The URL can be used to link to this page

1989-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (2) �ecss��c� s- �q� BOARD OF APPEAL DECISIONS - 1989 ADDRESS PETITIONER/OWNER PAGE 22 Andrew St. (g) Daniel & Tracy Pierce 1 • 26, 30, & 34 Barnes Cir./.t 13 Clark St. (d) Robert J. Stillian 2 3 Belleau Rd. (g) Roland & Vivien Caron 3 2 Berube Rd. (g) Thomas & Louise Burke 4 10 Boardman St. '(d) Donald Kaufman 5 40 Boston St. (g) Philip H. Berube/ Peter Wouralis 6 75 Boston St. (g) Deana Boucher 7 140 Boston St. (w) Raymond Lavoie 8 164R Boston St. (d) Michael J. Harrington 9 164R Boston St. (g) Michael J. Harrington 10 7 Botts Ct. (g) Peter & Jeanne Kempthorne 11 18 Bridge St. (g) Neil & Gladys McMullen 12 • 34 Bridge St. (g) John Spinale 13 85 Bridge St. (g) Eastern Pulmonary Services, Inc./ Russeoo Green, Jr. 14 55 Broad St. (d) Rober Kobuzewski 15 5 Buena Vista Ave. (g) Jeffrey Sano 16 44 Buena Vista Ave. (g) Philip Askew 17 51R Canal St. (g) Anthony J. Picariello 18 145 Canal St. (g) Best Petroleum-Co. 19 322-330 Canal St. / (g) Jefferson Trust 20 72 Loring Ave. 6 Castle Rd. (g) Peter Baglioni 21 40 Cedarcrest Ave. (g) Galen Frizzie 22 23 Charles St. (g) Adelbert St.Pierre 23 2 Chase St. (g) Richard E. Dion/ Juanita Tremblay 24 4 �'• ( 8-8A Chestnut St. (g) Richard & Janice Lebel 25 2 Cheval Ave. (g) Richard Bresnahan 26 7 Clark St. (d) Paul Ferragamo 27 BOARD OF APPEAL DECISIONS - 1989 ADDRESS PETITIONER/OWNER PAGE 13 Clark Ave./ 26, 30, &: 34 Barnes Cir. (d) Robert J. Stillian 28 10 Cleveland Rd. (g) Kenneth Andrews 29 14 Crescent Dr. (g) Thus & Barbara Newman 30 28 Crescent Dr. (g) Frieda Hamson 31 13 Crowdis St. (g) Joseph A. Zagrobski 32 27 Dearborn St. (w) Sally Wilson Kelsey 33 37 Dearborn St. (g) John & Sally Kelsey 34 110 Derby St. (g) Robert Curran & James Bailey 35 110-112 Derby St. (g) Jimbob Realty Trust. 36 222-224 Derby St. (g) Derby Studio of Photography, Inc./ Donald & Mary Michaud 37 278 Derby St. (g) George K. Osgood 38 76-78 Essex St. (g) Richard Anderson 39 1 ( 96 Essex St. (d) Daniel W. Cryan 40 42 Fairmont St. (g) John Munroe 41 104 Federal St. (g) Barbara Cleary & David Hart 42 12 First St. (d) New York Cellular GeographiCService Area, Inc. 43 12 First St. (g) New York Cellular Geographic Service Area, Inc./ Winn Management - 44 1 Florence St. (g) Anthony Picariello 45 81 Fort Ave. (g) 81 Fort Avenue Realty Trust 46 46-52 Greenlawn Ave. (g) Charles Brett Tr. 47 46-52 Greenlawn Ave. (d) 48 12 Grove St. (g) Russell Thatcher 49 24 Grove St. (g) Raymond & Barbara Haight 50 29 Hancock St. (g) Margie McMaster 51 • 31 Hazel St. (g) Roger Wendell 52 20 Highland Ave. (g) Paul M. Claveau 53 L I BOARD OF APPEAL DECISIONS - 1989 , ADDRESS PETITIONER/OWNER PAGE 103 Highland Ave. (d) William Katsapetsis 54 • 1 � 111 Highland Ave. (g) Steven & Lisa Mullins/ Edward Zarohian 55 150 Highland Ave. (w) Levon Bogossian 56 227 Highland Ave. 227 Highland Ave. Partnership 57 227 Highland Ave. (g) 227 Highland Ave. Partnership 58 318 Highland Ave. (g) James J. Adamo 59 382 Highland Ave. (d) John Keane 60 401 Highland Ave. (g) Joyce Nelson & Michael Correale 61 433-445 Highland Ave. (g) Extra Space Assoc. 62 488 Highland Ave. (d) Cellular One 63 488 Highland Ave. (g) Cellular One 64 16 Intervale Rd. (g) Thomas & Eileen Luddy 65 32 Irving St. / Fernando & Marie Costa 66 89R Tremont St. 32 Irving St. /(g) Fernando & Marie Costa 67 89R Tremont St. 39 Irving St. Joseph H. Marfongelli/ Charles L. Reed, Jr. 68 13 Jackson St. Catherine Green 69 36 Japonica St. (g) Patrick Jinks, Jr. 70 192R Jefferson Ave. a/k/a John Mento/ Ocean Ave. Extension (g) Ann Bonaiuto 71 291 Jefferson Ave. (g) GIM Properties 72 16-18 Juniper Ave. (d) Frederick McIntire J3 22 Kosciusko St. (d) W. David Crosby 74 186 Lafayetee St. (d) Vasile Steven 75 27 Laurel St. (g) Donald Michaud 76 95 Lawrence St. (g) Napoleon LeBlanc 77 14 Lee St. (g) Fred & Donna Flett 78 • 25 Lee St. (g) George Villett 79 13 Lincoln Rd. (g) William & Nancy Rowe 80 38 Loring Ave. (w) Donald Bouchard 81 I BOARD OF APPEAL DECISIONS - 1989 , ADDRESS PETITIONER/OWNER PAGE 72 Loring Ave./ • 322-330 Canal St. (g) Jefferson Trust 82 72 Loring Ave. (g) Eastern:Bank/',r._. -s Esther Realty, Inc. 83 490 Loring Ave. (g) Herberty & Rosemary Broadbent 84 10� Mall St. (g) Arthur & Cheryl Michaud 85 6 March St. (g) Children's Friend & Family Servic Society of the North Shore/ March St. Realty Trust 86 98 Margin St. (g) Giovanna Quarterone 87 108 Margin St. (g) John Occhipinti 88 55,Memorial Dr:- (g) Margaret Presses 89 �27_North:St. ' (g)= Maryanne Pantelakis1 X90 �11 II II r-��II��(w) 11 ^`��.II��•11- ��J 11 91,E 121 North St. (w)` Peter Koutsakis 92 190 North St. (d) Francis Brewer/ Panagoula An Young 93 • ` 190 North St. (d) Francis Brewer/ Panagoula An Young 94 Ocean'Ave. Extension/ John Mento/ 192R Jefferson Ave. (g) Ann Boaniuto 95 95 Ocean Ave. (d) Thomas Manning & Ernest Glynn 96 16-18 Orchard St. (g) Robert & Mary Leclerc 97 4 Pickering St. (g) Stanley Smith 98 37-39 Proctor St. (g) James McDonald 99 21 Puritan Rd. (g) Robert & Julie Bunn 100 6 Randall St. (g) Manuel & Maria Amaral 101 42 Ravenna Ave. '(g) Edwin & Beatrice Devereux 102 12 Read St. (g) Ricky Thompson 103 24 Saunders St. (g) W&G Realty Trust 104 • 46 School St. (d) Wallace Miller/ Joyce Dupuis 105 103 School St. Wendy K. Thatcher/ H. Drew Romanovitz 106 _ I BOARD OF APPEAL DECISIONS - 1989 , ADDRESS PETITIONER/OWNER PAGE 15-155 Station Rd. (q) ChristireCorrenti 107 • 4 Surrey Rd. (g) Peter J. Hooks 108 10 Surrey Rd. (g) Jim McIntire 109 I I Tedesco Pond P1. (g) ' Kathleen Driscoll 110 189R Tremont St./ 32 Irving St. (g) Fernando & Marie Costa 111 9 Turner St. (d) Richard Pigeon 112 14 Upham St. (g) Jimmy Kowalski 113 74 Valley St. (g) Gaetano & Phyllis Fusco 114 37 Walter St. (d) John Suldenski 115 29 Washington Sq.N. (g) Bertram Home for Aged Men 116 + :+ 191-211- Washington St./ y 29 New Derby St. (g) Minoan Realty Tr. 117 22 Webb St. '(w) Raymond Page 118 22 Webb St. (w) Raymond Page 119 XS 117 Webb St. (gY Paul Godjikian 120 8 West Ter. (g) William & Donna Wholley 121 50 Winter Island Rd. (g) City of Salem 122 •i (9itn of jl�3: ttlem, 74Eassttchusefts AL 31 i9 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANIEL AND TRACY PIERCE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 22 ANDREW ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on July 19, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary; Edward Luzinski and Richard Febonio. 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, represented by Attorney John Serafini Sr. , are requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming dwelling and a Variance to allow parking of three (3) cars as per the plans submitted. The property is located in an 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 90 of nonconforming lots, land, structures,a nd uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, expansion or enlargement 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 involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, 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: it DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANIEL & TRACY PIERCE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 22 ANDREW ST. , SALEM page two 1 . The proposed addition will not extend any further towards the rear than the existing outbuilding. 2. The proposed dwelling extension would not remove any existing parking area. 3. The location of the house on the lot, as well as the lot configuration. presents a hardship to the petitioner in establishing more parking on site. 4. The property will remain a two family dwelling. 5. Support to the plan, petition form, was presented to the Board, a letter was received in favor and several neighbors spoke in favor. 6. 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 promote the public health. safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and will be in harmony with the neighborhood. • 2. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally. 3. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner. 4. 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 . Petitioner meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Department. 2. All construction be done as per the plans submitted and as per dimensions submitted. 3. All construction be done as per existing City and State Building Code and by legal building permit. 4. The exterior finishes of the new addition shall be of clapboard in keeping with the finishes circa 1800. • 5. Petitioner maintain three (3) parking spaces on site as per the plans submitted. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANIEL & TRACY PIERCE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 22 ANDREW ST. , SALEM page three SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE GRANTED 'R4chard A Bencal , Vice Be ca 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 l7 of the Mass. General Laws, Chapter Boa. and shall be filed within 20 days alter the date of tiring of this decision in the office of the city clerk. Pursuant to Mass. General La.vs. Ch_c:e� Boa, Section il, the variance or Special Permit grante^. herein sh;:i no: take effect until a copy of the decision, tearing :he certification of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed.or that, if such appeal has been f'.!ed, that it has teen dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record on is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL • \y a, SEP ZZ U :4 iii 189 (cif" ofttlem, Cttssttchuseffs F, POMfb 0{ CAP211 iTY DELIS•iCN oN THE PETITION OF ROBERT J. STILIAN FOR VARIANCES AT 13 CLARK Sr-, 26 BARNES CIRCLE, 30 BARNES CIRCLE and 34 BARNES CIRCLE, ASSESSORS MAP 3 LOTS 81, 82, 85 & 86 BARDS CIRCLE/CLARK SIPEET (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held August 16, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, Luzinski, 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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner, represented by Attorney Robert Ledoux, is seeking variances for three of four lots on a proposed subdivision which do not meet the required area and for one lot which does not meet frontage requirements. The lots are also identified on Assessors Mao 3 as lots 81 , 82, 35 and 86. The locus of the property is in an R-1 district. The variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finaing 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; R• f .y 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 . Several abutters, as well as other residents of the immediate area, spoke in opposition to the petition, citing the addition of traffic to heavily traveled adjacent streets, blasing problems, and changes in the drainage patterns in the area. 2. The locus could be developed by the petition if the lots were joined. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, --he 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 Zoning Ordinance would not r• involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. 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. .r • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT STILIAN FOR VARIANCES FOR 13 CLARK ST. , 26, 30 and 34 BARNES CIRCLE, SALEM page two Therefore, after a motion to grant the requested variances, with conditions, was made and duly seconded, the Zoning Board of Appeal vote 0-5 against granting the requested variances. The petitioner failed to receive four (4) affirmative votes and, therefore, the variances are denied. VARIANCES DENIED / James M. Fleming, Esq. Chairman, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK "71 :hi; dra_:nn. it ;ny, xlra:: l:e m.ide n.u=_uont :i SC:tidn 17 of Cd;rs. G�n^_r:l Lows. -..h;:o:er :.C;5. .1n9 sn Il v.i:Sin 20 S .... J•:c c. P,:n7 C! :I::; decsidn .r :110 clii_u c1 the Cit/ C'rrk. • -_.r,r.... .. :.-':.- c:.:ce,. he:era cG:: e: -�. ^;I .: r.:ay of :`.e c:r:, t.3":'e no ap^dal h;s been i:.rih::t. ;` "=1 . 1,h; t_en d, h:at is hu tocn d,smis-Cd or danied i; recordid in file SPrih Ecsea Pz7!siry of Deeds .and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL' • C3) „4 JUL 13 3 it PH '89 Ctg of Safem, ,4Htt9sar4useff9FILC:,f �• '.,' rF PdIITD of �U�TPal ;!TY CLE1tC. 5:..._i;. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROLAND & VIVEN CARON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 3 BELLEAU ROAD ' (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held on July 5 , 1989 with the following Board Members present . James Fleming , Chairman , Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman , John Nutting , Secretary , Messrs . Richard Febonio 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 , is seeking a Special Permit to allow existing nonconforming deck to be enclosed . 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 : r 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 the 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 find- ings of fact : 1 . There was support for allowing by abutters and neighbors . 2 . No opposition. 3 . The enclosing of the deck would add to the quality of life of the petitioners . 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 may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the ourDOse of the Ordinance . • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROLAND & VIVEN CARON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 3 BELLEAU ROAD (R-1) page two Therefore , the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously , 5-0 to grant the relief requested , subject to the following conditions : 1 . Petitioner must meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety ; 2 . All work must be done as per City and State Building Codes and with a legal Building Permit. 3 . All construction be done as per the plans submitted . 4 . That it be built in harmony with the existing structure . SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED • 12 / Richard T . Febonio , Board Member A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Apoeat from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Mass. General Laws, Chapter BoB, 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, Chanter 808,Section 11,the Variance ur Special Permit granted herein shit.not take effect until a copy of the .ecision. bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have .'apsed and no appeal has been filed, or that. if such appeal has been filed,that It has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or lS Eeoard_ed and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. 13.IOARQ OF,APPFAU J�9JL 3G� f1.i �� Citu of ttlem, C ttssttt $efts Pnttra of �, peal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS & LOUISE BURKE FOR VARIANCES AT 2 BERUBE ROAD (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held November 29, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting Variances from side and rear yard setback requirements to allow construction of a garage and 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 of 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. 2. Several neighbors and Councillor O'Leary expressed their support for granting the relief requested. 3. The proposed location of the garage and deck is the only location where the petitioner can build them. 4 . The garage and deck are 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 especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS AND LOUISE BURKE FOR VARIANCES AT 2 BERUBE ROAD, SALEM • page two 3. Desirable relief 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 . All the requirements of the Salem Fire Department, relative to fire safety, be adhered to. 2. All construction comply with the State Building Code and be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to the Board of Appeal. 3. All exterior finishes of the new construction be in harmony with the exterior finishes of the existing dwelling. VARIANCES GRANTED James M. Fleming, Chairma A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • Appeal from this decision, if any, shill be made pursuant to Section 17 of. C.e I:I.ss. Ceneral Laws. Chapter 808, and shill be filed within 20 days aft--r the dato of fil:nr, of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pu:rc.:r.i to 1%,m2 ml La':,-. Ch.t^'^.r 8'9. S:,ition 11, the Variance ur `::. :'L;I P,sir.:t f'.:riled hcrcln shall iUl 1 .1tc •:licet crtil a copy of the ccc::ion, be u;n:+ Iha c•a hb[aran of Ihr. City C:o. ;Int 20 d.iys have. �! -1 :n-.1 no . ...r n ile; hebn !tled, or dmt, it :;ura: ..pp,:al h,ts been ..' 1. .;],It C 1, . 1:::^n •'.:n:r.:rJ or donic'I i.: rrca^f!:1 in ow ,3outh C:;cx .... -ity of n'.tis.: ono nvl'1.•s1 wider the manic or the owner of record or i5 receroed anis nosed on dtc o-.,net's Cerhheate of Tito. BOARD OF APPEAL • e r� 1-05 CitU of SaIPm IISS2IthllSPffB ! ?'+ Paurb of C peal w,.m,:,r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD KAUFMAN FOR A VARIANCE AT 10 BOARDMAN ST. (R-2) o / yq � A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1-978181with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary, 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, owner of the property, requests variances to allow an existing three family dwelling, and from parking 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 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; 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 the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Both support and opposition to the variance was presented by neighbors, abutters and others; 2. Petitioner purchased the property in 1981 as a two family dwelling and has been using it intermittently since then as a three family; 3. The use of the property as three family has caused an increase i neighborhood congestion; 4. Any hardship, economic or otherwise, claimed by the petitioner was self created. 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; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD KAUFMAN FOR A VARIANCE AT 10 BOARDMAN ST. , SALEM •'. page two 2. Literal enforcement of the provision of would not involve substantial substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. Desirable relief can not be granted without substantial detriment to to the public good or without substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, against the granting of the requested variances. Variances are denied. DENIED Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FR0:3 idiS .-CI'_Ij i. SHALL 8E MADE PURSUANT TO SZCT'G:! 17 LF GENERAL LA43. CHAP[':R M. AJO SHALL BE SP,Eo WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER )HE 0. � CF T:ilS 0ECIS:0H IN THE OFFICE ^_F THE CITY CLERK. Pe:ESA:dT T-) :';.A S. rE:.;%L IAW9. CHAPTER 808. SECTION Il. THE VARIANCE EL '. . .. ..t: GRANTED HE4EIN. SHALL F:.;; lA E ERECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE':ECL^i.), FICATION CE THE CI7Y UER:< 14AT CO DAYS HAVE ELAPSED ANO NO APPEAL HAS L:3:. ' ,•j• OR 'THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN CIS:tIC$ED CR Ci::i: RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE !-W .: .' OF RECORD OR LS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OVINER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL T7 $ hr, `y (I�itU ofttlemttssttchusetts aR 1 ' 'S3 • � �I%`•` � 3' "F p �iTpral Clr nttrD of DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHILIP H. BERUBE (PETITIONER) , PETER WOURALIS (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 40 BOSTON ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, 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. The petitioner is requesting variances from use and parking to allow the property to used as a retail paint, wallpaper, decorating accessories and window treatment. The property is located in an R-2 district and is owned by Peter Wouralis, the petitioner is under a Purchase and Sale Agreement and was represented by Attorney Anthony J. Turco. 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 . Business and residential neighbors were in favor of the proposal; 2. The business generally serves 15 to 30 minute customers which will not have a serious impact of the neighborhood and the parking situation; 3. The building is a commercial building in structure and it would not be feasible to use it for residential use. 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; 3. The Variances requested can be granted without substantial detriment and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHILIP H. BERUBE (PETITIONER) , PETER WOURALIS (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 40 BOSTON STREET, 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety are strictly adhered. 2. The use shall be for retail paint supply, wallpaper, decorating accessories and window treatment. 3. The hours of operation shall be 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. , Monday - Saturday. 4. Petitioner obtain limited parking on Boston Street; 5• Signage be approved by the Planning Dept. and in accordance with the sign ordinance. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. 7. All Construction be done as per the plans submitted. GRANTED Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FRO.A THIS 0=.,131011. 1i: ANY. SHALL BE i:1 ADE PURSUANT TO SECTIW! 17 OF T!1 .. GENERAL LA:7S. CHA ER 353. AND S4,,LL Or F:LED 'AFfHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE CF iiHS eE:.I :0 IN NH OFF!CE ^F THE CITY CLERK. P'.I!.W! TD ...ASS. ....'R.Al. l;. 5. CtiA'T-1 223. .._.P.i•,. ll. THE 17.I:.i!AH(E ..• n, T LRAii.E�i HEkei�:. `•.!!1!11 i2:.: I:.:'.0 Er": i .'r:TIL A 5Cr''i !.F H_ . .%-... .. . ..•• o: THE (-n! CLERS fi!A 7: OA'i. iA'E tlr.F SED ,::i:: ;6 Ar'P':A.I. H.'.i _..:. .. LR !HAI. IF SUCK Ari APP-.A', HAS M"l F!LE. TPAf If f. ... ahati Cli..a`U::c.: :... . ...._: I; REC:1!:'YO IN fHE Q0).H ESSL'. fiEGIiT!i'! OF P:'o-S AND INOE::EO i!%U'Eif OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON ME OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL ], . C� Jug 27 < Ctv of SUIM ttssttthuseff� e .v. i�..�.. • '; :?� �Sottrb of ��upen! ry ..� her[mx•`r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEAN BOUCHER FOR VARIANCES AT 75 BOSTON ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June o, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, Dore and LaBrecaue. 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 four '(4) unit residential building and garage 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 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 and several people, including the 'Ward Councillor Leonard O'Leary, spoke in favor. 2. A previous Special Permit and Variance had been granted to this property allowing construction of four (4) attached dwellings together with a garage. 3. The topography of the lot plus substantial areas of ledge make this a more feasible development of the land. 4 . There will be adequate parking on site 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 to the petitioner; J DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEAN BOUCHER FOR VARIANCES AT 75 BOSTON STREET, SALEM • page two 3. The relief request can be granted without substantialdetriment 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 requested Variances from minimum lot area, side yard setbacks, front yard setbacks and use to allow construction of a four residental unit building plus garage, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All construction be done as per the plans submitted. 2. Eight (8) on site parking spaces be maintained, as per the plan submitted. 3. A right of way from Putnam Street, allowing vehicular access, be created by deed, and properlty recorded in the South District, Essex County Registry of Deeds. All the requirements of the Salem Fire Department, relative to fire safety be adhered to. Proper numbering of the four (4) units be obtained from the City of Salem Assessors Department. • 5. All construction comply with the Massachusetts State Building Code. 7. Building Permit be obtained from the Inspector of Buildings. 0. A Certificate of Occupancy for each unit be obtained. 9• Exterior finishes of the proposed building and garage blend with the existing neighborhood. 10. All vehicular access and egress to and from the site be from Putnam Street, vehicular access and egress being prohibited to and from Boston Street. VARIANCES GRANTED (q� \) aures M. Fleming, Esq. , P irman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK c^ 'his decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of ^oiaral Laws. Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days �..ta or fi:!r., of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. ...,. . ._ . Ce.r.cra! Livia, Ch.nt2r.808, Section 11, the Variance ht,'cin chc!l c:: to§e effect until a copy of the ... .... . -; :,1:•. r,:::IiPc:mien of the C!ty Clark that 20 days have r: a;r:cw has teen filed, or that, if such appeal has been ' '• ' h,;; :.et-n d!smi,ed cr denied is recorded in the South Essex • ii::^'.:1::; .7! Cc_:!s and indexed undar the name or the owner of record or. is recd::;^_d and rotad on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL � 8 �� b`n (fit of ttiem, Aassar4usetts E n<, peal � ter c5 i i ii ori B9 FILE41 CITY CLrP,f:. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND LAVOIE FOR A VARIANCE AT 140 BOSTON ST. (8-2/R-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal , Labreque 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, representing himself, request the Board grant him leave to withdraw his application for a Variance to allow two family dwelling to be converted to a three family dwelling. The Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0 to grant leave to withdraw without prejudice. WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE James M. Fleming, Esq. • ,1 Chairman 1 F Are I �o rP '$9 .,•<.,>,„y�2 FILE'S r • . ”; (9itV of Sttlem, C46assar4usetts f 'ITY poura of �VVeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON FOR VARIANCES AT 164R BOSTON ST. (I/R-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 1989 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 Massachusett General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner, represented by Attorney George 14. Atkins, is the owner of the property, which was formerly used as a site for a leather tanning factory. The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow a multi-family residential use in this Industrial/R-2 district; as well as variances from density requirments of setbacks and maximum building height. A new building would to constructed on the site containing sixty-four (64) residential units. During the hearing, the petitioner modified his petition, reduced the total number to forty eight (48) residential units. 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, • i building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. litera,l 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 . Several abutters, as well as other residents of the immediate area, spoke in opposition to the project, citing the addition of traffic to heavily travelled adjacent streets. 2. Other concerns raised by the abutters and residents were the impact on public safety demands, the disposal of sewerage, rodent control, the loss of natural wetlands, the effect on the Salem school system 3. The proposed building, because of its size and height, would not be in conformity to the existing neighborhood and would dominate the area too greatly. - 4. The property can be developed industrially, adding greater tax dollars to the City. 5. The additional traffic generated by the proposal would have an adverse effect on the planned connector road and the realignment of Route 114. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON FOR VARIANCES AT 164R BOSTON ST. , SALEM • page two 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 Zoning 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 and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 4. Petitioner failed to prove the requisite hardship. Therefore, after a motion to grant the requested variances with nineteen ( 19) conditions was made and duly seconded, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 1-4, (Mr. Fleming in favor) , against granting the requested variances. The petition failed to receive four (4) affirmative votes and, therefore, the variances are denied. VARIANCES DENIED J i aures M. Fleming, Esq. Chairman, Board of Appea 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 GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF F.LIP:u OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAYT.i, CHAPTER SC8, SECTI^N 11. THE VARIANCE CR "�`• ''"' LRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NCI 1`4:;E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE=T_CI:IJV. EEAr'.::: FICATWN OF THE CMY C.ERh T'AKI 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED A'0 43 APPEAL HAS SFE,: r` ... uR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN HLE. THAT IT H.1S BEEN DISMISSED f REC ^DEO IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE 3A::,E LF THE ..:,;t: OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL �1�P 8 ss iii '69 City of �J$ttlem, � Httssttchizset s .. • �, �r FtIF''_._.... . .. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT AT 164R BOSTON STREET A public hearing on this petition was held on April 6, 1989 and continued to and closed on April 26, 1989 with the following Board members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. Bencal , Strout, Dore 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. Additional public board meetings were held on April 20, 1989 and May 9, 1989. The petitioner, represented by Attorney George W. Atkins, III, is requesting a Comprehensive Permit to allow construction of sixty-four (64) units of mixed income rental housing under the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, Sections 20 to 23 inclusive. The locus of the property is on both an I and an R-2 District. The petitioner plans to construct a new building containing 64 units of mixed income rental housing on the site. The Comprehensive Permit which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that the proposed development is consistent with local needs in view of the regional need for low and moderate income housing �,,• considered with the number of low income persons in the City of Salem, as balanced against the need to protect the health or safety of the occupants of the proposed housing or the residents of the City of Salem, the need to promote better site and building design in relation to the surroundings, and the need to preserve open spaces. The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. No opposition to the petition was presented by the Salem Planning Board , the Salem Historical Commission, the Salem Board of Health, the Fire Marshal or the Chief of Police. 2. There was neighborhood opposition expressed to the petition. Concerns expressed were public safety demands, the addition of traffic to adjacent streets, rodent control , and the impact on City services. These factors were considered by the Board and adequately addressed by the petitioner and by the imposition of conditions provided in this decision, as well as existing City ordinances. 3. The petitioner has complied with all requests made by the Board pursuant to the requirements of 760 CMR31.02(2) by direct submissions of requested materials to the Board and agreement to approval \\• conditioned upon receipt of a site approval letter. r Page 2. • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. There is a need for low and moderate income housing in the City of Salem; 2. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without derogating from the health and safety of the occupants of the proposed housing or the residents of the City of Salem; 3. The proposed development is consistent with local needs. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3 to 2 to grant the Comprehensive Permit subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to this project, including the following conditions: a. The proposed building be provided with a residential fire sprinkler system, installed in accordance with the provisions of NFiPA Standard 13R, and Article 12 of the Massachusetts State Building Code. b. Access to the building for fire fighting purposes be acceptable • to the Salem Fire Department, and shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of 527 Code of _Massachusetts Regulations 25.00. c. A right of way from Boston Street, on the Salem side, be maintained as a second means of access to the property for use in emergency response. Dimensions of said right of way shall be acceptable to the Salem Fire Department. d. Connection of the fire alarm system within the proposed building shall be by means of a master fire alarm box connected to city fire alarm circuits. Such fire alarm box shall be capable of serving as a "street box" for use from outside of the building. e. The primary response to fire related emergencies shall be made by the Salem Fire Department as per current departmental policy. Mutual or outside aid response to the site shall be in accordance with present or future agreements between heads of fire departments in the Cities of Salem and Peabody. f. Fire supply to the site, including type and location of fire hydrants, shall be acceptable to both the Salem Fire Department and the Director of Public Services for the City of Salem. 2. All construction comply with existing city and state building codes. Page 3. • 3. Dimensions of the building shall be as per plans dated December 12, 1988 (L-1) and April 20, 1989 (A-1 through A-3) submitted to the Board of Appeal May 2, 1989 subject to the following amendments: a. Provisions of these conditions b. Provisions of the Salem Conservation Commission c. Boundaries of the parcel relative to abutter Jeffers d. Location of the footprint of the building provided said footprint shall be relocated no more than 15 feet. 4. Proper numbering be obtained from the City Assessors. 5. Minimum of ninety-six (96) legal size parking spaces be maintained on site for the exclusive use of the residents, guests and service vehicles of the building only. 6. Height of the building shall not exceed 45 feet. 7. Plan to be submitted and approved by Board of Health, City of Salem, for rodent control during and after construction. 8. Plan for drainage shall be submitted to the Salem Board of Appeal • as approved by the Engineering Department, City of Salem. 9. Public safety response (police, fire, civil defense) shall be provided in accordance with mutual aid agreements determined by public safety officials of Salem and Peabody. 10. All services for water, sewer and storm drains, electricity shall not be the responsibility of the City of Salem. 11. The City of Salem shall not be responsible for solid waste disposal or snow removal for this project. 12. Plan review and an Order of Conditions be done by the Salem Conservation Commission. 13. Petitioner provide South Essex Sewerage District with mitigation relative inflow and infiltration. 14. The proponent participate with traffic mitigation by cooperation with UMPTA study of traffic, including the transfer of any necessary real property to affectuate that study and improvement. 15. Enclosure of the parking area under the building shall be reviewed and approved by the Salem Planning Department, said approval not to be unreasonably withheld. • 16. That the site contain no more than forty-eight (48.) units in Salem. Page 4. • 17. Any accessory structures placed on the roof shall be properly screened and noise contained. 18. There shall be no parking east of the Salem building. 19. The area east of the Salem building shall be cleaned and landscaped. 20. Plans for lighting and landscaping shall be submitted to the Board of Appeal and approved by the Salem Planning Department which shall also review and approve construction of same. 21. The main entrance corridor within the parcel shall be curbed with granite. 22. Prior to issuance of permits hereunder, petitioner Michael J. Harrington must obtain a site approval letter from Massachusetts Executive Office of Communities and Development in accordance with 760 CMR31.O2(2)(g). COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT GRANTED Janes M. Fleming, Esq., Chai Board of Appeal APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SMALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE *I& 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. PUP.SANT TO :.;ASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. BEARING THE CERT• FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN F.-9. OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIEL 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 DINNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL r A copy of this decision has been filed With the Planning Board and the City Clerk. • `y Ctv of *Irm, Aass*useft�� PnarD of LAupeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER AND JEANNE KEMPTHORNE for FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 BOTTS COURT (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 14, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary, Edward Luzinski and Richard Febonio. 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 40. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a deck/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 Sectio 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, expansion or enlargment 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 hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No support or opposition was presented. 2. The proposed addition would be used as a second means of egress. 3. There is currently a six foot drop from the rear of the house to ground level. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: ,f DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER AND JEANNE KEMPTHORNE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 BOTTS COURT, SALEM • page two 1 . All construction be done as per existing City and State building codes. 2. All construction be done as per the plans submitted and by legal building permit. 3. Petitioner obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salem Historical Commission. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal fran this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 803, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Cleric. Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certi ficaticn 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 of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the a.mer's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • ofttlem, � ttssttc�tS3 11 PM '89 •i' ,',,l r Paur 1 Q{ ( 1PZal Fii Ea +ecbm�.o" :ITY DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NEIL & GLADYS MCMULLEN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 18 BRIDGE ST. (R-2) A hearing on this Petition was held July 5, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary; Edward Luzinski and Richard Febonio. 