The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS \�oos O�r p Pp els Hnscity ofttlem, rHttssttcliusetts CItY OV 'c p1�i 0 Gl1 fzK' • `'4 aarD of Aupeal DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN A. ANEZIZ FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 APPLEBY ROAD (Rl\RC) A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrette, Albert Hill, 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 is requesting a Variance to subdivide one lot into two & Variance from lot size and frontage for the property located at 21 Appleby Road. This property is located in a R1-RC district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner, owner of a lot of 28,332 square feet on Appleby Road, seeks to divide the property, forming one lot of 19,600 square feet and the other with 8,943 square feet/ Neither of the proposed lots would meet the frontage requirements of the Zoning Code. 2. Five adjacent properties on Appleby Road consist of homes built on 9,000 foot lots, with 90 feet of frontage. 3. Petitioner represented that he had spoken with the neighbors and that they had voiced no opposition to the proposed subdivision and lot layout. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN A. ANEZIZ FOR A VARIANCE FOR • THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 APPLEBY ROAD (R1\RC) page two �61 2q 3 30 Ph '95 CITY OF SALCM. MASS Ct I Iwo OFFICE 3. The request relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the requested relief, 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 shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a Building Permit prior to beginning any construction. A . A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering for the City of Salem Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. • Variance Granted / May 17, 1995 Nina 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 �Szllem, C3Httssttcljusef s ZS IZ '55 Cliy Ot LF ii. PmhsS s �dttrD of �upeal Cl rrx s OL FICF 4b.. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NORMAN J. FUSCO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9 BARCELONA AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held September 20, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc and Arthur LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, owners of the property request a Variance to enlarge non conforming structure to add a second floor for the property located at 9 Barcelona Avenue (R-1) . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Ward 4 Coucillor Leonard O'Leary spoke in favor of the petition. 2. Mr. Gallo, 8 Barcelona Avenue, spoke in favor of the petition. 3. Mr. Pierro, 2 Barcelona Avenue spoke in favor of the petition. 4. There was no opposition to the petition. 5. The proposed construction will not alter the existing footprint of the current dwelling and will not effect any of the now existing setback. 6. The proposed construction will add a second floor to the existing one story Cape home. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would • involve substation hardship to the petitioner. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NORMAN J. FUSCO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9 BARCELONA AVENUE (R-1) page two • 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the exterior finishes. 6. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. • Variance Granted September 20, 1995 Gary 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. m � N Board of Appeal > N o-r : N -y o -tx r,> .� co N G.n Ctu of $Ulem, {` assadjusetts 30 ' Paura of �u}rettl SEP 26 3 15 hi `95 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LORRIANE M. DEON REQUESTINP.LL'AtO; SAU-M. MASS VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 BARTON STREET (R�� 1tK'S 01 ['IC17 A hearing on this petition was held September 20, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc and Arthur LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, owners of the property request a Variance from side S rear set backs to construct an addition for the property located at 8 Barton Street (R-2) . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the • intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner has owned the property for 19 years. 2. The petitioner lost part of the side yard and fence to the city for construction of the sidewalk. 3. There was no opposition to the request. 4. The granting of the petition will enhance the quality of life for the petitioner and allow a fuller use of the property. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LORRAINE M. DEON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 BARTON STREET (R-2) page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-OSM&A 1#EP11t95 variance requested, subject to the following conditions: CItY OF Srill.N MA C C11 'Km 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, or�i'nan@�s;c;l' codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 5. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted relative to the addition only and does not include any proposed porch or deck which is partially reflected in the plans. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted September 20, 1995 • 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 • (fit" of �a�ttlem, �Httsstzcllusetts ja s Paura of (�}peul JUL 10 2 44 Phi °95 CITY OF SALCM. MASS CLCRK'S OFFICfi DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE ESTATE OF RUTH DAUPHINES, ALFRED DOBBS, EXECUTOR, REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 20 BEACH AVENUE. (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held June 28, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc 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, executor of the property, is requesting a Special Permit for minimum lot area and minimum depth of rear yard. 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 Special Permit 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. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE ESTATE OF RUTH DAUPHINES, ALFRED DOBBS, EXECUTOR, REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 20 BEACH AVENUE. page two • C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Leonard O'Leary spoke in favor of the Petition. 2. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the 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. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Special Permit Granted June 28, 1995 Albert C. Hill, Jr. Member, Board of Appeal n • o= c T= � Cz n y C-" DECISION OF THE ESTATE OF RUTH DAUPHINEE, ALFRED DOBBS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 20 BEACH AVENUE (R-2) 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 Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • n c _+ r r on r �a s T D L7 LO N L" of $Ulem, Aussadjusetts E m i s r N ,,ems s Pourb of (�Fpezd - - _ N E O O. F O DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK & LORI PATTISON FOR A —�,_ s VARIANCE AT 2 BEAVER STREET (R-2) m a N C� N A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1995 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 for use as a Guitar Showroom at 2 Beaver 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 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 sought a variance to allow him to operate a retail shop for the resale of classic guitars at the residential property at 2 Beaver Street where his mother resides. He stated that in former years a doughnut shop was operated in the same space. 2. Petitioner proposed to operate this business six days a week, from 10:00 or 11:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. 3. Esther Keys, petitioner's mother who lives in the property, said she had no objection to the proposed change in use. 4. There was no opposition to the petitioner's application. 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 petitioner. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARK & LORI PATTIS0N' FOR A VARIANCE AT 2 BEAVER STREET, SALEM page two • 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. 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 statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. m � N Variance Granted February 15, 1995 v.�liYvC„ L(.JCr.�r( � SC/kJ o n s 0 Nina Cohen s m • Board of Appeal s U1 N �� 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 • ' ' �° Ctv of . ulem, CRttssachusetts � ' �ourb of �trpeul �C!j3 • c /',a01 /? 05 9S S 0//�:�F'SS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LUCILLE E. MIASKIEWCZ REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27 BELLEAU ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held October 18, 1995 with 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 petitioner, Lucille E. Miaskiewc, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Variance to enlarge non conforming structure to add second story for the property located at 27 Belleau Road. Granted leave to withdraw without prejudice. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE • October 18, 1995 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 . ttlem, 'Tttssttdjusetts M Pnttra of �v peal DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DR. MICHELLE SAUDLER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 BOSTON STREET�f RR_1��, 41';4. 14ASS r"S 0i A hearing on this petition was held December 28, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen, and Arthur LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, owners of the property request a Variance for a Change of Use (Office Supplies to Dental Office) for the property located at 10 Boston Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the • intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition to the proposed request. 2. Dr. Michelle Saudler appeared and advised that she and her partner, her mother operate a dental clinic currently located at 84 Highland Avenue in Salem. 3. Dr. Saudler and her mother intend to purchase .the subject property from the petitioner and will relocate their dental practice to at said location. 4. The property currently houses offices for a computer graphics firm, Phase One /Essex Office sales office and an Office Supply retail store. 5. Philip Kaufman, Dr. Saudler's father, appeared at the hearing and advised the Board that upon acquiring the property, the current retail space would be converted into a dental clinic at a substantial capital for electrical, plumbing and construction work. 6. Mr. Kaufman further advised that the proposed owners intended to continue to lease space to the current computer graphic firm tenant as well as to Phase One/Essex Office for its sales office. Mr. Kaufman expressed hope that the remaining space could be rented for one additional professional office. 7. The proposed sale of the subject property to Dr. Saudler also included the sale of the 9 Boston Street as well as the abutting property at 12 Boston Street. The 9 Boston Street property is a parking lot with 16 spaces. • 8. John Borris from Phase One/Essex Office appeared and represented that the current office supply retail store operated six days per week and services an average of 150 customers daily, Monday through Friday. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DR. MICHELLE SAUDLER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 10 BOSTON STREET. (B-1 ) page two • 9. The proposed use will be less intense use than the current use of the property. 10. The surrounding area consists of several retail establishments including a liquor store, a pizza shop, two sandwich shops, a take-out Chinese restaurant, a diner and residential property. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general . 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Oridnance. 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. L. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board, and its Sign Committee governing signs in an Entrance Corridor Overlay district. Variance Granted December 28, 1995 `� J Gary Barrett Board of Appeal �, cn • DECISIONOF THE PETITION OF DR. MICHELLER SAUDLER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 BOSTON STREET (B-1) 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 ?Y a "o c� C7 � LB O� • Ctu of SaIrm, 'Massadjusett p� 2 �� 38 0 '95 � Q PattrD of �kp}iettl CITY 01 'av6Hass ffICF. • cI.IRKS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK 5 VARIANCE FROM PARKING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNERS OF 3 POPE STREET,45 BOSTON STREET 5 59 BOSTON STREET. (B-2) ' A hearing on this petition was held April 19, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary.Barrette, Albert Hill, 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, a developer, was requesting a Variance from front yard setbacks 6 a Variance from the parking requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for the property at the corners of 3 Pope St, 45 Boston St and 59 Boston Street in order to develop said property as a site for the location of a retail drug store to be operated by Osco Drug. The relief which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 refuel may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner was represented by Attorney John Serafini. 