1990-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS kc-; 's" C)q s
i' � Y
BOARD OF APPEAL DECISIONS - 1990
ADDRESS Petitioner/Owner Page
4 Ames St. (G) Patricia Carson-Higgins 1 ;-
53 Appleton St. (G) Elinor Swenbeck 2
23 Arbella St. (G) George & Ka-en Tanch 3
17 Barton St. (G) Edward & Jane O'Connell 4
7 Beach Ave. (G) Geraldine Atkins 5
22 Beach Ave. (G) Dale Lewinski 6
132 Boston St. (G) Joseph Karagezian 7
140 Boston St. (G) Raymond LaVoie 8
79 Bridge St. (D) Raymond Young 9
81 Bridge St. (G) David L. Frank 10
96 Bridge St. (G) Liani Realty Trust 11
116 Bridge St. (G) Helen O'Connor 12
Lot 191 Brooks St. (G) Michael Kapnis 13
.'� 5,Buena Vista Ave. (G) Jeffrey J. Sano 14
62 Butler St. (D) Jose Pereira 15
9 Cambridge St. (D) Ann Tomsho 16
17 Canal St. (G) Harris Knight Realty Corp. . 17
138 Canal St. (G) Canal Street Realty Trust 18
11 Clark Ave. (G) Richard L. O'Day 19
97 Columbus Ave. (G) Samuel Allen 20
89 Congress St. (G) Orille L'Heureux 21
108 Congress/47 Leavitt (G) Leonidas & Michele Getsim 22
40 Derby St. (G) Glenn & Sandra Soucy 23
135 Derby St. (G) John & Gina Marks 24
20 Dow St. (w/d) Paul Tremblay 25
19 East Collins St. (G) Chester Konopka 26
(•, 120-134 Essex St. Essex Institute & Museums Coop.of Salem 27
�. I
ZBA DECISIONS - 1990 - PAGE TWO ,
ADDRESS Petitioner/Owner Page
284 Essex/1Sewal/6 North Sts. (G) Salem YMCA 28
• 401 Essex St. (D) I - David Schaejbe 29
407, 403-405 Essex/40Warren Sts. (G) Miroslaw Kantorosinski 30
� 5 Fairmount St. (G) Joao K. Sampaio 31
+ 63 Flint St. (G) Allied Realty-Tr. 32
163 Flint St. (G) Allied Realty Tr. 33
175 Fort Ave. (G) Lin-Baz Enterprises, Inc. 34
12 Goodhue St.. (G) Fred J. Dion Yacht Yard (P) J. Clayman (0) 35
112 Greenway Rd. (G) Paul Baliotis 36
i12 Hanson St. (w/d) Ted Brothers 37.
, 81 Highland Ave. (G) Salem Hospital 38
81 Highland Ave. (G) Salem Hospital 39
{ 116 Highland Ave. Stuart .& Imy Gould 40
1
' 150 Highland Ave. (G) Levon Bogossian 41
1227 Highland Ave. (G) 227 Highland Ave. Partnership 42
1+ 227 Highland Ave. (G) " " " " 43
394 Highland Ave. (G) Thomas Katsapetsis 44
1471 Highland Ave. (D) Lucille Malone 45
11256 Jefferson Ave. (D) John-Ellis Jr. 46
32 Irving St. (D) Maria A. Costa 47
, 363 Lafayette St. (G) Daniel Wong 48
47 Leavitt/1'08 Congress Sts. Leonidas-&.Michele Getsim 49
12 Looney Ave. (G) Raymond & Mary Shea 50
463 Loring Ave. (G) Richard Hogan & Diane Mackey 51
7 Loring Hills Ave. (G) Vinnin Associates Realty Trust 52
16 Lynde St. (G) Witch Dungeon Museum, Inc. 53
• 1 Malone Drive (g) Paul E. Fontaine 54
4 Maple Ave. (G) Mary Pelletier 55
DECISIONS - ZBA - 1991 - PAGE THREE
. ADDRESS Petitioner/Owner page
• 13 Maple Ave. (G) Peter Johnson 56
95 Margin St. (G) City of Salem 57
6 North/1 Sewall/284 Essex Sts. (g) Salem YMCA 58
(99 North St. (G) Mary McCormick, Tr. 59
! 101 North St. (G) Sun Refining & Marketing Co. . 60
190 North St. (G) Anatoly & Larisa Katsman 61
6-.Oak St. (D;& G) Richard Bergeron 62
103 Ocean Terr. (G) Peter White & Nancy Chatis 63
1-3 Ocean Terr. (D) Robert & Ronald Marsilia 64
2 Orleans Ave. (G) Robert & Carol Muise 65
46-48 Orne St. (D) Randy Emmans 66
13 Pope St. (G) Charles Brett 67
30 Prescott St. (G) John & Dianne Donahue 68
• 50 Raymond Rd. (G) Laurence Russell & Elizabeth Davis 69
1 Roslyn St. Court (G) Susan Rutkowski 70
1. Sewall/6 North/284 Essex Sts Salem YMCA 71
0 Skerry St. Court (w/d) William D. Little 72
21 Summit Ave. (G) Sara P. Fiore 73
15 Upham St. (G) Peter & Christine Louf 74
56 Valley St. (G) Paul & Shirley Gallo 75
37 WAlter St. (AR-G) Peter & Mary Casale (P) John Suldenski (0) 76
6 Ward St. '(D) Luis Perez (P) Rosario Berube (0) 77
11 Warren St. (G) Angela Nannini 78
40 Warren2407,403-405 Essex Sts. (G) Miroslaw Kantorosinski 79
4 Winter Island Rd. (G) Margaret A. Rizzotti 80
11 Witchcraft Rd. (G) Patricia Popp 81
Ellin of �ttlem, ��Httssttcl�uset� j= ll Ira. :..: '9�
FILES,• =,, •T 'Notts of Arreul
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICIA CARSON-HIGGINS FOR A
VARIANCE AT 4 AMES ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held May 30, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Richard Febonio; Edward .Luzinski
and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others,
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News
in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from density,
setbacks and lot coverage to allow construction of a deck and shed in the
rear. Property is located in an R-2 district.
the Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;
•' c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good andwithout 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 proposed deck and shed would enhance the quality of the
petitioner's life.
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 provisions of the Ordinance would involve
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
b, 4
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICIA CARSON-HIGGINS FOR A
VARIANCE AT 4 AMES ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the
Variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety are strictly adhered to.
2. A legal building permit be obtained.
3. All construction be as per plans and dimensions submitted.
4. All construction comply with all city and state building codes.
5. Exterior finishes of the proposed deck and shed be compatible with
the existing structure.
GRANTED
'17chard Febonio, ember, 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 t0 SECUO l'Ey 14
the Mass.General Laws, Chapter 808,and shall be filed within 20 days
after the date of fiting of this decision in the office of the City Clerkr .
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, section 11,the Variancd
or 4pecial Pe:'mi' ^.rcn'e4 hey ein shall not tdke effect until a copy of the
decision, bea;ic t the c,.:ificavun of the City Clerk that 20 days have 1
elapsed and no ap-,a it ha ;.?en filed, or that, it such appeal has been
filed, that it has b,en disn.isseC or denied is recorded in the South Essen
Registry of Deeds and inrtexed under the name or the owner of reead d
is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of TWO-
BOARD OF APPEAL!
h
LrC
lc..
C
Viit7juof "'inteml assadjusetts
Pourb af CAD
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ELINOR SWENBECK FOR
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 53 APPLETON ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held January 17, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal , Febonio, Luzinski
and Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from density
and parking to allow conversion to a two family dwelling and s Special Permit
to allow construction of a second egress. Property is located in an R-2 zone.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows :
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in
Section VIII F and IX 0, 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 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 petitioner shall comply with the requirements of the Salem
Fire Prevention Bureau.
• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ELINOR SWENBECK FOR A VARIANCE AND
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 53 APPLETON STREET, SALEM
page two
2. Abutters spoke in favor of the petition.
3. Councillor Hayes spoke in favor of the petition.
4. Proposal would provide family care for the owner.
5. Changes to the exterior of the dwelling are minimal .
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 conditons 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 granting of the special permit will promote the public health, safety,
convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
4 . The Variances requested can be granted without substantialy 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 and Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . The petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire
Prevention Bureau.
2. All construction must be in accordance with the plans submitted.
3. Construction shall be in compliance with state and city building codes.
4. Exterior finish of new construction must be in harmony with existing
building.
5. A certificate of occupancy must be obtained.
6. Petitioner must maintain two legal parking spaces on site.
VARIANCES & SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Peter Dore, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
.' 'Appeal from this decision. If any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
• Gee Mass. General Laws, Chapter SOS, and shall be filed within 20 days
I'ar the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clcrk.
pursuant to Mass. General W`.a, Ch-p e• '.03. Sacuon 11. ere Variance
or Permit granted herein _hii' ::i '-k:i elfact until a copy of the
deci:ion, bearing the certification of <^.: C::7 C:ark that 20 d:!ys have
eiapsed and no appeal has teen i.;ad, or that, if scch appeal has been
Wed, ihst is Lis been dismis:ec' or ::onicd is recordad in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and Indexed under the nam± or the owner of record ae
is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
oneon nc nnnrer,
of Salem, 4 aselk4usetts
3 nttr
Pa of E�
'i -,�:• , � ettl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE & KAREN TANCH FOR A
VARIANCE AT 23 ARBELLA STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held April 18, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Edward Luzinski ,
Mary Jane Strigwolt and Associate Members Peter Dore 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 Mass-
achusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the property are requesting a Variance to allow property
at 23 Arbella Street, which is located in an R-2 district, to be converted from
a two family dwelling to a three family dwelling.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other lands, buildings and structures in the same district.
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the 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 . This petition was necessitated by the fact that a Special Permit to
convert the existing two family house into a three family, previously
granted, has lapsed.
2. The plans submitted by the petitioner indicate that existing plantings
will be maintained.
3. The petitioner stated that substantial renovation of the building at
23 Arbella Street will begin promptly upon the granting of the requested
relief.
4. The plans submitted by the petitioner indicate that the parking requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Salem will be met.
5. No opposition to the proposal was expressed.
6. Several parties spoke in faovr of the petition and correspondence in
•`; support of the petition was reard into the record.
"
r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE & KAREN TANCH FOR A
VARIANCE AT 23 ARBELLA STREET, SALEM
page two
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
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.
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifing 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 conditions of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety are to be strictly adhered to.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy for the third unit is to be obtained from the
City of Salem Building Inspector.
3. All construction and renovations are to be done in strict accordance with
existing City and State Building Codes and as per plans submitted.
• 4. Five (5) legal parking spaces are to be maintained on site.
5. Property shall remain a three family only as long as it remains
owner occupied.
6. All dimensions shall be as per the plans submitted.
VARIANCE GRANTED
0
Mary Japit.$tirgwolt, Mem , 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 t0 Seet10ll 17 dl
the Mass. General laws, Chapter Bos, and shall be filed within 20 days
after the date of Pilin?, of this decision in the oftice of the City Clerk,
Pursuant Mass. General creLaws.
r�. ^.s, Section 11,the variance
or !peciai Permit gran:ea herein sh:.i N r'Y"6fcct until a copy of the
decision, bearing the certification ot'" Cily Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has boon tiled, or that, if =•Jch appaal has been
filed, that it has been dismisses or denied is recorded in the South Essex
teegistry Of Deeds and indexed
the name or the
ecorded and noted Mthe owner's
e t certificate ofTitl�nor of record or
BOARD OF APPEAL'
1,
' AE
ofttlem, rHttsstttljuse#f
�ottra of �tpeal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD & JANE O'CONNELL FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 17 BARTON ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held June 27, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Vice Chairman;
Joseph Correnti , Secretary, Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 porch to be replaced and to construct a new deck off the third floor,
in this R-2 district.
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 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 . All abutters of the premises were notified of this petition before the Board.
2. There was no opposition to the petition during the public hearing portion
of the hearing.
3. The premises is not currently in compliance with the Fire Code.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed changes will not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood and can be granted in harmony
with the Zoning Ordinance and without derogating from its intent or the
�' � public good.
'w
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD & JANE O'CONNELL FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 17 BARTON 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 in compliance with all city and state building codes.
2. Exterior finishes of the proposed construction be compatable with the
existing structure.
3. The proposed changes be implemented as per the plan and dimensions submitted.
4. Petitioner obtain a legal building permit prior to construction starting.
5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety be strictly adhered to.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Jose0h C. Correnti , Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• Appeal from this decislon. If any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 Ot
the Mass.General laws,chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
after the date of filing of this decision in the oitice of the city clerk.
ttie r ante
Purr'u,=r.t to Mass. General Lo'ein Chanter t ks Section ll,
or w,^ci;J Permit granted herein shall not talo effect until a copy of the
decision. tearing the certification of the City . if;R thach t p0 a a'iashave
been
elapsed and no appeal has been tiled, or
that,
filed,that it has been dismissed or denied is rcco;d-d in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
is recorded and noted In the owner's Certificate of Titis.
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
�A D
aitv of .Salem, C�ttsstttliuse�s � �
• % _ �Olifa Of AITftflll
P : .7Y i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GERALDINE-ATKINS OVERRULING
A DECISION OF THE INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS REGARDING 7 BEACH AVE. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held on March 7, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal , Febonio, Luzinski
and Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioner, represented by Attorney George W. Atkins, is requesting the
Board of Appeal overrule a decision of the Inspector of Buildings relative to
the property located at 7 Beach Avenue, presently an R-1 zoning district.
The Inspector of Buildings has issued a decision that, since Mr. Atkins no
longer occupies the premises, the Special Permit issued by the Board on June
2, 1969, is null and void.
The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented.at:,..'
the hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The petitioner and her former husband obtained a Special Permit to
utilize the property as a two family in 1969.
• 2. The decision granting said Special Permit was conditioned on the
occupancy of the premises by the Atkins family.
3. The petitioner and her children have continuously occupied the
premises since'•1969. Mr. Atkins no longer occupies the premises
as a result of divorce.
4. The intent of the Board of Appeal in 1969 was to allow the premises to
be utilized as a two family residence as long as it was occupied by the
Atkins family.
S. The decision of the Inspector of Buildings creates a substantial hardship,
financial or otherwise,on the the petitioner.
6. The continued use of the property as a two family residence is not
substantially detrimental to the public good and does not substantially
derogate from the intent of the zoning district or the purpose of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Febonio voted in opposition)
to overrule the decision of the Inspector of Buildings and to allow the
property to be utilized as a two family as long as it is occupied by the
petitioner.
DECISION OF THE INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS
• OVERRULED
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GERALDINE ATKINS OVERRULING
A DECISION OF THE INSPECTOR OF BUILD'INGS.RELATIVE TO PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 7 BEACH AVENUE, SALEM
page two
chard A. Benca , Vice Chairman
:-" A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
tb Section 17 of
gppeal from this decision, if any, shall he made pur`•un".
the Mass.General Laws. Chapter 0^8, - sh:II ice
weti?a city Clark.2la days
After the date of tiling of tills etec�r;;on in the OflS a c'thet l-'he variance
Pursuant to Idass. C?uerc.r:. .... .. ....: :' i:.nv etf_ct r.rlil a COPY of tha
or !peci;l Permit F.rnn Cluk ;hat 20 days have
O7 r. :c: :..:il
decision, bearing the tx;.'b:Y">` it _,,,;h appeal has been
elapsed and no appeal tas I, or ;hat.
.,Q ? tiled, that it has been dismr�:e.• or '"=need is recorded in the South Essex
• '"f Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record on
v
:q Is recorded and noted len the owner's Certificate of Title..
co
i
BOARD OF APPEAO
_ JI
U
J
•
UCT ,i�
oftzlem, ttsstztllusPtts
<.. F Potirb of Av}�ettl
C .
9r.om�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DALE LEWINSKI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AT 22 BEACH AVE. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held October 17, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Joseph Correnti , Richard Febonio;
Edward Luzinski and Mary Jane Stirgwolz. 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 structure by adding a second level . Property will remain a single
family dwelling and 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 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
public hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Neighbors and abutters (10) signed a petition in favor of the plan.
2. Councillor Nowak sent a letter in favor.
3. There was no opposition.
4. This would enhance the petitioner' s quality of life.
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 public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
2. The addition of a second level would be in harmony with other structures
• in the neighborhood.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DALE LEWINSKI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AT 22 BEACH AVENUE, 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 in accordance with City & State Building Codes.
2. All construction be in accordance with plans and dimensions submitted.
3. Exterior finishes of the proposed construction be in harmony with the
existing structure.
4. Petitioner obtain a legal building permit.
5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety be strictly adhered to.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained from the Building Inspector.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
October 17, 1990
11ch d T. Febonio, Member
Board of Appeal
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Apneal 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 m.ss. Ceneral Laws, Chapter 808, section 11, the variance
or 14pecial Permit -.ranted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearin, 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
Is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL!
•
/ '. �`� f1�it (7)
of . ttlem, �3Hassadjusetts
i T r
�.. 3-
`�_ F Ponra of r'�upeul JUN
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH KARAGEZIAN FOR A VARIAkf
AT 132 BOSTON ST. (B-2)
A hearing on this petition was held May 30, 1990 with the following Boardc
Members present: Richard A. Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Vice Chairman;
Mary Jane Stirgwolt, Acting Secretary 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, is requesting a Variance from lot coverage
to allow an existing deck and a Variance from minimum width of driveway to
allow driveway to be eleven (11 ) feet. Said property is located in a B-2 zone.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other lands, buildings- and structures in the same district;
•
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve J substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;
F�
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 existing building contains two apartments and an upholstery business.
2. The petitioner stated there is adequate parking for three cars on the site.
3. The decking and stairway provide the second means of egress from the
residential unit.
4. Because of the location of the primary egress and the siting of the building
on the lot, there is no adequate alternate location for the secondary egress.
5. An abutter spoke in favor of the petition.
6. No opposition to the petition was expressed.
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 .
r,.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH KARAGEZIAN FOR A VARIANCE
AT 132 BOSTON ST. , SALEM
• page two
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship to the petitioner.
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the
relief requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction be done as per all City and State Building Codes.
2. A legal Building. Permit be obtained.
3. All construction and dimensions be in strict accordance with the
plans submitted.
4. All requirements of the City of Salem Fire Department relative to smoke
and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to.
GRANTED
• Mary Jarf Wrgwolt, ActinvSecretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
ftppeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 01
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808.and shall be filed within 20 days
atter the date of filing of this decision in the office of the city Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, chapter soa, section 11,the variance
or !;.^_:i:l Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, te.•ring 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 cr denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of race or^�
is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of Tithi.
BOARD OF APPEAL ca
c
LZ
r
o
•
APB 23 3 04 fii s,j l../
FILET
;b (ITiitn of ttlem assttcsetts..
1 __ . . _ .
Poura of peul
DECISION ON THE PETITION RAYMOND LAVOIE FOR A VARIANCE
AT 140 BOSTON STREET (B-2/R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held April 18, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman; Mary
Jane Stirgwolt; Associate Members Arthur LaBrecque and Peter Dore. Notice of
the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were
properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a variance to allow two family
to be converted to a three family dwelling in this B-2/R-2 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this
Board that:
a. special conditions 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 property is presently owner occupied.
2. The property is partially in a B-2 Zone.
3. No opposition was presented.
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 provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
I • the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND LAVOIE FOR A VARIANCE
AT 140 BOSTON STREET, SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department.
2. Five (5) legal parking spaces be maintained on site.
3. Petitioner obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for third unit.
4. All dimensions be as per plans submitted.
5. The property may remain as a three family as long as subject property
remain owner occupied.
6. All construction be done as per all existing City and State Building Codes.
VARIANCE GRANTED )
z.
ItT-thard 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 d
d within 20 days-
th tee Mass.
date General Laws,
of this er decision ec808 a hshall be ittfe he city C erk. t
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, section 11,the Variance
hall
t take effect until a COPY Of
or decisionalL•earing he ce liihcationerein sof the C 1y cierk that 20 days have
he
elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that, i, such appeal has been
tiled,that d has been dismissed or donied is recorded in the South Esser
Registry of Deeds and in the owe ire Certtkatename rofhTitla.ner of record of
Is recorded and noted M
BOARD OF APPEAL!