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 a special permit to extend a nonconforming structure and use to allow construction of an addition 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 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 at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition. 2. The building has been used as both residential and business since 1969• 3. There are many other businesses in the area. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The grant of the Special Permit will promote the safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants. 2. The relief requested can be granted 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. ii i( DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NEIL & GLADYS MCMULLEN FOR A • SPECIAL PERMIT AT 18 BRIDGE 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 construction be done as per existing City and State Buildings Codes and with a legal building permit. 2. All dimensions be as per the plans submitted. 3. Petitioner meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Department. 4. Exterior finishes and windows be in harmony with the existing structure. 5. No windows or doors on the new addition be placed on the side facing 20 Bridge Street. GRANTED Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • �'l'"'I from f's c::cision, If any, she!! be made pir ean: to Section 17 of • "- mass. Qaneral 1.-r;s, C!'DWer M2 ;nd shall be f:ad within 20 days etter tta date off 'y il.n.? rf flii; cecis'cn !c the office of the City Clerk. ,. . ...._: i3, Section 11, the variance t=.ke off`ct until a co _ :t. cik ?h v the ' r• 20 ela•;sed and ra :Pleal ;trs been fit d, or that Clf suehaa Pe days have filed, that it has teen dismisses or dewe, ' recorded in the has been th Essex Resistry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or Is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL • -r /3 CtV Of �$512M, c41h190aC4U6dt9 DEC DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SPINALE FOR A VARIANCE AT 34 BRIDGE STREET (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held on November 29, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chair- man; John Nutting, Secretary; Richard Febonio 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, requests a Variance to allow construction to be completed and to allow storage and retail at 34 Bridge Street (B-2) . 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; and • 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following of fact: 1. No opposition was presented. 2. Abutter spoke in favor as well as City Counselor Harvey. 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 JOHN SPINALE FOR A VARIANCE AT 34 BRIDGE STREET (B-2) • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner must comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. 2. All construction and renovation be performed by all existing City and State Building Codes. 3. Petitioner obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. That the lot be maintained in a clean and orderly manner by petitioner and/or assignee. 5. Repairs of vehicles shall not be allowed on site. Petitioner shall place signs both inside and outside in a conspicuous location "stating the above condition in 115. 6. No single unregistered vehicle shall be on the property for more than seven days total including Sat./Sun. /Holidays on adjacent lot. 7. No more than 20 vehicles shall be placed on the adjoining lot. GRANTED Richard T. Febonio, Board Member A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED (WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ^I from this decision. if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of . G..;aeral Laws. Chap:^_r 008. and shall be filed ^:.thin 20 days r,,s._ J:;!;!:, of cm; decision in the office c! ...a C:"Y C:crk. 203. Se=:), i 1. . .:vammce take effect USS 1 a CCC; of tie :.:... . . '.. ....s b_en r,:ed. or ?hat, if sccn cp� a" bean di::missed or denied is record:•d i.'. e::: ^.m:h Esser. Re�istry ci Cc_a: and indexed under the name or !`_ o:•.❑Cr uI record or is recorded and noted on the ownar's Certificate of 7 ;a. BOARD OF APPEAL • rov (IEC ,a ; : fItU ofttlem, � �ssttthusetffc J ' u9 a �Dttla of �u�rPl[1 SILL.. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EASTERN PULMONARY SERVICES, INC. ( Petitioner) FOR A VARIANCE AT 85 BRIDGE STREET/1 BARTON STREET (B-1 ) , RUSSE00 GREEN, JR. (OWNER) A hearing on this petition was held September 24, 1989 and continued until November 16, 1989 and November 29, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary; Richard Febonio 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 Chaoter 40A. Petitioner is requesting Variances from density, setbacks, use and parking to allow office, storage, sales and distribution use in this B-1 zone. Property is owned by Gempire Realty Trust, Russeoo Green, Jr. , Tr. 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 cther 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 oublic 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 . Both support and opposition to the plan was presented. 2. The lot previously contained a mixed business and residential use. 3. The petitioner met with the Salem Fire Dept. for their assistance with: a business of this type. 4. The petitioner met with and attempted to satisfy all concerns of neighbors, abutters and others. 5. This type of business is a type that generates very few on site sales, most are done at residences. 6. The property, as it now exists, is an eyesore and the new building will add '1 much to the area in keeping with the City's master plan. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EASTERN PULMONARY .SERVICES, INC. (PETITIONER) RUSSEE00 GREEN, JR.. (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE AT 85 BRIDGE ST./1 BARTON ST. , SALEM • page two 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 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 . Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. 2. Proper numbering be obtained from the City of Salem Board of Assessors. 3. All construction be done as per the plans submitted and as per all existing City and State Building Codes. • 4. All dimensions be as per the plans submitted. 5. Parking to be provided and maintained as shown on the plans. 6. That safety precautions during construction be undertaken to take into account the residential nature of the neighborhood. 7. Truck deliveries be made between 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. . 8. A six (6) foot high fence be built along the North side of the property and be maintained by petition, heirs and/or assigns. 9 Hours of operation, except for emergencies, shall be 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. , Monday to Friday. No regular business hours shall be on Saturday, Sunday or Holidays, except for emergencies. 10. Allstorage of product shall comply with all applicable city and state codes. 11 . A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained for the buildings. \ GRANTED I�Ichard A. Bencal, Vice Charman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS.BF Ntr G ?�W SSB HEn. yPLANPING�BOARD suanLAND THE 1FJY CLERK • •. -r.'. G.Me-1 Laws. Cflzcter 303. and snN be Bled .:ith;n 2:6=ys f •li. :h2 d%-< of fling 0de ciE:cn in tit^ Cfiice of the Cl:y Cterf<. '.^. G'.-..�! Lar,. .. .. '"�. o•:...:,a 11. the 1'arc.ot.. r.... ... _ zrf::c+. cn:d a c:^7 o: the ._..^ . C'__r: ;.m cc-:!.tic::..,,•:`r,: ..,- JP' ]:k t`a:2C dcvs have ' .._... ._ct it !I's cera e'smisse. ..hied Is recc,dr.d in J:e Scatt: Esax r.' C._ds ane indexed undar G _ .:;me cr til^_ o:vnar of record or lc reccrded and noted cn the ownor's Cal4ifcaie of TW3. .,.,o+nrr,b i (gitu of a�ttlPm, � ttssttthusPtts�06 �' �� 'v9 Pourb of '117pP2Il DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT KOBUZEWSKI FOR A VARIANCE AT 55 BROAD STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 9, 1989 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Acting Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, Luzinski, Nutting and 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 Chaoter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a variance to allow a carriage house to be converted to a single 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 derogatinf 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 . The proposal was opposed by abutters. 2. Carriage House could be used for a garage and/or storage. 3. No hardship was established. 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 involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT KOBUZEWSKI FOR A VARIANCE AT 55 BROAD STREET, SALEM . page two 3. The Variance 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 one ( t ) in favor, four (4) opposed (Messrs. , Bencal, Dore, Luzinski, Nutting) to the granting of the variances requested. The request is denied due to the failure of the petitioner to obtain the required the required four (4) affirmative votes. DENIED Peter Dore, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CI77 CLERK r-m-e.l from this decision. d any. _hall be made pwsuaat to >;:;ction 17 of the Mass. General Lave. Chcpter 8013, and shall be filed within 20 days ..tier the date of filing of this decision in the o;`ce of the City C:erk. to Mass. General La::s. Clc.ut'.r.i08, Section i i. the Variance • cr Speciel Permit nra nteo he•ein sl:ali n)t sake Clea until a copy of the :fecision. bearino, the rertdic.non of the City C'^.rk. that 20 days nave ulapsed and no appeal has been wed. or tnat. if such appeal has been bled, that it has been dismesed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL' • , � � � � �� 4 ° �� ';� p�'* �OQ � ' �Q �� "°� �°��cw �� z��|�um �iLL�� `�� $� - 4,y. C. . DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEFFREY 3&0O FOR K V&DI80CC AT 5 BUENA VISTA AVENUE (8-1 ) 8 hearing on this petition was held September 20, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman, Richard Beocal, Vice Chairman Messrs Nutting, Febnu10 and Associate Labrecgue, Notice of the hearing was oeo`" to . ` abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Luoo Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is seeking a Variance from side setbacks and building on the same lot to allow construction of a shed in this R-1 zone. The Variance which has been requested may he granted upoo 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 otruc�uren in the same district; \ h. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or ntbom*iue, to the petitioner; .' c, desirable relief may he 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: I . Not Opposition was presented. 2. Outcropping of ledge is prevalent throughout the property and creates a harduhip,making this site the only reasonable site or the proposed shed. ]. The proposed obeU will allow petitioner to store yard and family items in a more convenient place and manner. On the huoio of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presentedthe Board of Appeal concludes as follows: ' l . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally. Z. 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 JEFFREY SANO FOR A VARIANCE AT 5 BUENA VISTA AVENUE, 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 work be done by legal building permit. 2. All construction be done as per existing City and State Building Codes. 3. Exterior finishes of the shed shall be in harmony with finishes of the existing dwelling. 4. Shed shall be constructed and placed on the lot as per the plans submitted. VARIANCE GRANTED A lcha6A. encal, 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 bomade sliall Ue frsuant led to S tion days 17 of ;'r.e P.dasa. General la'++s. Chapier 808, a icn in tile office c a;;er the date of filing of tl:i;decisonal1. thC variance ?ursuant to L1ss. Cancra! Lars. C"=^'e+oJ6. S''" or Special Permit ,rantee hcreh, sh):i ❑at t:Jro btfc c! cold a Copy of the or 5,,)on. baanng l:e ter aft::io❑ of t::e Cily C:a is that 20 days have e1opsed and no appeal iias been fired, o: lhst, if such appeal has been filed. that it has been dismissed or denied is rec^rded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and-indeaed under the name or the owner of record or. is rocerded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Tdfe. 9DARO OF APPEAL' (Qit Of t,�ittf Cm, fflZ156UC4U9Ztt*L S 3 a Yid '89 J 5 3 F Poarb Q{ ' FvFvrz t FILE' .• ;,sJr oms.� CITY CLERK.SA c.!,iPiRSS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHILIP ASKEW FOR A VARIANCE AT 44 BUENA VISTA AVENUE (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held June 28, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman, Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, Luzinski 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 petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance to allow and above ground pool, a shed and an existing deck in this 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 involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the 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 purposes 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. The immediate abutter spoke in favor. 3. The topography of the lot makes this the most feasible location for the pool. The shed will serve as storage for pool equipment. 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. r ` DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHILIP ASKEW FOR VARIANCES AT 44 BUENA VISTA AVENUE, SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the variances requested, allowing an above ground pool, a shed and an existing deck, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety be strictly adhered to. 2. Construction be done with a legal building permit and as per existing City and State Building Codes. 3. All construction be in accordance with plans submitted and all dimension be as per plans submitted. . Pool meet all requirements of Section 7 paragraph J of the Salem Zoning Ordinance relative to pools. +;RANTED John R. Nutting, Secr ary COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • Appeal from this decision. it any. shall be made pursuant to Section 17 off the Mass. General Laws. Chapter sm and shall be filed within 20 days alter the dale of filing of this derision in the Office Of the City Clerk. Pursuant to faass. Cencral Lae:s. rh::c!•:r 803, S=ctian 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted i::!re:n i.:c7 r.at hike effect until a cony of the decisicn. bearing the carfiScau:a ui the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no ap=eel itis been iiis:t. or that. if sur h onpeal hss been 1 led. that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded m the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or, is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title: 80ARD OF APPEAL • * ' , EiB D 6 of �� G]�� I,��2 6 23 JN /B � `' ^ �� ^°{ F|LE.' ��ur� �^ ��^� - ` � ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHONY J . PICARICLUD FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE CO&8DIWG PROPERTY AT l FLORENCE S7. , a/k/a k/a 22 PORTER ST. (8-3/R-2/8~4} & bearing on this petition was held February 15, 1484 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Beucal, Strout, Luzinoki and Nutting. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening Reva in accordance with Massachusetts General Luxo Chapter 40&. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting an Administrative Ruling that the proposed use as a machine shop, a food provision warehouse and an engraving business were included in the Board's intent at the time this Board granted a variance to the same petitioner for the same property on November 10, 1980. In the alternative the petitioner requests the Board to grant a variance for the uses set forth in the Zoning Ordinance in D~l , B-2, B~]. 8~4 and I District with certain restrictions set forth in his petition. The petitioner submitted a summary of the inherent power of this Board to take , such action as set forth in the case of Board of Selectmen of Stockbridge v. Monument Ion, Inc. , 8 Mass App, Ct. 158, ]ql 0C 2nd 1265 ( 1974) by the Massa- chusetts Appeals Court. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after reviewing the alternatives and discussing its prior action, makes the following findings of fact: l . There was no opposition; 2. One abutter, as well as the petitioner, spoke in favor of the ruling; 3. It was the intention of the Board at its earlier hearing to allow the uses set forth in the petitioner's request for an Administrative Ruling; 4. All findings set forth in the original variance still apply. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: l . The proposed use as a machine shop, a food provision warehouse and an engraving business are in keeping with the intent of the original variance granted November lq, 1486. Z. The granting of the Administrative Ruling will not be substantially detrimental to the public good and will not nullify 'or substantially derogate from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. ]. The Board determined that the relief the petitioner Could be granted ^ was on the Administrative Ruling and not on the Variance requested in the alternative. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHONY J . PICARELLO FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE' RULING FOR 1 FLORENCE ST. , a/k/a 51R CANAL St. , a/k/a 22 PORTER ST. , SALEM page two Therefore,the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Administrative Ruling allowing the petitioner to use the premises for a machine shop, a food provision warehouse and an engraving business as requested, subject to the same conditions granted in its original variance granted November 19, 1986. ADMINISTRATIVE RULING GRANTED _ Jamds Fleming, Esq. , Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FLED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ,�rPEAL FROS; TH;S CECio'IC.N, !F 133. SHALL BE :ADE PURSUANT TO SECT!ON 17 OF C2JERAL LAWS. CHAP;_' EC3, A'10 SHALL SE FP_FD V:ITHIi1 20 DAYS AFTER ',HE DA(E Cr CF THIS DEC;SiON IA THE OFF!CE OF THE CITY CLERK. FvRS.4NT TO :.;.4SS. CE'IERI'd. L:1".S. C!i.4PTER EC3. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR �Pcn!+L PGP,;!T i RA7I'EC HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECIS!;'V. GEABC6; :;�, t_,T. F!CATIGi7 OF THF. CITY f,LERX TRAT 20 G4Y5 tiA'/E ELAPSED ffr0 NO APPEAL HAS CEE`; GB THAT. IF SUCH All APPEAL H„$ BiZN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEF! DISMISSED OR GE:H FO IS F RECORD EO Ili THE SSBiH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAb1E CF THE Of RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL /9 (fitu of SztIem fttssar usetfla !3 3 06 TilOFT CITY rLfW,. 'E9 `'-,�.�5 attra of eal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BEST PETROLEUM CO. , INC. FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 145 CANAL STREET (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held on January 25, 1989 with the following Board Members present : James M. Fleming, 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. Petitioner , owner of the property, is requesting a special permit to reconstruct nonconforming structures on the premises located in a B-4 zone . ,During the hearing Petitioner requested withdrawal of its request for a sign variance and the request was allowed by the Board. { •\ 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 presentea at the hearing, and after viewing the plans , makes the following findings : 1 . There was no opposition to the petition and the ward << councillor for the district appeared and spoke in favor. 1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BEST PETROLEUM CO. , INC . FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 145 CANAL STREET, SALEM •' page two 2 . The proposed reconstruction will improve public safety, traffic flow and the general appearance of the site . 3 . The existing and proposed uses are allowed uses in the district . 4 . The plans provided for parking as required by the 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 : 1 . The proposed reconstruction of the nonconforming structures will promote public safety and convenience . 2 . The Special Permit requested can be granted without more substantial detriment to the public good than the existing nonconforming structures and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance . •. y Therefore , the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 - 0 to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions : 1 . All exterior lighting be directed away from residential abutters . 2 . Hours of operation shall be 6 A.M. to 11 P .M. Monday through Friday and 7 A.M. to 11 P .M. Saturday and Sunday. 3 . Roof drains shall collect and dispense storm water to a municipal storm drain should such drain be accessible within a reasonable distance . 4 . A compressed air facility shall be available for public use during operating hours . 5 . Two employees shall be employed at the site during operating hours . 6 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be adhered to. 7 . Construction shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted except as any changes may be directed +' • by the Salem Fire Department and State Fire Marshall . 2 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BEST PETROLEUM CO. , INC. FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 145 CANAL STREET, SALEM '.. page three 8 . A building permit and certificate of occupancy be obtained from the Salem Building Inspector . GRANTED ohn Nutting, Me er, Board of Appeal APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF'ANY; SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT M SECTION 17 OF TH: :':'�: GENERAL LAMS. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE 0: 9F THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. AURSANT TO VASS. '-ENERAL CHAPTER 878. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPEC%L -5.''•:!T UAWTED HEREIN. SHALL NO; TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEOECISI0:7. B BRd:,t �:i% ::-;F. 3C.ATI-M OF THE C:i ::ERA T`IAT 2U DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS 3R.-MAT. IF SUCH AZ, APPEAL H:S BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS UEEN DIS7.IISSED OR OSl!E:` IS BiCL'RDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER iH£ !:;,...E Jr iiiE i CIIFFIECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • 3 PR 27 3 Ol i 1A 89 (9itj of ,&dem, ffla ir4usetils ILE:r Quid Ofeal �v 'ITY CL_iiR. $'S. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE JEFFERSON TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 322-330 CANAL STREET/'/2 LORING AVENUE (B-2) . A hearing on this Petition was held on April 19', 1989 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman; John R. Nutting, Secretary, Edward Luzinski; and Peter Dore, Associate Member. Notice of the hearing was sent to all abutters and others and notices were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with M.G.L. C.40A. Petitioners, represented by Attorney John R. Serafini, Sr. , are requesting a variance from Section VII B of the Zoning Ordinance to allow division of land into four (4) lots in this B-2 zone as shown on the submitted plans. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances 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 Petitioners; 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. At the hearing, evidence was presented that the configuration of the three lots presently approved were configured in conformance with Section VII B of the Zoning Ordinance relating to gasoline service stations. Under that Section of .the Ordinance, minimum lot widths of 12U feet were required. The Petitioners demonstrated that the use of the property as it related to the two buildings already constructed did not strictly fit the definitions of the gasoline service stations, that the use of the buildings was oriented towards the sale of certain automotive products and certain limited services, and that there were no gasoline tanks or pumps to dispense gasoline. Evidence was further introduced that a proposed third building would be devoted to general B-2 purposes, which were a permitted use on that parcel of property, and further that the lots in question were of such size as to exceed area requirements in B-2 zones. It was further pointed out that to permit four lots with 100 foot lot widths was in keeping with general re- quirements in a B-2 zone, which requires that minimum lot width be 100 feet per lot. It was further indicated that there was no intention on the part of the Petitioners to utilize Parcel II as a gasoline service station. The Board, after considering all the evidence, made the following findings of fact: P • 1. The present three lots are very irregular in shape and the proposed plan would allow better use of the property; 2. Petitioners previously had to comply with zoning provisions relating to service stations even though the buildings constructed were not auto- motive service stations in the strict sense of the word; 3. Concerns of neighbors and abutters regardine 'fences and shrubbery would be met by the Petitioners; 4. The requirements of lot width under Section VII B of the Zoning Ordinance created a hardship, since the land was not being used for automotive gasoline service stations and that to hold general retail uses, which were permitted in a B-2 zone, to a higher lot width re- quirement than was normal under the B-2 zoning requirements created hardships for the Petitioners. 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 land involved which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would • involve substantial hardship, financial and otherwise, to Petitioners; 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 purposes of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting the variances requested subject to the following conditions: 1. Parcel II, as shown on the plan submitted, shall not be used as a gasoline service station. 2. Petitioners and/or assigns to repair and maintain the fencing in the rear of the property abutting land as shown on the plans, as N/F Bedard; Adams St. ; N/F Crean and N/F Ferrier. The fence shall be stockade type along the Bedard property and chain link type along the others. The obligation to repair and maintain as it pertains to the abutting Crean and Ferrier property shall be subject to the Petitioners' ability to obtain cooperation and assistance from those landowners. The Petitioners shall only be obligated to use their reasonable best efforts to obtain such cooperation; 3. All lot width dimensions to the new lots are to be per the plans submitted: • • 4. Appropriate shrubbery and trees are to be placed along the rear of the property at 7 Kimball St. and as reasonably possible along the rear of the property as shown on the plans as N/F Bedard; Adams St. ; N/F Crean and N/F Ferrier. Shrubbery and trees shall be as in the reasonable judgment of the Petitioners is adequate. The area between the Petitioners' land and the land of Crean and Ferrier shall be governed by the limitation set forth in condition 2 as to cooperation from them; 5. Petitioners and/or assigns shall install and maintain a bituminous curb at the end of Adams Street; 6. All conditions of the previous decision of this Board dated January 23, 1985 shall be made part of this decision; 7. Proper numbering for the lots shall be obtained from the Assessors Office, City of Salem; 8. No storage of vehicles shall be allowed on any of the four lots shown on the submitted plans. VARIANCES GRANTED ,xvlzz�� Richard A. Bencal Vice 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 ,1IAn GENERAL LAVIS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF (ILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PDRS.ANT TG :d ASS. CE;*hAI. L':'i6. CHAPTER 800. SECTIDN 11. THE VARIANCE OR SP-.- =' `Fi.'.IIT LRANFED HEREIN. SHALL NOT I,!(E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISI:;'L FILIATION OF THE Ud"! f1.ERM i9.1. 20 DA'iS Og7E E!.,PSd '4..) Nd APP Sid Fbl$ L:EE': OR 1'4AT. IF SUt:1I AN APPSAL HAS BEEN FILE. I:W FF IIA:: SEEN CIS:•;ISSED CR REC:,r:EU NI T9'_ S.L'"H ESSEX REASTR'Y OF i:'c::Cil A::U INDEXED uriDED 744 :A iE _. _ .:-IE.i OF RECORD OR Ij nSCURDED AND NOTED C:1 THE OYINER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APFEAL i 4 a � `i'AP gitu of ��$ alem,Bourb of CAU Ss. � �ssttchusett ,L peal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER BAGLIONI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 CASTLE ROAD (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held on May 17, '1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman: John . Nutting, Secretary 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 seeking a Special Permit to allow an above ground pool and deck in the 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 neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that the 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 support or opposition was presented. 2. The placement of the pool in this location is the only practical place on the lot. 3. The Special Permit requested will promote the safety, convenience and welfare of the City's 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 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. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER BAGLIONI FOR A SPECIAL • PERMIT AT 6 CASTLE ROAD, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All dimensions comply with the Salem Zoning Ordinance relative to swimming pools. 2. Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 3. All construction be done as per the plans submitted and by legal building permit. SPECIAL PERMIT 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. • Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein, shall not take effect until a copy of the Decision, bearing the Certi- fication 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 of Deeds and indexed under the nare of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL • JAN i ii .2 57 y aity of '�$ttlem, assac4useff$ : r$ �carb Of AIT�TP211 'PF<uov.u� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GALEN FRIZZIE FOR VARIANCES AT 40 CEDARCREST AVENUE (R-1 ) A hearing of this petition was held November 16, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, Luzinski , Nutting and Associate Member Dore. 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 of the property, is requesting variances from side setback requirements to allow construction of a two car garage in this R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; 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 hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The proposed plan is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The proposed location is the best location for the proposed garage. 3. There was no opposition expressed to the plan at the hearing. 4. The existing plan was approved by the Conservation Commisson, with an Order of Conditions. 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 ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the the petitioner. • • 3. 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. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GALEN FRIZZIE FOR A VARIANCE AT 40 CEDARCREST AVENUE, 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 be strictly adhered to. 2. All construction be done in strict accordance with the Order of Conditions issued and modified by the City of Salem Conservation Commission. 3. All construction and dimensions be in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board of Appeal and be in compliance with all city and state building codes. 4. A Building Permit be obtained from the City of Salem Building Inspector prior to any work being started. 5. Exterior of new construction be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. Property numbering from the City Assessor be obtained. VARIANCE GRANTED r ✓x/ J1 ames M. Fleming, Esq. Chairman, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK :,pinal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to section 17 of ,a mass. General Laws. Chapter Sob, and shall be filad within 20 days tho d-.tn of fil!r,-, of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. J ' iav,s, Ch _: 803, section 11, the variance e'.tea he Tin s.`._:I ::J% tike efF:ct.until a cnay of iiia c^rtiiicction of ti:a City ::!a:4 ::lot 2'7 d..., I:ove apcsal Ila: !X3 11 il!ed, Jr tiat. a 43'ii .?i De 2! he: . ^.fn it-ki. 61-t iY P is wenn imr sled or uccied is reccr;!cd in .a2 Scain c5sex Registry of Deed. and indexed under the name or tl!e owner of record N is recorded and noted on tha owner's Certificate of'title. BOARD OF APPEAL AOC LL v �85 (gift/ of .� ttlem, � ttssttthuseits :+Lprai _: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ADELBERT ST. PIERRE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 23 CHARLES STREET (R-21 A hearing on this petition was held August 16, 1989 with the following Boara Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, Luzinski, ;Jutting 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 Chanter 40A. The petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to demolish a free standing garage and to construct an addition. Property is located in an 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 at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition. 2. The existing garage, which sets directly on the property line will be demolished. 3. The proposed addition will consist of bedroom, den, sewing room with a two car garage under and will bring the property closer to compliance. 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 will be in harmony with neighborhood and 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 or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE FETITION OF ADELBERT ST. PIERRE FOR A SPECIAL • PERMIT AT 23 CHARLES STREET, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant t.._ Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: t . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to; 2. All construction be done in accordance with the plans submitted ana >:ith a building permit to be obtained from the City of Salem inspector of Buildings; 3. The exterior finish of the proposed addition be in harmony with the existing building; 4. Approval of the Salem Historic Commission be obtained relative to the demolition of the garage; S. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for the addition. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED. 47, John R. Nut g, Secre ry A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ..Y:J 1:om ihi°. (;eci-:an. it .,.n Y. s i1 b^_ made 11 urs:i:m; to :;?]::Ca t i .[: GenC:'a! Laws. Ch`oter 2133, cnd ii nii Ce ;".d v.i;hin 2.13 ::':s of :iiiaµ u: : ...; GS::::,:� :n the Oihr•c o: the City F ,.._..., ... .(.. . _ .._... . ... .......... __ . ., L,., ... :. .. . ?�)�. _. ..in i 1. ihC ,r c: :r._ c:i:i::,+. :In : cr :,.v G:y ta:rk :.^t .T•: tl': a ::avr -.-... .1vt no ;rrC]I h.-.s oh .. rl, .. ::.z!. ;j .Jed, ih;it .t I:�i boen ws:h sa:i or J=n:ed is recorded in the Scar. L;ex Registry of Deed; and indeed under C:e nnme or tn, owner of reccrd or Is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL, of �$ttleM, C ttssttcljusetts Pnnra of �upeal NOY 21 � i� iii 3� F)tE': DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD E. DION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 2 CHASE ST. (R-3) JUANITA TREMBLAY (OWNER) A hearing on this petition was held November 16, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, Luzinski, Nutting and Associate Members 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 is requesting a Special Permit to allow premises to be used as an Insurance Agency. Property is located in an R-3 district and is owned by Juanita Tremblay. 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 1• 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 . A petition signed by nineteen ( 19) abutters and neighbors in favor of this request was presented to the Board. 2. Dr. & Mrs. Norman, 197 Lafayette St. , spoke in opposition. 3. This is a low density, family run business. 4. Petitioner is actively looking for a new location for the Insurance Agency and is only asking the Board for temporary relief. 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 promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. • 2. The Special Permit requested can be . p q 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. .5 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD E. TION (PETITIONER) JUANITA TREMBLAY (OWNER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 2 CHASE STREET, 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 adhere to all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 2. Said Special Permit allowing the premises to be used as an Insurance Agency shall expire January 1 , 1991 . SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED (4v-v) ohn R. Nutftng, S r etary, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK c:isicn. if cn%o shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of s'O8, nd shit if, ti!2d `within 20 dols lh2 oieieo ui i:.a t�:♦: <. or :.: •: PC.3 bJSn _m;Er . �(<�1..':'� P•f L.ceUC arid In -d G::i°f th.'. ...... — 11 :..-cidad aild Mod un the G::n6i L21 q;ICa:e ei :Ili2. BOARD OF APPE.;L • .i (9itu of � ttlem, CHttssttcrj7usetts luc �k 2 7 : is i1S ;ILS' aurb 0t C�U}TP2Il Amy s' i1TY`^..."?. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD u JANICE LEBEL FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 8-8A CHESTNUT STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 5, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , dental, Febonio, Luzinski, 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. Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow the premises at 8-8A Chestnut Street to be utilized as a residence and a professional office for the practice of psychology. The locus is in an 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 Ordiance, 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, expansion, enlargement 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 at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The proposed use of the premises is in harmony with the existing neighborhood. 2. The Salem Historic Commission has issued a Certificate of Appropriateness 3. There was no opposition to the petition. 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. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & ,idNICE LEBEL FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 8-8A CHESTNUT STREET, SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, ;-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 adhered to by the petitioners; 2. The petitioners obtain and file with the Building Inspector a Certificate of Apprriateness issued by the Salem Historic Commission approving this mixed use and all signage. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED 4 illy Ames M. Fleming, Esq. , Chh�rman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED ';1ITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Gooeal f:c:n fain decisicn. if pry, shall b: made puis•:am fo Section 17 of tie'Mass. General Laws, Chanter POB. and shat' be filed %-.wrn 20 days afar the date of filing of this decision in the Office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to ".lass. Cen^_ral Laws. scs, E:.-,!ion i!, the variance or Cpo^_fal Permit granted herein ;;iL:I ::•;t t:.ke effrrt un81 a copy of file decision, bearing the certification of nie cigy Clerlt that 20 days have • =.laooM and no appeal has been filed• cr that. if such appeal has been ivied, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL' • ofttlem, ttsstttliusetts r F Poarb of '4yz l nu ��rumt�r PIAS 15 8 '89 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD BRES::AHAN FOR A FU:E* VARIANCE AT 2 CHEVAL AVENUE (R-1 ) :ITYCLERK.bR't-EyrMhS3P A hearing on this petition was held January 11 , 1989 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 petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variance 't0 allow zero foot rear setback to allow existing single family dwelling 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 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 of the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition; 2. The dwelling was build as a camp in the early 1900's. 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 Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 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. • i s ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD BRESNAHAN FOR VARIANCES AT 2 CHEVAL AVENUE, SALEM • page two Therefore the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variances requested to allow zero foot rear setback subject to the following conditions: 1 . All conditions on the original decision granted May 27, 1987 be incorporated and part of this decision, they are as follows: a. The patio, as shown on the plans, is to be at ground level; b. All construction to be done as per the plans submitted; c. A legal building permit is to be obtained; d. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. are to be adhered to. 2. Single family dwelling is to remain as per the plans submitted. GRANTED 1 2e2��4l—1ie1 // John R. Nutting, Se— tary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. != ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECT!ON 17 OF THE GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FlUNG OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAG'S. CHAPTER 803. SECTiWl ll. THE VARIAACE C" SPE.'!..^.L i"'.IIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT 'i AEE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE I% i5!:i!. SEAR':!': TW' :ER6 FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THA"i 20 CAPS HAVE ELAPSED dao LPT APPi'L HAS Ei EN OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HA." BEE`. Ci>'.iISScJ R C'-'W D IS RECORDED IN FHE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNCER THE NA:.iE OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL a . f a1 i' Ma' Gifu Lif ttlpm, ��a95ar4U9gffs AUG [°aTj • • PDII[D of AU{1Pal _ :HCI�IOjl] ON THE PETIT:ON GF ?AUL FERRAGANO FDR ':ARIANC" T , CLARE! STREET (R-11 tearing on this petition ::as held July ;089 with the .`ollowing Board <:emoerS -resent; tames Fleming, C^airman: :•!essrs. , Eencai, :ebonio, Luzinski _nc :'.uttina. :iotiz2 of the hearing was Sent to abutters and others and notices of the nearing >: -oere proper published in [he Salem Evening Jews in accordance with Massacnusetts �enerai Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner iS requesting 'Variances from frontage and lot Size to allow c^nstruction Jf a single family duelling in this R-1 district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Eoard 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 at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Opposition was voiced by the abutters; , 2. A concern regarding blasting on the site was noted; 3. The traffic problems would be increased by the building; 4. Further development of the neighborhood would be detrimental. 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 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 PAUL FERRAGAMO FOR A VARIANCE • AT 7 CLARK ST. , SALEM 'herefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5, against aranting the Variances requested. The Variances are, therefore, denied, due to the failur of the Detitioner to obtain the required four (4) affirmative votes. `iARIANCES DENIED ames M. Fleming, Esq. , Chaiyman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK AnPeal from this dbcis!on,it any.`shall be made Dorsuanl to Sectibn 17 oL -nd snail be tiled within,�O rkys r o08. •.. ice of the City tho Pd;;. Genci al lows.Cills Jecs:cn m enc o.. i ion^,cl ..,;n i 1, the variance a!rci h:e data o ::apy of the Gcaeral P:rt ::nVi c.a,su.rt 4a Yia;,. •:in ;i:.,:1 ;`• a•;s have :ocarr; Yermd t;rtr.�.ea h" iha C::y 1;1=,k that 1D d peen cr :. rtii:OLo:� of +al has Cec!span, bearing :n^_ L:: co,: n the South Ess"' cnted s re lapsad and no aPPea!has boen hied, or that. i; cuUt a filed, that it has be en d nCexed u rder lite name or the owner of record or : Registry of D^eds and is recorded and not on the ownar's Cercihcate of Title. • 90ARD OF APPEAL' • Ser T9 Ctu of ttlem, � ussttt usPtts FILA: .-J. � si PDIIIb Of �IJ#TPIII .iTY 9:.:"". ::. m. DE)rLS'iCN ON T1E PEITT ON OF ROBEffr J. STILIAN FOR VARIANCES AT 13 CLARK Sr., 26 BARNES CIRCLE, 30 BARNES CIRCLE and 34 BARNES CIRCLE, AS=RS MAP 3 LUES 81, S2, 65 & 86 BARNES CIR=CLARK STREET (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held August 16, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, Luzinski, ;Tutting and Labrecaue. 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 Robert Ledoux, is seeking variances for three of four lots on a proposed subdivision which do not meet the required area and for one iot :which does not meet frontage requirements. The lots are :also identified on Assessors Mao 3 as lots 81 , 82, 35 and 86. The locus of the property is 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 o[' the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The 5oard of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Several abutters, as well as other residents of the immediate area, spoke in opposition to the petition, citing the addition of traffic to heavily traveled adjacent streets, blasing problems, and changes in the drainage patterns in the area. 2. The locus could be developed by the petition if the lots were joined. 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 Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good orwithout nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. t' • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT STILIAN FOR VARIANCES FOR 13 CLARK ST. , 26, 30 and 34 BARNES CIRCLE, SALEM page two Therefore, after a motion to grant the requested variances, with conditions, was made and duly seconded, the Zoning Board of Appeal vote 0-5 against granting the requested variances. The petitioner failed to receive four (4) affirmative votes and, therefore, the variances are denied. VARIANCES DENIED James M. Fleming, .sq. Chairman, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK +,•"! 1':m :hi: dra:nn. it ;ny sh v: he m,,te ovrsu,nt :] Setticn 17 of t:4 cs. G•:ncrl Laws. ;haover �,;;5. ane es:a '•: .. .: r.Y,hin zp ..73 .... •:c c. I•.n, c: :I:; dao.—„�n n !uc cla.e or fha G:7 C erk. .a':n :% of `.d _, ..:. :...:1 ❑] np^d]I L!; been t:.tv. ^r Ih:.!, if eGcn .1:oC1, Is been is L teen d,smis;oo or c.niad i; retarded in the South'Essex Nz7!stry at Deeds .ind indexed under the name or tnc oener of record of is recorded and noted on the o.vner's Certificate of title. BOARD OF APPEAL • ` � ��r� ~� �� ~ ~ �" (�7~� °°°° DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KENNETH ANDREWS FOR & VARIANCE AT 10 CLEVELAND ROAD. (R-1) & hearing on this petition was held October 18' lBBB with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Cbairoasu° Richard 8eucal, Vice Chairman, Members Richard Febouio and Eduard Luziuuki, Notice of the hearing wu6 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 40&^ ' Petitioner, owner of the property, is seeking a Variance for an addition to their premises at lO Cleveland Road (D~l) , The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a, special conditions and circumstances exist which eopecially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; � h^ literal enforcement of the provisions of the %ootoQ 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: l^ No opposition was present. 2^ The addition is for family use only and will enhance their quality of life. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: l. 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 KENNETH ANDREWS FOR A VARIANCE AT • 10 CLEVELAND ROAD (R-1) page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0 to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. All work be done by legal building permit., and a Certificate of Oca>pancy obtained. 2. A11 construction be done as per existing City and State Building Codes, and as per dimensions sham on plans submitted. 3. Exterior finishes of the proposed additial be in hattmny with existing structure. 4. All requir-Enmts of the Fire Departnmt be,stry/p�lered,_t. Glfim Richard T. Febonio, Board Member 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 803, and shall be filed within 20 days attar the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Ch3c:er 803, Section 11, the Variance or:.pecial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the • decicion, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record oe is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL, • r 3 JUL 13 5 57 PH °89 y " (9itU ofttlPm, � ttsstttljusPtts FILF'*' ' • t _. 33varb 01 Appeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS & BARBARA NEWMAN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 14 CRESCENT DRIVE (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held May 31 , 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal , 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 petitioners, owners of the property, representing themselves, are requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure by adding a second story to the existing dwelling at 14 Crescent Drive. The property 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 AMM 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 and viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition to the petition, and Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor of it. 2. The addition is necessary so that the petitioners growing family has adequate living space. 3. The addition will be in harmony with the existing neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, 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 will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS & BARABARA NEWMAN FOR A • SPECIAL PERMIT AT 14 CRESCENT DRIVE, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All construction and dimensions be as shown on the plans submitted to the Board of Appeal . 2. All the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety, be adhered to. 3. Petitioners obtain a building permit prior to construction and all construction be as per City and State Building Codes. 4. All exterior finishes of the addition be in harmony with the existing building. S. Building is to remain a single family dwelling. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. GRANTED J e (/James M. Fleming, Chairman • 4�1- A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Bbplal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to section 17 of llfe Blass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days biter the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Nass. Gener l Lay.•s, C1"-,!0--308, section 11, the V or special ^ernit special — , herein sL•:.^ n^: tt, until variance decision, cearng the, [artiliration ct tha City Clerkethat 20 dayPhave Y of tha 'elaosec .;;rA no aareJl i.,s peen ri;:d. or that.filed. if such appeal has been R ;ry f !:cr, heen d:cra:[setl e: ::erc:3d is relolde:f in s the South Essex e:{isry of Geetl .1.1;jirdexetl umer the name or the owner of record or is re;:crded and noted on the o'•vner's Certificate of Title. 11r)ARD OF APPEAL • o+o ra • , '.. (9it" Of Irm, �49ttssac4usetto by N 2 ss i e '09 FILE Pourb of zzd � oma.` CITY Ci:ii::;. ': S DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CALVIN AND FRIEDA HAMSON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 28 CRESCENT DRIVE (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman: John Nutting, Secretary 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 allow construction of a deck 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 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 presented; 2. The proposed addition would allow a more fuller use of the present deck space; 3. The proposed addition would not encroach on any setbacks. 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 be in harmony with the district 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 and without nullifying or substantiall derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. �r DECISION ON PETITION OF CALVIN AND FREIDA HAMSON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 28 CRESCENT DRIVE, SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety; 2. All construction be as per the plans submitted and by legal building permit; 3. All construction be done as per all existing city and state building codes. GRANTED R�ar�ncal , 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. Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the cert- ification of the City Cleric 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 of Deeds and indexed under the nam of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of title. Board of Appeal • qlrVB9 Jug 13 LEI {. . `o CtU of �$ttletn, ffla55ar4U9ejT6 `=•� ;, Fcurb of Avreul DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH A. ZAGROBSKI FOR A VARIANCE AT 13 CROWDIS STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held on July 5 , 1989 with the following Board Members present . James Fleming , Chairman , Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman , John Nutting , Secretary , Messrs . Richard Febonio 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 , is requesting a variance to allow construction of an addition which will encroach on rear setbacks at 13 Crowdis Street . 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 at the hearing , and after viewing the plans , makes the following findings of fact : 1 . No opposition was present . 2 . City Councilor Leonard O ' Leary spoke in favor . 3 . The addition to the structure is a kitchen which would enhance the quality of life for the said 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 ; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH A. ZAGROBSKI FOR A VARIANCE AT 13 CROWDIS STREET (R-1) page two 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 . Therefore , the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously , 5-0 to grant the relief requested , subject to the following conditions : 1 . Petitioner must meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety ; 2 . All work must be done as per City and State Building Codes and with a legal Building Permit. 3 . All construction must be done as plans submitted . 4 . That it be built in harmony with the existing structure . VARIANCE GRANTED Richard T . Febonio , Board Member 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. Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of that decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have 3 elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has befell y filed,that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South EmM i Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the Owner,of LQcadqu Is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title, BOARD OF APPEAU 33 .,..awryb of �ittlem, 49ttssur4usetts Paura of Arpnd DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALLY WILSON KELSEY FOR VARIANCE AT 37 DEARBORN ST. A hearing on this petition was held January 25, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Nutting, Luzinski and Associate 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, was requesting a Variance to allow construction of a garage in this R-1 district. The Board of Appeal, after hearing evidence and viewing plans, and at the request of the petitioner voted to allow petitioner to withdraw petition without prejudice. WITHDRAWN _•fes i�!' � � �,�t� Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal AppZ- FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL 8E MADE PURSUANT TO SECTIO'l 17 OF THE .•ii::i. OE�iEFAL l.".'IS. UHAPTER EOB. AND'SHALL SE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING p< THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. IA F ERT F2RS1l^IT TO '•i6S5. IEtIERAL L�'� CLIAPTER 809. S_e F:_N M THE VARIANCE "R'!SPECIAL FEF°':I( FILED. ^ANTEp HEREIN, SHALL F:iii'.E EFFECT UN A CCPV Of THE"ECISIOC.c B=ARI^,LfJI`O IS riCAFI 0�' TH` C''Y CLERK 1'V!AI f0 DA'IS HAVE OR iBAT, IF, S'JG4 AN APPEAL Ilii xul ill E. -'f C li REC; uED Ili THE $UUYH ESSEX REGISTRY OF LEEDS ANU INDEXED UiJOE'.'• TIT HA:.iE OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE UV7NER'S CERTIFICATE 8OOFARDLOF APPEAL m .ti M V F- (GitU of Salem, C4fla99ar fuse i 3 n F!? E Poura of 4Aupettl DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN AND SALLY KELSEY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 37 DEARBORN STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held on April 19, 19E9 with the' following Board Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman; John R. Nutting, Secretary; Edward Luzinski and Peter Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with M.G.L. C.40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to allow attachment of a two-car garage with storage above, a mud room and extension of kitchen in this R-1 zone. Petitioners were represented by Attorney John R. Serafini, Sr. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this re- quest 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 Appeals 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 struc- tures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, ex- tension, 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 find- ing 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 consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, makes the following findings of fact: e 1. Several letters were submitted in favor of the plan; 2. No opposition was submitted to the plan; 3. The proposed site is the only realistic place for the addition; 4. The addition will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood; • 5. The placement of the addition in the proposed location would be in harmony with the architecture of the existing dwelling. DECISION ON SPECIAL PERMIT AT 37 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM page two • 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 additions will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood; 2. The proposed additions will promote the convenience and welfare of the inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Fleming opposed) to grant the Special Permit requested subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction and dimensions are to be as per the plans submitted with all construction to be done as per existing City and State Building Codes and by legal building permits; 2. Petitioners meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. ; 3. A Certificate of Occupancy for the additions be obtained; 4. New exterior finishes be in harmony with the existing finishes; 5. The space above the garage shall not be used as an in-law apartment • or dwelling unit. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED 'Richard A. Bencal Vice 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 MA{S. CENERAL 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. P(:;=.NT 70 MASS. ,"NERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11. Ttir '. • CoICF GR SPI,=L PERiIIT 'AN ED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY fff TH_ Cr.AT- Dr ❑Ii CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAPS HAVE ELAPSED AN I N. Hi:c .,:t 111,41. IF SUiH t.!: APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS D':E!: _. ,k u_.... •� RECO-ROED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDE:,EC u..::'_i: iH .iA:.,E .,r ..._ :'w tic P,, OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • V y r Cti; 0{ �5ajeM, C4ja95ar4U6Ptt9 - F �nttrD of uFral JUL Co 3 09 fr log DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT CURRAN AND JAMES BAILEItF: FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 110 DERBY STREET (B-1 ) :;TY A hearing on this petition was held on July 19, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman: Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman: John Nutting, Secretary, Edward Luzinski and Richard Febonio. 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 40 Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of an addition in this B-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, expansion or enlargement 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 addition will be used to house a walk in refrigerator/freezer. 2. The refrigerator/freezer is an essential need of the establishment. 3. The addition is in harmony with the buildings use. On the basis of the above finding of fact , and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The petitioners plan will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and will be in harmony with the present structure. 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 of the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT CURRAN AND JAMES BAILEY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 110 DERBY 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 . Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Fire Department. 2. All construction be done as per allexisting City and State building codes and by legal building permit. 3. All conditions of the prior decisions of the Board shall remain in effect except for relief granted by this decision. 4. All construction be done as per the plans submitted and as per the dimensions submitted. 5. Exterior finishes shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A sign shall be displayed inside the restaurant relative to local parking rules. GRANTED 0 • lchard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, it any, shall be made pursuant to section 17 of the Mess. General Laws, Chaotcr 808, and Shall be filed within 20 days alter the date of filing of this decision in the office of the city Clerk. Pursuant to Mass. General Lays, Ch,pie-808. Semon i I. the'Variance or Special Permit granted herein SP.G: :1oi !.,ke efh:ct until a copy of the derision, besrina, the certification c! :be C`Ly Clerk that 20 days have einrsed end no appeal has been filed.or that, if such anneal has keen ii!ed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record dT is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL • ^ ~ � ( '�� FEE ZZ ^ cU ��»� ]�� «�m��y�L ��]��*��~�� ^U� � �E�� 8 ~ � `u^ on _ _ _, ^� �� HL[� �� p ^^ �^ {��/ � �� -;|TY �'i`- �� DBCISIUN ON THE PETITION OF JIM8O8 REALTY TRUST, JAMES BAILEY AND ROBERT CUR8&N TRUSTEES FOR & SPECIAL PERMIT AT 110-112 DERBY 3T, (B-l ) K hearing on this Petition was held February 15, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Beocal, Luoiouki, Nutting and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the bearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 408. Petitioners, owners of the property, aro requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming a1Ue setback to allow construction of an addition in this B~l zone. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section Y 8 lO, 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 neighhborbnoU. ~ � In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Spacial Permit request may he 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: l . There was no opposition presented; 2. The addition is essential to allow proper layout of the interior of the restaurant. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: l . The granting of the Special Permit will be in harmony with the district 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 and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. � ' \ � �r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JIMBOB REALTY TRUST, JAMES BAILEY AND ROBERT CURRAN TRUSTEES FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 110-112 DERBY ST. , SALEM page two •. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimous) 5-0 y, , to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Construction shall conform to all state and local building codes; 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety are strictly adhered to; 3. All construction be done as per plans submitted; 4. Exterior finishes must conform with existing structure; 5. A building permit and a Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK :APPEAL tRO:' 71WS 5ECISIUN, ,i?;Y. SHALL BE ..!ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 CF THE i• .. CEi:ERAL LA'!!S. 0AP;ER 303. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE CF L: i ,IF -!'IS DECISION I:! ME OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. P::;iSAitF TO :.LiSS. ::E'.1EP.A: LA`2S. CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE tiAIN'T ED NFREfi. SHALL NW -,AU EF,ECT Oi1TiL A COPY OF THE FI1*.M.cI ::F i'HE i".7 CLERK iiiA;' 20 LAYS HAVE :LAPSED NO AFPEAL H'S E... . . .. R THlQ. !F SUCI; AN APPEAL HAS BEEN F!LE. THAI" IT H%S GEEFi RECuROEO IN W E'811-1 ESSEX RE:?I;RY IF :'_EDS AND ;NDE%ED Ui:DE2 'i tli OF RECORD OR IS ii_CGROED AND NGTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF 'i ALE. BOARD OF APPEAL Jut I q (9itu of �ttlem, : In �. Paura of (!AVFznl DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DERBY STUDIO OF PHOTOGRAPHY, INC. (PETITIONER) DONALD & MARY MICHAUD (OWNERS) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 222-224 DERBY STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 31 , 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal , 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. Petitioners, represented by Attorney Chris Drucas, are requesting a special Permit to allow a display window at 222-224 Derby Street, currently in an 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,a nd uses, provided, however, that such •/ extension, enlargement, or expansion shall not be 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 to the petition presented at the hearing. 2. The additional window is necessary to enhance the visibility of the photography business. 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 granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the 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. rt DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DERBY STUDIO OF PHOTOGRAPHY INC. (PETITIONER) • DONALD & MARY MICHAUD (OWNERS) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 222-224 DERBY STREET, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All construction to be done in accordance with the plans submitted and in compliance with the Massachusetts Building Code. 2. All conditions of the Special Permit granted 10/12/88 be incorporated and made part of this decision. 3. All construction be as per the plans submitted. 4. No signs to to be displayed in the new window. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED / - � JamkChairZn,/�'es M. Fleming, A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APP-Sal from this decision, if any, shall be made Pursuant to Section 17 of • the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 803, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to hlass. Genera: Laws. Ch---.,War 3C8, SeC;ian 21, the variance or special Permit grar.;ec6fherein s!m;: net decision, bearing the e;T15!"C effect Until a ropy of ;he eatid;t o; ,r,e City Cork that e!ansed an^_ no aopeal ha; b"er .. 2J days have '.:ied. o. L`::It. if such appeal Sas been i5si. the! nes baen c,;,n;;ped or denied i; r..=cordetl in the South been Registry cf Ceeos and indexed under the name or the owner of record iS recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. or BOARD OF APPEAL • DECvJ (9it" of ,Saiem massathusetts :7)* DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE K. OSGOOD FOR A VARIANCE AT 278 DERBY ST. (B-5) A hearing on this petition was held November 16, 1989 with the following Board ilembers present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, Luzinski, glutting 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. ?etitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance to allow the property to be used for research and development of crystalline materials in this B-5 district. The Variance which 'r.as been requested may be granted upon a finding of t. -- Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the iand, building or structure involved and :which are not generally affectir._ 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, 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 careful consideration of the evidence Dresented at the nearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of :`act: 1 . There .was no neighborhood opposition expressed. 2. Those who spoke in favor considered the proposed use of the property to be an asset to the community as it .would provide appropriate needed business in the area. 3. Approval .would enable a Salem company to remain in Salem. 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 or, 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. c DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE K. OSGOOD FOR A VARIANCE AT 278 DERBY ST. , SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance reouested on condition petitioner meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau. GRANTED Peter A. Dore, Associate Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED '..LITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ,., z t. v c` .n, i5 r3c OrCK: L.A UJ:_J U:1 :ih'. U'.v''10(5 C-1rutic J:- Of .-. BOARD OF APPEAL] • (gitu of Iem, ��HttSStttI�uSPttB In Poarb of '�tr�tettl An 15 3 34 +ill 'g9 FF I L E++! DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD ANDERSON ET AL FOR A91TY :LAS SPECIAL PERMIT AT 76-78 ESSEX STREET (B-2) =3 A hearing on this petition was held August 9, 1989 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Acting Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary; Edward Luzinski, Richard Febonio and Peter 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, requests a Special Permit to allow expansion of a rear porch in this B-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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: i . There was no opposition. 2. The proposed addition will allow petitioner a more fuller use of the property. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The grant of the Special Permit will promote the 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. u • • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD ANDERSON ET AL FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 76-78 ESSEX 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 comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. 2. All construction be as per the plans submitted. 3. All construction be done by legal building permit. GRANTED chard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this (ecision. if any, sha:l be made pursuant to Sectinn 17 of the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 803, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Nass. General Lars. Cfcp;er 808, Section 11, the variance or Special Permit granted here;n shod r.o! take effect until a copy of the • decision, bearing the certification of Cie city Cle,lt that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL' • EO) ` r gffu of ��ttlem, ffl- ttssarbuseffs Auc L5 Pottrb of Au }rettl fig;:., as•r _ . DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANIEL W. CRYAN FOR A VARIANCE AT 96 ESSEX STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on August 16, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman, John Nutting, Secretary, Messrs. Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski and 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. The Petitioner is requesting a variance from use and parking to allow a three family at 96 Essex Street (R-2) . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. 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; • 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 at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was opposition from neighbors. 2. A letter of opposition was received from Councilor Nowak opposing 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 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. Desirable relief can not 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. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANIEL W. CRYA,N FOR A VARIANCE AT 96 ESSEX STREET (R-2) , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted (3) in favor, (2) opposed (Mr. Fleming, Mr. :tutting) to the granting of the variance requested. The request is denied due to the failure of the petitioner to obtain the required four (4) affirmative votes. DENIED Richard T. Febonio, Board Member A COPY OF. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLE-:: sedan de Pursuant to days it any. shall be Shall be filed v.ithin 20 this decision. ftice of the City Clerk. APPezi from chapter 808. arndthe o • General Laws. section l 1.the Variance the Mass. of tiling of this decisionin 808.se al the alter the date neral Laws. Cha' effect until a cos have ranted herein shall not take that 20 day Pursuant to tAass. Ge. the City Clerk been eciui Permit g or that, ,t such aPPthe has eal or SP the certiticalionf oed. in the South Essex decision.bearing eat his been is recorded ^nil no aPP issed ar Denied the owner of record or ellPsed • dism under the name or Title. tiled, that it has been indexed of Deeds and the owner's Certificate of Registry noted on is recorded and BOARD OF APPEAL • b JOL Y8 )29 aH '89 Ctv of rzlem, ttssttcljusetts F 7?��aura of c4pral GITY �`"•' Re'•omv.,F*" C- C-T3_Ef1Y.. SF.ca.MLSS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN MUNROE FOR A VARIANCE AT 42 FAIRMONT STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on July 19 , 1989 with the following Board Members present . James Fleming , Chairman , Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman , John Nutting , Secretary , Messrs . Richard Febonio 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. The petitioner , representing themselves , are requesting a variance to allow construction of an existing deck at 42 Fairmont Street . 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 ; l 10 b . literal enforcement of the provisions 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 at the hearing , and after viewing the plans , makes the following findings of fact : 1 . No opposition was present . 2 . That the deck already exists . 3 . The addition to the structure would enhance the property and quality of life for the said 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 ; 0� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN MUNROE FOR A VARIANCE AT 42 FAIRMONT STREET (R-2) • page two 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 . Therefore , the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously , 5-0 to grant the relief requested , subject to the following conditions : 1 . All construction must be done as plans submitted and by legal building' permits . 2 . That it be built in harmony with the existing structure . . VARIANCE GRANTED • Richard T . Febonio , Board Member 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. 808. Section i 1, the Variance Pursuant to Mass. General Laws. Ch iter or Epe-ial Permit granter! herein sh:.'I �.)! lake eft, nntil a copy of the ,!eci;ion, bearing tt;d certification of the City Cierk that 20 days have e!ap-ed end no apical has teen tiled, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South'Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD Of APPEAL • '1 O� Jul 20 m '89 4e Ctu of 'Salem, { ttsstttlluset CITY CLERK. _dl_i:a. HASS. Reri,ms. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BARBARA CLEARY AND DAVID HART FOR A VARIANCE AT 104 FEDERAL ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 14, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, Luzinski 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, owners of the property, are requesting variances from side and rear setbacks to allow construction of a shed 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 involve and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of 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 stubstantially 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 to the petitioners plan. 2. To place a shed anywhere on the property would require relief from the Board of Appeal. 3. The shape of the lot makes this the most feasible location for for the shed. 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 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 BARBARA CLEARY AND DAVID HART FOR • VARIANCES AT 104 FEDERAL ST. , 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 be done as per City and State Building codes and with a legal building permit. 2. Dimensions be as per the plans submitted. 