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski Nutting and Associate Member 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 are requesting an Administrative Ruling relative to a Variance granted September 1986. Property is located in an R-1 district and is owned by David Tremblay. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearings, and based on an agreement between the Petitioners and the Owners, voted unanimously to deny the petitioners request. A copy of the agreement is herewith attached. DENIED James M. Fleming, Esq. , Cita" man A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND AGREEMENT HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROil THIS D`c:ISICN. i, A. Y, SHALL BE RADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE .!A'S. GENERAL LAWS. Cni;PIER 2UC. AND SHALL Cr FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE Oi ill-M.' CF THIS D_`.:SIJN I.: THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. P :.:ASS. C".;ERAL LAK'S. CHAPTER, RDB. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL i,d,:;.ED HEREIN. SHALL MDT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEUCCISION. BEAR'.-, THE C'.:i :-i;Al;'NGF THE Citi CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS CEEN Fl::.). OR :HAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DEaiEC '.• RECURDED IN WE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME Gi iiiE , OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL A G R E E M E N T DEC 9 6 n An Agreement made in Salem, Massachusetts, FILE September 15, 1988 between JOHN DAVID and JULIE TREMBLAY and RONALD and PATRICIA TREMBLAY (hereinafter the CITY CLERK. $A.' E14. 4SS "Tremblays") and STEVEN and CAROLINE SCHROEDER (hereinafter the "Schroeders") and LEONARD F. O'LEARY WHEREAS, John David Tremblay and Julie Tremblay are the owners of property situated at 8 Almeda Street, Salem, Massachusetts, and Ronald and Patricia Tremblay are the owners of property situated at 10 Almeda Street, Salem, Massachusetts WHEREAS, Steven and Caroline Schroeder are the owners of property situated at 6 Almeda Street, Salem, Massachusetts, and i WHEREAS, since 1986 the Schroeders have entered upon a certain adjoining portion of the aforementioned John David Tremblay and Julie Tremblay' s property with the express consent of the John David and Julie Tremblay, (no right or easement expected or intended) , ' and WHEREAS, Steven S. Schroeder and Leonard F. O' Leary (as Ward Councilor of Ward Four of Salem, Massachusetts in which the said Almeda Street is located) have presented a Petition to the City of Salem Board of Appeal dated August 9, 1988 requesting that said Board make certain findings as to conditions upon Lots 48 and 49 Almeda Street (as are currently numbered 8 and 10 Almeda Street and owned by John David Tremblay, Julie Tremblay and Ronald and Patricia Tremblay, respectively, and WHEREAS, the Tremblays, the Schroeders and Councilor Leonard F. O' Leary desire to resolve by this Agreement issues as currently exist regarding the erection of buildings, driveways and improvements upon the aforementioned Tremblays' property and upon property • located at 8 and 10 Almeda Street, Salem, Massachusetts 1 j as well as the aforementioned Petition to the City of • Salem Board of A j ppeal; I NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements of the others contained in this Agreement, and of the sum of One Dollar ($1 .00) to each in hand paid by the others, the parties have covenanted j and agreed as follows: 1 . That certain improvements, fill, grading and paving as currently exist upon property of the Tremblays at 8 Almeda Street, Salem, shall be re-graded to j conform to the levels and grades* as specified in a plan attached hereto as "Appendix A, Enlargement" . Said work shall be completed by October 13, 1988 , *The portions of land marked "level" shall be graded to a gradient consistent with that land upon which the house at 6 Almeda Street stands. I 2 . That shrubbery, 4 ft . Pyrmidal Arborvitae be i planted by the Tremblays in the location of and to I the specifications set out in said Appendix A, Enlargement . 3 . That the location of .a bituminous driveway as currently exists at 8 Almeda Street, Salem, be I changed by the Tremblays to conform to the specified location of said driveway on the attached i Appendix A, Enlargement so long as the nearest edge of the driveway is far enough away from the proposed level portion to leave a sloping and not a sheer drop. 4 . That the slope adjacent to the paved driveway as shown on the attached Appendix A Enlargement shall be grassed by the Tremblays . 5 . That the Schroeders and Leonard F. O' Leary shall consent to the denial of the aforementioned Petition of said parties dated August 9, 1988 by •' the City of Salem Board of Appeals and agree that no appeal of said denial nor any other action, 2 • 'I i, i. • administrative or legal, regarding the aforesaid property, erection of buildings, driveway or improvements shall be sought or pursued by said parties. I 6 . This Agreement is intended to be an agreement between the parties hereto which is not intended to i convey any right, title or interest in any land of the parties thereto and shall not effect the title i to any property of any party hereto nor is this ' Agreement intended to run with or otherwise j encumber the titles thereto and shall not be recorded in any Registry of Deeds nor Land Court of this Commonwealth of Massachusetts . t 7 . The parties hereto hereby mutually release and discharge all other parties hereto from all claims, i damages, or rights of action that any party may have, whether known or unknown, against any other • party hereto which arose out of or by reason of the ' aforementioned transactions and occurrences . _. I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals this day of 1988 . I I I DAVID TREMBLAY JULqE TREMBLAY i I RONALD TREMBLAY! PATRICIA TREMBLAY STEVEN S. SCHROEDER CAROLINE SCHROEDER I i LEONARD R. O' LEARY i 3 i COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss ////� 1988 Then personally appeared the above-named John David Tremblay and Julie Tremblay who acknowledged the foregoing to be their free act and deed, before me Notary Public I COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss 1988 Then personally appeared the above-named Ronald Tremblay Tremblay and Patricia Tremblay who acknowledged the i foregoing to be their free act and deed, before me I • otary Public COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss �9 1988 Then personally appeared the above-named Steven S . and Caroline Schroeder and Schroeder wh acknowledved the foregoing to be their free act "d dAee LeNoPL- i COMMONWEALTH OF MASSAC SETTS Essex, ss 1988 Then personally appeared the above-named Leonard F. O' Leary who acknowledged the foregoing to be his free act and deed, before me • Notary Public 4 r A x T,O FGA T rra^ QN// \ ( OQy ..IfCO R".4.73.98 ! es�� B/ f f.B• f04F I/ r.O✓�/IN7 76 •3\ \ i \ �3■�Q 7az 7o C 7i.5Z \ -i\ .c•G 7Z\ \ 1.r✓ • 73 05 1 7019 7. 41 ' i! 73.7 Mvo OR �� \ • 60.9 � O`f of PP✓!✓ /' i \ _1\ , S' phi 'h � tai _ o f P p✓I / ��pl� / \ \ ?9o7fi I C TSS 1 171.7 7;'3 If.3 CEO� ,fit#g of "ittiem, ffiassttchuse##s fig ourb of eal ) rp �'S 1. C- ` TT i:ti;HES6: 0 G DECISION ON THE PETITIOWdDF CHRISTOPHER COLLINS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 ANDREW0 'MILK STREETS (R-2) A hearing on this' petition was held January 27, 1988 with the following Board Members present:. .Jaines Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski .and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others -and notices--.the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance .with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner,, owner.'of the property, is seeking a Special Permit to extend a noncon- forming side setback to allow.relocation of a 'second means of egress in this R-2 zone. 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:anythog 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 noncon- forming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconform- ing lots, land, .structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, expansion or enlargement .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-ythat a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that ther.grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board ofAppeal; -_after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . One neighbor-sent a letter of opposition; 2. Many neighbors, abutters and others appeared in favor; 3. _ The planjor„ the relocation of the second means of egress will be better= for the safety' of the- inhabitants. 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 . The'relief requested can .be granted without creating a substantial detriment` to the public good and without substantially derogating from or nullifying-the intent or purpose of the Ordinance; 2. The' rel'ief;:requested will promote the welfare and safety of the City's inhabitants._ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHRISTOPHER COLLINS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 19 ANDREW/7 MILK STREETS, SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . ' All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be adhered to; 2. All construction be done as per the plans submitted; 3. All construction be done as per all existing City and State Building Codes; 4. All exterior finishes must conform to existing finishes. GRANTED Richard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM. THIS DECISION. !F ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. • GENERAL LAYS. CHAPTER 898. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. Pu;SART TO WAS. CE.".ER41. LAVI'E. CHAPTER SOS. SECTI;ifi 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PEP.:?IT .,.ANTED HEREIN. SHALL H0. T.S iE EFFECT U;Mt A CDP( OF THE=.`.GSii::. E_4i.::.: THS CERT. rI�ATI:iF! OF THE MY CLEP,11!iA: ') DAPS HATE ELAP.FEO Ai:� NC 4PPE=L H.AS g__:I F:LEO. :R THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL H:17 KEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN D21:iSSED CR CE^'!--` is RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REoISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAI.iE OF THE 0WN:: OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED OR THE OVINER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL gitu of Sairm, c assariTusPtts°E# 2 3 PM • .Z® � S Pourb of A"P211 CITY CLERK. ' E ASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS & JUDITH SINCLAIR FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 41 APPLETON ST. IR-21 A hearing on this petition was held February 17, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Strout and Associate Member Dore. 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, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming side setback to allow construction of a rear porch in this R-2 district. 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 neighborhood. • 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 Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: - 1 . The granting of the Special Permit will not be substantially detrimental to the public good and will not nullify of substantially derogate from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. ;herefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Special Permit requested on condition a building permit be obtained and porch be constructed in accordance with plans submitted. GRANTED / _ ."CEA. FROM THIS 4 .DE PC J�N)TO SECT FION 17 0/ TRE MASS CsF4W stroaL6_ �mtier�, "BbAr9'AY4fA' p 1 1 .11 ILI '— • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HA$rgEEX::F-ILPD:WITR 'THi; MANNINGBOARD AND THE C Ty .CLER.v. !:i: CIT'''. Eke !r',i YO 0113 H�•" . . HAS Sr, :O OR C:' HcR 6EE!: FILE. I. 1 ...__ . .J I:i l_•:'.� :TIE (r . .. ::..`,.'.! Th--. ^_ :.' E9S:): �.-:...R'i OF C .._,.:6;i OR IS Mt,RDED AND NOTED ON THE Lt-NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. WA OF APPEAL �c 13 8 �s IN 98 .,numyb ♦ i `�. (9ttV of Safem, IISStIthllBet`S FUEz o1TYttERti.S4tcN. 4tS! • ,,r es Pours of Appeal �'•ums� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JULIE & MATTHEW CARRICK/CATHY & THOMAS TARDIFF FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 26 ARBELLA ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held November 9, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Nutting, Strout 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to allow an existing deck in the rear of 26 Arbella St. which is located in an R-2 zone. 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 codnitions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grante Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, anc 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 neighborhood. • 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 Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plan of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition; 2. The deck is used only in conjunction with its use as a two family; 3. Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor; 4. The deck was not constructed by the petitioners. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The granting of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants; 2. The relief requested can 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. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JULIE & MATTHEW CARRICK/THOMAS & CATHY TARDIFF FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 26 ARBELLA ST. , SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit requested allowing the existing deck to remain as shown on the plot plan submitted to the Board of Appeal. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED ) � . / John R. utt' g, Sec etary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK `fiJ.'•i THIS DEGSI"':. i .'.ilY. SHALL eL1lf?JDgi PURSUANT YS 20 DAYS AF-.!R^'THE DR.E17 C.F IOF i':.:::IS :..::;ERAL I.;r.S. C:;Arcti 3JZ. D SH..LL Pc ECS"O FFiCE OF THE CITY C!CRB. ^• D l.� Ju lid 11iE O ,r...._r F� en•� "li ... •r: ;i:• Sr,•i 7.:.! I1. THE \'. ..... _ A TX ....,, rv' L'cELS ?i!il G;Dv FD uf:;i.; N ltC SO�';H Ei:SE>. P,E�'!E;R': OF RECORU OR IS RECuRDED AND NEED OR IFIL OVINER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • • r. (RU of fMiem, f ttssucWhi� 04 PM '88 • 'a 9 Poxrb of Appeui 6(TY LECLERK.SALEM.-MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CARL LENTO, JOHN GIARDI AND DONALD MILBAUER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 6 ARTHUR ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 24, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Luzinski, Nutting and Associate Members 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, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit and and Variance to allow construction of an additional dwelling unit; Special Permit to extend nonconforming structure and a variance to allow fourth dwelling unit in this R-2 district. 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 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 neighborhood. 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 in- volve 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 of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: • 1 . Neighbors and abutters were opposed due to concerns about construction blasting, drainage and parking; 2. The petitioners agreed to address the problems expressed by neighbors and abutters; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CARL LENTO, JOHN GIARDI AND DONALD MILBAUER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 6 ARTHUR STREET (R-2) page two • 3. The property would be substantially improved and would have adequate parking; 4. The property will be graded close to the existing grade causing little or no change in drainage patterns. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve a substantial hardship on the petitioners; and 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four to one (4-1 ) , Mr. Nutting voted in opposition, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Construction must be as per plans submitted except as noted below; • 2. Construction be in accordance with Massachusetts Building Code; 3. Must comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety; 4. Proper numbering be obtained from the Assessors Department; 5. Building Permit must be obtained from the Building Inspector; 6. Certificate of Occupancy be obtained; 7. Parking plan shall be amended to include six (6) off street parking spaces facing the existing three family 8. Landscaping shall be as per plans submitted and extended to the rear of the property line; 9. Parking spaces must be dedicated to units occupied by occupied; 10. The hydraulic method be used if possible for excavation, if not, the petitioners must conform to the pre-blast ordinance to include a survey of abutters property; 11 . Construction trailers to be removed from site by December 31 , 1988; • 12. Off street parking not to be used by trailers of boats; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CARL LENTO, JOHN GIARDI AND DONALD MILBAUER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 6 ARTHUR STREET (R-2) • page three 13. The new construction must not exceed twenty five (25) feet in height. VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED eeL20o4�� eter Dore, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROAI THIS DECISION. IF A:Jy. SHALL BE 6iiiDE PURSJANT TO SECiiOiJ 17 uF THE :.6.1 GENERAL LA!':$, CHA,TER EOS. AND SHALL BE FdrD 'i;i?-1Ii ;O DAYS Ari ER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DEC13fU"N IN THE OFFICE OF THE CII f CLERK. PJ SEit� TO Ir ASS. uENERvi L:..:1i CH';Pi E:". F,& SECT'7,i1 11. THE V:.-^.IAWE C^ 62=.I:iED HEREL:. EHitt T?i;E EFFECT UNTIL A COPi OE THEC';7cI N. ?;.:•,;:�...• li:: FKATIiN 'HE .. _ OF 7 Cfi' C!ER.Z 1" -L) DAYS HAi'_ ° '�Su O? iH.-'.T. IF SJCH A.; A'r!'EA! HAS FILE, r.,i Lii 'r:Ly.F,Ei rl,!7 Ft�• a?HCP �!_FILEF:, teal BiCBROEt) IN TH. SCU fH ESSEX RE- ISiii'i of C:Ei'S qi:7 I::DEX. ..... '.� .. - I$ O KCORD OR IS REWROED AND NUiEC ON THE" ILE O::gER'S CER;IFnCAiE CF 71TLE.^1 D' iHF. ;; • BOARD OF APPEAL • c f�itu5§ 1Pm of tt '�tt55Mt1 u5Ptt5 AN 16 5 ., � r I 3 12 Ph 89 • ! ops nttrD of ettl FELE# C1TY Ll(RK,L4ipd.,WASS. DF)CISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN AND ESTHER MARTINS FOR A VARIANCE AT 50 BALC'OMB STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on April 20, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Bencal, Fleming and Associate Member 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a variance to allow the continued use of the property as a three family dwelling. They have utilized the property since 1983 as a three family dwelling under a variance previously granted by the Zoning Board of Appeal. The property is located in a R-2 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; • b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition voiced at the hearing 2. There has been no detrimental effect on the neighborhood over the past five (5) years. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but do not affect the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the ( public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the l`•1l intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. i • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN AND ESTHER MARTINS FOR A VARIANCE AT 50 BALCOMB STREET, SALEM - F•,; Page Two r • � Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4 - 0, to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The Petitioner must maintain at least four (4) on-site parking spaces. 2. All the requirements of the Salem Fire Department be met by the Petitioners. GRANTED James M. Fleming, Este. Vice-Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK AFFEAL FRO.'•: THIS DEMICN. IF A':Y. PAU BE �!rDE RL6S'!ANT TO S-rT!ON 17 6F THE _. LkY'6. i'r:UTU £ j. A:;O SH-IL L'E F!.E" 20 DAIS AF73: THE G:'E OF iiLi% ,1 �# V: T,;:S OC?''Jn C: lnC CFF::_ THE C:TI' CLr_n'I. J 4F R6;.eRL C[ IS i,_._R EO AN.) O'd%iR"S CERUFICAii G'r MLE. BOARD OF AFRI r S`" ti.. ,b APR 5 3 at, f 0 '8. (9itg of "Salem, Ansour4usetts FILET^ ,r 5 Pearb of 4vza1 CITY CLE tri. 51.'.: r;. 45: DECISION ON THE PETITION CHARLES J. SIDERSKI FOR A VARIANCE AT 16 BARCELONA AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held October 26, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Nutting, Luzinski and Associate Member 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 petitioner, owner of the property, is seeking a Variance from setback requirements to allow for the construction of a garage 31 feet from the southerly boundary line of the property. The property is located in an 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; 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 of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, amkes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition. 2. Several neighbors and Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor of the petitioner. 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 exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without subtantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES J. SIDERSKI FOR A VARIANCE AT 16 BARCELONA AVE. , SALEM 0, x� page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety are strictly adhered to; 2. The petitioner obtain a building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector; 3. The garage be built as per the plans and dimensions submitted to the Board of appeal; 4. The exterior finishes of the garage be in conformity with the exterior finished of the existing dwelling. VARIANCE GRANTED ames M. Fleming, Esq./ Chairman, Board of Appta, A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRAY THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION TI OF THE GiA4S. GENERAL Ln'(1S. CHAPTER 805. AND SHALL BEHLED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS UMS1ON IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PORSR 1 "Z 7.EA3S. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER BG3, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PzR::IT GRAW'E: 8EREIN. SHALL FRA TA!!E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF TIIEDECISIB:. BVI—W THE F'CATnaC 'JF 'HE i'.! i;LER� '(:i!,i 20 DA--;S HAKE ELAPSED 1:b) NO APPEAL HAS SEEN FILED, OR THA. !F S9:,ji !:1 APPEAL HAS 3EEN FiL E. THAT IT ;!�'6 BEEN DIS'!ISSED OR C:'!ED IS RECOZED ! Ti;,- SCUM ESSEX' RE;ISMY IF CE:OS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME CF THE J'SSr OF RBG)RD OR. IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON TBE UYINER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL . Jia 1J ;LE i Ctv of � �IIPm, C IISSFIt�IlISPt $r rte:.:. . DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN AND PEGGY MASELLA FOR VARIANCES AT 24 BARNES CIRCLE (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held December 7, 1988 and continued until January 11 , 1989• Present at both hearings .were James Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary and Edward Luzinski. Notice of the original 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. Petitioners are seeking variances to allow the property in question to be divided into two lots in this R-1 zone. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a :"inding 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Two (2) persons spoke in favor of the Plan with no one in opposition; 2. The property is unique as it fronts on two streets; 3. The lot is irregular in topography and the plan presented would make best use of the property; 4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. 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 exist which especially affect the subject Property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would work a •j� substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment and with- out nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 1. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN & PEGGY MASELLA FOR VARIANCE AT 24 BARNES CIRCLE, SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, '4-0, to grant the variances requested, subject to tte following conditions: 1 . Petitioners meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and. fire safety; 2. All construction be done as per all existing city and state building codes and as per the plans submitted; 3. Any and all blasting must be done per all city codes relative to this area and /or zone; 4. All dimensions are to be as per the plans submitted to this Board and dated 16 December 1988; 5• Petitioner obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the new dwelling. GRANTED rRichard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK PURSUANT '". ;"..0 ..... ..1 .._..SL L.-.,:.•:?! 'C.....iiE,, .: ._ Fi ,F.: i;:i'iCLiJ(. .., .. . . ,r REiJnd IOR iS riLt;LRU.0 AI•J .J.— J7: iii: O7,NZR'$ CF.ftTIFICAIc OF iCl BOARD OF .AFK." _Q( of Sttlem, C ussttrljusetts � I oz PM '88 0.rJ �Soara of Appvd 61TY CU RIL I.A A.Nrsa. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT J. STILIAN FOR VARIANCES AT LOTS 81 , 82,- 85)86 BARNES CIRCLE/CLARK ST. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held September 14, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, Nutting 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from lot size and frontage to allow property to be divided into five (5) lots. The property is located in an R-1 district. Street addresses, according to the Assessor, is as follows: Lot 81 : 13 Clark Street; Lot 82: 26 Barnes Circle; Lot 85: 34 Barnes Circle and Lot 86: 30 Barnes Circle. The Variances which have 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 stucture involved and which are not generally affecting other land's, 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was substantial neighborhood opposition; 2. There was concern relative to blasting and drainage; 3. Petitioner failed to meet his burdon of proof relative to 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 provisions of the Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; • 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. .r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT J. STILIAN FOR VARIANCES AT LOTS 81 , 82, 85, 86 BARNES CIRCLE/CLARK STREET, SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5, against the granting of the requested Variances. DENIED 2 t4z ` Irl.t Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK FR3M. THIS DEC:S!^:: 17 ANY, SHALL EE L''ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MA'S. %i!L LAVP.'. .i:i'iE'. [... l.:f9 Sii :'. E. F:.C. 'r. _C DAYS AF-ER THE CATE OF FILIitlG r .. .. S' �iEi:i:..i:: Iii "RE :.. .__ OF i!.E CI(i 11. THE l -:.' .: :.-_.. ::. i " ;:.. ' _. .. . ..:Til ._•?'i i:r is _ _ a, .. •-. .cL LL.,L:.u_J I.! THE . ..... c.:_J. r—;1— ',:V: IJcu:; .,:.✓ li•:.'_J__ ,:.L ..c a: 1HE •i::::•. Oi OLC'IRD OR IS RECORDS:. AiZ NOTED Ofi THE O"":NER*S CEF11FILWE OF 'inLE. • BOARD OF APPEAL • HAA 30 3 a PH '88 Cita of "'�ttlrm, U95aC11u9rtt6 FILE6 � �• OI7Y CLERK,P aurb of ��rnl ��icr .W3p, a� �r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID L. MADSEN FOR VARIANCES FOR 20 BARNES ROAD (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held March 16, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from frontage and lot size to allow the property to be redivided from four (4) lots into three (3) lots in this R-1 district. The Variances which have 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 in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; j, 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioner has owned the property since the middle 19601s; 2. Petitioner has filled the land, adhering to the instruction of the Conservation Commission, at considerable expense; 3. Abutter was in favor of subdivision. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject parcels but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 1 3. The requested Variances can be granted without substantial detriment 1 to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating _.i from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 1 DECISION ON THE PES TIO?! OF DAVID L. MADSEN FOR FOR 20 BARNES ROAD, SALEM. page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the s= relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Lot k3 must have a two to one slope on the northerly side and slope must be loamed and seeded and constructed as per plans submitted to and approved by the City Engineer; 2. A plan with the design of the swale on lot three must be approved by the City Engineer; 3. Lots to be divided as shown on plan submitted and dated 2/3/88 as follows: Lot 1 to have 10,000 square feet (+) with 63.43 front; Lot 2 to have 12,400 square feet (+) with 63 feet of frontage; 16,500 square feet (+) with 63 of frontage. GRANTED es B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK -. i2Oi:i iii:' T:,E P� IS;!AN'r TO SECTiO?i 17 OF THE �• ... _ t1+17S. CHAPru2 S^.3. Alio $HAL: .m 11.:i;i. L''E !'I _.. . i; ZO DAYS AFTER rH: DA:r 0- "'777 : I!: THE OFF;P.° --F THE :1TY CLERK. . _ .•. M. „'�_':IJ!1 11, THE \'6CiA1:CE ' DF THc i ii:. SHA..LL ':D. "i r,::E _FFEii o':T:''_ A CCPV' _., _. ';i �'�' r.l :.... OF TV!E l.:':'i C . . DAS y.• LERi% 'i:. 2:i - -: E xE� LA. . .F SL'.r: A:. APPEAL Hf_ EEE\' FP - .... THE sDi}: ESSEX , _._ __vS Af7 1':" REC OR IS REG_RDED A(W ii,;:,D ON T. _ OWNER'S CERTIFICATE Or Tli!E. BOARD OF APPE;I' 4 (9itu of 'aIrm, ttsstttljusetts 9 oarb of ral JUL Z6 2 21 fa '88 4r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT OCCHIPIWI FOR A FILE 1W VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 29 BARNES RD. .(R-1 ) gfI'FQL►h{C.b+:. ;{. a.,4,14: A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary, Peter Strout and Edward Luzinski. Notice of the meeting was sent to abutters and others and notices were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is seeking a Variance to allow an existing dwelling to remain. Petitioner is also seeking a special permit to allow construction of a 18 foot round swimming pool in this R-1 zone. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding ofthe 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 y1 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. The Board of Appeal after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans makes the following finding of fact: 1. Due to topography the dwelling could not be constructed in any other manner. 2. The lot in question is a corner lot, on both Barnes Road, and Barnes Circle, and because of this petitioner is required to have a 15 foot setback, rather than a 10 foot on the side. 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. The relief requested can be granted without creating a substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from or nullibying the intent or purpose of the Ordinance; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; •;r. 4�J ,,13. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the subject property but do not affect the district generally. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT OCCIPINTI FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 29 BARNES ROAD, SALEM PAGE TWO ' • Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction be as per the plans submitted. The petitioners additionally has requested a Special Permit to allow construction of a 18 foot round pool. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section VB 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, expansion or enlargement shall not be substantially more detrimental that the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. 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 Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented ' ' • '' at the public hearing, makes the following finding of fact: 1. No support or opposition was raised. 2. The pool, due to topography, cannot in any practiccal sense, be constructed in any other portion of the lot. 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. The proposed pool will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. 2. The proposed pool will promote the convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitant. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the Special Permit to allow construction of an 18 foot round swimming pool subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction be done in conformance with all existing city and state building codes. 2. All construction be done as per the plans submitted and per all setbacks submitted. DECISION ON TFE PETITION OF ROBERT OCCIPINTI FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 29 BARNES ROAD, SALEM PAGE THREE UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED J A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLEpj< APPEAL FR)ol TF.!S IF ANY. SHAU BE M."r PUMWNT TO SECT;C-I! 17 OF THE M1.5s. GENERAL AV.` '-- - . I.- A;;D SHALL C', OAYS ,'011? THEDATE Oi FILING Of Ti::S 'V THE CITY CLER-.i, P, SD7. N THE VAI`,!.V!C[ r.!! SPECIAL FER*.:IT L:I A::'I f; h S:!',[.L NJ, '.:%Z -`FiCT IJ!:;:L F, THE (ERT. F;( 'IF ,El WW LR I!i,,,(. ;F APPEAL h-A., ctf;f ME. :I:S -"D: ESSEX R&ItSiR) OF VEi::S A%';) INDEXED LINDLi, rh'-- NA.'iE O•E THE O-,VNE-, OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O;NNER'S CERFUICATE Of TITLE. BOARD Of APPEAL w... v (gitg ofttlem, { ttssttc�usPtts�a (1 s a7 . 25oxra of �pprA F)` y��V _, . . �fMl,t W' l f' r . DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT OCCHIPINTO FOR VARIANCES AT 29 BARNES RD. (R-1 ) A hearing of this petition was held March 30, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Richard Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. , Fleming, 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is seeking variances from density and setbacks to allow an existing deck and to construct a two car garage in this R-1 zone. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by 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 or 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; s 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. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No support or opposition was presented to the plan; 2. The position of the house and deck was changed by the builder and not the petitioner due to unexpected ledge. 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 subject property but not the district generally; 2. The variance requested can 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. I le DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT OCCHIPINTO FOR VARIANCES FOR 29 BARNES RD. , SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 , with Mr. Bencal in opposition, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. in their letter to this Board regarding this petition be complied with; 2. All construction be done as per all existing city and state building codes; 3. The proposed garage be used for the storage of vehicles, lawn and household items only; 4. Construction of the garage be as per the plans submitted; 5. The existing deck as shown on the plans submitted must not be enlarged. GRANTED ffrchard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK L.>Y� ' APPEAL FROM, THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTVI 17 OF THE M.'r S. GENERAL LA`L'S. CHAPTER SOS. AND SHALL BE FILES ';7PHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE LATE OF FILIC; tyIa GF IHS C-CI£:Ot! IN THE r OFFICE C. THE G,f CLERK. . ':.• . •.:.+... ENCSA:, V..:S. C^:PIER £GZ. SEC-,r.17 11. T4C Vr!;I' c r _ 6iG.::!;I. N.-°,:L. SH411 (: TA::- A::CE 0.5 r-^.IAI :'IT c EFEGT ii:M-, A CE•P'Y OF iH_"EUL!�:I. E- TI;F Ci THE UTi C,LriE '.. GO r.;`.S HA';'E CLA('SEO A::D (J A:'('-6l H OR idAT. IF SL'.;H A% APrEAL H 5 c' ^'.'. FL'E, THAT IT HAS EEEi DIC:::iS$EO CR F RECORD O THE SOUI(i ESSEX RE_!STRY OF OGCS AFIO INDEXED U:"lE+ Thi- !4A:::E Of iH7 OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AHD WED C;. THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE Cr' TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL 2 ss Ph '88 �= Ctq of �$ttlem, ,HnssarhuwAh • ,'; ' 5 �varb of p FFpeaI WT OLERf,.SAL E+l. NESS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BARBARA B. BENT FOR VARIANCES AT 25-252' BARR ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held October 26, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, Nutting and Associate Member 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from side line setback to allow the continued existance of a 10' x 24' raised deck in this R-2 zone. The Variances which have 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No support or opposition was voiced or presented; 2. The deck could only be constructed in this area; 3. Petiitoners relied upon the expertise and assurance of a contractor in building this deck. 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 exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve a substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can 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. i DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BARBARA B. BENT FOR VARIANCES AT 25-252' BARR ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: t . Petitioner comply with the Salem Fire Department regulations relative to smoke and fire safety; 2. All dimensions and construction be as per the plans submitted; 3. A legal building permit for the deck be obtained. GRANTED Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK AFPE�I. FROM THIS DECISION. IF A'!'i, SH•!l P: "A'O AOT To SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. .. LAWS. CHAPTER 808. 4:1;' SF.;'✓ OA6 AFTER THE DATE OF FILING 2'lISION IN THE OFFi:E ii lil_ C.L:^.. " A IT ASS. GENERAL LAWS C. THE VA.RWA CE OR SPECIAL PER, `Eiif. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFT_.7 .•GIVN. 9Eia:iJG THE CERT- H- CRY CLERK THAT 20 DAT:. :• N.. P..FAL Hi.S C- FILED. u • I ' A.N APPEAL HAS BEEN i.°_ li ...5 ..ER: D!S;:ISSED OR DENIED IS SCJTH ESSEX REGISTRI' !:L uc_;r5 AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA61E OF THE OVINER RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEA! FF';' THIS DE^1 1IN. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECT!0:1 0 OF TV,' 6EN'ERAL LAWS. CIIAPIEF. 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS Ai IER THE DATE OF F:..'.1 i;F iH:S C-CIS'ON I14 THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. FJCa_.+. '. .1:.r. GE;;EgS: I�":.i. CIIApi ER 808. SECTION 11. THE VAR IANC F Cf. Ei FEi;i UNTIL A COPY OF THE.DEC!S!(E• ,::.i..'.:'(. Fti:5il1:: :F TPc_ C6.Y CLEF.< THA' 20 DAYS HAVE FLAP ED A.NJ NO 0PL6l W !;ii OR ':.i..i. IF SJCi AN APii AL HAS GE:! FILE. THAT IT HGF BEEN DIS !ISSED i-r. DE:: R,4£Y.i:;EO 6 THE SDJTH ESSEX RELIISTP.Y OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNOE!: THE .';.,..E GF Tr' : LY @Bf:T&c CR- IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • DEC Z 59 f P1 '88 Tity of 'Salem' ttsstttljuse $r �nttrD of Aupeal crrr cLrrr,. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND MACFARLANE FOR VARIANCES FOR 110 BAY VIEW AVENUE (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held December 7, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Nutting, Strout & Assoc- iate LaBrecque. N.otice 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variances from setback and density requirements to allow construction of a deck with an attached spiral staircase 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; 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition; 2. Other abutting homes have similar decks over looking the ocean; 3. Topography of the lot runs down to the water making this the most feasible location for the deck; 4. Deck is necessary for rear egress. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. The requested variances can be granted without substantial detriment • to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND MACFARLANE FOR VARIANCES AT 110 BAY VIEW AVE. , SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All provisions of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to; 2. All construction be in done in accordance with all state and local codes and as per plans submitted; 3. All dimensions be as per plans submitted; 4. A building permit be obtained. GRANTED Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • APPEAL FROM THIS PFI-1100. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE ,IA-3. GENERAL Ii?',-S. C".=.Fi ER SOS. AND SHALL BE FILED P!Ii HIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE 0; MIN" OF THIS DECS!Gi? Iii •� FiCE OF THE CITY CLERK. OR SF'CIA!. PE-':.!T l.fS. CH;'.Pi ER BOB. SECTIGN 11. T4E VARIANCE PJDSiCa .; =. .'-J E;iA- . - DEG!S!0\. `u Er. ,i; ;H Ui?i EFFvCT UNTIL A COPY O; THE ' ALL `%. T'1�uE L: c .7 :..EO.? AL DAYS A':EcL;aSED P:w NO A FiL:;u HAS 3EEt1 DIS:""SSED GR vcil.ED iS i:2 '�4Ai, !F S,:: j iP, APPEAL HAS BE " ff_E. Tr?.i IT li. -i THE SCIi:H ESSE RE-4 OF CEED$ ADD IPIDEXED UNDER THE iidb;E OF i'r.E O'iRIE. OF AMC RB OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • .vtnwq�b ofttlem, ttssttchusetts • ' ;; �' s Poara of �}r}real DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL SPECTOR FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 19-21 BECKET STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held December 7, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Nutting, Strout and Associate Member 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 petitioner, owner of the property, represented by his Attorney John Serafini Sr is requesting Special Permit and Variances for these properties. A Variance from density on both properties and a Special Permit to allow a second unit at 19 Becket St. and to utilize a driveway between both properties for the purpose of access to the rear parking area. This request had been previously denied because the Board of Appeal felt the driveway was too small to be utilized as an access driveway. The petitioner appeared before the Planning Board and requested permission to resubmit his application to the Board of Appeal within the two years from first denial. The planning Baord, after a hearing, voted unanimously that there was a substantial change in the plans and voted to authorize petitioner to file with the Board of /. ' Appeal. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the all the facts voted • unanimously to go forward with the public hearing on the basis that there was a substantial change. 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, lands, 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 neighborhood. 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; ,f DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL SPECTOR FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 19-21 BECKET STREET, SALEM • page two 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioner obtained an easement from his neighbor and was therefore able to provide a driveway 14 feet wide; 2. There will be a total of parking spaces in the rear; 3. There was neighborhood support for the plan. 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 exist which especially affect the subject but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would work a • substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Parcel A easement be maintaiend; 2. Six (6) legal parking spaces with correct turning radius & corridor space be maintained; 3. Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy be obtained; 4. Comply with Fire Department requirements; 5. Construction be done as per plans submitted; 6. Existing tree in the rear be maintained; 7. Exterior finishes to conform with existing finishes. GRANTED Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ,I DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL SPECTOR FOR A VARIANCE AND . SPECIAL PERMIT AT 19-21 BECKET ST. , SALEM page three Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section II, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein, shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such an appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry or Deeds 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 • -� v � N r a N v� r. "Z C= m ap V> • ;�.�•�� W21 Z se PM '88 Ctg of Salem, Anssadjusetto riu# sCITY CLERK.SALEM.MASS.ourb of Appeal AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LIONEL J. MICHAUD (PETITIONER) FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR 9 BELLEAU ROAD (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held March 30, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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, Lionel Michaud, is the owner of the real property which abuts the subject locus. He requests the Board of Appeal to issue an Administrative Ruling relative to the issuance of Building Permits by the Salem Building Inspector allowing certain construction to be performed on the property located at 9 Belleau Road which is owned by Mr. Bruce Bornstein. Mr. Bornstein was present at the hearing and was represented by Attorney John Vallis. Mr. Bornstein, by virtue of four (4) building permits, has altered the existing nonconforming structure at 9 Belleau Road by the addition of a second floor to the existing dwelling and existing garage. Furthermore, Mr. Bornstein has con- structed an addition between the existing dwelling and existing garage. Mr. Bornstein has also added a deck to the existing building. �'l•%) Upon the request of a person withstanding, the Board of Appeal, after hearing, has the authority to make an Administrative Ruling relative to the Building Inspector's issuance of a building permit. If the Board of Appeal finds that a building permit was issued when, in fact, a variance or special permit was required, the Board may revoke the building permit. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The petition of Lionel J. Michaud was supported by a great number of abutters and others who live in the Belleau Road, Desmond Terrace and Rear West Avenue area. Mr. Michaud has standing to request an Administrative Ruling. 2. The new construction at 9 Belleau Road impacts the availability of light and air on the abutting properties. 3. The new construction at 9 Belleau Road causes the new structure at that locus to exceed the allowed lot coverage of thirty percent (30X) , as set forth in Table I of Section VI of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 4. The new construction at 9 Belleau Road causes the new structure at that locus to encroach further into the side yard than the existing nonconforming structure, in violation of the ten (10) foot requirement i ? for sideyards as set forth in Table I of Section VI of the Salem ' • Zoning Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: rs �7'-V AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LIONEL J . MICHAUD (PETITIONER) FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR 9 BELLEAU ROAD, SALEM, page two ` y 1 . Prior to the issuance of the existing building permits, a Special i !. Permit or a Variance was necessary. The Building Inspector exceeded his authority by issuing the building permits for 9 Belleau Road. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to allow the request for an Administrative Ruling and to revoke the building permits currently in effect for the real property at 9 Belleau Road. For the purpose of clarification, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, at the April 20, 1988 hearing, to amend the above paragraph to read as follows: Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to allow the request for an Administrative Ruling and to revoke building permits #1154 and #1231 currently in effect for the real property at 9 Belleau Road. ADMINISTRATIVE RULING ALLOWED BUILDING PERMITS #1154 & #1231 REVOKED ames ff. Fleming, Esq. Viceairman Board of Appeal V\ A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK . . _... FYi.; !HIS OEXI(Hr. I: A;'i. SR1(L CE `.: .DE PUPSUAN! TO SECT;O7 17 OF C!i�PiER E2S. AW. Shat Si n,;L- 1. iii:l 20 DAYS AF--P DATE L:C:D IN THE E:: CC( CLE RF:. . . ....... .._ ._'.• i "'i::'":i? i:.. S--'-! :! 11. TIE V:.�!�'::E 'I- . . . ..., rE?':iI ._.._.... .,ri _t E [.371 SF ihE . .. . _. . ._... ....._ ... I} ,...;,....ES A;,) i ... r._ . .;ER ..C7iIhCA:E OF AIDLE. BOARD OF hri G.: ,w �.r nury Ctg of "ittlem, 'Massadjusetts Noy I q 56 } FILEt • % r PO$Ib of '�PvPal 917Y CLERP DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & DONNA LACH FOR VARIANCES AT 17 BELLEVIEW AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held October 12, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Nutting 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 petitioners, owners of the property, are seeking Variances from lot size and frontage to allow for the installation of an inground swimming pool. The Variances which have 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 or 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition to the petition was raised at the public hearing; 2. The siting of the pool is restricted because of the presence of ledge on the locus. 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 exist which affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the ordinance would work a substantial hardship .on the petitioners; 3. The relief requested can 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. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLAIM & DONNA LACH FOR VARIANCES FOR 17 BELLEVIEW AVE. , SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the the variances requested, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1 . All the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety be met. This includes the installation and inspection of smoke detectors in the petitioner's home at the locus. 2. All construction be as per the plans submitted to the Board of Appeal; 3. All dimensions be as per the plans submitted to the Board of Appeal; 4. The petitioners obtain a building permit for the City of Salem. VARIANCES GRANTED )Cha ames M. Fleming, Esq. irman, Board of Appeal • A COPY OF THIS. DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FR+rhT THIS U81513:`:. C h:':Y. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECT!ON 11 DF THE F.S.:{FM G EN EBAL LA71S. A::. SILL. L GE F:LE� 20 DAYS AFTER 1HE 0•TE OF HURT OF THIS OECISMI 111 THE vFF;('E OF THE CITY CLERE. PL'R4.t:T T^ t:ASSCH.A�'FP. ED& SECi10a N. THE VAEIA^.'.0 OP. ?i"1;' P[� 4RAi.'E! Ii.-REU: SIId,_ N0. CiF_::i U.':TiL A COPT OF HCAI'I";: OF 1H; CP.'i CERA IIiAT .0 CAPS HAVE^ELAPSSD AiID CJ AFi':nL HJS :1..,� 17 i.D. CR W%7. 1! M., A. APPEAL HAS B,'[\ FI:E. IIIAT IT HAS BEEN. O:S::iSSEC GR RCCOh!;ED lid THE S:iBiH CSSE\ RE'.4lSi ii`.' 01 DEEDS AND INDEXED U!J)U( IHL FHE C..::": OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND GOi CD OiG THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE Oi TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • r� mm flit of Clem 41Ja9sz1rhu5rttB r 1p 4 �s poarb of Appeal /14€ Sur- ••" 011Y 4949,WEN,NA61. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SOTIRIOS RORITSIANOS FOR A VARIANCE FOR 119 BOSTON STREET (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 16, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messr. , Bencal, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from front yard setback requirements in other to allow the construction of a canopy in this B-2 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; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve 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 the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Proposed canopy will enhance the property; 2. The proposed canopy will allow the pe.itioner to be competitive and continue business at this location; 3. Abutters appeared in favor of this petition with conditions that appropriate retaining walls be constructed. 4. Canopy cannot be located in any other area on this property. On the basis of the above finding facts, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial i•� • hardship to the petitioner; 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 purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SOTIRIOS KORITSIA.NOS FOR A r VARIANCE FOR 119 BOSTON STREET, SALEM �� page- two`, < C;ua r Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All construction be done as per plans; 2. All construction to conform to all city and state codes; 3. Retaining wall must be built along the Prospect Street side, not lower than six (6) inches below grade; 4. Retaining wall to be built along the entire rear portion of the property to prevent erosion; 5• Both retaining walls must be maintained; 6. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department be adhered to; 7. No outside speaker system to be in operation at any time. GRANTED All %S J ames B. Hacker Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 0.11i'F:1 FRO1.: iH:$ DECIS!0.4. 3 A'.1'. SHAEL DE !:,JE POP.Sc:.BT TO SECTION 17 OF THE CEr•iEP:i LL11S. L•i:,?i[R EN P.;D SH�CL K F;LEJ 4:!T.-;!Y 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF F;iG:J OF 1 C.Ci S!:`. IF THE Oi F!;.E OF THE CIT( CLERK. F:i: ; .. "$. . _.E!?A! _,. ... r,F:,DTE9 :'S. SPE..... Ii. THE VARIANCE CD SPEC@l FFR F'^::-[ ' _ c..:•• - U::i:t F C:?i OF THEDF! EEi,^, --RT. ;.LER[; K CA... H.:.., r'-?SE^ ACk. I:... U. r'- ic SJli; PFEV n EE... F!':.E. IF c:., SEE;. R?_::r: THE ,,. :?H ESTE' P., BY OF D:EE> .ND IA'Ei:EO OF RE:OR 0R IS WU)RDED A!i0 NCI ED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TIT:E. BOARD OF APPEAL Jae :,i;;in s, wl ��L 3+m�ur *147 -3 -csV1881 of �ttlPm, ��u85?ItljuSPttSFI`E# 3 . , Z paurb of WVVLE:RK.SALEM. HA&5. AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT E. GA[TTHIER FOR p VARIANCE AT 126-128-130 BOSTON STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on April 27, 1988 with the following Board members present: Vice Chairman, James M. Fleming; Secretary, Richard A. Bencal; Messrs. , Peter Strout, Edward Luzinski, and Associate Menber Arthur LaBreque. 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. Petitioner, owner of the property is requesting a Variance to allow construction of a duplex and to allow more than one building on one lot at 126, 128, and 130 Boston st. and on the Beaver St. side of the property and from density in this R-2 zone. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially effect 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 could involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; 3 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. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact; 1. Support of the plan was voiced by the ward councillor and one neighbor. 2. No opposition was presented. 3. The property has been in the continual ownership of the petition or his family for many years. 4. The addition of two housing units would be a benefit to the city. 5. Petitioner has ample on site parking available. 6. Division of the property in question, due to topography and location of other buildings is very difficult. 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 exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; .... . . DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT E. GAUTHIER FOR A VARIANCE AT 126-128-130 BOSTON ST. (R-2) Page Two �- 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial "- hardship to the petitioner; 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 purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the petitioner the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of the letter frau the Salem Fire Dept. to this Board relative to this petition be oomplied with; 2. Maintain fifteen (15) parking spaces on site; 3. A Certificate of Occupancy for the new duplex units be obtained. 4. Construction for the duplex be done as per all existing City and State Building Codes. 5. Proper numbering for all buildings be obtained fran the City Assessors office. i GRANTED ,0 4d4iardft. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEII9 FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ;UIF. LE...-�,,; !' r•V°. SHAH C•E r:'ytr P;!BSUANT TO SEi.TION 17 OF TI c1 'v EHERA.LLAN'S. CHAPI EC 30S. A::C SHALL bE I:;':• '': ••.':• OF 1:.iS OECISI014 ! THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. OR PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAVVS. CHAPTER SOS. SEC�hIi 11. THE \'AP.:ANCB_ AR'NG SPETHE CERT- GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OFAND NO JN,CAPPEAL BASBEEN FI CD FICATION OF THE CPiY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HS 9EEfi DIS1!ISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED CORDS RECORD SC sOUJH ESSEX OFTDEEDS ANIDSI'CERT CERTIFICATE OF TTLE.AniE OF THE OIYNI RECOR BOARD OF APPEAL 1�•J£a �;ovn4b Tttu of tilPrit, a65HrhU6jGtV$3 8 33 AhX88 j POarD of Appeal FllEn CITY CLERK. $R' F:.SS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES K . SMITH AND JEAN M. SMITH FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 4 BRENTWOOD AVENUE (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held October 12 , 1988 with the following Board Members present : James Flemming , Chairman ; Messrs . Bencal , Strout , Labrecque and Nutting . 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 Attorney John G . Vallis , are seeking a Special Permit to allow construction of a deck , two-car garage and an enlargement of floor space for living area to be constructed on a nonconforming structure at 4 Brentwood Avenue, which Is located In an R- I District . • 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 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 neighborhood . In more general terms, this Board Is , when reviewing Special Permit Requests , guided by the ruie that a Special Permit Request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit 'wlll promote the public health , safety , convenience and welfare of the City ' s Inhabitants . The Board of Appeal , after hearing the evidence, and after viewing the plans presented , makes the following findings of fact : • I . No opposition to the Petition was presented at the hearing ; 2 . Councillor Leonard O' Leary spoke In support of the petition , indicating that the proposed construction would be an appropriate enhancement for single family use and ,further Indicated strong neighborhood support of this petition ; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES & JEAN SMITH FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 4 BRENTWOOD AVE. , SALEM • 2 3 . A Petition signed by twenty-one neighbors and abutters In favor of the proposed construction was submitted ; and, 4 . Several neighbors and abutters appeared and spoke In favor of the proposed construction . 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 . The proposed construction will promote the convenience and welfare of the City ' s Inhabitants and will be In harmony with the District . 2 . The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the Intent or purpose of the Ordinance . Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit , allowing the construction of a deck , two-car garage and enlargement: of living area to the existing • nonconforming structure, subject to the following conditions : I . All the requirements of the Salem Fire Department , relative to fire and safety , be adhered to . 2 . All construction meet the requirements of the City and State Building Codes . 3 . The exterior appearance be constructed In harmony with the existing structure . 4 . All dimensions and setbacks to be constructed as per the plans submitted . 5 . A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained prior to occupancy . 6 . With the exception of kitchen facilities , all construction to be done as per the plans submitted . 7 . No kitchen facilities to be Installed within the new construction . 8 . The words " in law apartment" In the plan ' s heading be struck off and changed to now read "extension" . SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED ;Z� 21 JOHN NUTTING, MeMbeW APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF AI•IY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE M.N%-S. • GENERAL LA1',S. CBAPTE? 87S, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFER THE DATE OF FIUNS OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. or cE?';IT PURS(,NT TO 1,:'.SS. CENTRAL LFl+S. CHAPTER 808. SECTION Il. THE VARIANCE CR S.. THE_ HF ".,RAP:I ED H_REI'r:, SHALL fi.; 1Ar:E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISiON. BEAR':: FH;ATI)N CF THE Ct'Y CLER, WA123 DAPS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS EEE1'. fl'-c D. OR THAT. IF SO H AN APPEAL HAS BEEN: TILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS:,'.ISSED OR DINIED IS RE—JRDEU I[; THE ? 07H ESSEX R`_GIST7Y OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE PL::dE Gf THE OV;BG OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O'WNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL Jeb N 3 o ti8gif tticm, ttssttcljus�lf 3 03 M '88 • 5 FILE# paurb of ( 7P211 FILE# CITY CLERK,WEM.HAS$, CITY CLERK. SA' E M. MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY J . & NANCY M.B. BURKE FOR VARIANCES FOR 21 BRIDGE ST. (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held January 13, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and Associate Member Dore. 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 are requesting Variances from density, setbacks, use and parking to allow construction of a single family home in this B-4 district. The Variances which have 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 in- volve 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 purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact; 1 . Petitioner's prior home was located in the same general area and, was taken by the State by eminent domain; 2. City Planner and the State Relocation Director are recorded in favor; 3. There was no opposition; 4.. Building which stood at this address was recently destroyed by arson; 5. New house will enhance the area and add to the tax rolls; 6. Proposed single family dwelling will have the least impact on the area,if the property cannot be used for requested use, it will have no value; 7. New dwelling will be placed on the existing footprint. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the • hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: C� 1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY J . & NANCY M.B. BURKE FOR VARIANCES FOR 21 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM page two • 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship; 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Construction be done as per plans submitted; 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department be adhered to; 3. Construction conform to the Mass. State Building Code; 4. A building permit be obtained prior to construction; 5. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. VARIANCES GRANTED James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF 4i1Y. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SCG?ICN 17 ^F THE C,S' Ci6CRAL LAWS. CHAPTER 8;8. Ad10 SHALL BE FILED 'NITHM 20 DAPS AFIER THE LATE OF RLG:S CF THIS DECiS1614 1.17 THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. ••E'.. U ..,. CH:.?FE3 8:3. $E�i l:1„ 11. TI!F . . .'..T:76. $i .:il I:_i -.•:_ FFF,".T U:!1a A 1'O�'P O. TH;. 1., . . . ii.'......• :F 7HE !?'. 'ERS . . .! � .1. CF. i.... IF SJ'h :C: J. -HAT ;1\H .. . iH ESSEX EE;:S F"'i LF DEEDS ANDFiEL Ji THE G'Xa_i OF RECORD OR IS RECGROED AND N0 EC G!; Tii: 01.7NLT'S CERTIFICATE EF TITLE. BOARO OF APPEAL • 903 A Ova's Citu of ttlem, C Httssttchusetts PnttrD of pal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL AND MAUREEN KAPNIS FOR VARIANCE AT LOT 191 BROOKS STREET (R-2) A Bearing on this petition was held December 7, 1988 with the following nonrd Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Nutting, :;trout and Associate LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and ol,hers and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening Ncws in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting variances from lot area, width and side setbacks to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this R-2 district. The Variances which have 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 of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the Dlans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 Support was voiced by neighbors, abutters and others; '• There was some opposition; 1. The topography of the land makes this the most feasible location for a dwelling on this site. I.lir, basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the 1111ard of Appeal concludes as follows: I • :special conditions exist which especially affect the subject Property but not, the district generally; Literal enforcement of the ordinance would work a substantial hardshio on the petitioners; The relief requested can 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. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL AND MAUREEN KAPNIS FOR VARIANCES AT LOT 191 BROOKS STREET, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested subject to the following terms and conditions: 1 . Petitioners comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety; 2. All construction be done in accordance with all state and local codes; 3. All dimensions be as per plans submitted; 4. Proper numbering be obtained from the City Assessor; 5. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. VARIANCES GRANTED �Aohn R. Nutting,'. Secretary, Board of Appeal '. A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK .. ':' f•^.v''.1 ;. "::Iv^_il. I( 4:!Y. SMALL C_ ;.:,\DF. PI:3SI:ANT T:1 SALT','!!! l7 _.._ ..• '.'J ..:....a LO C1Y, t �. :u. • _ :. .. :. if F :-;; .'.'7 A:'FEA!. n.s rd rt_E. IT . ....: . ..... ... . .... .. ii2 PIE "'''"fH ESSEX �.I ...... LF FIE:DRO OR IS RETARDED ANU NUIED ON Inc DYINIR'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. RDARD OF APPEAL •J (9itU of ialem, C1HU95UrljusPt#* 7 2 02 PN '88 '• , 9 Poxrb of �ppeal ►n E� rm�eR.tom.ham. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & CYNTHIA BUONFIGLIO FOR A VARIANCE AT CHAMPLAIN ROAD (RC/R-1) A hearing on this petition was held on June 29, 1988 with the following Board members present, James Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary; Edward Luzinski and Associate Member Arthur Labraque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notice of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General law Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance to permit the division of the existing lot into two lots, Lot A and Lot B, a variance from maximum lot area, lot width, front yard and side yard, from a density requirement from Table A, Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance and a Special Permit under section VIII F and IX D, to permit construction of a single family dwelling as shown on the plan submitted on Lot B which is partially in aRC district and partially in a R-1 district. The variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by 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 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. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section VB10 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 neighborhood. In more general terms this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit request 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. 1 The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following finding of fact: r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN 6 CYNMIA BUONFIGLIO FOR A VARIANCE AT CHAMPLAIN ROAD, SAI M • 1. No opposition was presented to the plan. 2. Letters in support of the plan were presented. 3. Previous opposition to the plan has been appeased. 4. Approval, with proper safeguards, has been gained frau the Salem Conservation Cartnission. On the basis of the above finding of fact, and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which affect the lot and do not generally affect the district. 2. Literal enforcement of the zoning Ordinance would work a substantial hardship upon the petitioner. 3. The variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating fran the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the petition , the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: • 1. All construction be done as per all existing city and state building codes. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be adhered to. 3. Proper street numbering be obtained fran the city Assessors office. 4. All set backs and lot sizes be as per the plans submitted. 5. All conditions of the Salem Conservation Commission regarding this petition shall be included as part of this decision. 6. Relief is granted subject to form A approval from the Salem Planning Board as to the parcel. 7. All terms of the agreement submitted between petitioner and abutters be adhered to. GRANTED / chard A. Ben 1, vice ChairnSan A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FIT WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK . .'!'1-. . I" ,'Y. Nkll— EE .:OC P'!R' ; ',. ,'dT TO SECTMH 17 OF • Ci:! ... ....- _: DAPS A'r?EP, THE L':,'E. LF F .: OF i _ - :ITY Ci!;::. Ar P OF .. :F ._ .. . ..._. 1;:.. Ii __... .._.... ..d . _ ,'.SEC' C: L... . .. !_-_.. .._ .. LF GEEdS ..... ...LEn`_0 it;i CE:! ::iE �; ..IL CT .. .. _NNER OF RECORD OR IS ELCVItOED AND Ni:iED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF MILE. 1 `;►•"'°'`�� Ali � (�ifv of �ttlem, �ussttcfjusPffs f ; s •z ,.9 �nxrD II{ �} ettl =?rD AK.'SALEM.MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALFRED & JEANNINE BERUBE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 16 CHANDLER ROAD (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held March 30, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a special permit to extend nonconforming side setbacks to allow construction of a second floor addition in this R-1 district. 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 conditoins 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 neighborhood. 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 Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition; 2. Proposed extension would be in keeping with the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed second floor addition will be in harmony with the neighborhood; 2. The Special Permit requested can 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.' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALFRED & JEANNINE BERUBE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 16 CHANDLER ROAD, SALEM page two •: " Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . A building permit be obtained; 2. All requirements of the .Salem Fire Dept. be adhered to; 3. Construction be done as per plans submitted; 4. A certificate of occupancy b obtained GRANTED Peter Strou , Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRO; TH:3 :. ISIY,i, I? A1Ci. £Eiin?A! LASHALL BE Mf DE POP.SJAiJT TO SECTIOi:' 17 OF THE ',:5. C=x.7:;5 Pig. A,? SHALL '3c i.!C', f7:7-PIN £0 CA'iS Ar—UR THE C;JE O i THE OFFG;E OF TIDE CJTY CLEfi .., FJ::SP:,T TO !.:SSS. CE..ERAL U:. rH�n.pn d. ..�....:; I1. 711E hr ( '!(:FEU HE.n.E.i:. _yrL Ai .._ ' I I- cFi tLi U::TIL A C!'?P OE THE' '_i..._ ... CLER( :F.6:. :} !;:;:5 .. •n: la. -• � CR THAT. if S:Ci' ". rPYiAL If:; B ' F . . I RECCrtCED IN THE S..:H ESSEX FE P.iO, ,,EPS IAIIU I:;,E CEIUI(,5,;�. fR V 1 I: OF RECORD OR IS P.EC;:RDEU AND NOTED ON INE OWNER'S CERFIFICATE OF TITLE,^ BOARD OF APPEAL 3•�a�� TT mm �r Y1Tt1 OI ~c�1PITT, C11c�55c�t�LI5PIt8 s '•_ `• °� 9 �nttrD of �c,}r�rettl / •�OtMn'l[�`r YK V 2 43 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL N. & mARIE BUONFIGLIO FOR P4LWLANCE AT LOT 214 ON CHERRY HILL AVENUE (R-1 ) CITY CLARX'tK A hearing on this petition was held on June 29, 1988 with the following Boara Manbers present, James Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Vice-Chairrran; John Nutting, Secretary; Edward Luzinski and Associate Manber Arthur LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notice were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variances to add parcel A to lot 2 and from rear setback to allow construction of a deck at Lot 214 on Cherry Hill Avenue in this R-1 zone. 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 do not generally affect other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; • b. a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, inancial or otherwise to the to the petitioner; and c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the distric= or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal , after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, -akes the following finding of fact: 1 . No opposition was presented to the plan. 2. Support of the plan was voiced and letters were submitted. 3. The parcel of land to be transfered slopes down to the present owners property. 4. The proposed deck will add to the enjo}imnt and comfort of the property in question. On the basis of the above findina_s of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which affect the premesis which do not • generally affect the district. 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve a substantial hardship upon the petitioner. 3. The variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public goad and without substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF P.SiJL ::. & MARIE 3UO.^.FIC_10 FDR A VARIA.k.E, AT LOT 214 ON CHERRY HILL S:tii. l PAGE TWO • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal VOLed 'unani?ousiv 5-0 to c_rant the relief requested subject to the following conaitions: 1. All conditions of the Salem Fire ! eot. relative to smoke and fire Fire Safetv be adhered to. 2. Proper street numbering for lot 21" be obtained from the Salem Citv Assessors. 3. All construction be done as per t-he plans su n—Litted and as per all existing City and State Coles. 4. All set backs be as per the plans submitted. GRANTED Ri hard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK „rnr4l QFC:' TP.i; CE' C . . "!l'_I. _: •^r ?'lrc..`:T TO SEG...: 17 CF THE k: :. EATL OF OF RECORD OR iS ricWRd':U 0..:U �•-•-+ BOARD OF APPE4E • ` 1 30 Co. (lZitg of ulrm, C4assar4nertts Poarb of �Fpeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN DOUROUDIS FOR A VARIANCE AT 20 CIRCLE HILL ROAD (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held on June 29, 1988 with the following Board Members, James M. Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. Richard Bencal, John Nutting, Edward Luzinski, and Associate Member Arthur LaBracque. 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 the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner, the owner of the property is seeking a Variance from rear setback to allow for the construction of a one (1 ) story addition at the locus. The property is located in an R-1 zone. 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 do not generally affect other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would • in volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner; and 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. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following finding of fact: 1. No opposition to the petition was presented at the hearing. 2. ward Four Councillor Leonard O'Leary sent a letter in support of the plan. 3. The proposed addition is in harmony with the existing 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 exist which affect the premesis which do not generally affect the district. 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve a substantial hardship upon the petitioner. 1 3. The variances requested can be granted without substantial detriment "�•� to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN DOUROUDIS FOR A VARIANCE AT ',•� 20 CIRCLE HILL ROAD (R-1 ) SALEM Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the ' relief requested subject to the following conditions: 1. That the exterior finishes of the addition be in harmony wi the exterior finishes of the existing building. 2. That all construction conform to the requirements of the Massachusetts Building Code, and that the petitioner obtain the necessary building permit. 3. That all construction be done as per the plans submitted to the Board of Appeals. 4. That a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained prior to Occupancy of the addition. VARIANCE GRANTED James M. Fleming, Esq,/ 11 ;:•'Chairman, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK O � _ lit t ^ W a � k M Del 13 3 07 FILE f, (l�itg of ttlem, Ansonr4usetlfr 19 3 07 FH 3?_ �1 FILE < F GITYCI.LFY. �.'.; p08Ia QI A1f211 • � s CITY CLERK.,SAL. FA., MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANK J. PIERCE FOR VARIANCES AT 75 COLUMBUS AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held on October 12, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman.; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary; Peter Strout and Associate Member Arthur 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is seeking Variances from use, density, setbacks and parking to allow construction of an addition to be used as a fourth unit in this R-1 . The Variances which have 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Support of the plan was voiced by the Ward Councillor as well as many neighbors, abutters and others; 2. The addition of this unit would allow the petitioners family to be together; 3. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. 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 exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANK J . PIERCE FOR VARIANCE AT 75 COLUMBUS AVE. , SALEM page two • 3. The rlief requested can be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose ofthe Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner.must comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety; 2. All construction be done as per all existing City and State Building Codes and with a legal Building Permit; 3• A Certificate of Occupancy for .the fourth unit be obtained; 4. All exterior finishes of the addition are to be in harmony with the existing finishes of the present building 5. All construction is to be done as per the plans submitted. VARIANCES GRANTED Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman • 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 MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSWN'T TO !LASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT CRANIED HEREIN, SHALL NUT TARE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. BEARING THE CERT IICA.T!ON OF THE Cr.-)* CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. OR THAI. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS 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 • ( itg of ttlem, C ussttcljusef 18 10 ss AN '88 • :1. y MW PoArb of (P�p}re' 91TY QLEP.K. SRLCH.MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SHETLAND TRUST FOR EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF VARIANCES AT 29 CONGRESS STREET ( I ) A hearing on this petition was held on November 9, 1988, with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, , Chairman; Messrs. Peter Strout, John Nutting, Arthur LaBrecque and Peter Dore . Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evenina News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A . The petitioner, The Shetland Trust, also }mown and sometimes referred to as Shetland Properties, is requesting a • six month extension, running until May 22 , 1989, of the variance decision originally granted to Shetland by vote of the Board on November 23 , 1987 which allowed the construction of a structured parking garage; further, the petitioner is requesting a modification of that original decision which will allow construction at the garage in accord with a revised set of building pians as submitted to and reviewed by the Board . The Extension of the original variances may be granted in the discretion of the Board pursuant to the requirements and provisions of Chapter 40A Section 10; further, the Board may grant the Modification upon findings by the Board that : a . special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which do not generally affect other lands , buildings and structures in the same district; • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SHETLAND TRUST FOR EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF VARIANCES AT 29 CONGRESS STREET, SALEM Page 2 • b. a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner; and C . desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantial derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance . At the hearing Attorney William F. Quinn, representing the petitioner, described delays in the construction as originally scheduled as a result of several factors, including changing Parking needs at Shetland , the redesign of the garage by a successor architect, and delays in obtaining approval of a federal UDAG Loan which was sponsored by the City to assist • Shetland in constructing the garage . Mr. Quinn, together with the project architect and the project construction manager reviewed the revised plans with the Board. They described the changes, which include an increase in the height of the garage from two levels above grade to three levels above grade, for an overall height of about 30 feet, an increase in the number of parking spaces in the garage to a total of 785 spaces, and other minor design changes. Mr. Quinn and the architect represented to the Board that the front yard setback from Pingree Street would remain 15 feet as allowed in the original variance, and that the lot coverage would be slightly less than as originally varied, because the footprint of the garage had been decreased. Mr. Quinn further represented to the Board that the petitioner would construct in complete conformity with the landscaping and other conditions required under the original variance decision. • DECISION ON THE 1'ET1T1ON OF THE SHETLAND TRUST FOR EXTENSION AND !' MODIFICATION OF VARIANCES AT 29 CONGRESS STREET, SALEM Page 3 • Several residents of Pingree Street attended the hearing asked questions, and spoke in favor of the application; no one appeared or spoke in opposition to the application. Based upon the materials and presentation made to it, the Board found that the facts, the special conditions and the conclusions recited in original the Board Decision granted on November 23, 1987, still exist, that the extension and modification can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, and that the parking garage would significantly contribute to relief of the conaested on-street parking situation in the neighborhood . Therefore, the Board voted unanimously to grant the • extension of the variance decision for six months, until May 22 , 1989, and to modify the decision to incorporate and allow construction in conformity with the plans prepared by Engineers Design Group, Inc . , subject to the following conditions : 1 . all of the six enumerated conditions recited in the original November 23 , 1987 Decision which are as follows : a. that the petitioner obtain a Site Plan Special Permit from the Planning Board, a building permit and all other required permits; b. that the structure comply with all pertinent fire codes and regulations; C . that all lighting fixtures be directed downward and inward from the perimeter so as to minimize affecting • the neighborhood; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SHETLAND TRUST FOR EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF VARIANCES AT 29 CONGRESS STREET, SALEM Page 4 • d. structure be located no closer than fifteen ( 15 ) feet to the lot line; e: existing green space be maintained and expanded as shown on the plans and be installed as part of the construction of the first phase of the structure, all under the direction of the City Planner; and f. a Certificate of Occupancy be issued; 2 . the petitioner shall post signage on its property and will cooperate with the neighbors and municipal officials to discourage heavy truer, traffic along Pingree Street; 3 . that construction activities be conducted only during hours • allowed by municipal ordinance, and in accordance with all conditions adopted by the Salem Planning Board in its Amended Special Permit Decision granted to the petitioner on September 8, 1988 . EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION GRANTED. James Fleming, Chai an A copy of this Decision has been filed with the Planning Board and the City Clerk. WP AL FR3:: THS OTMION. IF .ASY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE 4AE. GENERAL LA.':S CHAPTER Sc3. AND SHALL 3E FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS p(C!c;pr, IN THE OFFICE CF THE CITY CLERK. PUi:S:o':T TO :'.:4C$. CE':ERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT HEGE� .. SHILL NOT TME EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. BEARING THE CERT. • FI;.Sl;::: CF .HE :i.Y CLERY.. THAT 20 DAPS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. OR iii'.:. IF S2-.' A:: APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS Rc-' ' :2�) IN TOE SZ 7H ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS 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 �..CO�OR4 --'' Ctu of "ittlem, 'Mttssar4us 0 • i ' Paurb of }r}�ettl INNS AMENDED AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H 6 R REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES AND A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 95-101 CONGRESS ST. (B-1) A hearing on this petition was held on April 27, 1988 with the following Board members present: James M. Fleming, Vice Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Secretary Messrs. , Edward Luzinski, Peter Strout and Associate Member Arthur Iabreque. 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. Petitioner, owner of the property is requesting all necessary variance and a special permit under Section VIII D in order to permit extention of a non- conforming structure in order to construct sixteen (16) residential units as per the plans submitted in this B-1 Zone. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circimstances 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. 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 lots, land, structures, and used, provided however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental that the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. 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 Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Letters of Support from the city planner and ward councillor. 2. No opposition to the plan was presented. 3. The plan, if granted, would increase the affordable housing stock in the city. J DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H & R REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES AND A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 95-101 CONGRESS ST. (B-1 ) .r te Page Two 4. The change from a market and laundremat would generate less vehicular • traffic in the area. 5. The area is surrounded predominately by multi family dwellings. 6. Business at small grocery stores such as the one presently on site is decreasing due to larger chain stores. 7. No change in the size of the existing building other than upward is anticipated. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concluded as follows: 1. The relief requested may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating frau the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. Special conditions exist which especially affect the.subject property but not the district generally; 4. The Special Permit requested will promote the convenience and welfare �4•( of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant all necessary variances, specifically, but not limited to: 1. Variance from minin n lot area. 2. Variance from minimum lot size to 13,604 sq. ft. +. 3. Variance from minimum lot coverage to 40.4€. 4. Variance from minimum set back with zero rear yard depth and zero side yard on the north side of the property. 5. Variance frau minimum Height to a maximum of 38 ft. Included in the 5-0 vote to grant was the request for the Special Permit to allow the extension of a non-conforming structure as to height. These Variances and Special Permit are granted by the Board subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of the letter from the Salem Fire Dept. to this Board relative to this petition be complied with. 2. Maintain twenty seven (27) parking spaces on site. 3. All construction be done as per the plans submitted and per all existing City and State Building Codes. L DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H & R REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES AND A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 95-101 CONGRESS ST. (B_1 ) Page Three •,;:� 4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. _I GRANTED Ttil tTard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FIT•tin WITH/THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MADS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMil GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. BEARINS THE CERT FICATION OF THE C'Y CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED FANO NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THA, IT HAS BEEN OIS:JSSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RE::ISTRY OF '4EU3 AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME GF THE CYi81:5 OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NUiLD ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. C �y ">. ,§ BOARD OF APPEAL ( ct of ulcm, � ussucllusctts ka 6 8 .0 g ,& ,•t "J,. Ottra of 4prltl FILE CITY CLERK.SkLCK.MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RONALD & BARBARA PELLETIER FOR A VARIANCE AT 6 COTTAGE STREET (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held April 20, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming and Associate Member 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance from rear setback requirements to allow construction of a deck around a pool. Property is located in an 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; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would f involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; i 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. The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition; 2. There is no other area in the yard what the pool could be located or moved and allowing the deck to that the petitioner can maintain the pool will allow them the quiet enjoyment of their land. 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 exist which affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve a substantial hardship on the petitioners; 3. The Variance requested can be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance and without substantial detriment to the public good. 1; ��_• L DECISION O; THE PET.-_,.,. OF ❑NALD & EARBARA PELLEUER FOR A VARIANCE AT 6 C077A'GE MEET, SALE!: page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the • ' Variance requested on condition the petitioners obtain a Certificate of Compliance from the Salem Fire Department. GRANTED (James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK AMAL .FR32 TH!S i1i: r A. 0 40. SMALL BE .../.:E PROAM TG SEEN U OF iii: .. GENE70 LAM LEAFT a M AND SHA,, 0: ..Li: .. 50 M DAYS AME THE DME C _, .E Ci f;::!.^....�. F: 1H O.T;:,- C! THE CM CLERK. Ail iR N:J. !F SB: R A. dPPE4' HAS i`__:: FIE. 7N,.;., IF H.,i ySL_;f CIS%:$SED ::i i=::. IJ 6:L. NM0 IN THE K H ESSU RE_IM OF DEM A::) INDEXED E:?E' THE ME X THE 040E OF P,ECCRO OR IS REMRDED AND NO:ED OR THE UANER'S CERMATE OF TITLE. [�� BOARD OF APPEAL +I•, J • ,3. (gTtu of Salem, 'Mttssarljusetts • � 3 •i s PnxrD of (4}re:il 40Mnt DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETRO & ANASTASIA THEOPHILOPOULOS FOR VARIANCES AT 44 CROWDIS ST. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held October 12, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Nutting 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are seeking variances to allow an existing deck in this R-1 district. The Variances which have 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 purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Minimal neighborhood opposition was voiced; 2. The lot in question is long and narrow; 3. The decks serve as a means of egress; 4. The area covered by the deck has much ledge. 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 . The property is unique due to the size of the lot; 2. The conditions described affect the land in question but do not affect the district in general; 3. The requested Variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETRO & ANASTASIA THEOPHILOPOULOS FOR VARIANCES AT 44 CROWDIS ST. , SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner obtain a legal building permit for the deck; 2. No further construction be done to the deck; 3. All dimensions and construction be as per the plans submitted; 4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained; 5. Proper numbering for the property be obtained from the Salem City Assessor. GRANTED R� hard A. Bencal, V C e Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPE41 Fn,'-•i THIS OE^.ISION• If ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MAK C"'-�^= ''-^•• - .? 878• AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FIGfi; • GF ''i E `! t THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. r'T.L LAWS. CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER":T fRA L i`:)T TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, BEARING THE CQ.T. 1''•"' LERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED .AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. C.R al .i. G c;, A!. -,:,'EAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED 1:: THE S:C.H ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE 0::8ER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL ., T C= s- r\4 L. O 4• '1- j crC ,•�`°'°^4 �1 Nei 31 3 i4 PM '88 Clu,� of 'Salem, C' assar4usetts FILE# 4 � <`•' S Pourb of c4peal yT1r 016RR.tbiEN. 44bi 7��pr DDCISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD & JOANNE CHAP= FOR A VARIANCE AT 14 DEARBORN STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on Mav 18, 1988 with the following Board Members present, James B. Hacker, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Secretary; Edward Luzinski; Peter Strout and James Fleming. 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. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from lot coverage to allow an in-ground pool in the R-2 zone. 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 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Support of the plan was voiced by abutters and others. 2. The petitioner could not locate the pool in any other location. 3. All other set back requirements are met. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which affect the lot involved but do not generally affect other lots in the same district; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve a substantial hardship on the petitioners; 3. The Variance requested can be granted without nullifying or F3 substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the or the purpose of the Ordinance and without substantial detriment • to the public good. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD & JOANNE CHAP= FOR A VARIANCE AT 14 DEARBORN STREET, SALEM • Page Two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0, in favor of granting the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction be done as per the plans submitted. 2. All dimensions and setbacks be as per the plans submitted. 3. A legal building permit be obtained for the pool. GRANTED 41.0 Rychard J. Beal, Secretarly r A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK "PPF'; M:! TL'!S DECISMN. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURS!!P::T• T" ....... ... ... .... . • . .. .,. 0:APi 2 908. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN L. . 'i TIIE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. L',iV . CI:`.P'i ER FOS. SECTION .. ._ t; •I i-.:-E :Fi{CF Gi:f!L A COPY OF .. .. ... 20 Cr'... KA - ELAPSED CF.EV FILE. ,HAI IT HA1 .. . :-'3 : tiE MY OF DEEDS AND „__,.;WLU ANU WGTED ON THE OWNER'S CER,.r..... bU69L. OF APPEAL • of ,15ttlrm, fflassarimspf s ? ' Poarb of 4pzal JuL 2 43 JW '88 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GLENN E. & SANDRA J. SOUCY FOR A FILE4 SPECIAL PERMIT AT 40 DERBY STREET (R-2) CITY tL6i1R. 7�q�F;, AA66: A hearing on this petition was held on June 29, 1988 with the following Board Members present, James Flaming, Chairman, Richard A. Bencall, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary; Edward Luzinski and Associate Member Arthur TaBreque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notice of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Petitioners, owners of the property, request a Special Permit from set back requirements and lot coverage to allow construction of a deck and swimming pool in this R-2 Zone. 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 neighborhood. 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 Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and viewing the plans make the following finding of fact: 1. The deck and pool have already been built without legal permits for either one. 2. The deck and pool as they exist now are a hardship on the neighbors, abutters and others. 3. The deck, as now constructed is only 27 inches from the property line. 4. The pool, as now constructed is only 16 inches from the property line. 5. Because of the closeness to the rear lot line the quality of life for the abutters, directly behind the property, has been adversely affected. • 6. The property in question is in a Historic District and no certificate or approvals have been obtained for the Salem Historical Commission. 7. The property in question is small, only approximately 1900 square feet. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GLENN E. s SANDRA J. SOWY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 40 DERBY SPREET, SALEM • PAGE TWO 8. Neighbors, abutters and others either spoke in opposition or sent correspondence in opposition. 9. A petition, signed by abutters and others, was presented in favor, also, some of these same persons spoke in favor. 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. The relief requested would be substantially more detrimental to the public good than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 3 in favor (Messers. Fleming, Nutting, and Labreque) and 2 opposed (Messers. Bencal and Luzinski) . Due to the failure of the petitioner to have 4 votes in favor the petition is denied. DENIED • tichard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FIT WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK T7 ° . .. : n OF rn: ,•s. _. t'... OF REC."nd UR IS R.:dR7EU A.;7 i.di.•1 •.it (:.,:.CRS CERT{iICAT.E U TILE. BOARD OF APPEAL • �FikE.# �/ OLRRR. IIALEM.• MAS . y Ctg of *Iem, AussarhusettkI 18 II ai •� 3? FILE# CITY CLEBY.. � LF.M. MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DERBY STUDIOS PHOTOGRAPHY INC. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 222-224 DERBY STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on October 12, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman, Messrs. , Bencal, Nutting, 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 the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. The petitioners, represented by Attorney Chris Durcas, are seeking a Special Permit to change the existing use at the locus from an Art Studio to a Photo Studio. Teh property is located in an R-2 district. The provision of the Salon 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 neighborhood. 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 granting of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The new use will be less intense that the present use. 2. The proposed use will be open to the public by appointment only. 3. The new use will not be detrimental to the existing 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. The proposed addition will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants: 2. The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0 to grant the DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DERBY STUDIOS PHOTOGRAPHY INC, FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 222-224 DERBY STREI•T, SALEM PAGE TWO • Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. All the requireTrents of the Salem Fire Department, relative to Fire Department, be adhered to 2. All renovation of the property conform to the provisions of the Massachusetts State Building Code, including the issuance of a building permit by the Building Inspector. 3. Any change in the facade of the property be approved by the Design Review Board and the Salem Historical Commission. SPECIAL PERMIT GRA= _i s M. Flemming, ESQ. Chairman, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FIT fI) WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE AIAzS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING • OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MIASS. GENERAL UV;S. CHAPTER 808. SECTION ll. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANiED HEREIN. SHALL NCT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. BEARIN- THE CERT- FICATION OF THE CGY CLERri THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS 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 • rJ fO.Yi �1tv of : a1em, �ss��lTus�tts MIT 16 3 02 fM '68 i C rILE �ourb of ral �� CITY CLERK.£�E.' . . ;:,tSS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CRAIG DEROIN, TR. FOR VARIANCES FOR 8 ESSEX, STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held April 27, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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. Petitioner, Trustee of the 8 & 8 Rear Trust, owner of the property, is requesting the following Variances: Lot area, area per dwelling unit, width, lot coverage, front, side, rear setbacks and parking to allow the property at 8 Essex Street to be divided into two lots. Property is located in an R-2 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; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- • volve 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 The b'u ldi nrs on this lot have e}:is-,ed there Since '0c.; ; 2. There was no opposition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can 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. w�� a DFU FOR O' ESSEX S . , Sr page two Therefore, the Zoning roard of Appeal toted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the ' Variances requested on condition the parcel be divided as shown on plans. GRANTED ames B. Hacke , Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK A"EAL MN THIS i.ECISIPT r ANY. SHALL BE 7;.JE PORSL'AYT TO SECTI^iT 17 CF THE F:.... . CH:,F':'F' EA. AND SKU : .❑Si: !,!':9, ; 20 DAY„ AFTER i... " OW ill.:Ao s;E OF T.Y.[ rM i'_E R.,. ... . . . .. .. .:4:.. h Fri.._, ONM k (to 7 THE .... R .,, ... ANA: 05 . REi._n.A) !:; THE SATh ESSEX REii„i R': OF CEES AD INKED UNNA ;ii; "z. G Ti:. OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND USED Ci( THE ONNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL ^•! ti 1 ` (Iriit ofttlem, � ttssttthu�Ptts S pourb of �"eaf SA:.fli.�iatC. �DI41i{ DECISION ON THE REMANDED PETITION OF ESSEX HOUSE ASSOCIATED INC. FOR A VARIANCE AT 289-293 ESSEX STREET (B-5) A hearing on this renanded petition was held on June 15, 1988 with the following Board Members present; James M. Fleming, Chairman, Messrs. Richard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman,John R. Nutting, Secretary, Edward Luzinski, and Peter Strout. Notice of the original hearing, held on January 13, 1988, was sent to abutters and others, and notices of the original hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. The petitioners, represented by attorney Kenneth Lindaur, are the owners of the subject property, and are requesting a variance from parking and density to allow for the increase of four (4 ) residential units for the new construction at 289-293 Essex Street. The locus is situated in a B-5 zone. At the original hearing on Jamuary 13, 1988, the petition was denied, and a Decision to that effect was filed with the City Clerk. The petitioners properly appealed this Decision to the Superior Court, sitting in Essex County. That Court remanded the Decision back to the Board of Appeals for further consideration. • 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of evidence presented, an after viewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: 1. The change from the approved commercial space to the proposed residential space is appropriate for the locus; 2. The requested Variance was supported by the city planner; 3. There was community support for the petition. • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearinq, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows; 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect this property DECISION ON THE REMkNDED PETITION OF ESSEX HOUSE ASSOCIATED INC. FOR A VARIANCE AT 289-293 ESSEX STREET, SALEM • PAGE 74O and not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating frcm the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted, 4-1 (Mr. Nutting opposed) to grant grant the relief requested in the remanded petition, subject to the following conditions: 1'. that the mode of vehicular access be approved by the City Planner. 2. that thirtv-one (31) parking spaces be maintained on site. 3. that the number of affordable living units remain in conformity with the terms of the applicable Community Development Action Grant. 4. that a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained prior to occupancy. 5. that automatic Broke detectors be installed throughout the newly • constructed building. 6. that proper numbering be obtained from the City Assessor's Office. 7. that all the applicable requirements of the Salem Fire Department, relative to fire safety, be adhered to. 8. that all construction be done as per the plans submitted to the Board of Appeals. 9. that the petitioners cooperate with the City on the improvement of off-street parking facilities in the area, including the potential tiering of the Sewall Street Lot. 10. that the petitioners dismiss its lawsuit filed as a result of the Boards original Decision, in a form approved by the City Solicitor. VARIANCE GRANTED ames M. Fleming, Esq. Chairman, Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK TC cry"" 17 i-_ T''' - •� QPPE�:i rTi�: .L•: i.:... ..... ... .. . . .. r... TP; C; C,. n.,. .. i •,r.r.. .T (gitg of "ittlem, ttssttcljusetts � '� • 'z,o •9 Poarb of A"eal Lt DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ESSEX HOUSE ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR A VARIANCE AT 289-293 ESSEX ST. (B-5) A hearing on this petition was held January 13, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, 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 petitioners, represented by Attorney Kenneth Lindauer, are the owners of the subject property, and are requesting a Variance from parking and density to allow for the increase of four (4) residential units for the new construction at 289-293 Essex Street. The locus is situated in a B-5 zone. 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; r 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The plans presented at the present hearing differ substantially from the plans approved for the original Variance at the locus; 2. The change from the approved commercial space to the proposed residential space is not appropriate for the locus; 3. The requested Variance was supported by the City Planner; 4. There was community support for the petition. 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 this property and not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 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. i DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ESSEX HOUSE ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR A VARAINCE AT 289-293 ESSEX STREET, SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3-2 against the granting of the requested Variance. Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski and Strout voted in favor of the Varaince, Messrs. , Bencal and Hacker voted against the granting of the Variance. Since the petition failed to gain four (4) affirmative votes, the Variance is denied. DENIED / ames M. Fleming, Esq. , VChairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK :'EAL FRii;! THIS `E.IISIC !i grll'. SHALL BE 1!ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE CFNEPAL LAi'JS. LHAP/-'n 8J. AND SHALL DE F; EE' li'i?IN 20 DAPS Ai7ER iH: OF THIS DECISION I:: THE OFFICE OF THE Cll' CLERK. DATE Oi P°S. : :.i: CP.APPrR 80Z. S:::i'3 II. THE c c ;LL N::? iA6E EfFZfT UNTil. A COPY Or THE''t i.. ; FILATI.'F: 8F THE C':il LLERn 'ir;!: DA S H:aF EL,:'a C� .4-.) N:: 4:r;:.Al H,�,; .., OR iil;'.i. IF S'!:;!; At; APPEAL H=S B,[•; r REC;^;:_U FKE. 'fH7v li ;7, SE_.'7 GL•: :i:ia0 :'R L' . IN THE RECORDED ESS. RE'.ISTRY OF is i:ii:5 AND !NDE.?ED UNf.E?. IIIf !iAL:E LF iH_ OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • • /.aa.myb i 1 a Nov b 3 01 f li b .: altu of '*Iem, Aassachusetts plyr... b' • 3" Poarb of Appeal pbm�:d DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STANLEY & THERESA BEKERITIS FOR VARIANCES AT 27 FAIRVIEW ROAD (R-1 ) A hearing on this petitionw as held October 26, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, Nutting and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting variances to allow construction of a sunroom and deck on the side and rear of the property which is located in an R-1 district. The Variances which have 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition; 2. There was neighborhood support; 3. It would not be feasible to locate the sunroom and deck in any other location. 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 exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can 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. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STANLEY & THERESA BEKERITIS FOR VARIANCES FOR 27 FAIRVIEW ROAD, SALEM page two Therefore the the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety, be adhered to; 2. Construct be done as per plans submitted; 3. The exterior of sunroom be in harmony with the neighborhood; 4. All dimensions be as per plans submitted. GRANTED John R. Nutting, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK - ,• ". :.. . s .n. OECIS ."' I!: 'ilio :2 F;:.' Cr THE CIT° Cii2:i. L ACr:Pi THE C:ER: :i:':' ''.` ia�T M.iI L_l:iviAFi'EA! Hl.; !' :+ . :.` ;..•:h CF: APPu4.! HAS E=;n; FILE. TH,! IF HAS I" LUN GIS;:iSSED GR D ICC7 IS RCC07i!:Eii IC TI!E S34TH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DUOS AND INDEXED UCOEri THE :,A;,:E OF THE Ml ::-:. OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OYlRER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • { e (14 Ctg of ttlem, � ttssttchusetts OCT I I 302 PM 'B8 i .. FILO# 3" 4 Poarb of veal CITY CLERK.SAL '.,A tiF55. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND & MARGARET FARMER, JR. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 FLINT STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held September 14, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Lutinski, Nutting 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side and rear setbacks to allow construction of a two story porch in this R-2 district. 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 non- conforming 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 neighborhood. 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 Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition; 2. Because of the size of the back yard, the porches are very much needed to service both the first and second floors. 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 . The relief requested can 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; 2. The granting of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. • r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND & MARGARET FARMER, JR. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 FLINT ST. , SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department be adhered to; 2. A Building Permit be obtained; 3. No staircase be construction to connect the two porches; 4. Exterior finishes to conform with existing building; 5. Construction be done as per plans submitted. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED i Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPGS P::`S•:4:T TO, SEC-iO:: 17 OF THE •'L:`l. lEi(:E. .-.... .: .. .. . ..... _r .. . f.'F ._• .. .. _ `vnl'� A,i E- iii_ .,.7E OF IILt6.. OF RECORD OR is RE,.RUED A:.D UI ;EO 0;; In' Li.i;ER'� CERN;;�F3E Jr iii LE. BOARD OF APPEAL • 10 53 Am '88 .. : . (Eitu of ttlem, Httssttdjuee s paurb of '4pral CITY CLERK SnLEH.Hass, DE)CISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL J. & DIANE RHATIGAN FOR A VARIANCE AT 30-32 FOREST AVENUE (R-2) - A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary, Peter Strout and Edward Luzinski. Notice of the meeting was sent to abutters and others and notices were properly published in the Salon Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is seeking a variance fran lot area and width to allow construction of a one family dwelling in this R-2 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; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance o 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. The Board of Appeal after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans makes the following finding of fact: 1. The neighborhood approval vas voiced. 2. The new structure would be in keeping with the surrounding area. 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. The relief requested can be granted without creating a substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating fron or nullifying the intent or purpose of the Ordinance; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve ^ 'T~� substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect ` the subject property but do not affect the district generally • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL, J. b DIANE PHATIGAN FOR A VARIANCE AT 30-32 FOREST AVENUE, SALEM PAGE TWO F,3•yy l• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. A Building Permit be obtained. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department be adhered to; 3. That the house to be constructed be owner occupied and that the 2 family remain a 2 family as long as it is awned by the Ratigans if conveyed, it must remain in owner occupied cituation. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. 5. Proper numbering for all buildings be obtained from the City Assessors office. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED i Peter Strout, Member `•" A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AN.) THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FWA THIS DECISION. F ANY. SHALL BE RADE PURSUANT TO SECTION !7 OF THE A:476, GENERAL CHAPiE3 „;[, :.:I:: SH=.;L .°'_ FNED 'i P.7"Iq 20 DAYS AFTER THE PATE OF FILING OF THF, !r':S ".. IN _ ..._ L _ C!T. Ct[-W L3. I]. T9: GrA::;L, H.+E ii.. SH=.l i.'. .:,t;E MM u!ali A COPY OF THEP_.. ... :-RT- -r, _dT- •:� ;:;_ :ICI En:, ...: .. ,•' ... .n.,. tl. : _ ..::. —r,,;,ruTE BUAP.B OF -i m as dA, r W m p ' O ro " Nrr CID N m of ,jtt1Pm, HttsstttfjusPttB An I Z 3 o6 PH '88 Paurb of� } FILE# CITY CLERK.SALEM. HASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT T. MARSILIA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 11 FOSTER ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 30, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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. _Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming use and structure allowing construction of a second story addition in this R-2 district. 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 is Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of noncon- forming structures and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of noncon- forming lots, land, structures, and uses, and uses, provided, however, that such z ,. change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detriemntal than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. 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 Boacd of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Neighbors are in favor of the plan; 2. The Ward Councillor spoke in favor; 3. The proposed addition will improve the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The Special Permit requested can 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. 2. The granting of the special permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and will be in harmony with the neighborhood. 7 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT T. MARSILIA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 11 FOSTER ST. , SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner must obtain a building permit; 2. Construction conform to all state and local building codes; 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. be adhered to; 4. Exterior finishes conform to the neighborhood; 5• Construction be as per plans submitted; 6. Use must remain as it now exists; 7. All other conditions of the 1983 Variance be adhered to; 8. Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. GRANTED / ) Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. TO TiD;, n C,, rHE �r ;•,y cup:_( E';:;.r pC:Fc.^ Ni S_ TE: 8 ..= C:• .:.. DAY CF,.:._:: .-. Tc. ('li" CLEZ .. .. - THE V.•_ _ `r id.: . C^..... ... _. .. .. _ ... DR TP.l . RiCLS E. IF, ih: li�iEJ O:: iii_ D:.iCER'SCEiE Of TIT RTIFICA OF RECORD OR IS R:COF:D"c:i BOARD OF APPEAL • MAR �119 ,4J'�+,��d it FILE ♦ kttU Of ,`,ttlrm, � tts5�th m � A f rtf CITY CLERK. _.. ; •.e 55 �nar1J of AfZll CIIs��.RY. ' F.1, 1455 'r7Y LEFr.. :.; uacs DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GERREN REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES AT 18 FOSTER ST. ( R-2) A hearing on this petition was held January 27, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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, owner of the property, is seeking variances to allow a third unit in an existing two family building and to construct a two unit addition at the locus. The property is located in an R-2 district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the =card 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 or 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 nullifyine_ or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purPo ef: of the Ordinance. The ward of Appeal , aifter careful consideration of the evidence presented, and :: tcr ::ewine the Pians, makes the fcllowine ncincz oi' fact: The buildinz wnen purcnasee was in di^re^air anc an evesore to the neic:borhood; - 2. The petitioner, experienced in buildinz renaoil:tation, presented excellent plans for the existing structure; A renovation of the building would enhance the neighborhood in general: � . However, many area residents, including Ward Six Councillor Sarah Hayes, indicated that the area is very dense and that five units on this locus would add to the density problem. On the basis of the above findings of fact, the Board of Appeal voted 4-1 to divide the question. • The Board of Appeal first considered the Variances for the allowance of a third unit ;n the existing building. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Beard of Appeal concludes as follows: a. Special conditions exist which affect the subject property but not the district generally; I t. _iteral an orcement of the Crovision or t!Pe Or 144nance- wJGiC :n%,olve substantial hardship to the petitioner; . c. The Variance reouested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derocatinc from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 to grant the Variances requested relative to the allowance of a third unit in the existing building, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Rehabilitation of the building be done as per the plans submitted; 2. All provisions of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to fire safety, are to be adhered to; 511 construction is to be in conformlt_; with the State Building Code; 4. Petitioner is to obtain a building permit from the Salem Building Inspector immediately; 5. Petitioner is to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy; • 6. The petitioner is to maintain six (6) parking spaces on the property, conforming with the requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Appeal next considered the Variances for the construction of a two unit addition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence ;:resented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: enforcement o: the provision: .. tt:e , rdinance would not in:'olve cubstantlai hara:hip to the ^etit'_cner: -ite T , ei --couested Cannot .^.' r.*ant^d M , t OUL :UDDtant:ai .. —iment to the -pori .r without n::l!lf':1nC s'J:s:]..^:Lla3.V der—aa,,:.. .'rOm the intent o:' the district or the purpo:e o:' the ordinance. Therefore, as to the construction of a two unit addition, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 0-`, , unanimously opposed to the granting of these variances. These variances failing to gain the four (4 ) affirmative votes, are thereby denied. VARIANCES GRANTED FOR THIRD UNIT IN EXISTING BUILDING VARIANCES DENIED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TWO UNIT ADDITION / aures m. F1e ing, sq. , Vi airman i I? S!!A!L BE Y^.OE PURSUANT TO SECTION 7 OF THE h;4JS. _.. _.A,.0O2 ^r:._THIS,,uEr�S� 1y iFCSDrb �R � YEEPJ �J{Tf� f ''.E PLANNING BOARD AIJD THE CITY CLERK .. _ C Sr' 7:: I:, THE VAC:A!:CF ..D cr.-:. ZC HAS ___.. ...C;}. . TSR IF _.... /''. .,J cc!E% Q.1 i''.li 11 _N DISYI' EO OP, CE:;:iO is �•_.-`.:_i IH TF.- _.`:..H ESSi!. P.E_.:Tr".Y OF OEEDS .4!:D INCE%ED UNDER THE i;A.'Ci CF THE 0...._- OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. of Salrm, CfttsearljuutW,,, CITY CLOK.SALEM.. HAS& �ourb of eal s l 14N1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL & NANETTE VALASKATGIS FOR VARIANCES AT 24 GABLES CIRCLE (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held April 27, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messr. , Bencal, Fleming, 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a variance from side setback requirements to allow the construction of an addition in this R-1 zone. 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 in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the j public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent 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 . There was no opposition to the proposed addition; 2. Outcroppings of ledge at this location require that any addition be built as shown on the submitted plans. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can 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. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL & NANETTE VALASitATGIS FOR VARIANCES AT 24 GABLES CIRCLE, SALEM C ;; y page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1 . Petitioners comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. 2. Proposed addition be no closer than 5.5 feet to the lot line, as shown on plans. GRANTED aures B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FAO61 THiS DEUSI7:I, i' F.`!Y. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER BOR. AML` SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILINi OF 111.!S DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. 98 (RANTED HO REASS SHALL NMT LFAlS. CHAPTER� EFFECT 8IL A`COPY IOF LTME DECSRCAN rBEARINrE OR FTHEE CERT IIT I!LATIGN OF THE CLY CLERl: THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILIS ED. i'R THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS MEN FILE. THAI IT HAS BEEN DIS?"I ER OR DENIEDHE NAME OF THE OWNED RECORDED IN THE SOUI"H ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDCTT ,��•'. OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND„NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL r *-Co. Jul 6 20 FS '88 Cita of "ttlrm, Aussar4usrtts FILE# Paur I of c4peal CITT CLM. Sw._En. MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN & PAULA TASSINARI FOR A VARIANCE AT 50 GALLONS HILL ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held on JLm 15, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Bencal, Luzinski, Nutting, 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a variance from minimum side setback requirements to allow construction of a deck. The property is located in a R-1 District. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upona 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition presented at the hearing. 2. Approval of said petition would add esthetically to 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 exist which especially affect the subject property but do not affect the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the `. > Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN & PAULA TASSINARI FOR A • VARIANCE AT 50 GALLON'S HILL ROAD, SALEM Page Two 1. As per plans sukmitted. 2. As per dimensions of plans sutmitted be-adherred to. 3. Apply for all legal permits. GRANTED Peter Strout, Member Zoning Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WI7--1 THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK r� 7..r FI'PSOANT TO SrCJIfN 17 OF Tir 4•^P' i RC:; 1!1'S ?if.E".:�:L I: P.f;�. .tALL 5e f�i: - . .. . 11:0: .'v Ont$ i.� . . ... . . .... . . � - is .. .. .. . .. OF R:v.A, BR•1� F. eCici;iii nKb f...:V G.. a.: u,',LCR:i �Ci2I;i iLnTE G l�i_E. BOARD OF APPEAL < m z � � m 7 T co r D' O t m m • - (ILit of �$rslem, �4'flttssttcfjusett6 PDurb of &A"'Cal NovZ 2 56 too FILE p m, DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES H. WEENER FOR A VARIANICE AT -ITY QLE; v SkLEI?. HA's B, 2 GOODHUE STREET (BPD) A hearing on this petition was held on August 10, 1988, and continued to September 28, 1988, at the request of the petitioner, with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman, Messrs. Nutting, Strout, Bencal, and Luzinski. 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 the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. The petitioner, represented by Attorney Henry Lucas, is seeking a variance from variance from density and use regulations to allow for the construction of a single story structure which will be utilized as an office and car repair facility at 2 Goodhue Street, currently in a BPD 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; 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The locus is situated on an important entrance corridor to the City. This entrance corridor will be heavily utilized with the construction of the new access road. 2. The building that the petitioner plans to erect on the locus is not appropriate for the locus. 3. The intended use is not appropriate for the locus. 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 this property and not the district generally; .r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES H. WME R FOR A VARIANCE AT 2 GOODHUE STREET, SALEM • 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating frau the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 2-3 against the granting of the requested Variance. James Fleming, John Nutting voted to grant, Richard Bencal, Edward Luzinski, and Peter Strout voted against. The petition failed to gain four (4) affirmative votes, the Variance is denied. DENIED James M. Fleming, Esq. � Chairman, Board of A i A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILES WITH.THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROi.: THIS DECIIIml. IS ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SEMIMN 1; Cr C..-NERAL LAf1S. C'HAFTER `.DF,. AND SHALL PE FiL WITHIN 20 DAYS A;TER THE .^.ATE Oi Fl AN! .; THIS DECil"'u: !:I TH: C•iii�E CF THE CITY CLERK. • I'U.PS=.:fi TO !.:•:.g. 'aEA EP.ia LA'l:S. UA"T:S EO'. SECTICiI 11. THE ITEC.:;. S-:L: ::'.; TdcE E F F U T UI:FILA COPY OF THE L'• ._ ... .. ., .ii. . i:LC7. . ... _., DAYS HA:E ._,.SED A:f: N.^. - . .. IF 57.n P.t, t,;i ESL �.. $ c�N hL"". T.. J IT H•:S. Dc:: D:iS':3.i^ t E : . _.. .: FE:.:!'.C'ED C+ T97 „JTH ESSEe RE':1-FR7 C; DEED: AND !SCE?"ED J'6S:: Ti{E OF RECORD OR iS RPJOP.DED AND NOFEC ON THE OYYtlER'S CERTIFICATE OF TILE. BOARD OF APPEAL • ofttlem, � tts5ttt�juse# 16 co 17 3 iz Pr BB pourb of '4pral FILE# O?ry 4EAK, gat cy haJS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDREW J. WOOD, II FOR A VARIANCE AT 32 HANCOCK STREET, R-2 A hearing on this Petition was held on April 27, 1988 with the following members of the Board present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski 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 Petitioner, represented by Atty. John Serafini, is the owner of the property and is requesting a variance to add a third dwelling unit. Petitioner previously appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeal on February 17, 1988 and was denied a Variance. On March 24, 1988 the Petitioner appeared before the PlanningBoard which voted that specific and material changes have been made to the original petition. The Zoning Board of Appeal first considered the question of whether this petition contains specific and material changes from the petition presented to the Board on February 17, 1988. The Board voted unanimously, 5-0, that such specific and material change existed. '•,� The variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: m ,,; a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect m a the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally s. affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; H b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the Y a petitioner; LO W � V �. c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the m public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent 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. The petitioners lot is narrow, undersized, and there is no possibility of expansion since it is bounded by other closely-spaced dwellings and other business uses. 2. The neighborhood will suffer hardship if the current upgrading of the property is not completed. 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 exist which especially affect the subject DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDRU< J. WOOD, II FOR A VARIANCE AT 32 HANC.'OCK STREET, SALEM Page Two •, r property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal vote unanimously, 5-0, to grant the requested variance subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. All work must comply with all the requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. 2. Legal building permit be obtained. 3. Construction be done as per plans submitted. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy to be obtained. 5. Six (6) legal parking spaces be maintained on site, as per plans submitted. 6. Property must be owner-occupied. If not the Variance is terminated. '+,• ') 7. Garage is to be removed after the obtaining of necessary permits. GRANTED .'James M. Fleming, Esq/. Nice-Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ... fiC....F... .... i_ I:_......CJ n... n.._.. _.. .. e...._GJ __..r.l rl...a t. . .._. ' C BOARD OF APPLU f�itu ofttlem, Cttssttc�useffs LZ .3 is PM '88 CLERK. pLr,1.K�55. Poarb of c�p}Tea1 FILEfr JITY CLERr. SA-FH, MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDREW J. WOOD, iI FOR A VARIANCE FOR 32 HANCOCK ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held February 17, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Strout and Associate Member Dore. 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, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 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; 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. The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The petition can maintain five (5) legal parking spaces on the premises: 2. There are other three family and multi-famiiv dwellings in the area; 3. A petition in favor of this project signed by neighbors and abutters was presented; 4. There was no opposition; 5• Facts presented concerning legal hardship were questionable. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially the subject property and not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDREW J . 'WOCD, II FOR A VARIANCE FOR 32 HANCOCK ST. , SALEM ?age two • 3. The relief reouested cannot 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. Therefore the Board of Appeal voted 3-1 , against the granting of the requested Variance. Messrs. , Fleming, Hacker and Strout voted in favor, Mr. Dore voted in opposition. Having failed to carry the required four affirmative votes, the petition is denied. DENIED �.6zL�IC � - ames B. Hacker, Chairman 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 SECTICN 17 OF THE MA;S. CENERAL LAV.S. CHAPTER FOE. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF TH S DECIS!Cf: IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. TO S:JS. f E7:-'RA; L:.�.?. ChAFTiR .'':ii. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE D; ""';! FER.',:IT •.::A:;1ED HERE!i:. SHALL G:T T= .E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY (IF THE OECIS!J1CERT• !-TI:14 OF THE CITY GER.: iP;d 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AN-) NO AFPEsL H-'.- IF =':IF SJ:H AN APP[;.`. 1!:,S 6F:: FRE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS:'IC._;. :.. _ ::.iJIS A:Cc:•: EC IN THE 5::;;H E:;SE- P.ECISTHS OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UN6EF: Tri: LAuiE CF THE OW',E:^. OF RECORD OR IS REOORDED A8J NU:ED 011 THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. • BOARD OF APPEAL • ,_0 y y, / Ctv of ttlem fttsour usetts APB ZO 3 of iI A '89 r u t m, ;ITYCU_rn.F. -t-S. AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 55 HIGHLAND AVE. (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held September 14, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman, Messrs. Bencal, Luzinski, Nutting 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 John R. Serafini, Jr. , are the owners of the property on which they operate Salem Hospital. The petitioner is seeking a variance to use part of the basement level of the Salem Hospital Highland Hall Office Condominium for medical diagnostic and treatment purposes. The petitioner also seeks a Variance from the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the allocation of One Hundred (100) spaces for the uses in Highland Hall, new and existing. The Variances which have 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 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the petition presented at the hearing; 2. Councillor Leonard O'Leary spoke in favor of the petition; 3. There is a need for additional on-campus medical diagnostic and treatment facilities at the locus; 4. The one hundred (100) space dedicated parking area will be sufficient to service Highland Hall. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the • Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; a • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 55 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM page two 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the requested Variances, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. That all conditions of previous Variances granted to the petitioner for Highland Hall be adhered to; 2. The petitioner maintain 100 parking spaces dedicated to Highland Hall use; 3. Petitioner obtain a Certificate of Occupancy prior to use; 4. All construction be as per plans submitted to the Board of Appeal; 5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to fire safety, be • adhered to by the petitioner. VARIANCES GRANTED James M. Fleming, E q. Chairman, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. APPEAL FROM THIS �(:ISID..I, :: ANY. SHALL BE ."ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF TiIE ?.y GENERAL LA17S. CHAPT°R 8J8, AND SHALL BE * O V1'THSN 80 DAYS AFTER THE DATE GF rl.; OF THIS DECISION 114 THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. � y PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAV/S. CHA?TER 893. S ;i';! 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPmAI 'F." GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TACE EFF-iCT UNTIL A COPY CF THE OECISI:R. FICATION OF THE CITY CLERX T:IAT 7; JAYS H,,VE E; 'I ';') '.';) N? APPEAL HAS uEEiN ;' ;J,•. OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEE:; HLE. THA; If H..; ;;EEN Dls%;Isi,D CR DE:lI_;; I, RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REC;=.Y OF UE:CO AND INDEXED UNDER THE PIA.'/•E Of THE OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE DINNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • • i aitu Of .7IIlPrit, 74flnasar4uSPftsAFA 12 3 1i lif.l ��3 x .... ;i F{LcR Moura of Au}real DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 55 HIGHLAND AVE. (R-t ) a hearing on this petition was held September 14 , 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, Nutting 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 John R. Serafini, Jr. , are the owners of the property on which they operate Salem Hospital. The petitioner is seeking a Variance to convert level N3 of Highland Hall to medical and dental condominium offices. The petitioner also seeks a Variance from the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the allocation of One Hundred ( 100) spaces for the uses in Highland Hall, new and existing. The Variances which have 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 Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public C good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition to the petition presented at the hearing; 2. Councillor Leonard O' Leary spoke in favor of the petition; 3. There is a need for on-campus medical and dental offices, at the locus; 4. The one hundred (100) space dedicated parking area will be sufficient to .service Highland Hall. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; r' • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 55 HIGHLAND AVE. ,, SALEM page two 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the publ: good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the requested Variances, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1 . That all conditions of previous Variances granted to the petitioner for Highland Hall be adhered to; 2. The petitioner maintain 100 parking spaces dedicated to Highland Hall use; 3. Petitioner obtain a Certificate of Occupancy prior to use; 4. All construction be as per plans subsmitted to the Board of Appeal; 5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to fire safety, be adhered to by the petitioner. • VARIANCES GRANTED :.James M. Fleming, Esq.,,/ " 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 M"W . GENERAL LA':IS. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRA;ITED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OFAYUENO CAPIPEAL BHA SI BEEN NG IFILED. FICATION CF THE CNY CLERK THAT 2J DAYS HAVE ELAPSED IS CR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT TMITS BEEN UNDER DISMISSED OR NA HIED THE OWNER 14 E SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • q5D Ctg of '$nlem' Anson B 3 12 P q FILE# s p c� Z'�oaoTe�'. nHrD Of e211 CITY CLERK.S.-I EK. 4d55. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES FOR 55 HIGHLAND AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held January 27, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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. Petitioners, owners of the property,are requesting a Variance to convert the third level of the building known as Highland Hall into medical condominiums, also, a Variance from parking requirements. Property is located in an R-1 zone. The Variances which have 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 in- volve 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Additional medical and dental space is needed for the functional operation of the Salem Hospital; 2. Thirty (30) additional parking spaces are incorporated in this plan bringing the total to one hundred (100) spaces for the entire building; 3. Additional medical/dental space would be a direct benefit to the Salem residents; 4. Use of this floor of the building would be best used or only used in + this manner as a hospital zone does not exist in Salem. i On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: ( 1 . Special conditions exist which affect the subject property but not the district generally; • 2. The relief requested can 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. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES FOR 55 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM page two ' 3. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petition. Therefore, the Zoning Board voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Thirty (30) additional parking spaces to be added to existing seventy (70) spaces as shown on the plans submitted; 2. A Building Permit is to be obtained prior to commencement of and construction; 3. All work is to conform with all requirements of the State and local building and fire codes; 4. A Certificate of Occupancy for each unit be obtained; 5. Sale of new units on the third floor shall be required to follow substantially the same requirements existing in the current condominium documents. GRANTED • ames B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION WAS FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING 1 OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANi TO MFSS. GEi:ER.vL LP:f:S. CHAPTER 893. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE ORI SPECIAL PER-,"IT GRANTED O I`,!PL SHALL 4L lAi(E EFFECT UWill A COPY OF THE DECISI0�1, B-LRH THE Cc. ' ! f,ICATION OF THE CIT'i CIER:i THAT 20 GAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL Hn$ BEER FILED, j OR THAT. IF SULH lc1 APPY.' HAT B"i FILE. THAI IT HAS BEEN DIS.'aISSED CR DENIED I {f RECORDED IN THE Si.OlH ESSD, RE ISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED 'UNDER THE NAME OF THE O'WNE" OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL i d I 3 a 1 � ) Ctv of �$ttlem, Anseadjusett S� I 3 07 N '86 C11Y BLeBR.fALcM. MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT P. ALEXANDER (PETITIONER) , GERALD AND BRENDA STILLMAN (OWNERS) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 128 HIGHLAND AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held September 14, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, Nutting 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. Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow the locus to be used as a dental office on the first floor with a residential unit of the second floor. The property is owned by Gerald & Brenda Stillman and is located in an R-1 zone. 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 non- conforming 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 neighborhood. 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 Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The property is currently being used as a two family dwelling which is a nonconforming use; 2. The locus is withing 1500 feet of the Salem Hospital; 3. The proposed use will meet the existing parking requirements; 4 . There will be no exterior changes with the exception of a sign, which will conform to the Salem Sign Ordinance; 5. There was no opposition to the petitioners plan. 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 . The Special Permit requested can 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; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT P. ALEXANDER (PETITIONER) GERALD & BRENDA STILLMAN (OWNERS) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 128 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM page two • 2. The granting of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants; 3. The proposed use will be in harmony with the neighbhorhood. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Eight (8) legal parking spaces be maintained on site, two of which are to be for the residential use; . 2. There are to be no exterior additions; 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department are to be adhered to; 4. All construction conform to all applicable State and Local codes. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED John R. Nutting', Secreta" A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF A;'i S44L1 EF LADE P'JSS;IANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE V.A%. CEP:EF.AC CAI`:$. L!::°i;i F7F. id:O 4SITF.c: ?J GABS AF.ER THE CASE OF TILING OE TFJS DECIS,.:: IC 'r:, ;!" LE GT TriE C!--7 CLEC6. LE;,i.RDEO IF! iF:c 5,;."H. .SSE' D,E::.-c`. .. :__..., e:..9 i�.v:..J �d.,.CT .nc is=..E vi id- G*ii:lF-. BF RECORD CR IS RECORUEG AN` I:G:EG Co. ME�O17NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - BOARD OF APPEAL t, "• Ctg of '�$ttlem, 'ffla66a 5rttP R 11 P 'Be \,`•; 2 paurb of Appeal CITY CLERK.SALEM.MASS. • 9 IMM DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL A. SUDENFIELD FOR A VARIANCE AT 462 HIGHLAND AVE. (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 30, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James B. Hacker, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. , Fleming, 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is seeking Variances from density, setbacks and parking to allow construction of an addition in this B-2 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; 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 ofthe Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No support or opposition was presented to the plan; 2. The Board, in prior petitions for this property, was told the area of the proposed expansion for this petition, was economically unfeasible to build upon; 3. The proposed addition would be for an entirely new business, and although auto related, entirely different from the present business on site; 4. Petitioner failed to prove hardship. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district generally; i'\• . 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not work 1 a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. �k DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL SUDENFIELD FOR VARIANCES f � FOR 462 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted two (2) in favor (Messrs. Strout and Fleming) and three (3) opposed (Messrs. , Hacker, Bencal and Luzinski) . The petition is denied ue to the failure of the petitioner to obtain the required four (4) affirmative votes. DENIED ,Rf chard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ,,"•.PPEP.L FR;i:. THIS OECISI.'.N, li ANY. SHALL BE MADE'Py RSu0NDA'NT OS AFTEROF I )THE DATE 17 OF HhFILING GENERAL LA.lS. CHAP-.-'RE4Z. AND SHA!. BE CF T!i!S DECIS!ON IN THE 01-;CE OF THE CITl CLERK. I, S11 T% "AILS. ".'dF4AL L=.a£ CEAPTER RDb. SE.':,-!C.I 11. THE VA41A9CE OR SPEf.IAI C'RT..:T :iiHTE HEd EII;. SFisLL J.- .A::E EFFECT UNT!L A CCPY' OF 'HE'.L .._ .:. .Hc FIt.:=.TI:':: GF THC C!;-. G!ER;. 7ii.:: 29 DAYS HAVE ELP.PSE:: :::i Ile. A"'-AL HAS BEE:; P 'ED. CR IH:.T. F SU H At: APHv�! NAS UEE); FIE. THAT IT Hl:S GEE:; I)IFI':iSSE7 CR Ca..<'` IS OF RECORD ITHE ORS RECORDED AND NOTED ONFTHE.OWNER'S!CERTIFICATE [ A DEEDS AND CATE OF TITLE. OF THE OT':;;ER ,..r BOARD OF APPEAL ;t 4 of 'Salem, � ttssttcljuse# 1 2 Ss PN '88 • � �Z 9 Poxrb of �"eal FILE# • '+am.e� CITY CLERK,SALEM,MASS. AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MOFFAT REALTY TRUST, SANTO J. DEFRANCESCO, TRUSTEE, FOR A VARIANCE AT 10 JEFFERSON AVENUE (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 30, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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 Phillip T. Durkin, is requesting a Variance to allow service type uses on the second level of the property at 10 Jefferson Avenue. The property is currently utilized as a small shopping plaza by virtue of the grant of a previous Special Permit by Board of Appeal. The property is located in an R-2 zone. 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 in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The petitioner has operated the shopping plaza since 1979 with minimal impact of the abutting residential zone; 2. The petitioner has complied with most of the twelve ( 12) restrictions contained in the 1979 Special Permit, and will immediately comply with the remainder of those restrictions; 3. The concerns of the neighbors present at the hearing will be addressed by the petitioner. 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 exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner; `1 AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MOFFAT REALTY TRUST, SANTO J . DEFRANCESCO, TRUSTEE, FOR A VARIANCE AT 10 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SALEM page two r 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the j• public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 , Mr. Bencal opposed, to grant the Variance requested, subject 'to the following conditions: 1 . All the twelve ( 12) restrictions contained in the Special Permit of June 15, 1979 remain in full affect and be complied with immediately; 2. Dumpsters to be located as per plans submitted and revised and shall be enclosed with a masonry structure forthwith; 3. The compressor at the rear of the building shall be vented entirely towards the Winthrop Street side of the property; 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit for any new work done at the property; 5. All construction/alteration must comply with the Massachusetts Building Code and the requirements of the Salem Fire Department. The Board of Appeal, at its meeting of April 20, 1988, voted unanimously, 4-0, to amend the above decision for the purpose of an administrative correction and clarification, as follows: ` ) DELETE: 3. The compressor at the rear of the building shall be vented " entirely towards the Winthrop Street side of the property. ADD: 3. Petitioner is granted variances to allow all B-1 uses for the second level as defined in Section V (4) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of: 4e. stores selling liquor, beer, and wine for consumption off the premises. 4s. restaurants and other eating places which do not serve alcoholic beverages consumed on the premises ; and including. drive-in snack shops. ames M. Fleming, Vice Cha' man Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK fT, APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION.17 OF,THE MV&. GENERAL LASS. CHAPTER SO& AND SHKL'BE FILED'WITHII! Z.�DA11SVAf iE6 TH DATE..OF FILIN(, OF•'T'.5 -DECI$$Y: IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. - �/ p p l;.;.ES Ei7ERAi. LA;.S. CHAPTER SOS. SECi.i f'b 11. THE VARIA%'CE.OR SPECIAL PERMIT, SHALL N:i 'f'lE ENEET UNTIL A COPY CF TH, .- ISL^.:I, BEARi:E': THE CERT. FIC%.ilC:f C. INE E T C1 7R.. 14A: :i' DADS HAVE EVncrD Ay.) N9 APPEALMAS EEEii BLED. %,:P. Tfl•:i, IF S' A'; APPEA!. F: EiEN 1'ILE..TBAT IT 1!.,S B=EN DIS6ISSED OR.DE;:;[D IS , ' tri: :!H ESSEB RE:IST RI' OF ,EELS AND INDEXED UNDER TH E.NAid1E OF THE,OWNEFJ CF`FRB CR 13 R_:,ORDED:A:dO NCTEU 0:1 Ti:E OP.'YER'S CERTIFICATE OF"TITI.E.,- . . .... ... . c.i;.F . g •` BOARD-OF-APPEAL. �.COfpyl tY "' Ctg of "Salem, C assar4usetts 'u 17 9 u 4N '88 4 } FILE# •_- s Poarb of 'pvenl 81TT BtEflR.e1;1 E7i../145b. ��IMgI DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HUGH F. MULLIGAN FOR A VARIANCE AT 202-204 LAFAYE TE STREET (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held on May 18, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Fleming, Bencal, Strout and Associate Member Labracxlue. 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 the provisions of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow the real property at 202-204 Lafayette Street to be utilized as offices on the first two (2) floors and as a rental unit on the third floor. The building, formerly used as a rest hone, is located in an R-3 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 do not generally �.• affect other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; �'''• b. a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner; and 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 The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed use is consistent with the way other buildings in the street are utilized. 2. The petitioners plan restores the building in an appropriate historical matter. 3. There is parking for fifteen (15) cars on-site. 4. No opposition to the plan was presented at the hearing. 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 exist which especially affect the subject property • but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating fron J . DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HUGH F. MULLIGAN FOR A VARIANCE AT 202-204 LAFAYETTE STREET, SALEM • Page Two the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the Variance requested, upon the following terms and conditions: 1. Parking spaces be provided as per the parking plan submitted to the Board. 2. All the requirements of the Salem Fire Department, relative to fire safety, be adhered to. 3. All the work at the locus be done in accordance with the Massachusetts Building Code. 4. The petitioner obtain a building permit from the Building Inspector, City of Salem. 5. The petitioner must adequately landscape the premises in the rear of the 1st. GRANTED • games M. Fleming, Esq., 'Vice-Chairman, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEr;E FROV.. THiS OECISI.ON. IF ANY. SHA'.! BE !.:ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE _:! Sh;.L_ 1J ,..YS i: ':HE P---- 1:. - . . OF RLCURU OR IS RE:CRD'[D Ai:O :MED UN Td[ G(C::CR S GiRIIF:u:.c Cr MLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • of ttlem, ussttchusei 17 2 59 PH ' 3.' p Paurb of �1}pud FILET' �.tum,.a3 CITY CIES DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD J. SANTOS FOR A VARIANCE AT 6 LANGDON STREET (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held August 24, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Luzinski, Strout 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 petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from setback and density requirements to allow construction of a deck and stairs in this R-1 zone. The Variance which has been granted 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: I . Mr. Freeman, 8 Langdon Street, spoke in favor; 2. The petitioner/owner, stated he would like to replace old rotten stairs and build a 4' x 6' x 12' deck and relocate stairs to the front. Due to a safety factor of vehicles frequently turning and backing up in his driveway, he is fearful of occupants safety; 3. Mrs. Gwendolyn Melanson, 4 Langdon St. , spoke in opposition. 