1991-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ��� � /��-1 l�� ; S � d �, s
Address Petitioner/Owner Page
7 5 Balcomb St. "(d) Fernando Gomes 1
5 Balcomb St. (d) Fernando & Virginia Gomes 2
42 Bayview Ave. John, & Cynthia Hutchinson 3
152 Bayview AVe. Carlton Skinner 4
25 Beach Ave. James & Kathleen Picone 5
33' Beaver St. Thomas & Nancy Silva 6
18� Becket St . Jeffrey M. Mold 7 7
23 Becket St . Phillip D. Jesoraldo. 88
27 Becket St . Skip & Janet Dauray 9
13 Boardman St . Kathryn Sammartano 10
121 & 123 Boston St . Norman Tache II
124 Boston St. James 'Lafkas 12
156 Bridge St. Joseph Skomurski 13
5 Bristol St . Jerrold & Ann Houghton 14
21 Buena Vista Ave. Jeanine & Harry Ofilos 15
45 Buena Vista Ave. John Coughlin 16
64 Butler St . Jose Pereira 17
16 Calabrese St. Leslie & Linda White 18
9 Cambridge St. Ann & Michael Tomsho 19
138 Canal St . Canal Street realty 20
224 Canal St . Donna R. Matczak 21
5 Cedar Hill Road Leon Jackson & Cheryl Carfagno 22
13-15 Central St. John A. Drivas 23.
8- 10 Chase St. - Laurier Bouchard 24
15 Cherry Hill Ave. Brian Call 25-
10 Chestnut St . Alan T. Howe 26 -
29 Circle Hill Rd. Petros & Hrisoula Gouvousis 27
29 Circle Hill Rd. Silvano & Kim Dinicola 28
28 Clark St. Ernest & Phyllis Dearborn 29
42 Clark St. Ralph Salvo 30
1-3 Colby St . Salem Hospital ' 31
92 Colombus Ave. William & Sallie Cass 32
89 Congress St. Orille L'Heureux 33
3 Conners Rd. Carroll & Arlene Dickinson 34
70-72 Dearborn St . John & Patricia Taft 35
1 Emerton St . Claire Castonguay Blanchette . 36 -
47 Essex St . Peter Sholds 37
81 Essex St . James & Claire Baily 38
96 Essex St. , Daniel & Suzanne Cryan 39
331 Essex St. Alan T. Howe 40'
393 Essex St. Fredrick & Margaret Keach 41
426 Essex St . Robert Kondon 442
2 Goodhue St . Stephen Haley 43
Greenlawn Ave. Charles Brett 44
1 Greenway Rd. Richard & Mary Ann O'shea 45
72 Highland Ave. Dr. Ayres D'Souza 46
72 Highland Ave. Dr. Ayres D'Souza 47
372 Highland Ave. Charles Puleo 48
• 313 Highland Ave. Tony Lena 49
24 Horton St : Kathleen French 50
42 Jefferson Ave. Gary Nadeau 51
44-46 Jefferson Ave. Augusto Dacunha 52
225 Jefferson Ave. Diane & James Richmond 53
22 Kosciusko St. David Crosby 54
�� I
r �
Address Petition/Owner Page
i 72 Leavitt St. Palmer's Cove Yacht Club 55
a• 7 Locust St . . Libero Cimini 56
45 Mason St. Stephen Haley 57
1 53 Mason St . Kathy Wells 58
87 Mason St. Santo Collorone 59
48 Memorial Dr. Robert I. & Charleen M. Little 60
F. Ober St. Mark & Julie Carr 61
83-8A Proctor St . C. Jean Donoghue 62
II River St. Ann Knight 63
'I 7 Roslyn St. Manuel & Olivia Machado 64
24 Saunders St . W.G. Realty Trust 65
17 Skerry St. William D'Orlando 66
II Skerry Street Court Mark Petit 67
Skerry Street Court Mark Petit 68
86 Summer St . John Perroni 69
86 Summer St . John Perroni 70
1&3 Sumner Rd. Michael Connor & Eleanor Sanderson 71
3 Sumner Rd. Michael Connor & Eleanor Sanderson 72
99 Tremont St. Georgia Giannias 73
83 Valley St. Arthur D. Emerson 74
15 Victory Rd. Kenneth Burkinshaw 75
7 Wall St . Lydia King 76
260A Washington St . Milagros Martinez 77
22 Webb St . Raymond Paige 78
119 Webb St. Hayden Safe & Lock Company 79
50 Winter Island Rd. City of Salem 80
• 25 Wisteria St. James Poppe 81
!I
II
I
l
ce frit ofttlem, 4tt55ttc1ju6etts
RECEWET)
3Soarb of ,Aufiettl
'91 APR -3 P3 :07
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FERNANDO AND VIRGINIA GOMES FOR CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
VARIANCES AT 5 BALCOMB ST. (R-2) SALEM MASS
A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; 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 Mass-
achusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting Variances to convert a two
family dwelling to a three family dwelling in this R-2 district.
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 or 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 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 consideration of the application submitted .and•'afteh'; .
viewing. the .plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Neither the petitioner nor his representative appeared at the hearing.
2. A Special Permit for a third dwelling unit had been prevously granted by this
Board but the project was not completed.
3. A subsequent zoning amendment made it necessary to obtaina variance rather
than a Special Permit for the addition of a third dwelling unit.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence available, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . There'.was insuf.ficient..ioformation:.made available to the Board of Appeal
to enable them to conclude that Special conditions and circumstances exist
.which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general;
or that; literal enforcment of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship
to the petitioner or whether the granting of the Variance would substantially
derogate from the intent' of the district, the purpose of the Ordinance and be
• substantially detrimental to the public good.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FERNANDO & VIRGINIA GOMES FOR
VARIANCES AT 5 BALCOMB ST. , SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted one in favor (Mr. Febonio) three
opposed (Mr. Bencal, Mr. Correnti and Ms. Stirgwolt) . The motion to grant.. having
failpri to garner the requirement four affirmatives votes to .pass, fails and the
Variances are denied.
VARIANCES DENIED
March 20, 1991
C�
Mary P
Stirgwolt, ember, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
r• w
C=) U
M U-
ta_V�
�!
(r,CD
Apaeal from this decision, If any,shall be made pursuant to section 17 of
Cl Yr- the Mass. General Laws,Chapter 8o8, and shall be filed within 20 days
li! I wz� after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
U c ww
-jQPursuant to Mass. General,Laws, Chapter 808, Section I1,the variance t
r� or ?pacial Permit granted herein sh_II not take effect until a copy o,
_ decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
• Q� V 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'
' . y 3EP LJ g 56
CITY C` "
CLE11 y'S CI'FICESS
.owi4y
b (1Zit of ttlem, 'Massadjusetts
Poarb of (�u}reul
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FERNANDO GOMES FOR VARIANCES7'
AT 5 BALCOMB ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held September 11 , 1:991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febon16,
Edward Luzinski, 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 is requesting a Variance from use and parking to allow a two family
dwelling to be converted to a three family dwelling. The property is owned by
the petitioner and is located in an R-2 district.
Before hearing the merits of this petition, the Board of Appeal has to consider
whether or not there is a substantial and material change from a previous
petition to allow a two family to be converted to a three family which was denied
by this Board on March 20, 1991 . The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence
presented, and after recieving Consent from the Salem Planning Board, voted 4-1
(Mr. Bencal opposed) that there was a substantial change, said change being; ;the
change in the floor plans and the addition of the request for parking. Also,
• petition was not present at the last hearing as he was unaware of having to be
present. The Board of Appeal will hear'.the petition.
The Variances which have 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, building and structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Mr. Gomes represented himself.
2. There was no opposition or support for the petition.
3. A Special Permit was granted to the previous owners in 1986 to allow three
units,:one, of:`.the conditions being that five (5) legal parking spaces be
maintained on the premises. The project was never completed.
4. A subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance now requires a Variance to
convert a two family to a three family in an R-2 district.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FERNANDO GOMES FOR A VARIANCE
AT 5 BALCOMB STREET, SALEM
page two
• 5. Petitioner purchased the property in January of 1991 as a two familX dwelling.
6. Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof relative to legal hardship.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property
and not the district 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. Febonio & Mr.
Luzinski) , three (3) opposed (Mr. Bencal, Mr. Correnti and Ms. Stirgwolt) . The
motion to grant the Variance from use and parking having failed to garner the
require four (4) affirmative votes to pass,:fails and:the request is denied.
VARIANCES DENIED
September 11 , 1991
Richard Febonio, Member, Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH .THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
17 0
Appeal from this decision,If any,shall be made pursuant within
2e days
the Mass.General Laws, Chapter 808,and shall be filed within 20 days
of this decision in the offs cof thl 11,the Variance
after the date of filing ws,Chcp'er BOB, is Y Of the
o� cn Pursuant to Mass. General La s have
a w or.,I�e_.al Permit granted herein sh�.11 net take effect until a cop
X clog the certification of the City Cit suchaaPP alahas been
_ decision, •,ea cal has been filed,or that,
elapsed and no aPP
Lr) mdexed under the name or the owner of recorder
filed,that it has been dismisse0 or darned is recorded in the South Ss
CTS '`'n Registry of Deeds and' . e
fe recorded owner's Certificate of TIUe.
rded and no eo U'
BOARD OF AP9fJUJ
Lr) o w
N > J
t� U
i <� �Iitn ofttlem, ussucltusetts
33oarb of Au}�eul SEP '
3 02 PH 91
CITY OF SAC;t9, MASS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & CYNTHIA HUTCHINSON FOR A CLERK'S OFFICE
VARINCE AT 42 BAY VIEW AVE. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held August 21 , 1991 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 from setback
requirements to allow an existing garage in this R-1 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of 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 or structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
• 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . That the petitioner presented to the Board a petition in favor signed by
twenty one neighbors and abutters.
2. That there was no opposition to the granting of the Variance.
3. That the granting of the Variance would enhance the petitioners quality
of life.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . 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 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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN AND CYNTHIA HUTCHINSON FOR
A VARIANCE AT 42 BAY VIEW AVE. , SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, D, .to rant the
Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: aJG�PP YY 02 PH 19,
CITY O
1 . That the petitioner shall comply with all City and StaggtstatutOes,Iori�j.nances,
codes and regulations.
2. That the structure shall be in compliance with the plans and dimensions
submitted with the exception that the easement noted on the plans does not
exist.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety are to be strictly adhered to.
4. A building is to be obtained for the garage.
5. That the garage is to be used for storage only.
Variance Granted
August 21 , 1991
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 01
the Ma.s. General Laws, Chapter 808,and shall be filed within 20 days
after the d .te of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Parsuint to Mass. General Laws. Ch-.pter 803, Section 11, the Variance
^rmit :;ranted herein sha!I not take effect until a copy of the
..a:i::ion, bearing the certiriCOtion of the City Clerk that 20 days ha
r.:apscd and no appeal has been f:!^rl, or that, if such appeal has been
iced, that it has been dismisse0 or c?nied 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'
0
Ctu of ttlem, ussutl usett�
'Boara of Ap1 9 51 AM '91
CITY' OF S,'JLV M.MASS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CARLTON SKINNER FOR VARFIA VIN
AT 152 BAYVIEW AVENUE (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held June 26, 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane
Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 any and all
density regulations to allow divison of the property in this R-1 zone.
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
land, buildings or structures in the same district.
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
• c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition expressed.
2. The request for relief is re::;-!.r: in order to resolve title defects affecting
the parcel.
3. The shape of the deeded parcel is substantially different from the shape of
the occupied parcel.
4. The parcel has been occupied by the existing structure/or residential use
since the turn of the century.
5. Granting relief will not vary the existing use and structure.
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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CARLTON SKINNER FOR VARIANCES
AT 152 BAYVIEW AVENUE, 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 Variances
requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Division of the property be as per the plans submitted.
2. Petitioner obtain approvals from any toher Boards and/or Commissions having
jurisdiction.
3. Petitioner and/or assigns maintain, in perpetuity, the seawall abutting
lot 32 as shown on the plans.
Variance Granted
June 26, 1991
Richard A. encal, 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 01
the Mass. General Laws. Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 day!
..:ter the date.of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk,
P Amo ant to Mass. Ceneral Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance
^ 'necia! Permit t;r.ntad herein shall n•:t take effzct until a cooY of the
_ 'cCi_Aon. trevinv,' t:�^_ cerlifcalion of the City Clerk that 20 days have
�- ;+cad nn^ no appeat has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
Ll
-c ti Wed. that it has been dismisses or rtanied is recorded in the South Essex
-� Registry of Deeds end indexed under the name or the owner,of record or
r "' is recorded and noted m the o-xacr's Certificate ui Title..
Ln
:J7 BOARD OF APPEAL,
e : ...
1'
� r
�. ' (fit" of tt(rm, c7sstttltusPttS
• ,<:` $ Bnttrd of -Aupeal JUL 2 9 57 QM X91
CITY OF SA!.' 4, MASS
CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES & KATHLEEN PICONE FOR
VARIANCES AT 25 BEACH AVE. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held June 26, 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane
Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 any :and all density
regulations in order to allow division of property 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
goo good Viand 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 submitted.
2. Tne request for relief is required in order to resolve title defects affecting
the parcel.
3. The shape of the deeded parcel is substantially different from the shape of
the occupied parcel.
4. The parcel has been occupied by the existing structure for residential use
since the turn of the century.
5. Granting relief will not vary the existing use and structure.
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 petitioners.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES & KATHLEEN PICONE FOR VARIANCES
AT 25 BEACH AVENUE, 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
Variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Division of the property is to be done as per plans and dimensions submitted.
2. Petitioner obtain approval from any other City Boards and/or Commission which
may have jurisdiction.
3. The seawall abutting the property be maintained in perpetuity by the
property owner.
Variances Granted
June 26,. 1991
i'chard 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 d t
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 day!
after tate date;of Nine of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
P:nsuant to Mass. General Laws, Ch n,e. 808, Section 11, the variance
re Permit nrcnte.l herein sha'I iot take effect until a copy of the
decision, hearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
LO elap_ad and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
pn1 ' rn tll2d, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex
�'�LL!S LU
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.
n'• to ter,,o BOARD OF APPEAL'
c n
_ L cz:
(�tl O L:JJ J
y.•ti U
•
(fit" of $nlem, 'Ettsstteljusetts
• � '`' E1 ✓E
. 3. ? REG � nF �nura of �'�upettl
'91 MAY -1 A 8 :32
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF Thomas and Nancy Silva SALEM MASS.
FOR VARIANCES AT 33 Beaver Street (p-2)
A hearing on this petition was held on April 17, 1991,
with the following Board Members present: Chairman Richard
Bencal , Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski , and Joseph Correnti .
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others , and
notices were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting variances from all of the requirements
listed on Table I of the Salem Zoning Ordinance;
in this R-2 zone.
• The variances 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 land, buildings and
structures in the district .
2 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning
ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or
otherwise to the petitioner.
3 . Desirable relief may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good and without nullifying or
substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the
purpose of the ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the
evidence presented at the hearing makes the following findings
of fact:
1. That presently there is a swimming pool located at the
sight, since 1987, and an existing deck which petitioner
proposes to enclose with screening.
• 2. That the lot is 1457 S.F. and would require variances
for front, rear and sideyard setbacks, density and frontage, as
well as minimum lot size;
'' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THON.AS AND NANCY SILVA FOR
VARIANCES AT 33 BEAVER ST. , SALEM
page two
•
3 . That the current owners have four minor children, the
oldest of which suffers from a seizure disorder and requires
the pool for muscular therapy;
4 . That the petitioners locus allows him no privacy from
neighbors thus creating a need to enclose the deck for privacy.
5 . That there was no opposition to the petition during the
public portion of the hearing.
6 . That Alison Lake, a direct abutter, spoke strongly in
favor of the petition, and that two petitions were submitted
with twelve signatures of abutters and neighbors in support of
the petition.
7. That the unique dimensions and size of the petitioners
lot allows for no other placement of the pool or the deck.
• Wherefore, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted 4-0, to allow
the variances requested subject to the following conditions :
1. That all rules and regulations of the Salem Fire
Department and the Fire Prevention Code be strictly adhered to.
2. That the dwelling be per plans and dimensions submitted.
VARIANCES GRANTED
April 17, 1991
osepp C. Correnti, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
N W
M U
L, oo Wit,;. Appeal from this decision, If any, shall be made pursuant to section 17 of
G o4 the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
N after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
ct:i Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, section 11, the Variance
U r W w or;?I:ecial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
= UE decision, peering the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
LLJ
�..N elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
• f-- filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex
U 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
0
MAY 50 A..4 '31
aitn of -,'�ttlem, Massa ljusettsy or stix-,. Masi
CLERK'S UrFWE y
�OFITD 0{ �AU�1Q211
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEFFREY M. MOLD FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 181 BECKET ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held May 15, 1991 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
the height of the roof to be increased by one (1 ) foot.
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 . Support of the plan was voiced by an immediate abutter.
2. The change in height will not increase the number of living units.
3. The change in height will not adversely affect the neighborhood or area
in general.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The grant of the Special Permit will promote the safety and convenience
of the inhabitants.
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEFFREY M. MOLD FOR A SPECIAL PE IZI II 5� N(i py �JoI
AT 18} BECKET ST. , SALEM
page two CITY OF SALEM. MASS
• CLERK'S OrFICE
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction be done as per existing city and state building codes.
2. All construction be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted.
3. All new exterior finishes be in harmony with the existing structure.
4. Petitioner obtain a legal building permit for all renovations.
5. Petitioner obtain a Certificate of Occupancy.
6. All requirements of Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire
safety be strictly adhered to.
Special Permit Granted
May 15, 1991
erd A. Bencal, Chairman, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
the Mass. General Laws, 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. Generaf Lawi. ci,:pter 808, Section 11, the variance
or :T,)ecial Permit grante,! he•ein cP; !I rot take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing the certitic,^.tic;r o: Gm City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has been if!ed, 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 notedAn the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
aitu of �ttlem, 74gU9SUCjjU5etts
-Soura of CAITPeal .IAA Z9 3 0 ,
FILE#
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHILLIP D. JESORALDO FOR A
VARIANCE AT 23 BECKET ST. (R-2) :I7YCLERn S41 �, I, S
A hearing on this petition was held on January 16, 1991 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 abutter
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 undersized
lot and parking requirements in order to convert this property back to its
original design as a two family dwelling in this R-2 zone.
The variances 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 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 makes the following findings of fact:
1 . That the dwelling was historically used as a two family and that there were
no structural changes made when it was used as a one family.
2. That the dwelling is located in an R-2 zoning district and that there are
numerous other two family dwellings in the immediate vicinity.
3. That a written petition was presented to the Board with eleven signatures
of abutters and neighbors of the dwelling, all of whom are in favor of
the petition.
4. That City Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor of the petition, as he grew up
in the home across the street from the dwelling in question and he remembers
it as a two family unit.
5. That there was no opposition to the petition during the public portion
of the hearing.
6. That the houses on Becket Street are particularly close to each other and
• many do not have any off-street parking.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHILLIP D. JESORALDO FOR VARIANCES AT
23 BECKET 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 petitioner.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 , with Chairman Bencal voting
against, to allow the variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . That petitioner obtain all necessary building permits.
2. That a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
3. That all rules and regulations of the Salem Fire Department and the Fire
Prevention Code be strictly adhered to.