•
APR 15 3 20ig '90 117 )
„.uqb
Ctv of �Sttlem, 'Massadjusetts
` y CITYP.
pours of �Fpeal
w..om,.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND YOUNG FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND
VARIANCES AT 79 BRIDGE ST. (8-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held April 18, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal., Mary Jane Stirgwolt,
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.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variances from density and parking
and a Special Permit to allow a store and three (3) apartments into five
apartments in this B-1 zone.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this
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;
11� X b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
l • l 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 appiicable to -thisirequest'-
for.;a Special :Permit:is Section- V'B--1 O,,-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 . A Special Permit to allow an existing store and three apartment and a Variance
•� from minimum parking requirements was granted to previous owner on
May 18, 1986.
i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND YOUNG FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND
VARIANCES AT 79 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM
• page two
2. Mr. Young, the petitioner and present owner of the property, purchased the
property late 1986 and began to renovate the building.
3. An abutter present at the hearing stated that five mailboxes are at the site
and cited this and the renovations as evidence that the building is currently
used as a five unit residential dwelling.
4. Another abutter expressed concern about trash disposal , but did not oppose
the petition.
5. Three off-street parking spaces are provided.
6. Off-street parking is limited 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 do not exist which especially affect the subject property
but not the district in general .
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 and substantially derogating from the intent
of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted two (2) in favor (Mr'. Fleming & Mr.
Labrecque) three (3) opposed (Mr: Bencal , Ms. Stirgwolt & Mr. Dore) to the granting
of the requested Special Permit and Variances= Having failed to garner the
required four (4) affirmative votes necessary to pass, the motion to grant fails
and the Special Permit and Variances are denied.
SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCES DENIED
Peter A.. Oore, Acting Secretary
Appeal from this decision, If any,shell 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.
Pn,r-::,n! to Mass. General Laws,Chap!er 808, section 11, the Variance
cr •;e,:ia! Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
de-ision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
e!apsed and no appeal has been filed,or that,if such appsal 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 06
is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF,APPEAp
t ,
(Gltu of ttlem, � ttssttcliusetts
-SU2ICa 0{ cAup¢rzl SEP I
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID L. FRANK FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 81 BRIDGE ST. (8-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held August 22, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Joseph Correnti ,
Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 non-
conforming side setback requirements 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, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more
-" detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The owner has conducted his business on the site for eight (8) years.
2. A petition supporting the petition, signed by fourteen (14) persons was
presented by the owner.
3. Affidavits by two (2) abutters were presented stating that the previously
existing enclosed deck occupied the same locations onthe site as the
proposed construction.
4. No opposition to the petition was expressed.
5. Use of the proposed structure would be for the sole purpose of warehousing
parts and supplies for the owner's business.
6. The proposed construction would not significantly increase business
•/ traffic on the site.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID L. FRANK FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 81 BRIDGE SY. , SALEM
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed construction will. not be substantially more detrimental to
the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure and can be
granted in harmony with the zoning ordinance and without derogating from
its intent or the public good.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All requirements of the City of Salem Fire Department relative to smoke
and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to.
2. All construction be as per all existing City and State Building Codes.
3. All construction be in strict accordance with the plans and dimensions
submitted.
4. Exterior finishes of the proposed addition be in harmony with the
existing structure.
S. The proposed addition is to be used for warehousing only and no
servicing of motorcycles be done on site.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
' • August 22, 1990 "
Mary e Stirgwo t, . ember, 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 1`9_cs. G_ncral Laws, Chapter E08, and shall be filed within 20 days
,j aftor vie date of li';ag of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
P'.rsctnt to L1ass. Genera! Laws, Chin!er EOS, Section 11, the Variance
4 i or ii;;eeial Permit Trailed herein shaft not tzlce effect until a copy of the
^_f _ decision, bcering the certification of file City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no a
Ppeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is racorded 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 Two.
- w
u�+ - BOARD OF A?PEAL•
an -
Chi of
AA r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LIANI REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AND VARIANCES AT 96 BRIDGE ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held June 27, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Vice Chairman;
Joseph Correnti , Secretary; Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 Richard Stafford, is
requesting Special Permit and Variances to allow construction of two additions
to an existing nonconforming structure and to expand nonconforming use 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 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 use, provided, however, that such
change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City' s inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented at
the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The parcel and building in question are existing nonconformities.
2. The site has served as a coffee,doughnut and coffee retail outlet for
over twenty five (25) years.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LIANI REALTY TRUST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND
VARIANCES AT 96 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM
page two
• 3. The proposed additions to the structure will allow the business to compete
in an increasingly competitive market.
4. The proposed additions wil enable the petitioner to comply with regulations
concerning handicapped accessibility and to provide two restrooms that
are accessible to the handicapped.
5. The present hours of operation and parking availability will remain unchanged.
6. The parcel in question is a corner lot and there is no adjacent land
available for possible acquisition by the petitioner.
7. No opposition to the petition was expressed.
8. Direct abutters spoke in favor of the petition as conditioned, citing the
fact that the petitioner is an excellent neighbor.
9. An inability to expand this building would prevent handicapped accessibilty
and create substantial hardship to the petitioner.
10. The proposed increase in this nonconformity would not be detrimental to the
neighborhood and would not conflict with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
11 . Because of the existing nonconformity and because of the particular
• requirements of the existing business, this parcel has unique characteristics
which do not generally affect other parcels in the R-2 district.
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 provisions of the Ordinance would involve a
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
4. The granting of the relief requested will promote the public health, safety,
convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and will be in harmony
with the district.
:;therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit and Variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
All construction comply with all local and state building codes.
• _2. All construction be in strict accordance with plans and dimensions submitted.
J
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LIANI REALTY TRUST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT
AND VARIANCE AT 96 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM
page three
3. Exterior finishes of the proposed additions be in harmony with the
existing structure.
4. A building permit be obtained from the City of Salem Building Inspector
prior to any construction being started.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
6. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety are to be strictly adhered to.
7. Signage remain as per the plans.
8. Exterior light be as per plans and facing away from away from adjacent
residential properties.
9. An eight (8) foot wood fence be erected by the petitioner along the common
boundary with lot 118, said fence is to be maintained in perpetuity.
10. The dumpster is to be screened with a six foot fence to be maintained in
perpetuity.
SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCES GRANTED
Mary Stirgwo t ' ember, Board of Appeal
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 W
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 thl lcity clerk.
r ante
�r Pursuant to Mass.General Lai: ch....,,=' b-f,, ofi a Copy Of the
or Special Permit granted heein c.�..d 1A t yke elk that 20 days have
7. decision, bearing the cerhlica'wI of tl,a L, .1 has been
.-1 elapsed and no appeal has beep ti:a . i diet, it ouch appeal
filed,that it has been dismissai or Vari _ed is recorded ithe south Esser
Registry of Dead and indexed under thn3me or the o owner of record all
Is recorded and noted On the owner's Certificate of Title-
BOARD OF APPEAU
•
f FEB Z0 2 59
M -n
Ctu of Salem Hassad us, fts .
• 4:= ' s 33oura of pettl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HELEN O'CONNOR FOR VARIANCE
AT 116 BRIDGE STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held February 21 , 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman; Edward
Luzinski , Associate Members Peter Dore 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.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from side setback
requirements to allow construction of a double 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 . No opposition was presented to the plan.
2. The proposed decks would add a second means of egress and would thus
be a safety addition as well .
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 provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to the petitioner.
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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HELEN O'CONNOR FOR A VARIANCE
AT 116 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM
• page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Apeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department.
2. All construction be done as per existing City and State Building Code.
3. All construction be done as per plans and dimensions submitted.
VARIANCE 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 otnsuant to section 17 of
the mass. General Laws. Chapter &C'9. and Shall toe filed v:ithin 20 d-/s
atter the date of riling of this dcu svcn in lite office of the City Clerk.
':a. s-:tion i1. the variance
Pursucnt to F....... Can-:al L:.. .. ,. ..`
. effect-until a ccpv of Y.,
• or _,.=cu: Pere t ;c.n'.c Ir ....
de:cion. Corn: !;•.e czr. i z:t;-
"'`• C.;::, C:crk toot 20 days nave
elapsed ora no h i: .:e_n : _ t. cr tf:at. if such oppeal :us been
Iced. that it h:c :"ntiisma:e., Cr .:^n:.d is recorded in the Seuth Eros
Registry of Dazes and inde.!Xd under uta n:me or the owner of record or
is recorded and noted on the ow'ner's czr:iiicate of Tito.
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
HAR 1 51 Ali so
1� FILUi 0-
3
G « NTYG[Epl;-,F,,:,LdGI F
' b
Y ,b (I11t of $Ulem, (71 assadjusetts
5\ �3nttra of Appeal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL KAPNIS FOR AN EXTENSION
ON A VARIANCE AT LOT 191 BROOKS STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held February 21 , 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal , Luzinski and Associates
Dore and Labrecque. Notice of 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 an extension of a Variance
granted December 7, 1988 and recorded January 20, 1989 allowing construction of
a single family dwelling in this R-2 district.
The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented,
makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Petitioner was unable to start construction in a timely manner due to
unforeseen personal problems.
2. No changes in the plans are proposed.
3. Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor of the extension.
4. There was no opposition to the request.
The Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant a six (6) month
extension of the variances to allow construction of the single family dwelling.
All conditions of the December 7, 1988 decision remain unchanged.
EXTENSION GRANTED
Peter Dore, Acting 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 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 tpecial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such 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 '
T•
I
AUG 4i
b Ctv of Ztlem, '�F' ZigBaCITU Betts
O B oaro of peal
1. 1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEFFREY J. SAND FOR VARIANCES
AT 5 BUENA VISTA AVENUE (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held August 22, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Vice Chairman;
Joseph Correnti , Secretary; Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. Notice
of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were
properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from side and rear
setback requirements to allow construction of a pool deck in the R-1 zone.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by the
Board that:
1 . 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.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
the district or the 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 . Outcroppings of ledge on the property make this the only suitable
location for the deck.
'972. Tfie deck would allow petitioner to safely supervise children swimming
irY the pool .
*3. A petition was submitted in favor of the deck.
4. No�.opposition was presented.
T
:'J
qn thebasis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
ear-ing, 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 JEFFREY J. SAND FOR VARIANCES
AT 5BUENA VISTA AVENUE, SALEM
page two
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0. to grant the
Variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction be done per existing City and State Building Codes.
2. A legal building permit be obtained for the deck.
3. All construction be done as per plans and dimensions submitted.
VARIANCE GRANTED
August 22, 1990
chard A. Bencal , Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
CIO
-� 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
Atter the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
.at
Pursuant to 61as. General Laws. Ch inter 608, Section 11, the Variance
or�pectal Permit ^ranted herein shall net take effect until a copy of the
tleds�on, bens, the certification of the city Clerk that 20 days have
eta{sed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
flied,that it has been dismisseu or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Retmf of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
t% recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL'
it,ctl Fa :LI 3 9 V .i.;J 1%
ti
i y •. (gitV of 17
ttlem, C ussttcl�uset i,;
nttrD of ettl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSE PEREIRA FOR A VARIANCE
AT 62 BUTLER ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held January 31 , 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman, Messrs. ,
Febonio, Luzinski and Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, through his attorney, John Keilty, Peabody,
is requesting a Variance from density and setbacks to allow parcel to be divided
and to construct a single family dwelling on newly created lot in this R-2 zone.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
• b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was strong opposition from abutters.
2. Councillor O'Leary opposed the granting of the Variance.
3. There were concerns regarding a possible drainage problem.
4. The density of the neighborhood would be imposed on.
5. Granting of the requested variances could set a precedent in 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 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;
r�
fr'
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSE PEREIRA FOR A VARIANCE
AT 62 BUTLER ST. , SALEM
page two
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.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 0 to 5 against the granting of the
requested Variances, Variances are therefore denied.
DENIED
lchard . Febonio, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
from this dcci:ion. if any, shall be r, ,c ptTsnant to section 17 O}
;'oral La, S. Chapter tiO3. nn'1 :hall Oc tiled 'r:ilnin 20 days
lit- dela of L. ,y 01 iris deciS;on in the cn�cn Of the CAY
_
-_arm: ;n:eri
..... =ri Lc licatio;: of .. i�:y t,:_ :. "^ • rare
,,......,.. ^7 : ....,
r•:::; re;l .:rd no Isis OceO nE_d. or i:.a t. :i ecch :;:p_ai h
• I:i_i, that it i:ns Lean or nen,etl .3reccrtinrt in ihn SO:uh _sex
R_�istry of Dcods and nee.+.ed un..^.cr the name or the owner of record or
is recorded and noted on the o.vner's Certit icate of TRW.
BOARD OF APPEAL
°9
flJ4 13 ,. 33 i it 0
(gitu of _-5ttlem, 49assnCliusetts
-rte./$ Boarb of A�eal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANN TOMSHO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AT 9 CAMBRIDGE ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held August 22, 1990, continued to October 17, 1990
continued again to November 7, 1990. The following Board Members were present at
these hearings: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Joseph Correnti , Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 premises, is requesting a Special Permit to allow the
premises to be converted back to a two family in this R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
of Appeal may in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section
VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non-
conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of
nonconforming lots, lands, 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 . The petitioner and/or representative failed to appear for the scheduled
hearing.
2. The petitioner failed to provide adequate plans.
3. Petitioner failed to provided proof that the property in question has been
used as a two family since 1965.
4, Proposal was opposed by the Salem Historic Commission on the grounds the
dwelling was built as a single family.
5. Petitioner failed to provide the Board with the evidence of notice of hearing
having been sent to abutters and others of the hearing date as per agreement
on August 22, 1990 and again on October 17, 1990.
' On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
4
i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANN TOMSHO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AT 9 CAMBRIDGE ST. , SALEM
page two
1 . The granting of the requested Special Permit will not promote the public
health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
2. 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 unanimously, 0-5, against the granting
of the requested Special Permit. Having failed to garner the four affirmative
votes necessary,the motion to grant fails and the petition is denied.
SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED
November 7, 1990
R"Tchard A. Bencal , 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 P:iass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be flied within 20 days
• � after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to ma-s. Generai Laws, Chapter 808, section 11, the variance
or :pe:ia' J2rmit ^::.tcj herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, oaring the certification of the city Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no :.pVe-,,i has been filed,or that, if such appeal has been
filed, tha it h-s buen dismissed or denied is recorded in Ina South 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.
.80ARR OF,FPFJU1
GO 1-11 'SU
;5 (gity of ttlem, C Httss�ttl�usetts..
Paura of tr}tettl
IMI
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HARRIS KNIGHT REALTY CORP. FOR A VARIANCE AT
17 CANAL STREET (B-5)
A hearing on this petition was held on March 7, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman, Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman,
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 allow distribution of restaurant
supplies at 17 Canal 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. Mr. William Luster of the City of Salem Planning Department spoke in favor.
3. The variance would enhance the business growth of the City.
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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HARRIS KNIGHT REALTY CORP. FOR A VARIANCE AT
17 CANAL STREET (B-5)
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 Department.
2. Any and all renovations be done as plans submitted and by City and State
Building Codes.
3. Parking be maintained as per plans submitted.
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
;iter the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
PAass. General Laws. Cha^ter 808, Section 11, the `variance
• reial
permit granted herein sita;l rnt take effect urdd a copy of the
kion, bearing the certification et the City Clerk that 20 days have
c: used and no appeal has been filed, cr tttat, if such appeal h,s teen
tiled, 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 en the owner's Certificate of TRIO.
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
CCcc ,JAN 24 3 03 1'� �90
�ItU Q{ Stt1Pm, 4gassar4usett8
• '�° �� �t FILE:
�vIITa Ol �I1peal ;iTY Ci. =35.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CANAL STREET REALTY TRUST FOR
VARIANCES AT 138 CANAL STREET (I)
A hearing on .this petition was held January 17, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman;
Edward Luzinski , Richard Febonio and Associate Member Peter Dore. Notice of
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 more than one
building on the lot at. 138 Canal St. , zoned Industrial , to allow the building
to be used and maintained for a Subaru vehicle franchise. The variances
requested are for minimum depth of front yard, minimum width of side yard and
minimum depth of rear yard and more than one building on one lot.
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 that were submitted. makes the
following findings of fact:
1 . The property has been used for an auto dealership for many years.
2. No opposition was presented to the plan.
3. If not allowed, the petitioner would lose the Subaru dealership
franchise and this would be a severe economic hardship to the
petitioner and others.
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 CANAL STREET REALTY TRUST FOR
VARIANCES AT 138 CANAL STREET, SALEM
page two
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
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.
2. Petitioner obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the new structure.
3. All construction be done as per existing City and State Building Codes.
4. All construction be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted.
VARIANCES GRANTED
-Rlchard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
P"^cc! from thia 'c:.i::on, it any. shaft be made pursuant to Section 17 of
tile mass. General U,'4. Chnpter 808, and sh;dl be fled %:ithin 20 days
r ti cT.Ee. of h::n•, m n.:s cecisicn in the ollice of the c;ty C:crlt.
2t18, s]ction I1. lite variance
.., o::q:i: h2ei❑ thCl: ;int take cit^.et cnl:l a copy of the _
. -•'.i'ca::c� of ;h9 Gty Cid,k it,�t ::J days hcv„
I'_•d. or that. It such appe nl his .e^❑
i,,.,,,• ,:.,.� ,. . ,.:_:.n dismissed or ;cnied is reccrdad :n the :Doth Essex
R:•;is!r; of CacJs ani indexed under ;hc name yr the owner o: record or
is rrcurdcd and noted on the owner's Certificate of TRIG.
BOARD OF APPEAL'
r 8
b (I�ity of ttlem, C- 5521c isetts
• /','4� F v
35nttra of (�vpezd ..
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD L. O'DAY FOR VARIANCE
AT 11 CLARK AVENUE (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held February 21 , 1990 with the following Board
members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman; Edward
Luzinski , Associate Members Peter Dore 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.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from side setback
requirements to allow a fire place to be constructed in this R-1 zone.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
• substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . A letter from abutters was submitted in favor of the plan;
2. The chimney could not have been constructed properly in any other area
and would add to the value of the property.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not
the district in general ;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to the petitioner;
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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD L. O'DAY FOR A
VARIANCE AT 11 CLARK 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 . Petitioner comply will all requirements of the Salem Fire Department.
2. All construction be done as per existing City and State Building Code.
3. All construction be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted.
VARIANCE GRANTED
77ichard 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 Mass. General Laws, Chap:cr iO3. and shall be tiled !rithin 20 C_;s
after the date of filing el this decision in Ole otiice of the City G:':rk.
Pursuant to i.7sG. C_ne r- ^08. Se-tion 11. Cie Vnrilnce
• or =:xcial Perr, a ^c - C:i: - c a ..._.; . .; lake eif.^ct unun::: a ¢o'. :ne
dec --ision. u' rc Y+ (h: C. ".i5:� C Uh' rk that 20 il.:`I: ',•,e
elal:ed end no : tpe[5 ��.. i:.:an : s : . 'i cu.n anp2al -. s been
filed. t"at it has teen d.smsceJ or ,'^med is recorded in the South. E>ccx
Ref;istry 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'
•
a�
of .a`{tzlem, ��Httsstttljusetis
Poara of C°a V"" JUL :� [
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SAMUEL ALLEN FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 97 COLUMBUS AVENUE (R-1 ) :ATY "
A hearing on this petition was held June 27, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Vice Chairman;
Joseph Correnti , Secretary, Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. Notice of
the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were
properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to extend
nonconforming rear setbacks and density requirements to allow construction
of a deck 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 at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The premises and building in question consists of a two family home.
2. All abutters of the premises were notified of this petition before the Board.
3. The deck in question is already in existence and has been completed for
nearly six (6) years.
4. The previous owners of the property had built the deck.
5. Mr. Hall , construction contractor, appeared before the Board and represented
that he has inspected the deck and that is was in good shape, constructed
solidly with pressure treated lumber.
6. There was no opposition to the petition during the public portion of
• the hearing.
