The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS `�e�.�s,ors 199 . BOARD OF APPEAL DECISIONS - 1993 ADDRESS PETITIONER /OWNER PAGE • 4 Allen St . Clart Realty Trust 1 28 Beaver St . Florence L. Bash 2 4 Becket St. Denise MacKay 3 7 Berube Rd. Rosemary Hamway 4 2 Bertuccio Ave. Robert Harrington 5 34-38 1/2 Bridge St . Samuel Papal.ardo 6 34-38 1/2 Bridge St . John Spinale 7 60 Bridge St . Garnick Ashegh 8 127 Canal St . Anthony Rovendro/Lorina Tondreault 9 19 Chandler Rd. Uonathan & Lauri Stillanos 10 10 Charles St . Ray & Norene Gachignard II II Clark St . Stephen & Peggy Masel.la 12 15 Cliff St. Lawrence & Elisabeth Ash 13 260 Essex St . Steven A. Corbin 14 20 Cloverdale Ave. Darlene Romano 15 92 Columbus Ave. William & Sallie Cass 16 F Dundee St . Dolores Soteris 17 • 59-61 Dunlap St. Paul J. Costanzo 18 Mooney & Durkins Rds. Deiul.is Bros . Construction 19 6 East Collins St . Rita & Robert Desantis/F.J. Livas ,Jr. 20 18 Collins St . 21 i 42 English St . Clart Realty Trust 2.2 177- 179 Federal St . Laskaris Realty Trust 23 12 First St . N.Y.Cellular Geographic Service 24 ,i 9 Franklin St . Gerren Realty Trust 25 9- 11 Franklin St . Gerren Realty Trust 26 I 9- 11 Franklin St Gerren Realty Trust 27 II Gardner St . Phillip Burnham 28 23 Glendale St . Frederick J. Atkins 29 l 57 Grove St . Spiros P. Flomp 30 6-6 1/2 Hancock St . Zaher Bdiwi 31 6-6 112 Hancock St . It 32 II Hersey St . R.Glidden/P.O'Conne117R. Valarioti 33 • 15 Highland St . David & Tracey McBournie 34 81 Highland Ave. North Shore Medical. Center 35 i i I� \ BOARD OF APPEAL DECISIONS - 1993 PAGE TWO ADDRESS PETITIONER/ OWNER PAGE 372 Highland Ave . David,Michelle & Dana DiLiso 36 372 Highland Awe. " " " 11 37 44 Jefferson Ave. Peter Capalbo/Augusto Dacunha 38 fi 237 Jefferson Ave. James & Therese Hudson 39 I` 237 Jefferson Ave. 40 22 Juniper Ave. Joseph' Tracy 41 9 Lathrop St. Rita Desanits,F.J.T.ivas,Robert Desanits 42 II Lathrop St . 11 " " 11 43 33 Mason St. National Lumber Co. 44 99 Leach St. Edward Gilmartin/Maurice Rousseau 45 36 Loring Ave. Gus & Carol Manon 46 7 & 9' Meid Ct. Glen & Jane Beaudet 47 13- 13 1/2 Meadow St. H.Drew Romanovitz 48 I 13 Ocean Ave. Normand Legere 49 i 163 Ocean Ave. Paul R. Murphy 50 3 Orchard Ter. Paul & Diana Lamontagne 51 • 7 Paradise Rd. Snell Realty Trust 52 2 Paul Ave. Richard A. Vaccaro 53 24 Saunders St . W & G Realty Trust 54 3 Savona St . Mary Civiello 55 0 Skerry St . Mark Petit 56 i 5 Stodder Place Kathleen McSweenev 57 I - 15 Traders Way McDonalds Corp/Highland Plaza Realty 58 54 Turner St . House of Seven Gables Settlement Assoc . 59 2 Valley St . Walter & Frances Abraham 60 4 Winter Island Rd. Margaret Rizzotti 61 I • �. f1Lit of �ttiem, `� ttsstttliusetts $ Pourb of (Au}rettl C 0 y 4AC O 8P4 8 4 P// 9? ��ypF 8jAt /QSS �F�KSQ<fa. � i OFF��SS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLART REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 4 ALLEN STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 21, 190 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Edward Luzinski, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'Grady. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Board of Appeal, at the request of the petitioner's Attorney, George Vallis, voted unanimously 5-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Variance to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this R-2 district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE • July 21, 1993 ( 6) Steph9n Touchette, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • 9 /, .. ;� (llitu of ttlem, Httssttd usetts • \` T.�_°` ':s $poara of CAu�renl ""^' CITY or QM �3 CIERKSSL��F,MASS CE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FLORENCE L. BASH FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 28 BEAVER ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 10, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; George Ahmed, 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 to reconstruct a single story addition on an existing foundation. Property is located in a two family district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the • Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in 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 proposed addition would be placed on an existing foundation and would restore the building to its original configuration. 2. The proposed addition would be used for uses that are incidental to the structure and would increase the number of dwelling units. 3. The proposed addition would allow a better and fuller use for the • petitioner. PETITION OF FLORENCE L. BASH FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 28 BEAVER 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED March 10, 1993 GC�i��id (.i• k=��C L.�� u, Richard A. Bencal, Chairman aW Board of Appeal � Wo sCr C"J Y U y U DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FLORENCE L. BASH FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 28 BEAVER 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 • � N aw Q: ti G� N Y W K � O W � rU Q U S • I .o.m4M^ Ctv of �cttiem, � Httssttcljusett �, .. A0 peal S,V ' 10 jr DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DENISE MACKAY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 4 BECKET STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed, 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 allow an existing deck that encroaches on the already nonconforming rear setback. Property is located in the 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 the petitioners request. 2. The deck as currently exists on the site does not extend beyond the existing nonconforming rear setback. 3. The existing deck is located on the most feasible portion of the property. • I,ur 3 8 c/T y OF 3,?44 �9J DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DENISE MACKAY rCER"S OFFIHF SS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 4 BECKET STREET, SALEM page two • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The 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. Existing deck shall remain as per the plans and dimensions submitted. • 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit. George A. Ahmed, 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 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 • ofcttlem;'� ttsstttljusetts , .= • —`ms' s Pattra of �uplaGl 1 '93 2 39 Ali CITY OF SALEM, MASS CLERK'S OFFIC,F DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROSEMARY HAMWAY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 BERUBE ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held July 21, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen O'Grady, 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 a Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear setback to allow construction of a 121x14' deck in this Residential 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 no opposition to the petitioners request. 2. The granting of the special permit would allow petitioner a fuller use of the property. 3. It would not be feasible to locate the deck in any other portion of the property. • PETITION OF ROSEMARY HAMWAY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 1 BERUBE ROAD, SALEM page two Guc 2 2 39 Phi '93. CITY OF SALEM, MASS CLERK'S OFFICE 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Special Permit Granted July 21, 1993 ` roJ Stephen O'Grady, Member Board of appeal • • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROSEMARY HAMWAY FOR A SPEACIAL�PEgAo Ptd '93 AT 7 BERUBE ROAD, SALEM CITY OF SALEM, MASS page three 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 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 • y_ Cit" of ,SajVM, 44jju915urjjUSettS 1�..: "s Poura of CAu}renl r'C 7�Tr _n > w DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT HARRINGTON, TR. , P & P HERITAGE FRUST FOR VARIANCE AT 2 BERTUCCIO AVENUE (R-1) c. A hearing on this petition was held January 27, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Francis Grealish Jr. , Edward Luzinski, 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 a variance from lot size to allow construction of a single family dwelling and garage. Property is located in an 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. Parking for two vehicles can be provided on site. 2. The lot is question had been in harmony with other lots in the general area until the City had taken a portion of the lot for the rounding off of the street corner at Bertuccio and Jefferson Avenues. This caused a hardship to the owner. 3. The proposed dwelling will not substantially alter the existing character of the neighborhood, and will not be a detrimental use. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT HARRINGTON, TR. , P & P HERITAGE TRUST FOR VARIANCE AT 2 BERTUCCIO AVENUE, 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 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 proper street numbering for the City of Salem Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. VARIANCE GRANTED January 27, 1993 GL Richard A. Bencal, Chairman Board of Appeal .,y r Y � xy o n C� rn • N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT HARRINGTON TR. , P & P HERITAGE TRUST FOR VARIANCE AT 2 BERTUCCIO 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 • C7 rm MQ .L C>m 'o 3 � r> � 17 cn w / ;y f1Zit ofttlem, rttsstteljusetts �, �uttra of CAD peal tP o O T� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SAMUEL PAPALARDO, PETITIONER/34-38 1/2 BRIDV'E STREET REALTY TRUST, OWNERS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 34-38 1/2 BRIDGE STREET A hearing on this petition was held August 11, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Vice Chairman; George Ahmed, Edward Luzinski, Stephen O'Grady 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 is requesting a Special Permit to allow the retail sale of automobiles in this B-2 district. Property is owned by 34-34 1/2 Bridge St. Realty Trust, John Spinale, Trustee. 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 petitioners request. 2. The proposed use is a close accessory use to the other business on. the property. 3. There are other used car lots in the area. • 4. The petitioner has a license to sell eight (8) automobiles. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SAMUEL PAPALARDO, PETITIONER/34-38 1/2 BRIDGE STREET REALTY TRUST,OWNERS, FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 34-38 1/2 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM • page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and' on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The 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. The number of automobiles for sale on the lot shall not exceed eight. • 3. Auto's shall be placed as per the plan submitted and spaces are to be marked and designated. 4. The site shall be used for sale of automobiles only. 5. Hours of operation shall be Monday through Saturday, 8:00 a.m to 8:00 P.M. 6. The business shall occupy office space in the existing structure and not in an adjacent trailer. 7. A proper means of ingress and egress shall be marked. Special Permit Granted August 11, 1993 Stephen C. Touchette,V. Chairman Board of appeal n ti d �y Cl) �o w DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SAMUEL PAPALARDO, PETITIONER/34-38 1/2 BRIDGE STREET REALTY TRUST, OWNER FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 34-38 1/2 BRIDGE 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), m : o c�< �o W rnT �N r rJ oTi o T r)� mN wN • 0 r' :b CHC of �ttlem, ��ttssttclluse�s • , .�_ $ Poara of �krrpenl ��ry K 844 .? OFFS�4SS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF 34-38 1/2 BRIDGE STREET TRUST, JOHN SPINALE, TR. , FOR VARIANCES AT 34-38 1/2 BRIDGE ST. (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 21, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'Grady. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from lot coverage and rear setback to allow construction of an addition which will be used as retail and storage 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 proposed request. 2. There were four (4) letters submitted in favor of the petitioners request, one (1) from the Ward Councillor, who also spoke in favor, and three (3) from abutters and neighbors. 3. The proposed addition would allow the petitioner a fuller and better use of the property. 4. This is the only feasible location for an addition. • DECIS ON'4 THE PETITION OF 34-38 1/2 BRIDGE STREET TRUST, JOHN SPINALE, T Z�$� VARIANCES AT 34-38 1/2 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM a pge t • Q�G of C) of F%0- ��t C 2X 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 building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. 6. Parking is to be provided as per the plans submitted. 7. Exterior finishes of the new construction are to be in harmony with the existing structure. VARIANCE GRANTED July 21, 1993 George A. Ahmed, Secretary Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF 34-38 1/2 BRIDGE STREET TRUST, JOHN SPINALE, TR. FOR VARIANCES AT 34-38 1/2 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM o • page three '5A el T9s 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 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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 4OA, 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 (gitg of ttiem, � Httssttdjusetts bOUCa 0{ CAu peal c7 m C7 y m m O L �T �N to D W DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GARNICK ASHEGH o m o FOR A VARIANCE AT 60 BRIDGE ST. (R-2) �, �a mD A hearing on this petition was held December 9, 1992 and continued t`§ ca Januar 27 1993 with the following Board Members Y g present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Francis Grealish, Edward Luzinski, 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 is requesting a Variance to allow six units residential units in this R-2 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: • a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings 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 to failed demonstrate or to meet the burden of proof relative to legal hardship. 