2. William Luster, City Planner, submitted a letter in support of petition, subject to the condition that Petitioner be required to submit to the approval of the Salem Planning Board under said Board's Site Plan Review Special Permit process for review of issues such as traffic circulation;parking lot design for ingress and egress; the number width and location of curb cuts and other like issues. 3. Thomas Brophy, 25 Proctor Street, spoke in favor of the petition. 4. Sharon Marraffa, owner of a lot of land at 8 Pope Street, spoke in favor of the petition. 5. Representative of the petitioner stated that they had spoken to the owner of the Sportshaven Lounge, an abutting business owner to the subject property, who was in favor of the petition. 6. The subject property will be developed for a locus for a retain drug store to be operated by the Osco Drug chain. 7. The proposed building will be approximately 13,237 square feet. 8. The proposed front set backs on the corner lot is approximately 11" • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, Z REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK & VARIAN CEOM chViy,.2��SS PARKING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNERS OF 3 P0PF %§Ir,ffK,S oVVICF 45 BOSTON ST. AND 59 BOSTON ST. (B-2) �,tl�` page two • 2" as opposed to the 30 foot setback required. 9. The proposed parking lot design has 61 designated parking spaces, approximately 27 spaces less than the number required. 10. Joseph Geller from Geller Associates, the developer's engineer, reviewed plans for the building's location;parking lot layout; proposed entrances and exits and landscaping plans for .the site. 11. The subject lot is of a unique size and shape which when taken together with the land's topography with sloping ground and ledge at the rear of the lot creates a hardship for the Petitioner. 12. There was credible testimony based on the petitioner's prior experience in developing similar sites for retail drug stores that the nature of a retail drug store business will not require more than 61 planned parking spaces at any one time. 13. In the surrounding area, there is a Dunkin Donuts store, a retail paint store, the Sylvania plant, the Sportshaven lounge & other business establishments. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. The request relief can be granted without substantial detriment to • public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the requested relief, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said numbers so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Cog1mission • ION OF DY PMENT VA�R��IAASNCE FORK THEEPROPERTYOLOCATEDRATPTHECORNERS INC. AOF 3 PA 3�`�` o,STR�`ET 45 BOSTON STREET AND 59 BOSTON STREET. B-2� � having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. More specifically the Salem Planning Board under the Site Plan Review \\ ��\ Special Permit process. VARIANCE GRANTED ` \ APRIL 19, 1995 SCS / ) Gary M. Barrett Board of Appeal, Member A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17—of the 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 . ttlem, 3 28 PM 195 3 ,,4 s Paarb of Appeal crrr Of- ;ALF M. HASS Cl(`RK'S OFI'If.E DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GARY & NANCY PETERSON A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 BOTTS COURT A hearing on this petition was held June 28, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, 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 convert a Carriage House into a dwelling unit for the property located at 6 Botts Court, Salem, Mass. 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's reside at 6 Botts Court, which property consists of a dwelling house and separate carriage house. 2. The petitioner's carriage house is currently used as a two-car garage. Above the garage is a living area, presently unoccupied. Petitioners wich to convert the living area into an apartment that could be used by family members or rent�d. S • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GARY 5 NANCY PETERSON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 BOTTS COURT page two 3. There was no neighborhood opposition to the request. 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 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 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 requiements 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. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visiable from the street. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED JUNE 28, 1995 Nina Cohen Member, Board of Appeal -o c ".ca 13 �7 VJ V� • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GARY & NANCY PETERSON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 BOTTS COURT 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 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 c_ � c a o L� r Y 3C *SSD LO C1d (J9 • • (gity ofSalem, Aussarliusetts 3oQ ' • Pnttra of Aupeal JUN 10 ss AF► 95 CITY fr I. >4LVMI HASS RK'S OFF ICF DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ARTHUR INGEMI FOR A MODIFICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 29 BRIDGE STREET (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1995 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 notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner seeks modifications of two conditions upon which the Board granted a Variance in its decision dated October 1994 . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner appeared before the Board in October of 1994 for a hearing in his request for a Variance which is the subject of the within petition. 2. Because of unexpected economics since the time of the original petition, the petitioner has been required to scale down the site of the original project. 3. The scaled down construction alleviates a second floor function room and tower which had been shown in the original plans. 4. The neighborhood concerns raised at the original hearing in October of 1994 were being addressed in the construction plans. 5. Kevin Harvey, Ward 2 Councillor spoke in favor of the petition. 6. David Dailey, 6 Waite St. spoke in favor of the petition as long as the neighborhood concerns raised in October of 1994 were addressed and protected by conditions imposed by the Board. 7. Joanne Bezzati, a neighbor of the project spoke in favor of the • petition. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ARTHUR INGEMI FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 29 BRIDGE STREET (B-2) page two 8. The Petitioner, Arthur Ingemi indicated he was still willing to • address the neighborhood concerns raised in Octdb#rlof f95 9. There was no opposition to the petition. CIfY Of gqLVH, MASS CLI RK'S pff`IOf 10. Based on the Board's finding's the requested modifications were reasonable and do not substantially impact the previously granted variance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. The request relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the requested relief, 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 shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a Building Permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Construction to be per plans and specs dated May 12, 1995, and drawn by Jaquith & Siemasko, Inc. 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. Although no longer subject to site plan review, Petitioner shall notify the City Planner in writing of the changes to the construction plans inviting his comments and suggestions. 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 • MODIFICATION OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 29 BRIDGE STREET (B-2) page three owner(s) of 38 Bridge Street, Salem (5 years minimum lease required) • 11. Twenty-four (24) additional spaces must be leased from the owner(s) of property known as Lot 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: Variance Granted May 17, 1995 Gary 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 n �r S o= aD n� 3 amu' :S N • Ctv of *Iem, CTassttchuse�tg II 5.9 bh '95 CITY 01 'ALCM. LASS �Ir}teal rt I.RK'S OF'FICF • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 35 BRIDGE STREET (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held July 26, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen and Arthur LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, owners of the property request a Variance for a Change in Use (Rent-A-Car) for the property located at 35 Bridge Street. (B-4) The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. • The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Dennis Finkel, General Manager for the petitioner appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Petitioner has signed a lease for interior space in the building located at 35 Bridge St. as well as for 3300 square feet of exterior lot space on Lot 233 located on Ferry & Waite Streets. 3. Petitioner's operations will employee a staff of four (4) and will operate Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 6:00 pm and on Saturday 9:00-12:00, 4. Petitioner's business consists of renting\leasing cars to individuals who are in need of rental cars because of an auto accident of repairs. 5. Witch City Auto Body currently operated out of the 35 Bridge St. property. 6. Petitioner plans to park 12 cars on Lot 233 located on Ferry & Waite St 7. Petitioner will be remodeling interior office space and will do minimal exterior construction. 8. Petitioner will register its vehicles in Salem resulting in additional revenue for excise tax for the City. 9. There was no opposition to the Petitioner's request. 10. Richard Deschamps, 15 Crosby St. & Steven Pelechowicz, 12 Phillips St. spoke in favor of the petition. 11. Petitioner's business will be complimentary to the other businesses in the area. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF Ei1TERPRISE RENT A CAR FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 35 BRIDGE STREET (B4) • page two 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 5. 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 governing issues of exterior signage. Variance Granted SCC/ July 26, 1995 Gary 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 rL&ord or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. 2- K Board of Appeal r- o-, W cp cn of intem, Hussttcliusetts 36Q, Paara of �\Fpral -46 / CITY p1 r 1�59 '9S CII C4;�CIH. y DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSE P. MATOS FOR A VARIANCE J pI%ICr SS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 51 BRIDGE STREET (B-1) A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1995 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 notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from parking for the property located at 51 Bridge Street. This property is located in a B-1 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner has operated a hair salon since 1990 and is presently located at 70 Washington Street. 2. Petitioner's hours of operation are from 9:OOa.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday,Thursday and Saturday. 3. The building on the subject property is in a state of disrepair and dilapidated and has been vacant for some time. 4. The petitioner has no employees. 5. The property lacks the necessary off-street parking required by the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The lack of parking reduces the property useless as a commercial property. 7. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSE P. MATOS FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 51 BRIDGE STREET (B-1) page two • 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. The request relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the requested relief, 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 shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a Building Permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. Variance Granted May 17, 1995 J Gary 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 c•i L r 7 1 N^ O O77, Ln 2 RA • " co N CJ'I ofttlem, � ttsstttliusetts �� N �ItPL • en� N o X cn ni z T N Cf.7 N f..Il DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY TURCOTTE FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 8 CEDARVIEW STREET. (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Acting Chairman; Arthur Labrecque, Joseph Ywuc, 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 a home occupation on the premises and a Variance to allow extension of an existing non-conforming structure,allowing a second story to be added to the existing garage for the property at 8 Cedarview Street. 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 MARY TURCOTTE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 8 CEDARVIEW STREET. • page two C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Everett Buckley of 9 Cedarview Street and Tony Lamont of 5 Cedarview Street spoke in favor of the petition. 2. Robert and Lucy Dixon of 10 Cedarview Street spoke in opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the 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 construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. n s a 7K A r ry p CO • R > > N r- o.- to 72 ri L :n Ca DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY TURCOTTE FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 8 CEDARVIEW STREET. • page three 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. All construction shall be conducted between the hours of 9am and 4pm Monday through Friday only, with a minimum of three construction workers performing the construction. 9. No retail business is allowed under this Special Permit. 10. No commercial deliveries are to be made to this business under this Special Permit. 11. All construction is to be completed within sixty (60) days after issuance of a building permit. 12. The Special Permit expires three (3) years from the time it was granted, after which, the petitioner may petition the Board of Appeal for an extention to the Special Permit. Variance and Special Permit Granted March 15, 1995 • Albert C. Hill, Jr. 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 n z a C7~ 9 " < N "O LO �n> N r- 0—i LM Tx m n> a • �> � to aitu of Salem, '�Enssadjusetts 3 • .,ems Paarb of ' kv H4A 2 C/TY 0/_ Cr(/rK,S 0% ��F SS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICK McGRATH FOR A VARIANCE AT 7 CLARK STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Arthur LaBrecque, 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. The Petitioner, represented by William DiMento, is the building contractor for the owner of the property, (Paul Ferragamo) , requesting Variances from side and front setbacks to allow a single family dwelling to be built at 7 Clark Street. 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. Patricia and Henry Rutkowski, 5 Clark Street, voiced their disappointment noting that the contractor is not being held to the same standards which they were held too. 2. The City Zoning Officer, Mr. Leo Tremblay, stated that the Contractor came forward to notify him that an error had been made in positioning the foundation at 7 Clark Street. 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. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICK MCGRATH FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 CLARK STREET (R-1) page two ��JJ • 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ord' gaq?e3 uld involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. C/T 3Z pp r 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial det�%en,t to tH� 9S . public good and without nullifying or substantially dero�Ja4q /frog the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. J 0/'r•jr, 4 SS 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, code 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. Variance Granted �aD-� , / 'p February 15, 1995 C' �7epi (SC/,. Albert C. Hill, Jr. 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 .-inlem, �Nttssttcliusetts M 3,4 �s Paura of Appeal Jul 10 2 4y PM °9 � 5 CITY OI-.BALI-M. MASS CTI RK'S OFFICF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RONALD & COLLEEN YOUNG REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM WIDTH OF SIDE YARD, ^.-INIMUM DEPTH OF REAR YARD FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 COLUMBUS AVENUE. (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held JUNE 28, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Joseph Ywuc, 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 4OA. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance from side and rear setbacks to construct an addition at 19 Columbus Avenue. 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. There is a signed petition with nine (9) abutters voting in favor of the Variances. 3. This will allow petitioner a 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 voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variances 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 RONALD & COLLEEN YOUNG FOR VARIANCES AT 19 COLUMBUS AVENUE page two • 3. All construction shall be done as per the plan 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. Variances Granted June 28, 1995 Albert C. Hill, Jr. 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 Genera3• 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 Ha N o,� ma � �h'°�. fluty of $Ulem, C�ussarllusetts M 3oQ Foam of IPR V 9 40 Ali 195 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICK S PATRICIA GRP FOR FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 CRESSEY AVENUE �K-2)tI RK'S 0( fICF A hearing on this petition was held April 19, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrette, Albert Hill, 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 located at 8 Cressey Avenue request a Variance from rear setback to enable a 12' x 28' deck to be constructed. The relief which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 refuel may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the • intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the petition. 2. The granting of the petition will enhance the quality of life for the petitioners. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. The request relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the requested relief, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PATRICK & PATRICIA GRIFFIN FOR A VARIANCE AT 8 CRESSEY AVENUE, SALEM page two • 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. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. Variance Granted April 19, 1995 Stephen C. Touchette Board of Appeal, Member A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of • the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal M. C5! �. r0� CE6'i C:7'1 • (Gity of Iem, 4Ru99tttliusetts ;,Q s Poara of Avpeul AUG 3 5 ss Circ O SALI'M. MASS Ci Er%K'S Of'riCE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILLER DYER SPEARS, INC.REQUESTING FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 245-249 DERBY STREET (B5) A hearing on this petition was held July 26, 1995 with 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 petitioner, William Luster, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Variance from lot coverage, side and rear setbacks to construct a parking garage for the property located at 245-249 Derby Street. Granted leave to withdraw without prejudice. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE July 26, 1995 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 • SEP 16 '�. (1�itu of .a�ttlem, � HttssttclTusetts c�I� 11 it P4 135 3oQ. M PoMra of ( Lv ¢nl C, ��K's�01T HIctASS �r �9 • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF SALEM REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 245-249 DERBY STREET (B-5) A hearing on this petition was held September 20, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc and Arthur LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, owners of the property request a Variance for lot coverage, side and rear setbacks to construct a parking garage for the property located at 245-249 Derby Street (B-5) . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. • The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. City Planner, William Luster presented the petition and described City's efforts to accommodate concerns expressed by an abutter to the property. 2. There was no opposition to the petition. 3. Dan Dyer, from the architectural firm of Miller, Dyer & Spears presented plans for the proposed garage and described the proposed project, including design changes made to address concerns expressed by the abutter to the subject property. 4. Donald J. Clarke, 6 Brown Court, an abutter to the property, spoke in favor of the petition as long as the decision incorporates certain conditions agreed to by the City in negotiations to address his concerns about security, snow removal & short term parking. 5. City Planner, William Luster expressed the City's agreement with the conditions proposed by Mr. Clarke. 6. The proposed garage will provide the area with much needed off-street parking spaces supporting economic development efforts in the surrounding area. 7. The requirements of bay construction and the ramping system for the garage made it impractical to meet lot coverage and set back requirements. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented • at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF SALEM REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 245-249 DERBY STREET (B-5) page two • 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 5. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 6. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 7. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering for the City of Salem Assessor's office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. • 8. Petitioner shall close the facade of the parking garage on the west elevation along the Water's 5 Brown property. 9. Petitioner shall erect a fence or another suitable barrier at the northwest corner of the garage's top floor to prevent access to the roof of 281 Derby Street. 10. Petitioner shall secure the alleyway created as a result of the construction of the garage with a fence or in a manner acceptable to the abutter. 11 . Petitioner shall institute a short-term parking policy on the first level of the garage which shall be (1) one hour parking on the first floor. 12. Petitioner shall encourage all-day or long-term parking to use the upper floors of the garage. 13. Petitioner shall remove snow from the parking garage in a manner not to disrupt the abutter. Variance Granted September 20, 1995 Gary Barrett, Member Board of Appeal -o m • _:3 H ca N LL; CI7 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF SALEM REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 245-249 DERBY STREET (B-5) page three • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner' s Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal m r1 ^� L8 N Cly • of ..Iem' CM- ttssadjusetts 3 °> �Saara of '�u}ieul Jon V 2 an (CSTlr iol- sJAUJw.. lass DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HARBOR COMMUNITY DEVRWRE1ftoe.OUpRATION FOR A VARIANCE AT 51-53 DOW STREET. (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Arthur LaBrecque, 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 is requesting a Variance from front, side and width setbacks to subdivide an existing non-conforming property located at 51-53 Dow Street. (R3) 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. Speaking in favor of the petition where: David Shea, Hanson Street, Point Neighborhood Action Group, David Carlton, 26 Barnes Road, Peter Strout, 29 Intervale Road and Ward 1 City Councillor, George Ahmed. 3. This will allow petitioner a 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 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 SALEM HARBOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR A VARIANCE AT 51-53 DOW STREET. SALEM page two 3. All construction shall be done as per the plan and dimensions submitted. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or .Commission having jurisdiction, including, but not limited to the Planning Board. As an Amendment to the Petition, Petitioner is further granted a Variance from the requirements for parking. Variances Granted May 17, 1995 Q Albert C. Hill, Jr. J 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 �co :n F N o� c N N • of $Nlem, {` ttssttcljusetts �4Is ja, s Pans of Avpenl t'11Y '1\p1 T,;at�c;� 1w� .