The URL can be used to link to this page

1992-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �'; Q i Address Petitioner/Owner Page No 8 Albion St. (g) Patricia Rennick 1 • 29 Appleby Rd. Francis & Jacqueline Malik (Pet) Martial & Lorraine Boucher (Own) 2" 152 Bayview Ave. Scott & Laura Clark 3 12 Boston St. DPJ Realty Trust 4 29 Bridge St. Arthur Ingemi 5 1 Buena Vista Ave. Sean T. Curtin 6 135 Canal St. Canal St. Realty Tr. 7 49 Central St. Bullmoose Realty Tr. 8 38 Charles St. Eugeniusz Latusek 9 8 Chestnut St. Janic Lebel 10 5 Cheval Ave. James Picone 11 0 & 2 Clark Ave. David Russo/Rudolf & Mary Gowitz 12 7 Clark St. Paul Ferragamo 13 6 Conners'Rd. Robert Connery 14 36 Crowdis St. Richard Femino 15 10 Dearborn st. (d) Gail & James Sagris 16 10 Dearborn St. (d) Gail & James Sagris 17 117 Derby St. JC & DR Realty Tr. (Owners) • Robert Curran (petitioner) 18 5 Dundee St. David & Jean Lapham 19 21 East Collins St. Philip Bedard 20 142 Federal St. Timothy :Clifford 21 10 Freeman Rd. Nancy & Steve Pinto 22 1 Gedney Ct.a/k/a 21 Gedney Ct. Andrew Brauer 23 16 Grant Rd. James W. Glick 24 24 Grant Rd. Thomas & Elizabeth Burke 25 14 Greenway Rd. Stephen Baliotis 26 6 Hamilton St. Latta Realty Tr. 27 L 35 Hanson St. George & Priscilla O'Donnell 28 4 133 Highland ave. Essex County Rehab.Assoc. (pet) Helen Conway, (own) 29 42 Hillside Ave. Joseph & Joan O'Neil 30 f 101 Jackson St. w/d Steven Pizzo (petitioner) f Concetta Garrano (Owner) 31 19 Japonica St. Sherri & Frederick Callor 32 229 Jefferson AVe. Broadway Nominee Trust 33 • 163 Lafayette St. Levesque Funeral Home 34 336 Lafayette St. St.Joseph's Credit Union 35 � I Address Petitioner/owner Page No 4 Langdon St. William Melanson 36 14 Laurel St. Michael Cormier 37 77-79 Leach St. Albert & Mary Levesque 38 78 Leavitt St. Palmer Cove:,Yacht Club 39 8 Madeline Ave. w/d Rita & Ann Manoogian 40 I 108 Margin st. w/d John Occhipinti 41 79 Marlborough Rd. Deborah & Arthur Alexander 42 48 Memorial Drive Robt. & Charleen Little 43 55 Memorial Drive Margaret Press 44 6 Nichols St. Bruce Bornstein 45 119 North St. w/d Georgia Porazinski 46 138 North st. Donald & Lesa Haefner 47 5 Ord St. William & Eileen Harris 48 24 Saunders St. W & G REalty Trust 50 9 Salt Wall Lane Janet L. Burba 49 24 Saunders St. (extension)_ W & G REalty Trust 51 3 Savona St. Mary Civiello 52 3 Scenic Terrace William & Cherly Gallagher 53 14 School St. Joh O'Neill 54 • 30 Shore Ave. Mark Jalbert 55 18 South St. Leroy & Hilda Briggs 56 112 Sutton Ave. Ron McElwain (Petitioner) � Robert Doyle (Owner) 57 55 Tremont St. Marc & Rita Bouchard 58 46-54 Turner st. House of Seven Gables Settlement Assoc. 59 25 Williams St: Rev. Alexander & H. C. Mikesell 60 17 Willson St. Erle Soper (owner) R. Chalifour (pet) 61 f I I { 'r ' I �Sity of . ttlem, CHttsstttljusPtts `s Paurb of ku Lo- I (� CO N r 0 oIl w T rn n DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICIA RENNICK N FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 8 ALBION STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held October 29, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish Jr. , Edward Luzinski and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 in order to extend the height of the existing roof in this 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 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 proposed construction. 2. The property will remain a single family dwelling thus not placing any further burden on the abutting area. 3. The height of the structure would still fa4l under the current legal restriction, even with the proposed increase. • PETITION OF PATRICIA RENNICK FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 8 ALBION STREET, SALEM • page two 4. The proposed construction would not be out of character with the general area. 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. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit. 5. Exterior finishes of the proposed addition shall be in harmony with existing structure. 6. Property shall be used as a single family dwelling only. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED October 21, 1992 Richard A. Berical, Chairman Board of Appeal • n o ^ C4J 1. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICIA RENNICK FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 8 ALBION STREET, SALEM page three • 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 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 the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal C11 o n :; N rn o m m, z L N w �r O OT W T n= � m N LO N tN N .,b (91ty of . $Zdem, fflassadjusetts Q( H� �p� P02tia of '�1ppPti1 OF.1.1 GLERKCE SLO1r�1MASS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANCIS AND JACQUELINE MALIK, (PETITIONERS) MARTIAL AND LORRAINE BOUCHER (OWNERS) FOR VARIANCE AT 29 APPLEBY RD. (RC/R-1) A hearing on this petition was held December 9, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Francis Grealish Jr. , Edward Luzinski, Stephen Touchette 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 variances to allow property at 29 Appleby Road to be divided allowing 432 Sq. Ft. to be conveyed to 31 Appleby Road which is owned by the petitioners. Property is located in an RC/R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures 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. Frontage of the proposed new lots will not change. 2. New construction will not take place with this change. 3. The proposed property transfer will not adversely affect other property in the area. 4. The property in question is of no practical use to the owners, it contains a retaining wall, stockade fence, trees, shrubs and flowers which • have been built, planted and maintained by the petitioners. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRANCIS AND JACQUELINE MALIK (PETITIONERS) , MARTIAL AND LORRAINE BOUCHER (OWNERS) FOR VARIANCE AT 29 APPLEBY RD. ,SALEM page two • 5. Due to the location and topography of the parcel in question to deny the requested variance would present a hardship to both the owner and the petitioner. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. The property shall be divided as per the plans and dimensions c- o submitted. C; � • mo N VARIANCE GRANTED December 9, 1992 m.� o `rdA. Bencal, Chairman m N N 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. • Board of Appeal ;• v of OCT13 . ttlem, � ttssttcljusetts 3 02 PM '92 -Sourb of �upettl ;._. CITY OF SALEM, MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SCOTT & LAURA CLARK FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 152 BAY VIEW AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held September 30, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish Jr. , and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to increase the height by allowing the construction of a dormer on this nonconforming structure. 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 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. Support from the Ward Councillor as well as two immediate abutters was voiced at the meeting. 2. There will be no change in the footprint of the structure. 3. Granting this petition will allow the petitioner to update all heating and electrical systems and to restore the structure to the original • Victorian style. I PETITION OF SCOTT AND LAURA CLARK FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 152 BAY VIEW AVENUE, 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 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, 4-0, 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. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit. 5. Exterior finishes of the proposed dormer shall be in harmony with existing structure. 6. All conditions from the previous decision of this Board on June 26, 1991 shall be incorporated into and made part of this decision. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED September 30, 1992 m Richard A. Bencal, Chairman 4 LU Board of Appeal N SLL Wo J C v) - Y � y J V �U • d U DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SCOTT AND LAURA CLARK FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT, 152 BAY VIEW AVENUE, SALEM page three 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 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 the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • �xn C U • (�� (9itu of ttlem, CRttssttdjus�eit�, • :;= �ti,,"�f�"�s �ottra of t�upenl ciTy of 3 04 Ply '9Z CLERKSSCO /CESS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DPJ REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 12 BOSTON STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 3, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Febonio,Acting Chairman; Edward Luzinski, Francis Grealish Jr. , Stephen Touchette 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 and represented by John Boris, Tr. , are requesting a Special Permit to convert the premises from a sales office plus one dwelling unit into a two family dwelling. 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 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; I . There was no opposition to this petition. 2. The property was converted to a two family dwelling by the Board of Appeal June 17, 1971 at the request of the previous owner, Emanuel • Distefano. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DPJ REALTY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 12 BOSTON • STREET, SALEM JUN � 1 page two . y 304 F9 9Z 3. The Board of Appeal ranted the CITY OF S� cu v PP g present owners a Vary®pepK UpubeFSS 18, 1981 to convert the two family into a mixed use building, tte fust floor being utilized as a sales office and the second floor an apartment. 4. The economic times makes the use of the property as a two family a more feasible use. 5. Councillor Kevin Harvey spoke in favor. 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. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. A legal building permit is to be obtained. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED June 3, 1992 Ronald G. Plante, Assoc.Member Board of Appeal is DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DPJ REALTY TRUST • FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 12 BOSTON STREET, SALEM JUN II 3 oy ppb '91 page three CITY OF SALEM MASS CLERK'S OFFICE 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 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 • • 0- CIN of . ttlem, 'fHttssttellusetts :.._ ' Pottra 0{ C�v{�Pttl JUN I1 3 o3 pM '91 \N CITY OF SAL CLERK'SOFFIMASS CE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR INGEMI FOR A VARIANCE AT 29 BRIDGE STREET (B-2 ) A hearing on this petition was held June 3 , 1992 with the following Board Members present : Richard Febonio, Acting Chairman, Francis Grealish, Stephen Touchette , Edward Luzinski 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 variance from lot coverage and parking to allow construction of an addition in this B-2 district . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a • finding 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 opposition to the petition, only concerns expressed by neighbors pertaining to esthetics and noise factor which were addressed under the conditions set by the Board of Appeal to their satisfaction. 2 . There would be no loss of any parking spaces . • • AEVARIANCENATH 29PBRIDGENSOTREET, SALEMGEMI FOR Jul' `7 303 Pt/ 19Z page two CITY OF S4LEAI. CLERK'S OF 3 . Allowing this petition would enhance petitioner' s F1CH.�SS f ability to better serve his patrons . 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 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 . Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector. 5 . Exterior finishes of the addition shall be in compliance with the existing structure and noise factor be baffled to avoid any nuisance to the neighbors . 6 . A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. • • DECISION HPETITION IFARTHUR I J0 FOR VARIANCESAT29BRIIDGESTREET, SALEM 17 3 04pyX91 page three CITY OFCLERKSALEM, HAS S OFFICE VARIANCE GRANTED June 3 , 1992 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 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 . Board of Appeal • g'tn of ttlrm, ttsstttlrusetts • (36CT 13 3 02 ?M '9Z -Soarb of �A"Cnl CITY Of SALEM, MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SEAN T. CURTIN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 1 BUENA VISTA AVENUE (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held September 30, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish Jr. , and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 from front & rear setbacks and to increase the height to allow construction of a deck, an addition and a second level in this 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 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 proposed construction. 2. The property will remain a single family dwelling. 3. The granting of this petition will enhance the quality of life for the petitioner. • PETITION OF SEAN T. CURTIN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 1 BUENA VISTA AVENUE, 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 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, 4-0, 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. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit. 5. Exterior finishes of the proposed construction shall be in harmony with existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained by the petitioner. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED September 30, 1992 -- rn U) Step en C. Touchette, Member W Board of Appeal SU N S 4MV WO Q N h� lTy V C � 4 W y 3 • C U DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SEAN T. CURTIN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 1 BUENA VISTA AVENUE, SALEM page three 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 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 the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • a ti m � C W �+ a U- Wo M J C N N Y f1) k.