3. Petitioners obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Commission, a copy to be provided to the Board of Appeal for the file. 4. Exterior finishes of the proposed shed be in harmony with the existing building at 104 Federal Street. VARIANCES GRANTED ohn R. Nuttng, Secre ary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal fmn this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Mass. • General La4s, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in office of the City Clerk. Pursuant Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance of Special Permit gated herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearer tte certi- fication 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 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 i.y (9ttU Of iilPrit� ��1ritt85tlt�illSPtfB AUG "1 i 21 �„? 33ottrb of Appeal ''t „ ` m,s DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NEW YORK CELLULAR GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA INC. FOR A VARIANCE AT 12 FIRST STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 14, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, Luzinski 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 petitioner, re*presented by Attorney Richard S. Novak, is recuesting Variances to construct a cell site for the Purpose of cellular radio broadcast for mobile phone services at 12 First St. The equipment would be Placed in a first floor room, .with six (6) antennae being installed on the roof. The locus is in an R-3 district. The Variance .which has been requested may be granted upon a finding o[' 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 . There was substantial neighborhood opposition to the Petition. 2. The six (6) proposed antennae on the roof would not be in harmony with the neighborhood. The building at 12 First Street has been given special tax status relative to its residential use. A commercial use of the building in not in harmony with that tax-exempt residential use. The petitioner offered no evidence of hardship. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • r ' . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not involve a substantial 'hardship on the petitioner; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NEW YORK CELLULAR GEOGRAPHIS SERVICE AREA 1JC. FOR A VARIANCE AT 12 FIRST STREET, SALE'ri • cage two 3. Desirable relief cannot be granted °. ithour substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the puroose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted three (3) in favor two (2) oogosed (Mr. Bencal and Mr. Nutting) to the granting of the variance requested. the request is denied due to the failure of the petitioner to obtain four (4 ) affirm- ative votes. DENIEDCt D C� ' 'James M. Fleming, Esq. , Cha an A COPT OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIT" :-LERK "I l7 a f.•'om 21's mA ,ss. General Laws. Chapter Pq3, and shall be P'^_d •:itmn 23 daYs �;tter the dale of filing of fit,; decision in the otfice of L'te Gay f.?erk. Fwsuan: fn P6oss. '.,:- : ],?3. i. :he Variance ^r Spe^_ial Permit Rr:nied herem '::%- .:a' :lee eilrct ❑nbl a CODY of the d Gt'ia�On, b:itnnR the certihG]h0❑ DI :Ile City Clerk that 20 days have dldpsud :and no appeal has been tiled, cr that, if cocn appeal has been filed, that It has been dism:sced or rleniod is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or 14 Eecorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL' • Ctu of 'Massar4usetts Paurb of Cal F{ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NEW YORK CELLULAR GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE, INC. c/o NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATION CO. (PETITIONERS) , WINN MANAGE= (OWNERS) FOR VARIANCES AT 12 FIRST ST. (R-3) A hearing on the petition was held on October 18, 1989 with the following Board members present: Jams M. Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, and Luninski. 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 Richard S. Novak, is requesting variances to allow for the construction of a cell site at 12 First Street for the purpose of cellular radio broadcast for mobile telephone service. The locus is in an R-3 district. The petitioner previously filed a direct appeal with the Board on April 19, 1989 which appeal asked for variance relief to construct a cell site which included mounting six ten foot antennas on two foot mounts on the penthouse level of the existing structure. The petitioner now asks for variance re- lief to construct a cell site which will include the mounting of six three foot antennas on the roof level of the existing structure which require no mounts. Thus, the proposed antennas will not exceed the height of the existing structure. On September 7, 1989, the Planning Board unanimously voted to grant a determination of substantial change from the previously filed Appeal. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Appeal voted 4-0 that the petition was substantially changed. 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 of 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 petitioners; 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 Ordianace. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The substantial change relative to the height of the antennas will • insure that the existing neighborhood will not be impacted. 2. The propsed use will be compatible with the residential uses of the neighborhood. 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. 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 4-0 to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all construction be as per the plans submitted to the Board of Appeal . 2. That all the requirements of the Salem Fire Department, relative to fire safety, be strictly adhered to. 3. That the petitioner immediately remedy any complaints relative to radio or television interference. 4. That no new lights be added to the property at 12 First Street. S. That the finish of the antennas be dulled to prevent reflection. • 6. That no more than six (6) antennas be placed on the property at 12 First Street. 7. That all construction be in accordance with City and State Building codes. VARIANCE GRANTED James M. Fleming, Chai A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK a. y, shill 6o made cc ror.ct '.c ..... _.. ..- .. .. L:.. ^�. and cnzn ,._ F.'.. . . ... . .. . ,..:-:.:._ .i i:.,a Ji 1..., dCcii"❑ in i':e ci`.iC.` .. .•. `, ..:.-.•._.. ci the .. . .. is roc....... . - is rccc.c:. ::ar: .'.�:-� cn'•"e o'::ntr's Cor,i!ica:a c .... • 60ARD OF A??E'L ^ ^/ E�89� � �0 � � � I,��3 � ' Y�n �� u��^ f��>��K��:��0�;� U 29 . �' \ ' � '`` �� r� �� 8"�^°°°/ ' ��o�^* w� �� ` ` DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHONY J. PIC&OICLLD FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING REGARDING PROPERTY AT l FLORENCE S7. , a/k/a 51R CANAL S7. , a/k/a 22 PORTER ST, (R-]/R-2/B~4) K bearing on this petition was held February 15, 1489 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Beocal, Strout, Luzinobi and Nuttiug. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening 0exo in accordance with Massachusetts General Lava Chapter 40A, Petitioner, owner of the property' is requesting an Administrative Ruling that the proposed use as a machine shop, a food provision warehouse and an engraving business were included in the Board's intent at the time this Board granted a variance to the same petitioner for the same property on November lq, 1986, In the alternative the petitioner requests the Board to grant a variance for the uses set forth in the Zoning Ordinance in B~l , B-2, B-]' B-4 and I District with certain restrictions set forth in his petition. The petitioner submitted a summary of the inherent power of this Board to take v ` such action as set forth in the cane of Board of Selectmen of Stockbridge v. Monument Ion, Inc. , 8 Mass App. Ct. 158' 391 NC 2nd 1265 ( 1979) by the Massa- chusetts Appeals Court. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after reviewing the alternatives and discussing its prior action, makes the following findings of fact; 1 . There was no opposition; 2^ One abutter, as well as the petitioner, spoke in favor of the ruling; ]. It was the intention of the Board at its earlier hearing to allow the uses set forth in the petitioner's request for an Administrative Ruling; 4. All findings set forth in the original variance still apply. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: l . The proposed use as a machine shop, a fund provision warehouse and an engraving business are in keeping with the intent of the original variance granted November lq, 1986. 2. The granting of the Administrative Ruling will not be substantially detrimental Co the public gunU and will not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. ^^� / ]. The Board determined that the relief the petitioner could he granted was on the Administrative Ruling and not uo the Variance requested ar aoce reques in the alternative. e ' s DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHONY J . PICARELLO FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE' RULING FOR 1 FLORENCE ST. , a/k/a 51R CANAL St. , a/k/a 22 PORTER ST. , SALEM �.. page two Therefore,the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Administrative Ruling allowing the petitioner to use the premises for a machine shop, a food provision warehouse and an engraving business as requested, subject to the same conditions granted in its original variance granted November 19, 1986. ADMINISTRATIVE RULING GRANTED � I� 1 I L � -I Jams Fleming, Esq. , Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK :7rPEAL FROM TH;$ CECISIC�Y, !F ANY, SHA!L BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECT!ON 17 vF T: GENERAL LASS. CHAPTM 2"S. AND SHALL SE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE C;.'F,i!�•,T CF THIS DEC;SHIN IH THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. FORS.4RT TO :.;.qSS. CE-:EJ,-,L L?W1 CNAPTER 808. SECT109 It. THE VARIANCE OR PEr':!f t RAN fEC HEREIfl. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE OECI$!CN. BEA !:C:i inf C. FICATION OF THE CITY CLERS THAT 20 DAYS HAVE TELAPSED lBip NO APPEAL HAS CEE`7 Fi:.EO, REC GR THAT, !F SUCH All APPEAL HAS B E;1 F:LE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISfrIISSED OR GEtliE9 IS D.i DED IN HE SvUiH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME CF THE ciLiiE. OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. • BOARD OF APPEAL -, T L. (gitu of �SaJem, �4Ra95ac4U9ette5C1 L3 �• �oara of cAupeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF 81 FORT AVENUE REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES AT 81 FORT AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held October 18, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Flemin¢, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; Herders Edward Gxzinski and Richard Febonio. 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, is seeking a variance for the transfer of a small lot at 81 Fort Avenue (R-1) . The variance 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. No opposition was present. 2. The transfer of this small lot will in no way change the use of the land in question. 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 endorcement of the provision sof the Zoning 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 and substantially derogating ,' • from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. • DICISION ON THE PETITION OF FORT AVENUE REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 81 FORT AVENUE (R-1) page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0 to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. The lot is to be divided as per the plan submitted. VARIANCE GRANTED Richard T. Febonio, Board Member A COPY OF THIS DFx,ZS N PAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLAfMIG BOARD MID THE CITY CLERK !•:�^s-1 Iron this decision. if cny, shall be made puar:.nt to Section 17 of Ivnss. General Lava. Gt%pter 808, and shall be filed v:ithis 20 days Aar the data of filing of this decisicn in the orlof the City Clark. co to ma-. General Laws, Cit'm:_: 308, section 11. a Variance • ,,, ;; %aal Permit P.ranted herein shj!I not toke eifert until a copy of die laasion. bearag the certific-::on of the Ci:y Clerk that 20 days have 26 used and no appeal has been tiled. or that, if such appeal has been Med. ,hat it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex . e71stry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL! • �7 flLttti of 1ttIPm, ��9ntt85tltuSP�tB '- 'i peal � DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES BRETT TR. FOR VARIANCES AT LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE (R-1 ) hearing on this petition was held August to, 1989 with the following Board Members Present. James Fleming, Chairman; Messr. , Febonio, Luzinski. i4utzina 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, represented by Attorney John Vallis. is requesting variances from lot size and frontage to allow parcel to be divided into three lots in this R-1 district. A petition to divide this property into four (4 ) lots was denied by the Board of Appeal on May 17, 1989. The Board of Appeal, after hearing evidence regarding substantial change, said change being, three (3) lots rather than .he four (4) lots originally, and after receiving Consent from the Salem Planning Board, voted unanimously, 5-0, that there was a substantial change and they would hear the petition. 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 . The abutter who had been opposed to the previous petition requesting four lots sent a letter to the Board of Appeal stating he would have no objection to the request for three (3) lots. 2. Councillor Leonard O'Leary, Ward IV, spoke in favor. 3. The property in question is unique in the manner in which the property slopes up and the amount of ledge, making this the most feasible way to develop this site. 4. The proposed lots would be in harmony with the existing neighborhood. ;f ECISIOPI ON THE P°'ITION OF CHARLES BRETT, TR. FOR VARIANCES • AT LOTS 46-52 GREEMLAWN AVENUE, SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented. :he the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property -no and not the district generally. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would :cork 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 ".e intenc of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The lots be established as per the plans submitted and as per the dimensions shown on those plans dated 6/12/89. 2. Subdivision aoproval, including the extension of Greenlawn Avenue, be obtained from the City of Salem Planning Board. 3. Drainage plan be offered and approved by the City of Salem Director o • Public Services. 4. Proper numbering of lots be obtained from the City of Salem Assessor. '•VARIANCES GRANTED Com) 0 60ohn R. NutCing, Se tary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK :'opeal from this decision. if :,nv. shall br: made oursuant to S^cN^n 17 at e Mhss. G:;ncra! Laws. C.`.:!;t_r a3C. ,.ad sea" ':e tiled :•.;tfh!n 26 ".rrs =iter tha Cite or f::;no of :ms : :asron r.. t..:: onan or t.ne f..,, . ...... °::.-uLnt :a :......... Gencrn! Lr.:s. .. i i. . .. . ..,y... rrnm[." ^in L:'.u: (•.. ...... a:fe.^.1 u:a9 7 C.^,9 e' : ._ Cart".:....On r r:.: ..._rk ... .. _. ... . .: ..-.n :;7C:' •.... ... It ills aeon 6-inis;cd or ri'-r Tf 'S r?;d;^„ 1 :n I::,: .`... . . __Lex Roeistry c! Oactls ant in-nxeo ur,:L: r n.ima or C;e n•.rrrx c, r<_:ra of is recoraed ana noted on the o;.::er's Czr;:!ica:e of title. 30ARO OF APPEAL tog • Tlit" of �$Zlfem' ID peal IT: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF C1-ARLES BRETT, TRUSTEE FOR VARIANCES AT LOTS 46-52 GREENLU AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held May 17, '1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary, 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, Trustee of the Brett Family Realty Trust, owners of the property, is requesting variances to combine seven (7) lots into four (4) lots in this 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 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 and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The lots in question have always been vacant. 2. The lots in the immediate area of the proposed plan all contain more square footage than the proposed lots. 3. The proposed lots would not be in harmony with the surrounding area. 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 involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. Desirable relief can not 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. 0Z If# DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES BRETT, TR. FOR VARIANCES AT LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted three (3) in favor, one (1 ) opposed (Mr. Nutting) to the granting of the variances requested. The request is denied due to the failure of the petitioner to obtain the required four (4) affirmative votes. DENIED IT"ichard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman 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 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein, shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certi- fication of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and not 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 of Deeds and indexed under the nave of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • • a>mk � I ('gitq of �$ttfem, ttsstttfluse#ts Pourb of �FVeal AUG Z 3 oG [11, 'BJ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RUSSELL THATCHER FOR A SPECIAL Fl la'4k PERMIT AT 12 GROVE STREET (R-2) :! " `( . A hearing on this petition was held April 19, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Mssrs. , 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, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure by the construction of a deck at 12 Grove St. The locus is in an R-2 .District. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance 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 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 and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition to the petition. 2. The deck will be in harmony with the existing dwelling and the existing neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, 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 addition will be in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RUSSELL THATCHER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 12 GROVE ST. , SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit, subject to the following conditions: 1 . That all construction be in accordance with the provisions of the Massachusetts State Building Code. 2. That the petitioner comply with all the requirements of the Salem Fire Department, relative to fire safety. 3. That all construction be as per the plans and dimensions submitted to the Board of Appeal. 4. That the petitioner obtain a Building Permit from the Inspector of Buildings. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED ) ,J,, /v av^) J Ala James M. Fleming, Esq. , C irman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK r.: from lhi ceci:ion. if any, slra!; be made purse-int to Scct:on 17 or • Cie Miss. General Lavas. Chapter 0003, and shall be fi'ed within 20 days f!:r lie dal^ of filing of this decis"ll in the oifica Of the City Clerk. Prr-a;nl Ps t.t.:ss. General La'^s, Cfr,::>^.:r',C`3. Section i! :'r^. variance ur .';;:aC!:d Permit gr,rnlcd horein si:ul not !.rke elfecl villi: a copY Of Lire da:inion. bearing, ilia cc,Gfic Dtion of nic City Clerk that 20 d_vs have elapsed and na appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been tiled, Incl it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the ocmer of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of 'ritle. BOARD OF APPEAL • Au;073)i_ "a '89 i#n Of �ttIme tt s se# - , � s ttclju #sFi�c : 4 a } :.,:• v.�. a f-a Y. ,r Puara of �upeal 11TY , s. .m,.. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND AND BARBARA HAIGHT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 24 GROVE STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held August 9, 1989 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman, Sohn Nutting, Secretary, Messrs. Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski and Peter 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 Special Permit to allow construction of an addition and deck located 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 special permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's habitants. 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. Neighbors and abutters spoke in favor. 3. The proposed changes would allow the petitioner a fuller use of their property. 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 requested Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and will be in harmony with the neighborhood. y • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND AND BARBARA HAIGHT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 24 GROVE STREET (R-1) page two 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the request for a Special Permit to allow construction of an addition and deck, subject to the following conditions: 1. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety be adhered to. 2. All construction be done with a legal building permit and as per all City and State Building codes. 3. All construction be as per plans and dimensions submitted. 4. Exterior finishes of the proposed addition be in harmony with the existing building. • GRANTED Richard T. Febonio, Board Member 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 tf.-c date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chap!er 808, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the dacision. czarina, the certification of :L+e City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appaal has been filed, cr that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL • II{ MjPIIi� CMSSFItlIBPttS s Poarb of '4pettl _ @rpmv.,Rv JUL Zq 3 os DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARGIE MCMASTER FOR A FILA;: VARIANCE AT 29 HANCOCK STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 19, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, Luzinski 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 petitioner, owner of the property, represented by Attorney Robert Ledoux, is requesting a Variance to allow an existing deck 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Neighbors and abutters spoke in favor. 2. There was no opposition. 3. Due to infirmity, the petitioner is largely housebound, as shown in correspondence from Dr. Richard Alexander, and this deck would allow her access to fresh air. 4. This is the most feasible location for the deck. 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; 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 MARGIE MCMASTER FOR A VARIANCE AT 29 HANCOCK STREET, SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance requested to allow an existing deck, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to. 2. All construction be done with a legal building permit and as per all City and State Building codes. 3. All construction be as per plans and dimensions submitted. GRANTED �/ a ;John R. Nutting, Secreta A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, it ally, shall be Made pursuant to $ecti0h 17 of :, • the Mass. General laws. Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days ... after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Mass. General Lavrs, Ch:,mer 805. Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the Uy Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL - n of �zlemttssttthusPtts il . .3:" r nxra of enl ` f P �v DE=CN ON THE PE=CN OF ROGER WEWELL FOR A VARIANCE AT 31 HAZEL Si. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held October 18, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; Edward Luzinski, Richard Febonio and Associa,e Member LaBrecque. Notice of the nearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, requests a Variance to allow construction of a porch in the rear of the property in this R-2 Zone. The Variance which has been requested may t= granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting � other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; 4$�rb. literal enforcement of the provisions of the 3 :ning Ordinance would involve A 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . No opposition was presented. 2. The new porch would become a safer and more convenient second means of egress. 3. The second means of egress, as now exist, constitutes a hazard to the tenants. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: I . Soecial conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district generally. 3� 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 ROGER WENDELL FOR A VARIANCE AT 31 HAZEL 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 . All construction be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted with exceptions as noted in the conditions. 2. The cantilevered portion of the new structure be approved by the Salem Building Department. 3. The top landing be covered with appropriate building material. 6. Petition meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Department. 5• All construction be done as per existing City and State Building Codes. GRANTED chard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK :T: 11,L: :aririon. if any. sled bo made purr::^t ^� c,-!:on li ^f • '.. ',...en_I lseis. C:i^tar 313. ;^o rhal! i._ 20 {,.rs �. ^ ' n: fi:in Of :rJS .i ... ......I 2_r:..a r.:Llei .`._relit 5:1U li•:. h':-. _. '. . .....I 0 C^n'/ _.......... __..r:r.? !h [erotica:; n of 'i : "!a�B . ._0 days i._ ;.Ii,r.o cdpeal has vicen iii-ri. or trat J!f 6.::h appeoi has been Io.;i it has L"ern dismissed or derieo is reccr^.=.d in t:-.e -.u!h Essex P.n_,-;;stry of Dodds and indexed under the name or the owner of recorder is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. GOARD OF APPEvL' • 'y (1lit� of Salem, Cfttssuchusetts Nae d r;a 'flo F PuttrD of '�u}rettl DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL M. CLAVEAU FOR VARIANCE AT .20 HIGHLAND AVE. (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held February 22, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; Edward Luzinski, Associate Members Labrecque and 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 seeking variances from density and parking to allow a two family dwelling to be converted to a three family in this R-3 Zone. The Variance 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 • ,i 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 for the plan; 2. Petitioner has owned the property for approximately six (6) years and said property had been owned by his family prior to that time; 3. Parking may be provided on a lot in close proximity; 4. No exterior changes are planned; 5. The are in question is zoned for three family use. 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; / • j 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. J DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL M. CLAVEAU FOR A VARIANCE • AT 20 HIGHLAND 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 . The use of a three family shall be valid only as long as the property remains owner occupied; 2. A certificate of occupancy for the third unit be obtained; 3. All construction be done as per all existing city and state building codes; 4. Petitioner must meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety; 5. No exterior changes shall be made to the building with regards to this petition; 6. Petitioner must maintain six (6) legal parking spaces at the lot shown as 24 Highland Ave. on the plans. Should 24 Highland Ave. cease to be in common ownership with the lot 20 Highland Ave. the variance for a three (3) family shall cease and the property at #20 Highland Ave. shall revert back to a two (2) family dwelling. • VARIANCE GRANTED a Jf12 �� 2c r ted_ 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 ATIY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF TH! ii" GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER M. ASO SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE CF .; CF MIS DECIS;ON IN THE ::IF!CE CF THE CITY CLERK. 'rdnSi;if Te =_$. '_:dERAI i:,v3. ;i;'PTER BOA. SEMUPI 11. THE VARIANCE OP, ? SHALL N4. i?d.E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE 1'*EC!S!:1i, CF THE C'I1Y CCERi� IHAT 20 UAYS.HAVE ELAPSED AN-) !!O A?PEAL HAC :R T;:.T. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS 1i E'N FILE. THAT TF HAS CEEN 013:JiCYED C:T REC9nDE0 I:I THE SJUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED CIDER THE i;A: E OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NJTED ON THE O'UNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPE.;L • ,y JAN 24 3 co Pd '89 of �ttlem, C�ittssttt usP##s •; z �� FILEcj uttrd ofeal F P :ITY CLERX.6.=.: 'Per.Umv.va! DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM KATSAPETSIS REGARDING AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTORS DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR 103 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held January 11 , 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary; Edward Luzinski and Associate Member LaBrecque. The hearing was held as a result of a Court remanded decision that the Board reconsider the petitioners application for a Variance. The petitioner is appealing a denial of the Building Inspector of the City of Salem for a single family residence, or in the alternative a Variance from lot size, density and setbacks to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this R-1 zone. That 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 at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Substantial opposition was presented by neighbors, abutters and others. No one, other than the representative of the petitioner, spoke in favor; 2. The petitioner did not have a legal building permit to construct the dwelling; 3. The petitioner, despite fact two & direct warnings from the Building Inspector, allowed the dwelling to be placed illegally on the lot; 4. Evidence and facts presented in opposition indicated an extremely serious water runoff problem which would be further compounded by the development of the lot in question; 5. The lot in question was filled by the petitioner without legal permits. Said ' fill flowed over to abutting property causing further problems for the abutters; 6. Because of the illegal fill the abutter was caused harm to their property due to water runoff and damage which harm inlcuded, but not limited to a substantial amount of water filling their finished basement; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM KATSAPETSIS REGARDING AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTORS DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR 103 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM ,•,. page two 7. The lot in question has remained vacant due to it being undersized and the serious water and drainage problems associated with it; 8. Any hardship claimed by the petitioner was self created; 9. Evidence presented to the Board that the lot was filled by the petitioner in an attempt to make the lot a suitable lot for the construction of a dwelling. Yet, there was evidence presented to the Board indicating that water, soil and debris was falling onto and collecting within the property of the abutters. 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 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 One ( 1 ) in favor, (Mr. Fleming) and four (4) in opposition, (Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski; Nutting and LaBrecque) to the granting of the requested Variance and to overrule the decision of the Building Inspector. By reason of the 1-4 vote, said Variance request is denied and the decision of the Building Inspector is upheld. RVchard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. I:: ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF INE :%;A:S. GENERAL LAMS. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILEDWITHIN20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILHiG OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. P JCSWII TJ MASS. GEi:ERAL LAINS. CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL P_"'UT RAfI D HEREIN, SHALL NOT TA-tE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE UECISE;N. BEARING THE -ERT- ❑i;ATI':N CF 1HE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. .'R :HATIF SULH AN APPEAL HAS BEEil FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS ;el THE SeUTH ESSEX RE'IS'TR'f OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA:.IE OF THE 07l71'cR OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL 5�• `a.non,gb 01itu ofttlem, Hussttcljusetts .�3,�� attra aftt�]ett1 Har 15 10 32 , :fid 30 FILE^" DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN & LISA MULLINS (PETIT IONE'RS) FOR'AN ADMINISTRATIVE:.RULING .AT.'.111 HIGHLAND AVENUE EDWARD ZAROHIAN (OWNER) A hearing on this petition was held November 15, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; John Nutting, Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski and Associate Member Arthur LaBrecque. N6tice 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 an Administrative Ruling in accordance with- Section IX:-of-the Zoning Ordinance and MGL 40A. Section 7 relative to use of the premises and enforcement of Sections V-B (2) and VIII-E(6) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to said premises. More specifically, the petitioners request the Board of Appeal to order the Inspector of Buildings to enforce the Zoning Ordinance by prohibiting the continued unauthorized use of thesite as a used car lot. After hearing the evidence the Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact: / •\ 1 . The use of the property as a gas'-station has been abandoned for over two years. 2. Permission of operate a used car lot has not been sought from the Board of Appeal . 3. The current use is not permitted in an R-1 Zone. Therefore, based on the above findings of fact and on evidence presented, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, in favor of the petitioners request for an Administrative Ruling and to direct the Inspector of Buildings to enforce provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Edward Luzinski , m er, 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 at 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 11,the Variance or apecial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the • •.I derision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismisse4l or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record sa is recorded and noted On the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAU ,.nnmk �LI.Tty of 2IlE a, fflassar4usetts • Pearb of Amal SEP CI 3 FILE--y DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEVON BOGOSSIAN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 150 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held September 20, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, 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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of an addition in this R-1 district. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence and viewing the .plans, voted unanimously, 5-0, the petitioners request to withdraw his petition without prejudice. � WITHDRAWN 111chard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK (gitV of ttlem, C Httssttcltusetts �uttra of �upenl MODIFICATION OF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF 227 HIGHJWD AVENUE PARTNERSHIP FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 227 HIGHLAND AVE. (I/8-2) A hearing on this petition was held Noverber 16, 1989 with the following Board Marbers present: Jares Fleming, Chairman; Messrs., Nutting, Luzinski, Febonio and 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, requests a Special Permit to allow for construction of an Express 10 Minutes Lube Center at 227 Highland Ave. (I/B-2) The Decision on this petition was filed January 16, 1990 at the Registry of Deeds. At the lreeting of January 17, 1990, the Zoning Board of Appeal unanimously modified said decision by in- cluding in condition nurber two (2) "on January 17, 1990". Condition nurber two (2) will read as follows: 2. All construction be as per the plans submitted on January 17, 1990. All other conditions of the Noverber 16, 1989 decision are to remain unchanged. /. !'/i1 i ✓ Tom.L yf 9'L et-' Richard T. Febomo, Merber, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS MODIFICATION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Ap^ec! from this decision, if any, shall be made ptrrsvant to Section 17 of file F::ass. G.:'e::-1 ns. chapter 603. and ta''I le fil_d �:iihin 20 days cf fi;in� of this decision in the c;;ce of the city c;crk. ural :a "� cl;neral Laws, Ch.'.p'"-' L:`3, $;r.:i:n A1, the variance er'ii?ocial Permii r:an:ed na herein shall '-at t:d:e oYzct "t" a copy of the decision, beam:; uie certification of the city C" at rk th0 days have elap`-ed 1.1,1 ,,a oppe:u has been filed, or th.^.t, if �_ch appeal has been filed, that i; F.:s been dismissed or danied is recorded in the South Essex ReSistry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record oG is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAU =r :2 r_ � r = m N Cx> f\) co 1i O rQ y aittl of _� 2IlPm� �]ti2ISStIL LIS f . 1p. r h . Pourb of ( tVVful r mt� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF TWO HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN HIGHLAND AVE. PARTNERSHIP FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 227 HIGHLAND AVENUE(I-B-2) A hearing on this petition was held November 16, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary; Edward Luzinski, Richard Febonio and Peter 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, requests a Special Permit to allow construction of Express 10 Minutes Lube Center at 227 Highland Ave. (I-B-2) 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 neghborhood. 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 to the petition. 2. The proposed building will allow petitioner expanded use of the property. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The grant of the Special Permit will promote the 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. f DECISION ON THE PETITION OF TWO HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN HIGHLA`ID AVE. PARTNERSHIP FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 227 HIGHLAND AVENUE (I-B-,2) 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 comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. 2. All construction be as per the plans submitted. 3. All construction be done by legal building permit. 4. No storage of motor vehicles for repairs left on premises over 24 hours. 