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 exist which especially affects the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; • 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating fromthe intent of district or the purpose of the ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD J. SANTOS FOR A VARIANCE AT 6 LANGDON STREET, SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All rquirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety be adhered to; 2. A legal building permit be obtained; 3. Petitioner conform with all regulations of the Massachusetts State Building Code; 4. Construction be as per plan submitted. VARIANCE GRANTED John R. Nutting, Sec ary 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 MA,S. • GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER SOa. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF OF THIS DECISH)i4 IN THE On°ICE OF THE CITY CLERK. L PURSI�NT TO MASS. CENE.^"AL LA14S. C4AP7ER $OS, SCCT! -N 11. THE VAR!ACCE OR GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL N;;: 0,'E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE;`E'C:ei \'. BEd. II;;; i!!- ;ERI. FICATION OF THE C.-it CLEF:; ..id; 20 OA'S HAVE EL,tPSED ANU NO APPEAL HF.S BE'Ei{ FILCU. OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. 'THA'-- 17 H43 BEEN DIS�.ISSEO OR DEi'.'IEO !S RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF D'-.EDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE N11,!E 01 .THE OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • 5 ♦`�"tel Ctg of Sttlrm Anssarhuse � 326, Pq '8B �3nxrb of �}renletR,aur. �bIMM AMENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FIVE EL0V7EN L REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 5-11 LEACH ST. (B-1) A hearing on this petition was held on April 20, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. , James Fleming and Associate Member Arthur LaBreque. 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. Petitioner is requesting Variance to allow four stores to be converted to four residential units in this B-1 zone. 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 enforcenent of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would f 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. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Less traffic would be generated if the stores were converted to residential units. 2. One letter was presented in support, two people spoke in opposition. 3. The present store space is small and unrentable. 4. The two persons who spoke in opposition also felt the pre esis were too small for a viable business. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 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 purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FIVE ELEVEN L REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 5-11 LEACH ST. , SALEM y Page Two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 4-0 to grant the petitioner the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: wzi 1. All conditions of the letter to the Board from the Salem Fire Dept. relative to this petition be complied with; 2. Maintain Six (6) legal parking spaces on site. sl 3. No further renovation be done to the property without the obtaining of any and all proper and legal permits as required by the City of Salem. 4. These Variances will automatically expire within Five (5) Years fran the date of the filing of this decision, without prejudice to petitioners right to request such variances be granted again after their exgeration. 5. A certificate of occupancy for each unit be obtained. GRANTED • 77Ridiard A. Benca , Secretary y A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEE[9 FIT,TT1 WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. I. ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL U.WS. CHAPTER 808. SECTI9i; 11. THE YARfAYCE OP SPESI A'. ?E3'MT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT 1A::E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY 0i THE�ECGI i. -,— f iCAFi% CF THE L:':1' CLERK f IAT 2? DA'!$ HAV- N- A?7£.'.L Hf.S .3 THAT. IF Si!(:!! AN APPE S! HIS EEE:@ IiL"c. THA; I. OF RECORD OR IS REUORD"CD ANO 1401.LU ON THE 'jWNER'5 CERTIFICATE OF 'HiLE. BOARD OF APPEAL ) Noy 10 3 00 ;. , _ 88 ( � of �ttlem, �ttssttcljusetts Flle;� �� • ' w 3' �� :IT DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & ELIZABETH COOMBS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT 'AT 17 LINDEN ST. (R-2) 9 A hearing on this petition was held November 9, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal' Nutting and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notice of the hearing were properly advertised in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to convert a carriage house into a single family dwelling in this R-2 district. The provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinane with 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 detri- mental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. • 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 Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plot plan, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Several abutters and neighbors signed a petition in favor of this conversion; 2. One abutter was opposed but changes were made to satisfy his opposition; 3. Evidence presented indicated that -his carriage house is an historic carriage house as defined by the Salem Zoning Ordinance and can therefore be converted to a single family dwelling by Special Permit. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, and on the findings of fact, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The relief requested can 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. 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested with be in harmony with the • neighborhood and will promote the convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & ELIZABETH COOMBS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 17 LINDEN ST. , SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1 . Petitioner obtain a release from the Assessor or Tax Collector regarding tax obligations for the main building for the years 1985 through and including 1988; 2. A Certificate of Occupancy for the Carriage House be obtained; 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety be adhered to; 4. All construction and occupancy shall be in strict accordance with all City and State Building Codes; 5• Five (5) legal, on site parking spaces are to be maintained; 6. This Special Permit shall expire four (4) years from the date this decision is issued; 7. Petitioner shall eliminate the rear window on the northerly side of the carriage house; 8. Five (5) foot high shrubs along the length of the northerly side of the • carriage house shall be planted; 9. A dwelling unit in the main building or the carriage house shall be owner occupied; 10. Proper numbering for the Carriage House be obtained from the City Assessor; GRANTED Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERV. AFP:=!'FR061 THIS DEM1,11f. IF ANY. SHALL BE IAADE PURSUANT TO SECT'F'! 17 ^F THF " . .. U NTR�L LADS. CHF.Pi C2 <. AN) SHALL BE `::':: WITHIN [O DA'(S AFT E'n THE !,.A CF fii CE T!i'S DE !S'0:: H: 3E V!'ICC U( THE M)' C!ER1.. ......:TEC FC..,�... SP:,. �...,_ EF._.: U:";t A. Cr.r: _, iii°'._.... .... iE N.. ..... _. .i . ... , S .1rS'YY310 A119 F c... !.. . 6:'. . .. _.`i:!_, r, ::. D::::^s.•..:; r: ._:. .. ., !i c: ::_!.^ :: P.:F S.'..a _":`: r._..,53'i '.. 2C_:. '.f :: .✓%E:i U:'✓EF `°._ i.;.:E :. . . #311 .F REC-R L) OR IS RC:'JRDEZ AND NC::) O3 THE UTiii ER!S CEkTIFICAiE 01 Ti. •Y, Nd Z 91 �� BOARD OF APPC4i r ^ S�co•v.�co (gifn of '�alcm, C4Ett9sttr4U5rJt6 # �Rnara of �Appeaf DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN TOY FOR A VARAINCE AT mill it rm It 75 LORING AVE. (R-2) F14# My A hearing on this petition was held February 17, 1988 with the lfol�l�owing6Boa�d�E�' Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Strout and Associate Member Dore. 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. Petitioner, owner of the property,is requesting a Variance from use and parking to allow premises to be used for classes on Tai Chi Chaun. Property is located in an R-2 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 arrecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. '_iteral 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. The Board of Apeai, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, rakes the following findings of fact: 1 . A_though :located in an R-2 district, the property is adjacent to an industrial facility and across from several commercial establishments: 2. ehic_es entering ane e;:itine from the cro^erre could exacertate existing traffic problems and endanger cniidren in the area; raffic & parking problems would be minimized by limited class size; 4 . Hard Councillor Mark Blair spoke in opposition to the petition citing potential traffic problems. There was no other opposition.; 5. On person spoke in favor of the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; • 2. !iteral enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; t' DECISIO!, ON ...c rE?::':OG OF JCFh: "_ . FOR A ','ARIA(dCE FOR 75 LOPING AVENOZ, SALE". Page two • 3. The relief requested can to 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1 . Petitioner will use the first floor only for one on one teaching; 2. The Fire Department' s reouirements for mixed use (residential/commercial) fire alarm systems must be met; 3. A traffic warning sign must be placed at the driveway exit; 4. Hours of operation are 9:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m. , Monday through Saturday; 5• At least four parking spaces constructed in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance must be maintained. GRANTED Peter Dore, Associate Member, Board of Appeal • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEIZ IBC:.: THIS D.' """ ,. ... •.:: ?.. ,•..-F P:.::SL'`_'75 T,,7 Si!'T! 17 fF -!!E LI .•1. OF TFFS OR BOARD OF APPEAL • M _ t OcT 6 3 of PM 88 qa Cgi#v of '�$ttlem, ttsstttljuseti�e • .a rq Poarb of � , 1 C!TY CLIAK. iI.'Y. 6i�55. �4M I DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GERARD ALIMENTI FOR A VARIANCE 5'l/11f1 AT 528 LORING AVENUE (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 10, 1988 and continued until September 14, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. , Luzinski, Strout and Nutting. 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, requests a variance from parking and to allow construction of dormers to provide space for one additional business in this B-2 zone. 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No support or opposition was raised to the plan; 2. The proposed addition would allow for a more fuller use of the building. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence Presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can 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. I` DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GERARD ALIMENTI FOR A VARIANCE FOR 528 LORING AVENUE, SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Nutting opposed) to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be met; 2. All construction be done as per the plans submitted and with a legal building permit; 3. All exterior finishes are to be in harmony with existing finishes; 4. Petitioner maintain five (5) legal parking spaces on' site in the rear of the property. VARIANCES GRANTED Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF AN'.'. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE M=-1. GENERAL LAi7S. CHAPi ER V3. ARO 5H_i, FE FILET' S� ial 7O DAIS AFTER THE GATE OF FILICL iii Tti!S DECIS'C': !i: THE Pi'::�E OF Tir CITY CLIFA. FR Ti'..Si, LF THE c Of RECORD OR IS REG::DEd kli0 L-:Eu Cil1 Trij bilNER S Lc�TIFICAIE CF IDLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • Z03 , Ctu of �ttlem, fflU59Ur4U9r#t6 .JAN 1 3 PK '88 � '�• 9 Poarb of 4peal FILE CITY CLERK, SALEM. MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES M. SISSIAN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 12 MADELINE AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held January 13, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming, Vice Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Edward Luzinski and Associate Member Dore. 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 Law Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow telephone and mail order sales in this R-1 zone. 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 request, 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 Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings cf fact: 1 . No support and only one person in opposition appeared at the hearing; 2. Petitioners grandson, who will be operating the business will not be meeting salespersons, clients or others at this site; 3. The site will be used only for telephone and mail order sales in a small portion of the buildings. 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 . The relief requested can be granted without creating a substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from or nullifying the intent or purpose of the Ordinance. • I' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES M. SISSIAN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 12 MADELINE AVE. , SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The Special Permit shall be valid until December 31 , 1988; 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be adhered to; 3. No delivery truck or sustomers shall utilize the property; 4. No merchandise shall be stored on site; 5. One ( 1 ) person may be employed on site. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED ' Richard A. Bencal, Secretary 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 SECTIGN 17 CF THE GENERAL LAWS. CEAPIEP, 308, AND SHALL BE FILED W1Tk:N £0 DAYS Aft:Y, THE DATE OF F....... .i iKIS I'.ECISi:fl lid THE OFF:CE OF THE CITY CLERK. E i :SS 9P7ERAl. LA7:i, Ci:APTER 3:18. SECT:"; THE 1.1.. ..:^.E 0' SH:-- 1,_f 'i,::E EFFECT UNTIL .A COPY I� :'ii CF 1HE CITY CLERK IR6T 2D DAYS IIAY'E ELA.-,.. - H .3 ,.. :HnT. If SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT •` . _. . ... ... . .., . _ ..�.'• :_ RE:7'i!7ED IN THE S-30H ESSEX RECISTRY Of DEEDS AF? =I'O :...,_.. `ifE !', OF liiE Olt: OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWN"S _ERIIFICATL CF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • Ctv of ttiem, Aussuchusetts Jul 16 6 2s Ph 188 Poxrb of �p}ielcl rrcE# L . Fess. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR A VARIANCE AT 32 MARCH STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on June 15, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleeing, Chairman; Luzinski, Nutting, Strout and Associate Member 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 the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. ' Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a variance from lot size, frontage and setbacks to allow division of property into two lots and to construct single family on each lot. This property is located in a R-2 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; 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition presented at the hearing. 2. Approval of this petition would enhance the neighborhood. 3. New lot size would be larger than existing abutting lots. 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 exist which especially affect the subject property but do not affect the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the �^ public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating fron the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR A VARIANCE AT 32 MARCH STREET, SALEM • Page Two 1. To obtain Building Permits. 2. Comply with State & Local Fire Ordinances. 3. Acquire proper numbering from the City Assessors. 4. To be built as per plans submitted with deeded rights of way. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. GRANTED r Peter Strout, Member Zoning Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FIT WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 803. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAPS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF T;'.13 DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. Pei:F7.,:T iD ;S:SS. GE!:ERA! CHAPTER 805. SEC?ION 11, THE VARIANCE OR FP`Ciia. PER:mT C.R?.::;E..) HER=Iii. SHALL (:CT T,<"'E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF Tlr:?_:.ii:i_.;I, BEA:'.'a; THE CERT. OF 'IRE C!t'ni: 'i 3: 120 DA'iS HAVE ELAPS:D 'W', ..; APP-.";L HA' L'EEN FiLED. 0.R THtiF. HAS BEEN FILE, T4AT IT ..':EIJ Ui;..i_:IEO '!R i:F7iiE'J IS RECCR^EO I:1 T92. SC,OTH ESSEX REGISIRY OF DEEO'o AND II,DE%i:i; URCER IHT ii;-E OF THE OVVid ER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O17NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL w - a M z � 4k c C m " �e N a r- b s r fA cov (cif of Cttlrm �ssttc! u5rffs 3 it Ph 'BB y FILER �DHrb of C " "- �` °`° � CITY CLERK.SALLH.MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROLAND L'HEUREUX FOR A VARIANCE FOR 4 MILK STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held was held March 16, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance to allow construction of a two story addition in the rear of the existing structure. The property is located in an R-2 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 or structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Parking is a serious problem in the neighborhood; 2. The existing use is storage garage and to change the use would be detrimental to the neighborhood; 3. To accommodate the proposed use and the proposed increase in the structure would require a Variance from lot size and density and petitioner failed to request these variances. 4. There was substantial neighborhood opposition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, 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 a substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can not be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. i DECISION ON THE PETITION OF 1-'-..ND L'HEUREUX FOR VARIANCE ;' • FOR 4 MILK STREET, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5, against the granting of the requested relief. The request, having failed to carry the required four affirmative votes to pass, is therefore denied. DENIED J Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK BE I. PNRSVA:;, TO SFETITN 9 OF THE is;-'•. ,_ Y;ITFiIN i0 CATS AFTER THE DATE OF F°-!!°; APPEAL �'� .- r {,:.T SHALL BE FILE,, 6ENERAi c, EBG:iEP. 8'..tl. TI{F CITI' CLERK. E P ...cl.l C• yARIA - p. _ -p_ :iRT- pp TiT6 �:�'-" .:RAL IAY:S. CHAPTER 643. SECTITN 11. THE c .. a_{p.0 PUPSAMELAPSEp AiJD ND APPEAL HAS L'EU; 6RANTEG TACE EFFECT UNTIL A CDP1' OF FJCATIDc. L~ +H{ Ll;r :LER; 1!1AT 20 CAPS HA"- IT HAS BEENC,B1, E OF THE C';;:�-• s; APPEAL HAS bF . IJ FILE. THA. AND RIDE%ED Ut:DER Tit- THAT. 71 SA'. THE OWt4ER'S CERTIFICHTE OF TITLE. 2L �tECDRDI'C 4R SZ: ESSE RE;dSTRY OF DE. .tJ (J;Ly,16 RwJRDED AND NDiEO ON > / BOARD OF APPEAL -ti_'v� ,r of $Arm, ��Httssttchusetts � }g lM 'N 9 E\�E� `�t�• Ponrb of A"znl 711 C[FI:�•:�'�.: �i;NiS6. G0 G DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHRISTOPHER COLLINS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 19 ANDREW/7 MILK STREETS (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held January 27, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary; Messrs. , Fleming, 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is seeking a Special Permit to extend a noncon- forming side setback to allow relocation of a second means of egress in this R-2 zone. 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 noncon- forming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconform- ing lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, expansion or enlargement 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 Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . One neighbor sent a letter of opposition; 2. Many neighbors, abutters and others appeared in favor; 3. The plan for the relocation of the second means of egress will be better for the safety of the inhabitants. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: I . The relief requested can be granted without creating a substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from or nullifying the intent or purpose of the Ordinance; 2. The relief requested will promote the welfare and safety of the • City's inhabitants. r� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHRISTOPHER COLLINS FOR A SPECIAL PER11IT AT 19 ANDREW/7 MILK STREETS, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be adhered to; 2. All construction be done as per the plans submitted; 3. All construction be done as per all existing City and State Building Codes; 4. All exterior finishes must conform to existing finishes. GRANTED 'Achard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 1.!'PE4L FRO:! !HIS DEC131.1A7. AfiY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE A:AS.S. • F.AL LA;;S. C'rIAPTER 82. .At:D SHALL 6E FILED W:7HIN 20 DAYS AFTER 1HE DATE OF FILING .r THIS BEC!S!0:': If: THE CFF:-- CF THE CITY CLERK. 8C.E6=i „t A=TCR SLE. S:Cii;7: 11. THE ': ,n•:.l i(.'. •': cr�__T U.:T i. A "'c, OF . i. _ �.. ..__n i..: _:• . .i,. LAS. ,...:r__.: .. .. ...:: .. _. ..'.... n EL:: ED IF: THE Jii: ESS:: I.C.ICiR'i OF GEE2:; AND IJDEXED 1.._ ..,...E 8F GF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE WINERS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL Qlitq of Salem, 'Mttssttcllusetts o Poarb of �}r�rezcl DEC 6 3 os PR 'B DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GABRIEL P. ROSSI, JR. FOR A FILE; 8 SPECIAL PERMIT AT 73 NORTH ST. (BPD) Clil' CLFi,X., c. . A hearing on this petition was held August 24, 1988 with the following Boards Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Nutting, Luzinski, 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 petitioner, represented by Attorney Mary Harrington, is seeking a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming one story building to create additional business space as 73 North st. The locus is in a Business Park Development District. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section VI 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 for this Section VIII F and IX D, grant SpecialPermits 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 neighborhood. 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 Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The proposed use of the extension of the building is for storage and loading, an appropriate use in this district; 2. The extension of the nonconforming use is necessary because the Common- wealth of Massachusetts took some of the petitioners real property by eminent domain; 3. The Ward Six Councillor, Sarah Hayes, spoke in favor of the granting of the Special Permit. 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 . The proposed use of the property will not be substantially more • detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood; 1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GABRIEL P. ROSSI, JR. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 73 NORTH ST. , SALEM • page two 2. The relief requested can be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All work be performed as per the plans submitted to the Board of Appeal; 2. All construction bedone in accordance with the provisions of the Massachusetts State Building Code; 3. The petitioner must obtain a Building Permit from the Salem Building Inspector; 4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department, relative to Fire safety, be adhered to by the petitioner; 5. All the exterior finishes of the new construction be in harmony with the exterior finishes of the existing building; 6. Solid planting be made along the entire southerly side of the property line of the petitioner, as approved by the City Planner. • SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED ames M. Fleming,' Esq. Chairman, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ..:1„.. .i;: '. .:. SNAIL BE :'1"'r P'd R59AN1 TO cECIIION Il (! iii: . . H ... ._..AL 1,+..5. Lii.�P:CR i;�:. .4frJ S:InLi ... ...... .. ...a, 20 DAPS A:i_„ ii',; il:,ii ., ,:•:S riiS:;i! I:: THE .r TF.- Cf-f C:.ER3. ....... :. -.,$ ..::;.'..L frt5 6H 7r':C.. `JS 'i"?:I :'i 11. THE l,. f.F -... - , ... SHALL is .. ,:1'.E EF:EC7 UNTIL A I''WY .. THE ,.. .. :i: Cd! CIERr. 1,:.%; 2L .',YS HJ/'c ELIF'_EU .!:i: h': A;'i'E ,L HI_ . i. C• H S:;h Ai: APPLU H`- bE'i: lit C. !HAI IT N.1:: LEEN DiS:iS:.CU �R I.:...i R;6;*--?:) IN Hi7 S.%PH ESSEX REGISTRY OF UEEOS AND INDEXED U N:EP 'f HE ii;,'..E OF IHC illi l:;.li OF HELURO' OR IS RECUROED AND WILD CN THE 01'INER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • 0tg of ttlem, itt�s�clluse##s �� s P ". � d .4. . 'a nxrD of ettl pQ In 26 8 40 9 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NINA T. BUBA FOR A VARIANCE AT 1302 NORTH STREET (B-1) OITY RfAK,@0'WHASS. A hearing on this petition was held on August 10, 1988 withe the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. Bencal, Luzinski, Nutting, and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutter and others, and notices were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. The petitioner, the owner of the property, is seeking a variance from rear setbacks requirements to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing building. The property is located in a B-1 zone. 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 ,f 'T involve substantial hardship, financial or othcxwise, 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. The Board of Appeal after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans makes the following finding of fact: 1. No opposition to the plan was presented at the hearing. The Ward Councillor and a neighbor expressed their support. 2. The addition to an existing hallway is small, allowing the petitioner to place her washer and dryer on the first floor level of the existing building. 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. The relief requested can be granted without creating a substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from or nullibying the intent or purpose of the Ordinance; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; l- �;, , 3. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the subject property but do not affect this district generally. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NINA T. BUBA FOR A VARIANCE AT 1301 NORTH STREET, SALEM PAGE TWO • Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction be as per the plans submitted to the Board of Appeals. 2. The petitioner amply with all the requirements of the State Building Code and the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to Fire Safety. 3. The exterior of the addition be in harmony with the exterior of of the existing building. VARIANCE GRANTED aures M. Fleming, Esq Chairman, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILM WITH THE PUNNING BOARD AND THE CITY C1ERK • APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE A1Al8. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN'. SHALL NOI TUE EFFECT UNTIL A CT PY OF THE OECI ii;N, BEA.^. NS THE CERT FICATION OF THE CrY CLERK THAT 20 DAPS HAVE ELAPSED AID NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS 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 • a.rnaugb I OCT 6 3 U A IN Ctv of �ttlem, ga9zarll s F)LE# • :r, f poarb of �ppeal CITY CLERK.SF.LEM. MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER & ANASTASIA SCANGAS FOR A VARIANCE FOR 217 NORTH STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 24, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Luzinski, Nutting 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 Law Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, represented by their attorney John R. Serafini, Sr. , are requesting a Variance to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: 1 . special conditions and circumstances exist which expecially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; 2. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; • 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 purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There is sufficient space to allow the third unit, in fact, construction of the house indicates provisions were made for the eventual addition of a third unit; 2. There is more than adequate parking; 3. A petition was submitted supporting the petitioner's request; 4. Ward Councillor appeared in favor; 5. There was no opposition On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER & ANASTASIA SCANGAS FOR A VARIANCE FOR 217 NORTH STREET, SALEM • page two 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioners; 3. The Variances requested can 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance requested, , subject to the following conditions: 1 . Premises remain owner occupied; 2. Five (5) legal, on site parking spaces be maintained; 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. be adhered to; 4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained; 5• A building permit be obtained prior to construction. VARIANCE GRANTED • ohn Nutting -Secret A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF AtJY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE AFILIN GENERAL LAMS, CHAPTER BOB. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING SECTION ll, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL ERT-1T .r THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLE p7RSM:T TO OASS. GENERAL L4'+.5. CHAPTER TIL GRAi:iED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKi EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. HAS BE THE CEP. RG4TI0N OF THE Cr-'? CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAAND S INDEXED IAND NO SU14MISSEDER OR 0t EN OF THE OR THAT, IF SUCH Ail APPEAL HGS DFN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DEWIeD IS REC;; E. RDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGIS1.TRY OF HEEDS OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED ANO NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF DLOF APP6AL .o" luc 30 2 33 88 (1�i#u of �ttlem, �1Httssttt�u$e##s FILE# 9 uttrD of � Q211 CITY CLEPK. Sa; N'..�4r P DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT AND PATRICIA GONYFA FOR A VARIANCE AT REAR 39 & 41 NORTHEY STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James M. Flaming, Chairman; Messrs. Bencal Luzinski, Nutting and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others, and notices were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with the Provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioners, owners of the property are seeking a Variance from density setbacks, and use to allow construction of a four (4) family dwelling on each of the lots at the locus. The Property is located in a R-2 Zone. 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 do not generally affect other lands, buildings and structures in :he same district; b. a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Criinance would • involve substantial hardship, financial or other•.ise to the petitioner; and c. desirable relief may be granted without substant_.al detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following finding of fact: 1. Several neighbors spoke in opposition to the plan at the public hearing. 