� � �J V �U O U •t\ of `ttlem, 49assadlusetts Pattra of �kupeal 1 Y 1 �hi,ym�n•J a N r N i � DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CANAL REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 135 CANAL STREET (B-4) u A hearing on this petition was held January 8, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Francis Grealish Jr. , 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 Special Permit to enlarge a previous nonconforming structure by extending the nonconforming rear setback an additional three (3) feet. The property is located in a B-4 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 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 CANAL REALTY TRUST a � fl • FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 135 CANAL STREET, SALEM page two r� 2. The building in question has been used for automobiles for many v N years. c 3. The building in question has been nonconforming for many years . U N 4 . The proposed addition will allow the petitioner to better serve customers and comply with franchise requirements. 5. Due to the proximity of three public thoroughfares it is not feasible for the petitioner to obtain additional land. 6. Support for the plan was voiced by City Councillors Stanley Usovicz Jr. and Leonard O' Leary. 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. 3. The proposed addition will allow petitioner to comply with franchise requirements, thus averting financial and business hardship. 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 and by legal building permit. 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of thP' Entrance Corridor Overlay District. 4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Departmenc relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be- ottzined. 6. Exterior finishes of the addition shall be in harmony with existing structures. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CANAL REALTY TRUST • FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 135 CANAL STREET, SALEM page three SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED January 8, 1992 RR cha�encal, Chairman 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 MGL 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 r • 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 t C L C')--f ma 1 o rn r n g 1� co Cq` altu of -"� ttlrm, 'IRttssttdjusetts C Y, :s -gottra of AU rezil m� t �P C• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BULLMOOSE REALTY TRUST FOR - VARIANCE AT 49 CENTRAL STREET (B-5 ) A hearing on this petition was held February 19 , 1992 with the following Board Members present : Richard A. Bencal , Chairman, Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski , Francis X Grealish and Stephen Touchette . Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 variance from the City of Salem Sign Ordinance to allow a free standing sign in the Urban Renewal Development District. Property is located in a B-5 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 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 opposition to the petition. 2 . That allowing the petition would give the petitioner greater advertising exposure to his place of business . • 3 . Allowing this sign would enhance the business climate of the City. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BULLMOOSE REALTY TRUST • FOR A VARIANCE AT 49 CENTRAL STREET, SALEM page two co N n S On the basis of the above findings of fact , and on the `P 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 any and all requirements of any other city board, authority or commission regarding, but not limited to, height , colors , size and placementk of the proposed sign . 2 . That a Certificate of Appropriateness be obtained from the City of Salem Historical Commission. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BULLMOOSE REALTY TRUST m FOR VARIANCES AT 49 CENTRAL STREET, SALEM < is page three VARIANCE GRANTED - February 19 , 1992in 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 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. (Gitox n ofttlem, � ttssttcljusetts • ,e �: 'Sourb of �AFpeul DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EUGENIUSZ LATUSEK FOR A VARIANCE AT 38 CHARLES ST . ( R-2 ) A hearing on this petition was held February 19 , 1992 with the following Board Members present : Richard Bencal , Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, Jr. , Edward Luzinski and Stephen Touchette . Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Board of Appeal, after hearing evidence and at the request of the petitioner, voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition for Variances to construct a two car garage with an apartment above in this R-2 zone . GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE February 19 , 1992 Edward Luzinski Vice Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD 'AND THE CITY CLERK. r H MC) co CD �r N LZ col IV • L _'�3ttlem, 4RUE15adjusetts • \, 1 F soarb of peal G n y C' L') I- m o �� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JANICE LEBEL FOR A VARIANCE ATVr .� 8 CHESTNUT STREET (R-2 ) A hearing on this petition was held May 20, 1992 with the following Board Members present : Richard A. Bencal, u Chairman, Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, Stephen Touchette , 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 variance from rear and side setbacks to allow construction of a deck in this R-2 district . • The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that : 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands , buildings and structures 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 opposition to this request for a variance. 2 . The petit oner-vias wilting -to comply with all conditions . • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JANICE LEBEL FOR A VARIANCE AT 8 CHESTNUT 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 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 , to grant the Variances requested (Mr. Bencal voted in opposition) 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 . The changes shown in the building plans dated 1-10-92 be incorporated into the structure. 3 . Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector. 5 . Petitioner will increase the height of the rear fence to 6 feet and follow all Historic Commission guidelines . 6. All expenses for the fence shall be borne by the petitioner. n ^ ti o ^ Cay 4 ti • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JANICE LEBEL FOR VARIANCES AT 8 CHESTNUT STREET, SALEM page three VARIANCE GRANTED May 20, 1992 Stephen C. Touchette, 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 owners Certificate of Title. n� a r mo �N r T= Y N Ca ' � N • 4 O 'i1!f altu of ttlrm, .fttssttdjuscite _ N> ,Soara of Aupeal ornrn o ma N r, N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES PICONE FOR VARIANCE AT 5 CHEVAL AVE. (R-I) A hearing on this petition was held .July 22, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, Stephen Touchette and Associate Arthur Labreque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variances from lot coverage and all setbacks to allow existing garage to be demolished and to construct a new structure. Property is located in a Residential Single Family district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by • this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures 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 opposition. 2. The existing garage was built during the 1930's and cannot accommodate modern motor vehicles. 3. The new structure would be more in harmony with the adjoining structures. • 4. If not granted the structure could only be used for dead storage which was not the intended nor desired use. M0 W 0m m TY N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES PICONE FOR '— • A VARIANCE AT 5 CHEVAL AVENUE, SALEM m ani page two m `� 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 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. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a demolition permit before removal of the existing structure. VARIANCE GRANTED July 22, 1992 Richard A. Bencal, Chairman Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES PICONE • FOR VARIANCES AT 5 CHEVAL AVENUE, SALEM page three 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. • Board of Appeal n c> < r � mo W �T va W r om - 3 N M S ma � cn N N • ffttssacu l getts of �ttlem, �. I • r bourb of C�urettluH 11 3 64 PN '92 `1 CITY OF SALEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID RUSSO/RUDOLF AND MARY GOWITZ FOR A VARIANCE AT 0 AND 2 CLARK AVENUE ( R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held June 3 , 1992 with the following Board Members present : Richard Bencal , Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, Edward Luzinski and Stephen Touchette . Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 divide land at 0 & 2 Clark Ave. The property is located in an 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 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 petitioner, David Russo, is the owner of the land and dwelling situated at and known as 0 Clark Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts. 2. Said dwelling is a single family, constructed in 1988 in an area zoned for single family. • 3. When constructed said dwelling conformed with all building regulations and zoning requirements of the City of Salem. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID RUSSO/RUDOLPH AND MARY GROWITZ FOR VARIANCE AT 0 AND 2 CLARK AVE . , SALEM JUn /I • page two C/ry0- 3O4p# ,91 4. Prior to construction a dispute arose between Mr. Russo art�dl$ud,'alph & Mary Growitz, owners of 2 Clark Ave. , regarding sideline boundary.0FF/14FSS 5. Unable to resolve said dispute, Civil Action was filed in Essex County Superior Court which sought to establish a claim of adverse possession by the Growitz's for portion of land whose record title was vested in the petitioner. 6. The petition has been filed in conjunction with the resolution of the pending civil litigation. 7. Petitioner David Russo seeks variance to allow conveyance of parcel shown as lot 3 on a plan entitled "Proposed subdivision of Land in Salem, MA Prepared for David Russo and Rudolph and Mary Growitz, Scale 1" = 20' , February 15, 1992" to said Growitz's. Said conveyance would leave less than the minimum lot width as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. 8. Appearing in favor were petitioners Rudolph and Mary Growitz. No one appeared in opposition to said petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal • concludes as follows : 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general . 2 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner . 3 . Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance . Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 , to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions : 1 . Petitioners shall comply with the plans and dimensions submitted to the Board of Appeal . • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID RUSSO/RUDOLPH AND MARY GROWITZ FOR VARIANCES AT 0 AND 2 CLARK AVENUE, SALEM JUU �/ page three cry 3 n4 OF Py '91 VARIANCE GRANTED OLERXSS1OF�ICASS June 3 , 1992 Francis X. Grealish Jr. , 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 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 . Board of Appeal • (1�ity of �zlem, � Httssttcliustts attra of rAt�enl �J CITY „m OF SACT CLERK'S OF-, ISS CF REMANDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL FERRAGAMO FOR A VARIANCE AT 7 CLARK STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held June 3, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, Edward Luzinski and Stephen Toucette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting Variances to allow the construction of a single family home in this R-1 district. This petition was denied by the Board of Appeal on March 18, 1987 and again on July 5, 1989. The latter denial was appealed and subsequently remanded back to the Board by the Court. • 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 petitioner failed demonstrate or to meet the burden of proof relative to legal hardship. • • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL FERRAGAMO JUN 17 3 0t, pH '9T FOR A VARIANCE AT 7 CLARK STREET, SALEM CITY OF SFLEM. Mt,SS page two CLERK'S OFFICE 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 or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted three (3) in favor two (2) opposed to the motion to grant, having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED June 3, 1992 Francis X. Grealish, Jr. , 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 OF THE MGL 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 PASSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, THAT ITK HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. • BOARD OF APPEAL ,b 5��` flit ofttlem ttssttc! usetts 9 j Potts 0t �c1Cti1 .m ERS G� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT A. CONNERY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 CONNERS ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held August 26, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish Jr. , Edward Luzinski 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 nonconforming front and rear setbacks to allow the construction of a deck in this R-1 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 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 this petition by neighbors or abutters. 2. The granting of the Special Permit is in keeping and is compatible with the neighborhood. 3. Granting this petition will enhance the quality of life'for the petitioner. • PETITION OF ROBERT A, CONNERY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 CONNERS ST. , SALEM page two • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The 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. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and • fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit. 5. Exterior finishes of the proposed deck shall be in harmony with existing structure. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED August 26, 1992 Richard Febonio, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal n cn C.,~ rK m o ap r om � T p mn � �o DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT A. CONNERY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 CONNERS ROAD, SALEM page three • 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 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 the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • M m n� � r� m o p x�•, CD N r �> cn a n 2 =z cn LZ • �=� .b �. f�it� of �ttlem, ��ttsstzcljusetts . • F �nttra of �upeal c, y o ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD FEMINO FOR A VARIANCfl,,P AT 36 CROWDIS STREET ( R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held May 20 , 1992 with the Y following Board Members present :Richard A. Bencal , R�� Chairman, Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, Stephen Touchette , 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 variance from frontage to allow lot to be divided and to construct a single family dwelling in this R-1 district . • The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that : 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands , buildings and structures 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 new lots would be closer in size to lots presently in the area and would have more frontage than most other lots in the area. . 2 . The lot could not be divided any other way without causing more setback or frontage problems . • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD FEMINO • FOR A VARIANCE AT 36 CROWDIS 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 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 contruction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted . 3 . Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector. 5 . Proper street number shall be obtained from the City of Salem Assessor ' s Office. C13--f a mo • •,� w y y co ti • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD FEMINO FOR VARIANCES AT 36 CROWDIS STREET, SALEM page three VARIANCE GRANTED May 20 , 1992 Richard 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 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 . mo rn 2!. w r oM • �� o m n �= Cn N H b (Gita of ,$alem, 'Massadjusetts DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GAIL AND JAMES SAGRIS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 10 DEARBORN ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held September 30, 1992 and continued until October 21, 1992, the following Board Members were present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Vice Chairman; Francis X. Grealish, Jr. , Secretary and Stephen C. Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to extend side and rear setbacks to allow construction of a second story deck. The property is located in an R-2 district (residential two family) Before hearing the merits of this petition, the Board of Appeal must decide whether or not there is substantial and material change from a previous petition which was denied by this Board on July 22, 1992. Said previous petition was for a Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear and side • setbacks to allow construction of a second story deck. Consent from the City of Salem Planning Board was received and placed on record. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented and after viewing the plan submitted voted one (1) in favor of hearing this repetitive petition, three (3) opposed. The motion to hear the petition failed to garner the required four (4) affirmative votes needed to pass and therefore does not carry, the motion is denied. The Board concludes there is not substantial or material change and the petition will not be heard. REQUEST TO HEAR REPETITIVE PETITION DENIED October 21, 1992 /� A 61A)a Francis X. Grealish Jr. , Secretary Board of Appeal � o r a� CX3 �? w �+n o TT w nz 3 • m> co y ti DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GAIL AND JAMES SAGRIS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 10 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM page two • 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, 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/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. Board of Appeal • r � m rn :T ;-N W. N r- C orn t m Ln • �7 y Ctu of ttlrm, � ttsstttliusetts � •« ' -Bnttra ofAu}ienl • r m o L,) ND W r o m O DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GAIL AND JAMES SAGRIS 3 s FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 10 DEARBORN ST. (R-2) MD tn LZ N N A hearing on this petition was held July 22, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, Jr. , Stephen Touchette 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 extend nonconforming rear and side setback to allow construction of a deck. 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 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 immediate rbutter was in opposition. 2. The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GAIL AND JAMES SAGRIS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 10 DEARBORN ST. , SALEM page two • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The Special Permit 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:' 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted two (2) in favor (Touchette and Labrecque) three (3) against (Bencal, Febonio and Grealish) the granting of the Special Permit requested. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit is denied. Special Permit Denied July 22, 1992 Stephen Touchette, 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 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 or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal n a �< . r"� ma cs am r om o T 3 co mn En I? C O alV ' j� (fit" assadjusetts t 13 v P 92 Da 13 of Appeal CITY OF SALEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JC & DR REALTY TRUST (OWNERS) , ROBERT CURRAN (PETITIONER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 117 DERBY STREET (B-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held September 30, 1992 with the following Board Memoers present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish Jr. , and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the property to used as an off street parking area. The property is owned by JC & DR Realty Trust and is located in a B-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 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 . Letters in support of the plan were submitted and read by the Board Secretary. 2. The use of this area as a parking lot would help reduce traffic congestion and enhance public safety. • 3. A dilapidated building was razed at this site by the city and the use of this land for any other reason would also require action of this Board. PETITION OF JC & DR REALTY TRUST (OWNERS) , ROBERT CURRAN (PETITIONER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 117 DERBY ST. , SALEM • page two 4 . The petitioner has volunteered to let residents of the area use the lot for off street parking and by doing this is helping to relieve congestion on the adjoining streets. 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, 4-0, 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. Petitioner shall be responsible for the planting of two trees along Derby St. The types and site to be determined by the Salem Planning Dept. • 3. Neighborhood access to the lot shall be by permit only. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED September 30, 1992 l Richard A. Bencal, Chairman Board of Appeal H � Y U J Q� \ QJ � �J OV ti U U • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JC AND DR REALTY TRUST, OWNERS/ROBERT CURRAN, PETITIONER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 117 DERBY ST. , SALEM page three • 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 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 the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • � �U O �O C fn h O LU QV I_U U • y � Ctu of tt1Pm, � HttSStttliuSPttB mo .i.�• �N Cly c.; s Pnttra ofpeal .1 N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID AND JEAN LAPHAM FOR VARIANCES AT 5 DUNDEE STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held November 18, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish Jr. , Edward Luzinski and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 an existing deck and shed in this Residential Single Family District (R-1) 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 . The original porch and stairs were in poor conditions. 2. The location of the house and the shape of the lot make it impossible to comply with the 30 foot rear setback requirement. 3. There are not dwellings on the undeveloped lot behind the petitioners lot. 4. There was opposition from the owner of lot #57 on Calumet St. who was concerned about the effect of the variance on his development of his property. 1 • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID AND JEAN LAPHAM FOR VARIANCES AT 5 DUNDEE STREET, SALEM • page two 5. The shed is movable. 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 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 with the exception that the shed is to placed a minimum of five (5) feet from the property line on Calumet St. • 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit from the City of Salem Inspector of Buildings. 5. The grant to allow this deck shall not have a negative bearing on the development of the property shown as lot 1157 of the City of Salem Assessor's Map of Calumet Street, also known as 31 Calumet Street VARIANCE GRANTED November 18, 1992 St hen C Touchette Board of Appeal ��n-+ ti Am-n cn xN to n m w o n 0 rrn n N ti DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID AND JEAN LAPHAM FOR VARIANCES AT 5 DUNDEE STREET, SALEM page three • 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. Board of Appeal • rn o ti h � � b. ;i e mn Cn Cn ti • c) C 0 O LAJCtu of �ttlrm, assadjusetts �� 7 7,( N> x/11 Bottra of Appeal oc m n CD ma � c.c � N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHILIP BEDARD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 21 EAST COLLINS STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held July 22, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish Jr. , Stephen Touchette, and Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure to allow construction of a second floor this 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 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 this petition by neighbors or abutters. 2. The granting of the Special Permit would enhance the quality of life for the petitioner and family 3. The impact of this addition is extremely minimal. • m o .Z7 T r o PETITION OF PHILIP BEDARD FOR A SPECIAL �i W PERMIT AT 21 EAST COLLINS ST. , SALEM :7- C, -o a • page two m Cn LO N N 4. The addition of a second floor is in harmony with the abutting homes and the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit 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 and by legal building permit. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the addition. 5. Exterior finishes shall be in harmony with existing structure. 6. The dwelling is to remain a single family dwelling. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED July 22, 1992 Richard Febonio, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHILIP BEDARD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 21 EAST COLLINS ST. , SALEM • page three 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 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 the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal C) F . rt m o Uj �T om O T �u M= 3 m(n (n L.0 � N • a � Ctv of .—ittlem, Anssueljusetts z,,. 9 F a�E�,. �E s attra of peal JF 5 f1C C`E�K,S OF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF TIMOTHY CLIFFORD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 142 FEDERAL STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 26, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish Jr. , Edward Luzinski 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 an existing patio which encroaches on the side setback requirement to be screen in and roofed over. 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 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 this petition by neighbors or abutters. 2. There is an existing patio and none of the proposed work would be visible from the street. 3. Granting this petition will enhance the quality of life for the petitioner. • PETITION OF TIMOTHY CLIFFORD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 142 FEDERAL ST. , SALEM page two • 4. A certificate of non-applicability has been issued by the City of Salem Historical Commission for this work. 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. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and • fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit. 5. Exterior finishes of the proposed screening and roof shall be in harmony with existing structure. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED August 26, 1992 Richard Febonio, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal � m r� m o co �m �N c�> CD r o m U7+n -1 r • n= DECISION ON THE PETITION OF TIMOTHY CLIFFORD FOR A • SPECIAL PERMIT AT 142 FEDERAL ST. , SALEM page three 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 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 the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • n N M Cj- rj rl o x� r o m U; n m? N L6 N N • (gitu of ttlem, � ttssttcljusetts :....: Bonra of :�Aa peat F C'�. r . DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NANCY AND STEVE PINTO FOR - VARIANCE AT 10 FREEMAN ROAD (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held February 19 , 1992 with the following Board Members present : RichardBencal , Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski , Francis X Grealish and Stephen Touchette . Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 variance from side setback to allow a previously constructed deck in this R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that : • 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land , building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands , buildings and structures 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 abutter most affected by this deck spoke in favor of the request. 2 . The placement of the deck follows approximately the same line as the present dwelling. 3 . Placement of the deck in any other location would also • require variances and would encroach further into setback requirements . DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NANCY AND STEVE PINTO • FOR A VARIANCE AT 10 FREEMAN. ROAD , SALEM page two 4 . The deck allows the petitioner a fuller use of the property without derogating from the intent of the ordinance . 5 . The shape of the lot and side line causes a hardship to the petitioner . If the side line were to be straight instead of at an agnel then petitioner would not need to seek relief from this Board. 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 . All contruction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and by legal building permit. mo ti _cn ^' co 1a` � ti • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NANCY AND STEVE PINTO FOR VARIANCES AT 10 FREEMAN ROAD , SALEM page three VARIANCE GRANTED February 19 , 1992 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 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 . C') -, n� m M RVQ n Cj r co co L-3 T co n� � • y V b (flit of $ajem, ttssttcljusetts �uura of �kupettl T Fi r.um,_ar Np. o m_ cc m n -v T n N is N N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDREW BRAUER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 1 GEDNEY COURT a/k/a 21 GEDNEY COURT (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 26, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish Jr. , Edward Luzinski 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 nonconforming side and front setbacks to allow the construction of a deck and stairs. 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 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 this petition by neighbors or abutters. 2. There were two letters submitted by the petitioner from abutters in favor of the plan. 3. Granting this petition will enhance the quality of life for the petitioner and would provide safe and easy access to the second floor. PETITION OF ANDREW BRAUER FOR A SPECIAL • PERMIT AT 1 GEDNEY CT. a/k/a 21 GEDNEY CT. , 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 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. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit. 5. Exterior finishes of the proposed deck shall be in harmony with existing structure. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED August 26, 1992 onald G. Plante, Member Board of Appeal C-) N n-1 VT m 0 LO R� v» N r c3n L9 -V cn H DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDREW BRAUER FOR A • SPECIAL PERMIT AT 1 GEDNEY CT. a/k/a 21 GEDNEY CT. , SALEM page three 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 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 the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • f1 N T r� n o co �1 YV r o m vi CD n S a rna Cn LZ N N Ctu of ulem, � ttssttcljusetts GSR 22 $ 33 'JZ Pottra of �u{Je y �` y CITY OF SALEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES W. GLICK FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 16 GRANT ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held April 8, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Francis Grealish Jr. , and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend non-conforming side setback to allow existing deck to be attached to single family home. 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 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. 2. The petitioner submitted a statement signed by seven (7) abutters indicating that they did not object to the petitioner's request. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES W. GLICK FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 16 • GRANT ROAD, SALEM APR 22 8 3J ; 2 page two CITY OF SAL 3. The proposed attachment which will connect an existing QL tSo0FiSS NA house will add to the enjoyment and welfare of the inhabitants. CE 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. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . A legal building permit is to be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED April 8, 1992 Francis X. Grealish, Jr. Secretary, Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES W. GLICK FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 16 GRANT ROAD, SALEM • page three APR 22 8 CITY OF SALEM. F!+5<: CLERK'S OF ICE ' 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 MGL 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 • • aS • _ :b (Gita of a$Avm, 'T' assadjusetts o N Y .b' 7K T N ..r Moura of �uPad o T m N La N N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS AND ELIZABETH BURKE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 24 GRANT ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held December 9, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Francis Grealish Jr. , Edward Luzinski, Stephen Touchette 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 from rear setback requirements to allow construction of a deck in this single 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 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 not opposition to the proposed deck. 2. The granting of this petition will enhance the quality of life for the petitioners. • PETITION OF THOMAS AND ELIZABETH BURKE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 24 GRANT ROAD, SALEM page two • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: I . The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 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. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED December 9, 1992 Stephen C. Touchette, Member Board of Appeal y o M0 rpt Mm R V, N T' i0 r o m o m� N ,N • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS AND ELIZABETH BURKE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 24 GRANT ROAD, SALEM page three • 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 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 the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • n o M n 1 n r j N T O N U,2- 4CM) r- 0 o n 3 J O Y M Cn ca N N • '°' a� c., ofttlem, � ttssttcljusetts r MCD ... • \'\`t.�: $, 33oara of Appeal am o m S 3 ma cn L8 N N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN BALIOTIS FOR VARIANCE AT 14 GREENWAY RD. (R-I) A hearing on this petition was held July 22, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, Stephen Touchette and Associate Arthur Labreque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variances to allow construction of a deck. Property is located in a Residential Single Family district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures 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 opposition. 2. Petiitoner cited the hardship of city drain pipes running though his property that abuts Castle Rd. preventing him from building the deck on that side of the house. 3. Granting the petition would enhance the quality of life for the petitioner and his family. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN BALIOTIS FOR A VARIANCE AT 14 GREENWAY RD. , SALEM m o Ua • page two �T> N> !YD Om �3 r T- -O c: m>> 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 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. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector. 5. All work shall be in harmony with the existing building. VARIANCE GRANTED July 22, 1992 Rich�bonio, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN BALIOTIS FOR VARIANCES AT 14 GREENWAY RD. , SALEM • page three 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. Board of Appeal • r-i r'< M0 w 2K �N wa W r om �t y N n Y MI. GD N N • 01 �= .b Ctv of .��ttlem, 4 assttcljusetts Jui 6 II Poara of Appeal 3q �� 91 Tm. x" Y OF SALEM C17 • MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LATTA REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 HAMILTON STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June ;24:,-1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Francis Grealish Jr. , and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear setback to construct a deck in this 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 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 this petition. 2. A letter in favor of granting the petition from an abutter was received by this Board. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LATTA REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 HAMILTON STREET, SALEM • page two JUL 8 II 34 AN '92 CITY Of SALEM, MASS 3. The proposed plans were approved by the Salem HistoriR FA'A gf6dVE 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 and by legal building permit. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED June 24, 1992 Rch�eGonio Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LATTA REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 HAMILTON STREET, SALEM page three JUL 8 1134 GSI '92 CITY OF SALEM, MASS A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARDICE 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 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 the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • ag- DEC 3 of ttlem, � HttSS�zCIiuSPt��Y OF S 46 • �. > CIe8�°S OF AIA S ::. Js Paurb of �'1upeal S F� S DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE AND PRISCILLA O'DONNELL FOR A VARIANCE AT 35 HANSON STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held November 18, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish Jr. , Edward Luzinski and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a variance from side setback requirement to allow construction of a single story addition in this R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures 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 opposition to the petition. 2. One abutter spoke in favor. 3. There are existing stairs there that lead directly to the outside. These stairs will be removed and an enclosed entry way will be constructed. 4. The egress is already existing and it would not be feasible to relocate it. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE AND PRISCILLA O'DONNELL FOR VARIANCE AT 35 HANSON STREET, SALEM page two DEC 3 • 46 C"' OF 9 �D •91 SALE►lefl. u On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidAgRK0Se� ,WSS 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 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. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire • Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit from the City of Salem Inspector of Buildings. 5. Exterior finishes of the proposed addition will be in harmony with the existing structure. VARIANCE GRANTED November 18, 1992 Francis X. Grealish, Jr. , Secretary Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE AND PRISCILLA O'DONNELL FOR VARIANCE AT 35 HANSON STREET, SALEM• 4c 3 page three CITY OF F 91 ccEE Sq A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARDRa1�CQDtI�1SY 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. Board of Appeal • • aq ofttlem, ttssttcl usetts ',LY_..e sFOF g�sQ F��F �uttra a{ cclupettl Cj DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ESSEX COUNTY REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES, PETITIONERS/HELEN CONWAY, OWNER FOR VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 133 HIGHLAND AVENUE (RC) A hearing on this petition was held August 26, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Francis Grealish Jr. 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 is requesting a Special Permit to allow property to be used as a physical therapy clinic and Variance from side and rear setbacks to allow construction of an addition in this RC District. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance with 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 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. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ESSEX COUNTY REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES PETITIONERS/HELEN CONWAY, OWNER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT is 133 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM page two 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. ti The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: << 1. The subject property is within 1500 of Salem Hospital and therefore can o be granted by Special Permit. o 2. The new facility would allow the petitioner to better serve their clients. � U 3. All parking requirements can be met on site. 4. Due to the uniqueness of the shape and topography of the lot, petitioner could not extend or enlarge the building without seeking relief from this Board. 5. The property is adjacent to other commercial uses as well as property owned by 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. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 4. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, codes ordinances and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit for all work done. • 4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ESSEX COUNTRY REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES, PETITIONERS/HELEN CONWAY, OWNER FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT • 133 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM page three safety shall be strictly adhered to. 5. Egress from the property shall be by a right turn only onto Highland Avenue and suitable signage stating this shall be placed and maintained on the property. 6. All landscaping shall be as per the plans submitted. 