5. No unauthorized storage of hazardous or waste materials. GRANTED Richard T. Febonio, Board Member • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK �prJ? rvcucnt to g?ction '7 c. si•.a.i C^_ ,d'within 29•"'is 'An-e?I from this cccision. if "y• _ 3. C•'.nernl L::�:•s. C:;cctpr$�o. r.:�a :L: ._.... Of n...] Ot t.,..: t..G•_'C (:10 G.. ._.:Grlt`i IrJ.`Y.: ..._..__ .n [: ..:...::...] '.. _.;I �.-._ ...20 .l _ :::7•CJ <F:`.I .! .: .}: . . f::5 U::'s❑ SI"i:'.:-='=� `.` iC lilt: fialKf 0f f.-O:0 Or J cni 'J ::, lc ^;;,1? CfifiC:;t= ci Titie. li L.....:E'i`:.C7 :i?' 60A[) OF APPEAL' GUG .,. in 23 8 _1 of3.1 ttlem, C ttssttt useffs • " >'a1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES J. ADAMO ( PETITIONER) , MARY K. ADAMO (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 318 HIGHLAND AVE. (6-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 6, 1989 with the following Board Memabers present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, 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. Petitioner is requesting Variances from density, setbacks, and use to allow a lot to be divided and to cosntruct a single family dwelling at 318 Highland Ave. The locus is in a B-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 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. 2. There is adequate parking on the site. 3. The intended use in in harmony with the existing neighborhood. 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. 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 JAMES J. ADAMO ( PETITIONER, NARY ADAMO (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 318 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: i . All construction be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to the Board of Appeal; 2. all the requirements of the Salem Fire Department, relative to fire safety, be adhered to by the petitioner; 3. Proper numbering of the new dwelling be obtained from the City of Salem Assessors Office; 4. Petitioner obtain a Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy. GRANTED ames M. Fleming, Esq. , Chai n A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • Aopeal from this decision. if cny, stall be made purse's to Section 17 of the Mass. General Lo as, Chanter 30S. and shall he Had c,ith!n 20 days alter vii site of fil;ng of this decision in the otlice of the City Clerlt. Pursuant to mass. ce.n.crai Un•/,. Ch _: ',09. SCUion !1. Gtr. lrari;nrc or special Permit granten here,n -;n:ii ❑.:t take -tffcci cnhl n crtPy of the decisioa. :raerin;t the cer:Iia;ion of fro City Cl=rk that 20 days nave elaps j and no appeal nas been filed, or ;hat, if such aoocal has been f:ed, that .t has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds ana indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL A �o Ctq of "ittlem, 'fflassadjusetts ;l Poara of '�kpveal gerumv� DECISION ON THE REMANDED PETITION OF JOHN KEANE FOR REMOVAL OF CONDITIONS OF A VARIANCE AT 382 HIGHLAND AVE. (B-2) A hearing on this remanded petition was held January 25, 1989 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 presently owns a building located at 382 Highland Avenue, Salem. This building presently sits in part within 30 feet of Ravenna Avenue. A B-2 District requires a set back of 30 feet. The lot size is 11 , 821 sq. ft. A B-2 district requires that lot size be a minimum of 12,000 sq. ft. The petitioner received'a variance from the Salem Board of Appeal on January 6, 1984, amended on May 1 , 1984 varying the above requirements, but with 11 conditions. In July 1987 the petitioner sought a new variance without the 11 conditions. Petitioner submitted that owing to the shape of the lot, its square footage, and the location of the building thereon, conditions exist which particularly affect the lot, but not the zoning district in general such that literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance creates a hardship, economic or otherwise on petitioner. • On September 29, 1987, the Salem Board of Appeal denied the petition for a Variance without conditions, as set forth in the Boards decision dated October 19, 1987. The petitioner appealed this decision to the Superior Court of the Commonwealth, under the provisions of Chapter 40A. On July 24 , 1988, the Superior Court, Judge John Ronan presiding, adopted a Concilliator's Report, and remanded the case back to the Salem Board of Appeal for additional evidence and a new hearing. The petitioner, through his Attorney requested several continuances, and the matter was reheard on January 25, 1989. 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. it]lIJ DECISION ON THE REMANDED PETITION OF JOHN KEANE FOR REMOVAL OF CONDITIONS OF A VARIANCE AT 382 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plan of land, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The petitioner would not define what new use or uses he was requesting for the building; 2. Neighbors, abutters and others expressed great opposition to the granting of the variance without the conditions or to a change of use for the building. If such were permitted they said it would have a great detrimental affect on their homes. 3. The property has not been maintained in the agreed to condition by the petitioner; 4. Petitioner has not made a good faith effort to live up to the conditions of the original decision; 5. The failure of the petitioner to adhere to, and comply with, the provisions of the prior decision has adversely impacted the quality of life for the neighbors, abutters and others. Based on the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, a motion was • made to grant the relief requested by the petitioner. The motion was duly seconded. The voted one member in favor (Mr. Fleming) , four members opposed. The motion having failed to carry the four necessary botes was, therefore, defeated, and the remanded petition is denied. DENIED aures M. Flemg, Esq. Chairman, Boarin d of Appea 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 RVIS. 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. PU'r:SAN[ TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER'.!!T i.,KNEED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION. BEARII! THE VERT- FICATION OF THE CRY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. (R IH:.f. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS R':C(�R�TED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWN..R OF RECDRU OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • Ctu of ttlem, ttssttclfuseffs k' HaR Iti 2 59f'Fi 'f39 Potts of '4pu l DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOYCE NELSON AND MICHAEL CITY ;;�ER;; :15� CORREALE FOR A VARIANCE AT 401 HIGHLAND AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petiiton was held January 11 , 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, Nutting and Associate Member 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. The petitioners, representing themselves, are requesting a Variance to allow a two family house at the locus by allowing the installation of a kitchen on the second floor, creating separate living quarters. 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 ge 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 use of the property is consistent with other uses property in the neighborhood; 2. The petitioners have adequate parking on the property to accomodate a second unit; 3. The additional unit is necessary because of growth in the family. 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 petitioners; • ' 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the : t 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 JOYCE NELSON AND MICHAEL CORREALE • FOR A VARIANCE AT 401 HIGHLAND AVENUE, 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 Department, relative to smoke and fire safety, be complied with by the petitioners; 2. The petitioners obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the second unit, prior to occupying same; 3. All construction be done in compliance with the Massachusetts Building Code and per the plans submitted to the Board of Appeal; 4. All exterior finished of the additional part of the building shall conform to the exterior finishes of the existing building; 5. The petitioners shall maintain seven (7) legal parking spaces on the premises; 6. All the conditions of the Special Permit dated December 7, 1983, be continued in full force and effect; 7. The Variance granted will cease to exist if the premises are not owner occupied. VARIANCE GRANTED James M. Fleming, Esq. Chairman, Board of A al A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERE APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE GENERAL (AVIS. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF HUNG OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURGANT TO I.;A'SS. CE:;`_RAL LA'43. CHAPTER SOB. SECTION ll. THE VARIANCE OR SPEC!.AI. P'°'.I!T GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEOECISIO:'!. BEAR:RG T..4 FIGAIMN OF THE C:'.Y GLER NIX,' 20 GAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS REEi: C:- LR THAT. IF SUCH Ail APPEAL RAS BEEN FILE. THAT !T H(•.3 LEEN DIS:'r:IS:iED CR SS,;EO REGGRDED IN THE SUUiH E3SE;: REGISTRY. OF DEEDS AND INDEXED U.":DER THE i;A%;E cr _li;:ER OF RECORD OR IS RECGRDEO AND NOTED UN THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL An 17 3 11 fil 89 Chi of �tt[em �ttssttcl�usetts ILE.: '; Js Poura of '4veal ss. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EXTRA SPACE ASSOCIATES FOR A VARIANCE AT 433-445 HIGHLAND AVENUE (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held on August 9, 1989 with the following Board Members present. Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman, John Nutting, Secretary, Messrs. Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski and Peter 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 is requesting a variance to permit residential use within the existing storage facility. 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 otherwixe, 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 at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. No opposition was present. 2. Attorney John Serafini represented 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 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. rt DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EXTRA SPACE ASSOCIATES FOR A VARIANCE AT 433-445 HIGHLAND AVENUE (B-2) r 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 Department relative to smoke and fire safety be adhered to. 2. Occupancy permit be obtained. 3. All conditions of past allowance dating 12/2/87 be adhered to. VARIANCE GRANTED Richard T. Febonio, Board Member • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK be he Mass. Generali Laws, Chapter 808,ands alPursuant of l bef led within 20 days after the date of firing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Nass. General Laws, Cha-11er 808, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein sSn:i not take effect until a copy of the C=cision. bearing the cen,iica:ion of ' e city or that Cif suchna pealays hashave been e!apseci and no appeal has been filed, filed, that it has neen dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL DIN fl�itu of Salem, �fa99ar4u9rttk8 I I 3 15 '89 �nttrD of CAV peal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CELLULAR ONE FOR A VARIANCE AT 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (BPD) Camp Lion Inc. (owner) A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1989 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 petition seeks a Variance to allow the construction of a 190 foot high radio tower for celluar telephone service. The locus of the petiiton is in a Business Park Development District (BPD) and is owned by Camp Lion, Inc. 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 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, Cellular One, offered no proof of standing to present the petition to the Board of Appeal. 2. A previous Variance granted to the locus prohibits any radio tower on the property. 3. The Ward Councillor, Leonard O' Leary, spoke against granting the Variance, expressing concerns for the safety of local residents, especially children who might attempt to climb the unattended tower. 4. A tower of the height requested, 190 feet, would dominate the area, which is mostly residential. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . 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. 2. The petitioner has no standing to present the petition to the Board. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CELLULAR ONE ( PETITIONER) FOR A VARIANCE AT 488 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM Camp Lion Inc. (owner) page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted one in favor (Mr. Luzinski) and four in opposition to the granting of the requested variance. The petition, having failed to gain four (4) affirmative votes is therefore denied. VARIANCE DENIED ,'.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 . . GENERAL LA'NS. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL DE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF OF THIS DECISION VI THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. P7R'A:41 TO :..ASS. C_NCRAL IAW3. CHAPTER 808. SECiI`+N 11. THE VARIANCE 03 `.PrrIAL F ,RANTED HEREIN. SHALL N^.1 TAi:: EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THED"IS111. CE:.`:ai Iii- . .. FI:ATION OF THE CrT CLERK IHAF 20 DAYS HAVE ELAF; D .N-) Ni) AVP_AL HAS BEEN ^.R THAT. IF SUCH AN APP&ll H,',S OEi7 FILE. THA; IT H%.S Z:ZN DIS.::ISSED OR DEV!EJ IS P.CCC'RDEO IN THE SJ7:H ESSEX R&ASTRY OF OG:9S AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NUTEU ON TME OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. • BOARD OF APPEAL • Cty of $Ulem, 74flussar4useffs PnurD ofLn E'�u�rettl c DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CELLULAR ONE (PETITIONERS) , CAMP . LION (OWNERS) FOR VARIANCES AT 488 HIGHLAND AVE. (BPD) c CX_ A hearing on this petition was held October 18, 1989 with the following board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, 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 60A. Petitioners are requesting Variances to allow construction and operation cf a communication facility and tower _n this Business Park Development District. The property is owned by Camp Lion, Inc. A petition to allow construction of a 190 foot tower was denied by the Board of Appeal February 15, 1989• The Board of Appeal, after hearing evidence as to there being substantial change; said change being, the proposed tower has been moved more than four hundred feet from previous site, the height of the tower being reduced to one hundred seventy feet from the original request of one hundred ninety feet; and, after receiving Consent from the City of Salem Planning Board, voted 4-1 (Mr. Bencal opposed) that there was a substantial change and the Board would hear the petition. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of `he Boara that: .. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect ".e '_and, building or structure involved and which are not generaily 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 petitioners; 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 substantial change in the location and 'height of the tower. 2. The use is compatible with other business uses in the area. 3. The facility would be beneficial to the Fire and Police Departments. 4. No one appeared in opposition. The Ward Councillor appeared in favor. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CELLULAR ONE ( PETITIONE11::I , I:AMP LION (OWNERS) FOR VARIANCES AT =88 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM page two • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on r.hd rivldence 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. 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 4-1 (Mr. Bencal opposed) to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Location of the tower be as per the plans submitted 10/18/89• 2. Tower be no higher than 170 feet from ground level. 3. 4 ten foot fence of fine mesh chain link similar to the fencing used by the MBTA on Canal St. in Salem. Said fence is not to be made of Zinc Oxide. • 4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department are to be strictly adhered to. 5• All construction is to be in accordance with city and state codes. 6. There will be no signs. 7 . The tower is to be painted a non-glare finish and that finish is to be maintained in perpetuity. GRANTED James M. Fleming, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK l lrem this d=cisien. it any• shill be nide r.,sunnt to section 17 of �.�..eer....s Y:e Lla�s. G:ncral Lia•: CII,n'e' ;:03• •tnd cilia h^_ filed 'r:dhin 'ZO . .er ire date of iil..g of i%is Uecr ion :n the rw= ci the c;ty cler4. ? •..:J`nl to :..as. 6•sleml La::s, Ca..:.._r f'•3. Sr.c;;:n i 1. the lar :rce l a cc:V of t!l! ' ;;.,. ..,. •let); r.it 3J A.::n ! has b"r !•:c 9, or :.:_:, it suea u^P;' r;; ccen ld: Iiia' it has bean u:smis:ed or c_cw:i .; icxrded m !no "Cu ln _.e■ of Deeds and indexed ender We name or the a•.Vner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Gcriil tcate or Title. BOARD OF APPEAL' ,J ,W 91 y (gitn of ttlem, 4att9saC usetts z . y,F ottra of �upeal Ef�>r�� .:.�_ . tie. _ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS & EILEEN LUDDY FOR VARIANCES AT 16 INTERVALE ROAD (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held June 6, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, 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 Chaoter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting variances to allow construction of an addition which will encroach on the rear of this property which 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; 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition to the petition. 2. The proposed addition is to provide additional living space for a Darent. 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 petitioners; 3. The requested variance 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. m N .� y J � .r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS AND EILEEN LUDDY FOR • VARIANCES AT 16 INTERUALE ROAD, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following permits: 1 . The 22' x 161 addition must be constructed in accordance with revised plans submitted June 6, 1989. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department must be adhered to. 3. A Building Permit must be obtained. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. 5. The exterior of the proposed addition must be compatible with the existing building. VARIANCE GRANTED Peter A. Dore, Member Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • Ap,cal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of V!e Mans. Cenerel Lros, Chapter 803, and shall be riled within 20 days ftcr '.:+a date of ii:.t7, of this decision in the cffice of the City Clerk. r:u:an:c: to r?a_c. G:na.al I.nws. Cho;ur L'03, Section 11, the Variance r,: '::::d-,! Permit f.::at!ed Ixf:ein s::::! nit tr.l<e effect until a copy of the iitn car:d!cetio:i cf ii:e Cit, C12 k th.t 20 drys have ,:nd no h:u been tliCd, o, tF._t, it such zp?eal has been Lara it hs tracn a.,smissed or denied is recorded is the South Essex P:!7ist:y of 0aeds and indexed under the name or the n:•mer of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificaia of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL • Ctv of ialem, Aaszar4usetts P c� ottra of eel AMENDMENT TO THE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FERNANDO AND MARIE COSTA FOR VARIANCES AT 32 IRVING ST./89R TREMONT ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1989 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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are seeking a variance to divide the parcel into two lots, and to construct a single family dwelling on the newly created' lot. The locus of the property is in an R-2 district. The decision on this petition was filed at the Registry of Deeds on November 2, 1989, the Board of Appeal at it 's January 17, 1990 hearing voted unanimously 5-0 to amend that decision by adding the following: "Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the • variances requested, more specifically, to construct a single family dwelling on Lot 298 with frontage (Minimum Lot Width) of 0 feet; a rear yard of 15.5 feet; and an area of 5,818 + square feet of land, subject to the following conditions:" All seven (7) conditions of the May 17, 1989 are to remain unchanged. A James M. Fleming, Chairm A COPY OF THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK rC" dp. •:-' from !bio decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of t':o dSass. Gencrl Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 drys ,...ar!:',e .'ate of fil!ng of this decision in the office of the City Cicrk. W Laws, Ciinpter e08, Sx:i^n 11, file Varigaa co til r: a! poi c:!f r;-:n:e:! heroin sha!l not take off,..-! ::n:il a cony of the ccrtifiration of the City Clerk 8iai 20 d:./� have e.res_' a^9 iao apo=al nas boon filed,or that, if ouch appeal has been is^en dismsaed or danied is recorded in the South Essex registry of Dae:s and indexed under the name or the outer of record cc m r is recorded and roted on the owner's Certificate of Title. c BOARD OF APPEAU • SEP LI 3 05-IJI 'b� 0 FILL (pity of � ttlem, � Httss�zrlju�at<ts: DECISION ON THE RETI.T.ION OF FERNANDO & MARIE COSTA FOR VARIANCES ' ?2 I�RHING ST./89R TREh1ONT ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 17,1989 with the foliewing Board :-'embers present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, ;tutting and Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properiy published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massacnusetts 7enerai Laws Chapter 40A. °etitioners,owners of the property, are seeking a variance to divide the carcei into two (2) lots, and to construct a single family dwelling dweilinr cn -.he newiv created lot. The locus of the Property is in an R-2 district. -he Variance .which has been requested may be granted upon a finding or _oard that: _. speciai conditions and circumstances exist which especialiv affect :"e `_and, buiiding or structure involved and which are not generally affecting .cher lands, buildings and structures in the same district: !iteral enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance .aouid involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner; desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the ..,blit good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. -he _Eeard of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the :,:earina, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: ,he proposed pian is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. 'The utiilzaticn of the new lot for a single family dwelling would eii--nate an area .where illegal dumping of rubbish and debris has occured. 7 . Several neighbors and the wara Councillor spoke in favor of the pet'-tion. 7'oe eniy use for theland is for a single family residence. ;n the basis of the above findings of ;act, and on t,,",e evidence presentee a- the )earing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: . peciai conditions exist which esecially affect he subject property c not the district generally; Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would work a • substantial hardship on the the petitioners; The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment t_ e public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating frog intent of the district or the ouroose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FERNANDO & MARIA COSTA FOR VARIANCES AT 32 IRVING ST./89R TREMONT ST. , SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal doted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: i . Prior to occupancy of the new dwelling, the petitioner must obtain c Certificate of Occupancy. 2. The petitioners obtain the proper numbering of the new dwelling from the Salem Board of Assessors. 3. The petitioners meet all the requirements of the Salem Fire Departmenc relative to fire safety. The only permitted use of the new lot is for a s_nsie family home. 5. The petitioners must meet all the requirements of the State Building Code and perform all construction as per the plans and dimensions submitteo to the Board cV Appeal. 6. The petitioners must erect stockade fencing along 'lots 298 and 292 for distance of thirty (30) feet form lot 293. The petitioners must create by legal instrument the right of way as snown on the plan submitted. Said right of way must be created in perpetuity and recorded with the Registry of Deeds. • ;RANTED )a*42FII. g,—'Esq. Chairman, Board of Appeal COP? OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNIiiG BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK '-nn! ben :hl 'on.:wn if on, 00H to mTQ c..r.. "' w tint= !i of Ch n:er 8.013. a:m shad he b:ecl 20 • tvs .. ,I_:e or iiin_: Ci b',is decision m the ulke of the C::; .. ... ... .. ....... hr:e:n sa'... ..' o .. .tlte Cfb:ci unttl a :. cy . ._ C.Riiii:chin of 0:C i:.:': C1:N1( Ih.:t ,'.� eit's ❑:'r'• red on ::o amuol Ius been W. or :::r.:. if such ;; .noj:nin c;ea 1%an !nt is has urtcm cl:smis5ed or dCnAd :i record Pd in llla $a::.` __.e% pays r; of coed: and induced under ohs name or the owner of r_cord cr is recorded and noted on the owner's C_r.:ficate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL' • 3 as ; '89 Ctg of �5tt1Pm, 46n99ar lusdts FILE{ , rs PO&I$ of ATFIIl CITY CLc-.,7.(. iir,89: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH H. MARFONGELLI (PETITIONER) , CHARLES L. REED JR. (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 39 IRVING ST. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary; Messrs. , 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 Variances from lot size, density and setbacks to allow a parcel to be divided and to allow construction of a single family dwelling on the newly created lot presently part of 39 Irving Street which is located in an R-1 district. Property is owned by Charles L. Reed Jr. 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 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 . Support to the petition was voiced by three City Councillors; 2. A petition in support of the plan was presented by the petitioner; 3. The proposed new lot would be in harmony with the neighborhood relative to lot size and numbering. 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 Ordinance would involve a substantial hardship to the petitioner; 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. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH H. MARFONGELLI (PETITIONER) , CHARLES L. REED JR. (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 39 IRVING ST. , SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: t . Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. ; 2. Proper street numbering for the new dwelling be obtained from the City Assessor, City of Salem; 3. All construction and dimensions shall be as per the plans submitted; 4. Certificate of Occupancy for the new dwelling be obtained. VARIANCES GRANTED �• Rrchard 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 :,L. . GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 803. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF F!G;IG OF TII!S DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. P78SANT TO %:AM GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 898. SECTION il. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL OP:'.:iff '.'AN;EO HEREIN. SHALL i13T TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE OECISL:I. BEAR;::^. TF!E t:E'.J. ., StiATIGN OF THE COY CLERK THA'i 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS OFE:; Od THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IF HAS BEEN DIS::i:SSED OR CSdIED IS 6.."S`fi DED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RE.!ISTRY OF CZEDS AND INDEXED 'UNDER THE !:A:,:E OF THE OYINER CF MORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OvINER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL (gift' Of �SUIem, ��ttssttcl�use##s ... ..:J�s Paurb of Av}rettl due 19 8 a Ad '89 FILL"'` DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CATHERINE GREEN FOR VARIANCJt�Y plel!r.. .... a 1 g g, AT 13 JACKSON STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 28, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, Luzinski 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, is seeking the Variances necessary to divide the existing lot into two lots and to construct a single family dwelling on the newly created lot at 13 Jackson Street. The locus is 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 without substantial detriment to the public good and without nulliying 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 -.iter viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: I . The size of the lot is in keeping with other lots in the vicinity. 2. Single family homes, as per plans, would be in harmony with the neighborhood and would enhance the City of Salem tax roll. 3. If a single family house is not allowed to be built, the lot would have no value. 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 . 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 CATHERINE GREEN FOR VARIANCES FOR 13 JACKSON ST. , SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 , Mr. Bencal in opposition, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All necessary building permits must be obtained prior to construction. 2. Plans are to be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The proposed construction shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Massachusetts State Building Code, the Salem Fire Prevention Code, Salem City Ordinances and Massachusetts General Laws, relative to Fire Safety. 4. Proper street numbering be obtained from the City Assessor. 5• All construction be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to the Board of Appeal. VARIANCES GRANTED James M. Fleming, Esq. , Cha' an A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • . :.:I Iron' This oecuicn, i; any, =_!izii be made purscanr to Section 17 of ..r_ id=_ss. General Laws, Chapter 803, and shall he filed v:ilhin 70 days a!:z ii-le c.:te of filing of this decision in the orrice of the City Clerk. to ..1.... , Oe=l Ln:v;. Co. .. ^;8. Sec:inn 'it. the Variance cr J:oci�� P!rmit granted h^_iei-i S!1... :wt .tke elf-rt uno a copy of the cecasIon. b_crinq the c^_rhfieJtion of rite City Clerk that 20 days have eia:sed and no appeal has been filed. o: that, if such appear has been Med. tnat it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Regiz; ry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL, • i - i,y Cita of �alem, � ttssttcl�usetts 'Boarb of� �Au}rxttl AUG IN 5 c9ii, '89 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICK JINKS JR. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 36 JAPONICA STREET (R-2) ATY A hearing on this petition was held July 19, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, Luzinski, 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, representing himself, is the owner of the property and is rea'uesting a Special Permit toconstruct decks on the first and second floors at 36 Japonica Street. The locus is in an R-2 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this requesc 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 alteration 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 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. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requescs, 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 to the petition. 2. The decks will be in harmony with the neighborhood and will add to the petitioner's enjoyment 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 . The petitioners plan will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and will be in harmony with the present structure. C' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICK JINKS JR. FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 36 JAPONICA STREET, SALEM • page two 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Fire Department. 2. All construction be done as per all existing City and State Building Codes and by legal building permit. 3. All construction be done as per the plans submitted and as per the dimensions submitted. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED James M. Fleming, Esq. , airman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • Ancenl from this der..is:on, if anv. shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Mass. General Lx-vs. Chapter 303, and shall be filed within 20 days aflcr the date of filing of this decrsicn in the oifice of the Cily Clark. . ...scant to Mass. General LAWS. UI: r. sM3, siciron 11. the variance or :ipecial Permit nr;m:ed homin skirl mat Like effect until a copy of the :'easion, uearinff the cerl:liration o: the City Clark thou 20 days have r!:pled and no anneal has ucen tiled. or that, ;t sucn appeal has been bred, that it has been dismissed o. cenied is recorded in the south Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed rntier the name or b'ic owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL' • Jim 'og Citu of ttlem c'�ttSSttt�llSet .y 33nttrb of Av}rPttl DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN MENTO (PETITIONER) ANN BONAIUTO (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE AT fl—Q-2REAR JEFFERSON AVE. A/K/A OCEAN AVENUE EXTENSION (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held June 14, i989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, Luzinski 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. ietitioner is requesting a Variance to allow the premises to be used as a .gelding shop. The property is located in an R-3 district and is owned by Ann Bonaiuto. 'he Variance which has been requested may to wanted upon a finding of t.",e 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 •E>- substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, 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. 2. Councillor Leonard O'Leary spoke in favor. 3. Variances were prevously granted to allow this property to be used for minor automotive repairs over the past ten years. 4 . Petitioner runs a mobile type welding shop and the majority of his work will be done off the premises. 5. This property is undersized and would require action from the Board of Appeal to allow it to be utilized for any purpose. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: c�tf 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property 01 but not the district generally; DECISION ON THE PE?T?TON OF JOHN i•IENTG ?T?'Oi•IERI -.NPI BGNAIUTO (047NER) FOR A VARIANCE FOR 192 REAR JEFFERSON AVE. a/k/a OCEAN AVE. EXT. , SALEM Page two 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of :he Ordinance arould work a substantial hardship on the oetitioner; -he Variance reouested 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 Ordiance. ,herefore, the Zoning Board of appeal, voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the lariances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. , Monday througn Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays. Petitioner has the right to come back to the Board in one year for review. Variance is granted for welding shop only and for petitioner only. ariance __. valid .`or c period lie (5) years from the date c this hearing and can be renewed by the petitioner only. Jne sign, no larger than 2' y. 2' may be placed on the front of the structure. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety be strictly adhered to. o. No raw materials are to be stored outside the building. Prooer numbering of the building be obtained from the City Assessor. `ARIANCE GRANTED Richard T. Febonio, Member Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK :a^pal from !nis decision• if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of th^ ;;:.._s. General Laws. Chapter SOS, and shall be filed within 20 days Inc data of filin+ of this decision in the office of the City Clerk, .•:avant to ;:!ass. General L3-us. Caapter SOS, Section 11, the Variance rr 5!:a7L! Pcrmrt cr_nted he(em s:i_ii nota:ke effect until a copy of the ::sip-, oeanng the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have -:s-: anu no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been f::•::i. that it has been dism;s:cd or denied is recorded in the South Essex re;,estry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. - BOARD OF APPEAL' • Y,• ` a Cgi#v of ttlPm, ussttthusP##s OCT Zr 1130 A '89 Pottrb of c4vml NO �OlMrvt 1 111$,$ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF G.I.M. PROPERTIES FOR VARIANCES AT 291 JEFFERSON AVE. (B-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held August 16, 1989 and continued until October 18, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting Variances from lot size, front yard depth and lot width, so as to permit construction of a professional office building in this B-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 at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The lot in question is irregular in shape, size and configuration, with changes in elevation that make this lot difficult to develop. That this topography was unique to this parcel and not generally applicable to other land in the area. 2. The area is a B-1 zone and the use is a permitted use. 3. A Variance for the same structure as presented, which at that time contained four (4) office units, was previously granted; and because of difficulties in developing the lot economically, the petitioner has requested an additional two units in the basement or lower level, for a total of six (6) units. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF G.I.M. PROPERTIES FOR VARIANCES AT 291 JEFFERSON AVE. , SALEM • page two 4. The concerns of the immediate abutter, Mr. Pelletier were addressed and satisfied by the lowering of the height of the new structure by six (6) feet so that the the roof ridge line of the new structure will be no more than eight (8) feet above the ridge line of Mr. Pelletier's building. 5. There will be adequate on site parking. 6. The proposed development is in keeping with the Master Plan of the City. 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 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 Variances from lot area, front yard depth and lot width, so as to permit the construction of a Professional Office Building containing six (6) units, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The roof ridge line of the proposed building not be any higher than eight (8) feet above the roof ridge line of the adjacent Pelletier building. 