2. The property is a legal two family dwelling and the prior owner added the two illegal units. 3. There was opposition to the petitioners request from abutters. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GARNICK ASHEGH FOR A VARIANCE AT 60 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM • page two 4. There were complaints concerning trash, noise and problem tenants on the petitioner's property. 5. The building was not presently owner occupied. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows Q,y-,p� 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect thex� rnm'n L subject property and not the district in general. _(fan w 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance)} ow 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 w derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5, against the motion to grant, having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. • VARIANCE DENIED January 27, 1993 Stephen C. Touchette, Member �U*� 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 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 (1�ifn of ttlem, �4R. ttssttcltu6ejfa 2 , .L.1" � L. 1 �-•1 19 - ` �DurD of �upenl m ex z s �•�„ tn?� Gag Qm o ^n g w In1 rnCn Cn th a R7 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHONY J. ROVENDRO, (PETITIONER) , LORINA TONDREAULT (OWNER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 127 CANAL ST. (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held January 27, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Francis Grealish Jr. , Edward Luzinski, 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 is requesting a Special Permit in order to increase the height of a garage roof four feet with no changes in use. Property is located in a 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. The change proposed is needed under fire department regulations. 2. The proposed will add to the safety of the area. 3. There will be no expansion of the business or change of use. • PETITION OF ANTHONY ROVENDRO (PETITIONER) , LORINA TONDREAULT (OWNER) SPECIAL PERMIT AT 127 CANAL 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing garage. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED January 27, 1993 Richard A: Bencal, Chairman Board of Appeal tirn�' f.1�1 cid • ' 6P DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHONY ROVENDRO (PETITIONER) , LORINA TONDREAULT (OWNER) FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 127 CANAL 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 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 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 � �� Z Qvs • .� . �. Ctu of LSnlem, 'Tussadjusetts 1a . M Pnttra of �upeal o r rp N -ry �r T Z7 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JONATHAN & LAURI STILIANOSLn ca FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 19 CHANDLER ROAD (R-1) w' "' A hearing on this petition was held December 1, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'Grady. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners,owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a second level to the existing single family dwelling. Property is located in the 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 petitioners request. 2. . Petitioners need the additional space as their family is growing. 3. The proposed construction of a second level is the most feasible way to obtain the additional space they require. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JONATHAN & LAURI STILIANOS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 19 CHANDLER ROAD, SALEM page two • 4. The property will remain a single family dwelling. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The 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 are to be strictly adhered to. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to starting construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. Special Permit Granted December 1, 1993 Francis X. Grealish, Chairman Board of appeal � O „� n • N c .a W cm two na � w DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ,JONATHAN & LAURI STILIANOS FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 19 CHANDLER 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 • C) p 7 n r'< mp N xN cn a W r :n • oftt1Pm, � ttssttcllusPtts _ ,sous of C�tr}ienl Q� Q m� w DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAY & NORENE GACHIGNARD FOR VARIANCE AT 10 CHARLES STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 11, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Stephen C. Touchette, V. Chairman; George Ahmed, Edward Luzinski, Stephen O'Grady and Associate Member Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance to allow an existing deck that encroaches on rear setback to remain as is. 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 proposed request. 2. The granting of the variance will continue to allow petitioners a fuller use of their property. 3. It is not feasible to locate the deck in any other portion of the property. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAY & NORENE GACHIGNARD FOR A VARIANCE AT 10 CHARLES 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 building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector. 5. Exterior finishes of the deck shall be in harmony with the existing structure. VARIANCE GRANTED August 11, 1993 �/ p AStepen O'Grady, Mem er Board of Appeal mo � �N cn n r n� 4 mn • y w DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAY & NORENE GACHIGNARD FOR VARIANCE AT 10 CHARLES 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 :- 0-y r k m o 2u a-n xN o rrn Ito Y Yt 3[ �c nen G, iA ch x • y-- i ;y TitV of ulem, ussttdjusetts 3Battra of �UPez&p 30 3 of PH '33 CITY OF SALER, F?SSS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN & PEGGY MASELLA FOR VARIANCE AT 11 CLARK STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held September 15, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen O'Grady and Associate Member Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance from lot size and frontage to allow construction of a single family dwelling at 11 Clark St. A Variance was granted on December 7, 1988 to allow 24 Barnes Circle to be divided thus creating the lot now known as 11 Clark St. 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. There was no opposition to the proposed request. 2. A Variance was granted on December 7, 1988 to allow the property at 24 Barnes Circle to be divided and to construct a single family dwelling on the lot now known as 11 Clark Street. 3. Petitioners were unable to construct the proposed single family within the required time frame. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN & PEGGY MASELLA FOR A VARIANCE AT 11 CLARK STREET, SALEM page two • 4. The Board of Appeal found in 1988 that the property at 24 B keioCi>�X PH '93 was unique as it fronts on both Barnes Circle and Clark Street CITY OF SAI.FM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICF 5. The Board of Appeal also found in it's 1988 decision that the topography of the property was irregular and to allow the division of the property and the construction of a single family home on what is now 11 Clark Street is the best use of the property. 6. The proposed single family dwelling will meet all setback requirements. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. 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. 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained for the new dwelling 6. If it is necessary to do any blasting, said blasting is to be done in strict accordance with all city and state requirements and with all the appropriate permits being obtained by the departments having jurisdiction, including but not limited to the Salem Fire Prevention. 7. Proper numbering shall be obtained from the City of Salem Assessor. JLriir�i -�a�� Francis X. Grealish, Chairman • Board of Appeal J DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN & PEGGY MASELLA FOR VARIANCE AT 11 CLARK STREET, SALEM page three SEP 30 3 07 PM '93 VARIANCE GRANTED CITY OF SALEM. MASS September 15, 1993 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 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 • (gitu of Salem, �Ragza ljusetts • Q Pnarb of }peal n 0i• nJ° DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAWRENCE & ELISABETH ASH FOR VARIANCE AT 15 CLIFF STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held December 1, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'Grady. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter GOA. Petitioners,owners of the property, are requesting a Variance to allow an existing deck that encroaches on the rear yard setback requirement. 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 petitioners request. 2. The granting of this variance will allow the petitioners a fuller use of their property. 3. This is the only feasible location for the placement of the deck. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAWRENCE & ELIZABETH ASH FOR A VARIANCE AT 15 CLIFF 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, 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. • 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector prior to beginning any construction . 5. The deck is to be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted December 1, 1993 �\ Di&embet"( J1 Ste en O'Grady, Board of Appeal � o r 17 ti T i Q n� m a Z• Cn (� Lp • w DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAWRENCE & ELIZABETH ASH FOR VARIANCE AT 15 CLIFF 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 r ;n0 -" :!•%r W O n ~ O n N (1J N W • 1y `b (fit of �ulem, � ttssttcljusetts Pourb Of �Vpeal �< xN cn a r 10m o cn 2 ma (n co N LV DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN A. CORBIN FOR VARIANCE AT 260 ESSEX STREET (B-5) A hearing on this petition was held August 11, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Stephen C. Touchette, V. Chairman; George Ahmed, Edward Luzinski, Stephen O'Grady 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 is requesting a Variance from the City of Salem Sign Ordinance to allow two (2) existing neon signs to remain in the windows of his dental business. 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 Salem Redevelopment Authority was not in favor and urged the Board of Appeal to deny this request. 2. There was one (1) citizen, David Pelletier, who voiced his opposition, his concern being that neon signs could become commonplace in the downtown. 3. The Board reviewed pictures of other businesses in the area that had neon signs. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN A. CORBIN FOR VARIANCES AT 260 ESSEX STREET, SALEM • page two 4. The signs have already been purchased and were of great expense, removing them would be a major loss to Dr. Corbin. 5. Dr. Corbin depends on these signs for purpose of identification of his dental 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: I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. • 2. Signs are to remain in accordance with the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit for the signs. 4. Petitioner shall obtain approval of the Salem Redevelopment Authority and the Design Review Board. VARIANCE GRANTED August 11, 1993 ) � r / Stephen O'Grady, Member Cl>.- i �h Board of AppealCAJ M�.. ot7l h • H ktz- DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN A. CORBIN FOR VARIANCES AT 260 ESSEX 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 409, 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 A H � M o w orn o n Y co • yo- r ;b �: flLitn ofttlem, ttssttcllusPtts 39uttra of :Avpeal ,y 0/- c /I�4 m, Ty4 , GCQj S�FF/Ce S 9 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DARLENE ROMANO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 20 CLOVERDALE AVE. (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held March 10, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; George Ahmed, 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 to operate a home electrolysis business 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. The business will be operated in the basement of the dwelling. 2. There is off street parking. 3. There will be only one other regular employee. 4. The business will operate during the early evening hours and Saturdays. • PETITION OF DARLENE ROMANO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 20 CLOVERDALE AVE. , SALEM page two • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 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. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Inspection from the Salem Building Inspector and a Building Permit if needed. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain approval from the City of Salem Health Dept, 5. There shall be no more than two employees. 6. The hours of operations shall be 9:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. weekdays and Saturdays, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 7. This Special Permit shall lapse three years from the date of filing of this decision. Petitioner may re-apply to Board of Appeal at that time. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED March 10, 1993 d Stephen C. Touchette, V. Chairman Board of Appeal 'a- LU �z Qt xn • J rpt I_h U DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DARLENE ROMANO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 20 CLOVERDALE AVE. , 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 Cn aw S =U Q � Ln W O J N Y (D� � O W N }J 2 �U a g U • (1Zit oftclem;' � ttssttcljusetts I t~ ? • ;, :;<,. �. Ponra of Aupenl a ^ N ^.O W in C.J _ w Lo N W DECISION ON THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF VARIANCES GRANTED TO 92 COLUMBUS AVENUE (R-1) At a hearing held June 16, 190% the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, • 5-0, to allow a six (6) month extension for Variances granted allowing a temporary boat shelter to remain in this R-1 zone. Said extension shall be up to and including January 25, 1994. Stephen O'Grady, Member Board of Appeal • ..,.,,yy of . ttlem, � ttssttcljizsetts F Pourb of �upenl r o L rnT x cn pJ —.m DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DOLORES SOTERIS " n FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 DUNDEE STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held April 21, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; George Ahmed, Francis Grealish Jr. , Stephen Touchette and Associate Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to add a second level the existing single family dwelling which is located in an R-1 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 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 second level. 2. Councillor Leonard O'Leary spoke in favor of the plan. 3. The addition of the second level will not change the existing footprint of the dwelling. • PETITION OF DOLORES SOTERIS FOR A . SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 DUNDEE STREET, SALEM • page two 4. The proposed second level would be conforming to abutters homes. 5. The proposed second level will allow petitioner a better and fuller use of the property. 6. The use of the property will remain a single family. 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED April 21, 1993 George�A. Ahmed, Member Board of Appeal n m r rt,p L �N N • o m `n T m a to cii N W DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DOLORES SOTERIS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 6 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 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 0 a r t � 3 • l� of Salem' 4-Hassttcllusetts • e PD2ira of �itpP211 n� L� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL J. COSTAN20 FOR A VARIANCE AT 59-61 DUNLAP STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held December 1, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'Grady. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Board of Appeal,after hearing the evidence presented and at the request of the petitioner voted unanimously 4-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for Variances from use and parking to allow two • family dwelling to be converted to a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. GRANTED. LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE December 1, 1993 Stephen O'Grady, Membe r Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • Iq Cty of .a`Sttlem, ^ ttSstttlluSPtts J . -Snttra of �Aupetil CITY OF93 C1[I?K Sip-,CRSS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEIULIS BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO. FOR VARIANCES AT MOONEY & DURKINS RDS. (RC/R-1) A hearing on this petition was held March 10, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; George Ahmed, 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 variance from lot size and frontage to allow construction of a single family dwellings. 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 . A fourteen ( 14) lot subdivision was approved in 1968 and improvements were started. 2. The City re-drew the Zoning Map in 1973 or 1974 changing the RC district. This caused a hardship for the petitioners. 3. The proposed dwellings will not substantially alter the existing character of the neighborhood, and will not be a detrimental use. 4. The subdivision will improve a run down area. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO. FOR VARIANCES AT MOONEY 5 DURKIN RDS. SALEM page two • 5. There was opposition. 6. Some lots will extend into the 100 foot wetland buffer zone. 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. L. Petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit from the City of Salem Inspector of Buildings. 5. All items noted on the document titled Sable Heights II, Protective Covenants are to be attached and made part of this decision and shall be made part of each deed. 6. Petitioner is to meet all requirements of all City Boards and Commissions, including, but not limited to, Conservation Commission, Planning Board and Board of Health. 7. No yard debris, waste or fill shall be placed within twenty (20) feet of the sewer easement. c-XARRNCE GRANTED arcj�0, 1992 ) J Stephen C. Touchette, V. Chairman ? o Board of Appeal • � ry r v DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO. FOR VARIANCES AT MOONEY & DURKIN RDS. , 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 • C" N Cf N - �u Y� W o � J Q N �- NLU Y �L T O J N >-v D U • p5 C' • �p�1. F Sps pF SABLE HEIGHTS 11 Protective Covenants DeIulis Brothers Construction Co. , Inc. , the owner of Sable Heights II subdivision, wishing to protect the integrity and preserve the value of the said subdivision and surrounding homes will establish the following protective and restrictive covenants: A. USE 1. Lots may only be used for single family homes with attached garage or with garage under where appropriate for a maximum of two cars. 2. No business shall be conducted from the homes. 3. No yard or open area of any lot shall be used for storage of materials or storage or parking of commercial vehicles larger than a pick up truck, trailers, boats, recreational vehicle or equipment. • B. BUILDING RESTRICTIONS 1. No building shall be started until plans and specifications have been approved by the Grantor. The design of the homes shall be suited to the lots, shall be compatible with the surrounding homes and shall conform to the following requirements: a. Minimum living area - 2,000 s.f . b. Minimum footprint - 1,000 s.f . exclusive of garage. C. Siding must be wood clapboards 9" to weather, wood shingles 7" maximum to weather, or other wood siding approved by the Grantor. Aluminum or vinyl siding will not be permitted. d. Roofing must be asphalt singles, wood shingles or slate. Minimum roof pitch shall be 6" : 12"; maximum pitch 9" : 12". e. Chimneys must be brick or stone. f. Aluminum storm windows may not be used. g. Window shutters, if used, must be wood. h. Steps must be brick or stone; walks must .be concrete, brick or stone and driveway must be concrete or bituminous concrete. i. Any retaining walls that are visible from the street must be of quarried stone with mortared joints. • Hae 1�! II s4 Qy Sable Heights II 033C�TYOF $A Protective tective Covenants CLERK SLp PaFFF ICESS 2. No building shall be constructed closer to the lot lines than is allowed under the City of Salem zoning regulations in effect at the time. 3. No fence shall be installed without the written approval of the Grantor. All fences shall be of wood construction. 4. No T.V. Antenna or satellite dish shall be installed without written approval of Grantor. C. COMPLETION OF WORK 1. All exterior work including painting, construction of driveway, walk, steps and retaining walls must be completed no later than one year from the date of approval of plans and specifications. 2. All work including landscaping must be completed no later • than 18 months from date of approval of plans and specifications. D. ENFORCEMENT OF COVENANTS The above Protective Covenants shall be incorporated in and become part of the Decision of the Board of Appeals in connection with this matter, so that the decision of the Board of Appeals shall read: 'The Special Permit is granted subject to the following conditions. . . ' , and the conditions will then become a part of the formal Decision and enforceable by the City of Salem." • / aitu of ttlem, ^fttssttcltusEtta .Y_ $ -Soura of Atrpenl T o m =t `p o< � o L m �T �� W r o om w DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RITA AND ROBERT DESANTIS/F.J.LIVAS, JR-:;x FOR VARIANCES AT 65 BRIDGE/� EAST COLLINS/9 LATHROP STS. (R-2) N W A hearing on this petition was held January 27, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Francis Grealish, Jr. , Edward Luzinski, 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. The Board of Appeal, on the request of petitioners Attorney, Joseph Correnti, voted unanimously 5-0, to allow the petition for variances • to divide property to be withdrawn without prejudice. The hearing was never opened and no evidence was presented. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE January 27, 1993 ,1 0'w/ Edward Luzinski, Member Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • X71 '". (9itu of —,$ulem, flussacilusefts - M ►99 Tj 3 -Bourb of AL5y�ettl AN CITY OF S4Le CLERK'S p FICFS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RITA DESANTIS, F.J. LIVAS, JR. , ROBERT DESANTIS FOR VARIANCES AT 18 EAST COLLINS—ST,./9 LATHROP ST./11 LATHROP ST. (B-4/R-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 10, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; George Ahmed, 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 asking to divide property into three lots, two lots in the B-4 district will meet requirements, Variance from lot size and front yard requirements are requested for the house lot which is located in the R-2 portion of the lot. • 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 lot in question is in harmony with other lots in the general area. There would be a hardship to the owner if this variance were not allowed. 2. The existing dwelling will not substantially alter the existing character of the neighborhood and will not be detrimental. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RITA DESANTIS, F.J. LIVAS, JR. , ROBERT DESANTIS • FOR VARIANCES AT 18 EAST COLLINS ST./9 LATHROP ST./11 LATHROP ST. , SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the 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 fence which runs along East Collins St. is to be repaired and maintained within thirty (30) days of the filing of this decision. Plantings are to be placed along the East Collins St. fence and spaced • reasonably on center to allow to allow proper growth, plantings to be completed one year from date of filing of this decision. VARIANCE GRANTED March 10, 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 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. s sy Board of Appeal • So ms �a 71 � yv d '� �a of M1Pm, " �. tISSttC�jusetts • =? F Poura of �u}zenl s 325 CITY OF J CQR?v,SOFM. S �FF,CF SS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLART REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 42 ENGLISH STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 21, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Edward Luzinski, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'Grady. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Board of Appeal, after hearing evidence presented and at the request of the petitioner's Attorney, George Vallis, voted unanimously 5-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Variance to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this R-2 district. • GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE July 21, 1993 /4c � Ateph Touchette, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • ofttlem; � ttsstzcliusetts • �ottrD of CAppeal' AUC Z 2 39 PH '93 CITY OF SALEM F1ASS CLERKS OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LASKARIS REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT 177-179 FEDERAL STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 21, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Edward Luzinski, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'Grady. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance to allow a four family dwelling to be converted to a five family dwelling and a variance to allow a small portion of the driveway to be less that the required twelve (12) feet. 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 proposed request. 2. The petitioner will provide nine (9) on site parking spaces. 3. The footprint of the structure will not be altered in any way. 4. All construction will be interior, there will be no exterior work. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LASKARIS REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCE AT 177-179 FEDERAL ST. , SALEM page two • 5. The applicant states that due to size of the existing khis ai(dAl�f current rental values that literal enforcement of the ord* g� prohibitiv practiccalthe lhardshipfifth theunit operationresult thendwelling. fin n KNIS OFFIHFSS 6. The proposed change will allow petitioner a better and fuller use of the property. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 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, but with more detailed plans to be submitted to the Building Inspector. 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. 