7. The current owner wishes to sell the property and needs a Special Permit
in order to convey the property.
f
f DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SAMUEL ALLEN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
• AT 97 COLUMBUS AVE. , 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 deck will not be substantially detrimental to the
neighborhood and can be granted in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance
an without derogating from its intent or the public good.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow the Special
Permit requested, subject to the following conditions :
1 . Deck be in conformance with City and State building codes and as per
plans and dimensions submitted.
2. A legal building permit be obtained for the deck.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety be strictly adhered to.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
�7,Josepb C. Correnti , 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 Mass. General taws, 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 Latus. Ch':^'r 803, Section 11, the Variance
or special Permit Granted herein sh�:i not take effect until a copy of the
decision. be.:rinu the csrtificatmn o: ihn City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no ao;mal has been filed,or that, if such appeal has been
filed, that it hes been dismisse0 or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and Indexed under the name er the owner of record or
It recorded and noted out the owner's Certificate of Iltle.
BOARD OF APPEAU
•
JUN
aitn of ttlem, � ttssttcdil $et s
board of �ku}�ettl
l,Tl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ORILLE L 'HEUREUX FOR A VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT
AT 89 CONGRESS ST. (B-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held June 6, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Vice Chairman;
Joseph Correnti , Secretary; Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. Notice of
the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were
properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property is requesting a Variance from minimum parking
requirements and a Special Permit to increase a permitted use in a nonconforming
structure by allowing the construction and renovation of the apartments on the
second and third floors of the building for individual rooms with shared kitchen
and bath facilities on each floor. The petitioner is requesting an increase
in the number of rooms to eighteen (18) . The petitioner was represented by
Attorney John Serafini Sr.
The Variance which as 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 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, 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 Permi 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.
• 1 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:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ORILLE L 'HEUREUX FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE
AT 89 CONGRESS ST. , SALEM
page two
• 1 . The petitioner seeks to operate a rooming house on the premises and would
be required to make available twenty-seven (27) parking spaces per the
Ordinance.
2. The petitioner presented, to the Board, a list of all the rooming houses
in the City which included the number of rooms along with the number of
tenant ' s cars.
3. That as of 5/25/90 no rooming house in the City has more than seven (7) cars
on the premises, while many had between two and four cars only.
4. The petition has paring to accomodate seven (7) vehicles and has make
arrangements with the adjoing landowner for an additional nine (9) cars.
5. That most inhabitants of rooming houses do not have motor vehicles.
6. that there was no opposition to the petition.
7. That strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to the petitioner.
8. The premises and building in question consists of a single building
T. and garage.
m
• 9•. All abutters were notified by certified mail and the receipts were
presented to the Board.
a
10. There is a need in the City for additional rooming spaces and a letter to
that effect, from the Salem Housing Authority, was presented to the Board.
1X. There will be a twenty-four hour, seven day a week, on site manager.
12. The proposed changes can be implemented in harmony within the present
nonconforming structure, both structurally and aesthetically.
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 Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
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 of the purpose of the Ordinance.
4. The proposed change will not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood and can be granted in harmony
• with the Zoning Ordinance.
DECIISON ON THE PETITION OF ORILLE L 'HEUREUX FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE
AT 89 CONGRESS ST. , SALEM
page three
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the .
Special Permit and Variance requested, subject to the following conditions :
1 . Construction and renovations be done in accordance with City and State
Building Codes.
2. All construction be as per plans and dimensions submitted.
3. A Certificate of Occupancy for each unit be obtained.
4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire
safety be strictly adhered to.
S. On site parking be maintained as per the plans submitted and if the residents
require additional parking the owner provide spaces up to a maximum total of
fifteen spaces which are to be made available for free and open use of the
tenants.
6. That there be single person occupancy only per room.
7. That there be a maximum of fifteen ( 15) units at the premises excluding
common areas.
SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE GRANTED
•
VJosephfCorrenti , ecretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
NMI from this decision,If any,shall be made pursuant to Section 1701
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, Chaoter 808. Section 11, the Variance
or !;)CM! Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision. ec-inn the certification of the City C!erk that 20 days have
elapsed rin �a;appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
filed, that it l:�s teen dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or.
t: Is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAD
C2
Ln c
N
� J �
•
y Eitu of �§alem, C- ttssttdiusetts
�Roara of urea! SEP
v kp.l•m�. i0 .iii •�i:I
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEONIDAS, &_MICHELE GETSIM F,OR
VARIANCES AT 47 LEAVITT AND e08 CORE
NGSSl STS. (R-3)
A hearing of this petition was held September 19, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Joseph Correnti , Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 Massahcusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting Variances to allow parcels at 47 Leavitt St. and
108 Congress St. to be divided, the property is located in an R-3 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which 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 presented at the hearing.
2. Division of the property will not change the use of the properties.
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.
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:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEONIDAS & MICHELE GETSOM FOR
VARIANCES AT 47 LEAVITT ST. & 108 CONGRESS ST. , SALEM
page two
1 . Division to be done as per the plans submitted.
GRANTED
September 19, 1990
ti
Richard T. eF bonio,MembBoard 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 d1
the Mass. General taws, 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, Ch-pfer 808, Section 11, the Variance
or �!pecial Permit granted herein shc.11 not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
• elapsed and no apFe3l 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 en the owner's Certificate of'nue.
BOARD OF APPEAL,
to
_ T
N
• CM_
M1 K
rs
• m
�T
•
riaR I _� '9?
a3
'rte, (git>J of -5ttlem, � c�55c�Lliu$PttS
-Soura of Au}7ea1
DECISION ON THE COURT REMANDED PETITION OF GLENN AND SANDRA SOUCY
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 40 DERBY ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held on January 31 ,1990 and continued until
March 7, 1990 with the following Board Members present: James M. Fleming,
Chairman; Richard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman; Edward Luzinski , 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.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting Special Permit from setback
requirements and lot coverage to allow construction of a deck and swimming
pool in this R-2 zone.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the
Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set
forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations
and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement,
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, 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, and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition was presented and support in the form of a signed
petition was presented.
2. The immediate abutter, who opposed the original petition is no longer
an abutter.
3. Petitioners have maintained the pool and deck for at least two years
with no apparent problems.
4. The pool and deck would give 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 pool and deck would not be substantially more detrimental to the public
good then the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
DECISION ON THE COURT REMANDED PETITION OF GLENN AND SANDRA SOUCY
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 40 DERBY ST. (R-2) , SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Bencal opposed) to
grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner obtain, if deemed necessary, a Certificate of Appropriateness
from the Salem Historical Commission.
2. Petitioner must meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept.
3. All work be done by legal building permit and as per all city and
state building codes.
4. As long as the pool remains a splash guard shall be installed and
maintained on the rear fence to protect the abutting property.
5. All construction and dimensions to be as per the plans submitted.
6. The Special Permit granted shall continue in effect only as long as
Glenn and Sandra Soucy are owners of and reside in the property.
SPECIAL 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 decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
the Mass. General Laws. Chapter 808, and shall he filed within 20 days
after the date of filiap, of tni•r, decis,on in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to 19ass. Gr.':e:r -:•.. ��"%" 8o8, Section 11, the variance
or "ecial Permit gr:.nl ,.:t take e1f•act until a copy of the
decision, beanr•.g the c.:r a:c :. �:i I,t p %ily Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no app-it n:.= ur that, if such appeal has been
filed, that it has been diac,i sec. cr 'eh-ed is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed un,ler the name or the owner of record or.
is recorded and noted cii the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OFAPPEAU
•
r ' (Ilitn ofttlem, �Httssttchusetts uc [� =� ;��
C U ii:
Bourb of Au
{renl
t ;
• .2.R
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN AND GINA MARKS (PETITIONERS) FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 135 DERBY ST. (B-1 ) THADDEUS G. WLODYKA (OWNER)
A hearing on this petition was held August 22, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Vice Chairman;
Joseph Correnti , Secretary; Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 in order to allow use of the
premises for a palm reading and card reading home occupation in accordance
with Section 5B-1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is located in a
B-1 district and is owned by Thaddeus G. Wlodyka.
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 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, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The premises and building in question is a residential three family home
in a B-1 zone.
2. All abutters of the premises were notified by mail of this petition
before the Board.
3. The petitioners are residents of the building for two years and they have
conducted the same business at Pickering Wharf for the past four years, and
prior to that in Cambridge for twenty years.
4. That the petitioner, Mrs. Marks, is a 65 year old woman in failing health
and can no longer conduct her business other than in the home.
•`; 5. That the estimated customer flow into the business is to be expected from
pedestrian traffic at the rate of one or two persons per day.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & GINA MARKS (PETITIONERS) THADDEUS
WLODYKA (OWNER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 135 DERBY ST. , SALEM
page two
• 6. That the business will be conducted on the first floor unit where the
petitioners reside and that there will be no employees of the business
other than the petitioner.
7. That the business will not occupy more than 25% of the floor space of the
residential unit and that the business will be conducted entirely within
this unit.
8. That there was no opposition to the petition duing the public portion of
the hearing.
9. That the owner of the premises , Mr. Wlodyka, appeared before the Board
and spoke in favor of the petition.
10. That the neighborhood in question is an Historic Area and there are many
other small businesses adjacent to and abutting the petitioners premises.
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 . Th-P proposed changes will not be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than the existing nonconforming use and can be granted in
harmony with the zoning ordinance and without derogating from its intent
orthe public good.
. coTherefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to allow the
Specia3 Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
J
the signage restrictions as delineated in section 5B-1 of the
Zoning Ordinance be strictly adhered to.
2. That all proper permits and/or licenses be obtained from the Historical
and Licensing Boards respectively.
3. That all necessary State and local permits be obtained, including, but not
limited to building and fire permits and inspections.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
August 22, 1990 ( �
J�� C,
os h C. Correnti , 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. Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
after the date of filing at thi; decision in the office of the city Clerk.
Pursuant to mass. ,-,neral 1-aws, 803. Section 11, the variance
or S,)ecial Permit ercnted hare!a sir.::! rot tn:te ettect until a copy of the
• r'eai pn, bcar;og the c^_r:dic:.ton of tile City Clerk that 20 days have
e!apsed and no appeal hes bean 111=_,1, or that. if such appeal has been
fiLd. uizt it has been dismisac•:: or denic-d is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record
is recorded and noted on the o•xner's Certificate of Titlta.
BOARD OF APPEAL'
of $Utem, 'T- assuchuSetts
peal MAR �Z 3 42
ELLE-7,
C17YQLfRtc. @,a�,t;,v p�S .
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL TREMBLAY FOR VARIANCES & a SPECIAL PERMIT
AT 20 DOW STREET (R-3)
A hearing on this petition was held January 31 , 1990 and continued until
March 7, 1990 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman;
Messrs. , Bencal , Luzinski , Febonio 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 a Special Permit to construct an addition and
Variances from density and parking to allow four unit building in this R-3
district. Petitioner is the owner of the property.
The Board of Appeal , after hearing the evidence, and after continuing the
petitioner, at the request of the petitioner voted unanimously to allow
the petition to be withdrawn without Prejudice.
?_ WITHDRAWN
Richard A. Vice Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
IAT L'a 3 51 117 '90
a�
(C! *tU of �atem, 4E, �s��cfth SPttg
_J'S 1�ottra of �Aupeal
\,.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHESTER KONOPKA, JR. FOR
A VARIANCE AT i9 EAST COLLINS STREET (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held May 16, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Joseph Correnti,
Edward Luzinski and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from side and
rear setbacks to allow construction of an addition at 19 East Collins .Street.
Property is located in an R-1 zone.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which 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 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 . No opposition was presented.
2. The addition would enhance the petitioner's 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 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but
not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
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—1
( .r
r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHESTER KONOPKA JR. FOR A VARIANCE
AT 19 EAST COLLINS STREET, SALEM
• page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept.
2. Petitioner obtain a legal building permit.
3. Petitioner conform to all state and city building codes.
4. A certificate of occupancy be obtained.
5. Addition to be building in harmcny with existing structure.
6. All construction and dimensions be as per the plans submitted.
GRANTED 1/
°chard Febonio, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
shall be made ptn'suant to Section 17 of
m „ Appeal from then decision, If any,
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808. and shall be filed within 20 days
after tiro date of filing of this decision in the office of the city the ler ante
^r Pu;soant to .las. General Laws, Chapter SOS, Section 11,
or ?�.esial
Permit ?ran'ed herein she.'. not take effect until a copy of e
ave
decision, bearing the cor0ication of the City Clerk ch�appealahasys hbeen
elapsed.and no appeal has been filed, or that,
iV filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the so;.th Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
ME= _' _ is recorded and noted an the owner's Certificate of Titli.
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
filar I 3 2s
b t
Ctu of L. ttlem, {` assaclj>'a�flfs
ary c,
�narb 'of (�crpeal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ESSEX INSTITUTE AND MUSEUMS COOPERATIVE OF
SALEM, INC. (PETITIONERS) THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS AND THE
ESSEX INSTITUTE (OWNERS) FOR VARIANCES AT 120-134 ESSEX ST. (B-5)
A hearing on this petition was held March 7, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman, Messrs. , Bencal , Febonio, Luzinski 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.
The Petitioners are requesting a Variance from density requirements to allow the
expansion and connection of the buildngs located at 120-134 Essex St. (B-5)
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this
Board that: -
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generlly affecting other lands,
buildings or structures in the same district.
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
y 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 Mayor of the City of Salem and the City's Planning Department have
endorsed the petitioners plan.
2. The granting of the petition would allow the creation of a Visitors
Center, gallery space and office space at the Salem Armory.
3. The project is a keystone to the continued revitalization of the
downtown area.
4. The project will create sixty five (65) jobs
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 .
l
2. Literal enforcement of the•, ; provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
DECISION ON THE PETITION ESSEX INSTITUTE AND MUSEUMS COOPERATIVE OF SALEM,
INC. (PETITIONERS) , THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS AND THE ESSEX INSTITUTE
(OWNERS) FOR VARIANCE AT 120-134 ESSEX 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
Variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioners comply with all the requirements of the Salem Fire
Department relative to fire safety.
2. All construction must comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts
Building Code.
3. That all new exterior finishes be in harmony with the finishes of the
existing buildings.
4. The petitioners obtain a Certificate of Occupancy.
VARIANCE GRANTED
chard A. Banca , 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. .i
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Ch-1pter 808, Section 11, the Variance
or!pecial Permit granW herein shall nat take effect until a copy of thei
decision, bearing tha 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 dismisses or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record Oa
Is recorded and noted •1 the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL]
•
�� fitu of Salem, {1RII85tItliuSPttB
a BQIIL0 of Aprai
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN
ASSOCIATION (YMCA) FOR VARIANCES AT 1 SEWALL/6 NORTH/284 ESSEX STS.
A hearing on this petition was held October 17. 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Edward Luzinski , Acting Chairman: Joseph Correnti , Richard
Febonio, Edward Luzinski , Mary Jane Stirgwolt 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.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting Variances from Section
VII D as it relates to loading bay requirements, Section VII J Swimming Pools,
and Dimensional Requirements regarding lot coverage to allow construction of
a two story addition which will house a regulation swimming pool on the first
floor and a consolidated fitness center on the second floor. The property is
located in the B-5 district.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions 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 . That the petitioner presented to the Board a videotape presentation on the
Salem YMCA and its history of community involvement.
2. That the Salem YMCA runs an after-school Day Care program recognized
and praised by the Salem School Committee.
3. That the petitioner currently has a waiting list for its various
day care programs and is severly constricted from lack of space at
the present location.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN
ASSOCIATION FOR VARIANCES AT 1 SEWALL/6 NORTH/284 ESSEX STS. , SALEM
page two
• 4. That the petitioner offers senior citizen programs, including
swimming pool activities.
5. That the existing sviimminq pool is undersized and overused.
6. That the petitioner has been in frequent contact with its neighbors
regarding its proposed plans, including the Wesley United Methodist Church.
a direct abutter. and has received no opposition from the abutters.
7. That there is overwhelming community support for this petition and that
eight (8) people spoke in favor of the petition.. including representatives
from the Salem Chamber of Commerce and the Salem Partnership Association.
8. That the petitioner has been engaged in a massive communit fund raising
drive and to date has raised over one million dollars to help fund the
proposed addition.
9. That the petitioner has withdrawn its request for a variance from the
minimum side yard provision as unnecessary.
10. That if the petition is allowed the petitioner •,ill be able to establish
and expand a pre-school day care center, after school day care, increased
scheduling of its most popular programs, and offer more adult programs.
• 11 . That there is no practical use for a loading bay on the petitioners premises.
12. That to not allow a variance to the ten foot restriction on swimming pools
in relation to building foundations would create a substantial hardship
to petitioner as they would be unable to erect this new indoor pool addition
due to the unique characteristics of their property.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not
the district in general .
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship on the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
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 obtain all necessary building permits.
• 2. That the exterior finish of the proposed addition be in harmony with the
main building as well as with the Wesley United Methodist Church.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM YOUNG MEN' S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION
FOR VARIANCES AT 1 SE'WALL/6 NORTH/284 ESSEX STS. . SALEM
page three
• 3. That a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
4. That all rules and regulations of the Salem Fire Department and the
Fire Prevention Code be strictly adhered to.
S. That all City and State building codes be strictly adhered to.
6. That all construction be in accordance with plans and dimensions submitted.
7. That the petitioner must apply to and appear before all other City
Boards and Commissions as deemed necessary by law, including but not
limited to the Salem Planning Board and the Design Review Board.
VARIANCES GRANTED
October 17, 1990
C �t 0 L11,t04)
pl C. C
Joseorrenti , ecretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
RPDFaI from"*decision, Ir"try,shag be meds Putsuam to section 17 Dl
the Mass General laws,Chapter 808,and shad be filed within 20 days
after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. General l:;.., Cl,-oter a08.Section 11, the Variance
Or?peoisl Permit granted h. Pin cin;; nut take effect until a copy of the
decision, hecrmq the certlfic:lion or the City Clerk that 20 days have
ekPsed a-la no arp"I hn, been :fled, or that, if such appeal has been
h;ed, that it h.,been dsmiceeo or rtenied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record of
Is recorded and noted sn the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF AppEAlr
•
JAN Lj iiJ ?y ;fl '�0
of §alem, Cfttssar4usg�ts
` '•`', :�.e•'r� POIILD of �C1LI{JZai nITY t:. ..
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID SCHAEJBE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AND VARIANCE AT 401 ESSEX ST. (B-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held January 17, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal , Febonio, Luzinski and
Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioner, owner of the property had requested a Special Permit to convert
a carriage house to a single family dwelling and a Variance from parking at the
above reference address which is located in a B-1 district.
The Board of Appeal , after opening the public hearing and hearing testimony from
Attorney William Lundregan representing Mr. & Mrs. John Silvia, 4 So. Pine St. ,
Salem, who are immediate abutters, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Neither petitioner nor his representative was• available to present
his proposal to the Board.
2. Legal counsel for affected residents present at the hearing spoke in
r
opposition to a continuance.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, the Board of Appeals voted
unanimously, 5-0, to deny with prejudice the requested variance and special
permit.
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
Peter A. Dore, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
r 7nne l from thl<. d_.i�;pr, if ..nv, chA:l be made pU'suant to section 17 of
•e f lass. General La:vs. Ch:m:er R:)J, and shall be filed within 20 days
the d::�: Cr c: fres daCislorl In the office of the City Clerf(. `
I'c ='nt % '•`:.s. Gane.o i.-.vs. ..... J0.3. Se_ticn 11, the variance
Pcrmit 7.mneea h:::ein ick2 eiiect until d copy of the
C:cL-ion, bearing the certification of the Cil, Clerk that 20 days have
e!n.ased and no appeal has been filed, er th;t, J such appeal has been
fi::d, ;hat it Cas been dismissed or denied is record^_d in the South Essex
Re^istry of Deeds and indexed undar the name or tha owner of record or
is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL'
,a.nrti
oftt[em, Cttssttdiusetts
• � F Boum of Aupeul
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MIROSLAW KANTOROSINSKI FOR A
VARIANCE AT 407 ESSEX ST./40 WARREN ST./403-405 ESSEX ST. -(B-1 )
T'( (: 1
A hearing on this petition was held May 30, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard A. Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Vice Chairman;
Mary Jane Stirgwolt, Acting Secretary 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 requesting variances to allow parcels to be divided as per
the plans submitted. Property is located in a B-1 district.