2. All construction and dimensions be in accordance with plans submitted 10/18/89. 3. All requirements of the Fire Prevention Bureau be strictly adhered to. 4. Construction meet and state and local building codes. 5. A Building Permit and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. 6. Any signs be approved by the City of Salem Planning Department. GRANTED / ,(ice /: , i ' John R. Nutting, Secre ary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING/BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Ap7e?I i:cm :hi de^elision, It any, shall be made pursuant to Section i7 of the P:1ass. General Laea. Chapter LOS, and shall bn filed within 20 days • after the dare of tGing Ol this dece:ion in the Office of the City Clerk. Ge�erl Lars. Ch.^t•r:^S. Se-lien 11. me Variance f- crPermit gran:zd h^rein 1:'-A ::o: :at•.e effect until a copy of :h2 ccci::an. bearing the cardflcatiOa of t-ie City Clerk :het 20 days hate e�Ipsed aro ra app'-al has been filed. or that, if such appeal has been fi'Od. that it h=.s been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deede and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL FEB � 3 03 Ctg of �rtlem, 'Mttssar4usetts r�i '89 J. - FILEy J0 Pourb of hopud '�"'� 91.TY rLcrr DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FREDERICK MCINTIRE, III FOR A VARIANCE AT 16-18 JUNIPER AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held January 25, 1989 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 requesting a variance to allow a three family dwelling 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 affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; ,, - b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve i substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner, l •� 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 . Substantial opposition to the plan was presented in letter form as well as in person by neighbors, abutters and others; 2. Evidence presented indicated the petitioner was using the building illegally as a three family dwelling as far back as 1976 despite letters from the City to cease; 3. Petitioner presented a parking plan showing, at best, three (3) legal parking spaces, two short of the required minimum; 4. The grant of the variance would have a negative impact on the neighborhood; 5• Petitioner failed to prove hardship; 6. A grant of the requested variance would be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FREDERICK MCINTIRE, III FOR A VARIANCE AT 16-18 JUNIPER STREET, SALEM page two • 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 affect the subject property and not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not involve substantial hardship on 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 unanimously, 5-0, against the granting of the requested variance, the variance is therefore denied. DENIED "R'ichard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • APPEAL FRO.`A THIS DECISION. 1S ANY, SHALL BE GLADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 803. AND SHALL BE F.."_EO WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE LATE O'-" OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. P9 RSANT TO (AASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. SECTI"Il 11. THE VARIANCE OR SKC!'AL IS,_•!T CR.ANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAXE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISIGN. THE CERT. FlUATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED ANO NG APPEAL HAS BEEN F'L=D. GR ?HRT. IF ='N AN APPEAL HAS BEEP FILE, THAT IT H':S GEEN DISiASSED OR UEP':ED IS RE::uRCEO IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RECISiRY OF L'EEOS AND IiIDEXED UNDER THE NA.-+E GF TRE O'Uf: OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OV7NER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • of �$ttfem, Ausear4usi#f 3x } CITY CLE-R.K.5:..Pourb of eal ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W. DAVID CROSBY FOR VARIANCES AT 22 KOSCIUSKO STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary; Messrs. 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 4( The Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variances from lot size, density, setbacks and frontage to allow construction of a single family dwelling 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 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 submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Several letters, as well as a petition, were submitted in opposition; 2. Several neighbors, abutters and others spoke in opposition; 3. The petitioner was previously denied by this Board on June 25, 1973; 4. The parking plan submitted would eliminate parking on the street; 5. The parcel of land is in the new proposed boundary of the National Park Service; 6. The building that previously existed on this lot was razed by the City of Salem due to hazardous conditions caused by fire; 7. The proposed plan would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. i 1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W. DAVID CROSBY FOR VARIANCES AT 22 KOSCIUSKO STREET, SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . 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 (Mr. Fleming voted in favor) against the granting of the requested variance. Having failed to carry the required four favorable votes, the Variance is denied. DENIED Richard ASee—n a, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROLI THIS DECIS!0"1. it ANY. SHALL CE MADE PJRSUANT TO SECTION 17 CF THE ::: GENERAL LAWS. CY,APTER 598. A.-ND SHALL EE Fi LEU Vit-MINN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF rSUAG OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE CF THE CITY CLERK. PURSAW TO :.:A:;S. '":T: .7•AP?7R 81:8. SIM,:! 11, THE VARIAi10E ^.t 'P-_^�:� "-'::i GRA,6ZO HESEI!I. SHALL NDi ;:4dE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE^Ef I'; ::, BE.'.::^.;:. .!:; • FICATK,: I CF THE C11Y CLERK ii:Ai 20 GAYS !i AVE Nil APP6AL HAG OR THAT. IF SU'Ci1 AN APPEAL HAS 3 3 FILE. IT !i;�J EEE:! 0:2 'MED OR CE9:ZD :G RECORDED IN THE SW1H ESSEX REMMY CF DZEDS AND INDEXED UiiDE' THE i,A:.iE CF THZ - OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. , BOARD OF APPEAL Eity of -Jttlem, flassar4useffs Pottra of r�uPL DECISION ON THE PETITION OF VASILE STEVEN FOR A VARIANCE AT 186 LAFAYETTE ST. (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held April 19, 1989 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, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance to allow third floor to be used as a third apartment in this 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 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 of 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 that were submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The plans presented to the Board were not adequate and were not done to any scale. 2. Petitioners proposal, as presented, would result in the construction of a second outside stairway. 3. Two family use was granted to the petitioner in 1984 by the former Inspector of Buildings. 4. Petitioner purchased the property as a single family house about five years ago. 5. Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof relative to legal 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 but not the district generally; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF VASILE STEVEN FOR A VARIANC"c • AT 186 LAFAYETTE STREET, SALEM page two 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5, against the granting of the requested variance. Having failed to obtained the required four favorable votes necessary to grant, the Variance is denied. VARIANCE DENIED. John R. Nutting, 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 SECTION 17 OF THE MApS, GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILUIG OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. • PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION ll. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER!,!IT GRANTED HEREIN. SWILL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION. BEARING THE CERT FICATION OF THE CITY 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 Ot NEP OF RECORD OR IS RECCRDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL - ` y (1�itV of ,,Salem, C�ttssar4usetts OR iZ j �8y �'. '3 � rF Pel: Ap DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD MICHAUD FOR A VARIANCE AT 27 LAUREL ST. 9B-4) A hearing on this petition was held September 20, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal , Febonio, 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 petitioner, represented by Attorney Chris Drucas, is seeking a variance from the rear yard setback requirement to allow for the continued existence of the existing sheds. The locus of the property is in a B-4 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: I . No opposition was presented. 2. The continued existence of the sheds will allow the petitioner the full use of his property. 3. The sheds have existed since 1966. 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; . • 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. r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD MICHAUD FOR A VARIANCE • AT 27 LAUREL STREET, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief request, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety be adhered to. 2. The petitioner obtain a legal building permit. 3. The sheds are to remain as per the plans submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeal . VARIANCE GRANTED ) IL' / ?�1�11(/� )am es M. FlemingEsq.airman, Board of Appe�i A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 7.o^e-7 from ;,i; •'ccic:Cr.. if ;n", [ho ll be made curstiont to Sac:ion 17 of • t`^_ ft-..,. ._.._._.IL ...... -z".Cunc:r ..r.d shcii b2 fi:nd wcfh:o 2- .i rys .r : .. _.... � .. . 7011 •..._ .C:t In 1.:: 0::IC] of S._ r• :.... .. ...._. f. -?]7 .. r:7c::i:c in the is.::n Essex Ce-u:ry Ci Ca_c ;...:i r..oeze:i u-n-0.. the :.:.r.o Cr tir o•..ner o: r._ord or is recordod and no= on the o.,ner's Cer;iicu : or Titla. BOARD OF APPEAL' • 0 V .annr4br JUL 11 3 28 �: Ctu of Salem, 41ttssar4usett Pnttra of �tr�real ,rr �rtms.� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NAPOLEON LEBLANC FOR VARIANCES AT 95 LAWRENCE STREET, (R-2/B-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held June 6, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variances from lot size, density, setbacks, lot width and area per dwelling unit to allow parcel to be divided and to construct a single family dwelling on the new created lot. Property is located in a B-1/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 to the plan. 2. The Variances were allowed at a hearing on September 29, 1987 but construction did not begin. 3. The proposed division would create two lots that would conform with others in the area. 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; 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 NAPOLEON LEBLANCE FOR VARIANCES AT 95 LAWRENCE STREET, SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All work be done in accordance with plans submitted and dated July 29, 1987 with revisions dated April 7, 1988. 2. Plans for construction be presented to the Fire Prevension Bureau prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 3. Proposed construction conform to the Massachusetts State Building Code. 4. Proper street numbering be obtained from the City Assessor. 5. A Building Permit be obtained prior to construction. 6. A driveway large enough for two (2) cars be provided. 7. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. VARIANCE GRANTED • Peter Dore, Member Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decsion. it 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 Lars, ChL;:er 808, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit grantedherein 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 appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or l9 4gc➢r4ed and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL' • z - 8 of ttlem ttssttc usefts - � paara of �,vpeal FIS ohm. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRED & DONNA FLETT FOR A VARIANCE AT 14 LEE STREET (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held February 22, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; Edward Luzinski, 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, representing themselves, are requesting a Variance to allow for the construction of a deck which will encroach on the side setback requirement. 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 or the purpose of the Ordinance. T vi m 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: 0 W W) 1 . The proposed deck will replace a deteriorated �. P porch and this will promote safety; m } 2. The proposed deck cannot be constructed in any other location without substantial financial hardship; U 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 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. f DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRED & DONNA FLETT FOR A • VARIANCE AT 14 LEE STREET, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voed unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance requested on condition all construction be in accordance with all state and local building codes and all dimensions be as per the plans submitted. VARIANCE GRANTED / A, / ) 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 GENERAL LA;lS. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE CF FIL'NG OF THIS DECISIC14 IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. Psi RSANT TO ':;ASS. GE.:ERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR S?E"!k. GRWITED F:ERE!N. SHALL NOT. TA4.E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THECEC!S!.^.N. BEAR!N9 T':" FICA41t: CF THE COY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE E.APSED AND 140 APPEAL HAS • CR THAT, IF SUCH At, APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. TEAT IT HAS BEEN DIS:.IISSED OR RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND 114DEXED UNDER THE NAME LF THE OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OLVNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL -. sp =S 1.1310 A119 ;x.7113 00 (gitu O f tIIPIIi 2i55ttt USPttS � � a Paurb of CAUFu l DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE VILLETT FOR A SPECIALFILE= PERMIT AT 25 LEE STREET (R-1 ) iTY -LEE ;. ::...._' . :dc A hearing on this petition was held July 19, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, Luzinski 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, is requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of an addition on this undersized lot which is located 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 accrodance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstructior of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansior of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such 1 change, extension, enlargment 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. The proposed addition will not encroach on any setback requirements. 3. The proposed addition will enlarge the kitchen area and will be a single story addition. 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 requested Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and will be in harmony with the neighborhood. ti 2. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the ;J1 public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. , f� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE VILLETT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 25 LEE STREET, SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the request for a Special Permit to allow construction of an addition, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety be adhered to. 2. All construction be done with a legal building permit and as per all City and State Building codes. 3. All construction be as per plans and dimensions submitted. 4 . Exterior finishes of the proposed addition be in harmony with the existing building. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for the new addition. GRANTED ohn R. Nutting, Secre ry A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Anneal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Miss. General Laws. Chapter SCS, and shall be filed within 20 days eftar the date of filirg of this derision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Class. General Laws, chin,_.- a08. Se�tiun 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shnli oat take ei(rcl until a copy of t^e decision, bearing the cerCficotion of the idly C!crk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's C^rt?li at: of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL CFO) ,y (gitu of §alem, ttssnthusrttsduc nttrD of trpeal DE1=CN ON THE PETITION OF UILLIAM AND NANCY ROWE FOR A SPECIAL. PM417 AT 13 LINCOLN ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this Petition was held June 6, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, 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 for the construction of an addition to their single family dwelling at 13 Lincoln Road. The locus is 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, expansion or enlargement 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 to the petition. Several neighbors sent letters indicating their support. 2. The addition is in harmony with the existing 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. r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF 1WILLIAM AND NANCY ROWE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 13 LINCOLN RD. , SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-O, to grant the Special Permit as requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All construction be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to the Board of Appeal. 2. That the petitioners adhere to the all the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety. 3. All construction be in conformity to the requirements of the Massachusetts State Building Code, and that the petitioners obtain a building permit and a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. The exterior of addition be in harmony with the exterior of the existing dwelling. GRANTED / J C�� James M. Fleming, Esq. , Cr rman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • Appeal from this decision. it any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days _aer the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Mass. Cdneral L3%vs. Ch .l; e• 808. S.!ctlnn 11, the variance nr Special Permit gr.lnt rl herein shcid :;;take effect until a copy of the c'ecisicn, hearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have :•'apsed and no appeal has been tiled, cr that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL • ..eco.mgb (att({� j g of J�5ttlrm, 4Va9SUr4Ug?jf5 f Pnara of �rpzal JUL 6 8 40 Ail '69 FILE Y' �ETYCLEiRK. i .; .:r' :ASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD BOUCHARD FOR VARIANCES AT 38 LORING AVENUE (B-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held June 28, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, Luzinski and Putting. 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 Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the petitioners request to withdraw his application to allow construction of a three unit condominium building in this B-1 district. WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE James M. Fleming, ChairIvIn 1 • � O �T PR Z7 3 of i'�i 'S9 y ( J of "�ajrm, flttssUr4useti�0 �OMra of °� V' Pr211 ;ITY C' it K. ;:' ::!'. .a S. nmx� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE JEFFERSON TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 322-330 CANAL STREET/72 LORING AVENUE (B-2). A hearing on this Petition was held on April 19, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman; John R. Nutting, Secretary, Edward Luzinski; and Peter Dore, Associate Member. Notice of the hearing was sent to all abutters and others and notices were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with M.G.L. C.40A. Petitioners, represented by Attorney John R. Serafini, Sr. , are requesting a variance from Section VII B of the Zoning Ordinance to allow division of land into four (4) lots in this B-2 zone as shown on the submitted plans. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances 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 Petitioners; 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. At the hearing, evidence was presented that the configuration of the three lots presently approved were configured in conformance with Section VII B of the Zoning Ordinance relating to gasoline service stations. Under that Section of .the Ordinance, minimum lot widths of 12U feet were required. The Petitioners demonstrated that the use of the property as it related to the two buildings already constructed did not strictly fit the definitions of the gasoline service stations, that the use of the buildings was oriented towards the sale of certain automotive products and certain limited services, and that there were no gasoline tanks or pumps to dispense gasoline. Evidence was further introduced that a proposed third building would be devoted to general B-2 purposes, which were a permitted use on that parcel of property, and further that the lots in question were of such size as to exceed area requirements in B-2 zones. It was further pointed out that to permit four lots with 100 foot lot widths was in keeping with general re- quirements in a B-2 zone, which requires that minimum lot width be 100 feet per lot. It was further indicated that there was no intention on the part of the Petitioners to utilize Parcel II as a gasoline service station. The Board, after considering all the evidence, made the following findings of fact: • 1. The present three lots are very irregular in shape and the proposed plan would allow better use of the property; 2. Petitioners previously had to comply with zoning provisions relating to service stations even though the buildings constructed were not auto- motive service stations in the strict sense of the word; 3. Concerns of neighbors and abutters regarding fences and shrubbery would be met by the Petitioners; 4. The requirements of lot width under Section VII B of the Zoning Ordinance created a hardship, since the land was not being used for automotive gasoline service stations and that to hold general retail uses, which were permitted in a B-2 zone, to a higher lot width re- quirement than was normal under the B-2 zoning requirements created hardships for the Petitioners. 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 land involved which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would • involve substantial hardship, financial and otherwise, to Petitioners; 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 purposes of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting the variances requested subject to the following conditions: 1. Parcel II, as shown on the plan submitted, shall not be used as a gasoline service station. 2. Petitioners and/or assigns to repair and maintain the fencing in the rear of the property abutting land as shown on the plans, as N/F Bedard; Adams St. ; N/F Crean and N/F Ferrier. The fence shall be stockade type along the Bedard property and chain link type along the others. The obligation to repair and maintain as it pertains to the . abutting Crean and Ferrier property shall be subject to the Petitioners' ability to obtain cooperation and assistance from those landowners. The Petitioners shall only be obligated to use their reasonable best efforts to obtain such cooperation; 3. All lot width dimensions to the new lots are to be per the plans submitted: • • 4. Appropriate shrubbery and trees are to be placed along the rear of the property at 7 Kimball St. and as reasonably possible along the rear of the property as shown on the plans as N/F Bedard; Adams St.; N/F Crean and N/F Ferrier. Shrubbery and trees shall be as in the reasonable judgment of the Petitioners is adequate. The area between the Petitioners' land and the land of Crean and Ferrier shall be governed by the limitation set forth in condition 2 as to cooperation from them; 5. Petitioners and/or assigns shall install and maintain a bituminous curb at the end of Adams Street; 6. All conditions of the previous decision of this Board dated January 23, 1985 shall be made part of this decision; 7. Proper numbering for the lots shall be obtained from the Assessors Office, City of Salem; 8. No storage of vehicles shall be allowed on any of the four lots shown on the submitted plans. VARIANCES GRANTED ✓ �- e , , ichard A. Bencal Vice 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 MASS GENERAL LA17S. CHAPTER 803. AND SHALL BE FILET) WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF :ILNIG OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSAIT TC MASS. GE;I RAI. L.-.14S. CHAPTER 805, SECTI:'N 11. THE VARIANCE OR SP-'-'=' ''E3MIT LiiANiED HEREIN. SHALL NOT 7:„(E EFFECT UNTIL A CCPY OF THE DECISI';I. EFA---;;:; :::T- FICATIJN OF THE CITY CLERK TBA;* 20 PAYS IIAVE E!_:PS_7 •:NJ N•T APP2AL HAS ga_ . OR 1'4AT, IF SUCH AN APPAL HAS BEEN Fila. NiAI IT HAS LEEN CIS: ISSED CR REC:, :EJ 0 TH'L S.9:H ESSEX RE':ISTR'Y A1C i:'e::CS F.JU INDEXED UNDER IHS NA%:E OF RECDRO OR I$ n ;uRDED AND NJTEJ ::1 THE ONNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APFEAL • Q NPR � fJ 5�l isil �9� IJ 3 V.� ofttlrm, � tts5utliuSPttB Moura of �upeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE EASTERN BANK (PETITIONER) ESTHER REALTY, INC. (OWNER) FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 72 LORING AVE. (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held November 29, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal , Febonio 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 is requesting a Variance from front, rear and side yard setbacks and a Special Permit to extend nonconforming structure to allow construction of an addition in this B-2 district. Property is owned by Esther Realty Inc. 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 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, with 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 at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EASTERN BANK (PETITIONER) , ESTHER REALTY. INC. (OWNER) FOR SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE AT 72 LORING AVE. , SALEM page two • 1 . The proposed plan is in harmony with the current use of the property and the neighborhood. 2. The Ward Councillor expressed his support of the plan. 3. The plan will reliev a potential danger to area pedestrians. 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 in general . 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordiance 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 of the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Variances and Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner must comply with all the requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety. • 2. All construction must be done in compliance with the State Building Code and as per the plans and dimensions submitted to the Board. 3. All curbying must be installed as per the plans submitted to the Board. 4. A stop sign at the location be installed and approved by the Police Dept. 5. The lighting for the lot and drive-up be inward and not affect local residences. VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED James M. Fleming, Esquire 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 Mass. General Laws, Chanter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of fi:ink of this decisicn in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to floss. L es, Chnnier 808. Section 11, the Variance or one-ial Permit rr.ntn ` h2 em sh:ii! not take effect until a copy of the • decision, bear!no, the cen lfic:.tion of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal h,-.s been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dicmisse: or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record oz is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAII MAR i 9 34 Aii '69 �y (situ of J$ttlrm, (7 Httssttchusei �7. �O2IIa of �vJPIij DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HERBERT & ROSEMARY BROADBENT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 490 LORING AVENUE (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting Secretary; 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 Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to construct an 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 conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction 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 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. 2. The proposed addition will be for a bedroom. 3. The proposed addition will allow the petitioner fuller use of the home. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The grant of the special permit will promote the safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 in favor (Mr. Bencal opposed) of the request for the Special Permit, subject to the following conditions: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HERBERT & ROSEMARY BROADBENT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 490 LORING AVE. , SALEM page two 1 . All construction be as per the plans submitted and in accordance with all existing city and, state building codes. All dimensions shall be as per the plans submitted. 2. Petitioner meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 3. The exterior finishes of the new addition shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 4. Petitioner obtain a certificate of occupancy for the new addition. GRANTED 4ich!rd A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK . :1PPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE 2ENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER a38. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE LATE CF :I::."" . • GF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. P:':'.SANT TO MASS. CE`iERAI. LAW— C,HA,PTER CO". SECTiJii 11, THE VARIANCE CP. :.RAHi ED HEREHI, SHALL iX.T -"ECT '�F!fIL A COPY OF Tli_DEN°I;,;:. B i;6ATIIIN OF THE C;." i..ER': ..i1i C,I SyB^YE FLAP A.Xo c`�0 .. SED ':B THAT. IF SuC;i -i•i APPEAL H'.S uEE FILE. 'i FiAi IT ii cS CEEiI RECCiii,EO CI 1'HE SCUEH EM::: 2:-:S—.',y Ct. AND INDEXED Ji9DEii "I:-- JF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND HOPED ON THE UIINEWS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.~ _ �.'...�. BOARD OF APPEAL ' 8S b �T NOV � a 3o ail �89 Ctv Of tt1Pm, c tt88tlthuBPffff)�5- • ''of �O2Iia of peal e;.;, DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR AND CHERYL MICHAUD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 101 MALL ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held October 18, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; Edward Luzinski and Richard Febonio. 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 R-2 zone. -he provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request or 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 a existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. in more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Srecial Permit request may be granted )n a finding by the Board that the gr•tn ;f the Special Permit will Dromote t:., public health, safety, convenience and __are of the City's inhabitants. 'he Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the nearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findinas of fact: 1 . There was no opposition. 2. The deck will allow petitioner a more fuller use of the property. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The grant of the Special Permit will promote the 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 ARTHUR AND CHERYL MICHAUD FOR A • SPECIAL PERMIT AT 101 MALL ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. 2. All construction and dimensions be as per the plans submitted. 3. Petitioner obtain a legal building permit for the deck. GRANTED n :, ichard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK rn-pal '.cm this d"ic cn. if Iry. =_hail Ce m=de c:+%soant to °"tion 17 of ...: i.;,-.ss. liaaerl Li:cs. C!t.: X.— r.^3. on•! S:L: lc. i.as •.. i t n,ys G- tD 2rN. ,c[a of f:.r:e C. .c^son �„ the a'..._ .. .. g , ._ .......^.r.C. reran:_' h::rem cn::il ,.>i :�.rc ..,..r. ,. .LI ., .'�•; r.: ]he • . -•_-.... :^arm, :ne cer;ii:cai:on u :he Cityraer'r. L::a 'L'1 �"•:.�r, ::_: .rd ro h:s to^_n tiled, or trat, ii .aC:� ^en sex L•C,n isseo or denied is recorded in rhe 1i : E- PVisa/ of CFeds cn;l inde:at:; cnaer at_ name or the owner e; record a1 is reccrced and rotao on the o'xnees Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL' • �l0 � �..c` t4r,... rT AUC C� �.. Citu of �tairm, 4. ttSSMthuSPttB i • _ -SuttrD of cAupeal - DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHILDREN'S FRIEND 6 FAMILY SERVICE SOCIETY OF THE NORTH SHORE FOR A VARIANCE AT 6 MARCH STREET (R-2) Charles Brett 'Pr. six March St. Realty Trust (Owner) A hearing on this petition was held on August 16, 1989 with the following Board Members present. James Fleming, Chairman, John Nutting, Secretary, Messrs. Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski and 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. The Petitioner is requesting a variance from lot size to allow parcel to be divided at 6 March Street. 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 at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. No opposition was present. 2. City Councilor Leonard O'Leary and Building Inspector James Santos spoke in favor. 3. Allowance of the variance would help reduce parking problems in the 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. 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; y ` • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHILDREN'S FRIEND S FAMILY SERVICE SOCIETY OF THE NORTH SHORE FOR A VARIANCE AT 6 :HARCH STREET (R-2) , 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, 5-0 to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a chain link fence be placed on property lines. VARIANCE GRANTED Richard T. Febonio, Board Member A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLE?3 Aope3l from this decision. if any, shall be made pursuant to Sachon 17 m 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. Chr 808. Se:Cen 11. the variance or Special Permit granted herein sh[:'I not take effect until a ceoy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 devs nave elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such apoeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the Scuth Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record of Is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL' • FEB 60 3 N '6 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GIOVANNA QUARTERONE FOR VARIANCE AT 98 MARGIN STREET (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held January 25, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Nutting, Strout and Associate 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 the existing deck and fence to remain in this R-3 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 j. . ' substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; i 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, and after viewing the plan of land, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Fence and deck are needed for privacy; 2. Topography of the land makes in unfeasible to locate the deck on any other part of the lot. 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; 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. i DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GIOVANNA QUARTERONE FOR A VARIANCE FOR 98 MARGIN STREET, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted, 4-1 , to grant the variance to allow the existing fence as requested. Mr. Bencal voted in opposition. The Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the variance to allow the existing deck as requested. VARIANCES GRANTED j 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 PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 CF THE GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS.AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IU THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. i:ENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 508. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PEC%,.IT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TARE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISICN. BEA"I',.THE FICATIGN OF THE C':Y CLERK IHAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS CUP FILED. OR THAT, IF SJ H AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS:iISSED OR D'-NIED IS RET✓WED IN TAE SOUTH ESSEX REOiSTRY OF DEEDS AND INOE%ED UNDER THE NAME uF THE U.INE0 OF RE=D OA S RECORDED AND NOTED OU THE OWNER'S.CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. �'. BOARD OF APPEAL G ofttlem, C�9Httssttchusetts ° `� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN OCCHIPINTI , OWNER R08ALIA OCCHIPINTI , FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 108 MARGIN STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on July 19 , 1989 with the following Board Members present . James Fleming , Chairman , Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman, John Nutting , Secretary , Messrs . . Richard Febonio 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 is seeking a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure , by construction of a second story deck and stairway at 108 Margin Street (R-2) . 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 the 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 find- ings of fact : 1 . No opposition was presented . 2 . There was support by neighbors . 3 . The Special Permit requested will promote the safety , and welfare of the petitioner . DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN OCCHIPINTI , OWNER ROSALIA • OCCHIPINTI , FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 108 MARGIN STREET (R-2) page two 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 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 . Therefore , the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously , 5-0 to grant the relief requested , subject to the following conditions : 1 . Petitioner must meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety ; 2 . All construction be done as per the plans submitted and by legal building permit . 