4. That all City and State Building Codes be strictly adhered to.
• VARIANCES GRANTED
January 16, 1991
,/Jos-er C. Correnti , Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
_ N
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to sectio b'17 of
j the .Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
N after the date of filing of this decision In the office of the City Clerk,
C-ol 0. Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance
Q� nr Hper,;al Permit :•:rated herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
✓; decision, bearing wL Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
ep elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal
n thehas been
i fired, that it has been dismissed or dented is recorded in the South Essex
W r� Registry of Deads 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 .
•
Oq
Ctu of .�ttlem, fflassadjusetts
Paura of Nov 27 2 So PH '91
d.m
CITY Of S ',LE"`. ';ASS
CLERWS U. FiCE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SKIP & JANET DAURAY (PETITIONERS) , FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 27 BECKET STREET, SALEM
A hearing on this petition was held on November 20 , 1991 with the
following Board Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Edward
Luzinski , V. Chairman; Richard Febonio, Mary Jane Stirgwolt and
Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 replace an
existing structure with a new enclosed study and porch area to
the rear of their home.
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 . Their was no opposition to this request.
2. This home was constructed in 1894 and the rear porch is in
disrepair.
3 . The proposed replacement construction is in harmony with the
neighborhood.
4 . The new construction shall consist of a study and rear porch.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence
presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the
public health, safety convenience and welfare of the City' s
inhabitants and will be in harmony with the neighborhood.
2. The Special Permit requested can be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good and without
nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the City Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to
grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following
conditions:
• 1 . All construction to be in compliance with city and state
building codes.
• Nov 27 2 50 P14 '91
CITY OF <�ALEP', MASS
CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SKIP & JANET DAURAY (PETITIONERS) , FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 27 BECKET STREET, SALEM
Page two.
2. Construction to be in accordance with plans as submitted.
3 . A building permit to be obtained.
4 . A certificate of occupancy to be obtained.
5. Exterior finished of the addition to be in harmony with the
existing structure.
6. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to
smoke and fire safety to be included in the addition.
Special Permit Granted
November 20 , 1991
Ronald G. Plante, Associate 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 dt
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter e08, 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
orPermit 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 Essp.x
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 APPEAL
•
Iv
a ,`
i ( 1tu of ttlem, � �ssttdiusetts
Pi:�` T
:'_ .� :$' Bnttra of A�eal SEP 4 3 o Pij 9
1
ry —,, ) I
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHRYN SAMMARTANO FOR A
VARIANCE AT 13 BOARDMAN STREET iR-2)
A hearing on this petition was held August 21 , 1991 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 parking to allow
a two family dwelling in this R-2 district.
Before hearing the merits of this petition, the Board of Appeal has to consider
whether or not there is a substantial and material change from a previous petition
for variances from use, parking, side setbacks and rear setbacks to allow the
property to be converted to a three family dwelling and to construct a deck and
stairs which was denied by the Board of Appeal on May 15, 1991 . The Board of
Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented, and after receiving Consent from the
Salem Planning Board, voted unanimously that there was a substantial change, said
change being, the request is now for a two family and there will not be construction.
The Board will hear the petition.
• The Variance requested may be granted upon a finding of 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 or structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The petitioner has been the cwner of this property for many years during
which there were multiple kitchens in the house.
2. The present petition includes plans to remove one of these kitchens presently
located in the house.
3. No exterior changes will be made to the house as the result of the
petitioners plans.
• 4. The properties in the immediate neighborhood are predominantly two family
or multi-family dwellings.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHRYN SAMMARTANO FOR A VARIANCE
AT 13 BOARDMAN STREET, SALEM
page two
• 5. The petitioner is willing and able to provide the re�Xir&d prbc17W Jr a
two family dwelling. CITYf ffl y
C�g K rf. Af
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evi c Sp"r,Z;sel at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which 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. 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 . Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statutes, ordinances, codes
and regulations.
2. The petitioner obtain a certificate of occupancy from the Building Inspector.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety are to be strictly adhered to.
4. Three (3) legal parking spaces are to be maintained on the property and are to
be made available for free and open use by the residents of 13 Boardman St.
5• The property shall be owner occupied.
6. The petitioner will prepare a plan to detail the removal of a kitchen and
this plan must be approved by the City of Salem Building Inspector.
7. No exterior changes will be made to the building.
Variance Granted
August 21 , 1991
Y
Mary Stirgwolt, 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 Sectlon 17 of.
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
after the d:.tc of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Fursu=nt to Nass. Ceneral Laws, Ch,p!cr 808, Section 1:, the Variance
or:?:ecc! Permit granted herein shall net take effect until a copy of the
• decision, bearing the ecr:ification of :he City Clerk that 20 days ha C:
elapsod and no appeal has been fZ-d, 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 In the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL,
f1ar19 II54Q
of a�ttlem, � ttssttelluse ' ERK'$I M CESS
39oura of :�vpeal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHRYN SAMMARTANO FOR
VARIANCES AT 13 BOARDMAN ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held May 15, 1991 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 use, parking, side
setbacks and rear setbacks to allow the property to be converted to a three
family dwelling in this R-2 district.
the Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings and structures in the same district.
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, '.financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and withoutnullifying 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 vigorous opposition from abutters and neighbors relating to
density and parking.
2. Regina Flynn, President of the Salem Common Association, speaking for the
Association, expressed their opposition to the granting of this petition.
3. Kevin Harvey, Councillor Ward 2, spoke in opposition to the granting of this
petition, citing the extreme congestion of this neighborhood and the severe
parking problems.
4. There was no show of support for this petition.
5. The petition failed to demonstrate or to meet her burden of proof
relative to legal hardship.
• 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 KATHRYN SAMMARTANO FOR VARIANCES
AT 13 BOARDMAN ST. , SALEM
• page two
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 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 unanimously, 0-5, 'against the motion
to grant, having failed the garner the required four affirmative votes to pass,
the motion is defeated and the petition is denied.
Variances Denied
May 15, 1991
Richard Febonio, Member, Board of Appeal
A!TlgPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
a ca
tf
v;�q Appeal from this decision, If any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 a
t;...a; the Mass. General Laws, Chapter BOB. and shall be filed within 20 days
C Q'-4 after the date of tiling of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
x+ --Q Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chaoter 808, Section 11, the variance
¢2 cr r,.ecial Permit granted herein shc'I not take effect until a copy of the
recision, bearing the certification of the city Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has been fi;ad, 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 er the owner of record or
is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
:1 .JUL z 2 47 FM 091
�d
(11itu ofttlem, � ttssttdl�tsets�. Moss
. ` _ , CLERK'S -,-'ICE
... .. F 33attra of �upeal
_ ,.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NORMAN TACHE, TRUSTEE FOR
VARIANCES AT .121 & 123 BOSTON ST. (B-2)
A hearing on this petition was held June 26, 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane
Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variances to allow property to
be divided into two lots. Property is located in a B-2 district.
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 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 . Councillor Leonard O'Leary spoke in favor of the petition.
2. Th-re was no opposition.
3. There is currently a two family dwelling on lot 1 (121 Boston St. ) and a
three family dwelling on lot 2 ( 123 Boston St. ) .
4. There will be no change in use or in density.
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. 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 NORMAN TACHE, TR. FOR VARIANCE
AT 121 & 123 BOSTON ST. , SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Lots be divided as per the plans submitted.
2. Proper street numbering be obtained from the Assessor.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety
be strictly adhered to.
Variance granted
June 26, 1991
����. COCA.✓ ���
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 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 cityVer ince
Pursuant to mass. General Laws, Chanter Bos, Section 11,
the or ?recial Permitranted hvein shall not take effect lentil a COPY of the
decision, bearing the certification of ther city that Cif rk that 20e al dahasys haven
elapsed and no appeal has been filed,
filed,that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Easex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
is recorded and noted*n the owner's Certificate of Ti,-,-'.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A
r� r
r
h7�J ny
Cn (�
ma
uw ca
y
•
l�
r' y fllit ofttlrm, � ttssttcliusetts
•
: $ Battra of 7 9 57 AN '91
CITY or ; L. y, HASS
CLERK'S UFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES LAFKAS FOR FOR A VARIANCE
AT 124 BOSTON ST. (B-2)
A hearing on this petition was held June 19, 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane
Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from parking to
allow the a pizza shop in this B-2 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings and structures in the same district.
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
• substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose 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 . Councillor Leonard O'Leary spoke in favor of the petition.
2. Mr. Chin, proprietor of the Kiki's restaurant at 127 Boston St. had concerns
that were addressed by the petitioner's Counsel to his satisfaction and he
changed his opposition to one of.favor.
3. Allowing this petition would enhance the small business climate in the
City of Salem.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially effect the subject property and
not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship
• to the petitioner.
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES LAFKAS FOR A VARIANCE
AT 124 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 . That all renovations be in compliance with city and state building codes.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained from the Building Inspector.
3. That all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety be strictly adhered to.
4. That there will be no sit down service, all service shall be take-out only.
5• That the hours of operation be limited to those hours granted by the
Licensing Board.
6. Exterior sign or lighting be approved by the Entrance Corridor Overlay
District Committee.
Variance Granted
June 19, 1991
Richard Febonio, Member, Board of Appeal
• A COPY 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
e S the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
s'U- alter the date.of filing of this decisou in the oftice of the City Clerk.
n l;.
Bob o Pt•rsu'.nt io Plass. General Laws, Ch::^'ar 808, Section 11, the Variance
Cn <. v) -r .>;tecial Permit'r:.n:c' hcrs;ia sr.:.:: n^t take effect until a ropy of the
c')�c Y.isiM, te:rinp the ce:nfication of the City Clerk that 20 days have
N occ
r:f:psed and ao ap?cr.l has i eea fled. or that, if such appeal has been
that it has been dismisse:i or c:enied is recorded in the South Essex
Re,^istry of Oecds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
Is recorded and noted to the owaer's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL,
•
of aIem, assadjusetts
s 33oura of ( uvpeJCT 36 3 64 PH '91
CJTY f,° L• MASS
CLCI? C'6 t,tFiCE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH SKOMURSKI FOR A VARIANCE
AT 156 BRIDGE STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held June 19, 1991 , continued until August 21 , 1991
and again until October 16, 1991 . The following Board Members were present:
Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio, Mary Jane Stirgwolt
and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 convert a two
family into a three family in this R-2 district.
The Zoning Board of Appeal, at the request of the petitioner and after having heard.
evidence, voted unanimously, 5-0, to allow the petition to be withdrawn without
prejudice.
• WITHDRAWN
October 16,1991
'Ronald G. Plante, Associate Member
Board of Appeal
•
MAY ZI 11 49 AM 191 IW
's Tits of _'�ttssnC1 U6pttC4TY OF SALEH !
, � „SS
.. i CLERK'S OariCE
. .f " v _ Bnttra of �Aupeal
1 T.1.:r�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JERROLD & ANN HOUGHTON FOR VARIANCES
AT 5 BRISTOL ST. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held May. 15, 1991 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 Variances from side and rear
setbacks to allow an existing deck in this R-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
land, building or structures in the same district.
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
• substantial hardship, financial or otherwise,
c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The deck in question has been in existance since 1986.
2. The size of the lot creates a hardship as this is the only practical
location for the deck.
3. The deck in question allows the inhabitants a fuller use of their
property and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions 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 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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JERROLD & ANN HOUGHTON FOR VARIANCES
AT 5 BRISTOL STREET, SALEM
page two
MAY ZI the
QM '91
II
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: CITY OF SALE,4. MASS
CLERKS OFr"ICE
1 . All construction be done as per existing city and state building codes.
2. All constructions be done as per plans and dimensions submitted.
3. Exterior finishes to be in harmony with present structure.
4. Petitioner obtaih. a legal building.
5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety be strictly adhered to.
Variances Granted
May 15, 1991
Richard A. Bencal, Chairman, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
after the date.of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursucnt !o Mass. Genera: Laws. Ch;rater 808, Section 11, the variance
or $ecial Parmit granted herein shah not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bacrin,, the certification of tlly City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed ani no appeal has been tiled, 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 er the owner of record or
Is recorded and noted On the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
(eres yls�h
,.I.\ISI I1y v G
4� (I1it" of ttlem, {` assadjusetts
3 otzra of eal
hi..oms.vJ,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEANINE AND HARRY OFILOS FOR -
VARIANCE AT 21 BUENA VISTA AVE . (R-1)
A hearing on this petition was held November 20 , 1991 with
the following Board Members present:RichardBencal,Chairman;
Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski , Mary Jane Stirgwolt and
Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 variance to enclose porch in
this Residential Single Family District. The property is
owned by the petitioners .
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 involved.
2 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or
otherwise, to the petitioner.
3 . Desirable relief may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good and without nullifying or
substantially derogating from the intent of the district or
the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the
evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the
plans , makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no objections by neighbors or abutters.
2 . The Ward Councillor, Leonard O' Leary spoke in favor of
granting this petition.
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEANINE AND HARRY OFILOS
• FOR A VARIANCE AT 21 BUENA VISTA AVE. , SALEM
page two
3 . The granting of this petition would enhance the quality
of life for the petitioners .
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the
evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal
concludes as follows :
1 . Special conditions 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 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state
statutes, ordinances , codes and regulations .
2 . All requirements of the City of Salem Fire Prevention
Bureau relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly
adhered to.
3 . A legal building permit shall be obtained.
4 . The petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy.
5 . All construction shall be done as per the plans and
dimensions submitted.
6 . There will be no stroage of propane gas or other
combustionable materials in crawl space. a
0
�K N
O Ca
M T
CD
�' U1
f'1 L
• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEANINE & HARRY OFILOS
FOR VARIANCES AT 21 BUENA VISTA AVE . , SALEM
page three
VARIANCE GRANTED
November 20 , 1991
ich�onio 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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter
40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of
filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, 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 of the owner of record or is recorded and
noted on the owner' s Certificate of Title.
n� N
n 0 c.n
7c V,
0
n Z
mD
N CO
N
•
1(�
Cit" ofttlPm, � ttssCltusPtts
3luDIITD of �Aettl SEP q 02 P� X91
CITY OF ;. MASS
CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN COUGHLIN FOR A VARIANCE
AT 45 BUENA VISTA AVE. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held August 21 , 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski
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 accord-
ance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Variance from rear setback to allow construction of
a deck in this R-1 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of 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 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 represented himself and expressed his need for the Variance.
2. There was no opposition by neighbors or abutters.
3. That the granting of the Variance would enhance the quality of life
for the petitioner.
4. The placement of the deck as proposed is the most feasible location
for the deck.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but
not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
• substantial hardship to the petitioner.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN COUGHLIN FOR A VARIANCE
AT 45 BUENA VISTA AVE. , SALEM
page two
• 3. The relief requested can be granted without s*tagtia � Trl t to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogaIVnggj�rom the intent
of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance?Y (ir ;:L_ MASS
CLERK'$ OFFICE
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal unanimously, 5-0, to grant the variance
requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . The petitioner shall comply with all City and State statutes, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
2. That all construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted.
3. That a legal building permit be obtained by the petitioner.
4. That all requirements of the City of Salem Fire Department relative to
smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to.
Variance Granted
August 21 , 1991
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 Sectiorl 17 04
Cle A^.azs. General Laws, Chapter 803, and shall be filed within 20 day9
al:cr the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City C!crk.
Nor-u=: to Mass. General Laws, Ch tier 808, Section 11, the Variance
cr !, nit granted herein shell not ta!:e effect until a ccpv of the
the certification of the City C'crk that 20 days
eli -e:. nn:! ra appeal has been filed, or that. if such appeal has been
Ped, first it hss boen dismissed or denied is re-.orded in the South Essex
Re;isvy of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
is recorded and noted rt the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
T
Titu of *Irm, �fflussttcl usrtts
s Poara of �vpeuf OCT 30 303 Pik '91
CITY C:
CLERI!,' (7rFICaSS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSE PEREIRA ( PETITIONER) , VETERANS E
ADMINISTRATION (OWNER) FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 64 BUTLER ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held October 16, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio, Mary
Jane Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert a single family into a two
family dwelling and to construct an addition in the rear of this nonconforming
structure which is located in a Residential Two Family District. The property
is owned by the Veterans Administration.
The provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the constrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in
Sections 8-6 and 9-4, 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 petitioner has signed an offer to purchase the property from the
present owner, the Veterans Administration
2. The petitioner presented a petition with seventeen (17) signatures favoring
the proposed anddition and renovation.
3. The property is presently in a deteriorated state and is a blight to
the neighborhood.
4. The proposed renovation and addition will make this building a two family
dwelling that will be an improvement to the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
• Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSE PEREIRA (PETITIONER) , VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
(OWNERS) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 64 BUTLER ST. , SALEM
page two
• 2. The proposed addition and renovations 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 requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . That the Petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be as per the plans and dimensions submitted.
3. A legal building permit shall be obtained.
4. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety shall be strictly adhere to.
Special Permit Granted
October 16, 1991
• Mary foie Stirgwoltg Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
pof,Qal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to SCC!Icn 17 o?
rJ P'a;s. Gsural Laws, Chapter IIOII, and shall be filed within 20
of tiling of this decision in the office of the City Cl,1k,
t.ta's. General Laws, Cn.:n`t: 305. S?c:on 1:,
the vd rinncs
her^.in shali ,nL twice effect un'il a crpy of the
,.,•s'an, "erin;; the certification of lne City Carl( that 20 ;,,Ys !'-'Ie
a-r! no appeal has been fi,ed, a.that, if such appeal has been
filed, tsal it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under tfe name er the owner of record or.
Is mcmied and noted en the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL'
r� w
MC)
0
::D-n
> cf
rn> W
o
_f. W
M 1,
• N
o.mgM
Ctu of $Ulem, 4&95 djusetts
Pnnra of '�kpreul
hi..nmv J}v
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSE PEREIRA (PETITIONER) , VETERANS
ADMINISTRATION (OWNERS) FOR A VARIANCE AT 64 BUTLER STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held September 11 , 1991 with;the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane Stirgwolt. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters
and others and.:nottces of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a variance to allow converstion to a two family and to
construct an enclosed porch. The property is located in an R-2 district and is
owned by the Veterans Administration, represented by Mr. Kenneth Hill, their
broker.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence and at the request of the
petitioner voted unanimously, 5-0, to allow the petition to be withdrawn without
prejudice.
WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE
September 11 , 1991
•
oseph C. Correnti, Secretary, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
N'
� N
�W
LO J
J
• W
N U
b
aitu of _ "ttlrm, ��_ Httssttcliuse��� �• --*
•._. F Puttra of cAvpeal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF Leslie and Linda White
FOR A VARIANCE AT 16 Calabrese Street (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held on May 15, 1991,
with the following Board Members present: Chairman Richard
Bencal, Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski , Jane Stirgwolt and
Joseph C. Correnti .
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others , and
notices were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a variance from the sideyard setback
requirement to allow a deck;
• in this R-1 zone.
The variance 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 land, buildings and
structures in the district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning
ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or
otherwise to the petitioner.
3 . Desirable relief may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good and without nullifying or
substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the
purpose of the ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the
evidence presented at the hearing makes the following findings
of fact:
1. That the petitioner will have a nine foot setback from
the sideyard which is one foot short of the ten foot sideyard
• setback requirement.