The Variances ,which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this
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 voiced to the plans.
2. Petitioner has received approvals from the Historical and Planning Boards.
3. The proposed plan would begin to straighten out lot lines 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 in general .
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MIROSLAW KANTOROSINSKI FOR
VARIANCES AT 407 ESSEX ST./40 WARREN ST./403-405 ESSEX ST. , SALEM
• page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the
Variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept.
2. The lots be divided as per the plans submitted.
GRANTED
Richard A. Bencal , Chai�G-
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 di
the Mass.General Laws.Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
afttr the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk,
Pursuant to :vlass. ::eneral Laws. Ch Ater 808, section 11, the Variance
or ?pecml Pei mil gr;nte7 herein shat not take efl•_ct until a copy of the
decision, b2min.,, the certification of the city C:2rk that 20 days have
elapsed and no apleat has been filed,or that,if such appeal hos been
• filed,that it has been dismisseG or denied is recorded In the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record 09-
is
Pis recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAU
v
:r
T
v'
V
N
C•n
c
� J Y
•
Off
:s aitn of J-5ttlem, CEttssttdtusetts..
;:•r`';,'`<Y.� s` 'Soura of CAvfreul
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOAO K. SAMPAIO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AT 5 FAIRMOUNT ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held October 17, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Joseph Correnti , Richard Febonio,
Mary Jane Stirgwolt and Associate Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was
sent to abutters and others and notices of the of 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 in order
to extend and enclose a back porch.
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 sturctures, 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.
r
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding of
the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The premises and building in question is a residential home in an R-2 zone.
2. All abutters of the premises were notified by mail of the this petition
before the Board.
3. That a petition with the signatures of eleven abutters was presented,
all of whom were in favor of the petition.
4. That the proposed extension will remain within the frame lines of the house.
5. That there was no opposition to the petition during the public portion
of the hearing.
One 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 changes will not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming use and can be granted in harmony with the Zoning
Ordinance and without derogating from its intent or the public good.
Y
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOAO K. SAMPAIO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AT 5 FAIRMOUNT ST. , SALEM
• page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to allow the
Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction be done in accordance with all City and State
building codes .
2. All construction be done as per plans and dimensions submitted and
amended to reflect a 7' x 14' extension.
3. Exterior finishes of the proposed porch be compatible with the
existing structure.
4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety be strictly adhered to.
5. A legal building permit be obtained prior to any construction.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
October 17, 1990
osep orrenti , 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 01
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter COB, ani shall be filed within 20 day9
after the date of filin3 01 til" d-,ci:ion in file olficc of the city Clerk.
Pursuant to rda;;. C::.te: (::' - %O'i, section 11, the Variance
er 'Ipecial Permit ruanle,' :u. ,^n sir nIt '-ka efhct onhl a COPY of the
decision. bearing the ccrid'.crcen Of tnc ch.y Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has been I,:ed. cr that, if such appeal has been
fired, that it has been diimised or d^.vied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under lie name or ithe owner of record or
Is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
fiDi' L
• � (ffitu of �ttlem, ^fflussttcltusetts . .
$ $Bnurb 0{ A v
peal
x
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALLIED REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES
AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 63 FLINT ST. (BPD)
A hearing on this petition was held November 7, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Joseph Correnti , Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 Variances from density requirements of Section VI ,
Taple IV as to minimum lot width, side yard setbacks, buffer area required and
open space required and a special permit to allow removal of existing buildings,
construction of two new buildings and continuation of nonconforming use for
retail and wholesale and storage of building supplies with offices and warehousing
associated with said use. Property is located in the Business Park Development
District (BPD)
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; 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 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
Seciton 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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALLIED REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES
AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 63 FLINT ST. , SALEM
• page two
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 from the neighbors expressed.
2. The request for relief was the result of an eminent domain proceeding
which calls for the removal of the existing buildings and the reduction
in the present lot size.
3. Granting the relief requested would allow for the continued use of the
land for business purpose.
4. The petitioner has operated a building supplies company at that location
for twenty five years.
5. The resolution of a dispute concerning the 15 foot right of way requires
the relocation of one building.
6. Plans for landscaping and fencing will be made in coordination with plans
for adjacent parcels by the Department of Public Works and St. James Church.
7. A letter in support of the petition was submitted by Mayor Neil J. Harrington.
• 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 provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
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 relief
requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction be done in compliance with City and State Building Codes.
2. All construction be completed according to plans and dimensions submitted.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety are to be strictly adhered to.
4. Legal Building Permits must be obtained prior to construction.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy for each building must be obtained.
•
r/r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALLIED REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES
AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 63 FLINT ST. , SALEM
• page three
6. All signs shall be in compliance with the City of Salem Sign Ordinance.
7. Petitioner must obtain the approval of any other City Board or Commission
that has jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, the Planning Board .
and the Conservation Commission.
GRANTED
November 7, 1990
Mary J e Stirgwolt 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
the r the General Laws. 17 of
after the Chapter 803. and shell he filed vAthin 20 days
• date of fil:na ei 111is recision In the Office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to
or apecial Pcr,.�• �.�•.. ... "'..°. ^i,. 0,4. �u.•:,n .t, the Variance
decision. •- -r:-+_ h: r.: ...:�::: �.: t '.. ^'f:rt -ta a COPY of the
.,.:. l 1,a •;;'.!L U.ty('u,k that 20 dnys have
elapsed aril l ;:pn:.nl iia- i;,cn d. or Iiia t, ,if WCh annvaf has been
filed,that d hss been disrni:; o; •ecied is regMed in the South Essex
Re91"Of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or.
Is t'soordod and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAu
•
i
,b (fitV of Salem, �41EttssucIlusetts
f
IV*} Poarb Of c u},enl,
_ � �-�,m,,•''• SEP
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALLIED REALTY TRUST FOR
VARIANCES & SPECIAL PERMIT AT 63 FLINT ST. (BPD)
A hearing on this petition was held September 19, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Joseph Correnti , Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 the Board to vary the density provisions of Section
VI , Table IV as to Minimum Lot Width, Width of Side Yard, Buffer Area required
and Open Space Required and a Special Permit in accordance with Section V B 10,
to allow removal of existing buildings, construction of two new structures and
continuation of nonconforming use for retail and wholesale and storage of building
supplies with offices and warehousing associated with said use. Property is
located in the Business Park Development District (BPD)
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; 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 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 any 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 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:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALLIED REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES
AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 63 FLINT ST. , SALEM
page two
1 . No opposition from the neighbors
2. The request for relief was the result ofan eminent d i" or6Ad rg ''
which calls for the removal of the existing buildings, and the reduction
in the present lot size.
3. Granting the relief requested would allow for the continued use of the
land for business purpose.
4. The petitioner has operated a building supplies company at that
location for twenty five years.
5. The was opposition by the owners of the Philson/Freelonic Office,
63 Grove St involving a right of way which is presently in litigation.
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 provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
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 relief
requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction be done in compliance with City and State Building Codes.
2. All construction be completed according to plans and dimensions submitted.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety are to be strictly adhered to.
4. Legal Building Permits must be obtained prior to construction.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy for each building be obtained.
6. All signs shall be in compliance with the City of Salem Sign Ordinance.
7. Petitioner must obtain the approval of any other City Board of Commission
that has jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, the Planning Board and
the Conservation Commission.
GRANTED
• September 19, 1990
d4&-ichard ebonio, Member, board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
y lily H 3 24 Pil `9D
(Qity of ttlem, '�9a55nC1J1A0?#!5
t ,>
PoaiD of '�pEaf -:rr "I [
DECISION ON 7 THE PETITION OF LIN-BAZ ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 175 FORT AVENUE (B-2)
A hearing on this petition was held March 7, 1990 at with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman, Messrs. , Bencal , Febonio, Luzinski
and Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from density require-
ments to allow the construction of an addition to the front of Cappy's Fried Foods.
Property is located in a B-2 District.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
land, 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 petitioner owns the only building at the Salem Willows whose place of
business is set back from the lot line of the property.
2. The addition would protect petitioners customers in inclement weather
conditions.
3. The addition would allow the petitioner to remain open later in the year.
4. There was no opposition to 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 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.
l
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LIN-BAZ ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR
VARIANCE AT 175 FORT AVENUE, SALEM
page two —_
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 of 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 . The petitioner comply with all the requirements of the Salem Fire
Department relative to fire safety.
2. All construction must comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts
Building Code.
3. All construction be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to the
Board of Appeal , dated 1/9/90 and intitialed by the Chairman of the Board.
The General Notes on said plan are incorporated into and are part of this
decision.
VARIANCE 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 decision. If any,shall be made pursuant to Sectll"1712
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 Ctty CVar ante
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808,sectcn 11. he
or special Permit rranted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearinn, the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has been 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
the name or the
is recorded and noted on the owner'h
s certificate ofTitle.ner of record or
BOARD OF APPEAL'
•
(Gitu ofulrm, assttrhusetts
7 -
Board of A}real
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRED J. DION YACHT YARD INC. (PETITIONER) ,
JOHN M. CLAYMAN (OWNER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 12 GOODHUE STREET (BPD)
A hearing on this petition was held January 31 , 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal , Luzinski , Dore and
Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of
the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to all a boat storage and service
business at 12 Goodhue Street currently in a BPD district. The property is
owned by John M. Clayman.
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 teh procedure and conditions set forth in Section
VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction on 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 . The petitioner has operated a yacht yard in a residential area for
many years without complaint.
2. The Ward Councillor, Kevin Harvey, expressed support of the petition,
as did Councillor Leonard O'Leary.
3. The proposed use is an extension of the maritime history of the City of Salem.
4. The site has been cleared of hazardous materials from previous industrial uses.
On the basis of the above finding of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which expecially affect the subject property but
not the district generally.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisons of the Ordinance would work a sub-
stantial hardship on the petitioner.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DION YACHT YARD. INC. (PETITIONER) JOHN M.
CLAYMAN (OWNER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 12 GOODHUE ST. , 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
Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . The petitioner comply with all the requirements of the Salem Fire
Department relative to smoke and fire safety.
2. The premises be utilized for boat storage and repairs only.
3. Appropriate signage is to places on the property relative to customer parking.
4. Entrance and exit to the property is to be from Goodhue Street only.
5. Hours of operation between sun-up and sun-down.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
l�60)
ames M. Fleming, squire
• 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;:! 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!inr, of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mau. (%: e t..: s. :'+ =: sus. section 11, the variance
or °pedal P,: �rrn:t r - e. It:.0 : :...: :of take eliect until a copy of the
decision. ^_-nn? :h^ r.cr:f.r,;;t_;t of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed an. no r.uac.l h t,cen I:.od, or that. if such appeal has been
filed. that it has been dismisses 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.APPEA13
•
Eitn of 1�ttlem, ffla85FICl1uSPttS
Wit ,•
i . boarb of Appral
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL BALIOTIS FOR VARIANCES
AT 12 GREENWAY ROAD (R-1 ) ='y °:-,•'r:r:.,-;.
A hearing on this petition was held January 31 , 1990 and continued until March
7, 1990 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman;
Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman; Edward Luzinski , 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 variances to divide parcel into
two lots, and to construct a single family on one lot with the existing single
family to remain as it is at 12 Greenway Rd. Property is located in an R-1 zone.
The specific variances requested are, for lots identified on plan submitted as
A & B on which the existing home sits : minimum lot area and lot area per dwelling
unit to allow 7732+ sq.ft. ; lot width to 75+ ft. ; front yard to allow 10+ ft. and
accessory building side and rear setback to 2+ft. On lots identified as C & D
(proposed dwelling) , Minimum lot area and lot area per dwelling to allow 7,699+
sq. ft. and front yard of 14.39+ ft.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
,\ J, a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, building 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 . The lot as it is now is significantly larger than other abutting lots
or those in the general district.
2. Petitioner has met with neighbors, abutters and others to reach a plan
agreeable to all parties.
3. For this lot to be left as is would cause financial hardship to petitioner.
4. The proposed lots would be closer in size to abutting lots and thus would
not derogate from the intent of the district.
• 5. The present dwelling and the proposed dwelling would be used as a single
family only and would thus be in harmony with the district.
/ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL BALIOTIS FOR VARIANCES AT
12 GREENWAY ROAD. 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:
I . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but
not the district in general .
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve a
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
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 . Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept.
2. All construction be done as per all existing City and State Building Codes.
3. All construction be done as per plans and dimensions submitted, included
that the proposed dwelling have:
a. a top of foundation elevation;
• b. a basement floor elevation;
c. a driveway; and
d. a soil contour,
all substantially at elevations set forth as either existing or proposed in
"Grading Plan of Land on Greenway Road in Salem, Mass. for Steven Baliotis,
Hancock Survey Associates, Inc. , 2 Electronics Avenue, Danvers, Mass. , Dated:
February 22, 1990: Scale: 'I" = 20' . "
4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for the new dwelling.
5. Proper numbering be obtained from the City of Salem Assessor 's Office.
6. All grading and soil contour be as per the plan submitted and noted as
"Grading Plan of Land on Greenway Road in Salem Mass. for Steven Baliotis,
Hancock Survey Associates, Inc. , 2 Electronics Avenue. , Danvers, Mass. ,
Dated February 22, 1990; Scale: 1" = 20' ."
7. The proposed dwelling have granite curbing as set forth in grading plan.
8. Satisfaction of said conditions shall be evidenced by the issuance to the
petitioner of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed dwelling.
GRANTED )
�J os 1 ��
• 'fWchard A. BSncal , Vice Chairma-`n
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
r'
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL BALIOTIS FOR VARIANCES AT
12 GREENWAY ROAD, SALEM
page three
4peal 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. ChLn•:r 808, Section 11, the variance
or tpecial Permit granted herein zrn-.a not tike 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 dismisseJ 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 &.i the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
J
•
3�
rE9
of -Jalem, .,�fttsstztlt} setts
Potts of C�upeal ITY cl.e;, :.i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF TED BROTHERS FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 12 HANSON ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held January 17, 1990 and continued until
February 21 , 1990 with the following Board members present: James Fleming,
Chairman, Messrs. , Bencal , Luzinski , Dore and Labrecque. Notice of the hearing
was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published
in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit permit to allow construction of a
secondary loading area in this R-2 district.
The Board of Appeal , after unanimously granting the petitioner a continuance on
January 17, 1990 to the first meeting in February, denied a request for further
continuance. The petitioner then requested leave to withdraw without prejudice.
The Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Bencal opposed) to allow petitioners
request for withdrawal .
r WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE
,',James Fleming, Esq. , Cha.i:rman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
11A1 Z3 Z 1J h '9J
F!Le,i
" inti ofttlem, C. is
` F 33oarb o{ ,�I1pfII1
`,•cn�rv,.r1'
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AND A VARIANCE AT 81 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held May 16, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Edward Luzinski, Acting Chairman; Richard Febonio, Joseph
Correnti, Mary Jane Stirgwolt 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.
Petitioners, owners of the property, represented by Attorney John Serafini, Jr. ,
are requesting a Special permit to extend a nonconforming use and structure by
allowing the construction of an addition to the present structure and expanding
the surgicenter, also a Variance from parking. 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 of
'` •% nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of
/ nonconfoeming lots, land, structure, and uses, provided, however, that such
change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings 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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND
• A VARIANCE AT 81 HIGHLAND 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 . Salem Hospital is a nonconforming use permitted by Special Permit
in an R-1 zone.
2. The present use of the entire area occupied by Salem Hospital is a
legal nonconforming one.
3. The proposed changes will not unreasonably increase the volume or
area of the existing nonconforming buildings.
4. The proposed changes will not be substantially more detrimental than
the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
5• The proposed changes can be implemented in harmony with the present non-
conforming structures, both structurally and aesthetically.
6. The total number of parking spaces requested for the variance will be
substantially the same as the present number of spaces.
7. Petitioner's land is peculiar in shape and size - a condition which
affects petitioner's land but not other lands in the Zoning District.
• 8. There will be minimal change in the parking layout that has existed for
many years.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed changes will not be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than the existing nonconforming use and can be granted in
harmony with the Zoning Ordinance and without derogating from its intent
or the public good.
2. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property
but not the district in general.
3. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
4. 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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND
A VARIANCE AT 81 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM
page three
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit and Variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire
safety be strictly adhered to.
2. Exterior finishes of the new addition be in harmony with the existing
structure and appropriate landscaping done.
3. A drop-off area for handicapped patients be maintained.
4. Plans be reviewed by the Inspector of Buildings prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
5• All construction be done as per the dimensions and plans submitted and
in accordance with all City and State codes.
SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE GRANTED
of a) ems)
)AJosgrh C. Correnti, 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 01
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
after the date of filing of thia decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to fdas>. General Laws. Ch^p!er 80a, Section 11, the variance
or $ecial Permit ^rsnir.' Ir=re" s:r Il hot take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and ro appeal his been tiled, or that, i1 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"
Is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPFAU
r
h,
� . Ctu of Salem, �Rttssadjusetto
}
• ' 3 s Paura of �ppeal HAY 15 10 32 '
90
FIf rr.;:.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AT 81 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1 ) ''7Y >[
- 4t:S5:
A hearing on this petition was held February 21 , 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Edward Luzinski , .Associate Members
Peter Dore 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.
Petitioners, owners of- the property, are requesting a Special Permit to create
additional office space within an open court yard within - the main hospital
building. The property is located in an R-1 zone.
777
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 SpecialPermits for alterations and reconstruction
of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion
of nonconforming lots, land, structues, and uses, provided, however, that such
change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more
Iwo 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 public hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings
of fact:
1 . The proposed construction will not encroach on any setback requirements.
2. No opposition was voiced to the plan.
3. The proposed office space will benefit the populace through more
health care availability.
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 promote the convenience of the City residents.
ie2. The proposed addition will promote the health of the City residents.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AT 81 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested, subject to-t-he following conditions:
1 . All construction be done as per all existing City and State Building Codes.
2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire _ _-_ _—
safety be strictly adhered to.
3. All construction be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted.
4. Exterior finishes be in harmony with the existing structure.
5. Certificate of Occupancy for the new addition be obtained. --"
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Edward Luzinski , Jlltmber, Board of Appea
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
cs :,
--� Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 d
the Mass.General Laws,Chapter 808.and shall be filed within 20 deye
V - after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. •�
;n
Pursuant to Mass.General Laws,Chapter 808, Section 11,the Variance
or!pecial Permit granted h=rein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing the certification of the city Clerk that 20 days ave
elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that, If such appeal has been
,,,. d or denied is recorded in the South Essex
filed,that It has been dismisse
= Registry of Deeds and Indexed under the name or the owner of rewfdee
Is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAU Ial
JON 22 8 35 di'i '90
.nq,y
flit of Salem,IL
� ttssttel� setas
ultra of L ezil
V
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STUART AND IMY GOULD FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 116 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held June 6, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard A. Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Vice Chairman;
Joseph Correnti , Secretary, Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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
existing building to be expanded by five feet to the east. Property- is -located
in an R-1 zone.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordiance 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 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 . No parking spaces would be deleted by the plan.
2. Support and opposition was in both voice and letter form.
3. The Salem Zoning Ordinance allows private clinics within 1 ,500 feet
of Salem Hospital and the locus is within this distance.
4. The addition would be for expanded space in existing offices and would
not add any more offices.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The expansion and enlargement of this structure is not more detrimental
to the public good than the present structure.
i
.w�
• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STUART AND IMY GOULD FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 116 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Febonio in opposition) to
grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction be done as per existing city and state building codes.
2. All construction be done as per the plans and dimension submitted.
3. All exterior finishes are to be in harmony with the existing
exterior finishes.
4. A legal building permit be obtained.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy for the new addition be obtained.
6. Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department
relative to smoke and fire safety.
7. No change in the number of parking spaces on the site shall be made.
8. No additional rooms are to be added by this construction.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTEDee
Richardd O�,III, F
A. Bencal , Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
O Appeal from this decision, If any, shall be made pursuant to section 17 0111
?� 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
Ln
or Yrecial Permit Granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
C - decision, tearin! the Certification at 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
N - Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
N
y `:J is recorded and noted On the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAU.
