Loading...
1994-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �oascA o C-4FPea�- �c�so�s \qq � Citg of . $Apm, 'Tassadjusetts Paurb of �u}renl n j c0 N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL & JOSEPHINE HARDY " W FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT,IAT IO. BARNES ROAD (R-1) � t A hearing on this petition was held March 16, 1994 with the followingu,8:oard Members present:' Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman; Gary Barretf,' Aubert Hill and Associate Members Nina Cohen and Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were Properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners,owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to allow construction. of an addition which will extend the existing nonconforming rear setback, the 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,. The granting of the special permit would allow the petitioners a fuller use of their property. 3': The proposed addition, which will serve as a family room and a laundry room, would only encroach on rear setback, all other setbacks would remain as they currently exist. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL & JOSEPHINE HARDY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 10 BARNES ROAD, SALEM page two • 4 . This in the only feasible location for the addition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The 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 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 March 16, 1994 Ste hen Touchette, Acting Chairman Board of appeal O a r 0 N ri0 DD i•T1 �f O rry Y -•t� N n> m> N L • D DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL & JOSEPHINE HARDY FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 10 BARNES ROAD, SALEM page three • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A. , and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A. , Section 11, the Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal n< a� x y, �GiD • o rm iw n3 M'> ::c L 1 !/34M Ctv of _iulem, 'Massadlusetts 3 9 :,ems �3onra of '�u}ieu! • FED B 3 09 Fii '9q CITY : lSS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL .BAF_ERRAGAMO, TR. FERRAGAMO FAMILY TR. FOR VARIANCES AT 7 CLARK ST. , 20RNES CIRCLE & 22 BARNES CIRCLE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held December 1, 1993 and continued until January 19, 1994 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 Variances to reconfigure the above three lots in order to create three buildable single family lots as follows: A variance from lot area from 15,000 sq. ft. to 11,400 sq. ft. and from lot width from the required 100 feet to 50 feet at 7 Clark St. A Variance from lot width from 100 feet to 59 feet at 22 Barnes Circle and from lot width from 100 feet to 66 feet at 20 Barnes Circle. • Before hearing the merits of this petition, the Board of Appeal has to consider whether or not there is substantial and material change from a previous petition which was denied by this Board on June 17, 1992. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented, and after receiving Consent from the City of Salem Planning Board, voted unanimously, 4-0, that there was substantial change, said change being the addition of land area from 5000 sq. ft. to 11,400 sq.ft. to 7 Clark St. The Board will hear the petition. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings 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: • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL FERRAGAMO TR. , FERRAGAMO FAMILY TRUST FOR VARIANCE AT 7 CLARK ST. , 20 BARNES CIRCLE 5 22 BARNES CIRCLE, SALEM page two Fta d 3 09 1. The plan submitted to the Board added a subs�ta�tdal; amoune cit' land to 7 Clark St. bringing the total land area to 11,406� �square:-•fe'efi'as opposed to the 5,000 square feet originally submitted to the Board. This original petition was denied by the Board of Appeal. 2. The two remaining lots, 20 Barnes Circle and 22 Barnes Circle will have the required 15,000 square feet of lot area and the frontage of these lots will remain as they currently exist. 3. The proposed use, single family house lots, is consistent with the existing zoning. 4. The existing neighborhood consists mainly of single family homes and a substantial number of these homes are on lots that are significantly smaller that the lots proposed by the petitioner. 5. The topography of the land is irregular and such irregularity does not exist generally in 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 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. The proposed lots shall be reconfigured in strict accordance with the plans and dimensions submitted with the original petition dated September 30, 1993. 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. Petitioner shall obtain the approval of the City of Salem Planning Board. • Ij DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL FERRAGAMO, TR. FOR VARIANCES AT 7 CLARK ST. , 20 BARNES CIRCLE & 22 BARNES CIRCLE, SALEM page two • 6 A pre-blast survey is to be conducted on Barnes CiMe,dBaAg AC�eni and Clark St. CITY ;,F „ �c Variance Granted January 19, 1994 Francis X. Grealish, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the • Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • of ;,Salem, '�Ettssacllusetts 3 9 %Q Poara of 'Avpeal • FEB B 3 09 circ ,,s C: _ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL FERRAGAMO, TR. FERRAGAMO FAMILY TR. FOR VARIANCES AT 7 CLARK ST. , 20 BARNES CIRCLE & 22 BARNES CIBCLE.)(R-1) ._�1 -1 A hearing on this petition was held December 1, 1993 and continued until January 19, 1994 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 Variances to reconfigure the above three lots in order to create three buildable single family lots as follows: A variance from lot area from 15,000 sq.ft. to 11;400 sq.ft. and from lot width from the required 100 feet to 50 feet at 7 Clark St. A Variance from lot width from 100 feet to 59 feet at 22 Barnes Circle and from lot width from 100 feet to 66 feet at 20 Barnes Circle. • Before hearing the merits of this petition, the Board of Appeal has to consider whether or not there is substantial and material change from a previous petition which was denied by this Board on June 17, 1992. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented, and after receiving Consent from the City of Salem Planning Board, voted unanimously, 4-0, that there was substantial change, said change being the addition of land area from 5000 sq. ft. to 11,400 sq. ft. to 7 Clark St. The Board will hear the petition. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings 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: • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL FERRAGAMO TR. , FERRAGAMO FAMILY TRUST FOR VARIANCE AT 7 CLARK ST. , 20 BARNES CIRCLE & 22 BARNES CIRCLE, SALEM page two F EBB 3 09 F;+ `9 1. The plan submitted to the Board added a sub �ahtgal,gmount �o5t' land to 7 Clark St. bringing the total land area to 11,40D square::fe'et `as opposed to the 5,000 square feet originally submitted to the Board. This original petition was denied by the Board of Appeal. 2. The two remaining lots, 20 Barnes Circle and 22 Barnes Circle will have the required 15,000 square feet of lot area and the frontage of these lots will remain as they currently exist. 3. The proposed use, single family house lots, is consistent with the existing zoning. 4. The existing neighborhood consists mainly of single family homes and a substantial number of these homes are on lots that are significantly smaller that the lots proposed by the petitioner. 5. The topography of the land is irregular and such irregularity does not exist generally in 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 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. The proposed lots shall be reconfigured in strict accordance with the plans and dimensions submitted with the original petition dated September 30, 1993. 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. Petitioner shall obtain the approval of the City of Salem Planning Board. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL FERRAGAMO, TR. FOR VARIANCES AT 7 CLARK ST. , 20 BARNES CIRCLE S 22 BARNES CIRCLE, SALEM page two • 6 A pre-blast survey is to be conducted on Barnes CirWe,8BaA0 A" and Clark St. CITY GF S Variance Granted January 19, 1994 j.� � � Francis X. Grealish, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the • Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal 0 01itg of �Szdem, 'Mttssadjusetts OQ POMra of kpveal Nov CITY OF $gLEM, M+15S CLERS'S vhcc DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEAN E. DENNIS FOR A VARIANCE AT 71 BAYVIEW AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held November 2, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 front setbacks to allow construction of a bay tower at 71 Bayview Avenue. This property is located in a Residential Single Family dwelling. (R-1) The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: I. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the • petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the proposed request. 2. The new construction will encroach on the existing front setback by 2 feet and 2 1/811. 3. The proposed construction would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioners. 2. The requested relief can be granted without substanial detriment to the • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JEAN E. DENNIS FOR A VARIANCE AT 71 BAYVIEW AVENUE, SALEM page two Nov I q ! 8{ public good and without nullifying or substantial erogat5n�fr2the intent of the district or the purpose of the OrdiaOF SA1 ERK'S OFFIf, Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to gf6t the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes, and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plalns and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire saftey shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variances Granted November 2, 1994 fir. a (�&/k) Gary M. Barrett 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 of Snlem, 'fflttssadjusetts 3 Q ' Pnura of �u Val `C�r�F llll�d, hsl C�,F�t,'S DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICK & CYNTHIA O'CONNOR FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 100 BAY VIEW AVE. (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held May 18, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, and Associate Member Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 two (2) story deck which will extend nonconforming rear setbacks, the 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. The granting of the special permit would allow the petitioners a fuller use of their property. 3. This is the most feasible location for the deck to be located. • r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICK & CYNTHIA O'CONNOR FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 100 BAY VIEW AVE. , SALEM page two • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. 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. S. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Special Permit Granted May 18, 1994 St�hen rady, Member 0:C:,;1 Board of appeal � -< -- mo c M� PK y b f O n1n W T= 1, F>X �. rn D r N t.L2 N y • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICK & CYNTHIA O'CONNOR FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 100 BAY VIEW 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 c n� r mo C aT N� r O= Y • na En cc (n L • Ctv of ttlem, C ttssttdjusetts ' a Pottra of Aupeal #A►' 2� • C/ry OF Ct e,tr,SSL f!fi/NfsS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES & KATHLEEN PICONE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 25 BEACH AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held April 27, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Associate Members Nina Cohen and Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners,owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a larger entry vestibule and small deck which will encroach on setbacks, the 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. The granting of the special permit would allow the petitioners a fuller use of their property. 2. There was neighborhood support for the petition. 3. There was no opposition to the request for a Special Permit. • 4. The proposed entryway & deck would be in harmony with the neighborhood. Mar 15 3 00 PN '94 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES & KATHLEEN PICONE CITY.OF SALE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 25 BEACH AVENUE, SALEM C�-[RK'$ OFF SALEM. MASS 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 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 April 27, 1994 Gary Barrette, Member Board of appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A. , and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A. , Section 11, the 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 *Iem, 'Massadjusetts M y1 OQ _ Paura Of �U�7fzi1 l AUG 19 9 39 4H 19q CITY OF CLERKSSLO FICCSS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT CUCURULL (PETITIONER) , EDWARD CANT.Y (OWNER) , FOR A VARIANCE AT 171 BOSTON STREET (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 17, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen and Associate Member Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner, Robert Cucurull, 109 Boston St. , Salem is requesting a Variance to allow the property to be used for auto body work, auto repair, spray painting and to store vehicles. The property is owned by Edward Canty and is located in the B-2 district. The petitioner requested leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice to allow him the opportunity to meet with the neighbors and • to re-apply at a later date. The Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant petitioners request for leave to withdraw this petition for a Variances without prejudice. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE August 17, 1994 Stephen O'Grady, Secretary Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • Ctu of , ttlem, 'fflassadjuse is /6 D Pours of Appeal c1tyOc. / 0,1 Pe • 04 FRKSS AFH/C AS 9y F DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN BRODERICK FOR A VARIANCE AT 16 BRADFORD STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held December 7, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill and Arthur LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from front setback to allow construcation of a dormer at 16 Bradford Street. This property is located in a (R-2) district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. • 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and .without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the proposed request. 2. The proposed dormer will allow the petitioner a fuller use of the property. 3. The proposed dormer would only encroach on the front setback. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioners. 2. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment of the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN BRODERICK FOR A VARIANCE AT 16 BRADFORD STREET, SALEM page two 3. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. is • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimouoyy O,�t�u" the variance requested, subject to the following conditiong�R'SL��+�A $S 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordil�nces, codes, and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Variance Granted December 7, 1994 • Stephen C. Touchette, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • \b Ctu of �ulem, �Hassadjusetts .,, , peal -. r M1 oy M-1 -i in DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR INGEMI FOR FOR A VARIANCE AT 29 BRIDGE STREET (B-2) o m A hearing on this petition was held September 21, 1994 with the fBllowin9 Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, #eplEn O'Grady, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, are requesting a Variance from front 5 side setbacks, lot coverage and parking to allow construction of an addition at 29 Bridge Street. This is in a B -2 Zone. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the • petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Mr. Dennis Dailey, 6 Waite Street, spoke in favor with exceptions: a. Present allowable patron occupancy will not increase. b. Only residential parking on Waite Street be allowed. c. Enclosure for the restaurant's outside cooler. d. Rear exterior of building to be painted. e. Corral shall be repaired. ' f. Kitchen exhaust shall be redesigned to substantially reduce airborne particle and exhaust fumes. g. Insert a barrier across the southern end of Waite Street to make it a dead end street. 2. Ward 2 Councillor Kevin Harvey spoke in favor of the petition. 3. Mr. Francis Bates, 4 Waite Street spoke in favor with the exception that parking was a major concern to him. 4 . Mr. Michael O'Brien, insurance broker for the petitioner, spoke in • CZ (7 r� m o an T DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR INGEMI n FOR VARIANCES AT 29 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM o page two ; • rn favor of the petition only that the building was an insurable piece LZ of property. (n -r- 5. 5. Ms. Evelyn Palardy, 25 Bridge Street spoke and presented a petition in opposition to granting a Variance to the Petitioner. 6. Ms. Sue Murphy spoke in opposition to granting the Variance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, 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 statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. A satisfactory site plan review and special permit issued by the Salem Planning Board is required, since this building resides within the entrance corridor to the city. 9. The existing corral on the east side of the building must be satisfactorily be repaired or replaced. 