7. Property shall be used for professional office only. Special Permit and Variance Granted August 26, 199 ichard 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 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 of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal '@n N U11 Q U— X W O J� h Y � W� O W H v • C-V) t�itn of ttlem, tt$$trCliu$L 'M /1 '. .. i . boarb of .��eul 3 63 PM CITY Of SALEH MASS CIOF OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH AND JOAN O ' NEIL FOR A VARIANCE AT 42 HILLSIDE AVENUE ( R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held June 3 , 1992 with the following Board Members present : Richard A. Bencal , Chairman, Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, Stephen Touchette , and Edward Luzinski . Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners , owners of the property, are requesting variance from rear setback to allow a previously constructed enclosed deck in this R-1 district . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a • finding by this Board that : 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands , buildings and structures 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 . Support to the proposal was voiced by neighbors, abutters and others. 2 . The deck in question could not be constructed in any other location without also seek relief from Zoning requirments . • CISION ETITION ND • AEVARIANCENATH42PHILLSIIDEOAVENUEP( RA1) JOAN 0 ' I]I� F3R03PH 192 page two CITY Of S4LEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE 3 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner . On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows : 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general . 2 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner . 3 . Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance . Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 , to grant the variance requested, subject to the • following conditions : 1 . 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 comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector . 5 . Exterior finishes of the addition shall be in compliance with the exisiting structure . • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH AND JOAN O' NEIL • FOR VARIANCES AT 42 HILLSIDE AVENUE, SALEM JUS 17page hree 3 p3 ppb '91 CITY OF CLERKSSLOFFIMA CE VARIANCE GRANTED June 3 , 1992 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 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 . • b Ctv of $Aem, ttssttdjusetts \' Puttra of �Aupeal h.,.oio,.J r- • N rn o N T �L1 C; (1 C:' T T Cz T �j N Lp N N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN PIZZO (PETITIONER) , CONCETTA GARRANO(OWNER) FOR VARIANCE AT 101 JACKSON ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held December 9, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Francis Grealish, Jr. , Edward Luzinski, Stephen Touchette and Associate Member Arthur LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Board of Appeal,after hearing evidence presented at the hearing and at the request of the petitioner, voted 4-1 (Mr. Bencal voted in • opposition) to grant leave to withdraw this petition for Variances to allow property to be used as a parking lot in this Two Family district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE December 9, 1992 ( 1 04) Arthur LaBrecque, Asso�ember Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • Ctu of �$ttlem, Aussadjusetts Foam of Appeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SHERRI AND FREDERICK CALLER FOR A VARIANCE AT 19 JAPONICA STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held November 18, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish Jr. , Edward Luzinski and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 variance to allow a previously constructed deck in this Residential Single Family District (R-1) The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • I. 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 deck in question was built in approximately 1990 and does encroach on rear setbacks. 2. No support was submitted for the petition, however, one letter in opposition was submitted. tji -to tia 4O • �m ma ti DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SHERRI AND FREDERICK CALLOR FOR A VARIANCE AT 19 JAPONICA 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 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. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit. 5. No commercial vehicles shall be parked on the property. VARIANCE GRANTED November 18, 1992 Richard A. Bencal, Chairman Board of Appeal �Y OCO y ti DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SHERRI AND FREDERICK CALLOR FOR VARIANCE AT 19 JAPONICA STREET, SALEM page three • 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. Board of Appeal • O� �n a ti • (9it of . Wem, il usetts ` 1 i cassaj JUL 8 I 134 AH '91 5. , � �uttra of �p}tenl CITY OF SALEM, MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BROADWAY NOMINEE TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 229 JEFFERSON AVENUE (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held June 24, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, Stephen Touchette and Edward Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting variances from lot area, frontage and side setbacks to allow existing single family dwelling to remain as is, in this R-3 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures 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 opposition to the petition. 2. There would be changes to the existing dwelling. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BROADWAY NOMINEE TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 229 JEFFERSON AVE. , SALEM • page two JUL 8 �� 34 AN '9Z 3. The petitioner presented, to the Board, a petition AeBFb$,1p2ghH,,SS neighbors who were in favor of granting the petition. CLERK'S OFFICE 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 variance 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 Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall provide two legal on-site parking spaces. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BROADWAY NOMINEE TRUST FOR VARIANCES AT 229 JEFFERSON AVE. , SALEM . page three JUL All CITY OF SALEM, MASS CLERK'S OFFICE VARIANCE GRANTED June 24, 1992 i and 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 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. Board of Appeal • t �� f�itn of �ttlrm, ��ussucltusetts � s • Boarb of �At eal m o ca i �N (N w r om o T Y O T x�O n ma �n co DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEVESQUE FUNERAL HOME FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 163 LAFAYETTE STREET (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held July 22, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish Jr. , Stephen Touchette, and Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure to allow construction of two additions, one in the rear and one on the side. 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 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 this petition by neighbors or abutters. 2. The granting of the Special Permit would allow the petitioner to comply with federal and state statutes relating to access by handicapped individuals. 3. There will be no loss of parking spaces. • PETITION OF LEVESQUE FUNERAL HOME FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 163 LAFAYETTE ST. , SALEM • page two MC) W �y in n W r om � rn> 3 > En co N N 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. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit. 5. Exterior finishes of the proposed additions and ramp shall be in harmony with existing structure. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED July 22, 1992 Ste hen Touchette, Member l Board of „ppeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEVESQUE FUNERAL HOME FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 163 LAFAYETTE ST. , SALEM • page three 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 MGG Chapter 4OA. , 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 4OA. , 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 the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • _0 sob rK M0 t� Mm 7c N N> r om o Ta o _n i � mn " co ( ti • (1�itn of $Ulem, �lttssttcljusetts <.. . JS Pattra of �upeal �� N m o 7KN W u,r- r c o m co T T� T N G.O DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ST. JOSEPH'S CREDIT UNION ^' FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 336 LAFAYETTE ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held November 18, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish Jr. , Edward Luzinski and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming use and structure allowing for construction of two additions. 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 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. The property has been used as a commercial building for many years. 2. There are other commercial properties in the general area. 3. The new design and reconfiguration would allow petitioner to better serve customers and comply with the new Americans with Disabilities Act. • PETITION OF ST. JOSEPH'S CREDIT UNION SPECIAL PERMIT AT 336 LAFAYETTE ST. , SALEM page two • 4. The remodeled structure would help to beautify and upgrade the general area. 5. The addition would not encroach on any front setbacks. 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. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED November 18, 1992 AJ Richard A. Bencal, Chairman Board of Appeal n n ti DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ST. JOSEPH'S CREDIT UNION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 336 LAFAYETTE ST. , SALEM page three • 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 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 the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • CA �< mo rV �y o� w m o m� 3 a N • ,b �Iit of , ttWvm, ttsstzc! usett�uc 6 oura ofeal ciryCLE OF �L �� FH. „m, RK S OFFIHASS rc DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM MELANSON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 4 LANGDON STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 24, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Francis Grealish Jr. , and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming side setback 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 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 this petition. 2. The granting of the Special Permit would enhance the quality of life for the petitioner. • PETITION OF WILLIAM MELANSON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 4 LANGDON STREET, SALEM page two JUL CITY OF SCF 3. The impact of the addition is extremely minimal. CLfItK'S 0 FIMA SS rF On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: I. The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 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 and by legal building permit. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the addition. 5. Exterior finishes shall be in harmony with existing structure and shall be approved by the Building Department. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED June 24, 1992 Ste�uchette, Member Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM MELANSON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 4 LANGDON STREET, SALEM page three Jul 8 • C17Y OF S^ CtEktr �Ey. y A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BO'AEF�ANR E"j [E CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL 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 the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • • Qlity of . $n1em, flbssachape a �.;• 46 Lir '9 _. s �3onra of C AFPEZ l OiTr OF S � , c �� CLERK,Q .. OFFICr DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL P. CORMIER FOR A VARIANCE AT 14 LAUREL STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held November 18, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish Jr. , Edward Luzinski and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 an existing deck in this Residential Two Family District (R-2) 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 is no access to the side kitchen door. 2. There is a bedroom off of the kitchen and the side door serves as a fire exit. 3. The deck was placed on ground level and attached to the fence. 4. There was no opposition to the side deck. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL P. CORMIER FOR VARIANCE AT 14 LAUREL STREET, SALEM • page two DEC 3 9 qs All-'92 CITY OF SALF On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the' eab9, P%e 0En€ ed at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: I. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: I. 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 comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit from the City of Salem Inspector of Buildings. VARIANCE GRANTED November 18, 1992 AStepen C Touchette� .. ._ r Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL P. CORMIER FOR VARIANCE AT 14 LAUREL STREET, SALEM page three DFC 3 ciTy 9 46 9f� A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOAPbF� WA CITY9 CLERK S Of, SAI SS 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. Board of Appeal • • (91tV of "ttlem, Ifflttssadjusetts \ ; '= $ battra of CApeal .IUH I1 3 03 Pl9 '9Z " CITY OF SALE CLERK'S Og CESS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALBERT & MARY LEVESQUE FOR A VARIANCE AT 77-79 LEACH STREET ( R-2 ) A hearing on this petition was held June 3 , 1992 with the following Board Members present : Richard Bencal , Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish , Edward Luzinski and Stephen Touchette . Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 ues to allow two family dwelling to be converted to a three family dwelling in this R-2 district . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a . finding by this Board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands , buildings and structures 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 opposition to the petition. 