- K' .01' AMENDMENT TO THE DECISION OF MOONEY ROAD & DURKIN ROADC111i DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE BOARDS DECISION OF MARCH 1992, REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT MOONEY ROAD AND DURKIN ROAD (RC\R1) A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1995 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 notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. A hearing on this petition was originally held on March 15, 1995. Because of an error made by this Board, improper notice, of the prior hearing was given to the neighbors, and a rehearing of the petition was granted. The rehearing of the petition was held on May 17, 1995. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . In March 1993, petitioner was granted a variance by this Board from lot size and frontage with respect to lots which were located, entirely in an RC district (2) partially within an RC district and partially within an R1 district (3) and entirely within an R1 district. 2. The variance granted in March 1993, permitted the petitioner to divide the aforementioned lots in conformance with the requirements of R1 zoning. 3. The conditions which existed at the time of the granting of the previous variance continue to exist at present (vi, the redrawn RC zone effectuated in 1973 or 1974 by the city) and create a hardship upon the petitioner. 4 . In its March 1993 decision, the Board incoroporated a document entitled Sable Heights II, Protective Covenants as part of the decision. 5. It is the Sable Heights II Protective Covenants which the Petitioner now seeks to modify in part as follows: a) Change the minimum living area in the proposed dwelling from 2,000 sq. ft. to 1,500 sq. ft. b) Change minimum footprint of the proposed dwelling from 1,000 sq. ft. to exclusive of garage to 1,000 sq. ft. inclusive • of garage. c) Change the minimum roof pitch from 6:12 to 4 : 12. DECISION OF DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON MOONEY ROAD AND DURKIN ROAD (RC\R1) page two • d) Delete the paragraph requiring that shutter, if used be wood. 6. In September 1993, the petitioner obtained approvals from the Planning Board and proceeded with construction of the development, installing underground utilities, drainage systems and roads to the binder course at a cost to the petitioner in excess of $120,000. 7. Of the 14 existing homes in the neighborhood, 8 have living space of less than 1500 sq. ft; 3 are of between 1500-1800 sq.ft. ; l' is between 1800-2000 sq. ft. and 3 are in excess of 2000 sq. ft. of living space. 8. There are 2 other buildable lots in the neighborhood which are not subject to restrictive covenants similar to those set forth in the Sable Heights II Protective Covenants. 9. Petitioner represented that on January 25, 1995, a letter was sent to all neighbors in the Mooney and Durkin Road neighborhood advising them of the Petitioner's intent to seek-modification of the Sable Heights II Protective Covenants . A copy of said letter was made a part of the record. 10. In response to said January 25th letter, the Petitioner was contacted by a couple of neighbors who discussed their concerns about the Petitioner's plans. 11. On February 15, 1995, Petitioner again wrote the Mooney and Durkin Road neighbors inviting them to attend a meeting to discuss in detail the pians to seek modification of the Sable Heights II Protective Covenants. 12. On March 1 , 1995, Petitioner held a meeting to discuss their plans with the neighbors. At said meeting, two residents of the neighbor- hood attended and expressed their concerns about the Petitioner's plans. • 13. Th Petitioner's land runs along and/or lies beneath high tension electrical wires. 14. The Petitioner represented that to construct a home with a 2000 sq. ft. living area that it would be necessary to build a 2 story home on some of the lots. 15. The requested changes to the protective convents are reasonable and modest of nature. 16. Fr. 5 Mrs. Fierstein, abutters to the property spoke in opposition . 17. Mr. Pygolski, 2 Durkin Road, spoke in opposition. 18. A petition signed by 18 neighbors of the property opposed the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. The request relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 2-3, against the motion to grant, having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT MOONEY ROAD AND DURKIN ROAD (RC\R1) page three • MODIFICATION DENIED May 17, 1995 (IQ Gary 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 • • ( 1tu of . $Ulem, � Httssttcljusetts • `' �'9 Paurb of �vpeal OCT D04 2 I'0 '35 CITY OF SAIF H. MASS C( "'?K'S OFFICF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ADMIRACION MUTUA DE LA SOCIEDAD CORPORATION AT R51 CANAL STREET/4 FLORENCE STREET. R4 AND R2 A hearing on this petition was held October 18, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Arthur Labrecque 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 is requesting Variance for a CHANGE OF USE to allow for a Television Production Studio and Singles Dances with a Liquor License for providing refreshments. 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 pians, makes the following findings of fact: I. No-one spoke in favor of the Petition. 2. Attorney Philip Moran, representing Mr. Anthony J. Picariello spoke in opposition to the petition. 3. Mr. Peter Vaillancourt spoke in opposition to the petition. Additionally, Mr. Vaillancourt submitted a Petition with 19 Signatures to the Board voting in opposition to the Variance requested. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ADMIRACION MUTUA DE LA SOCIEDAD CORPORATION FOR A VARIANCE AT R51 CANAL STREET/4 FLORENCE STREET. page two • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property 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 unanimously, 0-5 against the motion to grant, having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED October 18, 1995 • Albert C. Hill, Jr 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. n o BOARD OF APPEAL _ � N 0-. O T F • D &tv of . $Ztlem, � Httsstttllusetts 3y V Potts of �upettl JUL 13 1141 AM °95. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RICHARD M. LEAHY REQUESTING A Cily Of' SALI-M. MASS VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9-11 FRANKLIN STREET (Rr-ttIZK'S Of-FIC[ A hearing on this petition was held June 28, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen and 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, owners of the property requests a Variance for a Change of Use (Furniture making) for the property located at 9-11 Franklin Street. (R-2) . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. • The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner will conduct a furniture making business at the property. 2. The petitioner is currently the only employee of the business. 3. Petitioner's business will involve limited retail business. 4. Given surrounding uses, it is unrealistic for the property to be put to use for residential purposes. The subject property is surrounded by commercial uses. 5. Petitioner's business will be a less intrusive and aggressive use in this area. 6. There was no opposition to the petitioner's request. 7. The property manage William Goldberg, spoke in favor of the petition. 8. Petitioner will be improving the property. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RICHARD M. LEAHY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9-11 FRANKLIN STREET (R-2) • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations . 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted June 28, 1995 Gary 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 • (QDECISION (GitUof �ttlem,vara of enl JUL 13 II 41 AH '95 ��OF THE PETITION OF SCOTT A. JOSSELIN h REQUE§T ¢.IA'ALi"H. MASS VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9-11 FRANKLIN ST-E�EPR02)iCE A hearing on this petition was held June 28, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen and 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, owners of the property requests a Variance for a Change of Use (Carpet\Flooring) for the property located at 9-11 Franklin Street. (R-2) . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. • The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner will conduct a wholesale/retail carpeting and flooring business at 9-11 Franklin Street similar in nature to the- buildings previous owner, Essex Tile. 2. The petitioner's business currently has (2) employees. 3. The property has never been used as a residential property. 4. Given surrounding uses, it is unrealistic for the property to be put to use for residential purposes. The subject property is surrounded by commercial uses. 5. Petitioner's business will be a less intrusive and aggressive use in this area. 6. There was no opposition to the petitioner's request. 7. The property manage William Goldberg, spoke in favor of the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SCOTT A. JOSSELIN REQUESTING A • VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9-11 FRANKLIN STREET (R-2) page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations . 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted June 28, 1995 Gary 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 owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • alty of *Iem, 'Mussttdjusetts s �nttra of �}rpeul AN p DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KENNETH SMITH/HI-DA-WAY PLANT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 107 FEDERAL STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett; Acting Chairman; Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Associate Members Joseph Ywuc 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 is requesting a Special Permit to allow a change of use to allow a flower shop for the property located at 107 Federal Street. This property is located in a R-2 District. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and • for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans. makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioner conducts a retail establishment engaged in the business of flower sales, and has been engaged in business for several years. 2 . The majority of the petitioners business is conducted with telephone orders. 3. Petitioner utilizes two delivery vans to deliver it's floral arrangements. 4 . The site was previously used as a convince store. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENNETH SMITH/HI-DA-WAY PLANT FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 107 FEDERAL STREET (R-2) page two 5. There are two 15 minute parking spaces in \front of the property. 6. Petitioner requested a variance for change of use to enable the • first floor space to be used as a flower shop. 7. The following people who were at the hearing and spoke in favor: Bill 5 Betsy Burns 22 Beckford Street Councilor at Large The Arlander Family 93 Federal Street Joan Boudreau 138 Federal Street Richard Lindeman 113 Federal Street Joel Caron 4 Andover Street Victoria Stevens 5 Monroe Street John Carr 7 River Street David Hart 104 Federal Street Ellen DiGeromino 11 Church Street Elizabeth Hunt 2 River Street °`' Darlene Melis 115 Federal Streeto, Joan Griffin 105 Federal Street N n 8. The following people submitted letters in support of the m petitioners request: _ a The Arlander Family 93 Federal Street m v Joan Boudrequ 138 Federal Street N Richard Lindeman 113 Federal Street Joel Caron 4 Andover Street Victoria Stevens 5 Monroe Street 9. The Board may grant a speciai permit for a change of use to a non-conforming structure even though the petitioner applied for a variance. 10. Special permit may be granted upon the finding that the special permit will promote the public health, safety, convince or welfare of the city's inhabitants. • 11 . Neighbors speaking in favor of the request expressed a concern and a desire to limit the use to the specific use of the property as a flower shop. 12. The change of use to a flower shop as requested by the petitioner will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood then the existing non-conforming use. 13. There was no opposition to the petitioners request for a change in use for a flower shop. 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 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 promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and may be granted in harmony with the neighborhood. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENNETH SMITH/HI-DA-WAY PLANT SHOP FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 107 FEDERAL STREET (R-2) page three 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. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 6. Special Permit will expire with business at 107 Federal Street (Hi-Da-Way Plant Shop) . v n � Special Permit Granted March 15, 1995 mol Csus) � N or Joseph J. Ywuc Board of Appeal P, s N 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 • aitu of 'Salem, � Httsstttljusetts M ;a4 Putira of ( pFpeal Har 13 C/r r z 12 Py '95 Cl RK S OFF�cf SS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF' DARLEEN MELIS\IRVING INGRAGAM FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 115 FEDERAL STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1995 with 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 petitioner Darleen Melis, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a special permit to enlarge non-conformity by addition for the property. Granted leave to withdraw without prejudice. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE May 17,1995 • 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 (Gita of ,$Nlem, � usstttltusetts Paura of JAD},eu! 0a Z4 3 25 Ph `35 CITY OF SALEM. MASS CLI"ILK'S Oi 1ICF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FREDERICK ATKINS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 GLENDALE STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held October 18,1995 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Associate Member Albert LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 extension of non conforming use and a Special Permit for alterations of an existing nonconforming structure for the property located at 23 Glendale Street. 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. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit to allow extension of a nonconforming wooden boat storage sheds to allow construction on the same site of a new metal boat storage facility within the footprint and elevation of the existing structures. 2. Petitioners seeks a Special Permit to allow extension of a nonconforming use to include storage, warehousing and distribution of marine related hardware products in a 30' x 70' (2,100 s.f. ) section of the new boat storage facility. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF FREDERICK ATKINS REQUESTING A SPECIAL • PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 GLENDALE STREET (R-1) page two 3. There was no opposition to the proposed special permit. 4. Peter North, and abutter on the western edge of the property, spoke in support of the petitioner's request. 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 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 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, 3-0 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 . A Certificate of Inspection to be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a Building Permit prior to beginning any construction. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED October 18, 1995 n C � L Nina Cohen Member, Board of Appeal n p C'1 D r �n N CO • N C.!'1 DECISION OF THE PETITION" OF FREDERICK ATKINS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 GLENDALE STREET (R-1) 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 MCL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the 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 df.- Title. Board of Appeal • cn c n v� "_za r C>- p� 3 Lr S cm � • (GitU of . $alem, � ttssttcllusetts • `a '' pourb of (� enl ' ov 22 2 39 PN '99 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID ROBINSON REQ]1ES'RI(NG,&! H. MASS VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 GRAFTON ISMEE15 PA'1`1(jr A hearing on this petition was held November 15, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen, and 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, owners of the property request a Variance from front setback to enable addition to be built in the front of the structure for the property located at 11 Grafton Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner appeared with his builder, Fred Shaw, and submitted two building plans and a footprint of the two-family structure at 11 Grafton Street, which was substantially damaged by an accidental fire last year. 2. Petitioner proposed to extend the front of the house seven feet towards the property line, enlarging the entrance and front rooms on all stories of the two and a half story dwelling. 3. Petitioner stated that, due to ledge conditions, enlargement is not feasible toward the rear of the property. 4. Opposition to the proposed petition was voiced by Jeannette Dumas, of 9 Grafton Street, who expressed the fear that the proposed addition would create a crowded appearance on the property that would adversely affect the value of the property. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would • involve substation hardship to the petitioner.. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID ROBINSON REQUESTING A • VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 GRAFIpOY LL�TREE�T3(R��)°95 page two ffVV L CITY 01 ;A[J'H. MASS Cl ( ItK'S 0[ IICF the intent of the district or 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4 . All construction shall be done as per the plans submitted. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • Variance Granted November 15, 1995 Nina 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 • Cty of . ulem, CT- assadlusetts peal 0C 2-! 3 25 ,PM 195 CIVY OF SnU:M. 'MAG C! CRK°S O' il,C'F DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FREDERICK ATKINS 6 PATRICIA CONNOLLY ATKINS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 29-29 1/2 GREEN STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held October 18,1995 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Associate Member Albert LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 subdivide non conforming lots for the property located at 29-29 1/2 Green Street. (R-2) The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in 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 . Petitioners own two residences, a two-family dwelling and a three-family dwelling, at 29-29 1/2 Green Street. 2. Petitioners sought a Special Permit to allow subdivision of the existing nonconforming lot, notwithstanding the absence of sufficient lot area, lot width, front yard depth and side yard width to meet the requirements of the zoning code. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF FREDERICK ATKINS & PATRICIA CONNOLLY ATKINS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT • 29-29 1/2 GREEN STREET. (R-2) page two 3. There was no opposition to the proposed special permit. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: I . The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good 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 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. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction -including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED October 18, 1995 Nina Cohen Member, Board of Appeal n p n 1 �Y L �r7 �� N 2 Ln 7Y n> n N L 1 � • DECISION OF THE PETITION' OF FREDERICK ATKINS & PATRICIA CONNOLLY ATKINS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 29-29 1/2 GREEN STREET (R-2) 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 Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal n p n N? w r c� • fl�itn of Iem, 'Tagencilusetts • 3oQ Poara of (�knpeal OCT 24 3 23 PH °95 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT M. SHEA REQUESTINGlryOF SAL- i MrMASS A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22 HARDY STREET [M) IF A hearing on this petition was held October 18, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen, and Arthur LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, owners of the property request a Variance to convert a two family dwelling into a bed and breakfast for the property located at 22 Hardy Street (R-2) . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioners seek a variance to allow conversion of the existing non conforming residence at 22 Hardy Street to a bed & breakfast type accommodation with 4 guest rooms. 2. The proposed change in use would require no change in the building foot- print. Additional landscaping may be undertaken to upgrade the appearance of the building and grounds. 3. Support for the proposal was voiced by neighbors Ed Luzinski, of 24 Hardy Street, and by Cora LeBlanc, of 22 1/2 Hardy Street. The House of Seven Gables also supported the proposed conversion, via a letter for the Gables director Thomas Neel. 4. A petition with 15 signatures was submitted in support of the proposal. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. • 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT M. SHEA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22 HARDY STREET (R-2) page two 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 5. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 7 . Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Boards or Commissions having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Historic Commission. � a C' Variance Granted • &tober 18, 1995 m x� N p p /M// /S "Y Nina Cohen, Member N o Board of Appeal O U 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 • SEP Z6 12 io Ptl '95 (?lit of $Ulem, r�ttssttcljusetts 3 r = Cf I y OF SAIFH. HAS �9 Poura of �ppzal Cl FR K'S OF FIC f7 • a� DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL GIGLIOTTI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 GREENWAY ROAD (R-1) a/k/a 101 HIGHLAND AVENUE A hearing on this petition was held September 20, 1995 with the following` Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc and Arthur LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, owners of the property request a Variance to enlarge non conforming structure to construct an addition for the property located at 1 Greenway Road (R-1) . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioners property is a two family home of one story. Petitioners seek to enlarge their property by adding and additional story without changing the footprint of the existing structure. 2. William Katsapetses, an abutter who owns property at 103 Highland Avenue, appeared and stated that he has no opposition to the proposed addition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from • the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL GIGLIOTTI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 GREERT'AY ROAD (R-1) a/k/a/ 101 HIGHLAND AVENUE . page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the exterior finishes. 6. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. Variance Granted September 20, 1995 • Nina 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 apQQa,2, has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the nth Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of renRpd or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal m -� T �y T !f,7 V) ry N (J'1 JUL 10 3 28 fh '95 f1lit of ,Salem, fflassadjusettki y Or SALEM. 14ASS 3 CL 1"R K'$ 01"FIC.F a �uttrD of �kpeal • 4..� DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RICHARD & ROSE GENTILE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 HILTON STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held June 28, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen and Jospeh 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, owners of the property requests a Variance from maximum height of a fence from 6 foot to 8 foot for the property located at 2 Hilton Street. (R-1) . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. • The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner seeks a variance from the six foot height restriction to construct an 8 foot fence on the property line between their home and the adjacent house that is part of a new development on Hilton Street. The new fence, to be 90 feet long, would be built where there is an existing 3 foot chain fence. 2. Petitioner represented that the developer, Philip Singleton, had no objection to the construction of the 8 foot fence between petitioner's property and the adjacent property. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RICHARD 6 ROSE GENTILE A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 HILTON STREET (R-1 ) • page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations . 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. Variance Granted i�l/�y/� �C�rnrt rfl _\ June 28, 1995 �J Nina 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 n- > -,m �i con ¢Yn • ar 1A g 30 VIOS (Cita of ttlem, ttssttcljuse�B2� 3 30 VH °95 3 + �,Al.[ 4, 14ASS MASS TY 01 oe� icc �nttra of �, peal C1-1y 0;' snLrM. e C� CI.CRK QrRK'S OFFICF. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 224-234 HIGHLAND AVE. (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrette, Albert Hill, 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 is requesting a Variance from front setbacks and buffer and a Variance from parking for the property located at 224-234 Highland Avenue. This property is located in a B-2 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the • intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioner, owner of two parcels of property at 224-234 Highland Avenue seeks a variance from minimum depth requirements for the .lot at 224 Highland Avenue, and from a required buffer area at the proposed common property line. 2. Site plans, developed by the Kennedy Development Group, provided support for petitioner's statement that a parking area in front of the proposed restaurant building, while not meeting the depth requirement of the Zoning Code, would not obstruct the facade or adversely affect the appearance of the property. 3. The proposed site plan demonstrates adequate alternate use of the buffer zone on the common property line as a common parking area, thus supporting petitioner's request for a variance from the buffer zone setback requirements. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 224-234 HIGHLAND AVENUE (B2_ page two 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would • involve substation hardship to the. petitioner. 3. The request relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the requested relief, 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 shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a Building Permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. A Certificate of- Inspection shall be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering for the City of Salem Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 7. Construction is subject to Site Plan review process. • Variance Granted May 17, 1995 i Nina 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 th-e 389th Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner , K record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. h� Board of Appeal LA W O.� W �s o �x s • ^n a � 6ti N Vy JUL 6 3 (fift,'95f 4,Rassacliuscite i y CITY OF SALEM. MASS -BOttra of ku}t¢Itl • °a ,,� Ct I:RK'S OEEICF. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 224-234 HIGHLAND AVENUE (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 28, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen and Jospeh 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, owners of the property requests a Variance on parking and a Variance on maximum height of fences for the property located at 224-234 Highland Avenue. (B-2) The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. . 1 . The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . As a result of the Planning Board's Site Review process, the petitioner has re-designed the site in response to comments and concerns expressed by the abutting neighbors. 2. The new plans call for removal of some parking from the residentially zoned areas. 3. The new plans call for construction of an eight (8) foot high fence to provide screening and noise reduction for neighboring residents. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from • the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 224-234 HIGHLAND AVENUE (B-2) page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the • variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations . 2. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 3. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted _ June 28, 1995 � •;ti �t 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. n r Board of Appeal C < r N • '�. of _. Ivm �Hazgarljusetts JUL 6 3 3i P� 4 P �v CITY 01� SALI:H• MASS attrD of ¢211 • "" CLl RK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CAMP LION OF LYNN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 28, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, 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 transmission of signals by the airways from the tower at the property located at 488 Highland Avenue. This property is located in a R-2 District. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits • for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner will purchase the tower from Warner Cable Communications. 2. The petitioner will lease space for paging and two-way radio systems to generate revenue to further it charitable work. 3. The use would change from reception only to transmission of signals. i DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CAMP LION OF LYNN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-2) page two • 4 . The petitioner will hire a professional sit manager. 5. There was opposition to the request for a Special Permit due to health concerns and questions concerning T.V. interference. 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 and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 1 in favor,4 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 June 28, 1995 • 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. C-) C. Board of Appeal x a� v > W r on W �x r n> N �1 ofttlPm, CussttcljusPtts M • 3oQ Pnttra of A, peal APR 27 9 4o AN '95 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHILIP J. BURNHAM FOR A VARIA FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 29 JACKSON STREET (R-2) 1�y (�FGAIRK'S pj�, ASS A hearing on this petition was held April 19, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrette, Albert Hill, 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 located at 29 Jackson Street requests a Variance from side setbacks. The relief which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 refuel may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the • intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The foundation was mis-sited by the contractors and/or engineer causing it to encroach on the side setback. 2. The costs associated with moving the foundation would be prohibitive. 3. The proposed dwelling will not substantially alter the existing character of the neighborhood and will not be a detrimental use. 4. The Ward 3 Councillor Donahue wrote a letter in opposition. 5. Two people spoke in favor of the petition, but voiced concern over the condition of the site. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. The request relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PHILIP J. BURNHAM FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 29 JACKSON STREET page two • public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the requested relief, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 1- 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. 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. Variance Granted /��• /April 19, 1995 'uz Stephen C. Touchette j0 Board of Appeal, Member 0."r9 c,z T� N 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. • SEP15 �- (Git of ttlem, assnd usetts 1Zi� r,' '95 j CIiYO,- r CIIIrX;hIOIy_11'r DECISION `a �s 19uttra of �Fpenl • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEVEN MESSIER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 92 JACKSON STREET (B-4) A hearing on this petition was held September 20, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc and Arthur LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, owners of the property New England Wire Assembly, Inc.request a Variance for a Change of Use (Wire Assembly) for the property located at 92 Jackson Street (B-4) . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. • The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Ward 3 Councillor John Donahue spoke in favor of the petitioner. 2. City Planner by letter dated September 18, 1995 expressed his support for the petition. 3. By letter dated September 8, 1995 Leonard Lucas, Vice President of Guilford Transportation Industries, Inc. expressed an interest in the petition in as much as it was in proximity to an existing railroad right of way. 4. Steven Messier and Joseph Francis, principal of New England Wire Assemblies, Inc. were in attendance. 5. The subject building has been vacant for one year and was foreclosed on by the Salem Five Cents Saving Bank in 1994. 6. The surrounding area contains a businesses including food distributor, and Petitioner's wire assembly business will be in keeping with the nature and character of the surrounding area. 7. The petitioner plans to demolish an existing one story portion of the structure and will create 3 or 4 off-street parking spaces. 8. The petitioner is negotiating with the owners of the nearby gas station to lease off-street parking spaces for its employee's. 9. The petitioner's business will have a minimal impact on the area's vehicular traffic. 10. The petitioner's wire assembly business will be in keeping with the neighborhood as the subject property reverts back to its old use as a light manufacturing business. 11. There was no opposition to the petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEVEN MESSIER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 92 JACKSON STREET (B-4 ) page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval of the Building Inspector and shall obtain a demolition permit prior to beginning any demolition at the • property. Variance Granted t September 20, 1995 Gary 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 4OA, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 4OA, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. N M Board of Appeal 0 m Ln r N PAJ 0= r L7 �d N Ln Ctu of . ttlem, CTussadjusetts M Pourb of �upeal off DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEPHEN AUTO SALES REQUESTIIW,`. M 'Au-N Mh A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 60 JEFFERSON AVENUE A hearing on this petition was held October 18, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen, and Arthur LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, owners of the property request a Variance for a Change of Use to allow sale of used cars for the property located at 60 Jefferson Avenue. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner, Stephen's Auto Sales leases the subject property from its owner James Bailey. 2. The owner previously sold used cars at the subject location. 3. The previous property owner had also sold used cars at the subject property. 4. An automotive repair shop is operated out of the rear of the building located on the property. 5. The subject property is licensed for the sale of 10 used cars on site by the Salem Licensing Board. 6. An automobile related business has been conducted on the subject property for over 20 years. 7. The surrounding neighborhood consists of an automobile repair station, a furniture store, a vehicle/maintenance garage, Bob's Carburetor shop; a bus company and a residential property. 8. Mr. Bertuccio, an abutting property owner, through his Attorney Neil • Hourihan, expressed his support for the petitioner. DECISION OF THE PETITION 0?; STEPHEAT'S ,UTO SALES REQUESTING VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 60 JEFFERSON AVENUE (R-1 ) page two • 9. Petitioner, through his attorney, Stephen Lovely, expressed a willingness to limit the number of used vehicles displayed on the property for sale. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general . 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3 . Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions : 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations . 2. Petitioner shall display no more than (7) seven used cars. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • 4 . A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and display said number so as to be visible from the street. Variance Granted (SClL� October 18,1995 NBrett 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 • SEP �M f1Zit oftzlem, { ttssttdlusPts� o� r as 1 tf 995 'e �s �ottrb of Appeal '01?K�S�p� r.rc ss • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KICOLAOS KARAMBELAS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 271 JEFFERSON AVENUE (B-1) A hearing on this petition was held September 20, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill and Associate Members Joseph Ywuc 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, located at 271 Jefferson Avenue, is requesting a Variance to non conforming structure to add two, five room apartments. 