10. Fourteen (14) additional parking spaces must be leased from the owner(s) of 38 Bridge Street, Salem. (5 year minimum lease required) 11. Twenty-four (24) additional must be leased from the owner(s ) of property known as Lot Number 233, located at the corners of Waite and Ferry Streets, Salem, Mass. (5 year minimum lease is required) . 12. The kitchen exhaust will be redesigned to emit fumes above abutters properties and also eliminate airborne particle currently emitted from the kitchen exhaust. 13. Current allowable patron occupancy will not be increased. • n C= �T • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ARTHUR INGEMI FOR A _ VARIANCES AT 29 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM o } page three -T @ Variances Granted m n September 21, 1994 (n cn L Albert C. Hill, 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 • alto of *Iem, ��ttssttcljusetts 4.. Poara of �ku}ienl s2 PM '9q CITY OF SALEM, MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SPINALE, TRUSTEE FOR VARIANCE AT 34-381 BRIDGE STREET (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 15, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Stephen O'Grady and Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variance from use to allow the new addition to be used for automotive body repair. The property is located in the 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. The Petitioner submitted six (6) letters in support of this request. One of the letters was from Kevin Harvey, Ward Two Councillor. Body( 2. The building is to be used as a one bay automotive/repair shop. 3. There was no opposition to the request. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SPINALE, TRUSTEE FOR VARIANCES AT 34-381 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM • page two i On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evid441;re?e$2Xd1 9q at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: CITY OF SALEM, MASS CLERK'S OF rF 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject properFL�y but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 in favor of granting the variance requested (Mr. Hill voted in opposition) , 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. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. Variance Granted /� June 15, 1994 C�; Ste en C. Touchette, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal Qlity of ; 5nlem, �flassadjusetts aQ s Poarb of F1t�eu1 MAP 9q CITY OF SALEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND YOUNG FOR A VARIANCE AT 47 BRIDGE ST. (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held April 27, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, V. Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Associate Members Nina Cohen and Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from use and parking to allow six (6) residential units in this B-4 district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect • the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the 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 granting of six (6) residential units with insufficient parking would exacerbate an already congested area. 2. The petitioner to failed demonstrate or to meet the burden of proof relative to legal hardship. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND YOUNG FOR VARIANCES AT 47 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM /�Qr • page two .CITY o CI J? SAI F_Er, !{ On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence OFFrCCSS presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3 in favor 2 opposed ( Mr. Barrett, Mr. O'Grady & Mr. Labrecque voted in favor, Ms. Cohen & Mr. Touchette voted in opposition) to the motion to grant, having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED April 27, 1994 Nina V. Cohen, Associate Member Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE 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 • (I�itu of �ttlem, ��Httsstttllusetts oQ Poarb of (�vpe�E E9 C1TY OFSAI EM M4SS CLERKS OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE HERITAGE COOPERATIVE BANK FOR A VARIANCE AT 64 BRIDGE STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held January 19, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed, Albert Hill, 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, frontage 5 rear setback to allow parcel to be divided and to construct a single family dwelling on the newly created lot which is located in an R-2 zone. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this • Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner held the mortgage on t he land. 2. The petitioner foreclosed on that mortgage. 3. The value of the land is less than the mortgage. 4. The lot to be created has frontage on Skerry Place. 5. There was no opposition. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE HERITAGE COOPERATIVE BANK FOR A VARIANCE AT 64 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM page two F • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the eviddenf J& t1ed94 at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as followspITr O SAIF 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject5 -N p'ei MASS but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Hill was opposed) 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 proposed construction shall be done in strict accordance with 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 rear setback shall be no less than 10 feet. 5. The front setback shall be no less than 5 feet. 6. The north side setback shall be no less that 5 feet. 7. The garage shall be torn down. 8. The pine tree on the south boundary shall be removed. 9. The petitioner shall secure the approval of the Salem Planning Board. 10. The petitioner shall secure the proper street address. Variance Granted 7 January 19, 1994 Stephen Touchette, V.Chairman Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION THE HERITAGE COOPERATIVE BANK FOR VARIANCE AT 64 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM page three - FEB 3. CITY OF SyL�E�9. ,VwS A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING FBOARDFANDETHE 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 • Ctv of $nlem, �fflassadjusetts Pourb of �u{�eul • IF�B IS 3 CITY OF SALEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SPINALE, TRUSTEE FOR VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 34-38 1/2 BRIDGE STREET (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held January 19, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Francis Grealish, Chairman; Stephen Touchette, George Ahmed, Albert Hill 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 addition to be constructed as previously granted in a decision of the Board of Appeal dated July 21, 1993. The City of Salem made changes to the plan voted on and granted July 21, 1993 and eliminated some of the parking. Petitioner is also requesting a Special Permit to allow the addition to be used for auto repair and body shop and for storage, the property is located in a B-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 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 JOHN SPINALE, TR. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 34-38 1/2 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM page two • C. Desirable relief may be granted without kesaantjah ffitr4 ent to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogatitj from the intent of the district or the purpose of thePV?d'ina1YCe_p1. MASS CLERK'S CFFICF 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 request. 2. The Plans as submitted were changed at the request of the Planning Board, reducing the amount of parking spaces and adding landscaping. 3. The size of the addition has not changed. 4. The Board of Appeal felt the use could only be granted by a Variance not a Special Permit has requested. The prior use granted, namely retail and storage was allowed under Special Permit requests. 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 Variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 4. The Special Permit requested in not in harmony with the neighborhood or with the zoning district the property is located in and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted -4-1 Mr.-Hill opposed),to grant the Variance requested and accept the plans as revised and approved by the City of Salem Planning Board. All conditions of the previously granted petition shall remain in effect and are listed below with the exception of condition Oil & 016 which have changed as a result of the revised plans. 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, codes ordinances and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done per the revised plans and dimensions submitted January 19, 1994. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire • safety shall be strictly adhered to. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN SPINALE, TR. FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 34-38 1/2 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM • page three FEB 8 310 Ph 4. Petitioners shall obtain a building permit prior �U)cops.truction. NASS 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. .CRK S OFFIC 6. Parking is to be provided as 'per the plans submitted 1/19/94. 7. Exterior finishes of the proposed construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. The Board of Appeal voted 3 - 2 against the motion to grant a Special Permit to allow the addition to be used as an Auto body, repair and storage facility. (Members O'Grady, Ahmed & Grealish voted in favor of the motion, Members Hill and Touchette voted in opposition) The motion to grant having failed to garner the required four (4) affirmative votes fails to carry and the request for the Special Permit is denied. Variance Granted and Special Permit Denied January 19, 1994 Francis X. Grealish, 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 • of Salem, f` assadjusetts 3 • ' e �ottra of �upeal r+a -n T- W Ojl N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROSEMARY DIISSO FOR VARIANCE AT 1 BROOK ST. A/K/A LOST 118 & 120 BROOK ST. (R-3/R-2) A hearing on this petition was held February 16, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman, George Ahmed, Stephen O'Grady, Albert Hill and Associate Member Nina Cohen. This hearing was continued until the March 16, 1994 meeting and the following Members were present: Stephen Touchette, Albert Hill, and Associate Members Labrecque and Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 petitioners Attorney, Francis T. Mayo, voted unanimously 5-0 to grant petitioners leave to withdraw • this petition for Variances from lot size and setbacks to allow construction of a single family home with an in-law apartment. Property is located in a Residential Two Family (R-3/R-2) district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE March 16, 1994 , a L (,iiir.J Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • of $Ulem, �Nttssarljusetts a s Poura of �kFpeal CITY OF S>tfl.4• 9ASS CLERK'S 0I.FICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY (PETITIONERS) , DEAN BOUCHER (OWNER) REQUESTING ELIMINATION OF PREVIOUSLY IMPOSED REQUIREMENTS OF A SPECIAL PERMIT AND AN ADDITIONAL SPECIAL PERMIT AT 73 BOSTON STREET. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held February 16, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Vice Chairman; George Ahmed, Albert Hill and Associate Member Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 are requesting the removal of the owner occupied condition on a decision dated July 24, 1985 which allow property to be converted to a three family and to reduce the number of parking spaces from seven (7) to four (4) . Petitioner is also requesting a Special Permit to allow an existing deck that encroaches on side setbacks. The property is located in the R-2 district and is owned by Dean Boucher. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to • this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans. makes the following findings of fact: 1. The reduction of the parking requirement would impact the neighborhood. 2. The proposal as submitted would have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY (PETITIONERS) , DEAN BOUCHER FOR ZONING RELIEF AT 73 BOSTON ST. , SALEM page two r ". On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on thelevaden:ce,F presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: ,CiE�th 1. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted one (1) in favor (Mr. Ahmed) three (3) in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit is denied. Special Permit Denied February 16, 1994 1 Albert C. Hill, Member Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MCL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • of LSalem, fflttssadjuse'V ar16 ovQ Paura of �u}iettl c�Ty L9 -F S DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEAN & KIM BOUCHER FOR VARIANCE AT 73-75 BOSTON STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held April 27, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman; Stephen O'Grady, Gary Barrett, Associate Members Nina Cohen and Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting Variances from density regulations to allow property consisting of two residential buildings to be divided, there will be no change in use. Property is located in the 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. On July 24, 1985, the Board of Appeal granted a Special Permit to allow the property at 73 Boston St. to be converted to a three (3) family dwelling. One of the conditions of this granting was that the building be owner occupied. 2. June 6, '1989 the Board of Appeal granted variances to allow construction of a four (4) unit residential building and garage with ten conditions. • 3. February 16, 1994 the Board of Appeal denied the request to have the DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEAN & KIM BOUCHER FOR A MAY 26 8 yg fief 'gq VARIANCE AT 73-75 BOSTON STREET, SALEM CITY OF SALEM. I4ASS page two CLERK'S OFFICE owner occupied condition which was placed on the decision granting three • (3) units at 73 Boston St. removed and to have the condition that seven *(7) parking spaces be maintained at 73 Boston St. be removed. 4. The present request is to allow the property to be divided into two (2) lots, 73 Boston St. remaining a three unit structure which will have the required five (5) parking spaces and 75 Boston St. will remain a four unit structure and will maintain the eight (8) parking spaces as required in the 1989 decision. 5. The Salem Housing Authority, the petitioner for the February 16, 1994 decision which was denied, may become the owners of 73 Boston St. 6. There is an easement from Putnam St. through 75 Boston St. , allowing vehicles access to and from 73 Boston st. , said easement is a deeded right of way and is properly recorded at the Registry of Deeds. 7. A petition signed by eight (8) neighbors and abutters was submitted. in favor. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions 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 in strict accordance with the plans and dimensions submitted. Variance Granted April 27, 1994 Nina V. Cohen, Member Board of Appeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEAN & KIM BOUCHER FOR A VARIANCE AT 73-75 BOSTON 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 n a n� � r ran, O a:.n ND Co r • l L. N � L • J of Salem, �Kttssadiusetts • 3oQ ' Pnppra ofrr}renl FE8 8 09 Ph '9q CITY OF SALEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFIOE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AMY NEWTON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 123 1/2 BOSTON ST. (B.�2) A hearing on this petition was held January 19, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed, Albert Hill, 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 Special Permit to allow construction of an addition which will extend the existing nonconforming side setback, the property is located in the B-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 granting of the special permit would allow the petitioner a fuller use of her property 3. The proposed addition would only encroach on one side and would be no closer to the lot line than the existing structure. Addition would • conform to all other setback requirements. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AMY NEWTON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 123 1/2 BOSTON ST. , SALEM page two • 4. This in the only feasible location for the addition On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the eviCllirrde�ce,�pyesep 171 C�ed, 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 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. 7. A Certificate of Inspection be obtained for the beauty shop. Special Permit Granted January 19, 1994 JD / aow) Step en O'Grady; Member Board of appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AMY NEWTON FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 123 11/2 BOSTON STREET, SALEM page three FEB 8 3 0g M '94 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANRVg%, iOq&D�A"0 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 • of Salem, Attssadjusetts Pnttra of �k}rpeul • SEP ( 8 27 AN 'N CITY OF SALEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL & CHERYL GAMBALE FOR VARIANCES AT 27 BUENA VISTA AVE. (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held August 17, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen and Associate Member Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a variance from side yard setback to allow construction of a pool deck in this R-1 zone. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would • involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the petition. 