•
fl�itn ofbourb of ttlem, � ttssttilTuset"s
I I 1 Ire
... 19i r.1•m�Jr�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEVON BOGOSSIAN FOR A VARIANCE AT 150 HIGi-N!D AVE. (R-1)
A hearing on this petition was held January 17, 1990 with the following Board
present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal , Luzinski , Febonio and
Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from rear setback
requirements to allow construction of an addition in this R-1 zone.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other lands, buildings 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 not opposition presented at the hearing.
2. The proposed addition is in harmony with the existing neighborhood.
3. The location of the proposed addition is the only location whereby the
petitioner can accomplish his needed expansion of the house.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, 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 Ordinance would involve sub-
stantial hardship to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
• i the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEVON BOGOSSIAN FOR A VARIANCE
AT 150 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM
• page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . The petitioner must comply with all the requirements of the Salem Fire
Department relative to smoke and fire safety.
2. All work be done in compliance with the State Building Code.
3. All work be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to the Board.
4. The petitioner obtain a Certificate of Occupancy.
5. All the exterior finishes of the addition are to be in harmony with the
finishes of the existing buildings.
VARIANCE GRANTED 1�- 0 40)
2 4 4 J�9 C:�
James M. Fleming Esquire
Chairman, Board of Appeal
• 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 01
the Mass. General Laws. Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
atter the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clark,
Pursuant to Mass. General La'•%5. Ch.:^-er 808. section 11, the variance
or °pedal Permit praN.o.i herein sha:l :.:i take ellect until a copy of the
?ccdswn, heerin2 the emit,cTion of the City C:erk that 20 days have
e:apsed ani no appeal has been tiled, or that. if such appeal has been
bled, that it has been dismisses or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record oa
is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Tills.
BOARD OF APPEAL!
m ya
JUL
so
FAF
of alem, flassa4t1usetts
-c.... J 'Nnttra of (�u{�enl
y/r.1..T1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF TWO HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN HIGHLAND
AVENUE PARTNERSHIP FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 227 HIGHLAND AVE. (B-2)
A hearing on this petition was held June 27, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal ,Chairman; Peter Dore, Acting Secretary, Edward
Luzinski , Vice Chairman; Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 Robert Ledoux, are requesting a Special
Permit to allow construction of an Automatic Teller Machine 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:
1 . Proposed construction is within a shopping center and would be a free
standing building two hundred fifty two (252) square feet.
2. The "Kiosk Style" building would be used as a bank.
3. No opposition to the proposal was presented.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The proposed construction of the Automatic Teller Machine will be in
harmony with the surrounding area and will promote the convenience and
welfare of the City's inhabitants.
2. The requested Special Permit 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 TWO HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN HIGHLAND AVENUE
PARTNERSHIP FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 227 HIGHLAND AVE. , 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 . Construction must be in accordance with plans and dimensions submitted.
2. Construction must comply with all City and State Building Codes.
3. Petitioner must obtain a building permit.
4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety are to be strictly adhered to.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Peter Dore, Acting Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
• Appeal from this decision, If any, shall be filed within 20 days
the Mass. General Laws.Chapter gig, and
lerk
attar the date of flung of this Laws
Ch;�a,808. sece office tion 11, theCvar ante
Pursuant to Mass.Gencral La.�s, of the
or !pecial Permit granted horein shall not take effect until a copy
E71o appeal has been
`„ decision, bearing thea1 has beenntiledof `nor tha� Cityt.if suchlerk aappt t 20 days have
elapsed an".na app
filed,that it has he^-^ "as be
or
denied is recorded In the South Essex
s
Refistry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
ertif
cate of Title
is recorded and noted �n the ownar BOARD1 OF APPEAL
Cn
J � y
J
J
y�
y ' : Cjtn of �$ttlem, C4Fu9saC4usetts
Potts of hupeA
Rf�UTI,J�
MODIFICATION OF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF 227 HI"D AVENUE PARTNERSHIP FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 227 HIGHLAND AVE. (I/B-2)
A hearing on this petition was held Noverber 16, 1989 with the following Board M3rbers present:
Janes 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
meeting of January 17, 1990, the Zoning Board of Appeal unanimously modified said decision by in-
cluding in condition nlrrber 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.
+J
Richard T. Febonio, Merber, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS MODIFICATION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
F._-nc:! trem ih'u^ decision, it any, shall be�ad"-• Lfi,,dt win 29 days o section 17 of
t::c 'Snss. G^rer^I L-rus, chapter EDS, cr UI the laity Clcrk.
•,;;,. ty„ ct ii;in� of this decision in theU., C% , the Variance
.".'ss. General Laws, Ch'r"'.' �-3. S'cc:n i,
r ':P^ci�I P^rr.ii r;an:ed herein sh:i! anti!a copy of the
tlemion, lag certification of lha City C.^.rk L'iat 20 da1's have
ellp`-ed ;ua 113 copced has been filed, or thit, it s'jch appeal has been
filed, that is P.:s been dismissed or eenied is m.,orded in the South Esse%
Re.,istry of oceds and indexed under the name or the owner of record od
is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAU —, � r—
� = a
r-; x
. ry
4e
N
�( Co
fR, ,' -.
CD
O
yy
of ,$alem, �46tt9saC11U9eJts
PO22Ia 0{ c�`Wenl
SEP SEP zu C6 ii .�
DECISION ON A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION AT 394 HIGHLAND AVE. ,.:.:„
THOMAS KATSAPETSIS, TRUSTEE, PRIME INVESTMENT TRUST
A hearing on this petition was held September 19, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Joseph Correnti , Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 twenty four month extension on
Condition 2(v) of a Consent Judgment- that was entered into on August 18, 1986.
The property is located in a BPD District. The extension is requested to allow
the completion of the remaining units in the condominium project.
The Board of Appeal , after carefully considering the evidence presented, makes the
following findings of fact:
1 . All municipal services required by the Consent Judgment made on August 18,
1986 in Superior Court were installed within three (3) years from the date
of approval of definitive plans.
• 2. Construction of all of the proposed condominium units has not been completed
due to changes in economic conditions.
3. The petitioner acquired the property subject to the Consent Judgment and
requests a twenty four (24) month time extension to comply with that
Consent Judgment.
4. Several occupants and neighbors of the condominium complex spoke in favor
of the petition, citing improvements made by the petitioner once he acquired
an interest in the property.
5. A petition signed by ninety seven (97) individuals in favor of the extension
was presented for the record.
6. The construction thus far completed, coupled with changing economic conditions,
make this property unique within the zoning district and create a hardship
for the petitioner if the time extension is not granted.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the 24 month
extension on condition all other conditions of the Consent Judgment made on April
18, 1986 in Superior Court be complied with.
a C�G'"Ol
Mary Jep5tirgwolt, Mmber 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, 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 Chpater 808, section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein
shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days
have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such 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 or the owner of record
r.r ie re ,,4ar4 nnr1 mi-M m thu rl. rlc rcr4ifira4n of T41n
OCT ",j
;:. b - • f91tn of �ttlem, HttssttclrusPtts,
• ; F Bawd of C'Av zezil
L
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LUCILLE MALONE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AT 471 HIGHLAND AVE. (6-2)
A hearing on this petition was held October 17,1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Joseph Correnti , Secretary; Richard
Febonio, Mary Jane Stirgwolt 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 a
Bottle Redemption and Discount Beverage Center in this B-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in
Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction
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 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 . Significant opposition was presented by abutters, neighbors and others.
2. Support was voiced by abutters and others.
3. There have been many traffic problems in the general locus in the past.
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 allowing of a bottle redemtion and discount beverage center would be a
detriment to the City inhabitants and would not promote the welfare and
safety of its inhabitants.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 2-3 against the motion to grant, (Mr.
Febonio, Mr. Labreque & Ms. Stirgwolt voted in opposition, Mr. Bencal and Mr.
Aj Correnti voted in favor) Having failed to garner the required four affirmative
voted needed to grant , the Special Permit is denied.
DENIED
chard A. Bencal , Chairman
i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LUCILLE MALONE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AT 471 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM
page two
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND .THE CITY CLERK
App^.al from this dscision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Sec!ir. P of
ino fa,s;. General Lay.—., C:i:.ptor 3C3, and shall be fi:c:l :r.th'..^. 20;lays
af:i r i'ie dare of fiti,3 of this docicion in the office of tho City C:ork.
c:..:ccnt to h.i::as. Gs::_rc: La,,s. Chzp %S, Scc':�n 11. bm V::riancc
c. .. `rmit rar.:vi h=rein shall not taku a ropy of the
d=c::.icn, L•r:ri:3 ':r_ cz;bfication of the City C:erk that 20 days have
al: ." and no :;:-t:'; hos boon flled, or that, if such a;:peal has been
fii_d, ;iat it 1::s b'en di;miased 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 an the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAD
•
(Ilitu ofr5ajem, �fHttsstteljuWtf�
� -
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN ELLIS JR. FOR VARIANCES
AT 256 JEFFERSON AVE. (B-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held January 31 , 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman;
Edward Luzinski , 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, represented by Attorney John Keilty, Peabody,
is requesting a Variance from lot area, lot width, lot coverage, front yard depth,
side and rear yard setbacks as well as parking, to allow four apartment units
in this B-1 zone.
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 . To external changes are to be made to the property.
2. Property is located in a business zone (B-1 )
3. The property was purchased by the petitioner in 1980 as a four family
and has been used as such on and off since at least then as a four family.
4. The area in question is a highly congested area and borders on a high
traffic intersection.
5. Property is assessed by the City of Salem for three units only.
6. Opposition was presented in letter form by Ward 3 City Councillor
Vincent Furfaro and opposition by abutters and others was voiced at the
hearing.
l
1. No support, other than from the petitioner, was expressed in any form.
t
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN ELLIS JR. FOR VARIANCES AT
256 JEFFERSON AVE. , 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 but not the district in general :
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning 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 and substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 0 to 5 against the granting the
requested Variances, Variances are therefore denied.
DENIED
R'Tchard A. L'encal , Vice Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• Artieal Isom this dncicier., if any shall be wide pursuant to section 17 of
tile Mass. Genernl Uvis, Chapter 808, and shell he Nadi vuthin 20 days
ai cr ;S� (Jta of fdhn1. of 'hi% de•J,sion In the O1hC, of the City Clerk.
P:c '•i:a ;) :: ;L. ^.]r_ra, Ll-,:, r:!! :: ..r)t:).4. S;!^tion 11. the Variance _
c: : .:• .':: : o:•^:m :n .! .:; take ell:•..^t until a copy of the
.__:::ron. : .n". •:r.. c'_,: I:., m 'I _ Citv l,!ar Y. th;,t 20 drys )live
-..p:;::J .'::': :;:CJI i•.r: ':^C:1 i.:.a 1. ur '!!,;t, -t ]Orh appeal has peen
t..:^J. 1.: I :; .; UC::❑ ;9qn::::;:,; pr 9Ccl i•: rdcerrlyd in the South Ecs,,
tC.^i;by uI i1.:ed5 end In:ie".tl uncl,:r Iiia ndlnn or Pir, o•vner of record OC
Is recorded and noted on the owners certificate of litla.
-. BOARD OF,gPYEM/"
•
y-
b flitu of �z1Pm, � tt85uCl1usPttS -
S? �OATU OI C1peal
oma
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARIA A. COSTA FOR A VARIANCE
AT 32 IRVING ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held October 17, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Joseph Correnti , Edward Luzinski ,
Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from rear setback
requirement to allow construction of a deck in this R-2 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this
Board that:
1 . 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.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
• 3. Desirable relief may granted without substantial detriment to the public
goad 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 . That there was opposition by the abutters.
2. That there was no one present to speak in favor.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, :the.Board of:Appeal-concludes :as-follows:
1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property
but 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.
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARIA COSTA FOR A VARIANCE AT
32 IRVING ST. , SALEM
• page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5, against the
granting of the requested variance. The motion to grant having failed to garner
the required four affirmative votes needed to pass, the Variance is denied.
DENIED
October 17, 1990
chili and T.—Febonio, Member
Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this declslott.If 8119.shall Ed 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 ti; Cary C!_ria
• Pursuan, ,o Mass.General Laws. Chapter 808. Section :t„ uie Variance
of ;, m,i vmnte? herein sh:,;l .,of take eifrct ua i a cen•/ of the
decisiot. 'hn cwtiticatioa of the City Cif such apnJ..IIJ%stbeen
elapsed cnr .;o ipoe^I has been nieJ, or that,
fi'ed ttiat it I'as bean dismissed or denied is recorded in the Sou'.h Essex
Registry of Deeds and indered under the name or the owner of record or
Re
Is gistryrecorf and noted an the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL'
•
7
;b (Eitu of �zlem, � usstt�ljulaetts .
� 77peal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANIEL WONG FOR A VARIANCE
AT 363 LAFAYETTE ST. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held February 21 , 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal , Luzinski , 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.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from density, side
yard and rear yard setback requirements to allow construction of a deck and an
addition to extend interior living space in this R-1 zone.
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
log
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 proposal .
2. Five abutters signed a petition in favor of the proposal .
3. Changes to the exterior of the dwelling are minimal and in
harmony with other dwellings in the neighborhood.
4. Property improvements would enhance the quality of life for the
occupants.
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 expecially 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;
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 DANIEL WONG FOR A VARIANCE
• AT 363 LAFAYETTE STREET, SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Marshal must be met.
2. Construction must be in accordance with all city and state buildings codes.
3. All construction must be in accordance with the plans submitted.
4. Exterior changes must be in harmony with existing dwellings in the
neighborhood.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained.
6. Petitioner must comply with conditions previously established in a
Board of Appeal decision to allow construction of a garage on the site.
VARIANCES GRANTED
Peter Dore, Acting Secretary
• 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 FA
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
after the date of filing of this decision in the offJQ@ of the city Clerk.
P•:rsuz1nt to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808. Section 11, the variance
or pecial Permit nranted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
do-k-,ion, h^.wring the certification of the city Clerk that 20 days have
el.pled and no appeal has been filed, 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 or. .
f§ teQetded.apo nptgd gn thQ Owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL'
•
,a. b
y �: f1lit ofttlem, � ttssttdiusetts
Puma of '�upenl $EP [iJ
, _� �•.om,: tg Ali JJ
DECISION ON THE—P_ETI-T-I.ON-OF LEONIDAS & MICHELE GETSIM. FpR,
VARIANCES ATJ47 LEAVITT AND 108 CONGRESS STS. (R-3) '4-
A hearing of this petition was held September 19, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Joseph Correnti , Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 Massahcusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting Variances to allow parcels at 47 Leavitt St. and
108 Congress St. to be divided, the property is located in an R-3 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which 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 presented at the hearing.
2. Division of the property will not change the use of the properties.
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.
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.
1 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEONIDAS & MICHELE GETSOM FOR
VARIANCES AT 47 LEAVITT ST. & 108 CONGRESS ST. , SALEM
page two
1 . Division to be done as per the plans submitted.
GRANTED
September 19, 1990
ktc and T. Febonio, 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 d1
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, Ch.peer 808, Section 11, the Variance
or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
• elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such 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 Tula.
BOARD OF APPEAL,
N
CL
•r t)r
r.
Cr)
c
•
(Eitn of 'j�ttlem, C-
fflassa dhisette
,s Pnura of 'Appeal
♦� � � Nr r.UT �
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND & MARY SHEA FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 12 LOONEY AVE. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held May 16, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard A. Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 attached shed on the side of the property 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 VI B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set 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.
J1\•� Ih 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 house was built in 1961 with a valid building permit.
2. The small shed was built in 1963 by the same contractor without a building
permit.
3. The possible zoning violation was discovered in a recent title search.
4. Photographs indicate that the construction of the shed was in harmony
with the house and it is barely visible from the street.
5• Several letters in support of the petition were read into the record.
6. No opposition to the plan was expressed.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
-�� Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
r --
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND AND MARY SHEA FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 12 LOONEY AVE. , SALEM
page two
• i . 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.
Therefore, the Zoning .Board of. Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety,
be strictly adhered to.
2. All eimensions be as per plans submitted.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Mary JafRtirgwolt, Me r, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
I• Repeal from this decision, If any,shall be made pursuant to Section I?
`` the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days .�
atter the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. Goner;: L.iv:s, 01 —or 808, Section 11, the Variance
or !pecial Permit *mown I t:^ N• i not take effect until a copy of the
decision, beann.? the eertil:ctl .•, ci the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appe:d hos !::en ;::=f• or that. if such appeal has been
filed, that it hes been dlsniis.e.; or denlod is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record oa
It noorded and noted e r the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAU
•
-� -�`
coo
3 of(g*tu of ttlemuss clTus> �peal 1;TY
FILEi:'
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD HOGAN & DIANE MACKEY FOR
VARIANCES AT 463 LORING AVE. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held May 16, 1990 with the following Board Members
present: Richard A. Bencal, Chairman; Edward Luzinski, Vice ;hairman; Joseph
Correnti, Secretary; Ric .ard Febonio & Mary Jane Stirgwolt. Notice of the hearing
.aas sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published
in. the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance from rear and
side setbacks to allow construction of a deck in this R-1 zone.
The 'Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board
that:
a. Pecial conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
ouilding 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 ?resented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of facts:
I . No opposition was voiced to the plan;
2. The proposed location for the deck is the only suitable location;
3. The deck will add to the use and enjoyment of the property for 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 in general;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship on the petitioner;
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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD HOGAN & DIANE MACKEY FOR
VARIANCES AT 463 LORING 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 conditions of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety
be strictly adhered to.
2. All construction be done as per existing City and State Building Codes.
3. All dimensions be as per the plans submitted.
4. All material used be in harmony with materials of existing structure. .
5. Legal building permit be obtained.
VARIANCE GRANTED
10
R'Lthard A. Bencal, Chairman
A COM OF THS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
shall bre made pursuant to Section 17 of
Appeal from this decision,If any,
• o the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be tiled within 20 days
after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
the Variance
�;.`. Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808. Section 11,
cr ?pn_cial Permit cranted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
v - v de-ir.iun, tearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, i1 such appeal has been
e
g — filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South ssex
a
Registry of Deeds and indexed under
and noted an the owner's h
'sCertificate of Title. of record
isor
BOARD OF APPEAL'
•
`r C ita of ttlem, {fit tts5adluseits
-Soura of Appy tl
'ti• ;_�;� SPR ;b c�
lilt .J
FILE;:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF VINNIN ASSOCIATES REALTY TRUST 'T'
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 LORING HILLS AVENUE (MAP 21 , PARCEL 96)
R-3 Zone
A hearing on this petition was held March 28, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman;
Edward Luzinski , 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 requestina a Special Permit in order to
allow construction of a 123 bed nursing home in this R-3 zone.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section IX D, which provides as follows:
"In hearing and deciding applications for Special
Permits, the Board of Appeal shall decide such
questions as are involved in determining whether
such Special Permit should be granted, and shall
•' grant Special Permits with such conditions and
safeguards as are appropriate under this Ordinance
or shall deny Special Permits when not in harmony
with the purpose and intent of this Ordinance.
The Board of Appeals shall not have the power to
grant any Special Permit where use of land or structure
is specifically excluded from the district. "
In more general terms, this Board is , when reviewing Special Permit requests .
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The proposed use is in harmony with the intent specified in the City of
Salem Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to the R-3 zone with the grant of a
Special Permit.
2. Various letters of support for the project were read, as well as actual
testimony being voiced by health care professionals and others.
3. Opposition,in the form of letters, was read and actual testimony was
• also voiced by abutters and others.
4. The ownership and operation of the proposed nursing home would be by
persons with long experience in this industry. They have owned and
operated such facilites in the area.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF 'VINNIN ASSOCIATES REALTY TRUST FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 LORING HILLS AVENUE (MAP 21 . PARCEL 96) . SALEM
page two
• 5. The need for nursing home bed space . as stated by petitioner and others ,
is very acute.
6. Petitioner presented an actual recent traffic count study for visitors,
employees and delivery vehicles at similar facilities.