2. That the direct abutter to the sideyard in question,
Ms . Marilyn Bishop; wrote a letter to the Board in strong
support of the granting of the petition.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LESLIE AND LINDA WHITE FOR A VARIANCE
AT 16 CALABRESE ST. , SALEM f
page two HAY 2� �� 52^ AN 191
3. That there was no opposition to the petition during the pu 'T�.Y f oA` iori°. MASS
• of the hearing. ( IRK'S OFFICE
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 allow the
Variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All rules and regulations of the Salem Fire Dept. & Fire Prevention Code be
strictly adhered to.
2. All construction be as per the plans and dimensions submitted.
3. Exterior finishes of the construction be compatible with the existing finishes.
• 4. A Building Permit be obtained.
5. The Salem Building Code be strictly adhered to.
Variance Granted
May 15, 1991 n
�oseoh C. Correnti, Secretary, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Aolaw from Wi d6cision, If ehy, shall be fitade 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, Chz.Dter 808, Section 11, the Variance
or -7pecial Permit granted he,ein 5!1.311 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
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 on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL!
•
of _"23ttlrm, 41195ttdiusrtts
• '' ': _J.: F �ottra of '�Arpeal JAN 1b 3 t71
r9
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANN AND MICHAEL TOMSHO FOR
VARIANCES AT 9 CAMBRIDGE ST. (R-2) ;s
A hearing on this petition was held January 16, 1991 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 from zoning
requirements in order to allow a two family dwelling in this R-2 zone.
Before hearing the merits of the petition the Board first had to consider re-
hearing the petition as it was denied on November 7, 1990. After hearing the
merits, Mr. Luzinski made a motion, seconded by Mr. Febonio to hear the main
petition. By a vote of 5-0 the Board allowed the petitioner to proceed with
their petition to allow a two family.
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 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, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The main character of the building has never changed as to kitchen and bath
facilities.
2. Property has been assessed as a two family since 1973.
3. Adequate legal parking can be provided on site as provided for under the
City of Salem Zoning Ordinance.
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANN AND MICHAEL TOMSHO FOR
A VARIANCE AT 9 CAMBRIDGE ST. , SALEM
page two
• On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Zoning 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 petitioners.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the 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 . Petitioner meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to
smoke and fire safety.
2. Petitioner meet any and all requirements of any other Board and/or
Commission if necessary.
VARIANCE GRANTED
January 16, 1991
• O�AJ � els ���
1�ichard A. Bencai , Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 Of
the Mass. General laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to floss. General laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the variake
cr =aerial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
U, de-ision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
v; elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that,if such appeal has been
likd, 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 an the owner's Certificate of Tiva.
N i
C2 °' BOARD OF APPEAO
M
a
w
+p c
W Y
•
ad
b =; Ct> of . $alem, C. Httssttcllusetts
� $ e �oara of Avpeul ,
.N,,,,,m „�• JAN 28 3 o3 FN '91 AAS 300 I
FILET AitEEW-
:ITY CLERK.SALEM. MASS. ;�$N�.iA�Lfffh isL�4a.;.4?'K
DECISION ON THE REQUEST OF CANAL STREET REALTY TRUST FOR A
SIX (6) MONTH EXTENSION ON VARJANCES GRANTED TO 138 CANAL STREET.
Canal Street Realty Trust, through their Co msellor John Serafini Sr. , requested
a six (6) month extension on Variances which were granted on January 17, 1990,
recorded at the City Clerk ' s office on January 24, 1990, the twenty day appeal
period having expired on February 13, 1990.
After carefully considering this request, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously
to grant a six (6) month extension up to and including August 13, 1991 .
7< o �
• Richard A. Bencal , Chairman
•
SEP Z5 9 56 AM '91
111Y OF S,,LUj t4ASS
CLERK'S OFFICE
\ ,y flit of Salem, (7 asoadjusetts
• 3. s Paura of �Fveal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONNA R. MATCZAK FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 224 CANAL STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held September 11 , 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski, 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
construction of a second story to this single family dwelling which is located
in an R-2 zone.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(J ) , 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 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of
nonconfdrming 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 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 her family have been residents of this address for many
years and with to remain in this home.
2. All abutters of the premises were notified by mail of this petition
before the Board.
3. The house is presently four rooms on one floor and the petitioner wants
to add bedrooms and a bath to the second level.
4. The petitioners premises is the only one family home in the immediate
neighborhood. All other homes are- multi-dwelling--units.
5. The petitioner is in fact improving her property and thus the value of
her neighborls property with this proposea addition, which proposal will
• cost approximately $65,000.
6. That petitioner has licensed contractors to do the work and that there is
no neighborhood opposition.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONNA R. MATCZAK FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 224 CANAL 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 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.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to allow the
Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes
and regulations.
2. That the proposed construction be per the plans and dimensions submitted.
3. That all exterior finishes be compatible with':the existing structure.
4. That a legal building permit be obtained.
5• That a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
6. That all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety;be strictly adhered to.
• Special Permit Granted
September 11 , 1991
(•ted)
,OUoseph C. Correnti, Secretary, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
G;' n: Appeal from this decision,if any,shall tie made pursuant to Section 17 d!
UJ the klass. 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.
uni o
Pursucnt tr, M.rs.General Laws,Chapter 808, Section 11,the variance
the
or Special Permit rranted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
:•i decision, t.=rin^.ha certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsecl and no appeal has been filed,or that, If such appeal his been
a.0
z W. 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 or
Is recorded and'noted an the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
as
(1�ity of 5�lrm, �55�c1Tu5Ptt5
Boara of —A vt�91� S9 QM '91
CITY OF S N. MASS
CLERK'S UFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEON JACKSON & CHERYL CARFAGNO FOR
VARIANCE AT 5' CEDAR HILL ROAD (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held June 26, 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane
Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance from side setback
requirements to allow construc:ion of an addition in this R-1 district.
The Variance which has been requested can be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings and structures in the same district.
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
• c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition to this petition.
2. The proposed addition would enhance the petitioners quality of life.
3. This is the most feasible location for the proposed 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 Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship on the petitioners.
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
• intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEON JACKSON & CHERYL CARFAGNO
FOR VARIANCE AT 5 CEDAR HILL 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 construction be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted.
2. all construction be in compliance with city and state building codes.
3. Exterior finishes of the proposed addition be compatible with the existing
structure.
4. A building permit be obtained.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
6. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety be strictly adhered to.
Variance Granted
June 26, 1991
Richard Febonlo, 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
<n and shall be filed within 20 days
rn the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808,
C W after the date Of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
3 L h
r {ti Pursuant to floss. General Laws. C l ;lo Bake Section til the Variance
the
UJ C' or ?p ecial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copyof
decision, bearing the certification of the City Clark if suchat 20 apP alahas been
v^Y e:apsed and no appeal has been tiled,or that,
C ;iloti. that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex
N r,w Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
J
F v is recorded and noted on the ovmer's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
:y Ctu of ttlrm, { ttsstttliusetts 1�!:':`:
Botts of .Appeal
�•�,�,,.rte
'91 NAR 13 P 3 :05
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARJOD, INC. , JOHN A. DRIVAS FORUTY CLE' F,'S OFFICE
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 13-15 CENTRAL STREET (B-5) SALEi1i'i�.:
A hearing on this petition was held February 27, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard A. Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Secretary; 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 Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to allow
construction of an addition in the rear of this nonconforming structure. The
property is located in a B-5 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section
VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non-
conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of
• nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such
change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more 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 Special Permit requests 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 tt.e plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The premises and building in question is a commercial restaurant use in
a B-5 zone.
2. All abutters of the premises were notified by mail of this petition before
the Board.
3. The proposed addition is to be used as a storage area and will consist of
a total expansion of approximately 630 feet.
4. That the proposed addition will remain within the frame lines of the buildings
and will be approximately one and one-half feet below the existing roof line.
5. The proposed addition will not be visible from Central Street.
6. That the proposed expansion will not cause any additional seating or
• parking needs within the business.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARJOD INC. , JOHN A. DRIVAS FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 13-]5 CENTRAL STREET, SALEM
• page two
7. That City Councillor O' Leary spoke in favor of the petition as helping
business in the City. .9) 13
MAR
3:OS
8. That four other City residents, including three ers, spoke in favor.
9. That there was no opposition to the petition. SALE,? .OFF-ICE
10. That the Salem Historical Commission advised the Board that the building was
of historical import but that the Commission took no position on 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 . The proposed changes will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighbor-
hood 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, 4-0, to grant the Special
Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction be done in accordance with plans and dimensions submitted.
• 2. All necessary state and local permits and certificates be obtained, and that
all applicable codes be adhered to, including but not limited to building and
fire permits and inspections.
3. Exterior finishes be compatible with existing structure.
5• A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
6. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety be strictly adhered to.
7 . That the dumpster area which fronts Central Street be fenced along Central
Street with a six foot fence approved by the Design Review Board and in
conjunction with the Board of Health rules and regulations.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
February 27, 1991 awo)
;os6ep 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.
shall
• ,.,..:r�ti�e dale of win.;of Cl�u�deciter isso n nnt1e oitice o'f t cwithin
y CO day'
p:!-;cant to t.1a li^�^ra: c,
=r r.` tea
h. ..
t°::rmR ^r-n:^d h_ nin rot l:I;c of=ct cntil a coPY_,-
:��. ;ha c-r;aicati^n of lho City CWr!< that 23 dah,
i1e:i, or zZt, if such oPPea
,,.,a ;-�isseJ or c:eaied is recorded in the Sou:: �=
b: Cis'r;r of D;�ds an 1indexed unser toe name or the owner of rcu::� or
iucorded and noted en the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
Tit" of �ttlem, 4fassad usetts
5 I• RE( EEIVED
(y,y, 4.
.W0urb Of CAUpf211
n\
'91 APR -3 P 3 :07
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAURIER BOUCHARD FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 8-10 CHASE STREET (R-3) CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM MASS.
A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, 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 increase the
height of the existing garage roof. The property is located in an R-3 district.
.The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of.
Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section
VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non-
conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of
nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change,
extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than
• the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general termis, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The proposed roof change would improve drainage off the presently flat roof.
2. The proposed roof change will not create any additional drainage problems
on the site.
3. No opposition to the petition was expressed.
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 will promote the public health, safety,
convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and will be in harmony
with the district.
2. The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial detriment to
• the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAURIER BOUCHARD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AT 8-10 CHASE STREET, SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the Special
Permit requested subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction be in compliance with all City and State Building Codes.
2. All construction be as per the plans and dimensions submitted.
3. Exterior finishes are to be compatible with the existing structure.
4. A Building Permit be obtained prior to the onset of construction.
5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety are to be strictly adhered to.
Special Permit granted
March 20, 1991
WV
Mary e Stirgwopt, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
r` w
• c Cil
C.
Q- COD U"
lA! d
7 ink Appeal from this decision, If any, shall tie made pursuant to Section 17 01}
LLJth Y the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808,and shall be filed within 20 days
L wiL after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
111 c ciQ Pursuant to Mass. General,Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance
>-N or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
F.. decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
91 U 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 Deads 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!
•
- 05
(gitn of �ttlem, 4EaSsaC11U5ettS
.;= - RECFIVEr'P
1- ,
\Hrr
peal
'91 APR -3 P3 :07
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BRIAN CALL (PETITIONER) , BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE
COMPANY (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 15 CHERRY HILL AVENUE (R-1 ) CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM MASS,
A hearing on this petition was held February 27, 1991 and continued until March
20, 1991 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman;
Joseph Correnti, 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.
The petitioner is requesting Variances from lot size and frontage to allow parcel
to be divided and to construct a single family home on the newly created lot. Said
single family dwelling will conform to all setback requirements. The property is
located in an R-1 district.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands,
buildings and structures in the same district.
• b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good
and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district
or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, .after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was opposition voiced at the hearing.
2. A petition in opposition to this application was submitted.
3. The proposed division will bring these lots into conformity with other
lots in the area with regard to depth.
4. The newly created lot will be equal in lot area and frontage to many of the
lots in the same district.
5. This is the only lot in the area with frontage on two streets.
6. The proposed single family dwelling will meet all setback requirements.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BRIAN CALL (PETITIONER) BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE
COMPANY (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 15 CHERRY HILL AVENUE, SALEM
page two
• On basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not
the district 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.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Febonio opposed) to grant the
Variances requested subject to the condition the petition obtain proper street
numbering from the City of Salem Assessor.
Variance Granted
March 20, 1991
ichard Febonio, Member, Board of Appeal
•- A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
r— w
G U
(II r"h LL vi Appeal from this decision,If arty, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of.
U; d the Miss. General Laws, Chapter E08, and shall be filed within 20 days
c
toatter the date of tiling of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
lL t Wiz_ P:❑suant to Mass. General Laws, Chnoter 808, Section 11, the Variance
�•� d JJ` •r =gyp. al Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
UQ 'ccision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
}N elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
f— filed, that it has been dismiss" or denied is recorded in the South Essex
V Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the ownef.of record 'or
is nccorded and noted an the owner's Certificate of Title.
• ` BOARD OF APPEAU
2
(gity of �talem, .�ttssucliusetts
• _:.f. s boarb of �u}tenl SEP ! 02 P1
CITY Or ,.,LLM. MASS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALAN T. HOWE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT CLERK'S OFFICE
AT 10 CHESTNUT ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held August 21 , 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski
Mary Jane Stirgwolt. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and
notices of the hearing were prcperly published in the Salem Evening News in accord-
ance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to return the
premises to its two family use. The property is located in an R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in
Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction
of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expanstion
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 Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
of the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The premises is located in an Residential Two family district (R-2)
2. The premises was used as a two family home from 1971 through 1989•
3. No physical alterations are required as the rental unit remains intact
from its last use in 1989•
4. Adquate on site parking is available for both units of the two family.
5. That this property is located in the McIntire Historic District and
numerous correspondence was read into the record regarding this property
from the Salem Historic Commission.
6. All abutters of the premises were notified by mail of this petition
before the Board.
• 7. That one neighbor spoke in favor of the petition and three abutters were
opposed.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALAN T. HOWE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT
10 CHESTNUT STREET, SALEM
page two
• On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evi(f&ceq prT ted at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: r� g�
CITY OF c - ;
1 . The proposed changes will not be substantially more detrgke-RK'agrg0= th S
rft,�
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.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal vote 4-1 to allow the Special Permit
requested, with Mr. Bencal opposed, subject to the following conditions:
1 . That petitioner comply with all City and State statutes, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for the second unit.
3. That adquate, legal parking be maintained for the residents of the premises.
4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety be strictly adhered to.
5. That any and all Certificates of Appropriateness of the Salem Historic
Commission relative to 10 Chestnut St. be complied with.
Special Permit Granted
• August 21 , 1991
&,a C, o owid-)
�/Joseph C. Correnti, Secretary
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 dy
.ac N:a:s. ^cher;I La•:„ Chanter FOB, and sha!I be filed within 20 days
alfc;' the d-tart`f..-;c' t s jccisian in :he office of the City Clork.
rmeu^nt is [.ia;:; ;,. .. -. - Cita,ter SCS, Section 11, the Variance
cf ,,.;i . .. :I not take effect until a copy of the
decic:cn, ":rrir' !: : the City Clerk that 20 days ha
elapsed an, !;o I. or that, if such appeal has been
filed,thct is ha: burn is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Dee& and inr'e::e:i um.'.or the name or the owner of record or
Is recorded and no'ed ro the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
@7
TItU Of �jaly t, 41j2255acil i5ett5
Bourb of -A LTpea
'91 NAR 13 P 3 :05
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETROS & HRISOULA GOUVOUSIS FOR
VARIANCES AT 29 CIRCLE HILL ROAD (R-1 ) CITY CLEM'S QUICE
SALE!
A hearing on this petition was held February 27, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; 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, are requesting a variance from side yard
setback requirements to allow a deck and stairs. The property is located in
an R-1 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by the Board
that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings or structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
• substantial hardship to the petitioner, financial or otherwise;
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The stairway provides a third exit and the only upstairs exit to
the outside.
2. The stairway adds to the safety of the inhabitants of the dwelling.
3. The deck adds to the convenience and welfare of the inhabitants.
4. No support or opposition was presented to the plan.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but
not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
• substantial hardship to the petitioners.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETROS & HRISOULA GOUVOUSIS FOR
VARIANCE AT 29 CIRCLE HILL ROAD, SALEH
• page two R E,r F.;1
3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantial1,91dehARJt1nd 3M5 the intent of he
district or the purpose of the Ordinance. TT � rrFF
1 . Petitioner obtain a legal building permit tC11Y FRI('r �rdt'I Salem.
� � ,,0
2. Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department
relative to smoke and fire safety.
VARIANCE GRANTED
February 27, 1991
Ric and A. Bencal, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• ;•areal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
+c !,:ass. Cen_raf Laws, Cha?ter 808. and shall be filed within 20 r4r"
the 61:e of filine, of tai- decicic•n in the office of the City
Prr.-:cr,t:c loie;�. Cener:.0 Law,. Cii±rter 103. Sec:i,rn 11, the b:::;.,%2
n;.,,t r^rmit p;r;:n:c l Itoein c':::i rot teAe e'fart crtil n crpy f:,q
;n, rrc]rinn We c-runcalinn t,: !he City Clam that 23
.;.d apo no appeal has been lil'.d, or that, if such appealhor
Gtat it I:as been dis tisscu or denied is recordcd in th•
hcl;istry of Ce,ds and indexed under the name or the ownor of rra d ^r
is reoorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL'
•
Ct of . ttlem, C ttsstttliusetts
Poura of N Teal JAN 28 3 03 FM °9l
FILE#
;ITY CLERK. SAI EF?.MASS.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SILVANO AND KIM DINICOLA FOR
VARIANCES FOR 29 CIRCLE HILL ROAD (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held January 16, 1991 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 Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, through their Attorney Joseph M. Sano, requested leave to with-
draw their petition for Variances to allow deck and stairs. A motion to
allow withdrawal having been made and duly seconded, the Board of Appeal voted
unanimously in favor of the motion, the petition is Withrawn Without Prejudice.
WITHDRAWN
Edward Luzinski Vice Chairman
•
•
CpTr ER CE
of �Ulem, ��Eaesadjusetta
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ERNEST AND PHYLLIS DEARBORN
FOR A VARIANCE AT 28 CLARK STREET (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held September 11 , 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski, 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 from side setback
requirements to allow construction of a deck and walkway in this 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 or structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners.
• 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the 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 property in question is unique and its shape is very irregular.
2. The location of the proposed deck and walkway in any other location would
cause worse encroachments of the setbacks.
3. The proposed deck and walkway will add to the further use and enjoyment
of'-.the property.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but
not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance woul&.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 ERNEST AND PHYLLIS DEARBORN FOR
A .V.ARIANCE AT 28 CLARK 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 shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes
and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted.
3. A legal building permit shall be obtained.
4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
5. The maximum width of the proposed walkway shall be four (4) feet.
Variance Granted
September 11 , 1991
ichard A. Sencal, 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 Secffofl 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. General Laws. Chapter 808,Section 11,the variance
or Necial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a cody 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
m rn Is recorded and noted on the Owner's Certificate of Title.
`n BOARD OF APPEAL!