2. The granting of the petition will provide the petitioners a fuller use of the property. 3. This is the most feasible location for the deck to be placed. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL & CHERYL GAMBALE • FOR A VARIANCE AT 27 BUENA VISTA AVE. ,SALEM SEP 1 8 27 All '94 page two CITY OF SALEM. MASS On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence pfesented0FFICE at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All 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. A building permit is to be obtained prior to beginning any construction. Variances Granted August 17, 1994 / Q Stephen C. Touchette, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • (Ilitg of , ttlem, 46ttssucIlusetto �ntsra of ��enl • 4� SEr I 8 29 qH 94 CITY OF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DARLENE GALLIEN CI F"ESSICFW'� ;ASS FOR VARIANCES AT 130 CANAL STREET (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 17, 1994 with the following, Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen and Associate Member Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variances from front and side setbacks to allow construction of a greenhouse, plant patio and stairs in this B-2 district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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. Petitioner owns a commercial building at 130 Canal St. in a B-2 zone where an equipment rental business is currently located. Petitioner intends to set up and operate a retail fruit and flower market in this building. 2. The petitioner seeks a variance to allow her to install a greenhouse on the Canal Street side of the property, and to erect a stairway and plant patio at the building's front entrance. 3. The petitioner submitted a letter signed by the abutters and other Canal St. business operators in support of the petition for variance. 4. There was no opposition to the petitioner's request. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DARLENE GALLIEN FOR VARIANCES AT 130 CANAL 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 follow,JSP�ss 11 s7cK36Arks 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. `CITYIDT 'S 'LPKt.'r*AS$ CLERK'SJOFf ICE 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All 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 prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. • 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall make every effort to put into effect the addition of parking spaces on the northern border of the property. Variances Granted August 17, 1994 (/J/� 2 Co en, ember Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the 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, 'Mttssadjusetts e Ponrb of '�kppeal %it 19 � 3� • CITY of S S pFF CE S DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CARL D. GOODMAN FOR A VARIANCE CLERK AT 220 CANAL STREET (R2) A hearing on this petition was held December 7, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen Albert Hill 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 for a change in use for the property located at 220 Canal Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings 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. Speaking in favor of the petition: Peter Carter - Real Estate Broker; Crown Goodman. e. Speaking in opposition to the petition: Darius & Donna Matczak, 224 Canal St. James & Jane Gammon, 212 Canal St. Stella Tardiff, 222 Canal St. George & Doris Beauregard, 216 Canal St. William & Helen Dixie, 222 Canal St. Oscar & Yvette Ouelette, 218 Canal St. Collette Corny, 226 Canal St. William Fiore, 226 Canal St. Laurie Anderson, 222 Canal St. 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. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CARL D. GOODMAN FOR A VARIANCE AT 220 CANAL STREET (R-2) page two • subject property and not the district in general. DfC �9 � 3s . � 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordd F ��44f p� 9 would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. T S oFFJAF ss 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 opposition to the Variance from residents on both sides of 220 Canal Street. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 0-5 in opposition to the motion to grant the Variance, having failed to garner the required votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED December 7, 1994 Albert C. Hill, Jr. • 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 • Ctv of .'Salem' 4-fassadlusetts M • oe s Poarb of 'tArpeal 44 Z 9 04 AR CIC`FRKS$ oF,:�fEss DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GREGORY KAPOGLIS FOR VARIANCES AT 9 CHERRY HILL AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held July 20, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen 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 Variance from lot size and frontage to allow construction of a single family dwelling. Property is located in the R-1 district, Residential Single Family. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting • other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the petition. 2. The petitioner submitted architectural plans showing a single family dwelling that he proposed to build on the site. The proposed dwelling meets all zoning requirements as to front, rear and side setbacks. 3. The proposed dwelling does not meet zoning requirements as to lot size and frontage. 4 . An abutter, Mr. Rouleau of 7 Cherry Hill Ave. expressed concern that the neighbors be forewarned of any blasting that may take place on the site, and that such blasting be done in a manner to put the adjacent properties at least risk. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GREGORY KAPOGLIS FOR VARIANCES AT 9 CHERRY HILL AVENUE, SALEM • page two QpC y p 5. An abutter, Mr. Garette of 5 Cherry Hill Ave. , stated"'he2woui(94Q�'.4 oentrance bjection pbevfollowed.the architectural plans, which stCogya01frJ,,4tEMfaccing CLERK'S OFFICE 6. The Ward Councillor, Leonard O'Leary, stated he had no objections provided the abutter's concerns were addressed by the property owner. 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 variances requested, subject to the following conditions: • 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done in strict accordance with the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. A pre-blast survey is to be done if there is any blasting required. 5. A Building Permit is to be obtained prior to beginning construction. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Variances Granted July 20, 1994 Nina V. Cohen, Member Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GREGORY KAPOGLIS FOR VARIANCES AT 9 CHERRY HILL AVENUE, SALEM • page three AUG 2 9 24 QM ' J A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNIVIA06PD AND THE CITY CLERK SALEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • Olitg of Salem, �fflttssacljusetts ,,Q� �onra �f �ppenl • SEP I 29 Qlf 19q DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOAN MASON C' CLERK,S0, MASS OMASS FIC, FOR VARIANCES AT 13 CHESTNUT STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 17, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen and Associate Member Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variances from lot size and frontage to allow single family dwelling to be converted to a two family dwelling in this R-2 District. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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. Petitioner submitted a petition with twelve (12) signatures from abutters that were in favor. 2. The petitioner can provide the required three (3) on site parking spaces. 3. Three (3) people spoke in favor including Councillors Hayes and O'Leary. 4 . There was no opposition to the petitioner's request. 5. It is not economically feasible to maintain the property as a single family. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEAN MASON FOR VARIANCES AT 13 CHESTNUT STREET, SALEM • page two SEP 8 ?8 AH , 9q On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence prgsignted at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: Cvn SA1EM. �{qgS lE J S`OffiCE 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 4. petitioner is to maintain three (3) on site parking spaces. • Variances Granted August 17, 1994 Stephen O'Grady, Sec etary 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 • Ctu of �$ttlem, 'Tassadlusetts 364 � �ottra of �p}iettl FEB 8 3 os PH '9q CITY OF SA11;F9. H4SS C!ERK's OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL FERRAGAMO, TR. FERRAGAMO FAMILY TR. FOR VARIANCES AT[7 CLARK ST 7j 20 BARNES CIRCLE & 22 BARNES CIRCLE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held December 1, 1993 and continued until January 19, 1994 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 Variances to reconfigure the above three lots in order to create three buildable single family lots as follows: A variance from lot area from 15,000 sq.ft. to 11,400 sq. ft. and from lot width from the required 100 feet to 50 feet at 7 Clark St. A Variance from lot width from 100 feet to 59 feet at 22 Barnes Circle and from lot width from 100 feet to 66 feet at 20 Barnes Circle. • Before hearing the merits of this petition, the Board of Appeal has to consider whether or not there is substantial and material change from a previous petition which was denied by this Board on June 17, 1992. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented, and after receiving Consent from the City of Salem Planning Board, voted unanimously, 4-0, that there was substantial change, said change being the addition of land area from 5000 sq.ft. to 11,400 sq. ft. to 7 Clark St. The Board will hear the petition. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings 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: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL FERRAGAMO TR. , FERRAGAMO FAMILY TRUST FOR VARIANCE AT 7 CLARK ST. , 20 BARNES CIRCLE & 22 BARNES CIRCLE, SALEM • page two FEa 8 3 09 PN `9I 1. The plan submitted to the Board added a substi�ntia15 amodnt-ec�E' land to 7 Clark St. bringing the total land area to 11,400 @ggar'eSfere`t�`es opposed to the 5,000 square feet originally submitted to the Board. This original petition was denied by the Board of Appeal. 2. The two remaining lots, 20 Barnes Circle and 22 Barnes Circle will have the required 15,000 square feet of lot area and the frontage of these lots will remain as they currently exist. 3. The proposed use, single family house lots, is consistent with the existing zoning. 4. The existing neighborhood consists mainly of single family homes and a substantial number of these homes are on lots that are significantly smaller that the lots proposed by the petitioner. 5. The topography of the land is irregular and such irregularity does not exist generally in 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 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. The proposed lots shall be reconfigured in strict accordance with the plans and dimensions submitted with the original petition dated September 30, 1993. 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. Petitioner shall obtain the approval of the City of Salem Planning • Board. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL FERRAGAMO, TR. FOR VARIANCES AT 7 CLARK ST. , 20 BARNES CIRCLE & 22 BARNES CIRCLE, SALEM page two• pp p��6 A pre-blast survey is to be conducted on Barnes CizfSPe,8BaAAPX uh�@ and Clark St. CITY OF SALLM. 14ASS Variance Granted CLFRK'S OFFICE January 19, 1994 Francis X. Grealish, 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 n0 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 • Ctq of Salem, C�EttssadjuBetts 3oQ.: s �uttra of peal JULJUJI IE g jz 4dy'94 CICCICr`€(�K�4 Efl>4nSS S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH MARTEL FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 10 CLOUTMAN STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 15, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Albert Hill and Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Board of Appeal at the request of the petitioner voted unanimously 5-0 to grant petitioners leave to withdraw this petition for a Special Permit to allow existing deck that extends nonconforming side setback and Variance to encroach of rear setback. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE June 15, 1995 Step en C. Touchette, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • altu of '-Salem, fflasoncl usetts �uttrD of �p}�enl SEP 13 8 4s AH '94 CITY OF SALEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD V. FRISONE FOR A VARIANCE AT 43 CLARK STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held August 17, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen 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 frontage to allow property to be divided and to construct a single family duelling on each lot. Property is located in the Residential Single Family Zone. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings 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 Lo 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 f'ndings of fact: 1 . Although one neighbor spoke in opposition to the request, several neighbors, including abutters appeared in support. 2. Most of the property in the surrounding neighborhood has less than the frontage required by the zoning ordinance and the requested variance would be in keeping with the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD V. FRISONE FOR VARIANCES AT 43 CLARK STREET. , SALEM page two 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the • public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. _C� cn nH � 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4' '� 4. A building permit is to be obtained prior to beginning any MI Cn construction. o?n r 9:r LM 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. n x a Lo N 6. Petitioner shall obtain Planning Board approval for the proposed L subdivision of the subject property. 7. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. • Variances Granted August 17, 1994 � Gary M. Barrett, Vice Chairman ( J 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 • Ctu of ttlem, 4RUSSUCIjuSPtfs c>K n o C73 S �oarb of �kuCn enl 0M DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN E. ZIELINSKI FOR M A VARIANCE AT 8A CLEVELAND ROAD EXT. (R-1) N LS L A hearing on this petition was held September 21, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from side and rear setbacks to allow a shed at 8A Cleveland Road Extension. This is a Residential Single Family District (R-1) . The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the • petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition in this matter. 2. One neighbor Janet Puleo, 6A Cleveland Road Ext. spoke in favor. 3. This will allow petitioner a fuller use of the property. 4. No other location would be feasible for the shed. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, 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 statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. ' 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEVEN E. ZIELINSKI FOR A VARIANCE AT SA CLEVELAND ROAD EXT, SALEM page two • 3. All construction shall be done as per the plan and dimensions submitted. r< 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any—T'. Cr) construction. ' ut cn r c rry H Variances Granted September 21, 1994 m a Cn � y Stephen O'Grady, 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 • CLERK'S OFFICEJJ Ctu of Salem, Mason C11usetts ' a • >�,, Pours of �kppeai CLEI?ii,S O FtSs DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR BABY FOR A VARIANCE AT 12 CLEVELAND STREET (R -1) A hearing on this petition was held September 21, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a variance from use,lot size and frontage to allow parcel to be divided and to construct a two family dwelling. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. • 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to petitioner's application to divide his lot and construct a two-family dwelling. 2. A letter signed by several abutters was submitted in favor of the petition. 3. John Donahue, City Councillor for the ward in which the property is located, argued, in favor of the petition that the proposed residence would enhance value of the surrounding homes and remove a vacant lot. • DECISION ON -THE PETITION OF ARTHUR BABY FOR VARIANCES AT 12 CLEVELAND STREET. , SALEM page two • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence ,Tse�t.,d „ at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: U JJ 0 A#'J 9a 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject'property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. A building permit is to be obtained prior to beginning any construction. • 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner shall obtain frontage waiver from the City of Salem Planning Board. Variances Granted September 21, 1994 Nina V. Cohen, Member Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR RABY FOR VARIANCES AT 12 CLEVELAND STREET, SALEM page three ��,,„ • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNIN�`'�BOAA&D tNpp H TY CLERK CLERK CITY OF SA;Ey, SS Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant Ito�'S 'ec£ onCl'7 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 , $alem, CTttssadjusetts Poura of �upenf • FEB 8 3 10 PH '9.q CITY OF SALEM,EM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM AND SALLIE CASS FOR A VARIANCE AT 92 COLUMBUS AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held January 19, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed, Albert Hill, 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 Variances to allow a temporary boat shelter in this R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition. 