3 . That it be built in harmony with the existing structure . SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED ichard T. Febonio , Board Member Appeal from this decision. if any. shall be made pursuant to Section y of aleer20 �tlsa date ofafil ng of this ds oo il Laws, Chapter 8on hehoff be o'fe he C tled 1Y Clerk. P�r•:!::nt to Mass. General La`.vs, Ch:p:e: °08. Section til the Variance r ave °;,e::ial Pe:mit @r;,nled herein siRil no: take a❑^ct until a cePY of the e I... , bearin; the certification of the City CI(r such aappe>lt 20 ahas ys hbeen .:rased and no appeal has be^--n filed, or that, a?, tnal it has tmedismissed unrdeni der the name ored is dthe ed 'owner sof recordor . Revistry of Deeds and indexedTitle- is recorded and noted on the owner'BOARD Certificate ARDOF APPEAL of Salem, 'fflttssac4usetts Pearb of �UFrz l DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARGARET PRESS FOR A VARIANCE AT 55 MEMORIAL DRIVE lR-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held November 29, 1989 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, Nutting and Associate 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, represented by Attorny John R. Keilty, 10 Chestnut St. , Peabody, is requesting a Variance to allow zero rear yard setback so as to allow an existing deck 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 tot he publc 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 0000sition. 2. The deck existed in its present condition when purchased by 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 Zoning 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 of the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARGARET PRESS FOR A VARIANCE AT 55 MEMORIAL DRIVE, SALEM page two Therefore the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Variance from rear setback requirement allowing for zero rear yard setback as requested, on condition,petitioner meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety, and that deck remain as shown on the plan submitted to the Board. GRANTED John R. Nutting, S retary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 17 of GOARD OF APPEAL' • J � 9D ., �u / f1lif of �5ttfem, C4Htt99ttr4U5Ngy f1►Paurb of C, 'Teals DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARYANNE PANTELAKIS, TR. FOR VARIANCES AT 27 NORTH STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held November 16, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, Luzinski, Nutting 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 is requesting Variances from use and parking to allow first floor of 27 North Street to be used as a professional office. (R-2) 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 opposition was present. 2. This variance would enhance the use of the property. 3. The use of the first floor as a professional office would not affect the parking in that area. 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 providions of the Zoning 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 MARYANNE PANTELAKIS, TR. FOR VARIANCES AT 27 NORTH STREET (R-2) • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the Variances from use and parking to allow first floor of 27 North Street to be used as a professional office subject to the following conditions: 1. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department be strictly adhered to. 2. A Certificate of Appropriateness be obtained from the Historical Commission. 3. Only the first floor to be used for professional offices, the other four units are to be kept as residential area (2-3 floor) . 4. That four legal parking permits be maintained. 5. Post a "NO PARKING" sign prohibiting your clients from parking at 85 Federal Street (Murphy's Funeral Home) . GRANTED • Richard T. Febonio, Board Member A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK An-=! from this decision. if any, shall t^ m=.de pursuant to section 17 d. 'ah : fI!^_d •eiihin 20 days P-^ . ss. General Lav s. Cti,i.:er Cit. tnd C' . C;-,-, =r's. i,n in ti:e O:.iC_ of .:. 1:ne dcte of f:!ing of laic c.,. erffi 20 0a1: have ..__-. ,, : , :•: : : I.._<I. a; that, i ext: app,;I hts been '.::;.i G ':r.; if,e:: r.is:r':c= sr �:e:va; s zecarded in the `:mdn E<_sez i;2:;G1ry apd iad::aed racer the rarne or :he o mar of record or of De^.ds is :c_u:dad and nui_u on :he o•:�ner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL • Ctu of 'Salem' 'fflassadjusetts Paurb of DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARYANNE PANTELAKIS, TRUSTEE FOR CITY cu: X'4j:", VARIANCE AT 27 NORTH ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1989 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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petition, through her Attorney John Serafini , Sr. , requested leave to withdraw her petition for a Variance to allow the first floor of the premises to be used as offices in this R-2 district. The Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0 to grant this request. VARIANCE WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE • t7James M. Fleming, Esq. Chairman, Board of Appeal OdA: Citu of .�`Sttiem, � ttssttchusPtts of C�iJ�IP211 JON' 11 3 oa FILE;, DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER KOUTRAKIS FOR A SPECIAL ITyCLE hK. SAI.:_' ,`+ISS. PERMIT AT 121 NORTH ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 31 , 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman: Messrs. , Bencal , Luzinski and Associate Members 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, through his Attorney, Robert Ledoux, requested leave to withdrawn his request for a Special Permit to allow half the first floor and the second floor to be used as a living unit and to maintain the existing bait and tackle store in this R-2 district. The Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant petitioner Leave to With- draw Without Prejudice. IJITHDRAWN �'� ,'• ' chard A. Benca , Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK .. (gity of '$ttlrm ttsstttljusetts . F Poarb 0{ Appeal 077YGI:i ri.8 �s, :z43.9, ` • t R`<oms DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANCIS BREWER JR. (PETITIONER) , PANAGOULA AN YOUNG (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 190 NORTH ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held September 20, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, Nutting and Associate Member 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. The petitioner is requesting Variances from use and parking to allow a neighborhood general store in this R-2 district. The property is owned by Panagoula Young. A petition for variances from use and parking to allow this property to be used as an auto parts retail store was denied by the Board of Appeal on August 9, 1989. The Board of Appeal, after hearing evidence regarding sub- stantial change, said change being the proposed demolition of the front portion of the building, creating eight (8) parking spaces, and a change from an auto parts store to a general store which would sell items such as hardware, plumbing fixtures, washers, electrical supplies, arts and crafts, lawn decorations, etc. ; and after receiving consent from the Planning Board, voted unanimously, 5-0, that there was a substantial change and the Board would hear the petition. • The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the j 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; 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was vigorous neighborhood opposition. 2. Two (2) people spoke in favor, one was an employee of the petitioner, the second was a realtor familiar with the property question. 3. The parking plan proposed would involve a substantial curb cut and the cars would have to back out onto North Street. This would exacerbate an already existing dangerous condition as North Street is a highly traversed street. r 4. The proposed use is not conducive to this neighborhood, which is an already congested area. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANCIS BREWER JR. (PETITIONER) , PANAGOULA AN YOUNG (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 190 NORTH ST. , SALEM page two • 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 work a substantial hardship on 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 1-4 against the granting of the Variances requested, Mr. Febonio voted in favor. The petition, failing to obtain the four (4) affirmative votes necessary to grant, is therefore denied. DENIED Quo John R. Nut Ing, Se etary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • Apoeai frdP,t fids decisidh. it iffy, sna':i b@ made pbr;cent 0 Section 17 Of t6a ff3ss. General Levis, Chapter 8033, and shall be find within 20 aft.^.;-tie date of fi:in cf this decision in the orficz of th; Cif C!a;u�7� "arsusrt to M5ss. General Lz•.is, C • or SPe::! Pe,mit nra ter+ '.. _:_ •^:ng Sa.. ;1, ti''e �'-orizrce ho' ' t.^!:=_ elf pct a: derision. bcari ;he cervica tion of iho =eP•i of the Q a Cf M, llni 0 d,r s have elapsed and no appeal has been file?. or that, i4 surh au,::�nl �,,; been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in ilia South b Suez Registry of Deeds and indexed under the nameor the o•.vner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL- • /44 9 (�ifu of -jttlrm, (�ttssuchu8Pit� 3 3 i Ii -Boma of CAnettl DECISION ON THE PET=TIOid OF FRANCIS P. BREWER JR. ( PET?-=ONER) , PANAGOULA AN YOUNG �,i,WNER) FOR VARIANCE AT 190 NORTH STREET (R-2) hearing. on this petition was held August 9, 1989 with --he following Board :Members present: Richard Bencal, Acting Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, Jutting, uzinski and Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing :fere properly published in the Salem Evening_ News in accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A. Petitioner, represented by Attorney George Vallis, One Church St. , Salem, is requesting variances from use and parking to allow the premises to be used as a retail auto oarts store. The property is located in an R-2 district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the 5oard that: >. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the lana, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; 'D. 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 Appeai, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the nearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the followinE findings of fact: considerable neighborhood opposition was expressed due to the potential traffic and parking problems in a congested residential area. 2. The petitioner could not Provided off street parkins. The premises had, until 1986, been used as a drugstore, a ceramics classroom and Supplier, and coffee manufacturing facility. Those who spoke in favor stated that the proposas :..;as an appropriate use of land and that the Petitioner was reputable. vn 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 involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; DECISION ON THE PETITION O,^ FRANCIS p. BRE6?ER JR. ; PETITIONER) , 'ANAGOULA • =r. :`)UNG (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE AT 190 :dORTH STREET. SALEH cage two Desirable relief cannot be granted without substantial detriment .e the 7ublic good or slithout nullifying or substantially derogating from the :;Ment of the district o: the purpose o: the ordinance. "herefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted three (3) in favor. t.ao (2) opposed (Nr. Dore and Por. Nutting) to t,,",e granting of the variances reouesced. "e' reouest is denied due to the failure of the petitioner to obtain the reouired :our (4) affirmative votes DENIED Peter Dore, Member, Board of Appeal `. COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLAidNING BOARD AND THE C1171C1171-11- CLERK h'On this A=e' , I.,- the tdaos, r 2nCrtl L]vs,nCd SOY. chill be m�o0 p,,,-suint to Section 17 of af;;:r t ;L1 o Ilapter BOB. and she!1 Ce filed within - of h;ing o! this Geci;:on in the of Vice of ;h< 20 days C::y • Orrrl-n--,t 1 ':: . aec! ,n 11, h;r, decision. ..eo;nt, the tereir, s not tOP-' e.lhrt until:, '�ran_e C Jr:,hC....an of the City cop"c! tt:e OlaPseC ro nrpeal has , . C.4rB that 20 'jays have filed, iha it h s ,,,, "con nl_d. ort, cuc;l �__n d•sm,ssed or renicd is re. "heal his been Registry of Deeds and indexed untler the namCcO.r�.d �^ the S°upt Essex IS recorded and noted on the owner's °r t1e O9rner of record Certificate ;Ile or BOARD OF APPEAL, • .a...ugb.. ti7J— `y .: (1 iJU of Sttlem, 4Rtt95ttr4u9ef* Poarb of ��vpen, DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN HENTO (PETITIONER) ANN BONAIUTO (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE AT 192 REAR JEFFERSON AVE. A/K/A OCEAN AVENUE EXTENSION (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held June 14, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, Luzinski 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 is requesting a Variance to allow the premises to be used as a welding shop. The property is located in an R-3 district and is owned by Ann Bonaiuto. 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, 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. 2. Councillor Leonard O' Leary spoke in favor. 3. Variances were prevously granted to allow this property to be used for minor automotive repairs over the past ten years. 4. Petitioner runs a mobile type welding shop and the majority of his work will be done off the premises. 5• This property is undersized and would require action from the Board of Appeal to allow it to be utilized for any purpose. 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 JOHN MENTO (PETITIONER) ANN BONAIUTO (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE FOR 192 REAR JEFFERSON AVE. a/k/a OCEAN AVE. EXT. , SALEM • page two 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. 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 Ordiance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal, voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays. Petitioner has the right to come back to the Board in one year for review. 2. Variance is granted for welding shop only and for petitioner only. Variance is valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of this hearing and can be renewed by the petitioner only. 4 . One sign, no larger than 2' x 2' may be placed on the front of the structure. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety be strictly adhered to. • 5. No raw materials are to be stored outside the building. 7 . Proper numbering of the building be obtained from the City Assessor. VARIANCE GRANTED Richard T. Febonio, Member Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Ao,eal front this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Vass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days a i:er ire data of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clark. Psauani to Mass. General Laws. Chapter SOS. Section 11. the Variance Permit Canted herein well not4cke effect until a copy of the bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have �•:::� J and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been 1;:• that it has been dismisccd or denied is recorded in the South Essex Reg;stry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. . . BOARD OF APPEAL' • Q/ I_ ,.....vukb .I A (ftitg of �$ttfem, 4RUSSa fiusetts DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS MANNING AND ERNEST GLYNN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 95 OCEAN AVE. (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held February 22, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, and Associates Dore and Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioners, represented by Attorny Scott Grover, are requesting a Special Permit to expand the use of an existing two family building to a three family building. The petitioners are also requesting a Variance of the requirements of the Parking Ordinance relative to aisle width, driveway width, and driveway entrance requirements. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion • of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighbhorhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. — 'SE ft' nn-1J3134110 �31f3 68, '� ss ffN DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS MANNING AND ERNEST GLYNN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 95 OCEAN AVENUE, SALEM • page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The parking plan presented by the petitioners was inadequate to park five cars on the property; 2. The granting of the requested Special Permit and Variance would have a negative impact on the neighborhood, which is quite dense; 3. The petitioners failed to prove hardship; 4. Granting the relief requested would be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not involve a substantial hardship to the petitioners; 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the • public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 4. The granting of the Special Permit will not promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3-2 (Mr. Bencal and Mr. Luzinski voted in opposition) to grant the relief requested. The petition, failing to gain four affirmative votes, therefore, is denied. VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED ames M. Fleming, Esq ; JJChairman 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 SEc Nn-1 17 OF '•HE E=NEPAL LAWS. CHAPTER EOB, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE ^.!:•� OF THIS DiaSION Iii THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. Fi F..^Wff TO i.:ASS. FE32RAI. L,S;S. CHAPTER SDE. SECTI7N 11. THE l'AS:.C;C` .:iAN-.ED HiREi 9. SHALL NOF. ..::E ,.'-FELT -UNTIL A CSPY 6F ... .L•.1 OF THE C"Y C�wR.i IBAT 20 DAYS NA:E 1A?5.7 • _R THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL 4.15 STEP! 1'2 Yitd. :iC17iV:..; .._ .. ... . RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ECSE( REI:I_.RY OF 3 ATit- I::CEXZD J 'H`- • OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AID NOTED ON THE DINNER'S CERTIFICATE OF 'TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL [[FF 9 ? (9itV of "ittlem, Massachusetts ourb of mal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT AND MARY LECLERC FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 16-18 ORCHARD ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held January 25, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Nutting, Strout 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 increase garage space and to add living space on the second floor of the added garage space 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 neighbhood. '• i 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 . Support of the plan was voiced by neighborhs, abutters and others; 2. No opposition was presented; 3. The living space above the garage will allow a family member to home to live. 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 that the existing use to the neighborhood; 2` The releif requested can be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance; rant The l 3. of the Special Permit will g p promote the publich health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT AND MARY LECLERC FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 16-•18 ORCHARD 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 meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and .fire safety; 2. All construction be done as per the plans submitted and as per all existing City and State Building Codes; 3. All dimensions shall be as per the plans submitted; 4. Exterior finish of the garage and new living space shall be in harmony with the existing two family; 5• The space above the garage addition may be utilized as a living space only as long as the two family dwelling remains owner occupied and only as long as the space above the garage is occupied by a member of the immediate family; 6. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for the living space above the garage; 7• The living space above the garage shall not include kitchen facilities. GRANTED /l / �� JI Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chaitnmh A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SHALL.BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTIO"I 17 OF THE CENERAL LAWS. CHAPIER 803, AND SHALL BE FILED VATHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PUSSANT TO 7iASS. GENERAL LAF;S. CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SfESLS+. F7' ':T (:RANTED HEREIN. SHALL COT TAS" EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. BEAR;N:: T8_ CC'r.i FICATION OF 'THE ".Y CLERK TW 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEER C-R THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS O:EN FILE. THAI- IT HAS 6EEN DISIti ISSED OR DE 11EU IS RECDP.DED IN ME SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA;.iE OF THE O'.W= OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL . 3 �a C99) (9it of Salem, r Pourb if hu ed l mtW ::CQ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STANLEY SMITH FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 4 PICKERING STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 14, 1989 and continued until July 5, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, Luzinski 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, is requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming stucture by enlarging and enclosing an existing screen Porch in order to create a family room in this R-2 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 non- conforming 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 than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, \ti• 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 . One neighbor spoke in favor. 2. No one appeared in opposition. 3. This is the most feasible location for the addition. 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 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 the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intend of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STANLEY SMITH FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 4 PICKERING 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 done in accordance with allow City and State Building Codes and with a legal building permit. 2. All construction and dimensions be in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board of Appeal July5, 1989• 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to. 4. Exterior finishes be in harmony with the existing building. 5• A Certificate of Appropriateness be obtained from the Salem Historic Commission. GRANTED /J ( /O /G luti�/4� � Hl 60ohn R. Nut g, Secirptary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK 1'"!"'-:I firm ::-•i5 dcr,�ic�, if any, chill be made pursuont to Section 17 of Oencrnl Laws, C::npter EOC, and sial! be Nod within 20 days aftor 'i•' d_ie of fi::n,, of t;lis decisbn in the o:fice of the City Clerk. Pvrs:r•,r.: :a '.as. Ganem! Lass, Ch.n,:±r D03, Section 11, the Variance er C':n:;dl Fermit rrcr¢ed herein take effort un Yl a copy of tie dc.:icica. :;,riag t o rrGfica Cc•n orli Ia Ci:',, ay Clork thst 20 d •. s have e!cpsed and rn:.ppoY has poen filod, or that, if cc:h a ppell has teen fCad, Gi_t it h-s L•cren dssmissed or rian;ed is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds E:nd irrlaxed under the name or ti:e owner of record or Is recorded and no:ed on the o.vnar s Ca.tificate of Titie. BOARD OF APPEAL r; 99 Jul 11 04 (gifu of � �Iem, ttssttC4116effs FILED 33Oarb of rAu}rPtd CITY CLERK. SA: 7iF . +IAS S. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES MCDONALD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 37-39 PROCTOR ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 31 , 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman; Edward Luzinski 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, requests a Special Permit to allow a previously constructed deck 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 detri- mental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guiding 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 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 petitioner 's plan. 2. Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor. 3. The is the most feasible location for the 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 . 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 proposed addition will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. • J DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES MCDONALD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT • FOR 37-39 PROCTOR ST. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions : 1 . Size of the existing deck as shown on the plans submitted shall not be enlarged at this time. 2. Petitioner obtain a legal building permit for the deck. 3. Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED 1�4chard 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 deciison in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter BOB, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit • granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certi- fication 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 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 • � n 7 of �9ttjrm C4Va95Rr U6rft9 • o f Paurb of hupr2d T ALV Y "• C= DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & JULIE BUNN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 21 PURITAN ROAD (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 1989 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 a special permit to extend a nonconforming to allow construction of an 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 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. Inmore 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 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 petitioner's plan; 2. Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor; 3. This is the most feasible location for the addition. 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 be in harmony with the neighborhood; 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; 3. The proposed addition will promote the public health, safety, convenience • .' and welfare of the City's inhabitants. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & JULIE BUNN FOR A • SPECIAL PERMIT AT 21 PURITAN ROAD, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Exterior finishes conform with the existing structure; 2. Construction and dimensions be in accordance with plans submitted; 3. All construction adhere to existing city and state building codes. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED :',John R. Nutting, Secretary Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APIPML;ROM THIS DECISION'. IF ANY. SHAEL BE MADE PURSUANT TD SECTION 17 OF THE MAT6. tZRAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING Qf THIS DECISIDII IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. • RUOSAN'T TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL FE.%1T CRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISICN. BEARING THE CERT- FICATIGN OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, CR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF LEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE UAt1.E OF THE ?7 .. OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • c.nnmkb of J$ttlPm, ttssttcl�usetts • $ eara ofenl �< `� JUL 6 8 4o Ah '89 DF=CN ON THE PETITION OF MANUELA PID MARIA AMARAL FOR A SPWIAL FILE# PFIS4rf AT 6 RANDALL STREET (R-2) :ITY CLERX.:;a A hearing on this petition was held June 28, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary, Edward Luzinski and Richard Febonio* Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly publisher 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 a nonconforming structure by constructing an enclosed stairway 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: Notwithstandin.S anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with teh procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and recon- struction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, lands, structures, and uses, provided, how- ever, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be sub- stantially 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, saftey, 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 to the petitioner's plan. 2. The present stairs are in dire need of repair and are uncovered. 3. The proposed stairs would be more safe as they would be..covered from the weather. 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 enclosed stairway 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 MANUEL AND MARIA AMARAL FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 RANDALL STREET, 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 meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety; 2. All construction be done by legal building permit and per all existing City and State building codes; 3. All dimensions be as per the plans submitted; 4. The exterior finishes of the new stairway shall be in harmony with existing exterior finishes. GRANTED ee _ Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK A.caeal from this decision, if any, shill be made pnrsua t :o Ceneral Lows, Chapter 8051. and shall be filed within •... . .r ti:e d:.t c. ;:n^ of :itis dsrinm!, in :!:e office of the City Ger::. r-raraava,l L -: '�, c. `� ` ' .. . ,3, ion I1, Yt^_ Variance cr pariai P-2fr,it vrzr.l�:l h+rein sl i n ke effect until a copy of the r±= ^•'•, .`._... !Ito Cernfigg:it•.^. at ii;e '.' ) Ciet!-,7.t'Cr! ys have ::o Cpre±I r._, teen fi!a_+. cr trc.t, if such znpeal has been ,.._... ..`.a ca be±:1 C(Cf.:iS:?;1 or :Iea1eC i, reGrC.d ir. :he S,)Uth Esser Rodscry of Oeeds and indaxed uc:ler the n=e or (:--c o%vner of record or is recorded nrd noted on the owner's Certificate of Ti::a. eOAR0 OF APPEAL t , 114 tYy 2 t 9 35 AN 89 a �Tf J of "infe lig f assar41T8Ptf8 FILE* (HTY CLERK.SALEM.MASS. %rf 0urb 0f P211 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWIN AND BEATRICE DEVFREUX FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 42 RAVENNA AVENUE (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held June 14, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary; Edward Luzinski and Richard Febonio. 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 above ground pool 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 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 . Two persons spoke in favor; none in opposition. 2. The proposed location for the pool will meet all setback requirements. 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 substantial detriment to the public good and without 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: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWIN AND BEATRICE DEVEREUX FOR A • SPECIAL PERMIT AT 42 RAVENNA AVENUE, SALEM page two 1 . Petitioner meet all requirements of the Salem City Ordinance relative to swimming pools. 2. All dimensions be as per the plans submitted. 3. All construction be done per existing City and State Building Code and by legal building permit. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED R chard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal Fran 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 Cleric. Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 80B, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the cerci fixation of the City Cleric 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 Essar Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is reoonded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • L16 3 09 y �itg ofttlem, CttsstttljuseftsFILE„ y � PO8[a of � P2Il :iTY :LLRI;. �a;. := >s gums.Jt`" DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICKY THOMPSON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 12 READ STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 6, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to allow the installation of an above ground pool on this nonconforming lot which is located in an R-2 district. Pool will not encroach on setback requirements set forth in Section VII J. 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, expansion or enlargement 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 to the petition. 2. Proper fencing will be provided as the proposal is for construction of a swimming pool. 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, 1 convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and will be in harmony ' '•,,1' • with the neighborhood. �l DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICKY THOMPSON FOR A SPECIAL • PERMIT AT 12 READ STREET, SALEM page two Therefore the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 4-0, to grant the Special Permit as requested provided the pool be installed in accordance with the plans submitted. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED a Peter A. Dore, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ^rp�ez:rro;n f!�:is d^_cision. if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 c7 L.:rs. Clzpter E=' cn'j s;1'111 to filed within 20 c:.s t!:c Gids. C=ner-1 �;� r; this dersion i�? :" ot'.ice of the City Clerk. pater Inc aaic ui ..r. the Variance meq;r—r Goa, Section 21, Pursue tc 'class. �-ner'� La a's• y:.f1 .,rt tcke effect until a COPY of the pr special Permit „rcn•ne herein _, tlecuicn, lataurl the carta cation of thr; City Clerk thatOalahasys hteen elapid ar.c c ' n ii:ed, Cr that. if such p • filed,!hal i� `.':: bu^n :;rtusad or ^_erica is rrcordxd in the South Essex Begistry ri Dce^_c ��" indexed un"er the nama or the owner of record or [ecorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL • r b`' (9ity of U 0 e , . -V C Paurb of A1>'pE211 Y DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W & G REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES FOR 24 SAUNDERS STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 9, 1989 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Acting Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, Luzinski, Nutting and Associate Members 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 of a lot to allow the construction of sixty (60) residentia units as previously granted, with provision allowing rental units. 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 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 or 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 requested variances are the same as the variances granted February 17, 1988 with the provision allowing the rental of said units. 2. A six (6) month extension on the February 17, 1988 decision was granted by the Board of Appeal on February 22, 1989. 3. Because of the decline in. the market, the financial integrity of the project will be adversely affected if petitioners cannot rent any of the units. 4. There is no change in the original plans and the number of residential units will remain the same. 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; V _ r, DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W & G REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES AT 24 SAUNDERS STREET, SALE1 • page two 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the requested variances from density, use and more than one building on a lot to allow the construction of sixty (60) residential units with the additional provision that the petitioners be allowed to rent said units, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All conditions of the decision granted by the Board of Appeal on February 17, 1988 are to be strictly adhered to and are made part of and incorporated into this decision. 2. Five (5) additional parking spaces are to be provided on the site for the use of the residents of Saunders Street. GRANTED o oohn R. Nutting, Secret A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK An-,eel frcnt this decision, if .ony, shall be mode pursuant to Section 17 of the Mass. General Laws, Chapter SeS, and shall be ti!ad within 20 days inter thn da:e Of fiiin? of this decision in :he orfice of the City Cie.k. P;:rsucnt :o P....,.. Ccc,ral La^s. !I :nt.,r.?03, Sc:tioa 11. the V_rioaee or:;peciol PPerm:i .-mn:e:1 her:;:,l s„_,. ,,;! take elfuct until a cony c` t`e tlecuioa. ct:•::'in; the corlIi;ca:lon of the City Clunk th:u 20 da V. h:ve elaos=_d a-o ;o :open! has t cen w-:i. cr twat. It such ;opeal has been tiled, that it h_5 I;cen dismissed or dariod is recorrfod in tae Scutt, Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or Is recorded and rioted on the owner's Certiricate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL • �j,...,`�,MT� (fitu of .-'Ettlem, � ttslt�zseti ; `�0 •!; 1_�lSs 3>3nttra of `Aupezil,.... DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WALLACE MILLER (PETITIONER) JOYCE DUPUIS (OWNER) for Variances at 46 SCHOOL ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held September 20, 1989 having been continued from May 31 , 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal , Febonio 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 is requesting variances from lot area, frontage and setbacks to alloy, the property to be divided into two lots and to construct a duplex on the newly created lot in this R-2 district. Property is owned by Joyce Dupuis. The variances which have 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 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 neighborhood opposition to the petition. 2. There was concern expressed for adding to the density of the existing neighborhood, the effect of blasting on nearby dwellings, and Fire Department access to the new structure. 3. Hardship was not proven by the petitioner. 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 in general . 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning 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 and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. �r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WALLACE MILLER (PETITIONER) , JOYCE DUPUIS (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 46 SCHOOL STREET, SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3 to 1 in favor of the motion to grant the requested variances. The motion having failed to gain four (4) affirmative votes needed to pass is therefore defeated and the Variances requested are denied. DENIED James M. Fleming, Esquire 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, sh:Yl be made Pursuont to Section 17 of the Mass. General Ea:ys, Ch•aruer BE". and SYial be filed witnm 20 days after the date 01 fibne of this dcCie:Oo in the once 01 the City Clerk. Pursuaat to 6fass. Ce^rri1 L:r,:;, Chr.-t_r 5(:J. �.�r.'