7. The 2 acre lot of the proposed nursing home is in close proximatey to an
area of mixed uses, such as commercial and residential .
8. The proposed use of a nursing home would be less of a traffic burden
than residential . The area is served by major roadways.
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 will promote the public good by meeting the need for
nursing homes.
2. The proposed nursing home is in harmony with the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance.
3. The proposed nursing home will promote the public health, safety convenience
and welfare of the City' s inhabitants.
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.
2. Property Street numbering be obtained the the City of Salem Assessors Office.
3. All construction be done as per existing City and State building Code and
as per plans and dimensions submitted.
4 . Proper shrubbery shall be placed, and maintained in perpetuity, along lot
lines and throughout the property with the approval of the Salem Planning
Department.
5. Any and all dumsters shall be placed away from the present adjacent
condominiums site line and these dumpsters shall also be properly screened.
6. Property approvals, if required, be obtained from any and all other
applicable City and State Boards or Commissions, such as, but not limited to,
the Planning Board, Conservation Commission or Board of Health.
7. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
8. Petitioner explore, and make good faith effort to secure traffic lights
for interseciton of Carol Way and Loring Avenue.
• 9. Petitioner shall abide by all decisions of the Salem Planning Board
relative to traffic flow for this and adjacent projects.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF VLNNIN ASSOCIATES REALTY TRUST FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 LORING HILLS AVENUE (MAP 21 , PARCEL 96) , SALEM
page three
10. Petitioner shall obtain rights. if required, to use Loring Hills Avenue.
If,and when, such permission is obtained, petitioner shall be responsible
for all maintenance, repair, snow plowing and the like for Loring Hills
Avenue.
11 . Petitioner shall , in conjunction with adjacent condominium associations,
work out a proportionate payment for shared common areas and facilities.
12. Developer shall cooperate with building a guardhouse or other safety
facility for the condominium association on Carol Way or Loring Hills Ave.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED � /
Richard A. Be al , 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 Mass. General La::s, 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 fAacs. G^_neral Laws. Chanter 808. Section 11, the variance
or Eoccial Parma nran:e' c^.ern shall not take effect until a copy of the
• decision. bearinr. in! cert&cation of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appesl h7s been hhd, or that, if such appeal has been
filed, that it has been o:smisse0 or denied is recorded In the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and mfexed under the name or the owner of record or
Is recorded and noted rr the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPFJW
•
-Cf'>' of Iem, Anseadjusetts OCT ._
i
}
nura of � enl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WITCH DUNGEON MUSEUM, INC. FOR A
VARIANCE FOR 16 LYNDE ST. (B-5)
A hearing on this petition was held September 19, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Vice Chairman; Mary
Jane Stirgwolt, Acting Secretary; Richard Febonio and Associate Member John Grady.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioners are requesting a Variance pursuant to Section 3-56 and Section
3-34 of the City of Salem Ordinance relating to Signs and Billboards to allow
the installation of a directional sign on the east bound side of North Street
indicating directions to the Witch Dungeon Museum which is located in a B-5 zone.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
buildings or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
meati• lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
a 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 . That it is in the best interests of the community to promote
tourist attractions within the City of Salem.
2, 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.
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 provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
�• substantial hardship to the petitioner.
I
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WITCH DUNGEON MUSEUM FOR A
j VARIANCE FOR 16 LYNDE ST. , 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
Variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . The sign be no greater than 4 feet by 4 feet in dimension.
2. That the sign installed conform with the description provided with
said application.
3. That in the event that the City of Salem adopts a uniform sign plan that
the petitioner will install a sign that conforms with said plan.
4. That petitioner agrees to an eighteen ( 18) month review period to determine
the impact of the sign at said location.
5. That petitioner obtain all necessary permits or approvals from appropriate
state agencies relating to signs on public roadways.
VARIANCE GRANTED
September 19, 1990
ohn H. Grady, Xssociat rMember
City of Salem, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
the Mass. Generali Laws, Chapter 803, and shall pursuant
be filed itsection
ed with n 20 days
after the data of filing. of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass.General Laws. Chaor 805, Section 11, the variance
or 'cecia! Permit granted ;,.rein ahc;il nut take effect until a copy of the
decision, t;emn t!h^cer:.Cc¢!4m of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed anr!no apreal has :—en or that, if such appeal has been
filed,that it ties_ b=en d:s!nis'o.: a: dcnied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed ummer U:e name or the owner of record or
Is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
130ARD OF APPEAL
•
�
v
�'° of� ��l����[' ��������d ����A�^m1 | || ��
��
;
�� �° �� �� °x�
��o���° �^ �����wm
` �
Y �i��
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL E. FONTAlNC FOR 8 VARIANCE
AT l M&LJ0E DRIVE (LOT #4) (8~1 )
8 hearing no this petition was held February 21 , lqqU with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , 8eucal, Luo1ooki and
Associate Members Dore and 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 40&,
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from rear setback
requirements to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this 8~1 zone.
The Variance °b1cb has been requested may he 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
ktbe 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 . There was no opposition to the petition presented at the hearing.
2. The lot shape is irregular, different from those in the oou1og district.
3^ The only use that petitioner has for the lot is for single family use.
On the hao10 of the above f1uUiuQo of fact` and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
l . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but
not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve a
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
]. Desirable relief can 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.
'
DECISON ON THE PETITION OF PAUL E. FONTAINE FOR A VARIANCE
AT 1 MALONE DRIVE (LOT #4) , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variance requested from rear setback requirement to allow construction of a
single family dwelling, subject to the following conditions:
1 . That the petitioner conform to all the requirements of the Salem
Fire Department relative to fire safety.
2. That the petitioner obtain proper street name and numbering from the
Assessors Office, City of Salem.
3. That all construction be done as per the State Building Code.
4. That all construction be done with a legal building permit, and as per
the plans and dimensions submitted to the Board of Appeal.
5. That the petitioner obtain a Certificate of Occupancy prior to
occupying the residence.
VARIANCE GRANTED
James M. Fleming, Esquire
• V Chairman, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DEC1S10N 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
aftermass.
the date of filing of thischapter
decs on inand
he office olfe he Cid with ty Clerk.
in 20 ys
Pursuant to Mass.Genera: I_:'s. C1 wer SOB. Section 11,the Variance
e_ial Permit grantee ha ei:� c`'�� not take effect enol a copy v the
or ep ' „ he cenificatien et the City Clerk that 20 days have
decision, bearin., appeal has been
elapsed and no appeal has.been tiled, or that, if such
filed, that it has been et,msseJ or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of eeds and
and noted indo4ed u n e's Certificate, the name rof Title-
is
IU�the owner of record o[
BOARD OF APPEAU _.
•
y.- APR I J' 8 28
b Cit" of ttiem, '--Eassadluscite
• x FILE
Pourd of (�u}reul MY
sq.um�✓� ..
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY PELLETIER (PETITIONER) , FRANCIS
MCMANUS JR. (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 4 MAPLE AVENUE (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held March 7, 1990 and continued until March 28,
1990 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. ,
Bencal , Febonio, Luzkinski 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 to allow the construction of a single family
dwelling to be completed and to raise the existing roof line. Property is located
in an R-1 district and is currently owned by Francil McManus Jr.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this
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 . An unfinished (since 1981 ) single family dwelling existing at the site
would be completed as a single family dwelling.
2. The property is in a single family neighborhood, therefore the requested
variances would not change the character of the neighborhood.
3. A petition in favor of the proposal was signed by nine individuals.
4. Concerns about privacy and loss of light expressed by an abutter were
adquately addressed by design changes.
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 provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship on the petitioner.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY PELLETIER (PETITIONER) , FRANCIS MCMANUS JR.
(OWNER) , FOR VARIANCE AT 4 MAPLE AVENUE, SALEM
• page two
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . The requirements of the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau be met.
2. Construction must be in accordance with State and City Building Codes.
3. Construction must be in accordance with amended plans submitted 3/28/90.
4. Dwelling must be a single family.
5. Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained.
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
Appeal from this decision, If any, shall be made ptnsuant to Section 17 of
the Mass. General Laws,Chapter 808, and shall be filed vdthln 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, tho Variance
or !pecial Permit granted herein shall not take effect LIM:! a ropy of the
decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk th?t 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appoal has been
filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Esse%
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!
•
APR h L 03 ;;; ASO �
. �46
..
aitU of . $alem, �4. ttss�ziliusetts
Poara of �kFpral
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER JOHNSON FOR A VARIANCE
FOR 13 MAPLE AVENUE (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held April 18, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Edward Luzinski ,
Mary Jane Stirgwolt, Associate Members Peter Dore and Arthur Labreque. Notice
of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were
properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a variance from rear setback
requirements to. allow the construction of an addition 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 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 proposed addition will encroach approximately eight (8) feet into
the required rear setback.
2. No opposition to the proposal was expressed.
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 provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
r/ 1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF Peter Johnson for a VARIANCE
FOR 13 MAPLE 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 conditions of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety are to be strictly adhered to.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy for the addition is to be obtained from the
City of Salem Building Inspector.
3. Exterior finish-.of the proposed addition must be in harmony with the
existing structure.
4. All construction be in accordance with existing City and State Building
Codes and as per dimensions shown on the plan submitted.
VARIANCE GRANTED �,,.ol
rio''' !
0
MO i �.
Mary Ja P,
tirgwolt, Me 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
the Mass. General nye shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
after the laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section I I,
or �:ecia, Perron P.:znted herein shall not take effect until a co
the Variance
decision, bearin.1 the cerci{kation of the City Clerk that 20
PY of the
elapsed and no apps..+.l has baen filed, or that, if such appealtla Vs have
filed. that it has henn dismissed or denied is recorded iahas
Registry been
Is recorded Deeds
ddnoted en the wner'sand indexed under the Certif Certificate of Title. South Essex
arne or the owner of record or
BOARD OF APPEAL,
•
NOV l j :' C.. .�
`� by
;b altu of --5ttlem, �Rttssttcllusetts
curb of CA7fAl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF SALEM FOR VARIANCES
AT 95 MARGIN ST. ( I )
A hearing on this petition was held November 7, 1990.with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Joseph Correnti , Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from use, frontage
and side yard width dimensional requirements necessary to construct the building
of a new police station as shown on the plans attached to the petition; in this
industrial zone.
The variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings and structures in the same district.
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would involve
•' substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
the district or the 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 . That the particular site is unique in size and shape, as it is particularly
narrow, as compared to other sites in the district.
2. That the soil on the site is causing a hardship as to where on the site
the building may be located.
3. That an ad hoc committee comprised of city officials, architects, designers
and others, all appointed by the Mayor, have selected this site after careful
deliberation, and with neighborhood input, as the best site and design for
the city
4. That although the site is unique in size and shape there will only be
twenty five percent (25%) lot coverage of the site.
5. That there was no opposition to the petition.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF SALEM FOR VARIANCES
AT 95 MARGIN ST. , SALEM
page two
• On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on 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. .
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 . That the petitioner obtain all the necessary permits.
2. That the building be constructed as per plans submitted.
3. That a certificate of occupancy be obtained.
4. That all rules and regulations of the Salem Fire Department and the Fire
Prevention Code be strictly adhered to.
• 5. That all city and state building codes be strictly adhered to.
VARIANCES GRANTED
November 7, 1990 ` / l
,Ooseo C. Correnti , Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Apoeal from this decision, If any, shall be made pursuant to section 17 of
the Mass. General Laws. Chapter goo. and shall be filod within 20 days
arter;`:e date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clcrk,
ra' tc :.Sas;. General La-.vs, Chaoter 1:33, Sr-.::on 11, li,c Variance
—i.' Permit ,^,Tante" herein s!ian not h:::^ effxt until a copy of the
to-ring the certification of the City Clark tint 20 days have
Nance& cn" no aopeal has been filed, or that, if s;, r an-cal has been
.• ", Ina: l: 'yes bsen dismissed or denied is recorded in tho Scc:h Essex
Fegistry of Deeds and indexed under the name cr the owner of record or
is recorded and noted an the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL'
OCT
(Gifu of �5ttlem, �1tic�85FIClIlISPttB
'SoIIrO of Au{�etil
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM YOUNG,ME•N_S_CHRISTIAN
ASSOCIATION (YMCA) FOR VARIANCES AT 1 SEWALL/6�84 ESSEX STS.
A hearing on this petition was held October 17 . 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Edward Luzinski , Acting Chairman: Joseph Correnti , Richard
Febonio, Edward Luzinski , Mary Jane Stirgwolt 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.
Petitioners , owners of the property, are requesting Variances from Section
VII D as it relates to loading bay requirements, Section VII J Swimming Pools,
and Dimensional Requirements regarding lot coverage to allow construction of
a two story addition which will house a regulation swimming pool on the first
floor and a consolidated fitness center on the second floor. The property is
located in the B-5 district.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions 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 . That the petitioner presented to the Board a videotape presentation on the
Salem YMCA and its history of community involvement.
2. That the Salem YMCA runs an after-school Day Care program recognized
and praised by the Salem School Committee.
3. That the petitioner currently has a waiting list for its various
day care programs and is severly constricted from lack of space at
the present location.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM YOUNG NEN' S CHRISTIAN
ASSOCIATION FOR VARIANCES AT 1 SEWALL/6 NORTH/284 ESSEX STS. , SALEM
page two
• 4. That the petitioner offers senior citizen programs, including
swimming pool activities .
5. That the existing swimminq pool is undersized and overused.
6. That the petitioner has been in frequent contact with its neighbors
regarding its proposed plans, including the Wesley United Methodist Church.
a direct abutter, and has received no opposition from the abutters.
7. That there is overwhelming community support for this petition and that
eight (8) people spoke in favor of the petition, including representatives
from the Salem Chamber of Commerce and the Salem Partnership Association.
8. That the petitioner has been engaged in a massive communit fund raising
drive and to date has raised over one million dollars to help fund the
proposed addition.
9. That the petitioner has withdrawn its request for a variance from the
minimum side yard provision as unnecessary.
10. That if the petition is allowed the petitioner will be able to establish
and expand a pre-school day care center, after school day care, increased
scheduling of its most popular programs, and offer more adult programs.
• 11 . That there is no practical use for a loading bay on the petitioners premises.
12. That to not allow a variance to the ten foot restriction on swimming pools
in relation to building foundations would create a substantial hardship
to petitioner as they would be unable to erect this new indoor pool addition
due to the unique characteristics of their property.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not
the district in general .
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship on the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
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 obtain all necessary building permits.
• 2. That the exterior finish of the proposed addition be in harmony with the
main building as well as with the Wesley United Methodist Church.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION
FOR VARIANCES AT 1 SEWALL/6 NORTH/284 ESSEX STS. . SALEM
page three
• 3. That a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
4. That all rules and regulations of the Salem Fire Department and the
Fire Prevention Code be strictly adhered to.
5. That all City and State building codes be strictly adhered to.
6. That all construction be in accordance with plans and dimensions submitted.
7. That the petitioner must apply to and appear before all other City
Boards and Commissions as deemed necessary by law, including but not
limited to the Salem Planning Board and the Design Review Board.
VARIANCES GRANTED
October 17, 1990
Josepf C. Correnti , Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
'ftU from tft dacblon, It any"shag be made pursuant to seetlmt 17 tR
Vie Mass,General Laws. Chapter 808.and shall be filed within 20 days
offer the date Of filing Of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Purseant to Mass, geaeral L;:;.�, Ch:oter SOs,Section 11, the Variance
or 90W31 permit grantee h: etn not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bcarinr thp certdic:lion or the City C;erk that 20 days have
eNpsed aaa no aCp:al ha:: Veen flied, or that, if such appeal has been
fired, that it hae been d:sntj=ee 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 AppEAU
•
tf8 Ll .29 4"; .�
'a Cite" of �Jttivm, �fflttssachuset
• , t'J.. Jam.
.... 'Sous of Aupettl fiY : :c
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF M.B. REALTY TRUST, MARY MCCORMACK, TR.
FOR A VARIANCE AT 99 NORTH STREET (B-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held January 31 , 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, Luzinski
and Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from the minimum
parking requirements to allow a take-out Chinese Restaurant.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of teh 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 . The site was previously used as a commercial establishment.
2. There are seven (7) parking spaces of site for use by building
occupants and customers.
3. Restaurant would be used as take-out only.
4. There was not opposition to the requested variance.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but
not the district generally.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
• 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF M.B. REALTY TRUST,MARY MCCORMACK, TR.
FOR A VARIANCE AT 99 NORTH ST. , SALEM
• page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Dore voted in opposition)
to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Owner must comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire
Prevention Bureau relative to smoke and fire safety.
2. Renovations must be in accordance with the Salem Building Code.
3. Petitioner must comply with the requirements of the Salem Health Dept.
4. Hours of operation are limited to 11 :30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. , Monday
through Thursday; 11 :30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Friday & Saturday; and
11 :00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sundays.
S. Restaurant is to be used for take out service only; no eating to be
allowed on site.
6. Company vehicle parking is to be in the rear of the property and not
on North Street or Mason Street.
GRANTED
z ' �v
Peter Dore, Acting Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
P^JCJI from this decision. it nny, chill be mpde pinnuant to section 17 of
t:tc r,ijss. C:`neral Lars. Ch;.ptcr ':ps, an:l ^:n-!I nn ii ed •::i:9in .^.]t'�)'s
7bc d:.tc of of Ilti, dec:s.n et Ih:: m; of :.r j-',:1 ;k.
`::c.
d_.I:10n. b=.'.rin!! ❑:: C.:1
el.tc._!I aJo n0 " '•:.1 h:,: Pi:^.', L' . or ': ".c:i! I SO
f:ed,
ltJt It ha: l ]^. elsnu::..c.. •u '': 1 is r^C J:!1^:1 in the SOW:! [[CCs
F.e.^,islry of Deeds ao:i inoer.•:� u:''=' Lte n:me :.r 1:1C owner of rcccrU or.
is recon:ed and noied on the o.-.-net s Cutific�te of Tit!).
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
g0.
...-.owy
e fgitg of �$ttlem, ttssttcljusetts Ja 20 3 0o
}
' �'.•'. 3_;�Ys Pottra of '�Fpetzl
`•t..umv.� fir'1 Y °L .. . . ..
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SUN REFINING & MARKETING CO. a/k/a
SUN OIL COMPANY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES AT 101 NORTH ST. (3-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held June 6, 1990 with the following Board Members
present: Richard A. Benca.l., Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Vice Chairman, Joseph
Correnti , Secretary, Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 P'r.operty. and"represented by Attorney John Serafini Jr. ,
are requesting A Special Permit to change from existing nonconforming use, namely
an automobile service station, to a food market building and self-service gasoline
dispensing operation. Said property is located in a:.B-1 district. Petitioner is
also requesting Variances from lot width, setbacks, width of driveway entrances,
distance from any driveway to any side property line, distrance between curb cuts,
rear yard requirements and from Section VII B regulations for automobile service
stations.
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
010
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 Cityts inhabitants.
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 theprovisions 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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SUN REFINING & MARKETING CO. a/k/a SUN OIL
COMPANY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES AT 101 NORTH ST. , SALEM
page two
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 letter from the Salem Police Dept. was read into the record stating
that, with conditions, the petitioners plan would pose no obvious public
safety hazard.
2. Letters from the Salem Fire Dept. and City Councillor Sarah Hayes were read
into the record stating minimum requirements for fire safety and suggested
conditions to meet neighborhood concerns. These conditions have been incorp-
orated in this decision.
3. Support for the proposal was expressed by several neighbors, citing the
need for a food mart on the west side of North St. and a petition signed by
twenty five (25) persons.
4. Opposition to the proposal was expressed in several letters that were read
into the record as well as by neighbors citing increased traffic.
5. The petitioner has worked on this proposal for approximately one year, has
met with neighbors and has addressed many of the neighborhood concerns.
6. The present service station has operated on the site since 1967.
7. The petitioner will permanently relinguish an active used car license
• on the site and cease all automobile repairs.
8. These two business activities will be replaced by the sale of daily grocery
items, a use that is less detrimental to the neighborhood than those
presently located there.
9. The underground gas tanks, which are over 20 years old will be replaced
in compliance with present safety regulations, which will benefit the
neighborhood.