2. Removal of the shelter would expose the unfinished boat to the elements. 3. One abutter spoke in favor of the petition. 4. Petitioner has been unable to complete the boat as originally scheduled due to financial constraints and it becoming a larger project that originally estimated. • 5. There have been no complaints received regarding this shelter. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM AND SALLIE CASS FOR VARIANCE AT 92 COLUMBUS AVENUE, SALEM page two FEB 8 3 10i4 '9�l On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the CeViedence9LPmsAnte at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows IERK'S OFFICE 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. The temporary boat shelter is to remain as per the original plans. 2. A building permit is to be maintained. 3. This variance shall expire on May 1, 1996 Variance Granted • January 19, 1994 kl Stephen C. Touchette, V. Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal of 'inlem, Ausondjusetts Pourb of nl e� � 9 211 PH '94 CITY OF SALEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN C. MOUSTAKIS FOR A VARIANCE AT 23 DEARBORN STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held November 2, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 front and side setbacks to allow a storage shed at 23 Dearborn Street. This property is located in a R-2 District (R-2) . The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the • petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the proposed request. 2. Sally Hayes, the Ward 6 Councillor, wrote a letter in favor of the petition. 3. The petitioner is faced with the hardship of lifting and carrying his snowblower and/or lawnmower up the steep cellar stairs. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, 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 statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimension submitted. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN C. MOUSTAKIS FOR • A VARIANCE AT 23 DEARBORN STREET, SALEM page two 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 prior to beginning any construction. Variances Granted November 2, 1994 cz Stephen Touchette, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City • Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of .Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal n x 0 m o ao ND � om � T S C'1 X I'1 D y LO N L • `'� f1Zit of $Ulem, Attssadiusetts M Paura of I�FVeal JUN cry 3 3 07 PM '9�1 CLfRKSALEa, HqSS or•�Icc DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JENNIFER & JONATHAN REARDON FOR VARIANCES AT 142 DERBY STREET (B-1) A hearing on this petition was held May 18, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman; Stephen O'Grady, Gary Barrett, Albert Hill and Associate Member Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting Variance from parking to allow the use of the first floor of the building as a retail use. in this B-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would • involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the petition. 2. Two people spoke in favor of the petition. 3. The first floor of the property was formerly used for business. 4. The petitioners will be selling gift items, greeting cards, etc. 5. Petitioners will rely on walk-by pedestrian traffic. • G DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JENNIFER & JONATHAN REARDON FOR A VARIANCE AT 142 DERBY STREET, SALEMp� page two F v� On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented y at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1- -7 U, • 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the'provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 9 A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. Variance Granted May 18, 1994 Step�hette, Acting 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 owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal M • �. Olity of $Ulem, 'Massadjusetts Q s Ponrb of �u}ienl �f N t" O DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BARRY JOHNSON FOR A VARIANCE N L AT 58 ENDICOTT STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held April 27, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Associate Members Nina Cohen and Arthur LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. At the request of the petitioner, his request for a Variance to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling has been granted leave to withdraw by a unanimous vote of the Zoning Board of Appeal. VARIANCE WITHDRAWN April 27, 1994 • Stephen O'Grady, Memtier Board of Appeal • • DECISION I • • LOCATION: 58 Endicott St. i PETITIONER: JOHNSON, Barry 58 Endicott St. Salem, MA. DATE FILED: May 11, 1994 ( 1tv of Salem, 'Tassadjusetto :,ems s Poara of �u}�eal AUG carr 1 9 24 Qfi 13, GLERKSSLOFFIHESS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF REBECCA ANTOINE FOR A VARIANCE AT 69 ESSEX STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 27, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Albert Hill and Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Board of Appeal at the request of the petitioner voted unanimously 5-0 to grant petitioners leave to withdraw this petition for a Variances from use and parking to allow retail business in this Residential Two Family District. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE July 27, 1995 • v� (Iwo) Stephen C. Touchette, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • of . ttlem, � ttssttcljusetts 3 Paura of '�npeul • bFQ 35 CIT" CI_CRPS S OFF CESS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SUN CHA KIM FOR A VARIANCE AT 107 FEDERAL ST. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 16, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, V. Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill and Associate Members Nina Cohen and Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from use and parking to allow former variety store to be converted to a single bedroom apartment in this R-2 district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect • the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the 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 vigorous neighborhood opposition. 2. No one spoke in favor. 3. The petitioner to failed demonstrate or to meet the burden of proof relative to legal hardship. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SUN CHA KIM FOR VARIANCES AT 107 FEDERAL ST. , SALEM page two • SPR �9 2 36 fA '94 CITY OF SALEM- MASS On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on th@L19V!8erW'GE presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot 'be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 2 in favor 3 opposed ( Mr. Touchette, Mr. Labrecque voted in favor, Mr. Hill, Ms. Cohen & Mr. Barrette voted in opposition) to the motion to grant, having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED March 16, 1994 Nina V. Cohen, Associate Member Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE 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 • b (gitu of �Sttlem, ttsstttljusetts� F P • -, .- uarb of ' v T CCf DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE ESTATE OF MELVIN GOODMAN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 124-124 1/2 FEDERAL STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held December 7,1994 after having been continued from November 2, 1994. The following Board Members were present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill 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. At the request of the petitioners Counsel, Daniel J. Casey, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a special permit to allow a single family dwelling to be converted into a two family dwelling. Granted leave to withdraw without prejudice. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE December 7, 1994 Stephen C. Touchette, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • (Gita of . ttlem, 'T. Ussndlusetts Pours of Aupenl • n-c � o DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD URBANOWICZ s �R FOR VARIANCE AT 1 FLYNN STREET (R-1) L A hearing on this petition was held April 27, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman; Stephen O'Grady, Gary Barrett, Associate Members Nina Cohen and Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from rear setback to allow construction of an addition. Property is located in the R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the petition. 2. The granting of the variance requested would allow the petitioner a fuller use of the property. 3. The proposed addition would encroach on the rear setback only. 4. This is the only feasible location for the requested addition to be placed on the site. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD URBANOWICZ FOR A VARIANCE AT 1 FLYNN 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 in strict accordance with the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire • Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4 . A Building Permit is to be obtained prior to beginning construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new addition shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Variance Granted April 27, 1994 \ Step en Touchette, Acting Chairman Board of Appeal n O m • 63 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD URBANOWICZ FOR A VARIANCE AT 1 FLYNN STREET, SALEM page three • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal o � r -- no nN r orn o � c.n • N L • oftt1Pm, CussttcljusPtts %Q s Potts of �kpveal • SEP I 8 27 GH '94 CITY OF SALEM, MASS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CONTRACT ENGINEERING CLERK'S OFFICE FOR VARIANCES AT 7 FRANKLIN STREET. (B-1) A hearing on this petition was held August 17, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen and Associate Member Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners are requesting variances from use, density, setbacks and parking to allow existing structures to be demolished and to construct a new building to be used for light manufacturing. The property which is located in the B-1 district is currently owned by the National Grand Bank. The petitioners are under a Purchase and Sale Agreement. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings 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 existing structures are vacant and dilapidated. 2. The petitioner proposes to demolish the existing structures and replace with a new structure. 3. The petitioner conducts a light manufacturing business involving the precision crafting of machine parts for the semi-conductor industry. 4. The petitioner is currently operating the business in Beverly. 5. There is currently six (6) employees, all would have on site parking. 6. Petitioner receives inventory shipments approximately once a month and customer deliveries involve small packages requiring the use of a pick up truck. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CONTRACT ENGINEERING, INC. FOR VARIANCES AT 7 FRANKLIN STREET. , SALEM •' page two CC Qp 97 7. The lot is narrow making it difficult to place the buildi�Y�Pland c3`e8fe�� 19� the required number of parking spaces. CITY OF SALEM. MASS 8. The petitioner proposes to use essentially the same footprintLasKtheFrlCE existing buildings on the lot. 9. The proposed use is less intense than previous uses and fits with the other commercial and industrial uses in the area. 10. The Ward 6 Councillor, Sally Hayes, and the Ward 4 Councillor, Leonard O'Leary spoke in favor. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the, Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the • variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted with the exception that the front of the building be no closer to the lot line than shown on the plans. 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. A building permit is to be obtained prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Any drainage problems will be addressed, especially with respect to the abutter at 96 North St. 8. The petitioner shall install sidewalks in front of its premises in conjunction with the Planning Department and consistent with he improvements of the abutter, Merit Oil Corp. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CONTRACT ENGINEERING, INC. FOR VARIANCES AT 7 FRANKLIN ST. , SALEM page three • Variances Granted August 17, 1994 EP 27 A� �j Com, =1 1. SS) Ste en C. Touchet£e. fCh'aii-E—mr,F 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 • • Ctu of Salem, � ussucliusetts c ���� 4..� �oara of ��ettl cyo � so�yti DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES & PAULETTE PULEO FOR VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 5 FREEMAN ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held May 18, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman; Stephen O'Grady, Gary Barrett and Associate Member Nina Cohen. Member Hill was present but excused himself from the proceedings because of his personal relationship with the Petitions. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 and Special Permit to expand and extend side setback to allow the rebuilding of a screened in porch and a deck. 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 CHARLES & PAULETTE PULED FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 5 FREEMAN ROAD, SALEM Gy page two • 0 l��t v 9 C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the<^y public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. cFgs y s 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 proposal. 2. Neighbors of the petitioners and abutters to the subject property appeared in support of the petition. 3. The porch and deck to be constructed by the petitioners will be identical to one which previously existed on the site and which was removed by the petitioners upon learning that said porch and deck encroached upon side yard setback. 4. The only physical exterior change to the structure to be constructed will be that a portion of the porch and deck will now be screened. 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 CHARLES & PAULETTE PULED FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 5 FREEMAN ROAD, SALEM page three n • 4. Petitioners shall obtain a building permit prior to constructi .0 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 0 6. Exterior finishes of the proposed construction shall be in harmony �itth the existing structure. 9 IX N Variance and Special Permit Granted May 18, 1994 Gary M. Barrett, Member Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not • take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry 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 of �Salera, f flassadjusetts ''4 ' �nttrD of �p}tettl �o Cn om o T� T• a DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM S JEAN CHIGAS FOR A m n a VARIANCE AT 4 FRIEND STREET (R-2) cn L A hearing on this petition was held November 2, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 front setback to allow construcation of a dormer at 4 Friend Street. This property is located in a (R-2) district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the • petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the proposed request. 2. The change will not alter the existing foorprint of the dwelling. 3. The proposed change will allow the 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 Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioners. 2. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment of the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & JEAN CHIGAS FOR A VARIANCE AT 4 FRIEND STREET, SALEM page two 3. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property • but not the district in general. 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 statues, ordinances, codes, and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Variance Granted November 2, 1994 • Com' C�/ /"e-A3 Albert C. Hill 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. o M o Ln Board of Appeal u,a C1D o;� o MM T• � F;Y s mn N c.o • N L ofttlem, ttssttcljusetts • �nttra af �r1�t{tettl .IAN $ 8 34 CITY OF SALEM, MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN P. KEANE FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING AT 26 GARDNER STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held December 7, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen and Arthur LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notice of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners are requesting an Administrative Ruling in accordance with MGL 40A, Section 8, concerning property at 26 Gardner Street. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following finding of fact: 1. Petitioner sought to demonstrate that the property at 26 Gardner • Street had been used and occupied as.a three family dwelling at the time the Salem Zoning Ordinance was passed, in 1965. 2. No physical evidence was offered in support of the petitioner's allegation. The property owner, John P. Keane, stated that the building contained 3 separate apartments when he purchased it in 1979. He further represented that no building permits were issued for any new construction on the property, except for roof repair work, between 1965 and 1979. 3. Thomas Crane, who resides at 38 Gardner Street, stated that he had known the provious occupants, the Cloutier family, during the 1960's and that he had entered the house many times during that period. He stated that the house was wued at the time as a two family dwelling. 4. Richard Dion, who resides at 23 Gardner Street stated that he too had known the previous occupants and had entered the house during the 1960's when he was living at his current residence on Gardner Street. He stated that the house was used during that period as a two family dwelling, with members of the family occupying room on three floors. 