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, makes the following findings of facts: 1. Petitioner's property consists of a three story house containing two residential apartments and a retail store of over 3,000 sq. ft. of unimproved land with frontage on Lawrence Street. 2. Petitioner seeks to enlarge his property by adding an additional story, and two additional apartment units, without changing the footprint of the existing structure. Petitioner proposed to pave the rear lot to provide parking spaces for each of the residential units in the building. 3. John Donahue, City Councillor for Ward 3 appeared and stated his opposition to the proposed variance, stating that the increased density would adversely affect the neighboring properties and would worsen the congestion of a densely populated area. 4. A letter from abutter Paul Biscaia was submitted by his mother, describing the effect the proposed addition would have on the privacy and the sunlight of the adjacent home at 267 Jefferson Avenue. He and his mother opposed the granting of the variance. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KICOLAOS KARAMBELAS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 271 JEFFERSON AVENUE (B-1 ) page two 5. Opposition to the proposed addition was also voiced by the • following neighbors, on the grounds that the additional units would increase the congestion, noise, and parking problems already present in the neighborhood. George & Judy Jetter 272 Jefferson Avenue Denise Bradstreet 263 Jefferson Avenue Celia Yerminy 264 Jefferson Avenue Kenneth Gagnon 75 1/2 Lawrence Street On the basic of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, 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 Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 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 � � L rlm (o-> September 20, 1995 Nina 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 of Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing .the certification of the City Clerk that20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. M N C1 N� N O coco co N Lrl '��°`�. Qlity of . $Afm' C�ttssarljuswtp 219 PUS $ ; CIIY OF SALCM. MASS 'oe YgDIIi11 0f �1UVeal CL! RK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLYDE F. MCKAY FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 333 JEFFERSON AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrette, Albert Hill, 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. Z. Petitioner, owner of the property is requesting Variance from side set backs to construction an addition on the rear of his dwelling for the property located at 333 Jefferson Avenue. This property is in an R-1 district. The relief which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner is enlarging an existing porch which is in need of repair. 2. The lot is narrower than other lots in the area. 3. The addition will allow the petitioner a fuller enjoyment of the property. 4. There was no opposition to the request. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. • PETITION OF CLYDE F. MCKAY FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 333 JEFFERSON AVENUE (R-1) page two 3. The request relief can be granted without substantial detriment to • public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the requested relief, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit 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. Variance Granted May 17, 1995 �jceo e/�GC� 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 C') _ a K 'O (:V CDN> N r ;s o T D N La �� (91t" of -ittlem, 'Masuld7usetts M 3 M Pnura of Au penl • Q"°" Nov 1 ! 51 liil '35 C 11 5Cil 1:'. :�i;i,t ^ . r" S Of i'IC:- 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 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 • (11itu of ,�$ttlem, � ttssttcliusetts 3 • Poara of �u{renl JULIO 2 44 PH '95 CITY OF SALEM. MASS CLI'RK'S OFFICF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NANCY HARRINGTON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 36 JUNIPER AVENUE. (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held June 28, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc 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 for minimum lot area and minimum width of side yard. 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 Special Permit 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. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NANCY HARRINGTON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 36 JUNIPER AVENUE. page two • C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Leonard O'Leary spoke in favor of the Petition. 2. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the 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, subjecr 'to the following conditions: ' 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, codes ordinances and regulations. 2. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Special Permit Granted June 28, 1995 Albert C. Hill Member, Board of Appeal n gar i� b_ O O ri -1• "O rn D N N • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NANCY HARRINGTON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 36 JUNIPER AVENUE. 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 Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal n c � r n� o_ O Ln � > N on r nS S D NLn �p • Ctu of $Ulem, CTttsoadjusetts ;ae Pnara of Aupenl fga�l�y IC114 r12 [Pit/ p M`S Or'Ht40 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL L. MICHAUD FOR A VARIANCE AT 5-7 LIBERTY HILL AVENUE. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held April 19, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Arthur LaBrecque, 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 on minimum distance between buildings on lot from 30' to 22.5. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: I. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the 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. This will allow petitioner a 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 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 PAUL L.MICHAUD FOR A VARIANCE AT 5-7 LIBERTY HILL AVENUE, SALEM page two • 3. All construction shall be done as per the plan an An 24101 '�jf submitted. CCf�:Yf0� n ,AU1.'Pt.?�f. � 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to F)NJ n�ngET(W-, 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 April 19, 1995 Albert C. Hill, Jr. 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 • (gitu of Salem, ttssttcljusetts a ' aura of �rrpeal • 4<,,,,, � Yl➢tt 30 �� Il3 �ICj °� C177 SOF sALFM. ,}gess Cl FRx's dFF7CF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AAV REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 66 LORING AVENUE (B-1) A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett; Acting Chairman; Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Associate Members Joseph Ywuc 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 is requesting a Special Permit to allow the existing,non-conforming one story building to be used to house three small businesses located at 66 Loring Avenue. (B-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 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. Petitioner stated that his property previously housed two businesses, including a newspaper distribution business. The previous commercial tenants have vacated and are no longer leasing space there. 2. Petitioner seeks to introduce two less intense commercial tenants into the space without any change in the structure of footprint of the building, and without enlarging the building. • DECISION OF AAV REALTLY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 66 LORING AVENUE (B-1) page two • 3. There was no opposition to the proposal. OIL <�0 On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence tp �1 presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: s <„ O.i 4y, 1 . The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially c 9ss `f 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, 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. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Special Permit Granted March 15, 1995 • Nina 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 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 • (Mv of ,$Aem, 'T- assadjusetts i 9 • `Q Pourb of �,", el l Ja 13 114, All CivOassf-r ;11' p C "oi rr4 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AAV REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 68 LORING AVENUE (B-1) A hearing on this petition was held June 28, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, 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 existing, non conforming one story building to be used to house two businessess for the property located at 68 Loring Avenue (B-2) . The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in 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 . Petitioner proposes to partition off building to allow 2 small busineses to occupy the premises. 2. There will not be a change to the footprint of the building, nor will there be an enlargement or extension of the stucture. 3. The property previously housed an automible repair shop and a carpet retail/warehouse business. • DECISION OF THE AAV REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 68 LORING AVENUE (B-2) page two • 4. One of the proposed tenants operates a T- shirt silk screening business. 5. The premises has some off-street parking, but it has never had the off-street parking required by the ordinances. 6. Ward 4 City Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor of the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The Special Permit requested can 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 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: I. 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. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 6. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Inspection. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED \ JUNE 28, 1995 ] Gary Barrett Member, Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE AAV REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 68 LORING AVENUE (B-2) 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 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 • • Titg of Salem, '-ttssadjusetts y • "'4 �nura of �upeal v, N> O r on W T; AMENDED DECISION F3 x m> DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AAV REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AND SPIFC41 PERMIT AT 66 LORING AVENUE (B-1) A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett; Acting Chairman,Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Joseph Ywuc, 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 Variance and Special Permit to allow the existing, non-conforming one story building to be used to house three small businesses and a Variance for parking for the property located at 66 Loring Avenue. (B-1) The province 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, extent 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 neighbor 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 AAV REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT • AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 66 LORING AVENUE (B-1) page two C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner stated that his property previously housed two businesses, including a newspaper distribution business. The previous commercial tenants have vacated and are no longer leasing space there. 2. Petitioner seeks to introduce two less intense commercial tenants into the space without any change in the structure of footprint of the building, and without enlarging the building. 3. There is no on site parking. 4. 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 0 a r K O Ln 0 _ • N r G 0.