-mac v
.y
111 J
ILS'7 O ie.'
d �U
W
t/1 U
•
Ctu of ulem, '�Eagsadjusetts
ryi, J ' F Poara of �upenl PIOV I 8 3g QPP
._,.. 91
citr Or IZ A
CLERK S,p k_IMASS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RALPH SALVO FOR VARIANCES AT 40
AND 42 CLARK STREET ; (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held October 16, 1991 with
the following Board Members present: Richard
Bencal,Chairman; Joseph Correnti , Richard Febonio,Mary Jane
Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. Notice of
the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices o
the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter
40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances
from frontage to allow a single family dwelling to be built
on 40 Clark St. and a single family dwelling to be built on
42 Clark St. Property is located in a single family
• district.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon
a finding of the 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 or 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 ofthe 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. A variance from frontage to allow the construction of
single family dwellings on these lots was granted by this
Board on July 16, 1986.
• 2. Both 40 & 42 Clark St. have 75 . 61 feet of frontage
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RALPH SALVO FOR VARIANCE p
• AT 40 AND 42 CLARK STREET, SALEM NOr i$ t7 3j
page two
dens3 . ityhandsingle
setbackfamily
requirements will meet all other C/CtE�K;J�OFFJCESS
4 . Each lot has over 20 ,000 square feet of land, 40 Clark
St . having 22, 864 sq. ft . and 42 Clark St . having 20,553
sq . ft.
5 . 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 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 .
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously,
5-0, to grant the variances requested, subject to the
following conditions :
1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state
statutes, ordinances , codes and .regulations .
2 . Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the
Salem Fire department relative to smoke and fire safety.
3 . The division of the lots shall be as per the plans
submitted. One lot having square footage of 22 ,894
plus/minus and one lot having square footage of 20, 553
plus/minus . Each lot to have frontage of 75 . 6 plus/minus
feet .
4 . A Building Permit is to be obtained for each dwelling.
5 . A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained for each
dwelling.
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RALPH SALVO FOR VARIANCES
AT 40 AND 42 CLARK STREET, SALEM
• page three HOY 5
Variance Granted 1CITY OF S/'
October 16, 1991 OIFfiK'S ,)�- IIAS;S
.;tf � °)
Ronald G. Plante. Associate 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 40A, and
shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of
this decision in the Office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to
MGL, CHAPTER 40A, 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
Title .
•
b Ctu of zclem, � Httsstttllusetts
�J
�. ? 39attra of �Aupeuf JANZ� ,
3 03 Ptd 91
FILE#
'ITY CLERX. SALEM.MASS.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL FOR VARIANCES
FOR 1-3 COLBY ST. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held September 19, 1990 and continued till
January 16, 1991 with the following Board Members present: Edward Luzinski ,
Acting Chairman; Joseph Correnti , Richard Febonio, Mary Jane Stirgwolt and
Associate 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.
Petitioners, owners of the property, represented by Attorney John Serafini , Sr.
are requesting Variances to allow construction of a Day Care facility in the
R-1 district.
The Petitioner, through Counsel, requested the Board grant Leave to Withdraw
Without Prejudice this request for Variances. A motion having been made and
duly seconded, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, in favor of the motion
to allow petition to be Withdrawn Without Prejudice.
• WITHDRAWN
Edward Luzinsk1 ,' VdTe Chairman
•
ofulrm, russttcljusrtts
Boum of cA4wd 3 2 1q PM '91
CITY OF SALLA, .-1ASS
CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & SALLIE CASS FOR A
VARIANCE AT 92 COLUMBUS AVE. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held June 26, 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman, Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane
Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices cf the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance to allow a temporary
boat shelter 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 affect 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 Ward Councillor spoke in favor.
2. There was strong neighborhood support.
3. A variance was originally granted allowing this temporary boat shelter in
1987 and was extended for six months.
4. Petitioner was unable to complete construction of his boat in the time alloted
by the original variances due to financial constraints.
5. There have been no complaints received by the Building Inspector or the
Ward Councillor regarding this boab.'shelter.
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 Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to
the petitioner.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & SALLIE CASS FOR A
VARIANCE AT 92 COLUMBUS AVE. , 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 . Temporary boat shelter is to be built as per the plans submitted.
2. A building permit is to be maintained.
3. This Variance will expire on July 25, 1993.
4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety
are to be strictly adhered to.
Variance Granted
June 26, 1991 �p)
(�fl'`")
Wald G. Plante, Associate 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 SOB, and shall be filed within 20 days
after the date-.of filing of this decision in the Office
Sectionthe
11, theVariance Clerk.�rn> uv Pursuant to Mass. General Laws. Ch"a `'08' of the
.<UJ or special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy
n'— -,y decision, bearing the ceriilication or thz City Cit r.s that 20 a ays hashbeen
00) �� elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such app
�, u:o
--� filed,that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded In the South ssex
ct f n
�. Regitry of Deeds and indexed under the n
same or the owner of recd M
�: b fec0rded and noted�n the owner's Certificate of Title-
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
/�' `�. (1�itc� of �ttlem, �ttssttCllusetts
\•- $ Pattra of Aupeal
DECISION ON THE REQUEST OF .Orille L'Heureux FOR A SIX (6) MONTH
EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED TO 89 CONGRESS ST. (B-1 )
The petitioner, through his Counsel, Attorney John Serafini, Sr. , is requesting
a six (6) month extension on Variance and Special Permit which was granted on
June 6, 1990, recorded at the City Clerk's office on June 21 , 1990, the twenty
day 'appeal period having expired July 13, 1990.
After carefully considerting this request, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously,
4-0, to grant the six (6) month extension up to and including January 13, 1992.
&a--uz
Edward Luzinski, Voe Chairman
•
_n
y
a
yy
00 C7
N
•
" » (9ity ofttlem, � ussucljusetts
J.. T kFrFitVF.'i
boarb of �u{reul
" '91 APR -3 P3 :08
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CARROLL AND ARLENE DICKINSC017ytLERK'S oFF)CE
VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 3 CONNERS ROAD (R-1 ) SALEM MASS,
A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1991 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.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit and Variance
to allow the second floor to .be expanded to create a second dwelling unit in this
single family (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 non-
conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of
• nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change,
extension 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 Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings or structures in the same district.
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, .to the petitioner.
c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
• 1 . The premises and building. in question is a single family home in an R-1 zone.
-DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CARROLL AND ARLENE DICKINSON FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AND VARIANCES AT 3 CONNERS ROAD, SALEM
page two
• 2. That presently the petitioners occupy this single famR _eE1%1Faamd propose to
add a second floor apartment making the dwelling into neabp garrrison.�R
3. That the petitioners have lived in the dwelling fat+ ovC Pe/rt� 4Ui years.
4. That the petitioners which to expand the second f9PPr RcfMai 0MtE son,
his wife and their two children may live with them. SALEM MASS,
5• That the proposed expansion will add another two feet to the current
nonconformity.
6. That the petitioners have shown a compelling financial and human need. to
be allowed this expansion.
7. All abutters of the premises were notified by mail of this petition
before the Board.
8. That there was no opposition to the application.
9• That a petition in favor of the application was submitted with twelve (12)
names, many of whom are direct abutters.
10. That a letter addressed to the Board was submitted by Ward 2 City Councillor
Kevin Harvey, which letter was in strong support of 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 . The proposed changes will not be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood and can be granted in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance and
without nullifying or substantially derogating from it's 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.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Special
Permit and Variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . The petition be allowed as per plans and dimensions submitted.
2. The exterior finish be compatible with the existing structure.
3. That all necessary state and local permits and certificates be obtained,
and that all applicable codes be adhered to, including, but not limited to
building and fire permits and inspections.
4. That at least one unit of the dwelling remain owner occupied at all times
• and that a driveway be maintained for off-street parking.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF Carroll and Arlene Dickinson FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AND VARIANCES AT 3 CONNERS ROAD, SALEM
page three
• RECF;VE' `
Special Permit and Variances Granted
March 20, 1991 -91 RPR -3 P3 '09
�T
CLERK'S
HA ,
)oAse1gVhCCorrenti, 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 04
Chapter 808, and shall be tiled within 20 days
d Clerk.
the Mass. General laws. Section 11,the Variance
after the date of filing of this decisionIn
808 f1Ca t, the Y l the
Pursuant to plass. General•L'aws.Chapti a effect until a co
or 3F=ci:•I Permit granted herein sh9`he City Cter k that 20 days haye
bPermit the certification of it such aDPeal has been
decision, eaI has been file d• or mat.
elapsed and no :PP caner o4 record_06
filed,that it has been dnzed U^Qefne name erdthe'o the South ssex
• Registry of Deeds and' tha owner's Certificate of��
is recorded attd no tori BOARD QE W ✓7
•
(91tof _"ittlem, �Httssad usetts
Poara of cAvPeal JAN 30 3 al PM `91
FILE$
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & PATRICIA TAFT (PETITIgKyW 0SM.MASS.
J. CAHILL JR. , (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE AT 70-72 DEARBORN ST. (R-1 'dL'E
A hearing on this petition was held January 16, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Edward Luzinski , Richard Febonio,
Mary Jane Stirgwolt 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.
Petitioners are requesting a Variance from the minimum lot width as defined in
the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to divide two contiguous lots in this
R-1 zone, and to construct a single family dwelling at 72 Dearborn St.
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 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 present at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . That the lot was previously designated as two lots and approved in the
original subdivision plan.
2. That at the time petitioner purchased the lot designated as number 70 he
already owned the lot designated as number 72.
3. That dividing the lots back to their original configuration, as requested,
would leave 70 Dearborn St. with 15,579 square feet and 72 Dearborn St. with
16,500 square feet, both having over the 15,000 square feet required by the
City of Salem Zoning Ordinance for an R-1 zone.
4. That the proposed single family dwelling will meet all setback requirements
of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance for an R-1 zone.
5. That there was support and opposition voiced at the hearing.
•
.. l
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & PATRICIA TAFT (PETITIONERS) , JOHN J.
CAHILL JR. , (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE AT 70-72 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM
page two
• On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which specifically 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 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 four in favor of granting the request,
one opposed (Ms. Stirgwolt) . The Variance from frontage is granted subject to
the following conditions:
1 . The petitioners obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem
Assessor.
2. That petitioner obtain all necessary permits and approvals from any other
City of State Authority which has jurisdiction, including, but not limited to
the Conservation Commission.
Variance granted
• January 16, 1991 �� 1
John H. Grady, ASSOCiatVPMember JI
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, If any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance
or Special Permit granted herein shau 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
Ned, 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 owners certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL,
•
Citu of ttlem, � ttssttcljusetts
r
�
MJ .
?
boara of 'Airpeul GET J� V4 `
Q Ilif"i
AVS
ICILLRX'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLAIRE CASTONGUAY BLANCHETTE
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 1 EMERTON ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held October 16, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio, Mary
Jane Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 con-
struction of an enclosed deck in this Residential Two Family District.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , 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
Sections 8-6 and 9-4, 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 neighbohrood.
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 new structure would replace a dilapidated structure.
2. The new structure would allow petitioner a better and fuller use of
the property.
3. No opposition was voiced to the plan.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming structure.
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 CLAIRE CASTONGUAY BLANCHETTE FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 1 EMERTON STREET, SALEM
page two
• 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statutes, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions submitted.
3. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit.
4. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department
relative to smoke and fire safety.
5• All exterior finishes shall be in harmony with existing exterior finishes.
Special Permit Granted
October 16, 1991
/7
ichard A. Bencal, Chairman
Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be m h el pursuant
e filed tolhin ct20 days ion 17 Of
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808,
and after the da;a of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursu+.nt tc M:cs. Gencrl Lc": Ch:C:e• P.08, Section 11, the Varoafnicfee
or iGPciak F'or li Bran?ed ho-ell: s.r.l ::ot lak^. effect until a COPY
ave
decision, bearing, th' cerli;icalion ci :he City Oif i,u lh,11i,pP i,t 20 hhashbeen
elapsed and no appecl hos b^en i:i.], or that,
filed, tlrat ii lies been dismissed or denie.i is recorded in the South Essex
RegistrY of Deeds and indexed unr:er She name or the owner of record or
is reco'-ied and noted on the owner's Certificate of Titla.
BOARD OF APPEAL
n O
mrn W
n p
s.T
Cn'_ ttiD
mn
(n co
N
•
(2)
uq,y
ofttlem, � ttssttcljusetts
<....: :F ltNOtILb of ��u{renl S9 q
;�
ryr..oinr a"
CITY ti
CLEPX, ;- o1ASS
.�_
v FJCE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER SHOLDS (PETITIONER) , HENRY HIDLER,
TRUSTEE, VIENNA C. TARCHINI LIVING TRUST, (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES FOR
47 ESSEX STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held August 21 , 1991 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 is requesting Variances from use and parking to allow the existing two
family dwelling to be converted to a three family dwelling in the R-2 district.
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 struc:;ures in the same district.
• b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial detriment, 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 . Petitioner failed to prove hardship as required for variance requests.
2. The neighborhood in question is densely populated and parking both on and
off street is at a premium and any futher relief from parking would cause
further problems.
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. 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 of the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER SHOLDS ( PETITIONER) , HENRY HIDLER TRUSTEE,
VIENNA C. TARCHINI LIVING TRUST, (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES FOR 47 ESSEX ST. , SALEM
• SEPpa e Wo
04(�� ISI
r
CJV,,nr'eKfore�FGhe Zoning Board of Appeal voted one in favor (Mr.Luzinski) and four
idlW e? eW Bencal, Mr. Correnti, Mr. Febonio and Ms. Stirgwolt) . The motion
to grant having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass,
fails and the Variances are denied.
VARIANCES DENIED
August 21 , 1991
� �1
Richard A. Bencal, Chairman, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
thG P-lass. General Laws. Chapter 308, and shall be filed within 20 days
af:or the date of piling of this decision in the office cf the City Clerk.
Parsueni to MR-,S. ce:•c L:r ;, 203, Section 11, the variance
cr v:ac%al Pc-mi: r; an;r: h.: :: ['r,..ii not tn!:a effect until a copy of the
dee sa:,, bearin^ !h,,• cartificc!ion r.; ;ha City Clerk that 20 days haC:
• elapsed cnr; no a,^.^eel hos acen find, cr that, if such appaal has been
filed, that K lies heen dsmisse,: cr r!cnied is recorded in the South Essex
Regictry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or.
is recorded and noted s i the o.vner's Certificate of Titia.
BOARD OF APPEAL,
•
MAY 29 1152 AM '91®
Y OF SA,. M. MASS
r' ;b fluty ofttlem, 2IsstIfliusPLERK'S OFFICE
b - 1.
• :- -^ $ board of CA1Tpeal
l
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES AND CLAIRE BAILEY FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 81 ESSEX ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held May 15, 1991 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 40At
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to increase
nonconforming density by allowing the construction of a sun room in this Residential
Two Family 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 nonconfomring structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion
of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such
• change, extension, enlargment or expansion shall not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Councillor Nowak, the Ward Councillor, expressed support for the petition.
2. No opposition to the proposal was expressed at the public hearing.
3. The proposed addition was designed by a local architect known to the Board
as being sensitive to the historic character of this property and the
zoning district in general.
4. The proposed addition would not be readily visible from the public street.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The relief requested can be granted in harmony with the district and will
• promote the safety, convenience and welfare of the inhabitants.
2. The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES AND CLAIRE BAILEY FOR
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 81 ESSEX ST. , SALEM
page two
. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction be .in compliance with City and 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. A Building Permit be obtained.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
6. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety be strictly adhered to.
Special Permit Granted
May 15, 1991
Mary J e Stirgwo , Member, Board of Appeal
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
c� 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.
un;� Pier^uont to Mass. General Laws, Chopler 308, Section 11, the Variance
uer 4necial Permit granted herein sh::ll not take effect until a copy of the
N o J decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed ane 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 De:-ds 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
•
(situ ofttlem, Cttssttcllusetts
....
�uura of rkufreal OCT 30 03 PM '91
CITY C" S.,LZA, ;SASS
CLEF;I'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANIEL & SUZANNE CRYAN FOR
VARIANCES AT 96 ESSEX ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held October 16, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio, Mary
Jane Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. Notice of the hearing was sent
to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting variances from use and parking
to allow property to be converted to a three family in this R-2 district.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented, and at the request of
the petitioners, voted 4-1 (Mr. Bencal opposed) to allow the petition to be with-
drawn without prejudice.
WITHDRAW
October 16, 1991
R'chard T.~Febonio, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
`' fIZTtCy QftTIPm, C„ 2288MtIj1ISPtfS
F Potts of :Anpenl
DECISION ON THE REQUEST OF ESSEX INSTITUTE AND MUSEUMS COOPERATIVE
OF SALEM, INC. FOR A SIX (6) MONTH EXTENSION ON VARIANCES GRANTED
TO 120-143 ESSEX ST. (B-5)
The petitioners, through their Counsel, John Serafini, Sr. , Esq. , requested a
six (6) month extension on Variances that were granted on March 7, 1990,
recorded at the City Clerk's Office on May 14, 1990, the twenty day appeal
period having expired on June 5, 1990.
After carefully considering the request, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously,
4-0, to grant a six (6) month extension up to and including December 5, 1991 .
12)
Edward LuzinskVice Chairman
•
n %6
N�
M rn s
3s �
y"� n to
w
rn N)
m iv
•
(Gitu of "$u1em, � ussuCljusetts
• $ Boarb of ,AppealSE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALAN T. HOWE, ET AL FOR A f( Rn ST!,. FIC[4AS$
VARIANCE AT 331 ESSEX ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held August 21 , 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski
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 accord-
ance with Massachusettes General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Variance from the numberof apartments allowed in
this R-2 zone.
The variance 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 or 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 detrimentto 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 current use of the premises is as a lodging (rooming) house with twelve
( 12) allowable units which consist of: two (2) apartments, two (2) kitchen-
ettes, and eight (8) single rooms.
2. The petitioner is requesting seven (7) one bedroom apartment units.
3. The previous owner of the premises was granted a variance in 1987 by this
Board to allow four (4) residential units.
4. The premises is located in the McIntire Historic District and correspondence
from the Salem Historical Commission was made part of the record.
5• The Certificate of Inspection (#84-89) issued on November 13, 1989 and
signed by Building Official Martineau, lists eleven ( 11 ) official units
for the premises, and not twelve ( 12) as stated by petitioner.
6. That the owners of 333 Essex Street, as represented by Ms. Pitkin, were
recorded in favor of the petition.
• 7• That eight (8) abutters were recorded as opposed to this petition.
8. That the Board finds that this petition represents a more intensive use of
than its current use.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALAN T. HOWE, ETAL FOR A
VARIANCE AT 331 ESSEX STREET, SALEM
page two
• 9. Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof re k tivye tR �l�ga� rhardship.
JJ 3 r 91
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on t6pfpvidence presented at the
H.
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: CLERK'S OFFICESS
1 . Special conditions or circumstances do not exist which especially affect the
subject property and not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not involve
substantial hardship on the petitioner.
3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good or without nullifying 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 this Variance. The motion to grant having failed to garner the required four
affirmative votes needed to pass, fails and the Variance is denied.
Variance denied
August 21 , 1991
�hC. C. (pr.�l�oAJos Correnti, Secretary
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 dE
the A1z;;. General Laps, Chapter 808,and shall be filed within 20 days
of""- the date cl filing of tt,; decision in the office of the City cieik.