5. Three other abutters, Richard Reed of 16 Cabot Street, Ann Sylvester of 18 Cabot Street, and Susan Dion of 23 Gardner Street stated that it was their belief that Mr. Kean's property was first occupied as a three family dwelling after he became the owner. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN P. KEAN FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING AT 26 GARDNER STREET (R-2) page two Therefore, based on the above findings of fact and on evi p s ntt��e__d -the • Salem Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to dettleLiiBners request for an Administrative Ruling regarding the legal effi 8f SthLE»roger y. CLERK'S OFFICE Nina Cohen 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 x 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 day 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 , $Zdem, 4Httssadjusetts Bnttra of E'kupettl JUN 29 2 52 PH '94 CITY OF SALEM, MASS CLERK'S OFFICF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD MARDEN & DARLENE JOHNSON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 GLENDALE STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held June 15, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, and Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners,owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a deck which will extend nonconforming rear setbacks, the 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. The granting of the special permit would allow the petitioners a fuller use of their property. 3. This is the most feasible location for the deck to be located. 4. According to the plans submitted the deck will be constructed a a height of two (2) feet from ground level. Jun 19 2 52 PH 19q CITY OF SALEM Hass DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD MARDEN AND DARLENE JOHNSON CLERK'S OFFICE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 GLENDALE 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: • 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 June 15, 1994 Nina V. Cohen, Member Board of appeal AN 19 2 52 PH N CITY OF SALEM, MASS CLERK'S OFFICF. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD MARDEN AND DARLENE JOHNSON FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 GLENDALE 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 �'''„��°`� (11itu of �tzlem, ��Husstttllus'etts.. e 10 ( ` , ' PuttrD of � peal OCT 48 4H CITY OF SALEM, MASS, CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MAXINE BOCK FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 50-52 HIGHLAND AVE. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held September 21,1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 professional office at 50-52 Highland Ave. Property is located in the R-2 zone. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, • extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner sought to offer the professional services of her husband, Martin Bock, as an acupuncturist licensed by the Massachusetts Board of Medicine, in their home at 50-52 Highland Avenue. 2. Petitioner represented that all acupuncture services will be offered during normal business hours of 9:00 to 5:00 weekdays. 3. Petitioner further represented that patients will enter the petitioner's home through a door on the Highland Avenue side of the building. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MAXINE BOCK FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 50-52 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM page two 4. Any signage on the structure will be designed in cooperation with the • Planning Department's ECOD Sign Committee, in accordanc�], it�r the requirements of the Entrance Corridor Overlay Zone Ordina c "CIT. M On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidenl p' resentp the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: �`Etck'S'0F1GF� 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to starting construction. • 4 . A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. A Certificate of Inspection is, to be obtained. 6. Approval of the City of Salem Entrance Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) be obtained for any signage. Special Permit Granted September 21, 1994 ✓Y�:e�� C L r. 1 Nina V. Cohen, Member Board of appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MAXINE BOCK FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 50-52 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM page three • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BO& 41) THE OT'Y'54 CLERK CITY 0: CLERK'S Oi t iCE 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 • • '''�,. Titu of Salem, �usendjusetts i � . Pottra of �{r}teal • `�~ Nov Meal PN `9q CITY OF SALEM, MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GARY A. NADEAU D/B/A A-1 AUTO ANNEX FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 296 HIGHLAND AVENUE (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held November 2, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen, Gary Barrett, Albert Hill and Associate Member Joseph Ywuc. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 use of the property as a used car lot. Property is located in the B-2 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and • for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans. makes the following findings of fact: 1. Specific and material changes to original plan were needed in order to rehear. The only change was a reduction of parking spaces, from 25 to 15 and to add landscape work. 2. No specific and material changes were presented for USE, which was the basis for special permit. Prior decision was denied based on use. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GARY NADEAU D/B/A A-1 AUTO ANNEX FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 296 HIGHLAND 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 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. 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, three (3) in favor, two (2) , Mr. Barrett and Nina Cohen in opposition to the motion to grant the special permit. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit is denied. Special Permit Denied November 2, 1994 Stephen O'Grady, 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 or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal nH ms a to ,y • �'" '�. f1�itu of Salem, 'Tassadlusetts j,Q Pottra of �' • M Penl `� duc 1 9 24 CITY OF CLERK'SFFI LOCEM ESS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GARY A. NADEAU D/B/A A-1 AUTO ANNEX FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 296 HIGHLAND AVENUE (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held February 16, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen 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 the use of the property as a used car lot. Property is located in the B-2 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: • Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans. makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner failed to file a set of accurate, scaled drawings showing the proposed use of the site. 2. The petitioner failed to provide evidence that the request could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of • the district or the purpose of the ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GARY NADEAU D/B/A A-1 AUTO ANNEX FOR A • SPECIAL PERMIT AT 296 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM page two Auc Z 9 24 AH '9q On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the 6Nt4eAe%ALEM MASS presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: CLERK'S OFFICE 1. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, three (3) in favor, one (1) , Mr. Barrett in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit is denied. Special Permit Denied July 20, 1994 • Stephen C. Touchette, 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 or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal (Gita of . ttlem, '-ttssadjusetts •,4 ' 33nttra of (�u{�ettl Q,, p Sze 4B ,34 CITY OF CLERK 4S OC L FIHESS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLOTTE MADSON FOR VARIANCE AT 2 HILLSIDE AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held July 20, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen 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 Variance from rear setback to allow construction of a screen porch which will be one story high. Property is located in the R-1 district, Residential Single Family. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting • other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the petition. 2. Two people spoke in favor. 3. The proposed addition of a screened porch will allow the petitioner a fuller use of the property. 4. Due to the configuration of the lot and location of the dwelling, the porch could not be located in any other location. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLOTTE MADSON FOR • VARIANCE AT 2 HILLSIDE AVENUE, SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, ando h{� evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as laY AILEM, MASS bS OFF1ir . 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 variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done in strict accordance with the plans and dimensions submitted. • 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. A Building Permit is to be obtained prior to beginning construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new addition shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variances Granted July 20, 1994 Stephen C. Touchette, Chairman Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLOTTE MADSON FOR VARIANCE • AT 2 HILLSIDE AVENUE, SALEM page three h 2 7ru A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARIPt�DORgS CFA TY CLERK �FRK�S F )FSS 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 . $Aem, �-Nttssadjusetts " a Panra of �u{renl mo m a-n �N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF OLDS VILLAGE MALL REALTY TRUST o m v FOR VARIANCES AT 400 HIGHLAND AVENUE (BPD/ECOD) T 3 n2 A hearing on this petition was held July 20, 1994 and continued unti4? Jq1j, 27, 1994. Board Members present at the July 27, 1994 meeting were: `S'tepfren Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting Variances from use, maximum lot coverage, parking requirements, and all other requirements so as to permit the premises to be used for all B-2 purposes as set forth in the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance and to allow the proposed retail mall to be constructed as per the plans submitted in this BPD zone. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting • other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner notified all abutters of this hearing by certified mail and presented the return receipts for the Board's review. 2. The site is presently in a dilapidated condition in that there remains a vacant, rusted steel shell structure from a previous owner as well as debris and overgrown weeds which cover the lot. 3. The petitioner purchased the site in 1993 at a foreclosure auction from a local bank. 4. Hillary J. Rockett, Trustee of the Petitioner Trust, owns, manages and has developed several properties, both commercial and residential, throughout the North Shore. • 5. The site, which fronts directly on Highland Avenue Route 107, directly abuts a development of residential condominium homes. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF OLDE VILLAGE MALL REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES AT 400 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM " c page two • mo m �T 6. Approximately 15 cond6minium owners were present at the hearinand all spoke in favor of the petition. A petition containing sev �l w dozen signatures of other condominium owners and abutters, all 4nt —� favor of the proposed development, was also submitted to the Bg�d. -u No one spoke in opposition. m n (n Lp N L 7. Leonard O'Leary, the Ward 4 Councillor, was present at the hearing and spoke in favor of the petition as being a benefit to the neighborhood. 8. Prior to this hearing, the petitioner has met several times with the Association of condominium owner to successfully address their concerns regarding this project. As a result, several mitigation measures will be implemented by the petitioner including the submittal of an application for a new curb cut on Highland Avenue, landscaping and screening between the site and the condominium development. 9. The petitioner undertook an exhaustive study, with the help of profes- sionals, in determining that the best way for this site to be developed was commercial development. 10. Under the present BPD zone regulations, manufacturing, warehousing and wholesale distribution are allowable uses, each of which would likely have a greater negative impact on the abutters. 11 . The proposed development of this site includes a single story 'IL" • shaped building of approximately 45,000 square feet for commercial use. 12. The petitioner intends to lease retail and commercial space in the proposed development to create a "convenience" type of strip mall as allowed in B-2 districts. 13. The premises, prior to being rezoned to the present BPD District, was zoned B-2, as most of Highland Avenue remains zoned today. 14. The fact that the premises are directly abutted by a large condominium development of one side with the highway and steep ledge on the other sides, creates special circumstances affecting this J and. 15. The petitioner agreed with a request of the neighbors "that as a con- dition of approval, thee petitioner be required to obtain permission from the State and any other authorities that access and egress to the site be directly from Highland Avenue. 16. The proposed development, when completed, will add jobs and tax revenue to the City, and will help beautify an important property along the entrance corridor into the City, which is in keeping with the stated goals of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2 X DECISION ON THE PETITION OF OLDS VILLAGE MALL REALTY TRUST FOR C, VARIANCES AT 400 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM r t page three rn o m :X)rn N� W 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance qu%d -J involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. F,_ rn> 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment towyrth� public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done in strict accordance with the plans and dimensions submitted and varied by further conditions. 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. A Building Permit is to be obtained prior to beginning construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. • 6. A Certificate of Inspection for each business is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner must obtain the approval of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District Committee. 8. Petitioner must obtain the approval of the State Department of Public Works for access and egress from Highland Avenue. 9. Petitioner must obtained approval of and adhere to all conditions of Site Plan Review. . Variances Granted July 27, 1994 Step en O'Grady, Membd'r Board of Appeal • n C DECISION ON THE PETITION OF OLDE VILLAGE REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES AT 400 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM M0 m • page four M� R N> W r N O; ms N �p A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND TRE 6TY 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 • Ctu of , ttlem, usstzcliusetts �iIP M t oQ s PuttrD of �kupeal s�F �ic�ss '9fi s DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CAMP LION OF LYNN FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (BPD) A hearing on this petition was held May 18, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman, Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Albert Hill and Associate Member Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 petitioners Attorney, Joseph M. Sano, voted unanimously 5-0 to grant petitioners leave to withdraw this petition for a Special Permit to allow Camp Lion of Lynn to transmit signals of the existing tower currently used by Warner Cable. Property is located in the (BPD) zone. • GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE May 18, 1994 Nina V. Cohen, Member Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • Ctq of ,5alem, fflassadjusetts M - ;'e ' Pottra of �u}reul ;• n< N r � cry Y, ";" rQ N Ln o m �p N L DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GLORIA RILEY FOR VARIANCE AT 247 JEFFERSON AVENUE (B-1) A hearing on this petition was held April 27, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman; Stephen O'Grady, Gary Barrett, Associate Members Nina Cohen and Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from rear & side setbacks to allow construction of an addition. Property is located in the R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the petition. 2. There was a petition in favor signed by six (6) neighbors and abutters submitted to the Board. 