6. Parking is to be provided as per the plans submitted. VARIANCE GRANTED July 21, 1993 / Stephen O'Grady, Member Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LASKARIS REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCE AT 177-179 FEDERAL ST. , SALEM page three • QUC 2 ' 2 39 FM '93 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 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 • i + z� f1�it of $Ulem, {` assadjusette • ',, s s Poarb of ' p"enl Nom' 00 N N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NEW YORK CELLULAR GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA, INC. (PETITIONERS) WINN MANAGEMENT (OWNERS) FOR VARIANCES AT 12 FIRST STREET (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held April 21, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; George Ahmed, Francis Grealish Jr. , Stephen Touchette and Associate LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners are requesting a variances to allow existing antennas to be upgraded. Property is located in an 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. The change relative to the height of the antennas will not impact the abutting neighborhood. 2. The change in antennas will allow petitioner to better serve their customers and thus allow for better cellular communications. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NEW YORK CELLULAR GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA, INC. FOR VARIANCES AT 12 FIRST 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. The finish of the antennas shall be dulled so as to prevent any reflection from them. 5. Petitioner shall immediately remedy any complaints relative to radio or televisions interference. 6. No more than three (3) clusters of three (3) antennas may be placed on site as per the plans submitted. 7. No new lights are to be added to the property at 12 First St. VARIANCE GRANTED April 21, 1993 Richard A. Bencal, Chairman Board of Appeal a r m o L �N • ND w r �m o �Y o rj g mn 3 v, �o `^ w DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NEW YORK CELLULAR GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA, INC. FOR VARIANCES AT 12 FIRST 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. � v a • Board of Appeal R,o y o 0 CIO o n; N 6 • a� (1Sit� of Salem, fflttssadjusetts %v Paura of �"eal �T w rn ern O 2 to Taa -3t: rn �O DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GERREN REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES AND SPE�L"'IAL PERMIT AT 9 FRANKLIN STREET (B-1/R-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 11, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman; Edward Luzinski, Stephen O'Grady 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 is requesting a Special Permit to allow portion of the existing building to be used for auto repair and for a variance from Article VII, Section 7.2, Supplementary Regulations Automobile Service Station regarding density regulations which may be applicable to this request. Property is located in a mixed zone (B-1/R-2) 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 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 GERREN REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 9 FRANKLIN STREET, 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The building has been used for commercial purposes for many years. 2. The building has been vacant for two (2) or three (3) years. 2 CJ VT 3. There are other automotive related business in the area. c.J �N 4 . There was opposition to the petition on the basis that it is " inconsistent with the City's Master Plan for the area. T= e a 5. The building is located in a B-1/R-1 zone and automotive repaart stiFpps are a special permit use in a B-1 zone. y CAJ 6. There are other structures on the property and ample parking. } 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, 4-0, 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 safety shall be strictly adhered to. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GERREN REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 9 FRANKLIN STREET, SALEM • page three 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. The hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:OO p.m. and Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. 7. There shall be no outside work on automobiles or any long term storage of automobiles. Variance and Special Permit Granted August 11, 1993 Stephen C. Touchette, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of 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 m w fia y • nurtl M4 \y (9itn of ttlem, ttssttdjusettg �uttra of �trpeal ' .....: , C, c r� N Mo .. , T r om o ms � n� m> LZ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GERREN REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 9-11 FRANKLIN STREET, (B-1/R-2) A hearing on this petition was held; `,,June _ _5;: 1993'3with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Edward Luzinski, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'Grady. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. • The Board of Appeal, at the request of the petitioners attorney, Joseph Correnti due to an error in proper notification of abutters, voted unanimously 5-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for Variance and Special Permit to allow an automobile service station in this B-1/R-2 district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE June 16, 1993 Zed, ate)George A. Secretary Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • 0�7 • _ Ctu of �Pattulreamof `��kupttesusl �F�/SASS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GERREN REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 9-11 FRANKLIN STREET, (B-1/R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 21, 199T,with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Edward Luzinski, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'Grady. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Board of Appeal, at the request of the petitioners Attorney, Joseph Correnti due to an error in proper advertising, voted unanimously 5-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for Variance and Special Permit to allow portion of the premises to be used for auto repair in this B-1/R-2 district. • GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE July 21 , 1993 George A. Ahmed, Secretary Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • r �. fllit ofttlem, `� ttssttcljusefts SOU � �. f 3zsftf ' 3 CCOF f RKSS FF/CESS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHILIP BURNHAM FOR VARIANCES AT 11 GARDNER STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 21, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'Grady. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from use to allow a three family dwelling to be converted to a four 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 proposed request. 2. There were six (6) pieces of correspondence supporting the petitioners request, two were direct abutters. 3. There are many multi-family dwellings in this area. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHILIP BURNHAM .FOR VARIANCES AT 11 GARDNER STREET, SALEM AUC page two 0/;'y s 3 zs�y .93 IFR S 0�� 84SS / On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented cF 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 building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained from the Inspector of Buildings prior to occupying fourth unit. VARIANCE GRANTED July 21, 1993 Francis X. Grealish, Chairman Board of Appeal • 1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHILIP BURNHAM. - FOR VARIANCES AT 11 GARDNER 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 • awuk ( 1tg of ` ttlem, ttssttcljusetts q�aumti� V O DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FREDERICK J. ATKINS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 23 GLENDALE ST. (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held May 19, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Edward Luzinski, Stephen O'Grady, 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 structure and use and to construct two dormers on the east end of the building. 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 proposed second level. 2. The property is currently being used as a boat yard. 3. Most of the boat storage has been moved off the property. 4. The petitioner agreed not to put windows on the northerly side of the dormers nor to disturb the trees on that side. • PETITION OF DOLORES FREDERICK J. ATKINS SPECIAL PERMIT AT 23 GLENDALE 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. No windows are to be placed on the northerly side of the dormers. 6. The trees on the northerly side are not to be disturbed. 7. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED May 19, 1993 Stephen C. Touchette, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FREDERICK J. ATKINS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 23 GLENDALE ST. , SALEM page three y • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND TNE;;�II.TY" 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 owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • �d ��',;, \' �. f�it� of �ttlem, r�ttsstteljusett�� Pnttra of �upeal 9rF�FESS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SPIROS P. FLOMP FOR VARIANCE AT 57 GROVE STREET (BPD) A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed, 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 a Variance to allow portion of the building to used for auto sales, repair, and body work. Property is located in the Business Park Development 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 proposed request. 2. The petitioner purchased the property in January of 1988 when the area was zoned Industrial (I) . 3. There are several businesses on the premises, including a towing company. 4. There are similar businesses in the area. DCISIOON ON THE,PETITION OF SPIROS FLO14P FOR A VARIANCE AT C7� OJ E �S1U33q� '�� • page two S OFF�0F 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. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. • 3. Petitioner/Lessee/Tenant shall be required to obtain all proper licenses/permits from all city departments, including, but not limited the Licensing Board. Variance Granted October 20, 1993 Step Touchette, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the 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. • y (gitu of Salem ttssttdjusetts� 1 ' „ C r r t r..� `3-: . F �3nttra of.cr�p}rettl r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ZAHER BDIWI FOR A VARIANCE AT 6-6 1/.2 HANCOCK STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held May 19, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Edward Luzinski, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'Grady. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance to allow a 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 proposed request. 2. The abutter, Mr. LaPointe, 8 Hancock St. , spoke in favor with one exception, that no exterior stairs are to be built. 3. The applicant states that the premises contain more than the required number of parking spaces for a three family dwelling. 4. The change will not alter the existing footprint of the dwelling. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ZAHER BDIWI FOR VARIANCE AT 6-6 1/2 HANCOCK ST. , SALEM _? page two • 5. The applicant states that due to the smaller size of the existing : nits and the resulting lower rental values that literal enforcement of the ordinance prohibiting the addition of a third unit will result in substantial financial and practical hardship in the operation of the dwelling. 6. There will be no physical exterior change to the dwelling except two skylights. 7. The proposed change will allow petitioner a better and fuller use of the property. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 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, but with more detailed plans to be submitted to the Building Inspector. 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. No exterior stairs are to be built, the only exterior change is to be two (2) skylights. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. 7. The proposed third unit is to be self supporting with regards to utilities. VARIANCE GRANTED May 19, 1993 • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ZAHER BDIWI Tl / FOR VARIANCE AT 6-6 1/2 HANCOCK ST. , SALEM page three George�A. Ahmed, 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 • Chi of _$Ulem, 'Tmssadlusetts �p :Bnttrb of cAupeul 0 n�- m� ,y DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAULA & ZAHER BDIWI FOR VARIANCE AT 6-6 1/2 HANCOCK ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held January 27, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Francis Grealish, Jr. , Edward Luzinski, 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. The Board of Appeal,after hearing evidence presented at the hearing and at the request of the petitioner, voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant • leave to withdraw this petition for Variances to allow property to be converted to a three family in this Two Family district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE January 27, 1993 !L'�2zL�:y. ✓%CCL I'/� ( � Ronald G. Plante, Associate Member Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • Cg) b CtU Of ,Salem, CRasmdjusetts NP • %;\F_, g PO2ITD 0{ '�Vpeal AFF/ 74SS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF R. GLIDDEN/P. O'CONNELL/R. VALARIOTI FOR A VARIANCE AT 11 HERSEY ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, 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 4OA. The Board of Appeal, at the request of the petitioners voted unanimously 4-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Variance to allow continued use of the property as a three family dwelling without the owner occupied condition put on the previously granted petition to allow original conversion to a three family. The • property is located in an R-2 district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE October 20, 1993 Stephen Touchette, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • �=� <b '�. f1�it� of a�'ttlem, ��ttsstt�ljusetts • \ •�_.. s Bnttra of CAUPE4UG -1 2 39 FN '93 CITY OF SALEM: HASS CLERK'S OrpIC€ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID & TRACEY MCBOURNIE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 15 HIGHLAND STREET (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held July 21, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette,Vice Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen O'Grady, and Edward Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setback to allow construction of a deck in this Multi-family District (R-3) 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 concerns of the immediate abutters were satisfied by the petitioners. 