Pvr=am:. :, 65as. Ce•nsrzi Laws, Ch:-pter 8C8. Section 11, the Variance
cr Fannif 'ran:ed he ein shall not take effect until a cop,/of the
du:ci :.hr, r.gri Kic:.tion of (tie City Clerk that 20 dzvs ha R.
oWpced in; no ef•::t::: hr; Lien filed, or that, if such appeal his been
fired, thc.t it h,:s bzen r smisaed or 4:an ed is recorded in tiie South Essax
Rrgis'try of Deads and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
Is recorded and noted s:t the o•.vner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
,•..,.,,.� JUN 26 1102 AH '91
i= <b (91tn of .'ulem, Ass
.:'.i,
CLERK'S )�FCL
Pnttra of ��, peal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FREDERICK & MARGARET KEACH FOR
VARIANCE AT 393 ESSEX ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held June 19, 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane
Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are seeking a variance to confirm the use
of the property as professional offices, medical or dental clinic on the first
floor and the upper stories to be maintained as three residential dwelling units.
The property is located in an R-2 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands
buildings 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 building has been used as a combination doctor/dentist office and
residential property -since 1957.
2. The present owner purchesed the building in 1960 and has practiced dentistry
there since that time.
3. The upper floors of the building were always used for residential purposes.
4. The present conbination of first floor professional offices and three
residential dwelling units on the upper stories has been in existance since
1964.
5. The daytime use of the first floor professional offices is beneficial to the
neighborhood in that it does not require overnight parking.
• 6. There have been numerous doctor's offices along Essex Street and Highland
Avenue between this property and the Salem Hospital.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FREDERICK & MARGARET KEACH FOR
VARIANCE AT 393 ESSEX STREET, SALEM
page two
• On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evident 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 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 . Any renovations be done in compliance with the State Building Code.
2. Approval .of-the..Salem Historic Commission._be.obtained if any exterior work
to done.
3. All requirements of the City of Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety be strictly adhered to.
• 4. Use be limited to professional offices, medical or dental clinic, on the first
floor and the upper stories be maintained as three residential units.
Variance Granted
June 19, 1991
Marylpe Stirgw , 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'tb Section 17 tR
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 ftass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance n
or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
y =
decision, bearing the certification of the city Clerk that 20 days have r—
elapsed
elapsed and no appeal has been fired. or that, if such appeal has been 6 100
filed,that it has been dismisse4i or denied is recorded in the South Essex., _
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of recordror_ _
is recorded and noted on the owner 's Certificate of Title.
a C
BOARD OF APPEAL .T 3
M
• Cn f�
Ut
MAY Z9 115? All '9149
fIIitp of ttlem, tt85ttC11u9et SGLMASS
ERK'5 OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FAST FRANKS, INC. ROBERT KONDON
PRESIDENT (PETITIONER) , SALEM REALTY TRUST (OWNER) FOR
VARIANCES AT 426 ESSEX ST. (B-1 )
A hearing in this petition was held May 15, 1991 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 parking and setbacks to allow the
construction of a refreshment stand in this B-1 district. The property is owned
by Salem Realty Trust, Martin S. Tagerman, Trustee.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings or structures in the same district.
• b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Several City Councillors and direct abutters expressed strong opposition
to this petition at the public hearing.
2. The parcel already contains several businesses which create customer traffic
that utilize all of the available parking as well as the parking on adjacent
neighborhood streets.
3. The adjacent neighborhood has been plagued by litter problems from the
already existing businesses. This problem would be intensified with the
addition of this business.
4. The proposed business is characterized as a refreshment stand rather than a
restaurant and would attract drive-by customers as well as pedestrian traffic.
5• The proposed business would inevitably attract students from the nearby
• middle school creating a public safety concern as these customers would have
to cross Essex Street or Highland Avenue, which have very high traffic con-
gestion, in their approach to the proposed business
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FAST FRANKS, INC. ROBERT KONDON PRESIDENT
( PETITIONER) , SALEM REALTY TRUST (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT
426 ESSEX ST. , SALEM
page two
• 6. Petitioners failed to demonstrate or to meet their burden of proof
relative to legal hardship.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5, against the granting
of these Variances. Having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes
to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition is denied.
VARIANCES DENIED
May 15, 1991
D
Mary J Stirgwolt, Vmber, 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 dt
N the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 day$
tn after the date.of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
rUi
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance
eu 3:1.,
or '*aetial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy o the
• N +o decision, bearing, the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
j:,: elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
rn tiled, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex
�a Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
N Is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Titlo.
c F- BOARD OF APPEAL'
� U
•
, yo-
of -'� tttem' 4&65adjusetts h ��
33oara of Appeal
'91 MAY -1
As :3z
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN HALEY FOR VARIANCES AT CITY C( FR
2 GOODHUE ST. (BPD) SA( Eh1MASO ICE
A hearing on this petition was held April 17, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Edward Luzinski, Joseph Correnti,
Richard Febonio and Associate Member Arthur LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing
was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly
advertised in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variances to allow the property
to be used for sale of used cars and for storage of cars that are in the repair.
process. 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.
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 located in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) .
2. The immediate abutter spoke in opposition.
3. The petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof relative to
legal hardship.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, 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 Ordinanceiwould 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 of the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN HALEY FOR VARIANCES AT
2 GOODHUE STREET, SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5, against the
granting of the Variances requested. The motion to grant having failed to garner
the required four affirmative votes to pass, fails, and the petition is denied.
VARIANCES DENIED
April 17, 1991
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 tie 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.
Pursunni to Mass. Genera! Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance
or 9ner,inl Permit,^.re.nte.f he.eio st:It ;lot take effect until a copy of the
decision, be.r the certiticaiion cf Ute 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 dismisses 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 APPEAL'
n �
ti
Dn 3 T
r r j Tl
D Co C
00 f t
ca
m w
•
;b Ctu of _25alem, 49assadjusetts
:6ottra of cAu
AU Z 57 AM '9
CITY OF S;'!.VH. MASS
CLERK'S GFFICF
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES BRETT FOR VARIANCES FOR
11 , 13, 15, GREENLAWN AVENUE a/k/a LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVE. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held June 19, 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane
Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 existing
three lots into four lots. Property is located in an R-1 district.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building and 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 . Councillor Leonard O'Leary spoke in favor of this petition.
2. Mrs. Walsh, ar.2abutter who had concerns atoul: ?ter run--off on her
property, was informed by the Chairman that the petitioner was at this
time only asking to divide his lots and not to build and at a •future'
time if the petition is granted and at the start of any construction,
she would be notified by the proper City Dept. and she could voice her
concerns at that time.
On, the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal, 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. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent
of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES BRETT FOR VARIANCES
AT 11 , 13, 15 GREENLAWN AVE. , A/K/A LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVE. , SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . That the petitioner shall have a pre-blast survey in accordance with
City Ordinance.
2. Property street numbering be obtained from the City of Salem Assessor.
Variances Granted
June 19, 1991
chard 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 be filed within 20 days
After the date.of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. Genera! Laws, Ch:ptar 808, Section 11, the Variance
• or 2aeciai Permit arente� he:ein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing the certilicat on 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 dlsMi55e1t or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Raglil i of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
is recorded and noted en the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
4 L
Q 1.
G'—
�
u)iC
C
dRD U ttJ
>—J
� U
•
SEP [5 5s Gil '91 45
(9itu of � t
IVCE
SS
Pnttra ofAveal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & MARYANN O'SHEA/MICHAEL GIGLIOTTI
FOR VARIANCES AT 1 GREENWAY RD. a/k/a 101 HIGHLAND AVE. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held september 11 , 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski, 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 to allow a fence
which is in violation of the requirements for fences in the Entrance Corridor
Overlay District and visibility at intersections to remain. The property is
located in an R-1 district.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of 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 or structures in the same district.
• 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without subsantial 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 received three price estimates for the existing fence and
was unaware that the fence construction required a building permit because
it was less than six feet.
2. The petitioners property is a corner lot that is unlike others in the zoning
district in that it is open on two sides to traffic.
3. The parcel in question requires protection both from traffic and noise from
adjacent Highland Avenue and Salem Hospital.
4. The Pence replaced a group of shrubs and trees that were less attractive and
the fence does not obstruct the view of traffic to significantly greater degree.
5. Several neighbors spoke in favor of this petition.
• 6. The petitioner's land would be severely restricted in use due to safety
hazards from traffic if this petition is denied.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & MARYANN O'SHEA/MICHAEL GIGLIOTTI
FOR VARIANCES AT 1 GREENWAY..RD. a/k/a 101 HIGHLAND 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 exist which especially affect the subject property and not
the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the ordinance would involve substantial 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 VarianceE
requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner is to obtain a legal building permit.
2. The section of fence adjacent to 99 Highland Ave. will be altered so as to
lessen the obstruction of the view entering onto Highland Avenue.
Variances Granted
September 11', 1991 �,.p1
V'T )
• Mary J Stirgwolt, ber'; Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS .BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
n 17
tAppeal from decision.if any,shall be made pursuant to he Mass.Genherall is Laws, chapter 808, and shall be filed withiodin 20 days —
after the date of filing of this decision in the Office oprthi lCtheity cVarlance
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, ter SOB,
or ?!ieciia Permit eran!ed Wain shall not take etfect until a copy of the
decision, baarin'; the crrtdication of the City Clerk that 20d ays hashave
been
'elapsed and no appc,.l has been filed, or that, it such app
N' flied,that it has been dlsmissed or denied is recorded In the South Essex
i� 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 APPEAL
m
N >1
V) L
y6
b 4� Ctu of ttlem, ttssttcllusetts
DEC 18 2 59 PM '91
FILE#
:ITY CLERK. SALEM,MASS.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DR. AYRES D'SOUZA
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 72 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-3)
A hearing on this petition was held December 16, 1991 with the following
Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane Stirgwolt and Francis Grealish Jr. Notice of
the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to
allow construction of a second floor addition to a portion of the
premises and to lift a restriction limiting the number of allow doctors,
in a decision of August 8, 1981. The property is located in an R-3
zone.
• The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this
request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , 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 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations
and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes,
enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land,
structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension,
enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental
than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit
requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be
granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit
will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the
City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence
presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the
following findings of fact;
1. There was no opposition to the request.
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AYRES D'SOUZA
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 72 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM
• page two
2. Three letters in support were received by the Board, �V^ ¢ ra �y���;�, 091
68 Highland Ave. ,Kenneth Anderson, 84 Highland Ave. , and kr e
Verrette, Officer Manager, Salem Village Associates. FILEit
3. Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor as did Fire InspectRg GLaPtpigt?e_M,MASS,
4. There will be adequate parking.
5. The granting of this petition will enhance Dr.D'Souza's child care
practice, as well as contribute to pediatrics at the Salem Hospital.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence
presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1. The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially
derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the
Ordinance.
2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the public
health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and
may be granted in harmony with the neighborhood.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant
• the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statutes,
ordinances, codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions
submitted.
3. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit.
4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
6. Seven (7) on site parking spaces are to be maintained.
•
• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF Dr. Ayres D'Souza
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 72 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM
page three DEC IB 2 59 PM '91
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED FILE#
December 16, 1991 ;ITY CLERK.SALEM.MASS.
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 deciison, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17
of MCL Chapter 40A. , and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of
filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to
MGL Chapter 40A. , Section 11, the 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 to South Essex Registry of Deeds and
indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted
on the owner's Certificate of Title.
Board of Appeal
•
<b U (fity of $Ulem, 'Tassadlusetts
f �s Poara of �u eul
DEC3 05
PM '91
9
FILE#`r
:ITY CLERK. SALEM,MASS,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DR. AYRES D'SOUZA FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 72 HIGHLAND AVE. (R-3)
A hearing on this petition was held November 20, 1991 with the following
Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman, Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski,
Mary Jane Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 con-
struction of a second story to the rear addition in this R-3 district.
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence, and at the request of the
petitioner, voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant Leave to:Withdraw Without Prejudice.
WITHDRAWN
November 20, 1991
� �, - cam
A/ /
ichard Febonio, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
•
y�
,•„b (Ditty of . ttlem, � ttssttcliusetts
per 30
; •? zu 3 04 PH °91
�,,.;�,•* CITY C: :3.' P:. ,;ASS
CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES PULED FOR A
VARIANCE AT 372 HIGHLAND AVE. (B-2)
A hearing on this petition was held October 16, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Mary Jane Stirgwolt
and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 to allow
batting cages, office booth, token machines and vending machines. The property
is located in a B-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 involve and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings and structures in the same district.
• 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition.
2. This would be recreational facility that would benefit people of all ages.
3. That this would enhance the business climate in the City.
4. That this would be in harmony with 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 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 CHARLES PULEO FOR A VARIANCE
AT 372 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the
variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statutes, ordinances, codes
and regulations.
2. That all construction be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted with
the exception that the office structure shall be no larger than 10' x 15'
in size.
3. That a legal building permit be obtained.
4. That the facility be open no longer than 11 :00 p.m.
5. That the petitioner obtain approval of any and all State and City Boards,
Commissions and Departments that may have jurisdiction.
Variance Granted
October 16, 1991
• 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 be filed within 20 days
after the date of filing, of this decie ion in the office of tfre City Clerk.
Pursuant to t:9ars. Geneni La NS, Ch. •dar£:C3, Section 11, the Variance
or "petia' Permit ,an;c ' herein ::6 :�t take effect :mtil a copy of the
decision, :;':ging the certiflcztii: -%. ;:c City C:a:k that 20 days have
elapsed an-1 no apceal has bean iced, or Vial, if such appeal has been
filed, that it has been dismr-:(! or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
is rec✓Aed and noted ea the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
c') O
mo C=
'CAI
r
Gir O
"O
c7 W
n't?
Cn f�
N
•
�. (91tu of _"� ttlem, assadjusetts
•, . ,� RECEM:
Pourb of peal
'91 APR -3 P3 :07
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF TONY LENA ( PETITIONER) LOYAL ORDER OF
MOOSE (OWNERS) FOR VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE FOR 313 01:1TAD)TJtK FFACE)
ALEM MASS.
A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; 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.
The Petitioner is requesting a Variance from the City of Salem Sign Ordinance
to allow a roof top sign at 313 Highland Avenue, property is located in the
Business Park Development Dis rit ct(BPD)
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings and structures in the same district.
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
• substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to'.the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There is an existing roof Sign which has been at this location for
many years.
2. The existing sign was erected by the former owners without benefit Of
a building permit.
3. There will be no structural change in the sign, the only change will be
in the lettering.
4. The property is located in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
5. There was no opposition presented.
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF TONY LENA (PETITIONER) , LOYAL ORDER OF MOOSE
(OWNERS) FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE FOR 313 HIGHLAND 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 Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on
the petitioner.
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Variance
requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction be done in-.adcordance with all local and state building codes.
2. All construction be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted.
3. All requirement of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety are to be strictly adhered to.
4. A Sign Permit be obtained.
• 5. The proposed sign have no flashing lights.
6. Petitioner must obtain the approval of any other department, board or
-:> commission that has jurisdiction, including but not limited to the Design
Review Board,.
7.r_PetJ�Nioner get approval of the Sign Review Committee which has the
9resg2nsibility of reviewing all signage for the Entrance Corridor Overlay
o�istttt t (ECOD)
1 r
VaE�anc�anted
U Maz; 21�1di991
6 UQ
l— vek la y
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 OL
ie 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••:-rsuant to Mass. General-Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance
- --•i=I Fsrmit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
• _-icion, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
pso,, an, no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
that i' has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Degds and indexed under the name er the owner of record 9<
is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
TItu of ~ 1CItt, {7icI85cIC�i118£tta
Buttrtl of _Auettl SFP
V tL i .
�C
J
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF 'KATHLEEN FRENCH ( PETITIONER) HORTON TRUST (OWNER)
FOR A VARIANCE AT 24 HORTON STREET (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held August 21 , 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman.; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski
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 accord-
ance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Variance from side and front setbacks to allow con-
struction of a garage in this P,-1 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted may upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings or structures in the same district.
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
• substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner.
c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition or support 'voiced to the plan.
2. The construction of the garage would be less of a use than the construction
of a dwelling unit.
3. The placement of the garage in the proposed location would allow the
petitioner a better and more fuller use 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 Zoning Ordinance 'would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHLEEN FRENCH ( PETITIONER) HORTON TRUST (OWNER)
FOR A VARIANCE AT 24 HORTON STREET, SALEM
page two
• SEP `F' ?u®gi?AbY relief may be granted without substantial J9Xr#ert2 6.9 ft'he qqublic
good andgwithout nullifying or substantially derogat;ng from the It of
C11Y C` '� t�he-d,istrict or the purpose of the Ordinance. �Irw MASS
CLF,0'S urrl�' 40'.0S OFFICE
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statutes, ordinances, codes
and regulations.
2. All construction is to be cone as per the plans and dimensions submitted.
3. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit.
4. Exterior finishes for the new garage shall be in harmony with the finishes
of the existing dwelling.
5• A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
6. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department
relative to smoke and fire safety.
7. The garage shall be used for storage only.
Variance Granted
• August 21 , 1991
54 )
Richard A. Bencal, Chairman, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Af:neal f,nm :his decision, if zny, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 Ct
t:ir s. :'ac^-aa Lav:,. Ch'Dt^_r 808, and sha!I he filed within 20 days
dtu d fiiinp, of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
ip
:,!;.:a. Cenco; Laws, Charter S03, Section 11, the Variance
'^M.:! grnnicd herein sha:! nc•t take effect until a cony of the
r;cc:•, ;;._.;^q tlu: cr.r::fcalien of tato City Clerk that 20 days ha:-'.:
d rmd nn oppeil has been iiicd, or that, if such appeal has been
it ims been d;3misscJ or ecnied i; 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'
•
. 5l
�l dM °91
r ;b Ctv of . ttlem, � ttssttcljusett
TY Or SA!FiA . MASS
• ? CLERK'S CFFICE
PnttrD of CA. peal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF J & G Realty Trust (OWNER)
A-1 AUTO BROKERS, INC. ,GARY NADEAU (PETITIONER)
FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 42 Jefferson Avenue (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held on May 15, 1991,
with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal,
Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Edward Luzinski , Jane Stirgwolt, and
Richard Febonio.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and
notices 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 extend
the non-conforming use to allow outside car sales .
•
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.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing
Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that 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 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 and a garage and lot in an R-1 zone.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF J & 'G REALTY TRUST (OWNERS) , A-1 AUTO A&IZ4S,
(PETITIONER) FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 42 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SALEM
page two CITY OF C;,LrM. MASS
CLERK'S OFFICE
•
2. All abutters of the premises were notified by mail of
this petition before the Board.
3 . That the proposed petition will allow the outside sales
of motor vehicles .
4 . That the Salem Licensing Board has granted licenses
since 1986 for the outside sales of motor vehicles, contrary to
the Board of Appeal decision dated September 24 , 1986 .
5 . That the petitioner purchased the property in 1990 with
the knowledge and in reliance on the fact that a license to
sell vehicles was granted and in effect .
6 . That there also exists a two-family house on this
property and that three parking spaces are required for those
residents .
7 . That the petitioner has cleared the side and rear yard
and that there is ample space for three automobiles to park in
the rear of the house.
• On the basis of the above findings of fact, and of the
evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of A_o_oeal
concludes as follows :
1. The proposed changes will not be substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing
non-conforming use and can be granted in harmony with the
Zoning ordinance and without derogating from its intent or the
public good.