10. The new location of the gasoline pumps will prevent cut-through traffic,
a present safety hazard.
11 . The existing automobile service station is a valid nonconforming use.
12. The City of Salem Zoning Ordinance does not address the use of a food
maket building and self=serve gas station.
13. The present owner of the property would like to upgrade the business but must
do so within the constraints of his franchise.
14. The parcel is shallow in depth and closely bounded by existing buildings
making additional land acquisition virtually impossible.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SUN REFINING & MARKETING CO. a/k/a SUN OIL
COMPANY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES AT 101 NORTH ST. , SALEM
page three
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
a substantial hardship on the petition.
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.
4. The proposed use will be in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the
public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 , (Mary Jane Stirgwolt voted in
opposition) , to grant the Special Permit and variances requested, subject to the
following terms and conditions:
1 . There. be entrance only from North Street and the entrance/egress on Mason
Street and the width of said entrance/egress on Mason Street be worked out
between the City of Salem Police Department, the Planning Department and
Mrs. Pierce, 2# Mason Street. Meetings to be held at Mrs. Pierce's convenience.
2. The hours of operation are to be 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m.
3. Steps are to be taken to ensure that the building, gas pumps and landscaped
• areas are maintained properly in perpetuity.
4. A five foot stockage fence or solid evergreen, to be decided at a meeting
with Mrs. Pierce, 21 Mason St. and the Planning Dept. at her convenience, be
provided and maintained in perpetuity.
5. Exterior and interior light should be shielded from the residential
neighborhood,' lighting notes on Development Plan, North St. and Mason St.
dated January 22, 1990, site lighting notes added March 19, 1990 are to
be strictly adhered to.
6. The dumpster must be located as per the plans submitted.
7. The existing license for used automobile sales must be forfeited in
perpetuity.
8. All project signage shall be approved by the City Planner and must
comply with the City of Salem Sign Ordinance.
9. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department, including but not limited to,
placement of gas storage tanks and the removal of the existing tanks, relative
to fire safety be strictly adhered to and all conditions set forth in a letter
to the Board of Appeal from the Fire Marshal are herewith incorporated in
this decision.
10. All construction comply with all City and State Building codes.
• 11 . All construction and dimensions be in accordance with the plans submitted,
with the exception of any changes made by-.the City of Salem Planning Dept.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SUN REFINING & MARKETING CO. a/k/a SUN OIL
COMPANY:FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES AT 101 NORTH ST. , SALEM
page four.
12. Plans and drawings are to be stamped by a Massachusetts Engineer. .
13. A legal building permit is to be obtained from the Inspector of Buildings.
14. A Certificate of Occupancy is to=be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES GRANTED
Maryf0&e tirgweTt, 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 01
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. Ge.:eral UVIS, Ch-.O'er 808, Section 11, the Variance
or special Permit gnn'et! hPnel] sly ll not take effect until a copy of the
• decision, bearing the cL.1 f'catior, of the;City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and ro ap Pa'I ht; bean filed, or that, if such appeal has been
filed, that it has been dlsmicse4 or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record oil
is recorded and noted en the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAU
•
i
Cittn of --'5ttlem, assuchusetAy ZZ 3 of �- 'S!J
r 'B F!
peal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANATOLY & LARISA KATSMAN (PETITIONERS) ,
PANAGOULA AN YOUNG (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 190 NORTH ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held May 16, 1990 with the following Board Members
present: Richard A. Bencal, Chairman; Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman; Joseph
Correnti, Secretary; Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 Variances from use and parking to allow an appliance
repair and retail sale of lamps, parts and accessories in this R-2 district.
Prior to hearing this request for variances, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted
unanimously, 5-0, that there was substantial changed from the prevous petitions
which were denied within the past two (2) years.
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 property is question has always been used for commercial purposes.
2. Questions and concerns of neighbors, abutters adn others were answered.
3. This type of business does not presently generate much traffic at its
present location in Lynn.
4. Without major renovations the property could not be used as residential.
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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANATOLY & LARISA KATSMAN (PETITIONERS) ,
PANAGOULA AN YOUNG (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 190 NORTH ST. , SALEM
. page two
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
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 . Petitioner install an appropriate fire alarm system and meet all
requirements of the Salem Fire Dept.
2. Petition comply with all state and city building codes.
3. Property be used for appliance repair, sale of lamps, parts and
accessories only.
4. Any and all signage comply with Sign Ordinance of the City of Salem.
5. Hours of operation shall be 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday;
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Saturday. No hours on Sunday.
• 6. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
VARIANCES GRANTED
`F(ichard A. Bencal, Chairman
: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
carr 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 ?yerial Permit ^rrn'0 herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
,�. decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
r� elapsed and no appeal has been tiled, or that, if such a
� ppcal has been
filed, that it has been dismisse4l or denied is recorded in the South Essex
J
. , Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record Of
Is recorded and noted an the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
11Al JJ 5 U, ;'G ':11➢
T_� to o �ttlem, cassaC;�usetts
f -�T'f
Board of ;:%u{ieal
y
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD BERGERON FOR VARIANCES
AT 6 OAK STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held May 16, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio,
Mary Jane Stirgwolt 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 variances from density, setbacks
and lot coverage to allow pool, deck and two existing sheds on the property.
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 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 thepetitioner;
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 sheds on the property have been there for over eighteen ( 18) years
and were in place when the present owner purchased the parcel.
2. The existing pool is 316" above ground and has aluminum sides.
3. The existing pool was put in place in June 1989 replacing an earlier
structure-that was smaller but in approximately the same location.
4. The existing deck is over 3' above ground and is within 3" of an
abutters fence.
5• Existing deck was built without the required building permit and is
in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance.
6. The existing pool was erected without the required building permit and is
in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance.
• 7. The deck in its present location creates a hazard to the abutters property.
r
i ,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD BERGERON FOR VARIANCES
AT 6 OAK STREET, SALEM
page two
8. It would be possible to situate the pool on the site so as to comply
with the setbacks required by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance.
9. Extreme concern about privacy and safety were expressed by the owner
of the adjacent property.
10. Any hardship created by the location of the pool and deck were self-created.
The Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to split the motions thereby
separating the request for Variances for the pool and deck from the request
for variances to allow existing sheds to remain.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5, against the motion
to grant the Variances requested to allow the existing pool and deck. The motion
having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes necessary to pass
is defeated and the Variances requested to allow the existing pool and deck are
denied.
POOL & DECK DENIED
The Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the variances
requested to allow the two existing sheds to remain subject to the following
conditions:
• 1 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety
are strictly adhered to.
,2. Petitioner must obtain a legal building permit for said sheds.
VARIANCE FOR SHEDS GRANTED
47 1 l- W)
Mary ?I
Stirgwolt, ember, Board of Appeal
Appeal from this decision, If any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 A
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 !necial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing, the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
filed, that it has been dismisseG 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 In the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEALI
SEP [J j! 2C ..:;
(Gity of "2§ttlem, CT- assadlusetts. s
- • ',,�\.=��`Js �uttra of C�u{�ettl
i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER WHITE AND NANCY COATIS FOR A
VARIANCE AT 1-3 OCEAN TERRACE (R-1)
A hearing on this petition was held September 19, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Joseph Correnti , Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance to allow a
three family dwelling in this R-1 district.
A petition to allow this property to be a three family was denied by the Board
of Appeal on April 18, 1990. Owners of the property at that time were Robert
and Ronald Marsilia. The Board of Appeal , after hearing evidence regarding sub-
stantial change, said change being owner occupancy, and after receiving Consent
from the City of Salem Planning Board, voted unanimously, 5-0, that there was a
substantial change in the petition and they would re-hear the case.
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 to the petitioner;
c. desirable relief may be granted without 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 . A Special Permit was granted in 1981 allowing this property to become a legal
three family dwelling with the condition that it be owner occupied.
2. Since 1981 the building has contained three dwelling units.
3. The Special Permit in question lapsed due to the fact that the previous
owner did not comply with the condition of the Special Permit.
4. The present owner acquired this property as a legal two family dwelling with
three dwelling units.
J
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER WHITE 6 NANCY CHATIS FOR
VARIANCE AT 1-3 OCEAN TERRACE, SALEM
.. page two
5. The fact that the building was altered to contain three dwelling units
under a previously granted Special Permit creates a condition that is
particular to this building.
6. The presence of the third unit creates a hardship for the petitioner in
that it limits the usefulness of the building unless it can be legally
operated as a three family dwelling.
7. The petitioners intend to make the property their permanent residence.
8. Several neighbors and abutters spoke in favor of the petition.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not
the district in general .
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve sub-
stantial hardship to 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 Variance
requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained for the dwelling.
2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety
must be strictly adhered to.
3. The property must remain owner occupied.
4. The owner must provide parking for five cars on the site if necessary.
GRANTED
September 19, 1990
Mary an gwolt, MembeeW 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 o r
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-
.
F.:rsu,-nt to mans. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance-
or:?pecial Permit Granth herein shail not take effect until a copy of the
c'ecision, 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 recorder
Is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF At PEAU
APR 13 3 04
FI!r '.
b,/Ja Ctu of ._'5zzlem, rMZJSSUtljusefts '
Pottrb of '1vpeal
IST\
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & RONALD MARSILIA
FOR A VARIANCE AT 1-3 OCEAN TERRACE (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held April 18, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman; Mary
Jane Stirgwolt; Associate Members Arthur LaBrecque and Peter Dore. Notice of
the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were
properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance from use and
parking to allow a three family dwelling in this R-1 zone.
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 . Substantial opposition was presented by abutters and others.
2. The property is not presently owner occupied as required by a prior
decision of the Board.
3. The proposed use would worsen an already bad parking problem.
On the basis of- the above findings, and on the evidence presented at the hearing,
the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Desirable relief cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of
the district and the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3-2 against the granting of the
requested Variance. (Messrs. , Bencal Fleming & Ldbrecque in favor, Ms. Stirwolt
and Mr. Dore opposed. Having failed to obtained the required four (4) affirmative
', • votes, Variance is Denied.
VARIANCES DENIED
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & RONALD MARSILIA FOR
• A VARIANCE AT 1-3 OCEAN TERRACE, SALEM
page two
VARIANCES DENIED
FT chard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pt,rsuant to Section 17 at
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 day$
after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the city Clerk,
Pursuant to Mass. General La:: Ch...: C.808, Section 11. the Variance
or Special Permit granted he-em shit 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 tiled, or that. it such appeal has been
filed, that it has been dismisses: or eenied is recorded in the South Esse),
• Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record 01.
Is recorded and noted On the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPFAU
•
aitu of Salem, 'Mttssadjusetts
Pourb of JUN ZZ �8 J5 u '9fl
um
FIL_i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & CAROL MUISE FOR ydARIIANCES,
AT 2 ORLEANS AVENUE (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held June 6, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard A. Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Vice Chairman;
Joseph Correnti , Secretary; Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 density and
setbacks to allow construction of a deck and existing above ground pool 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 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 pool was erected by a legal building permit in 1984.
2. The proposed deck would not be any closer to the street line than
the existing house.
3. The proposed deck would add to the safety, welfare and convenience
or the inhabitants.
4. The placement of the deck in this location would be the only practical
place for it.
5. Because of the aforementioned legal permit for the pool a hardship
has been created as this is the only suitable place for the deck.
(! �ti 6. Support was voiced by one abutter.
r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & CAROL MUISE FOR
VARIANCES AT 2 ORLEANS AVE. , 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 in general .
2. Literal enforcement. of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
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 construction be done as per existing city and state building codes.
2. All construction be done as per plans and dimensions submitted.
3. Petitioner obtain a legal building permit.
4. Petitioner complay with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department
relative to smoke and fire safety.
• 5. Petitioner maintain present landscaping.
6. All conditions of previous decision for locus be adhered to.
GRANTED
-Richard A. dencal , Chairman
0
A !�6PY OF "THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
m Appeal from this decision, If any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
co 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.
N Pursuant to Mass. Gederal Laws, Ch:?ler 303, Section 11, the Variance
or.4pecial Permit granted herein she:: i:at 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 dismisses or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record op.
is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAU
•
b JUL 5 I 23 .;: `Su
Cty of uiem, '�Eaggttcl Zsett5
:�:
B1
C r.'
��.
F Pottra of �upeal :,:rr r.:
m; JUL
i ...: �J
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RANDY EMMANS FOR A
VARIANCE AT 46-48 ORNE ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held June 27, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Vice Chairman;
Joseph Correnti , Secretary; Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. Notice of
the meeting 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 existing
two family dwelling to be converted into a three family dwelling 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;
• 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. Letter of opposition with twenty (20) names of abutters opposing the
petition was submitted.
3. Petitioner offered no evidence of hardship.
4. The granting of the variance would not be in harmony with 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 in general .
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning 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 and substantially derogating from the intent
of the district and the purpose of the Ordinance.
f'
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RANDY EMMONS FOR A VARIANCE
AT 46-48 ORNE ST. , SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5, against the granting
of the requested Variance. Having failed to garner the required four affirmative
- votes to pass, the motion to grant fails--and the petition is denied.
VARIANCE DENIED.
icha�io, 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 d
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 i%1ass. General Laws, Chapter 803, secticn 11. the Variance
or +veciw Permit granted herein shall not take effact t:ptil a coot'of tha
da:i:ion, bearing the certificction 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 dismisseC or denied is recorded in the South Esse:
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record air
• Is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of TWO.
BOARD OF APPEAL'
•
'T '`• f�iitn of -ittlem, C H�85ttLliuSPttB
.._ -Bourn of �Apvenl
T. "r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES BRETT FOR VARIANCES
AT 13 POPE ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held October 17, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Joseph Correnti . Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 density, rear lot
line, distance between buildings and for more than one building per lot to allow
construction of two duplex form structures on this site which is located in
an R-2 district.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exisht 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 . The purchased the property from the City of Salem by tax title with
conditions.
2. The petitioner appeared before this Board in 1984 but has not been able to
move forward with his plan because of a drainage problem on the site.
3. The drainage problem has been corrected and all work will be done in
compliance with an Order of Conditions issued by the City of Salem Conservation
Commission.
4. Several neighbors and abutters spoke in favor of this petition.
5. The proposed structures will be two story wood frame duplexes.
6. The property in question will be enhanced by the development as will the
neighborhood.
t
i
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES BRETT FOR VARIANCES AT
13 POPE STREET, 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 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 financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
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 . All construction is to be done in compliance with existing City and
State Building Codes.
2. All construction is to be done according to the plans and dimensions
submitted and as amended.
3. The petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit.
• 4. The petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the new dwellings.
5. The petitioner shall obtain proper lot and street numbers from the
City of Salem Assessors Office.
6. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety must be strictly adhered to.
VARIANCES GRANTED
October 17, 1990
Mary J tirgwolt, Member
Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
,-eal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 W
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
niter the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
i,ursi n: to mass. General Laws, Chov:s t03, 11., the variance
. ' ;:rol Permit granted herein shad :int take Cif:: :-otl; a copy of the
"nn, t:Canntl the certification of the City Clerk that 20 Jivs have
c::.cse:i and no appeal has been filed, or that. if tech i:tpedl has been
filed, that i, `a s C^_en dismissed or denied i; recordied in the South Essex
• Registry of DeCdc an-1 indexed under the name or the owner of record of
is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAU
1^
I
flow ry rI 14 ' "r
Ilii JJ
y ' I Chi of �ttlrm, ��3Httsstzchusetta
•�. i '� r ��;• .,.�,--. .;. :,u dots
Bnttra of �upeal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & DIANNE DONAHUE FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 30 PRESCOTT ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held November 11 , 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard A. Bencal , Chairman; Joseph Correnti , Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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
the already nonconforming side setback requirements to allow deck and stairs.
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 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
MI of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such
change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more
WO 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. Granting the Special Permit requested would allow for the removal of
existing stairs and porch and to replace them with new stairs and porch
to allow better accessibility to newly remodeled kitchen.
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 would enhance the quality
of life for the petitioners.
2. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
neighborhood and it will promote the public health, safety, convenience
and welfare of the City inhabitants.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & DIANNE DONAHUE FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 30 PRESCOTT 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 conform to City and State Building Codes.
2. All work be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety be strictly adhered to.
4. A legal building permit be obtained from the City of Salem Building
Inspector.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
November 7, 1990
Richard T. Febonio, 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 of
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall ba filed within 20 days
ager the date of filing of this decision in the office of tho City Chrk.
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Ch.,-)tar 308, Sectinn 11, the Variance
C., ?,r.s-i ! Pcrmit granted herein sholi net r::e effect until a copy of the
bc:!r!nv, the eertifieatien of :he Sily Clcrk that 23 days have
.. and no appeal has been filed, or that. it such appeal has been
tnat hes hecn cismissed or denied is recorded in lh: South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the n_me or tite owner of record or.
is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
HAR 0 59
` ' (Ili#g ofttlem,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAURENCE RUSSELL & ELIZABETH DAVIS FOR A
VARIANCE AT 50 RAYMOND ROAD (R-1)
A hearing on this petition was held on March 7, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman, Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman,
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 allow an existing deck,
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;
...j c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after 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. Those present spoke in favor of.
3. 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;
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 LAURENCE RUSSELL 5 ELIZABETH DAVIS FOR A
VARIANCE AT 50 RAYMOND 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 comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department.
2. Petitioner must obtain legal building permit.
3. Present deck must not exceed the dimensions submitted.
VARIANCE GRANTED .
i : 7
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.
P:ira:: pt :o mans. General Lsys, Chapter 833, Section 11. the variance
or ';:o,J it I-r rnit 7ronted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
i eGr..ina 'ra t.ria•; :he certification of the City Clerk that 20 day's have
m,.:sed onj cu jppeal has been filed, or trial, if such 3rnc3l h:n `eon
I Ed, mat it hos been dismisses or denied is recorded in th. .'C---!;l Er.^x
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
is recorded and noted to the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF P;-ncnt.
•
SPO
Z.
^-�= ,b `� f1�it>� of �ttlem, ��usstzcljus
v: s �3nttra of enl .r �''
l r
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SUSAN RUTKOWSKI FOR A VARIANCE
AT 1 ROSLYN STREET COURT (B-4)
A hearing on this petition was held June 27, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Vice Chairman;
Joseph Correnti , Secretary; Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 deck in the front of the structure which is located 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;
:ter c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially, derogating from the intent
of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition to the plan was presented.
2. The granting the variance would enhance the quality of life for the occupant.
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 by not the
district in general .
2. Literal enforcement of the provision of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
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.
l DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SUSAN RUTKOWSKI FOR A VARIANCE
AT 1 ROSLYN STREET COURT, SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petition comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department
relative to smoke and fire safety.
2. All construction be in accordance with plans and dimensions submitted.
3. All exterior finishes be built in harmony with existing structure.
4. Petitioner obtain legal building permits.
5. All construction comply with city and state building codes.
VARIANCE GRANTED
LL/2f
Richard Febonio, 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 td
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, Chop!er 808, Section 11, the Variance
or !pecial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing the certification of ;he 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 er the owner of record at
Is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAU
•
(Gltu of ttlem, �> usgtteltusPtts.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM—YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN
ASSOCIATION (YMCA) FOR VARIANCES At," SEWALL/6 NORTH/284 ESSEX STS.
A hearing on this petition was held October 17, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Edward Luzinski , Acting Chairman; Joseph Correnti , Richard
Febonio, Edward Luzinski , Mary Jane Stirgwolt 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.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting Variances from Section
VII D as it relates to loading bay requirements, Section VII J Swimming Pools,
and Dimensional Requirements regarding lot coverage to allow construction of
a two story addition which will house a regulation swimming pool on the first
floor and a consolidated fitness center on the second floor. The property is
located in the B-5 district.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions 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 . That the petitioner presented to the Board a videotape presentation on the
Salem YMCA and its history of community involvement.
2. That the Salem YMCA runs an after-school Day Care program recognized
and praised by the Salem School Committee.
3. That the petitioner currently has a waiting list for its various
day care programs and is severly constricted from lack of space at
the present location.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN
ASSOCIATION FOR VARIANCES AT 1 SEWALL/6 NORTH/284 ESSEX STS. , SALEM
page two
• 4. That the petitioner offers senior citizen programs, including
swimming pool activities.