2 . The granting of this petition would enhance the quality of life for the petitioners . • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALBERT AND MARY LEVESQUE FOR • A VARIANCE AT 77-79 LEACH STREET, SALEM ✓UN �� page two 03 P# , 1 3 . The granting of this petition would allow thet£FC . FAI9 petitioners to get full use and value of the dwell! g$ pF ' 11FICAS, 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 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 and a legal building permit is to be obtained . 3 . Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4 . A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained . 5 . Property may be used asa three ( 3 ) family so long as it remains owner occupied . 6 . Parking must be provided as per the plan submitted . • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALBERT AND MARY LEVESQUE ✓1/* /, • FOR VARIANCES AT 77-79 LEACH STREET, SALEM cc�o� 3a3P� page three IFgKSs OFF 'Y48 9j F VARIANCE GRANTED June 3 , 1992 Stephen C . Touchette , 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 . Board of Appeal • fQit Of Iem, ttssttdiusetts F Puttra of �upeal r 'NI r.lIT1.\111' �� I1 O � g m N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PALMER COVE YACHT CLUB FOR VARIANCE AT 78 LEAVITT STREET (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held August 26, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, Edward Luzinski and Associate 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 variance to allow construction of locker facilities in this B-4 district. • The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures 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 opposition to the petitioners plans. 2. The Commodore, Raymond LeBlanc and the Vice Commodore, Robert LeBlanc both spoke in favor. 3. The construction of the lockers would not interfere with the view of the abutting properties. • 4. The construction of the locker storage facilities as proposed will give better access to the lot and will add a measure of increased security. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PALMER COVE YACHT CLUB FOR A VARIANCE AT 78 LEAVITT 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 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. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions • submitted with the exception that the lockers shall remain single lockers. 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector. VARIANCE GRANTED August 26, 1992 CFrancis X_Grea ,_lish Jr. Secretary Board of Appeal • A Q co (n n. c,-,., vo �♦ v n� ma cn cci �V • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PALMER COVE YACHT CLUB FOR VARIANCE AT 78 LEAVITT STREET, SALEM page three 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. Board of Appeal Cl) cn o� M r� rn o c� > N oI �n rn:" mrn= s > cn tn N • ;b (gity of tem, '�.ffltt99ttC1iU9etts 3: r Potts of (Aupenl C)-i r mo m �1 T (n L r a m N �= N n2 S DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RITA AND ANN MANOOGIAN FOR A VARIAFCE cg 8 MADELINE AVE. (R-1) ti A hearing on this petition was held June 24, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, Jr. , Edward Luzinski and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Board of Appeal, at the request of the petitioner, voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition for Variances to convert a two family dwelling into a three family • dwelling in this single family district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE June 24, 1992 4R,cha=. Bencal, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • ofttlem, ttssttcliusetts '< 7.M.- V4)95 • m '�Jo c.� 3tHDZ[ra of �C1Upeal �N ` — A "co,m vT" N r O(tl O T= N n I- r :n CID cn N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN OCCHIPINTI FOR A VARIANCES AT 108 MARGIN STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 24, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, Jr. , Stephen Touchette 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 Board of Appeal, at the request of the petitioner, voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition for Variances to convert a two family dwelling into a three family • dwelling in this two family district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE July 22, 1992 Arthur Labrecque, Assoc�mber Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. �a (I�itn of -,'�3tticm, fttssacillisetts ' OCT 13 3 02 PM ,'92 �attr�1 ui avpezil CITY OF SALEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEBORAH AND ARTHUR ALEXANDER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 79 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held September 30, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish Jr. , and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 from rear setbacks to allow construction of a one story addition in this R-1 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 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 proposed construction. 2. The property will remain a single family dwelling. 3. The granting of this petition will enhance the quality of life for the petitioner. • PETITION OF DEBORAH AND ARTHUR ALEXANDER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 79 MARLBOROUGH ROAD, SALEM. page two • 4 . A petition in favor of the proposed-construction signed by four (4) abutters was submitted. 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, 4-0, 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. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a legal .building permit. 5 . Exterior finishes of the proposed addition shall be in harmony with existing structure. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED September 30, 1992 z LU a i Stephen C. Touchette, Member 0 Board of Appeal � ccn N Y f1) W �W W � Ca ti U - O U • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEBORAH AND ARTHUR ALEXANDER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 79 MARLBOROUGH ROAD, SALEM page three 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 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 the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • N cw cL $v N :� w O C N L"ct: � O w • Y� V ( ltu of ttlem, C ttssttcljusetts t 'f in ;.__. Boarb of CAD}�enl en 1;op s . ,,a cj m0 r, uo rp DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT AND CHARLEEN LITTLE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 48 MEMORIAL DRIVE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held February 19, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Francis Grealish Jr. , and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming front and side setbacks to allow construction of decks. 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 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. 2. That the decks would be in harmony with the neighborhood. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT AND CHARLEEN LITTLE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 48 MEMORIAL DRIVE, SALEM • page two 3. The granting of this Special Permit would enhance the quality of life for the petitioners and would allow them a harbor front view. 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 and by legal building permit. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . Exterior finishes of the decks shall be in harmony with existing structures. 5. All conditions on a previous decision granted November 20, 1991 shall remain in effect and be incorporated into this decision. n� m r ti mo 4 x� r co • LO r•, V DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT AND CHARLEEN LITTLE • FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 48 MEMORIAL DRIVE, SALEM page three SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED February 19, 1992 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 MGL 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 mo H Jc y o' w n CO co co ti • :b (Gzt� of �tttem, � ttssttctji e#tis 3 t.: $ 3 ultra of :aupeal t, 03 _- CI i C-crg'S OFpj ESS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARGARET PRESS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 55 MEMORIAL DRIVE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held June 3, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Francis Grealish Jr. , and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to construct a partial second level to existing single family home. 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 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 will be no change in the use of the dwelling. 2. There will be no change in the footprint of the structure. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARGARET PRESS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 55 • MEMORIAL DRIVE, SALEM page two JUN 3 03 Pd 192 3. The additional height is in harmony with the abutting r�YOen�ce,sg,y k14S KK S G�.F1Cr S 4 . The impact of the addition is extremely minimal . 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 and by legal building permit. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the addition. 5. Exterior finishes shall be in harmony with existing structure. 6. All requirements of the Salem Conservation Commission in a letter date May 5, 1992 shall be adhered to. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED June 3, 1992 Richard A. Bencal, Chairman Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARGARET PRESS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 55 MEMORIAL DRIVE, SALEM '9Z • page three fpH 17 3 03 PM CITY OF SALEM. MASS' CLERK'S OFFICE 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 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 • • Y � S aitu of -,'5tt1em, ^fflttssttcliusetts boura of ,A"C l DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BRUCE BORNSTEIN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 NICHOLS STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held September 30, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish Jr. , and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 change the use of the property from a machine shop to an environmental testing laboratory. 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 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. Petitioner offered for the record a petition signed by sixteen ( 16) abutters and neighbors in favor. 2. There were no objections voiced at the hearing and the Ward Councillor spoke in favor of granting the petition. 3. Petitioner has maintained the building and surrounding property in pristine condition. 0 c r� m o c.x =-n �Cn v D LJ r c rn a .n> 3 :r7D N L8 N N PETITION OF BRUCE BORNSTEIN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 NICHOLS STREET, SALEM page two • 4. The petitioner has performed work for many city and state agencies as well as the Army Corp. of Engineers. 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, 4-0, to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: I . Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Testing be limited to the basement level only and that it be environmental testing only, i.e. soil, water and 21E. No testing that is considered hazardous to human life is to be done. This is decision is not intended to prohibit further use of the building. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. That there be semi-annual inspection of the building by the City of Salem Health Dept. and that all results and decisions of the Health Dept. are to be binding on the petitioner. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED September 30, 1992 / h Richard Febonio, Vice Chairman Q Board of Appeal $U �O h� O U DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BRUCE BORNSTEIN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 NICHOLS STREET, SALEM page three • 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 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 the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • O WO Qfn NY v O � W 0 ti U U • �r e.mgy- (IZit of Iem' 4ussadjusetts Poura ofJUL pew 11324# 192 I tr OF CIERKSS OFFICESS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGIA PORAZINSKI FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 119 NORTH ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 24, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, Jr. , Edward Luzinski and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Board of Appeal, at the request of the petitioner, voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Special Permit to allow construction of an addition in this R-2 district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE June 24, 1992 Francis X. Grealish Jr. , Secretary Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. IIIS-. %r,��`S1 f1Lit� of .'Snlem, �` nssttcljusetrs • ' ;!._:3.., s N�`'S 3�nttra of ��{renl K G� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD AND LESA HAEFNER FOR VARIANCE AT 138 NORTH STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 26, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis `i Grealish, Edward Luzinski and Associate Ronald Plante. Notice of the ? hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were 0 c properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. QQ O W Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting variance to allow an existing two family dwelling to be converted to a three family dwelling in this Residential Two Family District. • The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the. land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures 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. Three letters in support of the petition and one letter in opposition were submitted. 2. Petitioner can meet the city requirement of 1 1/2 parking spaces per unit. 3. There are other buildings in the area with three or more units. 4. Financial hardship, with regard to the property, forces the petitioner to seek the relief requested. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD AND LESA HAEFNER FOR A VARIANCE AT 138 NORTH STREET, SALEM page two 5. The property would be protected by a condition that the property remain owner occupied. � C V X 6. There would be no changes to the exterior structure, all changes would be interior. J 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 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 and by legal building permit. 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the new dwelling unit. 5. As long as the building is used as a three family one of the apartments must be owner occupied. 6. A minimum of five (5) legal parking spaces shall be maintained on site in perpetuity. VARIANCE GRANTED August 26, 1992 Richard A. Bencal, Chairman Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD AND LESA HAEFNER FOR VARIANCE AT 138 NORTH STREET, SALEM page three 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. Board of Appeal • m N V) �w c SU n, i ti W C �I �Y m �LU o y J . W tiU H U c-,� ,fig m (fitn of �ttlem, ��ttssttcllusetts �� w • a..,, 7 0 am � T� 33nurD of CAupeal -o N CO N N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & EILEEN HARRIS FOR VARIANCE AT 5 ORD STREET CT. (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 22, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, Stephen Touchette and Associate Arthur Labreque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a variance from rear setback to allow construction of a deck. 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 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 opposition. 2. Locating the deck as proposed is the most feasible location for the deck. 3. Granting the petition would enhance the quality of life for the petitioner and his family. • r� M0 W ;� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM AND ELLEEN HARRIS FOR '=v' C,r W A VARIANCE AT S ORD STREET CT. , SALEM o m c • page two _ *" A2 Ti 7> N LA N n) 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 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 . Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector. 5. All work shall be in harmony with the existing building. VARIANCE GRANTED July 22, 1992 Francis X. Grealish, Jr. , Secretary Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM AND EILEEN HARRIS FOR VARIANCE AT 5 ORD STREET CT. , SALEM • page three 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. Board of Appeal cl mo W z-n (n> W om o T• �O n S Z mD U) co U) N • y C-, (1�ity ofttlrm, { usstTtljusetts 3 oz PH '92 • % ;:. ' Vis' OCT 13 :Boara_ of Au{�eul ` CITY OF SALEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE i DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JANET L. BURBA FOR VARIANCE AT 9 SALT WALL LANE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held September 30, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 variance from the rear setback requirement to allow the construction of an addition. The property is located in a residential single family district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures 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 opposition to the petition. 2. There were other homes in the neighborhood of similar size and construction. 3. Placing the addition as proposed is the most feasible location. 4. Granting of this petition would enhance the quality of life for the petitioners. • DECISION ON'THE PETITION OF JANET L. BURBA FOR A VARIANCE AT 9 SALT WALL LANE, 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 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 . 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 and by legal building permit. 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. • 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. Exterior finishes shall be in harmony with the existing structure. VARIANCE GRANTED September 30, 1992 W Richard Febonio, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal N �� ® W� J Q fn N K L,Cr � X41 �J � F U • U DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JANET L. BURBA FOR VARIANCE AT 9 SALT WALL LANE, SALEM page three • 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. Board of Appeal • m cn N 'c W Z U N g� J 4 V7 � 0 W V U O • ir i ipo W N D 'W (91t" ofulem, � ttssttclTusetta O_ o Cn co DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W & G REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES AT 24 SAUNDERS STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 22, 1992 with the following .Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, Stephen Touchette 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 use, density and number of buildings on a lot to allow the construction of sixty (60) residential units. The property is located in a Residential Two Family District. 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 land, 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 Board of Appeal granted variances concerning this parcel on January 16, 1991 with a six month extension granted on January 8, 1992. 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 (5) 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 • building and use. 03'z W N , o rn Co Z - DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W & G REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES;-AT nF SAUNDERS STREET, SALEM cc • page two N 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 district. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the 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. All conditions of Variances granted by the Board of Appeal concerning this parcel on February 8, 1988, August 22, 1989 and January 16, 1991, shall be incorporated and made part of this decision. Said conditions are as follows: • a. Construction be as per the plans submitted and be approved by the Planning Board. b. Proposed construction conform to all applicable provisions of the Massachusetts State Building Code, the Salem Fire Prevention Code, the Salem City Ordinances and the Massachusetts General Laws relative to fire safety. 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 :if the condominiums only. g. A certificate of occupancy for each unit be obtained. h. The lot be landscaped as per plan and as approved by site plan review. I. Public safety access be maintained as per plans submitted and meeting fire and police requirements. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W & G REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES AT 24 SAUNDERS STREET, 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 periodically reasonably clear of weeds and other debris and maintained and cleaned at all times. VARIANCES GRANTED July 22, 1992 CAwl), 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 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. BOARD OF APPEAL or-•i r < MCD W �m n v, W r C3 T• �O n; 1 ma N ca � N • b Ctu of .-Salem' � HttSSutljuSettB bottrD of �kupeal DECISION ON THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF VARIANCES GRANTED TO 24 SAUNDERS STREET (R-2 ) At a hearing held January 8 , 1992, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to allow a six ( 6) month extension for Variances granted allowing construction of sixty ( 60 ) residential units . Said extension shall be up to and including August 20 , 1992 . �/ / 7 ��i✓ir/J Edward Luzinski , V. Chairman • Board of Appeal 1` C13 co ^ - �� ' V r GJ Lp ti � C C) n < m o w P `y ~" altty of --'�ttlem, . JUSSUtllusettG N>C>M cm w -Snttra of u C->_ m> (n CO N N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY CIVIELLO FOR VARIANCES AT 3 SAVONA STREET (R-I) A hearing on this petition was held July 22, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, Stephen Touchette and Associate Arthur Labreque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variances from lot area. lot width, and also, with respect to lot 702 only, front yard setback to allow parcel to be divided. Property is located in a single family district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures 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 opposition. 2. The land in question is irregular in shape and topography. 3. The proposed lots would be comparable in size and configuration too similar lots in the neighborhood. • n C r mo w DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY CIVIELLO FOR cn �iS VARIANCES AT 3 SAVONA STREET, SALEM 0M z • page two n; o C-)Cn a rn> N(n co /V 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 variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. The petitioner shall divide the lots as per the plans submitted. • VARIANCE GRANTED July 22, 1992 ?1616AWtencal, Char Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY CIVIELLO FOR VARIANCES AT 3 SAVONA STREET, SALEM • page three 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. Board of Appeal < ea • Ma tA.1 �D W o rrn CZ n Y s ma E En N • ;b (91ty ofttssttdiu�etts t. aH 17 bomb of CAu}1en1 3 03 p� v CITY OF cAI CLERK'$ FF-ICESS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM AND CHERYL GALLAGHER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 3 SCENIC TERRACE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held June 3, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Francis Grealish Jr. , and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 4OA. Petitioners, owners of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to construct a second level to existing single family home. 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 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 this petition. 2. The neighbors and abutters spoke in favor of granting this petition. • • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM AND CHERYL GALLAGHER AHSffCI* PERMIT AT 2 SCENIC TERRACE, SALEM JJ0 3 P11 192 page two CITY - SALEM. MASS 3. The additional height is in harmony with the abutting resR�e PdICE 4 . The impact of the addition is extremely minimal . 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 and by legal building permit. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the addition. 5. Exterior finishes shall be in harmony with existing structure. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED June 3, 1992 Richard Febonio, Member Board of Appeal • N ON AND CHERYL FORIAISOPECIALHPERMITTAON30SCENICITERRACCE, SALEMGALLAGHFrt>!j 17 3 o3 PH X91 • page three CITY OF Lkf CIERKSS pFFI�ESS 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 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 of . $nlem, 'fflttssndjuSAW II 33 GH '92 Puttra of �upeal CIciE�K''-Eh` +ass S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JON O'NEIL FOR VARIANCE AT 14 SCHOOL STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 24, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, Stephen Touchette and Edward Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variances from setback requirements to allow construction of an enclosed porch. Property is located in a Residential Two Family district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures 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 opposition to the petition. 2. The existing porch is rotted and presents a safety hazard if it is not replaced. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JON O'NEIL FOR A VARIANCE AT 14 SCHOOL STREET, SALEM page two JUL 9 I I tiH '91 C'TY OF SALa_,q pf,S S CLERK' OFFS ICE 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 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. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector. 5. Exterior finishes of the porch shall be in compliance with the existing structure. VARIANCE GRANTED June 24, 1992 NY J Stephen C. Touchette, Member Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JON O'NEIL FOR VARIANCES AT 14 SCHOOL STREET, SALEM • page three �Ul 9 II 33 44 191 CITY OF S,,, O F�CASS 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 dfsmissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • (gitU of �ulem, ��ttssttcljU5ett5 17,1 � ; Jug � F �$1 ottra �f r� peal ciry � 03 Ptd '91 OFCLERKS LE M/��SS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK JALBERT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 30 SHORE AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held June 3, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Francis Grealish Jr. , and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setback to allow construction of a deck in this R-1 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 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 this petition. 2. The granting of this Special Permit would enhance the quality of life for the petitioner. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK JALBERT FOR A SPECIAL PERM, T 30 • SHORE AVENUE, SALEM w�N page two C/Ty 03 03 Py X91 r. CC f RKSS 0FFIYF SS 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. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. A legal building permit is to be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED June 3, 1992 Stephen C. Touchette, Member Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK JALBERT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 30 SHORE AVENUE, SALEM JUU page three C/Ty OF 3 s3 Py V CC�RXIS 0 F�Cf S' 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 within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MCL 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 • • T 36. ,b .a (1Zit ofttlem, ttssttcljusetts � S Puarb of �Fpealco r orn 4i..oim,d T y T --0 n� my N N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEROY AND HILDA BRIGGS FOR VARIANCE AT 18 SOUTH STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held August 26, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Francis Grealish, Edward Luzinski and Associate 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 variance to allow the continued use of the property as a two family dwelling. The property is located in a single family district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures 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 . A Variance allowing this property to be converted from a one to a two family dwelling was granted by the Board of Appeal on June 20, 1979. 