Therefore the Board of Appeal voted 5-0 to allow the Special
Permit requested subject to the following conditions:
. 1 . That the petitioner will maintain three (3) parking
spaces in the rear of the house for residents use.
2. That any lighting of the car lot comply with existing
city ordinances .
3 . That all signage for the business comply with existing
and applicable ordinances, rules, and regulations .
4 . That all regulations of the Salem Fire Department and
• the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau be strictly adhered to . 1
)Board of Appeal
Joseph C. Correnti, Secretary
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF J & G REALTY TRUST (OWNERS) , A-1 AUTO BROKERS, INC. ,
GARY NADEAU (PETITIONER) FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 42 JEFFERSON AVE. , SALEM
page three
• 114Y 21
Special Permit Granted cff� of
'eulnh'5 OFFI.0
May 15, 1991
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.
Pcicuant to Mass. General Laws, C:v:;:er 808, Section 11, the Variance
cr Ide:ial Permit granted herein shall not talce effect until a copy of Lie
e:L•ian, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
=:ia,^,ced and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
f0ed, 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 on the owner's Certificate of Title.
80ARD OF APPEAL
•
Mar Z9 121 53 All '91
101;7Y OF SAL:' 4. MASS
• "�"- LERK'S OFFICE
Ctu of "$51cm, Aazsarhusett
• a. .
: s -Sottra of :kupeal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AUGUSTO DACUNHA FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 44-46 JEFFERSON AVE. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held May 15, 1991 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 4(TA.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to allow the
a Coffee Shop/Restaurant 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 property, over the years, has been used as a Cafe/Deli and Fruit Market.
2. There was no opposition.
3. Mr. John Boris, Chairman of the Salem Licensing Board and Member of the
Chamber of Commerce spoke in favor.
4. The granting of the petition would enhance the business base in the
City of Salem.
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 would be in harmony with the district and
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 AUGUSTO DACUNHA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AT 44-46 JEFFERSON 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 renovations be in compliance with all City and State Building Codes.
2. All work be done as per plans and dimensions submitted except the parking
plan which shall be amended to prevent the backing out on to Jefferson Ave.
3. A legal building permit is to be obtained.
4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
5• All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety be strictly adhered to.
6. Required parking be maintained at all times.
7. All signage shall be in Compliance with the City of Salem Sign Ordinance
Special Permit Granted
May 15, 1991
ichard Febonio, Member, Board of Appeal
AoCOPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
=c>
Ln •o
N
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
N r 1 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
a
or o,e:ial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decr•.;ion, bearin; the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed tine. no ap,,eal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
filed, that it has been dismissetl or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Degds 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
•
53
.owryy
`. Ctu Lif 'S m, ttssttcljusetts
enl 5
Poura of 'ppNay ZG
,9 �r.m,. clrr P
cl
r'
o,a, s,.� s
r� .
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DIANE & JAMES
RICHMOND(PETITIONERS ) , ESTATE OF LEO CORBIN (OWNER)
FOR A VARIANCES AT 225 JEFFERSON AVE. (R-3 )
A hearing on this petition was held November 20, 1991 with
the following Board Members present:RichardBencal ,Chairman;
Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski , Mary Jane Stirgwolt and
Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 to allow the
construction of a single family dwelling on lot C of 225
Jefferson Ave . The property is located in an R-3 zone and
is owned by the Estate of Leo Corbin.The variance which has
been requested may be granted upon a finding of 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 involved.
2 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or
otherwise, to the petitioner.
3 . Desirable relief may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good and without nullifying or
substantially derogating from the intent of the district or
the purpose of the Ordinance .
The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the
evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the
plans , makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The petitioners are under a Purchase.and Sale AgYeement to purchase
this lot which has 6,500 square feet of land.
2 . A Variance granted in 1970 has lapsed but would have
permitted the construction of a single family dwelling on
this lot .
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DIANE & JAMES
RICHMOND(PETITIONERS ) , ESTATE OF LEO CORBIN (OWNF�2)
• FOR A VARIANCE AT 225 JEFFERSON AVE . , SALEM 9
page two C
CITY 0�_ :, . ..,
' .
3 . A large garage that was located on this lot ha�SLl[iep • ° i•i„S S
;rr "c
demolished.
4 . The square footage of this lot is greater than that of
most of the adjacent parcels .
5 . The petitioners will provide adequate on site parking.
6 . The proposed construction will comply with all setback
requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
7 . The proposed use of this parcel is appropriate to the
surrounding neighborhood.
8 . No opposition to the proposal was presented at the
public hearing.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the
evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal
concludes as follows :
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the
• subject property but not the district 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 nullifing
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously,
5-0 , to grant the Variances requested, subject to the
following conditions :
1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state
statutes , ordinances , codes and regulations .
2 . All requirements of the City of Salem Fire Prevention
Bureau relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly
adhered to .
3 . A legal building permit shall- be obtainijd.
4 . The petitioner shall obtain the approval of any City
Board or commission that has juridiction over the proposed
construction.
•
• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES a DIANE RICHMOND N420
( PETITIONERS ) , ESTATE OF LEO CORBIN (OWNERS) ca 3 corfi '
FOR VARIANCES AT 225 JEFFERSON AVE . , SALEM Y ;_%F : 9i
page three
5 . Proper numbering shall be obtained from the City of
Salem Assessor.
6 . A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
VARIANCE GRANTED
November 20 , 1991
Mare a tirgwo 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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter
40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of
filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, 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 of the owner of record or is recorded and
noted on the owner ' s Certificate of Title.
•
5W
`�. (gitu ofTT
ttlem, ttssutljusetts
• '\'k, ..J. F Pourb of �ppeal Jay 1B
FILE 3 03 Pri '91
:ITI CLERK, ;
DECISION ON THE REMANDED PETITION OF W. DAVID CROSBY FOR . .,ss
VARIANCES FOR 22 KOSCIUSKO ST. (R-2)
A hearing was held on this petition January 16, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman, Edward Luzinski , Joseph Correnti ,
Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt.
The petitioner, through his Counsel , Attorney George Vallis, requested the
Board grant him Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. The request for Variances
to allow construction of a single family dwelling was originally heard March 15,
1989 and denied by the Board of Appeal . The petitioner appealed the Board's
decision and the Court subsequently remanded the case back to the Board for
hearing. A motion granting the petitioner's request for withdrawal having been
made and duly seconded, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, in favor of
the motion, petition is WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
WITHDRAWN
YZA
Edward Luzinski , aChairman
•
SEP z s
(. , : v SASS
C1 kiS *S G+f ^,E 5�
fgitg of $Nlem, �Kttssttcllusetts
• r
Pnttra of ��renl
Ye r.pmv,w�
PETITION OF PALMER'S COVE YACHT CLUB, INC. (PETITIONER) , GEORGE
MAGUIRE (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 72 LEAVITT STREET (B-4)
A hearing on this petition was held September 11 , 1991 with'.the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski, 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 is requesting Variances to allow the property to be divided,c.to
demolish existing garages and to resurface the lot for use as parking and boat
storage. Property is owned by George Maguire Tr. and is located in a B=4 zone.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of 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 land:
buildings and structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions. of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
• substantial hardship; financial 'or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The petitioner was represented by Attorney Michael McMahan.
2. The Board received letters of support from Councillors Gaudreault and Nowak.
3. That members of the club as well as abutters spoke in favor of the Variances.
4. That the flow of traffic would be improved as well .as the parking in the area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the.-,Board of!-Appeal conciudesoas '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 inmone
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 PALMERS COVE'.YACHT CLUB, INC. LPETITIONER)
GEORGE MAGUIRE (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 72 LEAVITT ST. , SALEM
• page two -
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statutes, ordinances, codes
and regulations.
2. All construction shall be in accordance with plans and dimensions submitted.
3. A building permit for demolition shall be obtained.
4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety are to be strictly adhered to, as'.well as conditions contained in the
communication from Attorney McMahon to Inspector LaPointe- dated 9/10/91 .
5. Petitioner obtain all necessary permits and approvals from any other City
Board'oC Commission -which-has jurisdiction; including, but not limited to
,the Planning Board's Approval for Subdivision.
6. Exterior lighting comply with the Zoning Ordinance and not create a nuisance
for adjacent property.
Variances Granted
September 11 , 1991
Suchard 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
N the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
a i after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
iU
Puruent to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance
e` or 8pe:ial Permit granted 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
ac
filed,that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex
'Lfl-) o ua Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
`V J
W �� Is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
yr v BOARD OF APPEAL
•
/' �`b `• flat L
f . ttlPm, Anson clluBetts
• -,\ F PuttrD of �upeal
1 n Q
r�
:n p_,
C, Ln
C)
-:l
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LIBERO CIMINI m :
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 LOCUST ST. (R-1) u '�
N
A hearing on this petition was held November 20, 1991 with the
following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman;
Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane Stirgwolt. and
Associate Member Ronald Plante. Notice of the hearing was sent
to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly
published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit
to allow construction of a 10 ft.x 20 ft. wooden deck. The
property 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 5-3(j ) , 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 Sections 8-6 and 9-4, 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 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 was submitted or voiced at the hearing to the
plan.
2. Petitioner has lived in this property for over 31 years.
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LIBERO CIMINO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT
7 LOCUST STREET, SALEM
• page two
3. The proposed addition will add to the enjoyment and welfare of
the inhabitants.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence
presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as
follows:
1. The granting of the Special Permit will requested will not be
substantially detrimental to the public good and will not nullify
or substantially derogate from the intent of the district or the
purpose of the Ordinance.
2. The Special Permit requested can be granted in harmony with
the district and 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. The petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,
ordinances, codes and regulations.
• 2. All requirements of the City of Salem Fire Prevention Bureau
relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions
submitted.
4. All construction is to be done with a legal building permit
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
November 20, 1991
ich� Bencal Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND?
THE CITY CLERK C'�
e
co z_ CJ
• o a.
m r �•
s
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LIBERO CIMINO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
• AT 7 LOCUST STREET, SALEM
page three
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to
Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed withing 20 days
after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the
City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL, CHAPTER 40A, 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 is 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.
0
c
Ln
J. CO
c.. Ln
r-
M>
(n t LJ
•
-• 57
r (fitn ofttlem, � ttssttCllusefts
r
JF:I Botts of Aupeal
JAN 28 3 o2 '91
Pig
F I L E#1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN HALEY FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 45 MASON ST. (BPD) ;ITY CLERK. S.qrN.r4,1,S
A hearing on this petition was held January 16, 1991 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 Special Permit to allow con-
struction of an addition at 45 Mason St. which is located in the Business Park
Development District (BPD)
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of
Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section
VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non-
conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of
nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change,
• extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental
than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants
The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition.
2. There were three (3) letters from abutters in support.
3. Granting the Special Permit requested would allow the building of an
addition giving the petitioner much needed storage space.
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 petitioners
business posture.
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's inhabitants.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN HALEY FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 45 MASON 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 & 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, as well as the storage of flammable and explosive material be strictly
adhered to.
4. All work be in harmony with existing buildings.
5. A building permit be obtained from the City of Salem Building Inspector.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
GRANTED
January 16, 1991
Richard Febonio, Member, Board of Appeal
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
from this eecisicn, if cny, ^_h,-dl 1;j m:.d^_ pur_vcnt ;o Sacticn 17 of
!:,o fji .ss. Goneral La:vs, Ch:a'cr
,..cr :..e date of fil!r.;i e[ ..s dee„ ,a o:ii:_ the
11• the ,..::.,.....
i;a -'ro: rr.:, . . .."era , .. "i:a �•it:'. anal a cup"of tha
S ...:n, i...rn� ih': "• I:C....ai, ci .12 20 d 1ps ha':'o
no ae:_`d !' .:..:_:r, ilea. Cr L;Wl, if SJ 11 c:nuc:l Ir: !;aen
O•• i i I ^r, ! h s bee., d.;mssa rr c'emcd is rc:ccrded in t!•^ sou:h E=ex
0 s keric',ry of Co- b and mde:red under thr name or the Domer of ;eeord Or
In recorded and nosed :n the owner's Certificate of Title.
v
BOARD OF APPEAL
v
W >
•
a
(Ilii of Salem ttssttel us�'e'1FFIC,F
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHY WELLS, JANE VERBBNIC, ANDREW
AND AARON WEINSTEIN FOR A VARIANCE AT 53 MASON STREET (BPD)
A hearing on this petition was held September 11 , 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane Stirgwolt. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters
and others and notices of the hearing were properlx�,,published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting a Variance from use in order to allow instructional
exercise classes in this BPD zone.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of 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, building or structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial Hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
• 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The Business Park Development District (BPD) was set up to allow mixed
uses such as this proposed use.
2. The proposed use will not be a burden to the::area.
3. No opposition was presented to the plan.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not
the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship on the petitioners.
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public
• good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district and the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHY WELLS, JANE VERBANIC, ANDREW AND
AARON WEINSTEIN FOR VARIANCE AT 53 MASON 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 shall comply with all City and State statutes, ordinances, codes
and regulations.
2. All renovations shall be done per the plans and dimensions submitted.
3. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy.
5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
Variance granted
September 11 , 1991
Richard A. Bencal, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS7�BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• Appeal from this decision.If any,shall be made pursuertt to Section 1713E
Chapter BOB. and shall be filed within 20 kayo
the Mass.General Laws. the Variance
after the date of filing of this decision in the office tion the , the
is the
pursued .o Mass. Ge'?e^Ihere'n shallnorI take effect until a-copy
or ��:{,. . rrnl Clerk that 20 days hX0:
,Ira certification of the City eel has been
decision. ba•" , ' al his been tiled,or that, if such app
elapsed and no appe'
n the South Essex
filed, that it has been diode ed under the name erej or denied is dthe
Isiowner of record or
Registry Deeds and the owner's Certificate of Title.
recordea d and noted m
BOARD OF APPEAI!
m v'
aw
U' L
X
640
H U
•
b `� flit of Salem, �Razza llusetfs
C^7-d
ealN
rn
A�
c>= r
rn
uo
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SANTO COLLORONE
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 87 MASON ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held November 20, 1991 with the
following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman;
Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane Stirgwolt. and
Associate Member Ronald Plante. Notice of the hearing was sent
to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly
published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit
to allow construction of an addition. Said addition will extend
an already nonconforming side setback. 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 5-3(j ) , 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 Sections 8-6 and 9-4, 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 will
promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the
City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence
presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the
following findings of fact:
1. The proposed addition will not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconformity.
•
• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SANTO COLLORONE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AT 87 MASON STREET, SALEM
page two c, c
.c
C7 J
2. The concerns of the abutters will be met. n o
3. The proposed addition will add to the enjoyment and welfare of ;_. c°
the inhabitants. o'n. 4X4
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence
m�
presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as �,
follows:
1. The granting of the Special Permit will requested will not be
substantially detrimental to the public good and will not nullify
or substantially derogate from the intent of the district or the
purpose of the Ordinance.
2. The Special Permit requested can be granted in harmony with
the district and will promote the public health, safety,
convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
3. The concerns of the direct abutters have been met and will be
complied with through the conditions that follow.
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously,5-0,
to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,
ordinances, codes and regulations.
2. All requirements of the City of Salem Fire Prevention Bureau
relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions
submitted.
4. All construction is to be done with a legal building permit.
5. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the
addition.
6. Exterior finishes shall be the same on the new addition as on
the existing structure.
7. All conditions, as amended, submitted to the Board and listed
below shall be complied with.
a. The existing retaining wall to be inspected by the
Building Inspector for strength and integrity. This wall abuts 85
Mason St. and about 28 feet in length and about 2 feet high. If
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SANTO COLLORONE
• FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 87 MASON STREET, SALEM
page three
the wall fails strength and integrity requirements, the wall is to
be replaced.
b. A new retaining wall to be constructed abutting existing
retaining wall at 85 Mason St. to property line of 87 Flint St.
and 1 Oak St. This wall is to be about 14 ft. in length.
c. A 6 ft. stockade fence to be placed on top and secured to
the entire length of the retaining wall(s) (approx. 42 ft. ) . The
front of fence (picket side) is to be facing 85 Mason St. and 87
Flint St. Fence to be of high quality.
d. All plans for construction of addition, retaining wall(s)
and fence to be approved by Building Inspector prior to
construction.
e. All cost of construction, including retaining wall(s) and
fence to be paid for by the applicant for the Special Permit,
except that one half of the cost for the stockade fence abutting
87 Flint St. shall be borne by the owner of 87 Mason St.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
November 20, 1991
• 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 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed withing 20 days
after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the
City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL, CHAPTER 40A, 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 is 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.
r o
x
LA
c7:&
a.
• �� Z
4!i
`b (gity of $Ulem, �Hussadlusetts
Poara of (�ppenl Nov V 2 5e PH '91
I)Tl W
CITY OF S',t.EM. MASS
CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT I . & CHARLEEN M. LITTLE
(PETITIONERS) , FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 48 MEMORIAL DR.
A hearing on this petition was held on November 20, 1991 with the
following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Edward
Luzinski , V. Chairman; Richard Febonio, Mary Jane Stirgwolt and
Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 construct
a second floor addition to their single family home in this R-I
zone.
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 petitioners are in need of additional room to accommodate
their family.
2. Their was no opposition to this request.
3. The proposed second floor addition is in harmony with the
neighborhood homes.
4 . The second floor addition shall consist of three bedrooms and
one bath.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence
presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: .
1 . The granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the
public health, safety convenience and welfare of the City' s
inhabitants and will be in harmony with the neighborhood.
2. The Special Permit requested can be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good and without
nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the City Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to
grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following
conditions:
• 1 . All construction to be in compliance with city and state
building codes.
i• Nov V 2 5o PPI '91
CITY OF S,'.i - 4. MASS
CLERK'S, OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT I . & CHARLEEN M. LITTLE
(PETITIONERS) , FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 48 MEMORIAL DRIVE, SALEM
Page two.
2. Construction to be in accordance with plans as submitted.
3. A building permit to be obtained.
4. A certificate of occupancy to be obtained.
5. Exterior finished of the addition to be in harmony with the
existing structure.
6 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to
smoke and fire safety to be included in the addition.
Special Permit Granted
November 20 , 1991
nald G. Plante, Associate 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 tie made pursuant to Section 17'04
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 Clark.
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808. Section 11, the variance
or F<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 Esser
IsRgistry of Deeds and arscorded and noted indexed han the owner's Certificate ofTitla.ner of record or.
BOARD OF APPEAU
•
i. qASS �f
y' CLE:W ui'i'iCE
ofttlem, C�Httssttcljusetts
J. $ �o:rra of �upeal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK & JULIE CARR FOR A VARIANCE AND
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 OBER ST. (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held June 19, 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane
Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 request a Special Permit to extend a .non-
conforming side setback and a Variance from rear setback to allow construction of
a two story addition. Property is located in an R-1 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings and stuctures 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 publid
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 . Petitioner will maintain the same shape and character of the dwelling.
2. No opposition was submitted.
3. The addition in this location is the only logical and reasonable one.
4. The proposed addition would add to the comfort and safety of the inhabitants.
5. If unable to build, petitioner would possibly have to sell the property,
thus creating a hardship.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especically affect the subject property and
not the district in general.
• 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK & JULIE CARR FOR A VARIANCE AND
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 OBER STREET, 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 and Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction and renovations be done per existing City and State
Building Codes.
2. All construction be done as per plans and dimensions submitted.
3. Exterior finishes of the addition are to match those of the existing
structure.