5. That the existing swimming pool is undersized and overused.
6. That the petitioner has been in frequent contact with its neighbors
regarding its proposed plans, including the Wesley United Methodist Church,
a direct abutter, and has received no opposition from the abutters.
7. That there is overwhelming community support for this petition and that
eight (8) people spoke in favor of the petition, including representatives
from the Salem Chamber of Commerce and the Salem Partnership Association.
8. That the petitioner has been engaged in a massive communit fund raising
drive and to date has raised over one million dollars to help fund the
proposed addition.
9. That the petitioner has withdrawn its request for a variance from the
minimum side yard provision as unnecessary.
10. That if the petition is allowed the petitioner will be able to establish
and expand a pre-school day care center, after school day care, increased
scheduling of its most popular programs, and offer more adult programs.
• 11 . That there is no practical use for a loading bay on the petitioners premises.
12. That to not allow a variance to the ten foot restriction on swimming pools
in relation to building foundations would create a substantial hardship
to petitioner as they would be unable to erect this new indoor pool addition
due to the unique characteristics of their property.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not
the district in general .
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship on the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
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 obtain all necessary building permits.
• 2. That the exterior finish of the proposed addition be in harmony with the
main building as well as with the Wesley United Methodist Church.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION
FOR VARIANCES AT 1 SEWALL/6 NORTH/284 ESSEX STS. , SALEM
page three
• 3. That a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
4. That all rules and regulations of the Salem Fire Department and the
Fire Prevention Code be strictly adhered to.
5. That all City and State building codes be strictly adhered to.
6. That all construction be in accordance with plans and dimensions submitted.
7. That the petitioner must apply to and appear before all other City
Boards and Commissions as deemed necessary by law, including but. not
limited to the Salem Planning Board and the Design Review Board.
VARIANCES GRANTED
October 17, 1990
Josepl C. Correnti , ecretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
*Obai from tw decision,n any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 61
'Ile Mass• General Laws,Chapter t10s,and shag be filed wrlhin 20 days .
after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk,
Pursuant to Mass. cenerat L:.vs, ch:oter Bos.Section 11, the Variance
Of Ppecial Permit granted h2 em cna:: not Lake effect until a copy of the
decision, henrinn the cerlifict lion of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no a{•p]al has .been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
had, that it has been d'Smicoec 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 M the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL,
•
y (1Lit� ofttlem, ttsstttljusetts
j :
um F oarb of tzd
r"`< as'6
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM D. LITTLE FOR
VARIANCES AT 0 SKERRY STREET COURT A/K/A SKERRY PLACE (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held January 17, 1990 with the following
Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal , Febonio,
Luzinski and Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters
and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem
Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
At the request of petitioners Counsel , Robert Ledoux, Esq. , the Board of Appeal
unanimously voted to allow the request for Variances from density and setbacks
to be Withdrawn Without Prejudice.
WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE
/James M. Fleming, Chair rA4 '
• A COPY .OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
...I :o s-ction 17 of
f:om ohs decision. if nn Y: sl;a!! De ,,,nr'o `... ..
-. Genernl Ln:vs, Chapter S^.4. 'ar. s.. . .i : i:i'.• i;i,•:!:.
.. :.: of fi:i.^.? of this decisi0.: .. .'''o v,. ..� G• "'' .f_f;a nee
. ..
1 i=, ` : IcF'a ^ i.:: r.:r i� •:nt)'; of lho
Cie x
inion,11+c^ha',. !hc cc,{ific,tion of Ih, CitY if na:h an Viral h.r; Ueen
no ,pneol has been Hied, or that,
thzt it : •s Crsn dismissed or denied is r,un in the foulit Essex
1F.^_,'ic3ry of a end indexed under the name or the owner of record.or.
i; recorded and noted indexed
the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APP.FAU
m
m ca
R
CN
4? Cb
of G7
„�,,,, JAN Lj b t,9 'SO
f it of &Ilgm, 4aa955C4U6ZJtS
• �`` C FILL:
30ttTa of �I1peal ITv .•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SARA P. FIORE FOR A VARIANCE AT 21 SIPMIT AVE. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held on January 17, 1990 with the following
Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman, Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman,
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, representing themselves, are requesting a variance from use;
density and parking to allow three family dwelling'at 21 Summit Ave. (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. No opposition was present.
2. A letter from Counselor David Gaudreault spoke in favor of.
3. Neighbors spoke in favor of.
4. 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;
• 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial
hardship on the petitioner;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SARA P. FIORE FOR A VARIANCE AT 21 SUMMIT AVE. (R-2)
• 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. All construction must be done as plans submitted and by City and
State Building Codes.
2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke
and fire safety be adhered to.
3. Certificate of occupancy be obtained.
VARIANCE GRANTED
Richard T. Febonio, Board Member
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Apocal•from this decision, if any, slmll be made pursuant to Section 17 of
the Kiss. General Laws. Chant, uD'. dart shall be filed within 20 days,
alter the of lilln!; of ll5s dc-h::an :n Iha uflice of the City Clerk,
:'•. >^;>. S'.chon 11, the variance
or
•; L:k^ cif ict omit a copy of the
or : ,-.C";I ^r.'mil �,r.:n:r.•' fn ,.::' �. ry^.'k tn:lt 20 days have
dCC'.'Otl. C::eon+; I:•:: car:ili6.'liou .!1 !i-. t;1%
elapsed and no :npc:;l h;::; that. it s.lch appeal has been
tiled, that it r :..e-n tp;:'::.— ^"":: is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of D^.et',and indexed car'•<' +he n;::ne or the owner of record o6
o':rn er's Certificate of Title.
Is recorded and noted on the
BOARD OF APPEAL'
•
Jul 1 U 1110
FIEF'�
(ISI if Salem, '�Russadjuseffs
. Poura of �upeal
... �ks..nRw..t°
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER & CHRISTINE LOUF FOR
VARIANCES AT 15 UPHAM ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held June 27, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Vice Chairman;
Joseph Correnti , Secretary; Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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.
Petitioners, owner of the property, are requesting Variances to allow existing
addition to be demolished and to construct an addition with a foundation and
add two (2) feet eight (8) inches to the addition in this R-2 zone.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings and structures in the same district.
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
;' • substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented at
the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No opposition or support was voiced to the plan.
2. The new addition would be built on a foundation.
3. The new addition would benefit the safety and convenience of the
inhabitants.
4. The placement of the addition in this location is the only suitable place
to put the addition.
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 provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER & CHRISTINE LOUF F00
VARIANCES AT 15 UPHAM ST. , SALEM ILIu l =c' Su
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimous}y; ,57-0.,,.. to. grant-.the
Variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction be as per existing City and State Building Codes.
2. All construction be done as per plans and dimensions submitted.
3. All exterior finishes are to be in harmony with existing finishes.
4. A legal building permit must be obtained.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained for the addition.
6. Petitioner must comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department
relative to smoke and fire safety.
VARIANCES GRANTED
Richard A. bencalT Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• Appeal from this decision, if any, shelf 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.
Pum,:mnt to MIsl. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the variance
or Ze:'S1 Pe^.cit ¢ran'ed herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision. Czarina the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed an j no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
filed, that ii li:,s been dismisse4i 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 APPEAU
7 4� (Gitu of "'ittiem, 'Rttssacljuscite
Board of CAUpeal
— JUN U 3 22 y�
t.`: ti4•m� I l'i
flLl:;
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL & SHIRLEY GALLO FOR VAR,I C.,
AT 56 VALLEY ST. (R-1 )
�� ''
A hearing on this petition was held May 30, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard A. Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Vice Chairman;
Mary Jane Stirgwolt, Acting Secretary 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 varince from frontage to
allow construction of a single 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
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 proposed lot would be approximately the same size as adjacent lots.
2. No support or opposition was voiced to the plan.
3. The grant of this variance would be in harmony with the master plan of
the city to promote the building of single family housing stock.
4. The lot, as it presently exists, creates a hardship as it has become difficult
to maintain properly.
5. Other than lot frontage width, the petitioner would meet all other
zoning 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 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but
not the district in general .
1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL & SHIRLEY GALLO FOR A VARIANCE
AT 56 VALLEY ST. , SALEM
page two
• 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioners.
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 4-0, to grant the
variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction be done as per plans and dimensions submitted.
2. Petitioner obtain a legal building permit.
3. Petition comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept.
4. Petitioner obtain a Certificate of Occupancy.
5. Proper numbering for the new dwelling be obtained from the City of
Salem Assessors Office.
VARIANCE GRANTED
• Rlchard A. Benca , Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, If any,shall tie made pursuant to Section 1701
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808,and shall be filed within 20 days
y
after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
a a Purcucnt is Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance
or +perlal ,il:rmit eranted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
Y decision., be :he certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
aV elapsed ani no appeal has been filed,or that,if such appeal has been
N filed, that It h,,s been dismissed or denied is recorded In the south Essex
CW1 Registry of Deeds and Indexed under the name or the owner of record or
is recorded and noted an the owner's Certificate of Title.
•S
BOARD OF APPEAU
J H
-71
(l jt" of �$uiem, 4ansj9nc4usetts Jaa
FILL
• ;, F. Pnarb of hupeal
::ITY L.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER & MARY CASALE ET AL REQUESTING AN
ADMINISTRATIVE RULING RELATIVE TO A BUILDING PERMIT (#498-89) ISSUED
BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR AN ADDITION AT 37 WALTER STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held January 17, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman;
Edward Luzinski , 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.
Petitioners, Mr. & Mrs. Casale,are immediate abutters to the property at 37
Walter Street (John Suldenski , Owner) and are requesting an Administrative
Ruling relative to a Building Permit (#498-89) issued by the Building Inspector
for an addition to the dwelling which is located in an R-2 zone.
The Board of Appeal first considered a request by Mr. John Suldenski , the owner
of 37 Walter Street, for a continuance of the petition. The Board vote 4-1
(Mr. Febonio in favor) against allowing the request for continuance, and thus
to hear the petition this evening.
• The Board of Appeal heard testimony from numerous neighbors, abutters and others;
correspondence was also read into the record, in favor of the petitioners
request to overturn the Building Inspector's decision to grant the Building
Permit.
After hearing testimony by the petitioners, abutters, neighbors and others, the
Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The property at 37 Walter Street contains two separate buildings on
this lot.
2. The building under construction has an entrance separate from the main
structure.
3. The building under construction is going to be serviced by a separate set
of utilities than the present dwelling unit.
4. The Board of Appeal denied this same plan on February 22, 1989.
5. The concept of a two family structure is not valid due to the fact that
there is not a common wall between the two units, nor are they under
one roof.
6. Since construction has began a neighbor has experienced water problems
in the basement.
• 7. Substantial opposition was presented by the neighbors, abutters and others.
f
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER & MARY CASALE ET AL FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE
RULING RELATIVE TO A BUILDING PERMIT (7#498-89) ISSUED FOR AN ADDITION AT
37 WALTER 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 structure under construction in the rear of the lot of 37 Walter
St. is a substantial detriment to, and not in harmony with, the neighborhood
or the district in general .
2. To allow the structure to remain would substantially derogate from the
intent of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 in faovr of the
motion made as follows:
That permit '498-89 was issued in error; that it be revoked
forthwith and the structure be removed as soon as possible:
and that the Building Inspector take immediate action to have
said building removed.
ichard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Aopcal from this decision, it any. shall be made nursn;lnt to Section 17 of.
6te.Lass. Ccneral Laws. Clt.iptrr POR. and [11:11! c_ hied within 20 days
,:Itrr th] dati of filing of this (:e: istcn :•1 :i:c ofi:ce of lhP City Clcrlc.
Fwsn. tit to Mass. G^neral L::+:^:, i:I: � ...... 11. file variance
r:' cci al Permit nrmnted hr ro1 1 i . ' r1 r 't i:! a copy of the
thID ca hOcr...o:: r. ... :..v •.::I: t1:.! 20 Lays have
r.
0p=cd and no optical hs bccn Ot .i. m G1.1!. if s:xh appeal has been
!flat it I:os been dismi,eu or ,.[• c;! r•:-crd^d in the South EsseX
Registry of Deeds and indexed under U]; n'1m^ .;: t:•e owner of record or.
is recorded and noted on the owncr's Certl:.,;ta' of Titlo.
BOARD OF APPEAL
L
r n�f
'► FILE;; '//
_ •owiy .!7.. _
( itV of Salem, cfttssacilusetts
oura of ezd
a•m�.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LUIS A. PEREZ (PETITIONER) , ROSARIO
BERUBE (OWNER) FOR SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE AT 6 WARD ST. (R-3)
A hearing on this petition was held April 18, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Mary Stigwolt, Assoc-
iate 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.
Petitioner is requesting a Variance from parking and a Special Permit to allow
restaurant in this R-3 'district. Property is currently owned by Rosario- Berube.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this
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 invalve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;
" ,• f c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment "to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of
Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section
VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non-
conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of
nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provides, 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 submitted, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The proposal was to use the first floor of the three story building primarily
•� as a take-out restaurant with six (6) seats provided for inside service.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LUIS A. PEREZ (PETITIONER) , ROSARIO BERUBE
(OWNER) FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 6 WARD STREET, SALEM
page two
• 2. A paint store formerly occupied the site.
3. Petitions in support and in opposition to the proposal were submitted.
4. Those present at the hearing spoke in opposition to the proposal .citing
concerns about existing parking and fire safety (due to parking problems) .
5. No parking would be provided.
6. Petitioner stated that most customers would be walking and agreed to
operate between 9:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. only.
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 in general ;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. Desirable relief cannot .be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted two (2) in favor, three (3) opposed to
the granting of the requested Special Permit and Variance. Having failed to
obtain the required four (4) affirmative votes necessary to pass the motion to
grant is defeated and the Variance and Special Permit is denied.
VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED
Peter A. Dore, Acting Secretary
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 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
o: •n^cis' Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
ee;ision, baring Ilia certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed ani+ no appeal has been filed, or that, it 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 ea the owner's Certificate of Title..
BOARD OF APPEAL!
•
of -'�ttlem, 'Ettssadjusetts
peal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANGELA NANNINI FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR 11 WARREN ST. (UNIT #1 ) (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held March 7 , 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Febonio, Luzinski
and Associate Member Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the unit, is requesting a Special Permit to allow
construction of a deck on the first floor rear. 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 Vlll F and 1X D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction
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 . No opposition to the proposal was expressed.
2. The deck to constructed on the first floor rear could be used by the
first and second floor tenants as an egress.
3. Dwelling is composed of two condominium units, one on the first floor
and one on the second.
4. The owner of the second floor unit spoke in favor of the project.
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 deck will be in harmony with the neighborhood and will
promote the public health, safety, convenience are 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 PETITION OF ANGELA NANNINI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AT 11 WARREN STREET, SALEM
page two .
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested, subject to the following Board Members:
1 . The petitioner shall comply with the requirements of the Salem
Fire Department.
2. The deck shall be constructed in accordance with city and state
building codes.
3. Construction must be in accordance with plans submitted.
4. A Certificate of Appropriateness must be obtained from the Salem
Historical Commission.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED �1 /
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 decision, 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 Laws, Chcpter 808, Section 11, the Variance
or !pecial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such 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 er the owner of record or
Is recorded and noted to the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL,
•
•', "////�//yam
. / I
„.ugiM4
fl�itu of "$ulem, 'EttssaChu Bette
R. 3ftnura of �'�u}reul
JUN 6 3 22 i 11 190
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MIROSLAW KANTOROSINSKI FOR A F;u_.
VARIANCE AT 407 ESSEX ST./40 WARREN ST./403-405 ESSEX ST. 4B-1 )
T'(
A hearing on this petition was held May 30, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard A. Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Vice Chairman;
Mary Jane Stirgwolt, Acting Secretary 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 requesting variances to allow parcels to be divided as per
the plans submitted. Property is located in a B-1 district.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this
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 voiced to the plans.
2. Petitioner has received approvals from the Historical and Planning Boards.
3. The proposed plan would begin to straighten out lot lines 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 in general .
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner..
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.
ii
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MIROSLAW KANTOROSINSKI FOR
VARIANCES AT 407 ESSEX ST./40 WARREN ST./403-405 ESSEX ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the
Variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept.
2. The lots be divided as per the plans submitted.
GRANTED
Richard A. Bencal , 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 to
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 h9ass. General Laws, Chapter 808, section 11, the variance
or ±pecinl Permir gfanted herein shell not take eff•ict until a copy of the
decision, b_'rin^ the certification of the City clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no .:p;eat has been filed• or that, if such appeal has been
filed,that it has been di,ml5ae4 or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record R
is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of TiUs.
BOARD OF APPEAL
x.
r�
N
N
CIO
S J �
9 ~
�.1 I
APB r� .J
(Gita of ttlem, �EassttrljizseJts
Ell _
Paurb of �A, peal TY :'
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARGARET A. RIZZOTTI FOR A
VARIANCE AT 4 WINTER ISLAND RD. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held Aprill8, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman; Mary
Jane Stirgwolt; Associate Members Arthur Labrecque and Peter Dore. Notice of
the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were
properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from rear setback
requirements to allow a deck to remain in this R-1 zone.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, building or structures in the same district.
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinace 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 new deck has replaced one that was in disrepair.
2. No opposition was presented.
3. Support in the form of a letter from the Plummer Home, the immediate
abutter,. was submitted.
4. The new deck added safety and convenience for the property.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but
not the district in general ;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
�1 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent
of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARGARET RIZZOTTI FOR
A VARIANCE AT 4 WINTER ISLAND ROAD, 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 be adhered to;
2. All dimensions be as per the plans submitted;
3. Petitioner obtaina legal building permit.
VARIANCE GRANTED
-irfchard A. Benca , Vice Chairman
A COPY OF THIS HAS BEEN FILED WITH* THE-PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any,shall be tirade pursuant to Settlor'17 to
Clerk.
the A1ass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be fifth a city 20 aY
808. Section I I,the variance
atter the halo of filin8 of tn's decision in the office of the City of the
Pursuant to Mass.General Laws. Chapter
ranted herein shall not take effect until a copy
have
• - or !peciaf Parrot f eat has been
decision, beormit the certification of the city Clerk that 20 ay
elapsed end no appeal has been filed, or that. if such apP
tiled, thattry it Deedbeen d'smrsses and Indexed under the name oor denied is rthe ed lowner sof record ur
Is recorded and noted M the owner's certificate of TRIG-
the
OF APPEAL
•
;• SEP c �„ .. � ��
•�1 Jv
;b fl�itu ofttlem, � ttssttclTusetts
Ponrd of CAU
{reul
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICIA POPP FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 11 WITCHRAFT ROAD (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held September 19, 1990 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Vice Chairman;
Joseph Correnti , Secretary; Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 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 0, 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
• expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing noncon-
forming 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 deck was constructed in 1986.
2. The deck allows a more fuller use of the property.
3. No support or opposition was presented.
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 welfare and convenience
of the City's inhabitants.
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 PATRICIA POPP FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT
11 WITCHCRAFT ROAD, SALEM
page two
`V 1 . Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department
relative to smoke and fire safety.
2. Petitioner obtain a legal building permit.
3. Deck remain as per dimensions submitted.
4. All construction be done as per all existing City and State building codes.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
September 19, 1990
chard A. Bencal , Chair an
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any,shall he made pursuant to Section 17 of
zr.d sn'!t to filed aithin 20 days
the Ln C:rarl Lsws, c!'�npter :iO3• the City Clerk.
after t::_ ^fine of ll;is Jttis.cr. in ii' o'-;cr.- ' t:re variance
' -:lien 11.
• la ,�r ]. ..... ..,... i..... o::j a appy of the
f C: •:... c: ..i
,i - :,;rr.4: : t'.• ra slave
ry!y Cin-rlc ::rat°� Y
it s•:cn �,al has been
filed, tart it har. be-.,n ef.,nrc:sl in G,c South record
o
Registry of Deets and in::�%='•=d =r t'ra natca or tba owner of record or
Is recorded and noted in the owner's ccrtD'OF APPEAL