2. The above variance was conditioned upon continued ownership of the petitioners and on the second unit being used by a blood relative. 3. This property has been owned by the Briggs family since is was built over 100 years ago. The petitioners would like to retire and would like to sell the property as a two family. 4. There was no opposition to petitioners request. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEROY AND HILDA BRIGGS FOR A VARIANCE AT 18 SOUTH STREET, SALEM • page two 5. A petition in favor was submitted by the petitioner's Attorney, Mr. George Vallis, signed by 29 abutters and neighbors. 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 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 is to remain owner occupied, should is cease to be an owner occupied building, it will revert to single family status. 4. This decision supersedes previous decision of June 20, 1979. VARIANCE GRANTED August 26, 1992 Francis X. Grealish, Secretary Board of Appeal n y � n o co N T Cr r �rl Ln N �n N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEROY AND HILDA BRIGGS FOR VARIANCE AT 18 SOUTH STREET, SALEM • page three 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. Board of Appeal m m 0 Vp T '7 N r a R\D r �'n t711 A♦ • i ;b (91t� of . ttlem, ��Httsstttllusetts �oura of CAupenl � .c•mr.�'� P 9 L 7 n � DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RON MCELWAIN (PETITIONER) , ROBERT DOYLE � ;P (OWNER)FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 11 1/2 SUTTON AVE. (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held February 19, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Francis Grealish Jr. , and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming structure to allow construction of an addition. The property is located in an R-1 district and is owned by Mr. Robert Doyle. 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. 2. The increase in size requested by the petitioner is very small. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RON MCELWAIN (PETITIONER) ,ROBERT DOYLE (OWNER)FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 11 1/2 SUTTON AVE. , SALEM • page two 3. The abutter at 11 Sutton Ave. , the property most affected by this construction, spoke in favor of the petition. 4 . The proposed addition will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit 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 and by legal building permit. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Exterior finishes of the decks shall be in harmony with existing structures. 5. A certificate of occupancy is to be obtained by the petitioner. �C�. c C, `C CU r- _ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RON MCELWAIN (PETITIONER) , ROBERT DOYLE • (OWNER)FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 11 1/2 SUTTON STREET,SALEM page three SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED February 19, 1992 Francis X Grealish, Secretary 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 MGL 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 j U O• w ti • b Ctv of $Ulem, { ussndjusetts 3ottra of �p}ten1GPR ZZ 6 CITY OF SALEM. WA55 CLERK'S OFFICF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARC AND RITA BOUCHARD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 55 TREMONT STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held April 8, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Francis Grealish Jr. , and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow roof to be raised so as to construct a dormer. 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 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. 2. The granting of this Special Permit would enhance the quality of life for the petitioners and allow them more room for their children. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARC AND RITA BOUCHARD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 55 TREMONT STREET, SALEM • page two 4PR ZZ 8 y1 r ti,. Illy OF SALEM, MASS CLERK'S OFICE 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. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. A legal building permit is to be obtained. 5. Exterior finishes of the dormer shall be in harmony with existing structures. 6. A certificate of occupancy is to be obtained by the petitioner. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED April 8, 1992 • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARC AND RITA BOUCHARD PR ZZ �I. � JL FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 55 TREMONT STREET,SALEM CITY OF SALEM. MASS page three CLERK'S OFFIC!: ,4c Stephen C. Touchette 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 MGL 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 • 9 Ctu of -'� ttlem, '�Rttssttrliusetts peal O q T' i N DECISION ON THE PETITION HOUSE OF SEVEN GABLES SETTLEMENT ASSOCIATION FOR VARIANCES AT 46-54 TURNER STREET (R-2/B-1) A hearing on this petition was held May 20, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard A. Bencal, Chairman; Messrs. , Febonio, Grealish,' Touchette and Associate Member 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 front yard setbacks and minimum distance between buildings to allow construction of a new building and an addition to an existing building in this R-2/B-1 district, 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, 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 petitioner, through Counsel and expert witnessess, introduced evidence as the topography of the property, the proposed building locations and the extent of the rehabilitation and renovation. 2. The lot is located in two different zones, one portion is located in the B-1 zone and the other portion is R-2. The proposed buildings comply with the R-2 except for the requested variances. 3. Several neighbors spoke in favor of the petitioners request and a • petition with signatures of fifty (50) Salem residents supporting the request was also submitted. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE HOUSE OF SEVEN GABLES SETTLEMENT C o . ASSOCIATION FOR VARIANCES AT 46-54 TURNER ST. , SALEM page two FF AY /Ce "S 4 . That the particular size and shape of the petitioners' lot especially affects the land and structures involved and are conditions not generally affecting other land, buildings or structures in the district. 5. That the uniqueness of the Historical Site and the buildings located thereon especiallyl affect the petitioners property and do not generally affect other land, building or structures in the district. 6. That due to the existing Historical buildings located on the property, as well as the unique size and shape of the land, the proposed construction could not be reasonably located on any other spot withing the property. 7. That adequate on-site parking will be available per the petitioner's plans (67 spaces) and that the proposed off-site parking of buses will be less detrimental to the district than the existing situation with buses parking on site. 8. That the petitioner sought and received neighborhood input and that three neighborhood meetings were held. • 9. That the petitioner derives its existence from the money generated by tourists visiting the property, and currently the petitioner is unable to adequately serve the needs of the visiting tourists with the configuration of the existing facilities. 10. That the funds generated by visiting tourists to the property allow the petitioner to establish and maintain the Historical buildings and grounds as well as several social service programs available to the entire community, which have been historically funded by the petitioner. 11. That the new facilities would permit handicapped access, and would enable the petitioner to conduct its educational and orientation services for visitors in an adequate manner and in an environment .that is not exposed to the elements. 12. That the petitioner would suffer substantial hardship in lost revenues and services if the variances requested are not granted and the Zoning Ordinance provisions are literally enforced. 13. That the variances requested are in harmony with other properties within 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 purpose of the Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence • presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: �CjTy J� • DECISION ON THE PETITION OTHE HOUSE OF SEVEN ASSOCIATION FOR VARIANCESAT46-544 TURNERST. , SALEM page three 0/� - S F S 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 4-1 (Mr. Bencal voted in opposition) 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 done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and by legal building permit. 3. All requirements of the City of Salem Fire Prevention Bureau • relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Proper numbering shall be obtained from the City of Salem Assessor. 5. Appropriate approval from all other City Boards, Commissions or Authorities having jurisdiction over this property shall be obtained. 6. A preconstruction survey is to be obtained. 7. A neighborhood impact study is to be conducted. 8. Parking plans for workers and construction vehicles for off site parking to be approved by the Planning Department. 9. A Plan for bus parking, drop-off, pick-up of visitors is to be approved by the Planning department before construction begins. Variances granted May 20, 1992 Francis X Grealish, Jr. Secretary, Board of Appeal • • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE HOUSE OF SEVEN GABLES SETTLEMENT ASSOCIATION FOR VARIANCES AT 46-54 TURNER ST. , SALEM 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 GENERALS 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 OWNERS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • C-> r �N r T Z N 'TI m: a CD � fV • �a ;b a-tv of ttlem, r ttssttdjusetto Ln PnttrD of Aupeal o� o N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF REV. ALEXANDER AND H. COLLINS MIKESELL FOR VARIANCES AT 25 WILLIAMS STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held December 9, 1992 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Francis Grealish Jr. , Edward Luzinski, Stephen Touchette and Associate Member Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting variances to allow construction of a single story addition which will encroach on rear setback and will be within 10 feet of the existing garage. Property is locate in an R-2 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures 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. Support for the proposal was voiced (by way of letters) by abutters . 2. One abutter had concerns regarding the removal of debris, these concerns were satisfied. 3. This is the most feasible location for the addition, to locate it in any other location would also require relief from the zoning requirements. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF REV. ALEXANDER AND H. COLLINS MIKESELL FOR VARIANCES AT 25 WILLIAMS 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 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. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. • 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit from the City of Salem Inspector of Buildings. 5. Exterior finishes of the proposed addition will be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. All debris is to removed and removal is to be supervised by the fire department and/or the Building Inspector's office. 7. The property is not to be used for any commercial venture. VARIANCE GRANTED December 9, 1992 Francis X. Grealish, .Jr. , Secretary Board of Appeal CIS . o � 'oa � DECISION ON THE PETITION OF REV. ALEXANDER AND H. COLLINS MIKESELL FOR VARIANCES AT 25 WILLIAMS STREET, SALEM page three • 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. Board of Appeal • � o C, � N m o N Ln? O O f'1 O T; T? r"I 11J • V' b (1�itg of Ilem, �Rttssadjusetts Paara of Appeal n< ro m mT a X N _ N� r a„r om N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ERLE SOPER (OWNER) , ROBERT CHALIFOUR y' (PETITIONER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 17 WILLSON ST. (R-2) - N t,s A hearing on this petition was held June 24, 1992 with the following N N Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Francis Grealish Jr. , and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 and the owner of the property are requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming side setbacks to allow construction of a deck in this 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 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 this petition. 2. The granting of the Special Permit would enhance the quality of life for the petitioner. 3. The proposed porch will follow the lines of the existing structure and will replace a seriously deteriorated porch which had become a • safety hazard and had to be removed. PETITION OF ERLE SOPER (OWNER) , ROBERT CHALIFOUR (PETITIONER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 17 WILLSON ST. , SALEM • page two 4. The impact of the porch is extremely minimal and the granting of the special permit will allow petitioner a fuller use of his rear yard. n � On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence rn c m presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial N detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially -'' �. derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the r Ordinance. L9; N N 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. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED June 24, 1992 FrancisX. Grealish�c� Secretary, Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ERLE SOPER, OWNER/ROBERT CHALIFOUR, PETITIONER, FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 17 WILLSON ST. , SALEM • page three 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 4OA. , 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 4OA. , 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 the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal n C7� fC- • r mo �m Co �Cn u�a �m w ^x � %ri n v� •