!rn i 1, the va ranee Or £pOci;a Permit gr--ntod he:etc :r.. nr. !nke ^_II:a Intil a copy of the decision. bearing the ccrtificcdion of the CI!y Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been fired. Or that, if Su;it appeal has been filed, that it has been disrnisse4l or denied is recorded in the Soulh Essex. Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner ou record or • Is Fecorded aed noted on the owner's Certificate of Titi.• BOARD OF APPEAL • (>Zit of Salem, 'Mussadjusetts -; s �uttrD of �}z}Tenl Har 15 10 32 r dOj 90 DECISION"ON`THE PETITION OF WENDY K. THATCHER FOR AN ADMINB44ATIVE RULING FOR 103 SCHOOL ST. (B-1 ) H. DREW ROMANOVITZ (OWNER)TY CLFRn., .g,A14P, �<SS A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman; John Nutting 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 Caws-.Ch0t.er.:4OA. The petitioner is requesting the Board for an Administrative Ruling that: " storage warehousing is not a permitted use in a B-1 district and to order the Inspector of Buildings to revoke the permit for a warehouse at 103 School St. The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The intended use, "storage warehousing" is in fact covered by Section V 6(f) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and is not a permitted use in a B-1 district. 2. Any approvals given or granted by the Building Department were in error. / On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the �• J Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to allow the petition for an / Administrative Ruling an to revoke Building Permit #241-88 and any others relative to this petition and property forthwith. chard encal , 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 17,9 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 Mas. ,eneral Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the variance or dpedoi Permit ran:ed ha;ein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearir. the cortlttczucn of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been fired, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismisse0 or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record ar Is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL] luc 2J 3 u '89 (gifu of ttlem Httssttrhuseffs `- F �uttra of rtAvpzoal ATY 1. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHRISTINE CORRENTI FOR A VARIANCE AT 15-152' STATION ROAD (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held June 6, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from rear setback to allow for the construction of a deck at the rear of the property. The locus is 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 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 . There was no opposition presented; 2. The proposed deck would allow a more fuller use of the existing dwelling. 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 work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. The Variance requested can be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the ouroose of the Ordinance and without substantial detriment to the public good. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHRISTINE CORRENTI FOR A VARIANCE FOR 15-152' STATION ROAD, SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, -0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 2. All construction be done as per the plans submitted and by legal building permit. 3. All construction be done as per all City and State building codes. GRANTED /Lv' )zle�MM. Fleming, Esq. , Chaip an A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND/ THE CITY CLERK Apf:^.al from this decision• if any, shall be made pwsu,,at to section 17 o: the Mlass. General La-.,S. Chapter a09. and srcll be hied within .^.0!llys anter the cite of filing of this dcaslon in the oitice of the City Clerk. Pffrumt to Mass. Cuneral La:•s. Ch..n: 809. 3,.-;ion t I. t::^ Variance or sncLml Permit granterl he em cl:-! Iot lake effect unt.:a copy of the decision, hcar!ng th? certification of :he Citi C!erk that 210 days have • elaosed and no appal has been filed. or that. if such appe'i nas been filed, that it has been dismissed or domed is recorded in lh,, south Essex Reg!s:ry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the o•rmer of record or. is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL • Jug 1 Z 3�R_JJ 69 =' :y '� (1�it� of �ttlPm, C�Httssuc�jii's�#ts .. ;IT'Y ^L RK. S, : r. kSS. ;,q ? pourb of CA1�7P211 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER J. HOOKS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 4 SURREY ROAD (R-1 ) A hearing on this oetition was held on July 5, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary; Edward Luzinski and Richard Febonio. 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 special 'permit to allow construction of a deck, and to allow an existing greenhouse, shed and screenhouse (shed) in this R-1 zone. The provisions 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 . There was no opposition presented. 2. The shed's and greenhouse were all constructed by the prior owner approximately ten (10) years ago. 3. The proposed changes and allowances of prior construction would allow petitioner a fuller use of property and would represent a financial hardship if required to demolish existing nonconforming structures. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the 'card of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The granting of the Special Permit will be in harmony with the district and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. 1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER J. HOOKS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 4 SURREY ROAD, SALEM . • page two 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety. 2. All construction be as per the plans submitte and with a legal building permit. 3. All construction be done as per existing City and State Building Codes. GRANTED � � 6 Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • „I;;�esl troct this dacaion, if any, shail be made Pursuant to Section 17 of pa :.iris. l:eneral 1.zls. Ci,apter 503. and shall be filed within 20 days Ctter t::e dat3 of filing of this decision in the office of the City C:erk, purscant to i'.ass. Cancra; L ^s, C:; ? ='809, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit rrante:l herein ^s:l:" net take effect until a copy v the Heeisicn, b.:.ring fie r_riifcacen of the city C:crk that 20 days have gtapsed an' •Ic ap?e•il has bcan fi'ed, or that. it such Weal has been Ziled,twt ft ;Ias tcen dismissed or :enied is rocorded in the South Essex $egistry of Deeds rnd indexed under the name or the o,ner of record or teeorded and noted on the owner's certificate of Tice. BOARD OF APPEAL'' UC (9itu of Salem �Httssarhusetts pi • Y` C MnttrD of Atrpeal '!TY DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JIM MCINTIRE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 10 SURREY ROAD (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held August 9, 1989 with the following Boara ;Members present: Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary, Edward '_-zinski, Richard Febonio and Associate Member Peter 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 Special Permit to allow construction of an addition in this R-1 zone. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Pemrit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordancewith procedure and conditions set forthin 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 . No opposition was presented. 2. There was support by neighbors. 3. The Special Permit requested will promote the safety, and welfare 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 . The relief requested 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. • 1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JIM MCINTIRE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 10 SURREY ROAD, SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative smoke and fire safety. 2. All construction be done as per the plans submitted and by legal building permit. 3. Exterior finishes be in harmony with the existing structure. 4. All construction be done as per the existing City and State Building Codes. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for the new addition. 6. A dry well be placed and maintained on the property as per the plans submitted and amended for the meeting. GRANTED Al • R"if-hard A. Ben 9, 1C:E 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 509. and shall be filed within 20 days titer the date of filing, of this decis,on in the ofka of tho Cdy Clerk. Pursuant to Mass. General Laws. Ghrc:c' 909. S2nt:311 1.1. l:ie V;iNance or Special Permit named herein s:r.:! -ol :oko cif,cr until a coot/ of the ,lecsion, beam, the certification of me City C!ea< that 22 cloys have -lapied and 110 appeal nes been ::::d. or that. ii s1R'n nDpoal his Veen filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and rioted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL • Jut 5 3 oz rr '89 f1�i#g of �ttlPm, C�ttssttclluse##s . s yt' Poara of hu peal -rrr c DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHLEEN DRISCOLL, TRUSTEE FOR A VARIANCE AT TEDESCO POND PLACE (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held June 28, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman, John Nutting, Secretary, Edward Luzinski and Richard Febonio. 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 for the Tedesco Pond Condominium Association, is requesting a Variance to allow construction of an eight (8) foot fence in a residential 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; 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 . The proposed fence would held eliminate the dumping of debris, trash, etc. , in the pond and general area. 2. The proposed fence would improve the neighborhood and separate the business and residential areas. 3. 'Without the fencing the petitioner and/or association would suffer a hardship to their 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 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. it DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHLEEN DRISCOLL, TRUSTEE, FOR A VARIANCE AT TEDESCO POND PLACE, SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner comply with all requirements of the letter from the Salem Fire Department relative to this petition. 2. The fence is to be no higher than eight (8) feet in the area as shown on the plans and to be maintained in perpetuity by the petitioner; 3. All conditions of prior decisions regarding this property be made part of this decision. GRANTED Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • App,-nl from tn's decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of Vi, FJ_r. General Lars, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days after*So date of fi:in8 of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursu.:at to :ass. Gar.crr.! Laws, chantor SOB, Section 11, the Variance or So-i_! Permit£rr.nted herein shall no: take effect until a copy of the decisian, -Zarin; the certificotion of the City Clerk that 20 days have e!apsed and no appcut has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been f:!ocl, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Reffistry of Oe:eds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL' • ` ��w �} 't � ^ �� /� RLL� Ci � � ��, ��l ��T�~ ��a9sa �� ^� `- ` - DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FCRN&NDO & MARIE COSTA FOR VARIANCES AT 22 IBYIHC ST,/014R TRC5OMT S?. (R-2) .1 hearing on this petition was held May 17/1989 with the following Board :'embers present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. ' Gencal Jutting and L�hrec�ue ]otice of 'the hearing was sent to abutters and others and 'otices of the hearin� � ,..;ere properly published in the Salem Evening Neon in accordance y1tb Massachusetts �eneral Laws Chapter 40A. Petitiooero,ovners of the property, are seeking a variance to divide -the ^arcei �nto txu (2) lots, and 'to construct a single family dwelling daeilinr on 'the newly created lot. The locus of the prnpert7 is in an 0-2 district. -he Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a �iodioz or ^'e ' zoard "hat: ^ � :special conditions and circumstances exist which especian} affect ' and building or structure involved and which are not general! - affecting �c�er � iaods` buildings and structures in the came district: li�eral enforcement of the provisions o[ the Zoning Ordinance would Involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner; desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment 'to the �uh1ic �nod and without nullifying or substantially derngat1ng [rom the intent or' the district or the Purpose of 'the Ordinance. -]e Euard of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence oresented at tile :-eari:,c, and after viewing the plans` makes the follo*inz findings of Facr : �he proposed Dian is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. � The vCiiization of the new lot for a single family dwell-ing would eiiminate an area where illegal dumping of rubbish and debris has occureb. � S—erzl neiahbnrn and the Warn Councillor spoke in �avor o� the psc4no. - ?he oniv use "or Cheland is for a single family residence. �n the basis of' "he above findings of fact/ and on the evidence presencea -Mc the ;,-earina, "he Board of Appeal concludes as follows: .-pec1al conditions exist which esecially affect he subject properry ^ur not 'the diutric� generally; - Li'- eral enforcement of 'the provisions of the Ordinance would work a 4ubstsnr1al hardship on the the DpciC1oneru; , ` 'he relief requested can he granted without substantial detriment t:� public good and without nullifying or oubotantiall-i derogating from intent of the district or the ^ e purpnoe of the Ordinance. <j DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FERNANDO & MARIA COSTA FOR VARIANCES AT 32 IRVING ST./S9R TREMONT ST. , SALEM page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: i . Prior to occupancy of the new dwelling, the petitioner must obtain c Certificate of Occupancy. 2. The petitioners obtain the proper numbering of the new dwelling from the Salem Board of Assessors. 3. The petitioners meet all the requirements of the Salem Fire Deoar;ment relative to fire safety. 1 . The only permitted use of the new lot is for a singie family ;tome. 5. The petitioners must meet all the requirements of the : State Euildins Code and perform all construction as per the plans and dimensions submittea to the Board of Appeal. S. The petitioners must erect stockade fencing along `_qts 298 and 292 for distance of thirty (30) feet form lot 293. 7. The petitioners must create by legal instrument the right of way as snown on the plan submitted. Said right of '.may must be created in perpetuity ano recorded with the Registry of Deeds. • GRANTED \ ;a1te2si.�Flem g, Esq. C' Chairman, Board of Appeai . COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED 'WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE 777 CLERK I-In' Can :00 : ....:4:::• if any, x:.li Ce M-:'n r" :.Ili Io ;i 3f:.^� t,' ni ....;:. Coo...it Lx.-.s. Chanter :n', sne!I he C;-?d w.:hin 20- ..s .. .... ja; a of iih :: of tris (:ncinimi In tae Vnicc of the C.:'; C!CI::. G.ne. L'r.s. Ciu,;..: :.:I ,'a r.-r. :.':r.toa hc::::n ::.t:., .... ,d;n, et6�ci rnnl ❑ ren? . . ._ n; (,:a 4:.:': Ci':;k it,t :21 c':I '; r:.:., h]s been t.:d. or ::'.c:. if such b^r133: :,1: ::31 is has bcon Clismiased or demao :.i reeordoo in lltu Rzpx;r; of Doeds end indexed under tf:z name or 0e owner of rz:cra cr is recorded and noted on the owner's Czr:ificate of fide. BOARD OF APPEAL • Jug 1 2 Dun '89 Ctv of "ittfem, ttsstttfjusetts / v • BITY CLERK.SA"_C:1, MASS. v. POBClt Of hopP211 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD PIGEON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 9 TURNER ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 14, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Feboneo, Luzinski 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, is requesting a Special Permit to allow an existing addition in the rear and an existing deck in the front of this nonconforming structure which is located in an 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 of the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience or 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 . Addition and deck were constructed without benefit of a building permit. 2. A petition in opposition signed by twenty one (21 ) abutters and neighbors was received by the Board of Appeal. 3. Petitioner amended his request by excluding the front deck, which he said he would remove. 4. The rear addition was constructed on stilts -to--within inches of the rear property line,and overlooks the abutting property. 5. There was vigorous vocal opposition by abutters and neighbors. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD PIGEON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 9 TURNER ST. , SALEM • page two 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 cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. 2. The addition would not be in harmony with the neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5, against the granting of the requested Special Permit. Have failed to obtain the required four (4) affirmative votes necessary to grant, the petition is denied. SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED ohn R. Nutti g, Sec r ary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • Appeal fran this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Mass. General Laws, Chapter BOB, 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 11 , the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certi- fication of the City Cleric that 20 days have elapsed and not 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 of Deeds and indexed Wunder the name of the owner of record or is recorded on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • JUN i 2 3 cW i i� '89 (gity of ��$ttlem, � ttssttc us> � 33ottra of }reAl ,i T r CLE: X. •. • ,ass. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JIMMY KOWALSKI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 14 UPHAM ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held on May 31 , 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman; Edward Luzinski 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 requesting a Special Permit to allow an existing deck and to construct a stairway to the second floor 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 : Notvn thstano'ng 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, 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 :he 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. A petition signed by fourteen (14) neighbors and abutters in favor was presented. 3. The proposed stairway would be a second means of egress for the second story of this one family dwelling. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The grant of the special permit will promote the 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 of the purpose of the Ordinance. ,Y• Cr t DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JIMMY KOWALSKI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 14 UPHAM ST. . SALEM • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 4-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All construction be done as per existing City and State building codes and by legal building permit. 2. All dimensions be as per the plans submitted. 3. Petitioner meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Department. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED KicnarO 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. Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certi- fication 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 of Deeds and indexed under the nacre of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • �• b 4�. ('gitg of Sulem, 41196ttdjusetts v T i^ ourD of ettl JUL 7 8 46 All '89 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GAETANO AND PHYLLIS FUSCO FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 74 VALLEY ST. (R-1 ) CITY CLERK, SAI-CM. I4ASS. A hearing on this petition was held June 28, 1989 and continued until July 5, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, Luzinski 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to allow an above ground pool on this nonconforming lot which is located in an R-1 district Said will also come closer than ten ( 10) feet to the building foundation. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and condi4ions set forth in Secti( 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, 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, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The most immediate abutter was opposed to the original plan submitted by the petitioners for a 12' x 24' oval pool. 2. After continuing the hearing for one week to allow the petitioners and the abutters to meet, a compromise was made in which the petitioner would install an eighteen (18) foot round pool further to the back, the abutters had no objection to this. 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 petitioners plan, as amended 7/5/89, will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and will be in harmony with the neighborhood. 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 GAETANO AND PHYLLIS FUSCO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 74 VALLEY STREET, SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 in favor of granting the requested Special Permit (Mr. Bencal was opposed) , subject to the following conditions: 1 . Pool be installed as per the revi- 3d plans submitted July 5, 1989• 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department be adhered to. 3. All construction be done with a legal building permit and in accordance with all city and state building codes. 4. All requirements of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 7 paragraph J relative to swimming pools, except for relief granted 7/5/89, be adhered to. 5. All dimensions be in strict accordance with the plans submitted 7/5/89- 6. A splash guard be installed and maintained in perpetuity by the petitioners and said splash guard to be approved by the building inspector. E GRANTED )JAEAHP�Nutting, Secre y 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 fvlass. Goneml Lmvs, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days after the dato of tiling of this decisioc' i°113e office cof the llCit tile ty Clerk, Pu:'suant to ktass. Cnnewi laws, Chattr or Speci;:l Permit rtmntcd he:ein sled) Hat take ellen until a copy of the decision, herrinf,• the cer;ific3:ioH 3f the City Clerk that 20 days havo in t elapsed and no appeal has been illcd, or that, if such appaal has bbeentiled,that d has Leen dismissed or denied is recorded he South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or Is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF ApPEAL ofttlem, ttss�cl#use## +�� CITY DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SULDENSKI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 37 WALTER ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held February 22, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; Edward Luzinski, Associate Members Dore and Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were property 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 allow construction of an addition on a nonconforming lot, said addition to be used as an additional 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 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 structrues, 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 I : • \, detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. i In more general terms, this Baord is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that the 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 . Support as well as substantial opposition was presented; 2. The plan as presented would not be in harmony with the neighborhood; 3. An underground spring is present in the area and disruption of this could cause problems to abutters and others; 4. The property has been in use as a single family since at least 1975; 5. The plan as presented would connect two buildings on one lot only by a small deck and corner of the roof line. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SULDENSKI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 37 WALTER ST. , SALEM page two • 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 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 Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, against granting the relief requested, the Special Permit is therefore denied. DENIED Richard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. APPEAL FRO11 THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MA-S. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 303, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FI_;:O 'd THIS DECISION IN THE OFF!CE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSA.NT TO ':'BASS. l—:NERAL L4'NS. CHAPTER 803. SECTICH 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPS.^'AI. P'::!T GRAKi ED IIEREIR. SHALL NC,, '..','E EFi ECT UNTIL A COPY Cr' '(HE:.R:IS!".`J, MAR!!!' E CE!iT HOATION SF 'i HE U!')- CLEHS "X t: ZO Ok'YS HAY'_ ELAPCSD A!:9 NO APP.-IL HAS E^I ':H,9. • 0R THAT, IF S9CH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT i::�.5 L'EEN OiS.'LISSED OR S:IIED !S RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF C----CS AND INDEXED jN5ER THE !iA?.IE GF THE OsMER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE DINNER'S CER'(IFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPM • ' y (gity of �_ BAR ajrM 4Ba59UrhU6gjf5 3 G5 +ii a9 - v s paura of hufud DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE BERTRAM HOME FOR AGED MEN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 29 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held February 22, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; Edward Luzinski, 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. Petitioners, a charitable organization, owners of the property in question, are requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure and a nonconformin, use to allow construction of an addition and an increase in the number of units from 22 to 25 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 of 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 at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Support and opposition of the plan was voiced by neighbors, abutters and others; 2. The grant of the Special Permit would allow this non-profit organization to better care for aged men in the City and allow the residents to reside and continue living in dignity; 3. The proposed interior changes would bring the building up to present .building codes; 4. The property, before its closing was used for such a use since 1887. 5. The plan presented was a result of at least four (4) neighborhood meetings since October of 1988; • 6.' The proposed changes would provided for a better quality of life for the residents of the Bertram Home. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE BERTRAM HOME FOR AGED MEN FOR A • SPECIAL PERMIT AT 29 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH, SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, 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; 2. The relief requested can be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance; 3. The grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. 4. The use as altered or extended will not depart from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance nor from the buildings prior use. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special Permit permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All construction be done as per all existing city and state building codes and as per the plans submitted; 2. Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety, including all requirements of the Massachusetts • Sprinkler Law for facilities of this type; 3. A certificate of occupancy for all units be obtained; 4. Petitioner meet all requirements and receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salem Historical Commission. Included in these requirements shall be project design, site placement and massing. SPECIAL PERMIT 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 DECIS;Orl. I- AN'i. SHALL BE f'ADE PURSUANT TO SEC.:O;; :7 C, GENERAL LAWS. C::APTER 853. AND SHALL BE FLED WITHItl 20 DAYS AMR Ti E ": OF THIS OECIS'JA I.` ME OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. P6�RzS^3, SECT;. . ll. ":EE 7- SANT i _ . _ .. A .. . . F:: �_';" Z"r LL N 'i:i:E EFi EOT UNTIL A COPY �.r :.:c ..-.. :.•. :.. ::.r. rlr:".L.:!; :?t :n: _.-: �..c.i.: :::.":: L) C'L, r..•.,c cJ•.r xC ' Har IT "°°: RECC'.'.''vZ0 IN Ti•.E F_i.3 ESSE:: .- Si R'! OF OEP?S W0 INDEXED OF RECORD OR IS RECORDEJ AND NOTED ON THE GaNER'S C:RfIFICAIE JF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • /P p (9Ttu of Salem, Aass*uselt4o F Paurb of Arpe l CITY Gl ! Ah 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 • \ 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 '; .. until September 13 , 1989, pursuant to Chapter 40, Section 10. MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF 191-211 WASHINGTON STREET AND 29 NEW DERBY STREET Page 2 r,^ I \� • '' 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 - 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. Com, James Fleming, Chairman A copy of this Decision has been filed with the Planning Board • '1 and the City Clerk. APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTrC! 11 . TY.E " GENERAL LAY!$. CHAPTER 308. AND SHALL BE FILED YPTHIN 20 DAYS AFTER Ti!E DATE GF ':LINS OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LA-NS. CHAPTER 338. SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE ^R SPECIAL 1-'.:IT CRA.NTED HERENi. SHAH WIT TAKE EFFECT W:T:L A COPY 0' THEDECISION. BLli.i.'IG iii$ FiCAT10N OF THE C3Y CLEF:, THAT 20 DAYS HWE ELAPSED ANO NO APPEAL HAS B"EN OR THAT. !F SUCH A3 APPEAL HAS BE--.4 FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS.'.IISCED CR CE::![,) RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NW.IE OF THE 0'il::. OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL - 3 - Ctu of Salem, (71flttssar4usetts Poura of hufud .m. SEP LI 3 of III DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RA)RM PAGE FOR VARIANCES AT 22 WEBB Sr. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held September 20, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, 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 Law Chanter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from use and parking to allow two family to be converted to a five family in this R-2 district. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence and viewing the plans, voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the petitioners request to allow petition to be Withdrawn Without Prejudice. WITHDRAWN ohn R. Nutting, Secre ry A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK (fit of Salem, �ttssar4usetts / Y.% Pnttra of Ap}rettl JUL 24 3 06 N '89 �✓ FILE:R' GL'cRK. SiU �S DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND PAGE FOR VARIANCETY AT 22 WEBB STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 19, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febohio, Luzinski 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 petitioner, owner of the property, representing himself, requested the Board of Appeal to grant him Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice his application for Variances from use and parking to allow two family to be converted to a five unit residential building in this -R-2 district. The Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 , (Mr. Bencal opposed) to grant the petitioner Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. WITHDRAWN ames M. Fleming, Chairman a r ��o b ( 1tn of Clem, r ttssttelTusPttsll�� II r �0 Soura of ,.AuIPA1 lti l' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL D. GODJIKIAN FOR VARIANCES AT 117 WEBB ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held October 18, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal , Febonio, 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variances necessary to redivide property at 117 Webb St. which is located in an R-2 zone and to construct a new dwelling on the lot identified as lot C on the submitted plans. The lot identified as lot B on plan submitted will decrease from 8,440 square feet to 7,057 square feet, the lot identified as lot C on the submitted plans will increase from 5,807 square feet to 7,190 square feet. 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; l b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning 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 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 was not opposed at the hearing. 2. The two newly created lots will be similar in size to those existing in the neighborhood. 3. The use of the new lot for a residential dwelling will not be detrimental to the existing neighborhood. 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 in general ; • J 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL D. GODJIKIAN FOR VARIANCES AT 117 WEBB STREET, SALEM page two 3. Desirable relief 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 Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The petitioner must comply with all the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety. 2. Proper number be obtained from the Assessors Office and posted on the new dwelling. 3. All construction be in accordance with the State Building Code. 4. Petitioner obtain a certificate of occupancy prior to occupying new dwelling. 5. The new single family dwelling be places as per the plans and dimensions submitted to the Board of Appeal . VARIANCES GRANTED • mes M. Fleming, Esquie Chairman, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Apeal from ant to section 17 Thep Mass. Generali LawlsnChapter BOB, and hall be filed Ut ed v iithin 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 11, the Variance or :penial Permit Granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the cxrtdication of tha City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been tiled, that it has been dismisse4 or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or tt� owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAL • ;y (fitu ofttlPm, Ctt95ttt4u6ett9 UEC 3 cs `':•` ? I Pottra of �uu�retcl F,!_ .. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & DONNA WHOLLEY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 8 WEST TERRACE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held November 29, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice- Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary; Richard Febonio, 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, requests a Special Permit to extend non-conforming side setbacks to allow construction of a bathroom at 8 West Terrace (R-1) . 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 at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the petition. 2. The proposed addition will enhance the petitioners quality of life. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The grant of the Special Permit will promote the 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 WILLIAM & DONNA WHOLLEY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 8 WEST TERRACE (R-1) 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 comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. 2. All construction be as per the plans submitted. 3. All construction be done by legal building permit. 4. Petitioner obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. Addition be built in harmony with the existing structure. GRANTED Richard T. Febonio, Board Member A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CT-ERK • .t•^g•I •, ; r.::Ci ^n. if inv. Ch'..;! I:C ..^ ... .._. . :'na n•.:cci:! a".!o, 1. •'. r..::ne o. l:r m:ne. of r_so.d or. is recufdeu cnd eoud on to o':mcr's L'd�;ifica:C of TiFle. BOARD OF APPEAL' • Ctg of �$Aem, Aussar4usetts ,s ! Paurb of 4veal m,. APA 10 3 00 FILE4 DECISON ON THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF SALEM FOR A SPECIAL SITYCLERK• .;ci.7s PERMIT FOR 50 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held April 19, 1989 with the following Board Members 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 with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The City of Salem, as petitioner and owner,requests a Special Permit to allow the overnight camping of not- more than sixty (60) recreational vehicles at one time during the summer month for a period of two years. The' property, known as Winter Island, is located in an R-1 district. The Special Permit may therefore be granted upon a finding of the Board of Appeal 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 . The proposed use will in no way limit the public's access to the site and revenue generated by the proposed use will benefit the City and provide funds which will allow greater access by the public. 2. The past performance of the owners of the recreational vbhicles that utilize Winter Island has proven to be excellent. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concluded that the proposed use will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and that the proposed use is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Baord of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, in favor of granted the Special Permit requested in subject to the following terms and conditions: 1 . Overnight parking of not more than sixty (60) receational vehicles at one time shall be permitted during the period May 1 to October 15, 1989 & 1990. 2. Location of said vehicles shall be approved by the Salem Fire Dept. GRANTED Peter Strout, Member, Board of Appeal 7�i PEAl'FfiO:J THIS C•ECi$1C%:. '• 'Al"',. SHALL BE ';;.ADE 'PJRSUANT TO SECTION -17 OF THE HAUS GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 803. AilU SHALL GE NL"D "i ITINN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF F;LINS OF THIS DECISION III THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. �•/ PJISAi1T TO IGA,S. GEN`_RAL LA-YC. CKAFTER 503, SECTIO? 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT _. GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NCI TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A CCPV' OF THEDECISID,. BEAR;'..-. THE CERT- FICATW3 OF THE CMY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FIiED. OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS.'ZISSED 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.