2. The plan would add to the parking problem in the neighborhood. 3. As proposed, the plan is too dense for the existing neighborhood, and would be detrimental to the neighborhoods quality of life. 4. As proposed, the plan would aggravate an existing water drainage problem in the neighborhood. 5. The plans presented were deficient for a project of this scope and magnitude. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, • 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 work a substantial hardship or. the _petitioner; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT AND PATRICIA GONYFA FOR A • VARIANCE AT REAR 39 & 91 Northey Street, SALEM PAGE TWO 3. The relief requested can not be granted without detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. There fore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5, not to grant the relief requested. The petition, having failed to gather four (9) affirmative votes, is, thereby denied. VARIANCE DENIED es M. Fleming, Esq. firman, Board ofAppegs A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISIOU. IF ANY, SHA.! GENEF.AL LAIC$. CHUTE'r. 603. AND !,. !"^E P11RS9A:!T TO SECTION 17 OF THE MA76. OF THIS ( SHAH •,!;-�•;g 2" DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING Tr DEC!S!":;�'.:, li! i H: REFIRE -- DF ii:.. I;•; :cri. GR9,iEU HGi..,- oy-� Ut'• CHAm,rc '! ' Il. iiiE .^. .E (`R . -r.16 l H",t T' ry-r:- :.� � . ... "` I. PER:!IT ..... _ +Y.E _.�_.,I A '_.i"ii.`.'E ;:,y, CF THE :?l:' CL".P,i 1HAT 20 DAYS .. ' CEA.%:N': THE CERL GP, ;4AT, IF $_Lc AN APPE:.L HAS 9c is FILC APPEAL HES BEE:: FILED. CECBF,DED IH T-E S:i:iH ESSEr. FC iSTP.'i OF :1-E i'; LArty !i:,'',:c' Lr�:. .'CEO OR G;:iICU IS DF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON T�E UJ,'iJER'S CERiIFiLRTEOD ER iHiEli4n;E OF THE OWNER BOARD OF APPEAL • �3 yr APR 6 3 oar " ' 9 u of Salem, Ha56ar jUkW6 3 ee ►,► '8 c . ;IIY [iia DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SMITH FOR VARIANCE/SPECIAL PERMIT AT 18 PORTER ST. (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held September 28, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, Nutting 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, represented by Attorney George Vallis, is seeking a Variance and/or Special Permit to construction two (2) additional units. The existing building does not meet the the required front and side yard setbacks, the proposed addition will encroach on the side yard 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 `• I g provided however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. 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 of 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence :oreat the hearing, and after viewing the plans submitted, makes the following fizl§aUs of fact •i i 1 . There were two letters submitted in favor; 68 S868" !'I s080 G Q .,:. 2. There was substantial neighborhood opposition; l DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SMITH FOR A VARIANCE AND/OR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 18 PORTER ST. , SALEM • page two _r 3. The driveway is only seven (7) feet wide; 4. This is a highly congested area and the proposed two units would exacerbate this condition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed addition would not be in harmony the the neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City's inhabitants. 2. Special conditions or circumstances do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district generally. 3. Literal enforcment of the Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 4 . The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 1-4 against the granting of the • requested relief (Mr. Fleming voted in favor) . Having failed to obtain the required four (4) positive votes required to grant relief, the Variance and Special permit are denied. VARIANCE,AND SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED John R. Nutting, Secretary i A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL DE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE We. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR 9KCIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISI14f.BEARING THE CERT• FICATION OF THE CRY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED ANO NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED.. OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SVUFH ESSEX RECISFRY OF DEEDS AND INDEAED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWTB OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NIIEU ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • Ctu of "idem, anarhusetts IIYY paurb of real J I41v1 Ju N 2 21 Ph '88 FILE# DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SMITH FOR A SPECIAL P�n�i T9 OR VARIANCE AT 18 PORTER STREET, SALEM �rnb LF'.d. as} A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman, Messrs. , Richard Bencal, John Nutting, Edward Luzinski and Peter 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. Petitioner, is requesting a Special Permit and or Variance from density and side yard requirements to construct two additional units in this R-2 district. Attorney George P. Vallis, 1 Church St. , Salem, representing the petitoner requesting Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. The Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0 to allow petition Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. , i ames M. Fleming, Cham A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ":'r.+.L in:J'i TfiiS i:CCl:il'i'1. I' �`1Y, iH.4ll 5E V..PE Pi;RS!!,%.T TO SECT.-ON 17 OF THE AIMS. ...'i':P:A: L...>. ..... . :;Ii .. ,,:!J SH:.LL CE CLC:: ..::.1 20 DAPS -JTER 1HE LATE OF FILING cFI:Cr QE THC CiTi CICR.;. 11. THE VAEIALCE ":� .,.. PCR'%', '. ..:.. F .•,:.. ;�' .L, i..d :,.'.: Gi_..i C:.CiI �. if"i ..i '1 HC!::i'. . . . . .: . . _kl • . 1., ., .._, ..._ . .., „ER:. Ilii.: Id DC7S ri�,:'E :::::..: ... � .:i'I':M: HS.' ..... . .!7. F.' . ,... iii Tri i. ..•il E34:i. .I;;iY.'i i.::it i;ii)E):CD Ii:I D_:': :.H ....: OF Trif C . . Oi ii_'_,:i;G OR IS RECvROEJ ASD NUILD IIN, liii 07.N1'RS CERTIFICAIF OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL K7/�✓ WON Citg of �nJrM, $aS6U � 6rJ hoc 30 33 PN '88 FILE# CITY CLERK. S.L DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GARY & M4RLEEN SEWALL FOR A VARIANCE AT 13 PRESTON RD. (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Vice- Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary, Peter Strout and Edward Luzinski. Notice of the meeting was sent to abutters and others and notices were properly published in the Salam Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is seeking a Variance from side setback requirement to allow existing deck to remain in this R-1 zone. 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 affc, ting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance woui: involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to -• the retitioner; 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. The Board of Lppeal after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans makes the following finding of fact: 1. There was no opposition. 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. The relief requested can be granted without creating a substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating frau or nullifying the intent or pupose of the Ordinance; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the subject property but do not affect the district generally /r Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the \ ;• ,'- Variance requested, subject to the following condition: r` DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GARY S MARLEEN SONALL FOR • A VARIANCE AT 13 PRESTON ROAD, SALEM PAGE TWO 1. That a Building Permit be obtained. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED ohn R. Nutting Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK A?P-'•L iii:::; THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MAIG. Uti/S. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITNIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING C, i:iiS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PdRSAITT TO MASS. GENERAL Lr'S. CXA4'-:.R GD3. SECTION 11. THE VAMANCE OR SP:CIAI PER`.IIT ••� GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL N-!f TA. E MELT 0';T!L A CCPY OF THEOEC!FI::N. 6Ei.!?::N; THE CERN. FICATION OF THE Cry CLER:; :;!AT 2) PA;$ I:AvE 'LAPSED AND NJ A:*PEAL HAS Ci*E:; FILED. OR THAT, IF SUCIi AN APPEAL FAS GEE!N ME. THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS.;ISSED OR HAS IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX. REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFIC6TE OF TITLE. wMQ Of APPEAL • 30 (situ of , Cttsstttlru�eWry�'� 1 �5dot. Paurb of DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HARBOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. FOR VARIANCES AT .1-16 PRINCE STREET PLACE (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held March 16, 1988 with the following Board Members present: Peter Strout, Acting Chairman; Richard Bencal, Secretary, Messrs. , Luzinski 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances to allow reconfiguration of four lots into two lots allowing two buildings on one lot in this R-3 zone. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by 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 V intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence and after viewing the plans submitted at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No one spoke in opposition to the plan; 2. Several people spoke in favor; 3. The relief requested is needed by the petitioner, a non-profit private corporation, to provide upgraded lo.: and moderate income housing. 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 affect this lot and do not generally affect the district; 2. The Variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. r� DECISION ON THE FETITION OF SALEM HARBOR COMMUNITY DEVE-LOPME-T CORP. FOR VARIANCES AT 1-16 PRINCE ST. PLACE, SALE!: page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner comply with the Salem Fire Deptregulations relative to smoke and fire safety; 2. All construction to be done per all existing City and State Building Codes; 3. No new building to be constructed on site; 4. Eighteen ( 18), marked parking spaces on Prince Street Place to be used exclusively by residents of 1-16 Prince St. Place and may not be used by anyone else. GRANTED ichard A. Bencal, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK TO G.` ... 2U CRYO h. .cl _ .. flit of '$ttlemttsstttljusettsNoY 19 of Pry '66 • o f POBIa of AFpeal FUr DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH O'NEILL FOR A CITYCu:I;k, VARIANCE AT 22 PROCTOR STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held October 26, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, Nutting and Associate Member 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from side setback requirements to allow construction of an addition in the rear of the property which is located in an R-2 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; 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Ward Councillor spoke in favor as did three abutters; 2. No one appeared in opposition; 3. Addition of a bedroom is needed due to growing family; 4. Because of the location of ledge on the property, locating the addition elsewhere would not be feasible. 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 exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve a substantial hardship to the petitioner; ,• 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH O'NEILL FOR A VARIANCE AT 22 PROCTOR STREET, SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All construction be as per plans submitted to the Board; 2. Exterior finish be in harmony with the neighborhood; 3. All construction conform with state and local codes; 4 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department be adhered to; 5. A Building Permit and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. VARIANCE GRANTED John R. Nuttin , Secret A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK "Y. SHA.I.L BE i6AOE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE ELAS, LP, &:'8. A..O FILES! WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILINC I:: THE C;'FICE OF THE CITY CLERK. • '' ;•:.i lii ::i6S$. CFi(ERAL L'.;;^ CHAPTER 808. SECTION II. THE VARIANCE OR SPECiAl PE'6H} HE:`!'il,. ;'ll.':U Ca: 7:�,;(E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE 6�='.n ti:L }HE 1!:...iibL• �,.t ;;,E t,"i i'!C.Rn 'i i:n? j DAPS H.Aq LA.,,D A?:u NO APPEAL HAS BE I FIIEU. [ n c GN llid;. I! S'J ;;[i APPE%L HS 6Er" FILE. THAT 1T HAS BEEN UI$.'.HSSED OR BEE" F IS RECOROLO it. }II, SOUTH ESSEX REC!STR'Y OF DEEDS 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 • e Ctu of "Salem, c assurflusetihp (7 §§ th 'ob 9 < • 3� 9 pourb of (c Feral ft-" Off Eii DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SHAWN MICHAUD FOR VARIANCE AT 34 PROCTOR ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held January 27, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances to allow an existing deck. Property is located in an R-2 district. The Variances which have 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 withoutsubstantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition; On the basis of the above finding of fact, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment or without derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SHAWN MICHAUD FOR VARIANCE AT 34 PROCTOR ST. , SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The deck not be altered; 2. Building Permit be obtained. GRANTED Peter Strout, Member, 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 PL'RSUgNT 70 SECTION �. LAs�S. LH„F?En SOri. Ai:D SH"' 5: FI!EC: 'CITH:N •:= TILS DE:!S�C!; i:; _ 17 OF THE MASS. .. Ti, HE Fr CE Ci THE CITY CLERK, 27 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING H'.Y.E' HEll. THE VA P!AI:CE GC .., EFf,Ci Li"T!L A COPi ,,^.F r r-. 111E LI?'( HE[cCi_. -.I rrg: 1T i H�:i, IF SJC F. -- B.. .,y, ;.: D.4-SEL!.;r'^ ,1_ • ':F APr_LL ILLS ?.S. FILE. i... -_ . .. l;i'E H'O'_.._. '. F RECORD IF: THE S!t7iH - D. OF RECORD ESSE% RE'ISiRi CF ' 'I" '' ':R _ . _� �- GR IS RECORDED AND NOTED OC THE cOB'NER S..._,..0 ' CERFIHCATE OF TITLE.^ c �F THE OIT,;r!; BOARD OF APPEAL • r / of �$ttlrm, :�4jja9sarjjU9rttSHal 3 le PR '88 �OMI�1 II{ ��E2Il FILE# CITY CLERK.SALEM.MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DENNIS & MARTHA PELLETIER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 ROPES STREET (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held March 16, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming density requirements to allow an existing two family to be converted to a three family on this undersized lot which is located in an R-3 district. 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 non- conforming 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 neighborhood. !a 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 Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing plans of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition; 2. Adequate parking will be provided; 3. The use is an allowed use in an R-3 district; 4 . There will be no exterior changes to the building. 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 . The proposed use will be in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants; 2. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to a •', the public good and without nullifying or derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. =1 DECISIOF ON THE FETI T ION OF DE."i'2IS £. MART iA Pc LETIE=. FOR 5= A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 ROPES ST. , SALEM page two ``✓ Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety be adhere to; 2. All State and Local building codes and ordinances be adhered to; 3. Property at 7 Ropes Street must be owner occupied; 4 . Five (5) legal, on site parking spaces must be maintained; 5• A Certificate of Occupancy for the third unit must be obtained. GRANTED Jk�";�� Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FOOL: THIS DECISION'. I: A'a SHAU BE h:=.OE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE Ofi.. Lfa9S. CH:,Pi i4 80E. A';^, jH t E° Ff!:i: Y/ITF!N 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILIi;' w THE ^_-"i'- CF THE CITi CLERK. .. - �- E - S 11. THE '- " r!V CAF'i GF TI:EJ. i Hf$ i riLED. CR .ii:.;. ff S;: Ti:F.1�IT H?S BEE!: O "r„D n ' : IS ,” iEs' 'I!E Com:"c OF THE OCi;;EP OR iS RECORDED A!;:; ;.LiEC ON T'-.:.OtT;;ER'S CERTiii;.;-H OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL `wneuiq� fgity of ttlem, ttssttcljusetts0 a2 PM '88 • ', CJs Pours of 4veal FILET BITY RLERR.SALEM.MASS. DECISION_ON_THE_PETITION_OF_ALICE_L__JOHNSON_FOR VARIANCES_AS_TO_PROPERTY_AT_1_ROSEDALE_AVENUE On October 12, 198, the matter of the above referenced Petition came to be called before the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, Massachusetts_ Present at this Meeting were Mr _ James M_ Fleming, Esq_ , Chairman of the Board, and Messrs_ Richard A. Bencal , Peter Strout, Arthur LaBrecque, John Nutting_ Notice of this Hearing was sent to abuttors and others and Notice of the Hearing was properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A_ Chairman Fleming called the matter on for hearing, at which time, Richard 0_ Johnson, husband of the Petitioner , being a practicing Attorney intending to represent the Petitioner in the presentation of her Petition, called the Board's attention to the fact that, through inadvertence, a Variance for the installation of a cellar bulkhead entrance had been erroneously omitted from the language of the opening paragraph of the Petition, although • the installation of a bulkhead was clearly shown on the plan attached to the Petition , which had been filed with Board, and requested that the language of the Pettion be amended to include the cellar bulkhead in the paragraph requesting the needed Variances- After a discussion and consideration of this matter the Board Members unanimouslly agreed that such an amendment would be lawful and proper , under- all circumstanes, having due regard to the location and size of the bulkhead, in relation to the size and location of other structures requiring a Variance, as well as the matter of Notice to all interested parties and Abuttors by mail and publication , and the Board allowed the Amendment by inserting the words "cellar bulkhead" in the text of the opening paragraph of the Petition at the third line from the bottom thereof to read "deck, cellar- bulkhead, second story dormer addition" , et cetera, and as otherwise set. forth_ Chairman Fleming then proceeded with the Hearing, in the customary course of the Board's agenda, calling on the Secretary Nutting to Proceed with the reading of the Petiton and correspondence_ In substance, the Petition, as amended, requested Variances from the application of the present Zoning Ordinance to permit certain renovations and additions to the dwelling house and garage at. 1 Rosedale Avenue for construction of a Sunroom, deck, cellar bulkhead entrance, second story dormer and the additon of one • garage stall to the existing garage. The Variances being requested may be granted upon the finding by the Board that: a_ Special conditions and circumstances exist, which especially affect the land, building, or structure, involved, which generally do not affect other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b_ Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would impose substantial hardship on the Petitioner , financial or otherwise; C . Desireable relief may be granted, without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying, or substantially derogating from the intent of the Ordinance for the subject Zoning District, or the purposes of the Ordinance generally; The Board of Appeal, after- careful consideration of the evidence presented at the Hearing, after viewing various plans, made the following findings of fact: 1 _ There was no opposition to the Petition by anybody, either in person at the Hearing, or by way of verbal and written communication ; 2_ Mr _ Nutting, Clerk of the Board, read and entered into • the record a letter- received from Mr _ Frederick J_ Harney , Jr _ , the abuttor to the rear of the Petitioner 's Property, being the person most seriously affected by the granting of the requested Variances, being in favor of granting of the Variances in question and asking the Board to allow them; 3_ The Petitoner was recorded in favor- of allowance of her Petition , as well as Richard 0_ Johnson, aforementioned; 4_ Mr_ Raymond L_ Muse, Jr- _ , another immediate abuttor , appeared at the Hearing to speak in favor- of the allowance of the Petition; 5_ The location of the Sunroom, deck, bulkhead, dormer- and garage addition , for which Variances are requested are in the best and only location on the lot from an aesthetic , financial and practical viewpoint, and, therefore, to deny the requested Variances would cause the Petitoner an undue hardship with respect to the use of her land; 6 The closest structure on any abutting property would be in excess of twenty (20) feet away from the construction of, or change to, any structure for which Variances are requested_ On the basis of the above evidence presented and findings of fact made by the Board, the Board concluded, as follows; • 1 _ Special conditions exist which affect the subject property , but not the district. generally ; Page 2 of 3 pages_ 1 • 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause substantial hardship to the Petitioner , and 3. The relief requested could be granted, without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying, or substantially derogating from, the intent of the Zoning Ordinance for the subject District, or the Purposed of the Ordinance generally . WHEREFORE: The Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously , 5 to 0 in favor , to grant the requested Variances, subject to the following conditions: 1 . That the Petitioner comply with all requuirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to Fire Safety Codes, including installation of approved smoke and fire detectors for the dwelling; 2_ Construction of additions, or alterations to the house and garage, shall be in accordannce with Massachusetts and City of Salem Building Codes; 3. Construction of additions, or alterations to the house and garage, shall be in accordance with the dimensions • and measurements set forth in Plan attached to the Petition , as submitted to the Board of Appeals, and all exterior finishes shall be in harmony with the existing buildings; 4 _ Construction shall not commence, until proper and neccessary Building and Occupancy Permits are issued by the Builing Inspector of the City of Salem_ VARIANCES GRANTED. FOR THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SALEM log& PETER STROUT Member of the Board of Appeals, Hereunto duly authorized_ Page 3 of 3 Pages APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. • PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION it. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANIED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. BEARING THE CERT FICATION OF THE CRY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS 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 (gifg of ttlemC ttssttthusetts . R 314 Pr 66 PnarD of �}r}tenl FILE# • Ra/MINI� .. :IT 1' CLEF.b. S: ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM SHOE MANUFACTURING CO. FOR VARIANCES FOR 24 SAUNDERS ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held February 17, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Strout and Associate Member Dore. 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting variances from use, density and number of buildings on one lot to allow construction of sixty (60) residential units in this R-2 district. The Variances which have 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 in- volve 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The topography of the site is uneven in character and peculiar because of difference in elevation from the surrounding area; 2. The renovation of the existing building is not financially feasible; 3. Use of the building as a shoe manufacturing factory is no longer economically feasible; 4. The proposed use as residential condominium units is consistent with the residential nature of the neighborhood and does not conflict with the master plan which provides for revitalization of the residential areas along the North River. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; • 2. Literal enforcement of the ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM SHOE MANUFACTURING CO. FOR VARIANCES FOR 24 SAUNDERS STREET, SALEM page two • 3. The relief requested can 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the variances requested as to density, use and to permit more than one building on a lot so as to permit the construction of sixty (60) residential units, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Construction be as per plans submitted and be approved by the Planning Board; 2. Proposed construction conform to all applicable provisions of the Massachusetts State Building Code, the Salem Fire Prevention Code, the Salem City Ordinances and the Massachusetts General Laws relative to fire safety; 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department be strictly adhered to; 4. Proper numbering be obtained from the City of Salem; 5. All snow removal and trash removal be solely at the expense of the Condominium Association and be part of the Condominium documents; 6. The Condominium Documents control the sale or rent of the parking to • the owners of the condominiums only; 7. Building Permit be obtained; 8. Certificate of Occupancy for each unit be obtained; 9. The lot be landscaped as per plans and as approved by site plan review; 10. Public safety access be maintained as per plans submitted and meeting fire and police requirements; 11 . ingress and egress be on Saunders Street only; 12. Ninety (90) parking spaces be maintained as per plans; 13. Developer confer with abutters as to the establishment of proper buffer between the development and the abutters property. GRANTED �� /I ' 6A"7' / Teter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS . FN FI1,gT1 �J7 THH T�'{{{{�F prrppNN 7�( q��p� aapp1n1Y T1� 11�77Tc TIU" _ISW T R'Cl^SRALI'E�S!:'JE PURStlAYT'TP'S Ef.'IfBH IY'Of YTH�Gf S :F LER 4i LAI"S. CHAPTER 598. AND SHALT BE NLE: WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FIJ,4 IN THE C'i r!CE OF THE CM CLERK. • ; .; ':c{S, CE:;ER c_ LAV.c r:.-:i P. S:-. SECT G::: 11. THE VA^IA;lCE OB SPECIAL FRUIT !,A: .__ :::RE..'i. SHALL A:: is".E EFFCI L":T', 4 COPY OF THE CEMIS:.. c"E4.2'.'.: THE CERT- Of I< ERT- JF 'i< LIT'i LLEN'•. 22 C:=:S rV.— ELAPSED 45.: NO APPE41. HAS OM4 FILCD. .. d:.T. !F S:--` i.., APri AI H.^.S c_C:. . _- T':' IT Y.:; S`_E.'Q OI: ::SECO CR G; THE £:*A;H ESS-1: RE,ISTR'. ._ESS A:ID INDEXED U::OC: THE NA.1 OF THE OMER OF REC:RO OR IS RECORDED ANO NOTED Oi� U..E OWNER"S CERTIFICATE CF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL fit ofttlem, Cttssttchusef s p s F(' • \ aarD of eul w m,•� } NTTOLE44K DECISION ON THE PETITION FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING OF SARAH M. HAYES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 SCHOOL STREET (B-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held on August 24, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman, Messrs. Nutting, Luzinski, Labracque, and Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to the owner at the property, abutters, and others, and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. The petitioner, Sarah M. Hayes, the duly elected Councillor from ward Six, stated that the Building Inspector granted the owner of the property a building permit to convert an existing neighborhood grocery store to a new use "storage warehousing". The petitioner asked for an administrative ruling from the Board of Appeals that such use, that is "storage warehousing" is not apermitted use in a B-1 District. • The owner of the property, Drew Rcmanovitz, was present and argued that "storage warehousing" was a permitted B-1 use, and submitted a written brief in support of that position. Several abutters and neighbors also appeard at the hearing and spokeagainst allowing the property to be utilized for "storage warehousing". They also submitted a written brief. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, makes the following finding of fact: 1. The intended use, "storage warehousing" is in fact covered by the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Section V, 6 (f) , and that therefore, by implication is not a permitted use in a B-1 District, as those uses are enumerated in Section V,4. On the basis of the above finding of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeals voted unanimously, f ' • DECISION ON THE PETITION FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING OF SARAH M. HAYES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 SCHOOL STREET (B-1) SALEM 5-0 to allow the petition for an administrative ruling and to order the Building Inspector to revoke Building Permit 241-88 forthwith. ALLOWED James M. Fleming, Esq. Chairman, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPAL FRO4i THIS DECISION. IF A%Y. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE "AP' GENERAL LAV:$. CHAPTER b02. A::D SHALL BE HLED W!fHIH 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF f:LHq. OF THIS DECiSIDN IN. THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PU E SANT TO VASS. CE•'7F2A:. .R.bO . G-...'t+ 11. THE VARIANCE iRA::�ED HEREIN. SH-.LL N... Td,E E'rl{:T UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECili;-':. 0:=.— . . (i:dT1;1:; D. LEiR: l.. C? L':. HA":: ELA.!•$ED A.• N:: APPEAL H;.': : .CTAT. IF SUCH AN APNEA. H•:S B—N !'FE THAI If d:.+ FEE!: O;S'.:'SSCS C's i. . ',MH ESS_:: i!S IS f:° ;F !' -',- - - _ • DiRECORD OR IS RECORDED AND :IGr:D GN THE WiAER'S CERIIFICAIE GF TITLE. BOARD Of AP.%LA, • Nov 3-0o rM 'BB (gitg ofttlem, ttssttchuse##s +. x FILE# r . $ Posra of 1}r}teal CITY "EFF ,; I:-.Hass. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES WARD FOR A VARIANCE AT 21 STATION ROAD (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held September 28, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, Nutting 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variances from side and rear setback requirements to allow construction of a two car garage in this R-1 zone. 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition voiced at the hearing; 2. There was neighborhood support; 3. This is the only feasible location for the garage on the property. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can 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. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES WARD FOR A VARIANCE AT 21 STATION ROAD, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the • Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All construction to be done as 'per plans submitted; 2. All construction must comply with City and State Building Codes; 3. A building permit must be obtained prior to the commencement of construction; 4. Exterior finished must conform to existing building. GRANTED John R. NuttTfi4 Secre 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 MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION. BEARING THE CERT FICATION OF THE CICY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEE?: FILED. OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS • BCURDED IN THE SCUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER 711E NAME Or THE OVO"ER E YfiCORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • Z8 Q88 (gitg of ;5- alem, �Ett55ur4U9e& q �{ BELE* C' Appeal QiTY vl,€r:A.41M#PV. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FLORENCE GRETO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 31 SUMMIT AVE. (R-2) - A hearing on this petition was held on June 29, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary, Edward Luzinski, and Associate Member Arthur Labracque. Notice of the meeting was sent to abutters and others and notices were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Petitioner, owner of the property, requests a Special Permit to extend a non-conforming side setback to allow construction of a single story addition in this R-1 zone. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a special permit is section VB 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, expansion or enlargement shall not be substantially more detrimental that the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. 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 Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, makes the following finding of fact: 1. Fire Marshall Turner had no objection. 2. Ms. Greto represented herself, and requested permission so she can add a roam for her tenant, who is expecting a baby. 3. Mr. Vy Sheridan, 66 Broad St. , Salem and Mr. Timothy Van Wey 30 Ocean Ave, , spoke in favor. 4. There was no opposition. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the Special Permit subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction to be done as per plans submitted in compliance with the State and City Building Codes. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FLORENCE GRETO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 31 SUMMIT AVE. , SALEM PAGE TWO 2. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. 3. Legal Building Permits for the addition be obtained. 4. That the addition be on First Floor only. 5. All exterior finishes of the proposed additionblend with the existing finishes. 6. All Ordinance and State Laws relative to asbestos removal be adherred to. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED piohrl/. Nfitting, Sec tart' • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK IF 43Y. S4dLL BE ?TAF;' PU3?!',:C TC 44 ._ GWI ._. .. OF RE:Ei;_ OR 15 REGuRDEJ W;a BOARD OF AFeLA • Ctg of ulem, 'fflttssarhusetts 80Y tl '88 �c v FILE4 s oxrb of ud � L�� CITY CLERK.SALF�,, HISS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHYLLIS MCLAUGHLIN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT 17-.19 SUMMIT Sl=r (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held on September 28, 1988 with the following Board members present; James Fleming, Chairman, Messrs. , Luzinski, Bencal, Nutting, 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 the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. The petitioner, represented by Attorney John Serafini, is seeking a Special Permit to add a second level and to extend decks at 17-19 Summit Street. The locus is currently in an R-1 District. 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 neighborhood. 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 granting of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, confenience and wefare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful considering of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. No opposition was presented to the petition at the hearing. In fact, the Ward Four Councillor, Leonard O'Leary, spoke in favor of the plan. 2. The existing two (2) units are quite small, and the addition will make them more liveable. 3. The plan will not be detrimental to the existing 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. The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHYLLIS MCLAUGHLIN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT 17-19 SUMMIT STREET, SALEM • PAGE TWO detriment to the neighborhood and will not substantially derogate frau the intent or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant Special Permit requested. Relief is granted subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The proposed construction shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Massachusetts State Building Code, Salem Fire Prevention Code, Salem City Ordinances and Massachusetts General Laws relative to fire safety, and 2. A building permit be obtained and a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. All exterior finishes to conform to the existing finish. 4. The addition and deck be built as per the plans submitted to the Board of Appeal. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED James M. Fleming, Esq. • Chairman, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRON. THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE d:.,... GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER EOC. AN, SHALL BE RLEO WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE OAT[ 0. FIIING OF THIS DECISIGN IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. P6 NT TO AMASS. GENERAL L4...5. CHAP-,ER Y•2E. SECTION 1]. THE VARI0CE C? t, _,,. • Q^N:IEO H-RF.11. SHALL G;i T,.::E EiFECT C:';'H A COPY Ci THE OECISI"F;. BC .::;'•': :i. IiCA:QN CF THE Cr.) CLERn THAI 2^ O=.i- HAS, ELAPSED AILD 110 C.P•r`EAL HIS J._.. ..:7. C.R THAT. IF SUCH A." APPEAL HAS PLEI. FILE. THAT IT HAS VE'i CS D-.!;:::! 1' F.i C'ROED IN THE SOUTH ESS-.% REGiSTR'i OF CEEDS Af:D INDEXED UNCEC THE i.W..[ 9. C. ... 0. RECGRO OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD 07 APPEAL • (E /1 CtU of Salem, �fflttssnrhuseffs V� •..`; `:.�� ..�,; Pnara of ' 1kppenl DEC 16 1110 A '88 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEANETTE CARSON FOR A VARIANCE FILE AT 14 SUMNER ROAD (R-1 ) CITY RLERK. Sil '''(. A hearing on this petition was held on December 7, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Nutting, Strout and Associate Member 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is request a variance from rear setback to allow construction of a 8 ft. by 12 ft. porch in this R-1 zone. The Variance which has been requested may be gratned 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; •~7 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The proposed deck will replace a deteriorated porch and this will promote safety; 2. The proposed deck cannot be constructed in any other location without substantial financial hardship; 3. There was no opposition to the plan. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can 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. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEANETTE CARSON FOR A VARIANCE AT 14 SUMNER RD. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety must be met; 2. All construction must be done as per all existing city and state building codes and as per the plans submitted; 3. All dimensions of the porch must be as per the plans submitted; 4. Petitioner must obtain a legal building permit. GRANTED Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK !::...::I'... /',:;7. SHA L B: :M.DE PURS!wiNT TO SF 17 :4T'i_ �2.iC c_ :i ED :4 :ii Fi 20 OATS A:iL:. .CE ::"7L G: • ii!C ii: ..._ ...._.. 'if Tri; CITY CLE.!;.If .. . A. .. .. .�..�.. ._. 1.:: .. .. .... ISiR! Of REC1ko OR 13 RZ"RDEO AND NUEO OI': THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF IITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • All (dt#g of *Arm, �ttsstttl�u�e##g��E� 10 til 'BB Poarb of JApprnl c'Tr ottet. s4teN. is MOSS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD AND ROBERTA WILLIAMS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 3 THOMAS CIRCLE (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 10, 1988 with the following Board Menbers present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Nutting, 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 withe Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit from sideline setback and use extending non-conforming use to construct an addition in this B-2 district. 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 land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such changes, extension, enlargenent or expansion shall not be substantially more ' detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. 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 Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence and after viewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed addition would be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. There was no opposition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal con.d.>>des as follows: 1. The granting of the Special Permit request will not be detrimental to the public good and will not nullify or derogate from the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building Permit be obtainedi and occupancy permit from the Building Inspector. 2. The petitioner meet all the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD AND ROBERTA WILLIAMS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FUR 3 THOMAS CIRCLE, SALEM • PAGE M 3. All construction be as per plans submitted. 4. New building to be\built in harmony with existing structure. GRANTED Peter Strout,Manber,Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISI•�N, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURVANT TO SECTIO:! 17 OF THE MASS. Gi NERAL LAWS. CHAVE2 6603. AND SHALL BE FILES tV:'A!N 20 DAYS :ITER !HE DATE OF FILING f i i;liS DE$iS%0i1 Ifi ,HE .^,FFrE OF THE CITY CLERK. ".S. ":5:'nA:. V/'S. CIIAHER 803. N 11, THE VAR:A;iCE An SPACIAL PERMIT '• ; �.V:i'id HEiif[7. S,,-LL :b:1 V..:5 EFFECT WrIL A Ci.PY :F THF /... ... THE CERT. 20 OAl'S HAVEH73CEEiI f'ILSU. :F Soca! Ail AFPE.4_ H S KEN FILE. TriA: IT Or'.3>:cO ::R DC9'£D IS RiC:.::DEJ IN THE SCJiH ESSEX REGISTRY OF OC:;': 4NJ',i WDE7:ED Gi^Ed IHS NAVE OF THE OWNER 01RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • Mss Z 318ufttlPm, ��7H�IsstIthllsP r� �•A �9 FILE# Poarb of ' pFpzal fk WIM YI� CIT( CLEP.K.S:.l r!�.HISS. � FW FR-.Ur w. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS a NANCY KELLY FOR A VARIANCE FOR 11 VINNIN ST. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held February 17 , 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Strout and Associate Member Dore. 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance to allow the premises to be used for an office and the display and sale of kitchen installations and accessories 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; 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 or the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Althought current zoning for this parcel is R-1 , the immediate area consists of commercial and condominium development; 2. This parcel is not conducive for R-1 zoning; 3. No expansion would take place, only restoration; 4 . There was no opposition; 5. There was neighborhood support; 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 exist which especially the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve • substantial hardship to the petitioner; r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS & NANCY KELLY FOR A VARIANCE FOR 11 VINNIN STREET, SALEM page two . 3. The relief requested can be granted without detriment and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . A building permit be obtained prior to any construction; 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. be adhered to; 3. Renovations be as per plans submitted; 4. Seven (7) legal parking spaces be maintained on site at all times; 5. Hours of operation to be 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. , Monday through Saturday; 6. No Sunday hours; 7. Premises to be used for kitchen display on the first floor only and office for the kitchen display company on the second floor. 8. No storing of merchandise or manufacturing shall be conducted on the premises; • 9" A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. GRANTED James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ;,I1.4LL EE -"'c ttif:�9F."IT TO .`.cCT{_"i '7 ^i ... FRO:d THIn DiCISmt:. ,._ .. .:.."..,.:.,::I '�. Gp'(S n(iER :i.'_ ':n:E } .-... .. SE:`_RdL Ni:S. CI!APi 9: iic Ci:i' C= -F TWS I;EC S!OPI ti Ili.. .RS rER'S CERTIFIC;ifi uF lift E. ^p nREIGEv C8 (E' fi::CGR'UEU C.:7D trJiLJ C:i ira BOARD OF APPEAL • } �,.�•�� u� 16 1135 AX '8B ffLitg ofttlem, � ttssttdiusefts)ie • gz; .' poarb of -Appeal C17 ALEv. MA55. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARVINDER S. BAHAL FOR A VARIANCE AT 51 - 53 4A.SHINGTON SQUARE, NORTH (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 1988 and continued to August 10, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. Bencal; Luzinski, Nutting and Strout. Notice of the original hearing was sent to abutters and others, and notices of the original hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner, represented by Attorney Phillip Strome, is seeking a Variance to convert a two (2) family dwelling into a three (3) family dwelling. The property is located in an R-2 Zone. 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 a fru the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of evidence presented, and after viewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: 1. The existing building was originally two (2) separate buildings that were merged into one building. 2. The existing building, having approximately 6000 square feet of living space, is too large to continue to be utilized as a two (2) family. 3. In order for the building to be restored historically to what it was meant to be, it must be utilized as a three (3) family in order to re-coup the necessary e:<penditures of money. 4. The petitioner can provide adequate off-street parking. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented • I at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows; 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect this property and not the district generall,.. 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substa:._iai DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARVINDER S. BAHAL FOR A VARIANCE AT 51 - 53 L,ASHINGON SQUARE, [NORTH, SALEM PAGE TWO thardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Nutting opposed) to grant the relief requested in the petition, subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner provide six (6) off street parking spaces which conform to the requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, as per the amended parking plan submitted to the Board of Appeal. 2. The property is to remain owner occupied at all times. If the property is not owner-occupied, the Variance is null and void. 3. All renovztion of the property is to be done under the terms of a building permit to be issued by the Building Inspector and be in conformity with all city and state building codes. 4. Egress from the parking area on the property be onto Pleasant Street Avenue only. 5. Appropriate landscaping be placed on all sides of the locus. • 6. All exterior doorways be in harmony with the historical natu.-.z of the existing neighborhood. 7. No exterior additions be added to the property without Board of Appeal approval. 8. All the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to Fire Safety, be adhered to. 9. All unnecessary pavement on the locus be removed and that area be landscaped appropriately. 10. All present unsightly arear=_, including the area over the back door, be rehabilitated. 11 . The petitioner agrees not to seek any increase in density at the locus. VARIANCE GRANTED James M. Fleming, Esq. Chairman, Board of Appeals A COPY' OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • APPE'l FP.;''7 TNI, Irr1_'_.: 7.,::Y. S.N1LL BE "ADE P'i"n31,'v'Ja TO SECTNIN 17 GF CrI;rR7d lam'.' Cite li^ •• Si;'.iL S PI'.iJ .. "� L'A�S Ai-.ER :IIE rl E C; r - Cig of *Itnt, 41ttssxrljusettin 63_�'PM 1 1 PWWb of rU4 WT OLtACIAlEWMA41. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF OF SALEM EVENING NEV6 FOR VARIANCE AT 155 WASHINGTON STREET (B-5) A hearing on this petition was held on September 28, 1988 with the following Board Members present, James M. Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary; Peter Strout, and Edward Luzinski. 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. Petitioner, owner of the property seeks a variance fran the Salem Sign Ordinance to allow the erection of 1. 20'x3' roof sign in this B-5 zone. The variance which has been requested may be granted by the Board upon a finding that: a. special conditions and circwnstances exist which especially affect the 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 fran the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans of the property in question, makes the following findings of fact; 1. The property and business in question is unique to the area as well as the City in general. 2. The new signage would enhance the business visibility as no signs are there presently. 3. The roof locations for the signs allow the petitioner to retain the characteristics of the existing facade. 4. The Design Review Board reccmrended to the Salem Redevelopment Authority, (SRA) and the SRA concurred with the Design Review Board. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The property in question is unique. • 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance=_ would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without detriment to the public good and without derogating substantially fran the intent of the district or . the purpose of the Ordinance. rl ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM EVENING NEMS FOR A VARIANCE AT 155 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM (B-5) • 4. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally. Therefore the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner may erect one (1) sign, 20 feet by 3 feet in the location described as over the editorial office. 2. All dimensions are to be as per the plans submitted. 3. Petitioner meet all requirements of the Design Review Board and the Salem Redevelopment Authority, if any. VARIANCE GRANTED chard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 17 OF fd?EP.E FRO:: TH:S DECISION. IF A.NY, SN.AEL•BFI,IEL'Dti!!PH.IN 2ClIDAYS UERTO '1HE DATEIF(FILING • (,%Y,ERn'_ [A'i:5. CHi,HiR °OS. A;iO SHSLL i:_ OF THE CIT'! C!iRX. gyp•-lAL PEB'::IT T... , .fc:t'• . . iii: ..RT• :,n UC.LEU IS "i IF I'•i• �.il'�" !;.•. ' ... E C. OF RECCR9 UR IS RECOROEb AtiU NGTEC' ON THE U':+NEk'S LERiIFICfGE OF TME. BOARD OF APPEAL v • JAN N 8 22 '0 (.9ity of *Ilem, C assar4usetta �O `•,' oyF Poara of huproal GITT GLLRi, ; 9, DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MINOAN REALTY TRUST FOR MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF VARIANCES AT 191-211 WASHINGTON STREET AND 29 NEW DERBY STREET (B-5 ) A hearing on this petition was held on January 11, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman, Messrs . Nutting, Luzinski , Bencal and Labracque. 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 the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. The petitioners were represented by Attorney William F. Quinn. Mr. Quinn reviewed the permitting history of the proposed project with the Board. On June 15, 1988, the Board of Appeals granted variances as to set-back, lot-coverage and parking design which the owner requested to accommodate the development of a three-story commercial structure on this site, with some on-site parking for the first-floor tenant, Walgreen Eastern Co. , Inc . Mr. Quinn now advises the Board that market conditions are unfavorable, preventing the owner from presently -' obtaining adequate mortgage financing for the whole r ; development. Mr. Quinn indicated that Walgreen' s is a nationally recognized company and has signed a twenty-year lease for the first floor of the development provided that Walgreen' s can open for business at the site by September of 1989 . Financing is available for a one-story structure to accommodate Walgreens on the site . Mr. Quinn stated that the owners are still committed to the overall project, and intend to complete it when market conditions allow this to be financed. The owner will prepare and file with the Building Inspector plans for the overall three-story structure, with the foundation and first floor engineered to accommodate the second and third floor additions. The property is located in a B-5 (Central Business) Zoning District. The specific relief sought by the applicant is two-fold: First, that the original variance decision be modified to allow the development to be constructed in two phases, with the ground floor to be constructed, completed and occupied as the first phase, and. the second and third floors to be constructed, completed and occupied subsequently as the second phase, all per revised plans submitted to the Board, and Second, that the original variances, as modified, be extended f 7� until September 13 , 1989, pursuant. to Chapter 40, Section 10 . -tf MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF 191-211 WASHINGTON STREET AND 29 NEW DERBY STREET Page 2 • No one appeared or spoke in opposition to the application at the public hearing. The Modification and Extension of the original variances may be granted by the Board pursuant to Chapter 40A Section 10, and upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which do not generally affect other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner; and 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 . Based upon the materials and presentation made to it, the Board found that the facts, the special conditions and the conclusions recited in the original Board Decision granted on June 15, 1988 • still exist, that the extension and modification can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, and that the development of each phase of the project will significantly contribute to the economic redevelopment and improvement of this area of downtown Salem. Therefore, the Board voted unanimously to grant the relief requested for an extension of the original variance decision until September 13 , 1989, and to modify the original decision to allow the development to be constructed in two phases, in conformity with the plans submitted to the Board, and subject to the following conditions: 1 . that all of the six enumerated conditions recited in the original June 15, 1988 Decision continue and are incorporated herein: a. that the petitioner obtain a Site Plan Permit from the Planning Board, a building permit and all other required permits; b. that the structure comply with all pertinent fire codes and regulations; • C . and that a Certificate of Occupancy is issued; - 2 - ' f MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF 191-211 WASHINGTON STREET AND 29 NEW DERBY STREET Page 3 • d. that the structure be built as per the plot plan submitted to the Board of Appeals; e. that the petitioner provide sixteen ( 16) on site parking spaces, as per the parking plan submitted to the Board of Appeals; and f. that proper street numbering for the structure be obtained from the Assessor' s Office, City of Salem. 2 . that the final design of the development shall be pursuant to design review approval by the Salem Redevelopment Authority; and 3 . that construction activities be conducted only during hours allowed by municipal ordinance, and in accordance with all conditions adopted by the Salem Planning Board. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION GRANTED. / James Fleming, Chairman • 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 P:F.SUANT TO SECT:-'! !7 GENERAL LAY1S. CNAPTER 308. AND SHALL BE FILED S/!THIN 20 DAYS AFTER Ti!: CATS OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LA-17S. CHAPTER 378. SECTION ll. THE VARIANCE "R SP7CU'.I. Ci'A.NTED HEREIN. SHALL I1:'7 T:.B"c EFFECT U;:TIL A CC.^Y G.' THEUECIS:r.N. BE;,ddl� .T. FICATiON OF THE CRY CLEF.% iHAT T_O DAYS H ViE ELAPSED %NO NO :P PEAL Y..;S 2r[N �r: OR THAT. !F SUCK AN APPEAL HAS BE---N FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DGLiiS;F,D CRF.E;!EL'1 RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE )La.IE G: THE OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • 3 - (9itV of �$ttiem, f ttssachusetts • �'a 9 'Poxrb of Me"d DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND L. YOUNG FOR A VARIANCE AT 151 WILLIAMS STREET (R-2) A hearing of this petition was held on September 14, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman, Messrs. , Luzinski, Nutting 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, requests a variance from side yard setback requirements to allow the construction of a deck in this R-2 zone. 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No support or opposition was raised to the plan; 2. The deck could not be constructed in any other portion of the lot; 3. The proposed construction would not take away any on site parking; 4. The current stairs are in disrepair and the proposed construction would replace them. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: m 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property :a but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; CV w, K 3. The relief requested can be granted without detriment to the public yk good and without derogating substantially from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. cta w DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND L. YOUNG FOR A VARIANCE FOR 15} WILLIAMS STREET (R-2) page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All construction be as per the plans submitted and in conformance with all existing City and State Building Codes; 2. All dimensions of the proposed deck shall remain as per the plans submitted; 3. All construction be done with a legal building permit; 4. All exterior finishes are to be in harmony with all existing finishes. VARIANCES GRANTED -Rf /I chard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman 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 pF THE MASS. • GENERAL LAYS, CHAPTER 803. AND SHALL BE FILED 110THIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE Cll' CLERK. PJRSA\. Tu 'E^ERA' U S CHAPTER SOS. SECTION 11, THE VQVA:ICE OR SPECIAL PERMIT Vk AJIED He Eli.,. SHALL Nm 1r.4E EFFECT UNTIL ACOPY GF 1HE (:RT- FI:"AliON OF THE CISY CLER'( 11;T 'L•] DAYS HAVE ELAPSED A.!t) !!,i APPEAL HAS GE;: FILED. I`.5 THAT. IF SJCH AN APPEAL HAS SEEN FILE. THAI 1T H.Ad SEEN 0!S:dUECC OR FN'ED IS RECORDED IN THE SCUTH ESSEX RECISi'RY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OV7i:L-R OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OVINER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • e fy COVry,I.� V `` (Ilitg oftticm, � tts�tztljusetts 9 P nttrD of ettl DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LANNING LEVINE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 WILLOW AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held April 20, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messr. , Bencal, Fleming and Associate Member 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requestind a Special Permit to extend nonconforming setbacks to allow construction of a deck in this R-1 district. 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, structues, and uses, provided however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. 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 Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition; 2. Previous extermination of bees in the area of the proposed deck has caused the land to be unable to grow grass or other vegetation and having an aesthetically pleasing deck as proposed would be a better use of the rear area. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The granting of the special permit requested will be in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety and convenience of the City's inhabitants; 2. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and with nullfiying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. ,�r �J DEOISIOt: ON THE PET:--7011 OF UNNING LEVINE A S7-----,A! PERMIT AT 7 WILLO'd AVZVUE, SALE!-; c '-= page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Construction be as per plans submitted; 2. Side and rear encroachments be as per plans submitted; 3. All work comform to allow city and state codes. GRANTED James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK . . . ...,.. . i , ...... Cii F.:: - .. .. .. ec:.ro OF o „ a < m A n N m A T W N n O m W S 2 v m N m N t- `` tl�itg of "ittlem, �Httssar4usett , luM 10 11 is AM 88 paurb of '4pral FILE$ A ,• CITY CLERK,SAI FV. MASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ADA & DONALD ROBERTS FOR A VARIANCE AT 16 WINTER STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 18, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a variance from density and setback requirements to allow existing garage to be demolished and new garage constructed in this R-2 zone. 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 in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating frau the intent 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. No opposition was voiced at the meeting; 2. The garage that exists is in poor condition and poses a fire or structural threat to the neighborhood. 3. The owners expressed a legitimate need for the use of a new garage. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to •' the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating fran the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ADA & DONALD ROBERTS FOR A VARIANCE AT 16 WINTER STREET, SALEM • Page Two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Proposed addition to be built as plans submitted: 2. All construction must ccnply with the Massachusetts Building Code and the requirements of the Salem Fire Department. VARIANCE GRAN= Peter Strout, Member A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BELT] FIT WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • ArrErd FROIM THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE L9.A!S. CHAPTER 804. AND SHALL EE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTEi -Ili: LATE OF FILI'li L': THE CFF:LE OF TF.i ilii C!CRN. -I'::: li. TiIE _ _.FEC. U�ML A C:F'i Ci iF_. _. .. . . :I`i C:ERF• ' , . G::'!S u:.:'E EL:PSJ .. .. ,.- ii:.F t._ . ....,. • THE :!!': ?i c P.. ... .. _ . A:: APPEAL INA$ 6: ii!E, THAI IT HLS ESSEX REI:!STR': CF LEEDS A:JJ I::Ld:;EJi:.E vi W 11.L"RU OR IS RECORDED AND NViEJ Cis THE QNNER'S CERTIFICATE Ci TIFLE. BOARD OF APPEAL •