2. The granting of the special permit would allow petitioner a fuller use of the property. 3. It would not be feasible to locate the deck in any other portion of the property. • PETITION OF DAVID & TRACEY MCBOURNIE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 15 HIGHLAND STREET, SALEM page two • 4. There was no opposition to the petitioners request. AUC 1 239 W93 5. The proposed deck would only encroach on the side setbgft o}tSguld meet all other setback requirements. CLCRK'SIOFFICFSS 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Special Permit Granted July 21, 1993 Stephen O'Grady, Member Board of appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID & TRACEY.NCBOURNIE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 15 HIGHLAND 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 owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • fgitu of 5zllem, � Hassndjusetts 69) Potts of &Aupenl • Q DEC 28 3 os W93 CITcI�RK SLOFF CEEW MASS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER FOR VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 81 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held December 1, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish, Chairman; Stephen Touchette, George Ahmed and Stephen O'Grady. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from lot line setback, a Special Permit to extend the nonconforming Davenport Building by allowing construction of an addition to said Davenport Building and a Variance from parking. The property is located in the Residential Single Family District (R-1) . 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 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 NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 81 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM page two • C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the m U) intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. v <w Xt- The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, w o and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: �x 1. Two abutters expressed opposition but there objections were satisfied CO a W and they withdrew their opposition. N o2. The petitioner has always worked closely with the City Boards, Commissions and Departments to insure harmony in appearance. 3. The petitioner has acquired a large parking lot adjacent to the subject property which will add more than 300 spaces to petitioners available parking. 4. The petitioner has requested a variance from parking to authorize sub- stantially the same number parking spaces and parking layouts that presently exist. 5. The petitioner's land is peculiar in shape and size, a condition which affects the petitioner's land but not the district. • 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, 4-0, 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. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire • safety shall be strictly adhered to. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 81 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM page three •c-� v, 4. Petitioners shall obtain a building permit prior to construction. ^ <w 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. r C- 6. Exterior finishes of the proposed construction shall be in harmony with ch y the existing structure. m y 7. All access of construction vehicles is .to be from Dove Avenue only. 8. The road known as Olde Road is to be used for emergency only Variance and Special Permit Granted December 1, 1993 Georg' ed, 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 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 • ,b (fit of . ttlem, � Httssttcljusetts • %\.- Potts of �Fpeai o�y DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID, MICHELLE & DANA DILISIO (PETITIONERS) , CHARLES PULED (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 372 HIGHLAND AVENUE (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held April 21, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; George Ahmed, 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. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from front and rear setbacks, maximum height & type fence allowed in the ECOD and a Special Permit to allow a miniature golf course in this B-2 District. Before hearing the merits of this petition, the Board of Appeal has to consider whether or not there is a substantial and material change from a • previous petition which was denied by this Board on March 10, 1993. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented, and after receiving Consent from the City of Salem Planning Board, voted unanimously, that there was a substantial change, said change being, petitioners have eliminated their request for commercial recreation and entertainment housing six amusement devices, petitioners changed front yard depth from 10 feet to 15 feet, petitioners will reduce the size of the building from 2 1/2 stories to 1 1/2 stories. The Board of Appeal will hear the petition. The Variance and Special Permit which has been requested may be granted upon finding by the Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 4. The Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID, MICHELLE & DANA DELISIO (PETITIONERS) , CHARLES PULEO (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT AT 372 HIGHLAND AVE. SALEM • page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing,and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioners eliminated their request for a Special Permit for a place of commercial recreation & entertainment housing six (6) amusement devices. 2. The petitioners proposed to construct a driveway, commencing at Ravenna Ave. and running along the northerly edge of the property. 3. The petitioners have changed the front yard depth from 10 feet to 15 feet. 4. The petitioners will reduce the size of the building from 2 1/2 stories to 1 1/2 stories. 5. The petitioners will include live plantings along the rear fenced lot line and the front fenced lot line. 6. The lot will be fenced along the front and side lot lines. 7. There were some residents in favor of the golf course but not the • driveway. 8. There was support for both the golf course and the driveway. 9. The petitioners will install curbing from the entrance of Ravenna Ave. up to Pyburn Ave. 10. There will be an agreement with Puleo's to allow access to their restrooms. On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. c, 4. The granting of the Special Permit will promote the public head'0, -r-- safety, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants and may granted in harmony with the neighborhood. cn "? civ Z DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID, MICHELLE & DANA DILISIO (PETITIONERS) , CHARLES PULEO (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 372 HIGHLAND AVE. • SALEM page three Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variance and Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statutes, ordinanceo codes and regulations. ;, -• 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions 0 submitted. u N N� f 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and 0 fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. g m U, 4. Petitioner shall obtain a Building Permit. Ln 5. A four (4) foot high chain link fence is to be installed on three (3) sides as shown on plans submitted. 6. Shrubs are to be planted along the fences on the three sides as shown on plans submitted. 7. Light fixtures on the course are not to exceed six (6) feet in height and the lighting fixtures in the parking lot are to be placed so they face away from the abutting properties. • 8. Hours of operation are to run from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. , Mondays through Sundays. 9. Curbing is to be installed along numbers 1, 3, & 5 Ravenna Ave. and numbers 1 & 2 Pyburn Ave. 10. A barrier is to be placed at the end of the driveway exiting onto Ravenna at the end of each business day. 11. The petitioners will take immediate steps to remedy any complaints. 12. No loudspeakers will be allowed. 13. Signs shall be posted stating that the bathrooms at Puleo's may be used without purchasing any food. Variance & Special Permit Granted April 21, 1993 Step en C. Touchette, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID, MICHELLE & DANA DILISIO (PETITIONERS) , CHARLES PULEO (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT AT 372 HIGHLAND AVE. , • SALEM page four 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. g n v� BOARD OF APPEAL =� m� �N N n� s oa 40 • T. Z N • (D 1y (gity f �ttle , EUSSUCIi� ses D � ot 35oara of �A peat ciT y Or 54411 ,33 C�ZX,S Oak A14SS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID, MICHELLE & DANA DILISIO (PETITIONERS) CHARLES PULEO (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES & SPECIAL PERMIT AT 372 HIGHLAND AVENUE (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 10, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; George Ahmed,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. Petitioner is requesting Variances and Special Permit to allow construction of a miniature golf course and place of recreation and entertainment housing six (6) amusement devices. • The Variance and Special Permit which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. d. 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. Councillor at Large George McCabe sent correspondence requesting the petitioner have a neighborhood meeting. Councillor at Large Jane Stirgwolt was present at the hearing also requested a neighborhood • meeting. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID, MICHELLE & DANA DILISIO (PETITIONERS) , CHARLES PULEO (OWNER) FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 372 HIGHLAND AVE. (B-2) • page two 2. Councillor O'Leary, Ward 4, submitted a petition signed by neighbors who are in opposition, he also voiced his opposition. 3. The proposed construction would substantially alter the existing character of the neighborhood and would be detrimental. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions 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. 4. The proposed use would not be in harmony with the district and would not promote the public health, safety or convenience of the City's inhabitants. • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 2-3, against the motion to grant the request for a miniature golf course, (Messrs. , Ahmed, Bencal & Grealish voted in opposition, Messrs. , Luzinski & Touchette voted in favor, having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition to allow miniature golf course is denied. The Board then voted unanimously, 0-5 against the motion to grant the request the amusement devices. VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED March 10, 1993 Francis X. Grealish, Jr. m N Secretary, ' Board of Appeal aw 6 •ii � .J O 't(n w� �W • N Y� a � S DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID, MICHELLE & DANA DILISIO (PETITIONER) , CHARLES PULEO (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT AT 372 HIGHLAND 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 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 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 • f n N 41 N W Q Q LL WO L J N � Q LL W O � r s v • .ro.m ttlp �" (Gita of $njem, � ttssttcljusetts • ;; ms s �3aara of C�u}zeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER CAPALBO (PETITIONER) , AUGUSTO DACUNHA (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE AT 44 JEFFERSON AVE. (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held May 19, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish, Jr. , George Ahmed, Edward Luzinski, Stephen O'Grady 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 and prior the hearing being opened voted unanimously to allow the petition for a Variance to allow a restaurant with a seasonal beer and wine license at 44 Jefferson Ave. to be withdrawn. Property is zoned R-1 and is owned by Augusto DaCunha. • GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE May 19, 1993 c� ✓�� Edward Luzinski,"fi ' ember Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • yip Ctu of tzlem; � ttssttcllusetts = F rboara of '-�u}�enl �� y c , cry 3op 2S , cttR s Fyic/S�� F DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES & THERESE HUDSON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 237 JEFFERSON AVE. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 21, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Edward Luzinski, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'Grady: Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Board of Appeal, at the request of the petitioners representative, Leo Tremblay, voted unanimously 5-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Special Permit to allow construction of a sunroom and a deck in this R-2 district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE • July 21, 1993 George A. Ahmed, Secretary Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • (I�itu of Salem, fflttssarljusetts vPoara of �u{tenl OCT I 8 42 AN '93 CITY OF SALEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES & THERESE HUDSON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 237 JEFFERSON AVENUE (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held September 15, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen O'Grady and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, , owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a sunroom and deck which will extend the existing nonconforming side setback. Property is located in the 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 the petitioners request. 2. The proposed construction will allow the petitioners a fuller use of their property. 3. This is the most feasible location for the sunroom and deck. 4. All other setback requirements will be met. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES & THERESE HUDSON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 237 JEFFERSON 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 are to be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to starting construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Special Permit Granted September 15, 1993 Stephen O'Grady, Member Board of appeal � o n� � mo �T y r- o m r Cl� Zia DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES & THERESE FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 237 JEFFERSON 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 nz� ua s_ QED �m -c- t'n zz 41a W va w • of Salem, �Kttssacljusetts oQ Poura of Append 0 C� mN m O N 7,0LO T N O i-n O DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH TRACY FOR VARIANCE AT „= t° C22, JUNIPER AVENUE � m� V� t0 A hearing on this petition was held December 1, 1993 with the follo`Qink, Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'Grady. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance to allow construction of an addition which will further encroach on the side setback. 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 proposed request and one neighbor spoke in favor of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has a problem with his basement flooding and he needs the addition in order to be able to move his furnace, washer and dryer out of the basement.-where they are exposed to flooding and have in the past received water damage. 3. This is the only feasible location for the addition to be constructed. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH TRACY FOR A VARIANCE AT • 22 JUNIPER AVENUE, 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. 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire • Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector prior to beginning any construction . 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained for the new dwelling 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted December 1,. 1993 Stephen O'Grady, Member/ Board of Appeal c� H • n�C n o Ci 7 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH TRACY • FOR VARIANCE AT 22 JUNIPER 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 C') o rn rno M ro o N xN to> W r mn (n Lo ( w • (Mita of �ttjFm, ?7iZI85tIt�11iSPTt� Buarb of AppealM4R Zq II 5 4 CITY r..F S•. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RITA DESANTIS- .,..J_. LIVAS, JR. . ROBERT DESANTIS FOR VARIANCES AT 18 -EAST COLLINS STS F9 LATHROP ST./11 LATHROP ST. (B-4/R-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 10, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; George Ahmed, Francis Greaiish Jr. , Edward Luzinski and Stephen Touchette. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were prooeriy published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are asking to divide property into three lots, two lots in the B-4 district will meet requirements, 'variance from lot size and front yard requirements are requested for the house lot which is located in the R-2 portion of the lot. • Phe 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. : iteral enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance vould `_nvo've substantial hardship, financial or otherwise. o the ce c ticrer. J . Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment �o 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 pians, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The lot in question is in harmony with other lots in the general area. There would be a hardship to the owner if this variance were not allowed. 2. The existing dwelling will not substantially alter the existing character of the neighborhood and will not be detrimental. • r • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RITA DESANTIS, F.?. "IVAS, „R. . ROBERT DESANTIS FOR VARIANCES AT 18 EAST COLLINS ST. /9 LATHROP ST./11 LATHROP ST. , SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the 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. "herefore, 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. The fence which runs along East Collins St. :s to be repaired and maintained within thirty (30) days of the filing of this decision. • Plantings are to be placed along the East Collins St. fence and spaced reasonably on center to allow to allow proper growth, plantings to be completed one year from date of filing of this decision. VARIANCE GRANTED ?arch 10, 1992 7,7 .'rancis K. Greaiish, Secretary Board of Appeal A COPY OF "HIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED k'ITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 1; 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 4r y (Gitn of _,&11em, ?fttssttehusett4 • ' $�nttrD ui av}1en1 MAR Zq f 54 q, , s CITY CF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RITA DESANTIS, F.J. LIVAS JRROBERT DESANTIS FOR VARIANCES AT 18 EAST COLLINS ST./9 LATHROP ST./,kl LATH_ ROP ST--�(B-4/R-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 10, 1993 with he following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; George Ahmed, 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 LOA. Petitioners, owners of the property, are asking to divide property into three lots, two lots in the B-4 district will meet requirements, Variance from lot size and front yard requirements are requested for the house lot which is located in the R-2 portion of the lot. • 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 eeriticner. 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 lot in question is in harmony with other lots in the general area. There would be a hardship to the owner if this variance were not allowed. 2. The existing dwelling will not substantially alter the existing character of the neighborhood and will not be detrimental. • • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RITA DESANTIS, F.J. LIVAS, JR. , ROBERT DESANTIS FOR VARIANCES AT 18 EAST COLLINS ST./9 LATHROP ST./11 LATHROP ST. , SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows : 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the 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, 3-0, 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 fence which runs along East Collins St. is to be repaired and maintained within thirty (30) days of the filing of this decision. • Plantings are to be placed along the East Collins St. fence and spaced reasonably on center to allow to allow proper growth, plantings to be completed one year from date of filing of this decision. VARIANCE GRANTED March 10, 1992 Francis X. Grealish, Secretary Board of Appeal 4 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. J• • Board of Appeal .0 �d J y Vc t , (ljtn I,f -11-5alem, ,�4iJUSSUCIiusetts • \;'�::_r ..:�,-s bDATb of �A�f2tl CITY OF CLERC OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NATIONAL LUMBER CO. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 33 MASON ST. (BPD) A hearing on this petition was held March 10, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; George Ahmed, 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 to extend a nonconforming structure by constructing an addition. Property is located in a Business Park Development District (BPD) 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. A retail lumber business has been at this location for many years. , 2. The proposed addition would allow petitioner to bring the replacement structure to present day codes. 3. A minimal increase in building size would allow petitioner more area for sale of merchandise and a more efficient mode of operation. • PETITION OF NATIONAL LUMBER CO. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 33 MASON 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED March 10, 1993 Richard A. Bencal, Chairman Board of Appeal ch UJ Y� wo �N "'w N r� r v • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NATIONAL LUMBER CO. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 33 MASON 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 • a� �n - c w � =U U, W O JN Q N j6 �C� OUJ J N >-U S U • . (Ilit of '$ttlem, 'Tttssadjusetts peal �F �' rq n� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD GILMARTIN (PETITIONER) , MAURICE ROUSSEAU (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 99 LEACH ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 11, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, V. Chairman; George Ahmed, Edward Luzinski, Stephen O'Grady 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 is requesting Variances from lot size, side setback and frontage to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this R-2 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: • a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was substantial neighborhood opposition to the petitioners request, including written opposition from the David B. Gaudreault the Ward Councillor. 2. The lot in question was considerably undersized, having only 4,332 square feet of land and 45 feet of frontage. 3. This is a highly congested area. 4. The petitioner to failed demonstrate or to meet the burden of • proof relative to legal hardship. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD GILMARTIN (PETITIONER) , MAURICE ROUSSEAU (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 99 LEACH 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: I. 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 1-4 (Mr. Ahmed voted in favor) against 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 August 11, 1993 • George A. Ahmed, 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 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 y y - �� a �y � C')J _ �a C ti G.urq 6D 01itu of �ttlem, '-ttssadjusetts 33nttra of ��ettl SEP 30 � 09 X11 �s3 CITY OF SALEM, MASS CLERK'S OrnrF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GUS S CAROL MANON FOR A VARIANCE AT 36 LORING AVE. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held September 15, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Edward Luzinski, Stephen O'Grady and Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Board of Appeal, at the request of the petitioners voted unanimously 4-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Variance to allow a two family dwelling to be converted to a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. • GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE September 15, 1993 Stephen O'Grady, Member Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • �7 of .-ittlem, 'T' assadjusetts • v.. S POMra 01 rAupenl OCT q 251 pil X93 ..... CITY 0E CLERK'SLOFFICESS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GLEN & JANE BEAUDET FOR VARIANCES AT 7 MEAD COURT AND 9 MEAD COURT (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held September 15, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen O'Grady 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 at 9 Mead Court, are requesting variances to allow property at 7 Mead Court (shown on plan as lot A) & 9 Mead Court (shown on plan as Lot C) to be redivided resulting in the transfer of 460 square feet (shown on the plans as Lot B) from Lot A to Lot C. 7 Mead Court is owned by P. Blais, D. Hanussak & F.Fraser. Property is located 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. There was no opposition to the proposed request. 2. The additional land will provide relief to the petitioner for off street parking. 3. The owner of 8 Mead Court spoke in favor of the petition. 4. The added 460 sq.ft. will increase petitioners land to 1571 sq.ft. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GLEN & JANE BEAUDET FOR A VARIANCE AT 7 MEAD CT. & 9 MEAD CT. , SALEM page two • 5 The granting of the variance will allow petitioner a fuller use of the property. 6. The proposed division will not have a negative affect from this proposed division. 7. Additional space for snow plowing for the city will be permitted because of the removal of on street parking by the petitioner. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district 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. Division shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. Petitioner shall present plans to the Planning Board for their approval. A G 4. Petitioners shall not park their vehicles on the street. Pyp Jr- ;K;K VARIANCE GRANTED w'� N r r September 15, 1993 0 X ma N George A. Ahmed, Secretary Board of Appeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GLEN & JANE BEAUDET FOR VARIANCE AT 7 MEAD COURT & 9 MEAD COURT, SALEM page three • OCT q 2 51 '93 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 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 • • of Salem, 'fflttssadjusetts Q Pours of �ppeul �SS'9� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H.DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR A VARIANCES AT 13-13 1/2 MEADOW STREET (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, 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. The Board of Appeal,after hearing the evidence presented and at the request of the petitioner's attorney voted unanimously 4-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for Variances to allow this existing nonconforming lot containing two residential dwellings to be divided into two nonconforming lots. The property is located in a B-4 • district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE October 20, 1993 Francis X. Grealish, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. :Trty'; (Gita of -'�ttlem, � Httsstttljusetts • =, f . s �ottra ofpeal OCT q 2 51 P 3 CITY O CLERK'S MASS ;K S OFFICF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSE & ELISA DEMELO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 32 NORTHEND AVENUE (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held September 15, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen O'Grady and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, , owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to allow entry way to the basement to remain as is, entry way encroaches on the already nonconforming side setback. Property is located in the 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 the petitioners request. 2. The entry way is already existing and is not as close to the side property line as the existing dwelling. 3. This is the only feasible location the entry way. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSE & ELISA DEMELO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 32 NORTHEND 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. Existing structure shall remain as it currently exists. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit. Special Permit Granted September 15, 1993 \ Francis X. Grealish, Chairman Board of appeal r, o n� r m o L a -N N Cn D �= r T• � c,a ma cn w • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSE & ELISA DEMELO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 32 NORTHEND 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. CP) o n< Board of Appeal "u N cn LM om y �3: s mN � Cn • • my CIO (gitu of tzlem,' ttssttclluseHe • Pnttra of Appettl QUC y CITY O 3 zs Pyr '93 (''"j Ss DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NORMAND LEGERE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 13 OCEAN AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held July 21, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish, Jr. , Chairman; Stephen Touchette, George Ahmed and Stephen O'Grady. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear setback to allow construction of a deck in this single family district (R-1) 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 B-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 petitioners request. 2. The granting of the special permit would allow petitioner a fuller use of the property. 3. It would not be feasible to locate the deck in any other portion of the property. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NORMAND LEGERE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 13 OCEAN AVENUE, SALEM page two bg • carr or 3 is ; '93 4. The proposed deck would only encroach on the rear setback, itCwouldj�e meet all other setback requirements. �K'S OrIMc- gSS 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. The existing deck shall conform with 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 July 21, 1993 ` A George A. Ahmed, Secretary Board of appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NORMAND LEGERE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 13 OCEAN AVENUE, SALEM • page three A._a tiIL' 3 CITY OFgAl CLERi, � I HAS A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THES64176CE S 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 • • of . ttlem, C-ttssadjuscite • \:: �_ F Potts of �Appcal C 3 ?5 ph CL""X OFFICFSS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL R. MURPHY FOR VARIANCES AT 163 OCEAN AVENUE (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 21, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'Grady. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from lot size, coverage, front and rear setbacks to allow construction of an addition which will be used as a two car garage and for storage 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 proposed request. 2. The direct abutter sent a letter supporting petitioner's request. 3. The construction of the garage is a normal and customary use in a residential area. 4. This is the only feasible location for this garage addition. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL R. MURPHY.-FOR VARIANCES AT 163 OCEAN AVENUE, SALEM page two Ciry 3 zs p of �1 c4Fl?K S oFll Mss 93 On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the ev fdUttcespresented 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 building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector. 5. Exterior finished of the proposed construction be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. The addition is to be used as a garage and for storage only. VARIANCE GRANTED July 21, 1993 Francis X. Grealish, Chairman Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL R. MURPHY. . FOR VARIANCES AT 163 OCEAN AVENUE, SALEM page three Ale y cljy of 3 2S CORKS rbc ASS 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 of . ttlemHttsstt�l useti � c • b.. - F Puttra of �trpeal S4�fy 9� , C , qm� ocF��4ss DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL S DIANA LAMONTAGNE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 3 ORCHARD TERRACE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed, 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. Petitioners, , owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a roofed over porch which will extend the existing nonconforming front yard setback. Property is located in the 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 petitioners request. 2. A petition in favor, signed by ten (10) abutters and neighbors, was submitted. 3. The proposed construction will allow the petitioners a fuller use of their property. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL & DIANA LAMONTAGNE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 3 ORCHARD TERRACE, SALEM HO1P page two • C 1 0/.-Sq�3�Q/y ,9 S FH. O/�L yc�SS 4. This is the only feasible location for a roofed over porch. 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 are to be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to starting construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Special Permit Granted October 20, 1993 "✓C-!?iLL Ct,.✓ :' .rte'/zv 'tJL:-�� Francis X. Grealish, Chairman Board of appeal • • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL & DIANA LAMONTAGNE FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 3 ORCHARD TERRACE, 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 r i n z n H 6 rno w N L (c) r O,•r� W T9 n S �t N CO � 4T Ctu of $Nlem, 41assadjusetts • _F Ponrb of �upettl � o Nr O O O.Z � DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SNELL REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES AND SPECIE. N PERMIT AT 7 PARADISE ROAD (B-1) N A hearing on this petition was held April 21, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; George Ahmed, 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. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to alter nonconforming structure and use, and a Variance from parking to allow retail department stores within a shopping plaza -and other accessory uses located within a shopping plaza as provided in Art.V (5-2) (e) permitted uses in B-2 district. The property is located in the 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 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 SNELL REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 7 PARADISE ROAD, 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. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Ward 7 Councillor, Mark Blair spoke in favor of the petition. 2. The was some opposition to the petitioners plan. 3. Retail business has been at that location for many years. 4. To limit the petitioners only to the allowed B-1 uses would create a hardship as the structures, even as they currently exist, are more in harmony with a retail shopping plaza as opposed to the allowed uses in the B-1 district, which is the neighborhood business. 5. The property is located directly across from a B-2 district and borders a residential district. 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 safety shall be strictly adhered to. • � s a r mo t r �m o T 0 In � mn � Cn , ^ 11 W DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SNELL REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 PARADISE ROAD, SALEM • page three 5. Petitioners shall meet the requirement of all city boards having jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, the Conservation Commission, the Board of Health and the Planning Board. 6. Proper addresses shall be obtained from the City of Salem Assessor. 7. There shall be no pick ups or deliveries between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. , seven (7) days a week. 8. Dumpster is to be screened, as described by petitioner, with a six (6) foot high wood fence which is to be maintained in perpetuity. 9. Lighting in the rear of the buildings is to be done with sensitivity to the abutting neighbors and not directed towards the abutting properties. 10. The fence along that runs along Vinnin St. is to be repaired and maintained in perpetuity. 11. Landscaping is to be maintained along Maple Ave. , as per the plans submitted. 12. The exit across from Salem St. , is to be an exit only and a right turn only. • 13. A minimum of 258 legal, on-site parking spaces are to be maintained. 14. The parking variance shall not relieve the petitioner of their responsibilities with regard to the Americans With Disabilities Act. Special Permit and Variance Granted April 21, 1993 Francis X. Grealish, Jr. , Secretary Board of Appeal _4 27� 60 M a zt • 60 • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SNELL REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 PARADISE ROAD, SALEM page four 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 0 f r y A� �m 4th m'yf' N • of . ttlem, '�-Rttssadjusetts Noi, 3 0 • ..` ,.. .t. F �nttra of '�Aupeal C/Tr004 B3� yy . DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD A. VACCARO FOR VARIANCE AT 2 PAUL AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed, and Associate Member Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from rear setback to allow an existing 10' x 161 shed to remain as it presently exists. The property is a corner lot and 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 proposed request. 2. The shed currently exists on the site. 3. Petitioner is in need of the shed for additional storage space. 4. The property is a corner lot and there is no way to situate the shed on the property without violated setbacks. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD A. VACCARO FOR A VARIANCE AT 2 PAUL AVENUE, SALEM page two • 5. The shed is located in the most feasible location on the lot so as to provide sufficient distance from and structures belonging to abutters. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . 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. • 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector. George A. Ahmed, 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. m � Board of Appeal • Q IL •G W N =u rn W o J C�o Q N N Y W UJ (+') O W N J Y �U O V Z 01ity of '�klem, Ansondjusetts • % _, mss Paura of 'ck"Zzd hrpOTY.� n c. c n� c� �o> QwD it 'lT fPJJ faq,9 DECISION ON THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF VARIANCES GRANTED TO 24 SAUNDERS STREET (R-2) At a hearing held June 16, 1993, 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 February 25, 1994. Edward Luzinski, Member • Board of Appeal • (11tu of ttlem Httssttcl usetts 3� .. F Pnttra ofAppeal DECISION ON THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF VARIANCES GRANTED TO 3 SAVONA STREET (R-1) , OWNED AND OCCUPIED BY MARY CIVIELLO At a hearing held August 11, 1993, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to allow a six (6) month extension for Variances granted originally for the above property on July 22, 1992. Said extension shall be up to and including February 25, 1994. A copy of the original decision have been filed with the Planning Board and with the City Clerk. Edward Luzinski, Member Board of Appeal n-i H7 r'-) m o t+� �m to Ln r am N n. n S ma � w • of Salem, cmttssurijusetts �6 • Poara of �kppeal tG S DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR VARIANCE AT 0 SKERRY STREET COURT (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held December 1, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'Grady. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from lot size, frontage, side and rear setbacks, front yard depth and lot coverage to allow construction of a single family dwelling. The 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. The Board of Appeal granted a Variance for this same proposal on June 26, 1991, but unforeseen circumstances made it impossible for the petitioner to act on that Variance. 2. The petitioner demolished the hazardous building that was on the property in accordance with the previous decision. 3. There were two (2) petitions submitted to the Board of Appeal, one petition was in favor and one in opposition. There were some names that were listed on both petitions. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR A VARIANCE AT 0 SKERRY STREET COURT, SALEM page two • 4. Jose & Rose Martin, 5 Burnside Street, spoke in opposition, citing the loss of their privacy as their main concern. 5. Condition number 8 of the previous decision required the acquisition of an additional 310 sq.ft. of land from the abutting property, the petitioner was unable to comply with this condition until recently, this is was led to the prior decision having gone over the time requirement, thus forcing the petitioner to apply for a new variance. 6. The petitioners proposal will improve the neighborhood. 7. The proposed single family dwelling will be compatible with the other residential uses in the neighborhood. 8. The proposed single family dwelling is not detrimental to the R-2 zoning while the pre-existing commercial use was. 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. 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector prior to beginning any construction . 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained for the new dwellings y TO n 6. Windows are to be installed and limited to those shown on the p.rani submitted. 7. The petitioner acquire 310 sq.ft. of land from lot 153, owned-0 a_ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR VARIANCE AT 0 SKERRY STREET COURT , SALEM page three • Peter Copolas, Heritage Co-op Bank, Salem. 8. Proper street numbering be obtained by the Salem Assessor. 9. A six (6) ft. fence be maintained along the Martin and Sowelski property lines prior to commencement of construction. Variance Granted December 1, 1993 AStepn O'Grady, 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 n cQ cc^V a �ZZ r7n. Lo ® e ofpeal ttlem ttssttc! usetts �� D F J p� 1Pi� s DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHLEEN MCSWEENEY FOR VARIANCES AT 5 STODDER PLACE (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held December 1, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen Touchette and Stephen O'Grady. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Board of Appeal, After hearing the evidence presented and at the request of the petitioner voted unanimously 4-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for Variances from density and setbacks to allow existing pool, deck and shed to remain as is, in this • Residential Two Family (R-2) district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE December 1, 1993 Stephen Touchette, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • Ctg of , $Nlem, rfflttssadjusetts 8 M • ;'> _ Peara of �kppeal OEC ZO 3 05 X11 '93 CITY OF SALEM, MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MCDONALD'S CORPORATION (PETITIONERS) , HIGHLAND PLAZA REALTY TRUST (OWNERS) FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE CITY OF SALEM SIGN ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1-15 TRADERS WAY (B-2/ECOD) A hearing on this petition was held December 1, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish, Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen O'Grady 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 Law Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from the City of Salem Ordinance relating to Signs & Billboards Section 3-34 and a Variance from the size requirements in Section 3-45(e) (1) of the Signs & Billboards Ordinance to allow the erection of a freestanding sign. The property is located in the B-2 and the Entrance Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) The Zoning Board of Appeal may grant variances from the provisions of the Ordinance Relating to Signs & Billboards in specific cases which appear to • them not to have been contemplated by this Ordinance, and in cases wherein its enforcement would involve practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship upon a finding of the Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which do not generally affect other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Sign Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of this Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact. 1 . There was no opposition to the petitioners request. 2. There are a number of signs on the highway in that area. 3. The size of the sign is 103 square feet, exclusive of the decorative casing, which exceeds the 65 square foot maximum allowed under Section 3-45(e) (1) of the Sign Ordinance. • 4. The proposed sign is located within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MCDONALD'S CORP. (PETITIONER) , HIGHLAND PLAZA REALTY TRUST (OWNER) FOR VARIANCE at 1-15 TRADERS WAY, SALEM page two m ars. S. The petitioner will be relying heavily on the visual impact of this sign, o as there is no direct access to the subject property from Highland Ave. Cn w N Y 6. It is essential in an effort to reach prospective customers that the pro- � ow posed sign be larger that the 65 sq.ft. maximum allowed. a— r o7. To deny the petitioners the relief requested would result in substantial hardship as the proposed building will be only 2500 sq-ft and will be set back about 96 feet from Highland Avenue which will result in reduction in visibility of the building, thus creating a much needed reliance of the road sign. 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 Sign Ordinance would involve in substantial hardship to the petition. 3. The relief request can be granted without substantial detriment to the • public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the variances requested subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all City and State ordinances, statutes, codes and regulations. 2. Sign is to be erected and located in strict accordance with the plans submitted to the Board December 1, 1993. 3. Petitioner shall have the plans for the proposed sign reviewed and approved by the Salem Planning Board for Site Plan Review and the ECOD Signage Committee. 4. A Building Permit is to be obtained from the Inspector of Buildings. Variance Granted December 1, 1993 a 64"01 George A. Ahmed, Secretary • Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MCDONALD'S CORP. (PETITIONER) , HIGHLAND PLAZA REALTY TRUST (OWNERS) FOR VARIANCE AT 1-15 TRADERS WAY, SALEM page three C-n N UJ CT1 N y A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. OC: ua o J M ,N "'" , .cc Appeal from this decision if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17, of m o'MGL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of �—Llthis decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A. , o 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 • • b (1Lit of Salem, fflttssndjuszt#s ultra Of ral DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE HOUSE OF SEVEN GABLES SETTLEMENT ASSOCIATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 54 TURNER ST. (B-1/R-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 19, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen O'Grady, 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 nonconforming structure, the Visitors Center, by allowing construction of an addition. 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 House of Seven Gables is a registered National Historic Place and a Massachusetts Historic Landmark which attracts approximately 150,000 visitors per year. 2. The site consists of five (5) historic buildings, as well as the .Visitors Center, which is primarily a coffee shop and restrooms. 3. The Visitors Center was built several years ago to accommodate the then • PETITION OF THE HOUSE OF SEVEN GABLES SETTLEMENT ASSOCIATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 54 TURNER ST. , SALEM page two • approximately 25,000 visitors per year coming to the site. 4 . The Visitors Center is inadequate to handle the number of visitors presently coming to the site. 5. The proposed addition will include two audio/visual rooms to be used for "arm-chair" tours, as well as classrooms for visitors . 6. The proposed addition will include handicapped accessible restrooms. 7. Adequate and proper storage space for many historical artifacts will be included in the proposed addition. 8. The Ward Councillor sent a letter in favor of the proposal. 9. There is no proposed change in use. 10. There will be adequate on-site parking (74) spaces. 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. That any functions held at the site require all music stop by 9:30 p.m. and that all visitors be off the premises by 10:00 p.m. 6. That petitioner post signs on the site requiring all buses turn their engines off while loading and unloading passengers and while parked on site. • ✓j DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE HOUSE OF SEVEN GABLES SETTLEMENT r> ASSOCIATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 54 TURNER ST. , SALEM page three 7. Persons holding functions will provide a police detail as required. • 8. No more than twenty five (25) employees are to park on the site. 9. The lines of communication be kept open between the petitioner and the City of Salem relative to neighborhood issues. Special Permit Granted May 19, 1993 Francis X. Grealish, Jr. , 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 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 • a3 <b (1Zit ofITT ttlem, � Httssttdlusef • �.,` T_�. F -Pnttra of �upeal C0 Op 833 44 S 0," FESS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WALTER & FRANCES ABRAHAM FOR A VARIANCE AT 2 VALLEY ST. (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish Jr. , Chairman; George Ahmed, 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. The Board of Appeal, at the request of the petitioners voted unanimously 4-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Variance to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this Residential Single Family dwelling. • GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE October 20, 1993 AStepn Touchette, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. �= b flit of . ttlem, � ttssttcljusetts • \t,..e vS Poara of 'A peal Ci q '93 CITY OF SALEM. MASS CLERKS OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARGARET RIZZOTTI FOR VARIANCE AT 4 WINTER ISLAND ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held September 15, 1993 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen O'Grady 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 to divide the existing lot into two lots; Lot 1 containing the single family dwelling will contain approximately 6,112 sq.ft. ; Lot 2 will contain approximately 1,578 sq. ft. and is situated at the tip of the property. Lot 2 will be an unbuildable lot with the existing shade trees and vegetation remaining. • 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 proposed request, an abutter spoke in favor. 2. The petitioner and her late husband purchased the property in 1969 and the petitioner still lives there. 3. Petitioner has paid taxes on entire property since it was purchased. • 4. When petitioner tried to sell in 1989 it was discovered that a portion DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARGARET RIZZOTTI FOR VARIANCES AT 4 WINTER ISLAND ROAD, SALEM page two of the property referred to as lot 2 above and as lotr11on p an AbaJted had a clouded title, i.e. owners other than herself:. CLRK� i-zImS$ 5. Petitioner lost the prospective 1989 sale as she was unable to transfer clear and marketable title to the entire lot. 6. Petitioner has incurred substantial financial hardship in trying to clear the title to this portion of the land shown as lot 16 on the plan submitted to the Board and as lot 2 on schedule A of petitioner's request. 7. Petitioner would be required to go through lengthy and costly land court procedure to clear the title of this portion of the property if this variance is not granted, causing her additional hardship. 8. The lot referred to as Lot 16 on the plans submitted will not be a buildable lot. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. 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: I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. The petitioner shall obtain approval from the City of Salem Planning Board. 3. The lot referred to as lot 16 on the plans submitted and as lot 2 in schedule A attached to the application, shall not be a buildable lot. No structure may be placed on said lot. 4. The present and future owners of lots referred to as lots 12-15 on the plan submitted and as lot 1 on schedule A attached to the application shall continue to maintain said lot 16 on the plan submitted. George A. Ahmed, Secretary • Board of Appeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARGARET RIZZOTTI FOR VARIANCE AT 4 WINTER ISLAND ROAD, SALEM • page three Orr circ SeptemberVARIANCEGRA, ED 1993 CLFRKSSC FF,�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 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 •