4. Petitioner obtain a legal building permit.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for the addition.
6. Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department
relative to smoke and fire safety.
Variance and Special Permit Granted
June 19, 1991
•
V5 0
chard A. Bencal, Chairman, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 Of
the Mass. General Laws, 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�,iccial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, boaring 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 recor4l oo
is recorded and noted en the owner's Certificate of Title. T m
BOARD OF APPEAL �-'
Q% o
ci x 3
mn
N
rz
}
,y (9ity ofttlem, Httsstttl usetts
RECEIVEr)
Poarb of peal
`-' '91 MAY -1 A8 :33
DECISION. ON THE PETITION OF C. JEAN DONOGHUE FOR A VARI94T$' 9URK'S OFFICE
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 83-831 PROCTOR STREET (R-2) SALEM MASS
A hearing on this petition was held April 17, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard A. Bencal, Chairman; Edward Luzinski, Joseph Correnti,
Richard Febonio and Associate Member Arthur LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was
sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in
the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to extend
nonconforming side setbacks and a Variance from rear setback to allow construction
of a deck in this R-2 district.
The Variance that 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 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 she 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, provided, however, that such change,
extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental
than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
• 1 . There was no .opposition.
2. Neighbors/abutters spoke in favor.
3. This would enhance the petitioner's quality of life.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF C. JEAN DONOGHUE FOR A VARIANCE AND
SPECIAL PERMIT AT 83-83'' PROCTOR ST. , SALEM
page two
• On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not
the district .in general.
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.
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 Variance
and Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All requirements of the City of Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety be strictly adhered to.
2. All construction be as per the plans and dimensions submitted.
• 3. All construction comply with all city and state building codes.
4. A building permit be obtained from the Inspector of Buildings.
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
April 17, 1991
ichard Febonio, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
W Appeal from this decision, If any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
Cn v the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
v_ after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
v
LQ
LL: cD Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance
N< or Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
Y� derision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
1=J I tea- elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
r WW
U.) U_J filed, that it has been dismisse0 or denied is recorded in the South Essex
aY Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name er the owner of record W
N
is recorded and noted an the owner's Certificate of Title.
F—
U BOARD OF APPEAL
•
Ctu of . $Ulem, { agsadjusetfs
Paura of Hoy 27 2 50
CLER(,'S GFFICEi
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANN KNIGHT
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 11 RIVER ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held November 20, 1991 with the
following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman;
Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane Stirgwolt. and
Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 an existing porch. 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 5-3(j ) , 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 Sections 8-6 and 9-4, 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 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 existing porch is in poor conditons and is in need of
repair or replacement.
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANN KNIGHT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 11
RIVER STREET, SALEM
• page two b 27 2
2. The proposed replacement porch will lige,Vpt.wi_th'_.the"d;Zi%ting
structure and will therefore be more compatibie.ithari �tfi4xisting
porch.
3. The increase in size requested by the petitioner is very small
and will not significantly increase the existing nonconformity of
the building on the site.
4. The abutter at 7 River St. , the property most affected by this
construction, spoke in favor of the petition.
5. The proposed porch will not have a negative impact on the
neighborhood.
6. The petitioner has already received the approval of the
Historical Commission.
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 will requested will not be
substantially detrimental to the public good and will not nullify
• or substantially derogate from the intent of the district or the
purpose of the Ordinance.
2. The Special Permit requested can be granted in harmony with
the district and 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. The petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,
ordinances, codes and regulations.
2. All requirements of the City of Salem Fire Prevention Bureau
relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions
submitted.
4. All construction is to be done with a legal building permit
5. The petitioner shall obtain the approval of any City Board or
Commission that has jurisdiction over this petition.
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANN KNIGHT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR 11 RIVER STREET, SALEM
• page three by D 2 5'a 1PIM '9I
UITMU HA-S,5
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED (CURX"S OiMCE
November 20, 1991
'Zi'rtyN, j4 a tirgwol , 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 MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed withing 20 days
after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the
City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL, CHAPTER 40A, 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 is 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.
•
AR 26
112s RM '91
,b (Ilii of ttlem USSUCI ,set�is
r / U sALSN. Mass
GLERK'S 0Fi'
Pattra of 'A, ICE
penl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MANUEL & OLIVIA MACHADO FOR
VARIANCE AT 7 ROSLYN ST. (R-3)
A hearing on this petition was held June 26, 1.991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane
Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 lot coverage
to allow construction of a garage in this R-3 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings 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 . Mr. Machado presented his case with no others speaking in favor.
2. An abutter, Mr. McCarthy, opposed the petition as presented by the
petitioners but upon an amended design & conditions, he withdrew his
objection.
3. This is the most feasible location.on the lot for the garage.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but
not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioners.
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MANUEL . & OLIVIA MACHADO
FOR VARIANCE AT 7 ROSLYN 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 four to one, 4-1 ,. (Mr. Bencal opposed)
to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction be in compliance with city and state building codes.
2. All construction be as per the plans and dimensions submitted and amended,
lowering the height of the eve to eight (8) feet and the pitch of the roof
be reduced to 6 -- 1.2.
3. Exterior finish of the proposed garage be compatible with the existing
structure.
4. A building permit be obtained.
5• A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
6. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety be strictly adhered to.
7• No commercial storage of any products in this garage.
• Variance granted
June 26, 1991
R chi Febonio, Member, LBoard 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 dt
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, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance
or ?,:ecial Permit granted herein shall not tate effect until a copy of the
Cecision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
e!3psod 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 c-)
is recorded and noted on the o:.ver's Certificate of Title. y r—
r K
BOARD OF APPEAL' rn o N
T
R
r
c�Y
mn
• c.o
ovugy' .
Ctv of 'Salem, '�'Ettssarljusetts
F Poura of JAN 30 00
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W.G. REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIA W
AT 24 SAUNDERS ST. (R-2) ?IfiY GLERH.WICK JAq,a
A hearing on this petition was held January 16, 1991 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 to allow the con-
struction of sixty (60) residential units. The request was amended from a request
for a one year extension to a request for a Variance. Property is located in
a Residential Two Family District. Request is for condominiums & rental units.
Tire 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 Board of Appeal granted variances concerning this parcel on February 17,
1988 with a six month extension on February 22, 1989 and on August 9, 1989
with a six month extension granted on August 22, 1990.
2. The downturn in the economy has prevented construction of this project
as planned.
3. The total number of parking spaces that are to be maintained on the site is
ninety five (95) . Five of these spaces are to be made available to the
residents of Saunders Street.
4. The proposed use of this site as a residential development is consistent with
the character of the neighborhood unlike the previous existing building and use.
5. The site is unique in its topography, as it is located adjacent to the North
River and is substantially larger than other parcels in the zoning district.
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W. & G. REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES AT
24 SAUNDERS STREET, SALEM
page two
• 6. It is not feasible, nor in conformity with the City of Salem Master Plan, to
redevelop this site with an industrial or manufacturing use like that previously
located there.
7. The petitioner has made assurances that the site will be kept reasonably clear
of weeds and other debris.
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. 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 petition,
as amended, for a Variance, subject to the following conditions:
1 . This decision incorporates all conditions of variances granted by the Board
of Appeal concerning this parcel on February 17, 1988 and on August 22, 1989,
• which are as follows:
a. Construction be as per plans submitted and be approved by the Planning
Board.
b. Proposed construction conform to all applicable provisions of the Massach-
usetts State Building Code, the Salem Fire Prevention Code, the Salem City
Ordinances and the Massachusetts General Laws relative to fire safety.
c. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. be strictly adhered to.
d. Proper numbering be obtained from the City of Salem.
e. All snow removal and trash removal be solely at the expense of the
Condominium Association and be part of the Condominium documents.
f. The condominium documents control the sale or rent of the parking to the
owners of the condominiums only.
g. A certificate of occupancy for each unit be obtained.
h. The lot be landscaped as per plans and as approved by site plan review.
i . Public safety access be maintained as per plans submitted. and meeting
fire and police requirements.
•
r
Y
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W & G REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES
AT 24 SAUNDERS ST. , SALEM
• page three
j . Ingress and egress be on Saunders Street only.
k. Ninety five (95) parking spaces be maintained, five (5) of these spaces
are to be provided on the site for the use of the residents of Saunders
Street.
1 . Developer confer with abutters as to the establishment of proper buffer
between the development and the abutters property.
2. The site is to be kept reasonably clear of weeds and other debris.
Variances granted
January 17, 1991
Mary Jrf Stirgwolt, M6011ber, 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 viass. General Laws. Chapter Bos, 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. Can"!Laws, ?'er s(`s, section 11, the variance
or special Permit ?.ret5e' IT S ern .at take effect until a copy of the
'decision, baarin3 the cerVf:c.:t:0n nl the city Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no sopaal hos bee.i tired. or that, if such appeal has been
(fled, that R has been dLnmiss,.or denied is recorded in thr South Essex
Ra recd
recorded and notedof B"s and 'On the owner'she name or certificate ofhTitle.ner of record or
BOARD OF APPEAL
•
Jul, 20 I I o3 All
(gitU ofttlem, C ZIssMdiuse ISLeRK14z --F,�`Fss
t q'
Poura of c�peal
DEC1S10N ON THE PET1TlON OF WILLIAM D'ORLANDO FOR A VARIANCE
AT 17 SKERRY STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held June 19, 1991 with .the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane
Stirgwolt. and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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
and rear setback to allow deck to be enlarged in this R-2 zone.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board :
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 . The new construction would help bring the existing deck into building code.
2. No opposition was submitted.
3. The location chosen for this deck is the only logical position on 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 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.
DEC1S10N ON THE PET1T10N OF WILLIAM .D'ORLANDO FOR A VARIANCE
AT 17 SKERRY ST. , 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. relative to
smoke and fire safety.
2. All construction be done in compliance with all city and state building code.
3. All construction be done as per plans and dimensions submitted.
Variance Granted
June 19, 1991
Wchard A. Bencal, Chairman, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision,If any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 Of
the Mass. General Laws, 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, Chanter 808, Section 11,the Variance
or t,,ecial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
de, sion, bearing the certification of the city Cierk that 20 days have
elapsed ind 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 o r
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name er the owner of record or n:� _
is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title, r-o m
BOARD OF APPEAL
�.n
r
O C7
7 X
m>
(n co
•
` (111tg of �ttlem, ��Htt$$ttdiu$Ptt$
Poara ofCAupenl JUL
CITY OF 51;_.:'i. MASS
CLERK'S vi FICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR VARIANCES
AT SKERRY STREET COURT (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held June 26, 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane
Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from lot size:,. frontage,
side and rear setback, front yard depth and lot coverage to allow construction of
a single family dwelling in this R-2 district.
Before hearing the merits of this petition, the Board of Appeal had to consider
if there is substantial and material change from an application for a single
family dwelling that was denied by this Board on March 20, 1991 . The Board of
Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented, and after receiving Consent from
the Salem Planning Board, voted unanimously, 5-0, that there was a substantial
change, said change being the acquisition by the petitioner of an additional'.310
square feet of land from the abutter which would increase the size of this under-
sized lot and allow petitioner to meet the parking requirements as set forth in
• the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, they would hear the petition.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of 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 or structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The existing building of this site is dilapidated and is a hazard to
public safety.
2. The petitioner has reached an agreement to acquire an additional 310 square
feet of land from an abutter.
• 3. The petitioner acquired this property in hopes of utilizing the existing
structure but found it in such a state of deterioration that this was not
feasible.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR VARIANCES
AT SKERRY STREET COURT, SALEM
page two
• 4. Several City Councillors spoke in favor of this petition, citing the hazards
of the existing building and the improvement to the area that the proposed
structure will be.
5. The placement building will be a small prefabricated single family dwelling
that will be compatible with the other residential uses in' the neighborhood.
6. A single family dwelling is not detrimental to the R-2 zoning district while
the pre-existing commercial use was.
7. Many neighbors and abutters spoke in favor of this petition while none
spoke in opposition.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but
not the district in general.
2-1= L feral enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to
I'- tho-petitioner.
H LJ J
}� The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
• cn tie district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
r J
J ~U
'£fi�rgSore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction be done in compliance with city and state building codes.
2. All construction be as per the plans and dimensions submitted.
3. A building permit be obtained.
4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety
be strictly adhered to.
6. A 5} foot fence be constructed along the Martin& Sdwalski property lines prior
to commencement of construction.
7. Windows on the side of the building abutting Martin & Sowalski be limited to
those shown on the plans submitted.
8. The petitioner acquire 310sq.ft. of land from Lot 153, owned by William Little.
9. Proper street numbering be obtained from the Salem Assessor.
• 10. Demolition material is be be removed promptly and not left over night.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR VARIANCES AT
SKERRY STREET COURT, SALEM
page three
• 11 . Extermination/relocation of wildlife on this property will be completed
before the existing structure is demolished.
Variances Granted
June 26, 1991 )
Mary Ja N4t
irgwolt, MeV,r, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this Eecislon, 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, Chapter 808, Section 11,the Variance
or'special Permit granted herein shall rot 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 an the owner's Certificate of Title.
• BOARD OF APPEAL
<to
r�
�CZ
}.J
J !--U
•
<b `� Tity of "tt(rm, 4�ttseacljusetts
REGENUI
Poura of 'Aupeul
�9�T�iM V1" ,
'91 APR —3 P3 :08
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK .PETIT -FOR VARIANCES AT
SKERRY STREET COURT (R-2) CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1991 with .theAAMo i�ng 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 Variances from all the requirements
listed on Table I of the Salem Zoning Ordinance Density Regulations. The 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 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 presently there is a storage garage located at the sight which the petitioner
proposes to raze in order to construct a new one family dwelling
2. That the lot is 2400 sq.ft. and would require variances for front, rear and
side yard setbacks, density and frontage, as well as minimum lot size.
3. That the current owner has owned the lot for less than a year.
4. That the proposed dwelling house would be either stick built or pre-fabricated
but the dimensions in either case would remain the same.
5. That there was no opposition to the petition during the public portion
of the hearing.
6. That Edward Martins, a direct abutter, spoke in favor with the condition that
there be a seven foot rear setback, that a six foot high wooden fence be
erected along the back property line, and that any windows in the rear of the
• house be as per plan submitted .
7. That one other abutter spoke in favor of the petition.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR VARIANCES FOR
SKERRY STREET COURT, SALEM
page two
• On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the ev F deice presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
'91 APR -3 P :
1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the s bg (ct property
and not the district in general.
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
���� ��MM 4:n r•
AE&
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zonin `Uritl3liwould 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 or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted three (3) in favor, two (2) opposed
(Ms. Stirgwolt & Mr. Correnti) to the motion to grant the requested variances.
Having failed to garner the necessary four affirmative votes to grant the variance,
the petition is hereby denied.
VARIANCES DENIED
March 20, 1991
• Jos 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 of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. Gener3f LIwS, Ctic:rter 808, Section 11, the Variance
or Special Permit grantod Mre:n sh4:1 not take effect until a copy N the
decision, bearing the certification of the Cily Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has been tiled, or that, if such appeal has been
filed, that it has been dismisses or (:enied is rccorded 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
•
y Ctv of .""ittlem, Ragsad usrtts
, $ Poura of ( tFPL14L 3 2 19 PSI '91
CITY OF S,'.! f. MASS
CLERIC'S UFFICF.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN PERRONI, TR. FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 86 SUMMER ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held June 26, 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane
Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the
Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to allow
construction of an addition in this R-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 is provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of
Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set for in Section VIII
F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconformin€
structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension, or expansion on nonconforming
lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension,
• enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The proposed addition will provide ground level living quarters for the
present occupants who have lived in the house for over fifty (50) years.
2. The proposed addition will contain a bedroom and bath only, not an additional
and separate dwelling unit.
3. Several neighbors spoke in favor of this petition.
4. One abutter spoke in opposition to the petition citing reduced sunlight
on this back porch due to the height of the proposed addition.
5• The petitioner expressed willingness to adjust the proposed roof pitch
to ameliorate the adverse impact of the addition on the abutters porch.
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 and will be in
harmony with the neighborhood.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN PERRONI, TR. FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 86 SUMMER ST. , SALEM
page two
• 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.
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 city and state building codes.
2. All construction be as per the plans and dimensions submitted and amended with
the roof pitch lowered to 6 to 12.
3. A building permit be obtained.
4. A certificate of occupancy be obtained.
5. Exterior finishes of the proposed addition be in harmony with the existing
structure.
6. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety be strictly adhered to.
Special Permit granted
June 26, 1991
Mary J n Stirgwolt, Fmber, Board of Appeal
A_COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Q LL!
fL -tL
Appeal from.this decision,ff any,shall be mead pthtuant to Section 17 49
the Mass. Ccneral Laws,Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
V)>c after the dateof filing of this decision In the office of the City Clerk.
�C
cry p J Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance
r c.) 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, it such appeal has been
filed, that it hse been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of D_erls ina IMexed under the name or the owner of record or
Is recorded and rn•x' •i tha owner's Certificate of Title.
POAP- 7F AF--AL
•
C70)
Ctu of .-SSalem' '�Eassarljusetts
i T . :REC
Poura of �Fpeal EiVE!
•'91 APR -3 P3 :08
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN PERRONI, TRUSTEE FOR 1WTMtM'S OFFICE
PERMIT AT 86 SUMMER ST. (R-2) SALEIll ' AS! 5
A hearing on this petition was held February 27, 1991 and continued until March
20, 1991 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman;
Joseph Correnti, Mary Jane Stirgwolt and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of
the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were
properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, representing himself, requested leave to withdraw this petition for
an addition. A motion to allow withdrawal having been made and duly seconded,
the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the request.
WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Richard A. Benca , Chairman
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
6 •
7�
-Fby-
(1�itn ofttlem, ttssttcljusetts
• `_" .� s Soara of �Aupeai OCT 'ju 3 U'"s ;i
,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL CONNOR AND ELEANOR SANDERSON
FOR VARIANCES ATFO 3 SUMNER ROAD (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held October 16, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio,
Mary Jane Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 to allow the property to be divided so as to
allow the transfer of approximately 2589 sq. ft. land in the rear of 1 Sumner Rd. ,
which is owned by Eleanor Sanderson to 3 Sumner Road, which is owned by Michael
Connor. Both parcels are located in an R-1 zone.
The Variances which have 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 or structures in the same district.
• 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The petitioner, Michael Connor, wishes to divide the lot per plans
and dimensions submitted, thus adding + "2589 sq.ft. to his lot at
3 Sumner Road.
2. The lot at 3 Sumner Road is unique in size, shape and grade in that it is
located on a hill with steep ledge along the back lot line and only one
means of ingress to his house from the street.
3. That the petitioner, Eleanor Sanderson, who is selling the + 2589 sq.ft.
to Michael Connor, testified that the area in question is used by Mr. Connor
anyway as a driveway/parking space.
4. That the abutters testified that petitioner and petitioner's predecessors
in title have used that area in question to park for the past 30 years.
• 5. That there was no opposition to the petition.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL CONNOR AND ELEANOR SANDERSON FOR
VARIANCES AT 1 & 3 SUMMER 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:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but
not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to
the petitioners.
3. The Variances requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent
of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statutes, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
2. That all requirements of the Salem Fire Department and the Salem Fire
Prevention Bureau be strictly adhered to.
3. That the approval of any other Board or Commission which might have
jurisdiction is to be obtained.