3. The proposed above ground pool would encroach on the rear & side setbacks only. 4 . Due to the topography of the land, which is hilly, this is the only feasible location for the pool to be placed on the site. • Na DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GLORIA RILEY FOR A y 25 3 oo PH °3qGary OF EQ AT 247 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SALEM fLEQ l,I� r�rtSS • 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 in strict accordance with the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. • 4. A Building Permit is to be obtained prior to beginning construction. Variance Granted April 27, 1994 Gary M. Barrett, 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 Ctu of intem, {` assadjusetts ' a -vee Pourb of '�ku}Tenl APR 19 2 36 PH '94 CITY OF SALEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF 5 READ STREET REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES AT 280 JEFFERSON AVENUE (B-1) A hearing on this petition was held March 16, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman; Albert Hill, Gary Barrett, Associate Members Nina Cohen and Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from use to allow property to be used as a dance studio. Property is located in the B-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was neighborhood support for this petition. Two neighbors plus two Councillors, Mr. McCabe and Mr. Donahue spoke in favor. 2. The petitioner submitted a petition signed by twenty four (24) neighbors and abutters in favor of this request. 3. The petitioner meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with regards to parking for this specific use. 4. The property is currently a variety store/sub shop with beer and wine license and the proposed use will be a much more passive use. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF 5 READ STREET REALTY TRUST VARIANCE AT 280 JEFFERSON AVE. , SALEM page two nn • 5. The granting of this variance would eliminate deli'vr.0 trflqq cBS,f§du@1gster trash pick-up and will reduce customer traffic in theC�-Fp% S4It1 f n C L F R S GF. I/"1• 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 in strict accordance with the plans and dimensions submitted. • 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 5. The front door only shall be used as the entrance and exit. Tirg rear door is to be used for emergency only. " -;;o n� 6. A Building Permit is to be obtained. ^o =a Variance Granted " e March 16, 1994 Albert C. Hill, Member Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF 5 READ ST. REALTY TRUST AT 280 JEFFERSON 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 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 4 A �X rt • • ""�. (Gitu of Salem, 'Tassadjusetts M 10 ( j2Q �9 POttia Of �Upeat Nov 17 IO 59 AN °95 CIiY pI SALEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FREDERICK J. MCINTIRE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16-18 JUNIPER AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held November 15, 1995 with the following Board Members were present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill and Associate Member Joseph Ywuc. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. At the request of the petitioner, Frederick J. McIntire, the Board of Appeal voted 4-1, to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Variance to convert a (2) two family dwelling into a (3) three family dwelling for the property located at 16-18 Juniper Avenue. Granted leave to withdraw without prejudice. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE November 15, 1995 v Stephen C. Touchette, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. Appeal from this decision,if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • of Salem, cmasendjusetts �ottra of �upeai JUN 19 PH '9q CITY Of SALEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN H. RONAN FOR VARIANCES AT 274 LAFAYETTE STREET (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held June 15, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill and Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 side, rear, lot size and distance between buildings to allow the fire damaged carriage house to be demolished and rebuilt. Property is located in the R-3 zone. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by • this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the petition. 2. The petitioner represented that his immediate neighbor at 276 Lafayette St. , was in support of his proposed reconstruction. 3. The Salem Historic Commission has reviewed the plans and have given their approval. 4. The existing carriage house is in disrepair as a result of age and a fire that damaged parts of the interior and the roof. 5. The proposed structure will be used as a garage. JUN?9 2 53 PM 19q DECISION OTHE PETITION FJOHN H. N FOR CITY ERSALEAf, VARIANCES AT274LAFAYETTESTREET, SALEMK'S OFFICEpage 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 variances requested, subject to the following conditions: • I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done in strict accordance with the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Historic Commission. 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. A Building Permit is to be obtained prior to beginning construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new addition shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Final Approval be obtained from the Salem Historic Commission. Variances Granted June 15, 1994 Nina V. Cohen, Member Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN H. RONAN FOR VARIANCES AT 274 LAFAYETTE STREET, SALEM page three JUN Z9 2 51 Y OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARDCft0THE49 FlnASS 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 • arty of $Ulem, �Na55UC1ju9ett62 o • ' ;.. �: r POMtb 0{ � eal mo m r c m r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ENRICO TASSINARI FOR :2 s A VARIANCE AT 73 R LAWRENCE STREET (R-2) n> � cry � L A hearing on this petition was held September 21, 1994 with the following Board Members' present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, are requesting a Variance from lot size and frontage to allow property to be sold as a buildable single family lot at 73 R Lawrence Street, Salem. Property is in a Residential Two Family Zone (R-2) . The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would • involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no oppsition in this matter. 2. Only lot size and frontage are short; all other set backs meet requirements. 3. This is the most feasible solution for the usage of land in question. 4 . Owner took title to property in May 1983 and had an understanding that it was a building lot. 5. This will conform to the neighborhood in a R-2 district. • c; o n r • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ENRICO TASSEL m o m FOR VARIANCES AT 73 R LAWRENCE STREET, SALEM n N page two �^ = c r; On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence pre9ente(d at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 t3 rant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: m co C- 1. 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Need to file a waiver from frontage from subdivision control law. 6. Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors office and shall display said number so to be visible from the street. • Variances Granted September 21, 1994 �J Stephen O'Grady, 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 CtU of Salem, rRassadjusettz Pnttra of �upeal �5 � ` DECISION ON THE PETITION OF 3AYNE L. FALLIS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 37 LIBERTY HILL AVE. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held February 16, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Vice Chairman; George Ahmed, Albert Hill, Stephen O'Grady and Associate Member Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 a professional office (acupuncture) in this Residential Two Family District. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits • for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the 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 substantial neighborhood opposition. 2. There is a school in the area and the neighbors expressed concern with the increase in traffic. 3. The proposed use would have a negative impact and would not be in harmony with this residential neighborhood. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAYNE L. FALLIS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 37 LIBERTY HILL AVE. , SALEM page two PEAR 10 3 oG ph 13q On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evfdih Si LEA; y, presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: CURK'S OfoFICE�SS 1. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5 in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit is denied. Special Permit Denied February 16, 1994 // Step�2y Memz Board of Appeal • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal of �Ulem, &9ttssadjusetts 3 �Vnttra of (�upeal #9I /(j city cr 3 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHILIP J. O'KEEFE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 81 LINDEN STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held April 27, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Associate Members Nina Cohen and Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner,owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side & rear setbacks to allow construction of a deck. The 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 granting of the special permit would allow the petitioners a fuller use of their property. 3. This is the most feasible location for the deck to be placed. • Ar 10 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHILIP J. O'KEEFE C17y3 21 P11 X94 FOR AtSPECIAL PERMIT AT 81 LINDEN STREET, SALEM C�fF SS pA114ASS pag• 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 are to be strictly adhered to. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to starting construction. Special Permit Granted April 27, 1994 AtephenOlrady,GMem(ber 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 (gitu of Iem, � ttssttelju$etts Poarb of (�u}Tettl Jun 19 2S2P1� C' �sz���szRP�'19� C/�I OF SSCFF�C�s9� CERK,S FMI-lc p S DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MERTHON, GUSTAVO, ANA 6 CAROL MANON FOR A VARIANCE AT 36 LORING AVENUE (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June \15, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Albert Hill and Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 petitioners Attorney, Henry A. Lucas, Jr. voted unanimously 5-0 to grant petitioners leave to withdraw this petition for a Variance to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this Residential Two Family • District. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE June 15, 1995 01)0 Stephen C. Touchette, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • �"��'°�. f�it� of .�ttlem, ��ttssttcljusetts 3oQ Pourb of cku}Teal JUi � 8 32 AN '94 CITY OF S, DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ESTHER REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES AT 72 LORING AVENUE (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 15, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, and Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variance from use and parking to allow the second floor of the premises to be used as a self-defense studio. Property is located in the B-2 zone. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting • other lands, buildings 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 letter from Ms. Marilyn Maguire, 81 Loring Ave. was received and read into the record, expressing her opposition and citing increased traffic and parking and her concern with safety. 2. The petitioner will provide parking on the adjacent lot which he owns. 3. This is a use that is not specifically addressed in the Salem Zoning Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property • but not the district in general. JUL 1 8 33 An -9q DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ESTHER REALTY TRUST FOR CITY OF SALEM MASS • VARIANCES AT 72 LORING AVENUE, SALEM CLERK'S OFFICE page two 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0 to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: I. 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. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 4. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. Variances Granted • June 15, 1994 rev �, � Albert C. Hill, 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 ° atty of . ttlem, � ttssttdi se is a Paura of C�'FPEZd CITY OF SAM !?ASS CLERK'S Of DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WENDI GOLDSMITH FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 MALL STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 15, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Albert Hill, and Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a second story on an existing nonconforming single story addition. Property is located in the R-2 zone. The -provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: • Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of 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 petitioners need the additional space to grow as a family. 3. The proposed construction of a second level in the most feasible way to obtain additional space. • 4. Property will remain a .single family. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WENDI GOLDSMITH • FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 MALL STREET, SALEM page two JUL 5 1108 AN '94 CITY OF SALEM, MASS On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the eMi0ehbeC0rd8^&nted, 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 4-1 (Mr. O'Grady opposed) 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 is to be obtained. 7. No business operations are to be allowed out of dwelling. Special Permit Granted June 15, 1994 4Sten O'Grady, S retary Board of appeal • • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WENDI GOLDSMITH FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 MALL 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 4OA. , Section 11, the Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • � c � r n� r m o tf z� "!N _ N o m o w T• m 7 2 3 m> N C0 N L • (Gitn of . ttlem, f agsacljusetts 3 , aQ_.. Ponra of (�upenl l�Ug CITY OF Snt DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT BOUCHARD FOR A VARIANCE rLERr,S OFF:,MASS AT 31 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held April 27, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen 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 Variance from front yard setback to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this single family district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. • b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the 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 and counsel were advised that there were only four (4) Board members present and it would take a unanimous voted to grant their request. They were given an opportunity to continue this petition until the following week or to withdraw without prejudice and return at a later date. 2. Councillor O'Leary, Ward 4, spoke in favor of the petition. 3. The immediate abutter, Cheri Anderson, 35 Marlborough Road, spoke in opposition. She represented to the Board that she had purchased the property from the petitioners and that they were told the property had been denied a variance. Also expressed her concern regarding the closeness of the proposed dwelling to her • home. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT BOUCHARD FOR VARIANCE • AT 31 MARLBOROUGH ROAD, SALEM page two 4. There is no record on file indicating there has ever been any Board of Appeal action on this property. 5. A letter from the Zoning Enforcement Officer, Leo E. Tremblay, grandfathering this property was read into the record. 6. The parcel in question is a corner lot thus having two front yard setbacks to meet. 7. The 26'x 36' single family dwelling proposed by the petitioner will encroach to within six (6) feet of both Marlborough Road and Michael Road. 8. The petitioner to failed demonstrate or to meet the burden of proof relative to legal hardship. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance • would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted three (3) in favor one (1), Ms. Cohen, in opposition to the motion to grant, having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED July 20, 1994 Gary . Barrett, Vice Chairmanc c Board of Appeal � m O _X- -J" '7 y (n w rnr is Y t� 3 �2 ma ur co y L DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT BOUCHARD FOR VARIANCE AT 31 MARLBOROUGH ROAD, SALEM page 3 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 • Tn corm � ern s (Gita of ,$Ulem, �Hassadlusetto 3 Poarb of cc ppeal � MGR 10 3 06 PM `9�1 ily OF snLffs, "Ss C CL[RK's O.-C7ICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H. DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR A VARIANCE AT 13 - 13 1/2 MEADOW STREET (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held February 16, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, V. Chairman; George Ahmed, Stephen O'Grady, Albert Hill and Associate Member Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances to allow property to be divided and a variance from minimum parking requirements in this B-4 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect • the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings 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: 4 . The petitioner to failed demonstrate or to meet the burden of proof relative to legal hardship. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF H. DREW ROMANOVITZ FOR VARIANCES AT 13 - 13 1/2 MEADOW STREET, SALEM page two of jrt � On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the &V11 ' 4�at��i;� k,_". presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3-2, Mr.O'Grady, Mr. Touchette, Ms.Cohen voted in favor, Mr.Ahmed & Mr. Hill voted in opposition to the motion to grant, having failed to garner the -required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED February 16, 1994 • Albert C. Hill, 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 MGL CHAPTER 40A AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFIC"c 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 • (gity of `$Ulem, 'Mttssadjusetts • ja _ Poura of �ppeal 11 -5 Q CITY OF Sn4EM. MASS CLCRK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GABRIEL ROSSI JR. , TR. FOR A VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 73 NORTH STREET (BPD) A hearing on this petition was held September 21, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Stephen O'Grady, Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 and Special Permit to expand nonconforming structure and a Variance from parking at 73 North Street. The property is located in a BPD 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 OF THE PETITION OF GABRIEL ROSSI JR. , TR. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 73 NORTH STREET, SALEM page two ICIT 5 � t42, �9 q9 • "CITY OF S7,:LE'IX. ;A&5;$ C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment toK the S .0FFll''`E public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. This is a re-filing of a petition already granted in 1988. 2. The only change in the construction plans is the material being used for the walls. 3. There was no opposition to the petitions. 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. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GABRIEL ROSSI JR. ,TR. FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 73 NORTH STREET, SALEM • page three MCT .J 9 '4'a ,AN 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. CITY OF SALEM, MASS 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. CLERK'S OFFICE 8. Petitioner shall display the street number so that it is visible from the street. Variance and Special Permit Granted September 21, 1994 \ Stephen Touchette, 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 • of Salem, 'Tassadjusetts Poura of t "� • e4,, Av m o m ;K N y Cd r om � mn DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MERIT OIL CORPORATION y L FOR VARIANCES AT 90 NORTH STREET (B-1/ECOD) A hearing on this petition was held June 15, 1994 continued till July 20, 1994 and continued again until July 27, 1994. Board Members present at the July 27, 1994 meeting were: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting Variances from rear and side setback requirements to replace existing structures, tanks, canopy and to allow a third curb cut. The property is located in the B-1/ECOD district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting • other 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 vocal opposition to the petition. 2. The petitioner was cooperative and amenable to addressing the concerns raised by interested citizens and representatives of the City at the public hearing. 3. Correspondence was received from Owen Meegan; Staley McDermet, William Luster, City Planner; and Gary Jerome, Construction Supervisor for Merit. 4. Merit has agreed to remove the now existing billboards on the property. 5. Merit has further agreed to submit its proposed signage plan for review • and approval to the Entrance Corridor Sign Review Committee. 6. Merit has agreed to install a stockade fence on the property. 2 . m O py DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MERIT OIL CORPORATION FOR N • VARIANCES AT 90 NORTH STREET, SALEM H n W page two n; J _T• --M 7. Fire Inspector was in favor of the increased curb cut on North eet as requested by the petitioner for safety reasons having to do wroth L traffic concerns on North Street and in and out of the station. 8. Merit has agreed to work with the Planning Department to assure that the trees to be planted along Franklin Street are similar to others in the area. 9. Merit has reduced the northernmost curb cut on North Street to 30 feet, and it has maintained a 40 foot southernmost curb cut on North Street. 10. Merit has agreed to lay concrete sidewalks along North and Franklin Streets abutting its property. It has further agreed to install a handicapped ramp at the corner of North and Franklin Streets, and to further install curbing along Franklin Street to maintain a sidewalk of five feet in width. 11. The City Planner suggested petitioner plant trees along the North Street side of its property. Merit objected to said suggestion for safety reasons as the trees might impact visibility and ingress and egress. 12. The requested third curb cut will be used by tanker trucks making fuel • delivery to the station, and will be utilized for cars exiting on Franklin Street. This will have a positive impact on traffic safety. 13. The placement of certain telephone poles affects the petitioners ability to change the placement of its requested curb cuts. 14. The petitioner has agreed to several other details in the layout of its station as set forth in a letter dated June 28,1994 from Gary Jerome to the City of Salem Planning Department, Zoning Board of Appeal and Fire Prevention and a letter dated July 22, 1994 from Gary Jerome to William Luster. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the • variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. n g. C!~ • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MERIT OIL CORPORATION FOR VARIANCES ` m AT 90 NORTH STREET, SALEM a To page three N Fla ca r 2. All construction shall be done in strict accordance with the ns And dimensions submitted and varied by further conditions. n z a m n, ua 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. A Building Permit is to be obtained prior to beginning construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 7. Concrete sidewalks shall be installed along North and Franklin Streets. 8. Where handicapped ramp is being installed at corner of North and Franklin Streets, petitioner shall lay new curbing to allow for five foot wide sidewalks. 9. Petitioner shall submit to the Entrance Corridor Overlay District Committee for approval of any and all proposed signage on the property. 10. In addition to the landscaping reflected on the plans submitted, • petitioner shall plant 4-5 trees along the Franklin Street side of the property at the perimeter of the station. 11. Fence is to be wooden stockade. 12. Petitioner will investigate the feasibility of using concrete berms in the station around landscaped areas. Variances Granted July 27, 1994 Gary9. Barrett, 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 °�. (gitu of Salem, cmassadjusetts Paura of e�ppenl • �Qw... To .� CIT�Y!OF.S'P LEC1,:f�•5155 CCF.RK'S UFIGC DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHRISTOPHER ZORZY FOR A VARIANCE AT 115 NORTH STREET (B-1) A hearing on this petition was held September 21, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, the prospective owners of the property, are requesting a use Variance to permit the street level of the structure located at 115 North Street to be used as an office, showroom for windows and siding and for storage of carpentry materials in a B-1 zone. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. • 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the requested variance. 2. The premises is currently being used as a retail establishment for the display and sales of televisions. 3. There will be no warehousing storage of materials on the property. 4. There will be no carpentry work performed on the property. 5. The proposed use would be similar in nature to the use currently on site. 6. The surrounding area have retail establishments of substantially the same nature as the proposed use, and the proposed use would be in keeping with the neighborhood. • oALFH, HAS6 CLERpS OFFICE* DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHRISTOPHER ZORZY FOR VARIANCES AT 115 NORTH STREET, SALEM page two • 7. The property has the benefit of off street parking. OCT 5 9 41 GN 9q CITY OF 8. The petitioners intends to repair the exterior facade of the sVLu R Sed H KESS 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. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioners. 2. The requested relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. • 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. A building permit is to be obtained prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner shall pave the driveway and parking lot of the subject property. 9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board, and its Entrance Corridor Overlay District Sign committee for approval of any and all signage to be displayed on the property. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHRISTOPHER ZORZY FOR VARIANCES AT 115 NORTH STREET, SALEM page three Variances Granted September 21, 1994 (OCT Gary M. Barrett, 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. Board of Appeal • • ofttlem, � Httssttdiusetts qG c Poara of �upeal y If 6 c of 46 �Fi FQSS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN D. SPINALE FOR VARIANCES AT 0 NORTH PINE STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 17, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen 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 to have the owner occupied condition be removed and the existing variance reaffirmed or, in the alternative a new variance to allow the continued use of the property to be used as a single family dwelling without the owner occupied condition. The property is located in the R-2 district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting • other 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. This building meets none of the zoning requirements as set forth in Table I or Art. VI, section 6-4 with respect to lot size, frontage, maximum lot coverage, front, rear or side setbacks. 2. The petitioner was granted a variance on September 29, 1982 conditioned on the maintenance of one (1) off street parking place on site and also conditioned on the owner's occupancy. 3. The petitioner requests a variance be granted without the owner occupied condition. 4. The property in question is unique because of its peculiar size and configuration and because of the unique structure, an historic carriage • house that has been converted into a residence on the site. 5. There was no opposition to the petitioner's application. DEC SION ON ETITION OF HN D. SPINALE FORIVARIANCESHATP0 NORTH PINEOSTREET, SALEM �UC 1S page two 0/Ty qc/ • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the cevRd"�i(}ty sei�Led at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: "FFjgSS 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. • 4. Property can only be used as a single family residence. 5. One (1) off street parking space is to be maintained on site. Variances Granted August 17, 1994 . u, o Nina V. Cohen, 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 • Qlity of $Ulem, (� Hussadjusetts Pottra of ( uVpei� ciT �r � DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALICE MARCHAND FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 29 NORTHEY STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 15, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, and Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a second floor porch which will extend nonconforming side setbacks, the 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 granting of the special permit would allow the petitioners a fuller use of their property. 3. This second story porch will be in harmony with the neighborhood. J, 1 8 .v m " (C13)yOF341;EM SASS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALICE MARCHAND (C,L1R!^;S OFFUGF • FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 29 NORTHEY 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: 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 June 15, 1994 a I l3 Albert C. Hill, Member J 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 of $Z lem, Hussttcljusetts ;ae Poura of �\ppeul 9a Y�r�� 10 3 06 Pik ' CITY ORK 5'�riFICfS� CL-• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID AND BRENDA DUMAIS FOR A VARIANCE AT 38 OAKLAND STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held February 16, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman; George Ahmed, Albert Hill, Stephen O'Grady and Associate Member Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting Variances from rear & side setbacks to allow an existing wood patio. Property is located in the Residential Two Family District. (R-2) The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the petitioners request. 2. There is an existing structure on the site. 3. The patio as it exists allows the petitioners a fuller use of their property. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID & BRENDA DUMAIS FOR VARIANCE AT 38 OAKLAND STREET, SALEM page two • 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the• 5, qta ct�p�operty but not the district in general. � + UfiY 0C.1. "'t 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning 'Ord inance 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 in strict accordance with the plans and dimensions submitted. , 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. Petitioners shall obtain a building permit from the City of Salem Inspector of Buildings. • Variance Granted February 16, 1994 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 • ,ainq� 5 (91t of -Salem, �Nttssndjusetts • F Poura of ( uUVeal 3 8 SEP I 45 AN 9q CITY GF SALEM, MASS CFFICF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEE L. COTE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 3 PARKER COURT (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 17, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen and Associate Member Arthur LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to the already nonconforming side and rear setbacks to allow construction of a two story addition. Property is located in the R-2 zone. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of 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 addition minimally impacts the encroachment on rear and side setbacks. 3. The proposed construction as reflected on the plans submitted will greatly enhance, and be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEE L. COTE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 3 PARKER COURT, 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 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 is to be obtained. Special Permit Granted August 17, 1994 71 4ary Barrett, Vice Chairman Board of appeal m 'T7 O �� Cu R N (n> C)D O r t y X N N 6G L • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEE L. COTE FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 3 PARKER COURT, 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 rrn ,-n o u.9 rn 03 cns r F om �z T � nn N (SS (n L • Ctu of L ttlem, ttsstttljusetts . M ;oQ+ PDrira of �kupeal FEB 8 3 09 Pfs '9q • CITY OF SALEM, MASS CLE1iK'S Of FIC[ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CAMPBELL & DALE SEAMANS FOR VARIANCE AND OR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 34 PLEASANT STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held December 1, 1993 and continued until January 19, 1994 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 at the request of petitioners Attorney, George Atkins voted unanimously 4-0 to grant petitioners leave to withdraw this petition for Variance and/or Special Permit to allow garage to be used as home occupation, namely woodworking shop. Property is located • in a Residential Two Family (R-2) district. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE January 19, 1994 Georg Ahmed, Secretary Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • CtU of �$ttlent, fflassncljusetts �o . � �ottrD of �p}ieal • ha 9 3 v Ph -9q CITY OF SALFM, MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDRE M. AOUN FOR A VARIANCE AT 8 RANDALL STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held February 16, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman; George Ahmed, Albert Hill, Stephen O'Grady and Associate Member Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances to allow a home bakery business dealing with specialty orders and no retail. Property is located in the Residential Two Family District. (R-2) The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner has owned this home for six (6) years. 2. The petitioner needs the additional income. 3. The petitioner and his wife will be the sole employees. 4. The majority of orders will be taken by phone and customers will be seen by appointment only. 5. The petitioner will pick up supplies and deliver the finished product. • F DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDRE M. AOUN FOR A VARIANCE AT 8 RANDALL STREET, SALEM page two 9 314 N '94 • 6. There was support and opposition in equll measure. CITY OF SPLEMF MASS On the basis of the above findings of fact, anBLon Yh'e evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: I . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done in strict accordance with the plans and dimensions submitted. • 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 5. This variance is to remain in effect for a period of three (3) years, the petitioner may reapply at that time. 6. Parking shall be provided in accordance with plan submitted. 7. Customers shall be seen by appointment only. 8. There shall be no outside signs. 9. This is to remain an owner occupied business. 10. No retail sales shall be permitted and goods must be delivered to customers. 11. There shall be no employees. Variance Granted February 16, 1994 Step en Touchette, V.Chairman • Board of Appeal DEGISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDRE M. AOUN A FOR VARIANCE AT 8 RANDALL 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 r c.m m� L'>� �D N CO ' • of ialem, flRassadjusetts Paura of �VVS 3 • B CZFR,tf44FO S�F FASS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W & G REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES AT 24 SAUNDERS STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 18, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Stephen O'Grady and Associate Member Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variances from use, density and number of buildings on a lot to allow the construction of sixty (60) residential units. The property is located in a Residential Two Family District. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting • other land, buildings or structures in the same district. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner was previously granted variances from use, density and parking requirements on February 17, 1988, August 9, 1989 and again on January 16, 1991, to permit the construction of multi-family housing. 2. Due to a downturn in the economy, no construction took place on the petitioner's property prior to the expiration of the variances. 3. Substantially similar variances were granted to the petitioner for the same parcel on July 22, 1992. Again, economic fortunes prevented the development of the parcel. 4. Petitioner represents that it now intends to develop the parcel to create housing for the elderly or assisted living for the elderly. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W & G REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES AT 24 SAUNDERS STREET, SALEM page two GG°°��✓U// �3 5. Such elderly housing or assisted living quarters would o je p�o�sl�d' by the abutters, provided that all conditions to previous vajC���4granted by the Board of Appeal concerning this parcel be required to be d� by the property owners. F 6. The proposed use of this site as elderly housing or assisted living for the elderly is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of Variances granted by the Board of Appeal concerning • this parcel on February 8, 1988, August 22, 1989 January 16, 1991, and July 22, 1992 shall be incorporated and made part of this decision. Said conditions are as follows: a. Construction be as per the plans submitted and be approved by the Planning Board. b. Proposed construction conform to all applicable provisions of the Massachusetts State Building Code, the Salem Fire Prevention Code, the Salem City Ordinances and the Massachusetts General Laws relative to fire safety. c. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. be strictly adhered to. d. Proper numbering be obtained from the City of Salem. e. All snow removal and trash removal be solely at the expense of the Condominium Association and be part of the condominium documents. f. The condominium documents control the sale or rent of the parking to the owners of the condominiums only. g. A certificate of occupancy for each unit be obtained. h. The lot be landscaped as per plan and as approved by site plan review. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W & G REALTY TRUST FOR VARIANCES AT 24 SAUNDERS STREET, SALEM • page three ✓!/y�3 C I. Public safety access be maintained as per plans submitte�kaS meeting fire and police requirements. "i R � F 9 j . Ingress and egress be on Saunders Street only. S CFFj FOSS y k. Ninety Five (95) parking spaces be maintained, five (5) of these spaces are to be provided on the site for the use of the residents of Saunders Street. 1. Developer confer with abutters as to the establishment of proper buffer between the development and the abutters property. m. The site is to be kept periodically reasonably clear of weeds and other debris and maintained and cleaned at all times. 2. The proposed house be dedicated to elderly housing or assisted living quarters for the elderly VARIANCES GRANTED May 18, 1994 Nina V. Cohen, 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 • ,�owirl� `b Ctv of „Salem, 'Mttssadjusetts • �- JF Paas of �ppeal pro p Vf "* Ni'c4T�.vx� (G.'�7'iY D'F iSt�1, E� 0tE, -rS .0: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THEERESA M. CIVIELLO FOR A VARIANCE AT 3 SAVONA STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held November 2, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 area to merge two lots into one at 3 Savona Street. This property is located in a Residential Single Family dwelling. (R-1) The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally • affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the proposed request. 2. Petitioner Theresa M. Civiello appeared in support of her request for a variance from lot area to merge two lots located at 3 Savona Street. Lot 356, which is 5,987 sq. feet and lot 357, which is 6,903 sq. feet. The combined lot will have a total square footage of 12,890 sq. feet. 3. Mr. John Condon, of 40 Ravenna Avenue, and Mr. Leonard O'Leary, Ward Councillor, spoke in favor of the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioners. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THERESA M. CIVIELLO FOR A VARIANCE AT 3 SAVONA STREET, SALEM page two Noy � F �� . 2. Desirable relief can be granted without subst #tial d�t"zW the public good and without nullifying or subst:441 by �, e[Fgating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the OrftdggeS OFFICE 3. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 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 statues, ordinances, codes, and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Departmeent relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly ahered to. Variances Granted November 2, 1994 • Nina V. Cohen 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 • '�. (9ity of : ttlem, ttssttcljusetts i • >4,,� �nttrD of ``'TYIO 3 22 P9 094 CITY OF SALEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION FOR VARIANCE AT 7 SEEMORE STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held April 27, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Associate Members Nina Cohen and Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting Variance from the required 100 feet frontage to 53.71 feet of frontage to allow construction of a single family dwelling. Property is located in the R-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The lot is an odd shaped lot having frontage on only one improved street. 2. There was one abutter concerned with the location of any structure on this lot, these concerns were met by the petitioner. 3. There was no other opposition. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEIULIS BROTHERS CONS TRUCTIDNCITYFFQg?Yk p MASS VARIANCE AT 7 SEEMORE STREET, SALEM S OFrICf 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. No structure shall be constructed any closer than 122 feet to the front yard lot line. Variance Granted • April 27, 1994 Steph n 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 owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • (Qitg of alem, C�Eassadjugetts Pnara of �upeal fie 8 3 io Phi '9q CITY OF SALEH. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHLEEN MCSWEENEY FOR A VARIANCE AT 5 STUDER PLACE (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held January 19, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed, Albert Hill, 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 rear & side setbacks and distance from structure to allow existing pool, deck and shed 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. Three abutters signed a petition in favor of this request. 2. The direct abutter, Helen Malia, wrote a letter in favor after the deck was moved. 3. The deck, as relocated, is the only feasible location for the deck. The shed as it stands is the only feasible location for it to be placed and it satisfies the neighbors and abutters. 4. The granting of this variance allows petitioner a fuller use of her • property. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHLEEN MCSWEENY FOR A VARIANCE AT 5 STODDER PLACE, SALEM page two• �C p On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on Rvid2n201Uf48gnted at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as fo w • ��4 ER SALEM, MASS 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect theRsubfec`L�Cproperty 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 proposed construction shall be done in strict accordance with 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 . Variance Granted January 19, 1994 AStepen O'Grady, M tuber 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 • ••\III LL � M/n b Ctu of "Salem, • / F Pnura of (�"enlpF 5ALi:4. NA55 CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BYRON & DONNA LOCKE FOR A VARIANCE AT 36 UPHAM STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 17, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen 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 use to allow the conversion of a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling. Property is located in the Residential Two Family Zone. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings 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. Neighbors were overwhelming in their support of the petitioner's request. 2. There was no opposition. 3. Petitioners have agreed to designate and mark on the property five (5) parking spaces. 4. Petitioner stated the property was previously a three (3) family dwelling and they would return it to that use. 5. Petitioners own and reside on the abutting property. 6. The proposed construction would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BYRON & DONNA LOCKE FOR VARIANCES AT 36 UPHAM STREET. , SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented • at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not 'the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . A building permit is to be obtained prior to beginning any construction. • 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 7. Petitioner shall designate and mark with appropriate striping on the property five (5) parking spaces. Variances Granted August 17, 1994 l Garrett, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal m N Q L 4_ y �U CC) C N �U W U N • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BYRON & DONNA LOCKE FOR VARIANCES AT 36 UPHAM 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 • E" N E" � Q LL Ln T LL -J,00, `J L J �K L. m cu LLf V) U • of *Iem, Masendjusetts 3 9 e Potts of �ku�eul C17yof 3�� 11 C4r. S OrF,CFss DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BYRON & DONNA LOCKE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 36 UPHAM STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held April 27, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Associate Members Nina Cohen and Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners,owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of two (2) full size dormers which will encroach on the front and side setbacks, the 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. The petitioner purchased the property in 1993. 2. The granting of the special permit would allow the petitioners a fuller use of their property. 3. The building had been vacant for about two years. • Mar 10 3 '94 CITY Or DECSON ON TE PETIIOCASS FORIAISPECIALHPERMITTATN36FUPHAMBYRONSTREET, SALLEME C& DONNA «nK s OFF� 7 page two • 4. The roof is deteriorated and in need of repair. 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 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 April 27, 1994 Stepen Touchette, Acting Chairman Board of appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BYRON & DONNA LOCKS CITY OF S.',; r FORSPECIAL PERMIT AT 36 UPHAM STREET, SALEM Ci.El;K`S Qin IC ESS 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 • • (91ty of LSalem, �Hussadjusetts • nttrD of ,peal FEB g 310 rif ,34 CITY OF , CI_FRJ,4S CF�M{SS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS & NANCY KELLY FOR A VARIANCE AT 11 VINNIN STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held January 19, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Francis X. Grealish, Chairman; George Ahmed, Albert Hill, 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 Variance to extend shed dormer. Property is located in an R-1 district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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. Extension of the shed dormer will be in conformance with the existing structure. 3. The proposed construction will allow the petitioners a fuller use of their property. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS AND NANCY KELLY FOR A VARIANCE AT 11 VINNIN STREET, SALEM page two FEB B 3 io PN '9�1 CITY 6F Sr,€ tf NdS On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on Cthe"e' iden6eFpresented 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 proposed construction shall be done in strict accordance with 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. Exterior finishes of the proposed construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. Variance Granted January 19, 1994 George A. Ahmed, Secretary Board of Appeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS AND NANCY KELLY FOR VARIANCE AT 11 VINNIN STREET, SALEM page three FEs 6 3, Q PH '9q CITY OF S:LE"r•; MASS CL`RK's OEFiCj 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 • • atty of _Salem, �fflttssadiusetts D POurb of �Uf)f2t1 C4,?S V roF ys C�FRR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE JOHN BERTRAM HOUSE FOR A VARIANCE AT 29 WASHINGTON SQ.NO. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 17, 1994 after having been continued from May 18, 1994, June 15, 1994, and July 20, 1994. The following Board Members were present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Nina Cohen 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. At the request of the petitioners Counsel, Joseph Correnti, Esq. , the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to allow petitioner's request for a variance to allow the construction of an acoustical chiller in this Residential Two Family District to be withdrawn without prejudice. • GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE August 17, 1994 Stephen C. Touchette, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • of Iem, ��ttssadjusetts x �OMTa Of �v peal n a c • � n 1 as ma m r N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALFRED MANIERO Tn Y FOR VARIANCES AT 17 WHEATLAND STREET (R-2) ma �F co CA L A hearing on this petition was held June 15, 1994 continued till July 20, 1994 and continued again until July 27, 1994. Board Members present at the July 27, 1994 meeting were: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 rear and side setback requirements to allow construction of a 20 foot by 32 foot garage. The property is located in the Residential Two Family District. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. • 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the petition. 2. According to petitioner's plot plan, area of lot totals 5580 square feet. Existing structure consists of a 900 sq.ft. single family residence. 3. Petitioner represented that, although the submitted plans show a 281x32' garage, they propose to build a 20' x 32' garage, taking up a total square footage of 640 sq.ft. 4. Taken together, the square footage of both structures is less than 28% of total lot area. 5. This is the most feasible location on the property to place the proposed garage. • C'> DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALFRED MANIERO FOR m ' VARIANCES AT 17 WHEATLAND STREET, SALEM rn n page two om_ T T �ID (� Ma CA co On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence p(peseated at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done in strict accordance with the plans and dimensions submitted and varied by further conditions. • 3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. 4. A Building Permit is to be obtained prior to beginning construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Exterior finishes of the proposed garage shall be in harmony with the existing structure. l Variances Granted July 27, 1994 Nina V. Cohen, 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 of *Irm, 'T' assadjusetts 3 Puma of �u}�eul MAY 26 2 55 PH '9q C17Y Or SALEM, MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CECILE A. BERUBE FOR VARIANCES AT 18 WILLSON STREET (R-2/13-1) A hearing on this petition was held April 27, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman; Stephen O'Grady, Gary Barrett, Associate Members Nina Cohen and Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from density and setbacks,specifically, with respect the lot shown as Lot A on the plan submitted, petitioner requests 5,000 sq.ft. lot size and area per dwelling unit, 50 foot frontage and side yard of six (6) feet on easterly boundary of lot A in order to allow existing garage to remain. With respect to the lot shown as Lot B on the plan submitted petitioner is requesting 5,000 sq.ft. lot size and 50 foot frontage. Property is located in an R-2/13-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the petition. 2. There was neighborhood support in the form of seven (7) letters from neighbors and abutters. 3. Petitioner and her late husband purchased the property as two (2) separate lots. 4. Lot B was never built on as the petitioner and her late husband had intended this lot to be sold in case of any financial circumstances that could arise. Over the years these lots have merged. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CECILE A. BERUBE FOR VARIANCES AT 18 WILLSON STREET, SALEM • page two Mar 16 2 s �j On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the gy�dence presseent5e8 at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows- Or SA EMMISS CLERK'S OFFICE 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. Property to be divided in strict accordance with 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 is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted Q/ April 27, 1994 LIQ/(/ ' i a V. Cohen,`Associate Member Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the 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