• Variances Granted
October 16, 1991
Jos h C. Correnti, Secretary
Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• epeai From this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 OE
the L:ss. Gcnernt La::s. Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 flays
,cher t;, Cate of filin^ of this decision in the office of lie City Clcrk.
::+ io tvosc. General Laws, Ch.,oler SM. S^.c!ion 11., tie variance
C. ^'•i.a Frrmmit E,,;rated herein sh:al :tot Y.ie e'i_et until a COPY Of 1113
,o.:r:n- tie certificalion of ll;n. City Clc r!: :ai 20 days have
eiar'rcd and no cppcol hoc been t:!r.d, or fiat, if such appeal has been
that it hv.s been dismisse,.i or denied is recorded in the Snuth Essex
ReSistry of Deeds and indexed under the narne or the owner of record or
Is receded and noted an the owner's Certificate of Title. �_ O
ti
BOARD OF APPEAL' r �,
o.
( 1tu of ._`�Utem, C ttssttcllusetts
of upend OCT 30 3 oa F11 'S i
CITY O L,-:1. ;;AS:,
CLEftK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL CONNOR AND ELEANOR SANDERSON
FOR VARIANCES AT 1 & fes SUMNER ROAD (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held October 16, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio,
Mary Jane Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 to allow the property to be divided so as to
allow the transfer of approximately 2589 sq. ft. land in the rear of 1 Sumner Rd. ,
which is owned by Eleanor Sanderson to 3 Sumner Road, which is owned by Michael
Connor. Both parcels are located in an R-1 zone.
The Variances which have 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 or structures in the same district.
• 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The petitioner, Michael Connor, wishes to divide the lot per plans
and dimensions submitted, thus adding + 2589 sq.ft. to his lot at
3 Sumner Road.
2. The lot at 3 Sumner Road is unique in size, shape and grade in that it is
located on a hill with steep ledge along the back lot line and only one
means of ingress to his house from the street.
3. That the petitioner, Eleanor Sanderson, who is selling the + 2589 sq.ft.
to Michael Connor, testified that the area in question is used by Mr. Connor
anyway as a driveway/parking space.
4. That the abutters testified that petitioner and petitioner's predecessors
in title have used that area in question to park for the past 30 years.
• 5• That there was no opposition to the petition.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL CONNOR AND ELEANOR SANDERSON FOR
VARIANCES AT 1 & 3 SUMNER 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:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but
not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to
the petitioners.
3. The Variances requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent
of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statutes, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
2. That all requirements of the Salem Fire Department and the Salem Fire
Prevention Bureau be strictly adhered to.
3. That the approval of any other Board or Commission which might have
jurisdiction is to be obtained.
• Variances Granted
October 16, 1991
Jos h C. Correnti, Secretary
Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
;rMpz'from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 1711
the ('.5ss. General Laws, Ch^pier 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
after tho data of filinC of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
purr-r:! to Moss. General Laws, Chanter 803. Section 11, the variance
cr -n.-.i:;l Fermit C-anted herein shall not t-.ke e'.hct until a copy of fho
dr,;icon, bo^i;ng vie certification of the City 20 days have
oa!:,ed and no cppeal 1143 been fi!td, or that, if such appeal has been
1;119, that it has been dsmisseki or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
is receded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title, n p
BOARD OF APPEAL' r--'1 Lyi2
m^
G9` RtaD
rl L
y ftp
y
;b T�. flZitn of Salem, (�'Ea5Sz1 JU!5rtts
Pottra of CAU
F ECF.iVFtl
'91 MAY -1 A8 :33
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGIA GIANNIAS FOR VARIANCES CITY CLERK'S
AT 99 TREMONT ST. (R-2) SALEM h9AScFICE
A hearing on this petition was held April 17, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Edward Luzinski, Joseph Correnti,
Richard Febonio and Associate Member Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was
sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in
the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter. 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from use and parking to
convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 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 or structures in the same district.
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
• substantial hardship, financial or otherwise.
c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The property was purchased in 1986 by the petitioner as a two family structure
2. Interior changes and alterations were made illegally, without legal permits
to convert to a three family dwelling.
3. The property has been used illegally as a three family for at least three years.
4. Opposition was voiced by neighbors, abutters and others.
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 of the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGIA GIANNIAS FOR VARIANCES
AT 99 TREMONT STREET, 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 voted to pass, fails and the Variances are denied.
VARIANCES DENIED
April 17, 1991 /J
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 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.
Pursuon: to f.Aass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the variance
or 3;:--U Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing the certification of the City Cirk that 20 days peal has bve
een
en
elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if
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 on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF,APPFAD
•
n
.--1 t0
Dn _
rr— y
M—
M M <
7�
frl
U)C:) S+ 1171
nT Co
ris
m w
•
7y
,b (1litg of �ttlrm, �Eassadjusettq
✓Pattra of �kupettl RECEIVEr.%
'91 MAY —1 A8 :32
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF Arthur D. Emerson CITY CLERK', 'IFFICE
SALEM IaASIc
FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 83 Valley Street (R_1 )
A hearing on this petition was held on April 17, 1991,
with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal,
Chairman; Joseph Correnti , Edward Luzinski , and Richard Febonio.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and
notices 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 extend
the height of this non-conforming structure pursuant to Section
8 D(1) .
• 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.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing
Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that 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 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-1 zone.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR D. EMERSON FOR
SPECIAL PERMIT' AT 83 VALLEY ST. , SALEM
page two
•
2. All abutters of the premises were notified by mail of
this petition before the Board.
3 . That the proposed addition will increase the height of
the current non-conformity.
4 . That the proposed addition is to add a second floor to
the existing structure for use by the owner/occupants .
5 . That one abutter spoke in opposition to the petition.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and of the evidence
presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as
follows :
1. The proposed changes will not be substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing
non-conforming use and can be granted in harmony with the
Zoning ordinance and without derogating from its intent or the
public good.
• Therefore the Board of Appeal voted 4-0 to allow the Special
Permit requested subject to the following conditions:
1. That the petition be allowed as per plans and
dimensions submitted.
2 . That the exterior finish be compatible with the
existing structure.
3 . That all necessary state and local permits and
certificates be obtained, and that all applicable codes be
adhered to, including but not limited to building and fire
permits and inspections .
SPECIk,L PERMIT GRANTED
Aprilco L 9
lLi ¢ C_c
> UJ.�
x` Josepn C. Correnti, Secretary
UJ I cz
Q LULU
Lh COPV=OF 'q* DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
tC r<n
Appal from this decision. It any, shall tie made pur9uant to Sgcffm TP fA
P, U the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 day9
after the date,of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
• Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 308, 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 Title.
BOARD OF APPEAU
JUN 18 II 02 AN '91
Titn of `'ttlem, .Ra9SZ1C11U6ett9C1TY OF t.! _';, MASS
C ClER1C'S C( FiCE
�nttrD of CAupeal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KENNETH BURKINSHAW FOR A
VARIANCE AT 15 VICTORY ROAD (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held June 19, 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Edward Luzinski, Richard Febonio, Mary Jane
Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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.
j" Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from side and rear
setbacks to allow existing decks in the 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 . The decks in question have been in existance for many years.
2. No opposition was submitted.
3. The decks would add to the owners enjoyment of the property.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . 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 wouldinvolve
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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KENNEITH BURKINSHAW FOR A
VARIANCE AT 15 VICTORY ROAD, SALEM
page two
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variance requested, subject to ;the..fbllowing conditions:
1 . All construction be done per all existing city and state building codes.
2. All construction be done per plans and dimensions submitted.
3. Petitioner obtain a legal building permit.
4. Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department
relative to smoke and fire safety.
Variance Granted
June 19, 1991
Fichard A. Bencal, Chairman, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH 'THE:PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
n
c
• f7 H S
Appeal from this decision. If any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 Of m c' 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. c;r— _
pursuant to Mass. General Laws, cMoter 808, Section 11, the Variance c
of the
s ial Permit grantei herein shall not take efbect until a copy -r;
decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has been tiled, or that, if such appeal has been m n
filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex (n CA
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'
•
(9itn of ttlem, �RUZBUdluscite
t' Poura of �'�upeat OCT 30 04 PH '91
�Ni•yqM VY'V~
CITY Cr ".ASS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LYDIA KING FOR A VARIANCE CLERK'S OtFICE
AT 7 WALL STREET (R-1 )
A hearing on this petition was held October 16, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio,
Mary Jane Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. Notice of the hearing
was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published
in-the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from use and density
in order to allow conversion to a two family dwelling in this R-1 Zone.
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 be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The property has been used, as per variances from this Board, as a two
family dwelling over the past ten ( 10) years.
2. There was no opposition submitted.
3. Continued and permanent use as a two family will not adversely affect the
neighborhood.
4. There are several other two family dwellings 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 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 LYDIA KING FOR A VARIANCE
AT 7 WALL ST. , 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 shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
2. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department
relative to smoke and fire safety.
3. Property shall remain two family so long as it remains owner occupied.
4. Petitioner shall comply with any and all conditions in prior decisions
with the exception of the five year restriction.
October 16, 1991
Variances Granted
Richard A, B
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
• Appeal from this decision, If any,shall brtmade be led to Sn tiON days 17 01
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808,
er the data of filing,of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
:al :o i:f ass, General La•ns, Chlptor E08, Section 11, the Variance
cr , -114.1 pc-ma Granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
Decision, bc•�rinP tha certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed Incl no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
filetthat 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'
C, O
n
A q -y
rn O w
A T O
ani
6l (V
O
ci S
rn n
cn G o
•
(1�itn of ulem, C HttssucliusPht ,o; ;A!Z-4, M/,Gs
• f'; r F!.( RK'S OFFICE
Botts of CAD
pe211
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILAGROS MARTINEZ (PETITIONER) ,
BILL MCKINNON (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 260A WASHINGTON ST. (R-3)
A hearing on this petition was held May 15, 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio, Edward
Luzinski, 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 Chpater 40A:
The petitioner is requesting a Varince from use and parking to allow the property
to be used for a beauty salon. The property is located in an R-3 district and
is owned by Bill McKinnon.
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 . This site has contained a number of commercial uses in the past, including
a temporary employment agency and a liquor store.
2. The proposed use will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood or zoning
district than the previously existing uses as it will not generate an
increase in the amount of vehicular traffic.
3. The proposed business will cater, primarily, to a walk-in trade from the
neighborhood.
4. The proposed site of the beauty parlor is in a commercial building which
should be utilized for a business purpose and therefore is somewhat unique
in the zoning district.
5. The proposed site of the beauty parlor is presently empty creating a
substantial financial hardship.
• 6. No opposition was expressed at the public hearing.
7. A representative of the Chamber of Commerce expressed support for the
location of this business on the site.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILAGROS MARTINEZ (PETITIONER) , BILL MCKINNON
(OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 260A WASHINGTON ST. , SALEM
page two
• On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but
not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship
on the petitioner.
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All renovations be done as per City and State Codes.
2. All construction be done as per plans and dimensions submitted.
3. A Building Permit be obtained.
4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
5• All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire
• safety be strictly adhered to.
6.u) Petitioner comply with any and all Boards and Commissions having
c uyurisdiction, including, but not limited to the Board of Health.
� =u
,'Variances Granted
--
--May'J5, 1991
O7 p W
U ✓�I U/>'1f�i
Mary J n 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 17 Of
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
after the date.of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance
or.special Permit granted herein sha;l 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 dismissetl 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'
•
i
(91ty of .�ntrm, {9i 59SUCiTUSetts
'Boarb of -Au
peaF
91 MAR 13 P3 :05
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND PAGE FOR VARIANCES AT
22 WEBB STREET (R-2)
CITY �ERK, cp • c
pO� OFFICE
A hearing on this petition was held February 27, 9gl witfi` 'the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; 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.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from use and parking
to allow the property to be convert to a three unit residential building. The
property is located in an R-2 district.
Before hearing the merits of this petition the Board had to consider re-hearing
it as a petition to allow a four family dwelling at this site was denied by the
Board of Appeal on June 27, 1990. The Board of Appeal, after hearing evidence
regarding substantial change, and after receiving Consent from the Salem Planning
Board, voted unanimously, 4-0, that there was a substantial change, said change
being three 13) units rather than four (4) and they would hear the petition.
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 and after
viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The building on this property has been vacant for several years and has
become an eyesore.
2. The petitioner owns the property at 24 Webb St. and is in residence there.
3. The availability of the adjacent parcel for additional parking makes this
property unlike others in the zoning district.
4. The existing condition of the building requires a substantial investment to
• make the building habitable.
5. The Ward Councillor wrote a letter supporting this petition as long as the
parking requirements under the zoning code are met.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND PAGE FOR VARIANCES FOR
22 tWEBB STREET, SALEM
page two
• FF
6. The rehabilitation of this building o-�dtr1qF"te' a significant improvement
to the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of�factMAR 1, an� on�he5evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
1 . Special conditions exist which especMLIFYtlimlCt the subject property but not
the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve 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 purpcse 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 in compliance with state and local building codes.
2. All construction be in accordance with plans and dimensions submitted.
3. A building permit be obtained.
• 4. A Certificate of Occupancy of each unit be obtained.
5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety be strictly adhered to.
6. The petitioner is to provide three parking spaces on site at 22 Webb St. and
five spaces on 24 Webb St. , as shown on the plan submitted, two of these five
are to remain available for the free and open use of the residents of 22 Webb
Street. Both 22 Webb St.. and 24 Webb St. are to remain in common ownership,
VARIANCES GRANTED
February 27, 1991
Mary J tirgwolt, Winter, 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 lie madd pursuant to Sdctloff I7 oL
th; Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
titer tire date of filing of this decision in the office of the city Clerk.
Pursu^n: to kt?s. L=o❑^.ra: u••vs, Chcpt^_r S08, Section 11, the Variance
Penrit m±t take eifect unW a copy rd lno
• 'ec.-'on. b� ri.^.? !h. crrhfution of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed nn•1 na rPCcal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
tiled, that it has isen :lis"issed or denied Is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of De=ds 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
of ,$nlem, CRassac11usetf CE! r
Pourb of ( rVVeal .91 MAY -1 A8
' :33
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HAYDEN SAFE & LOCK CO. (PETIT 01NE� R' OFFICE
ROBERT & MURIEL ROULEAU (OWNERS) FOR VARIANCES AT 119 WEBB ST. (R2)
A hearing on this petition was held April 17, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Edward Luzinski, Joseph Correnti.,
Richard Febonio and Associate Member Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing
was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published
in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting a variance from use in order to allow the structure
at 119 Webb St. to be used as a safe and lock company. The property is located
in a Residential Two Family Zone (R-2) and is owned by Robert and Muriel Rouleau.
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 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 . Petitions in favor of the proposed use were submitted by the petitioner.
2. A letter of support from the Salem Chamber of Commerce was submitted.
3. Support was voiced by neighbors, abutters and others.
4. Building has been used for business purposes for many years.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
subject property but not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner.
• 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HAYDEN SAFE & LOCK COMPANY (PETITIONER) , ROBERT
& MURIEL ROULEAU (OWNERS) , FOR VARIANCE AT 119 WEBB ST. , 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 relative
to smoke and fire safety.
2. Parking be provided as per the plans submitted.
3. Petitioner obtain any and all necessary permits from the Salem Building Dept.
VARIANCE GRANTED
April 17, 1991
rA01ee"
Aich'ard
�E�1 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 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.
Pursuont to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance
or ?;:ecial Permil grantee he;ela shall nct take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing the certification of the City Cie'k 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 Eseex
Registry of Deeds and Indexed under the name or the owner of record ar
Is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
Dc7 =
mrq <
3 n
DN ��
b)C3 D fT7
N l 00
F3 i.:
m w
•
O
\� OlitU of tticm, Httssttcljuset cF,t��.�
• i:.
NTT„ F Poarb of Au peal .91
APR _3 P3 :08
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF SALEM FOR A SPECIP TY CLERK'S OFFICE
PERMIT AT 50 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (RC) SALEtj jsjA$S.
A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1991 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.
Petitioners, owners of the property; are requesting a Special Permit to allow
the overnight parking of not more than sixty (60) recreational vehicles between
the months of May and November each year of the permit period of five (5) years,
through'.and- including the 1995 season.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B: 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in
Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction
• of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion
of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such
change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detri-
mental than the existing nonconforming use to the-neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
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 proposed use will not limit the public's access to the site and the
revenue generated by the proposed use will benefit the City and provide
funds which allow greater access by the public.
2. Past performance of the Commission and owners of the recreational vehicles
utilizing Winter Island has been excellent.
3. A letter in support of the proposal was submitted by the Park and
Recreation Commission.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented -at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF SALEM FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AT 50 WINTER ISLAND ROAD, SALEM
page two
• 1 . The proposed use will promote the public health, Jetg F w,ern and
convenience of the City's inhabitants.
'91 APR -3 P
2. The proposed use is in harmony with the Zoning ntO��rrTdiinance of tAe�Lty of Salem.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimotl5l1A` f9F�¢®fit the Special
Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: .ASS.
1 . Overnight parking of not more than sixty (60) recreational vehicles at one
time shall be permitted during the May to November period for five (50) years.
2. Location of said vehicles shall be approved by the Salem Fire Department.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety be strictly adhered to.
4. Proposed use will in no way limit public access and use.
5. Petitioner obtain approval from any other City Boards and/or Commissions having
jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, the Park and Recreation Commission.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
March 20, 1991
• J
1ri
chard 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 dT
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 Fpeciai Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy 0 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 TlBa.
BOARD OF APPEAD
•
;y Ctu of . ttlem, � ttssttcljusetts
sPottra of CAU
Jul 3
CITY OF S,",; �u, 11ASS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES POPPE FOR VARIANCES p ,S`O'F(CF
AT 25 WISTERIA ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held June 26, 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio; Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane
Stirgwolt and Associate Member Ronald Plante. 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 any and all
density regulations in order to allow property to be divided into two lots in-.
this R-2 district.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings 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 petitoner.
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 building in this parcel is a three family rental property:
2. The division of this parcel into two lots would allow the garage and yard to
be conveyed to an abutter in need of a garage.
3. The conveyance of this portion of the lot would allow the petitioner to
refinance the mortgage on the property making it a more lucrative investment.
4. On abutter spoke in favor of the petition.
5. Several neighbors and abutters, and the Ward 7 City Councillor, spoke in
opposition to this petition, citing problems ranging from parking and noise,
to the desire to maintain the property in tact so that it would be attractive
to families in the future.
6. Petitioner failed to demonstrate or to :meet his burden of proof relative to
substantial hardship or to demonstrate unique circumstances that affected this
• property and not others in the zoning district.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES POPPE FOR VARIANCES
AT 25 WISTERIA STREET, SALEM
page two
• On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject
property and 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
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 Variances requested. Having failed to garner the four affirm-
ative votes necessary to pass, the motion to grant fails and the Variance is
denied.
Variance Denied
June 26, 1991
• Mary J Stirgwo t, ember, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
m rn
U)
aw
Y" shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
P U_ ►appeal from this decision, if any,
CD ui p the Mass.General Laws, Chapter BOB, and shall be filed within 20 days
atter the date�of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
is Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808. Section 11, the parlance
� c or special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision,bearin the certification of the city clerk that 20 days have
F—V elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
U filed,that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded io the South Essex
or the owner of record or
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name
is recorded and noted On the owser's certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
•