-7 W T D N i.J'1L J1 N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AAV REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 66 LORING AVENUE, SALEM page three • 4 . A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. This Decision amends and supersedes the previous Decision dated March 30, 1995 . Variance and Special Permit Granted March 15, 1995 Nina 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 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 6Fi • .no f/9 (situ of LSalem, ��Httssndjusetts aQ � q-6loft 'ss �Bottrb of (�upenl CITY OF SA€FM.. MASS CLEWS OfFtCF AMENDED DECISION DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AAV REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 68 LORING AVENUE (B-1) A hearing on this petition was held June 28, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill and 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. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance and Special Permit to allow the existing, non-conforming one story building to be used to house two small businesses and a Variance for parking for the property located at 68 Loring Avenue. (B-1) The province 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, extent 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 neighbor 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 AAV REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 68 LORING AVENUE (B-1 ) page two • C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner proposes to partition off building to allow two businesses to occupy the premises. 2. There will not be a change to the footprint of the building, nor will there be an enlargement or extensionof the structure. 3. The property previously housed an automobile repair shop and a carpet retail/warehouse business. 4. One of the proposed tenants operates a T-shirt silk screening business. 5. The premises has some off-street parking, but it has never had the off street parking required by the ordinances. 6. Ward 4 City Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor of the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. 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. y 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke arcR vires safety shall be strictly adhered to. ®„., � a DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AAV REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 68 LORING AVENUE, SALEM page three 3. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to starting construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visiable from the street. This Decision amends and supersedes the previous Decision dated July 13, 1995. Variance and Special Permit Granted June 28, 1995 Gary arrett 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 MCL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing • of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the 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 Ceitif*cate of Title. Board of Appeal 3 d7 ::i 3r Y' Ti9 �T R"1+ of . $Avm, ��Ettssacljusetts Poara of �u}ienl flu 57 Clay Oj DECISION ON THE PETITION OF VICO AVIN REQUESTING A C11, S.4ti VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103-105 LORING AVENUE 71('R'S26j-,-J4 SS A hearing on this petition was held October 18, 1995 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, owner of the property, located at 103-105 Loring Avenue requesting a Variance to allow the continued use of the existing third floor apartment. 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, makes the following findings of facts: 1. The property is a legal two family dwelling and an illegal third floor apartment has been in existence for a period of years at least since the late 1980's when the petitioner purchased the property. 2. Ward Seven Councillor Mark Blair, opposed the petition because of concerns for parking and density to the neighborhood. 3. The subject property is located in close proximity to the busy intersection of Loring Avenue, Jefferson Avenue and Canal Street. 4. Petitioner submitted a petitioned singed by 10 neighbors stating that they had no opposition to the petitioner's request for relief. 5. Petitioner submitted a plan showing 5 parking spots, 2 in a garage, 2 immediately outside the garage and one along the driveway going to the rear of the building. • 6. Mr. Tremblay, the Building Inspector expressed an opinion that there was insufficient clearance for a car to exit the garage DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VICO AVIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103-105 LORING AVENUE (R-2) page two • if there were vehicles parked outside the garage, and therefore felt there was inadequate parking. 7 . Petitioner had listed the property for sale with a realtor, listing it as a 3 family dwelling. On the basic of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, 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 Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 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 z,Zy (scr-,� October 18, 1995 • Gary 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 of Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • of *Iem, ttssttcljusetts i r Y °4 �ottra of ��eal AA 11 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ELEANOR & ROY LAPHAM FOR A VARIANHU FOR 28 PM '95 THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 LUSSIER STREET (R-2) CITY OF SALEM- MASS I',K' OF 1:T.F A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 1995 with the fol� iS ngBoar members present: Gary M. Barrett, Chairman(acting) ; Arthur Labreque, Joseph Ywuc, Nona 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 located at 17 Lussier Street requests a Variance from lot size and a Variance from lot width requirements to allow construction of a two family dwelling. The relief which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 refuel may be granted without substantial detriment to the • public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The petitioner, through Counsel introduced evidence as to the existing dimensions of the abutting lots and the district in general and the financial hardship which the petitioner would endure if not granted the requested relief. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The property in question is vacant land consisting of approximately 5,250 square feet. 2. That the property is a corner lot located at the intersection of Lussier Street and Atlantic Street and the petitioner intends, per the plans submitted, to take frontage on Atlantic Street. 3. The adjacent lot on Atlantic Street, which is owned by the petitioner, houses a two family dwelling and is also 5,250 square feet. 4 . That a petition was submitted containing seventeen (17) names of persons who live in the immediate neighborhood of the property, all of whom were in favor of the petitioner's request to construct a two family dwelling on the vacant lot. 5. There was no opposition to the petition. 6. That because this lot was not build upon previously, as were all of the adjacent lots to the property, current zoning density requirements apply to this property and not the adjacent properties in this area. 7. That literal enforcement of the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size and • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ELEANOR & ROY LAPHAM FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 LUSSIER STREET (R-2) page two the 100 foot lot width requirement would render this property virtually • useless causing substantial economic hardship to the owners 8. That the owners of the property and their families have resided for several years, and do presently reside, in the neighborhood of the property. 9. That the lot size of virtually every property on Atlantic Street is between 4,500 and 5,500 square feet and 50 to 55 feet of frontage. 10. That there are several multi-family dwellings located in this R-2 district. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3 . The request relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the requested relief, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances. codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions • submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. 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. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Variance Granted March 15, 1995 J �xc� Joseph J. You �, a Board of Appeal, Member K r O CJ V,D r T•S m> N CZ N Exi • 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 cn � �J g ^'dim tyn Q„pL • • of 5ulem, 'fttssacljusetts ` e �ottra of upeal � N O T N� � r O_- N DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT SOLOMON\WENDI GOLDSMITH x Cn FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 MALL STREET (R-2) c,x r> A hearing on this petition was held April 19, 1995 with the follouTng(JI 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 Robert Solomon\Wendi Goldsmith, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a special permit to extend a non-conforming use for the property. Granted leave to withdraw without prejudice. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE April 19, 1995 Stephen C. Touchette, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. of alem, '�ElagzarliuSedi IO 3 29 Fri `95 N CIiY OfSALf.ti. MASS s 'Board 0{ �C1U�1¢211 CLFRK'S OPFICF • ,o4r� DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH D. MENTO JR. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 MAPLE AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held June 28, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen and Jospeh 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, owners of the property requests a Variance from side setbacks to build a garage for the property located at 5 Maple Avenue (R-1) . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. • The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner stated that his property formerly included an easement allowing him the use of a garage situated partially on the adjoining property. About a year ago, the easement expired. Petitioner attempted to negotiate an extension, but was unsuccessful. 2. Petitioner sought a variance to enable him to build a garage on the property line, where the driveway lies, to replace the garage that formerly served his property and the neighboring one. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH D. MENTO JR.FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 MAPLE AVENUE (R-1) page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations . 2. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted June 28, 1995 Nina 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. r� Board of Appeal ' 3 €, ci a teJ r 0"1 N �x �b N V A 011tuof . ttlem tt l� #ts 6n c U 'v ' Pnttra of �u�enl • ` "` '95 MAR -6 P4 :10 l!IRN VI DECISION OF THE ZONINGDECISION ON THEOENFORCEMENTDOFFICEROF RIC . ERSON REGARDIN 'tAt UNDtRSE EOLOTHAT 31 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held December 7, 1994 and was continued on January 18,1995 and February 15, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Arthur Labreque, 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 located at 35 Marlborough Road, was requesting enforcement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and revocation of a building permit issued by the Building Inspector for the property located at 31 Marlborough Road for the reason that the 31 Marlborough Road lot was undersized and that the Building Inspector erred when he held the lot to be "grandfathered" for the now existing lot size requirements. The relief which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. The lot known and numbered as 31 Marlborough Road does not meet the minimum lot size of 15,000 square as now required in a R-1 zone; and • 2. The 31 Marlborough Road lot is not "grandfathered" from application of the now existing minimum lot size requirement, and as a consequence thereof is not a building lot without a variance from said lot size restrictions. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 31 MARLBOROUGH ROAD 1. By deed dated November 23, 1970, Lionel J. Bouchard and Louise Bouchard acquired title to the lot at 31 Marlborough Road. 2. By deed dated January 13, 1987, Louise Bouchard conveyed title to the 31 Marlborough Road property to Robert Bouchard, Trustee of the Marlborough Street Realty Trust. 3. On September 30 1994, Robert Bouchard, Trustee conveyed the 31 Marlborough Road property to its current owner, the Trapper Realty Trust. 35 MARLBOROUGH ROAD 4 . The property known as 35 Marlborough Road was acquired on February 9, 1965 by Loinel J. and Louise Bouchard. 5. Loinel Bouchard died on August 8, 1972, and by operation thereof Louise Bouchard became sole owner of the 35 Marlborough Road property. 6. By deed dated November 13, 1986, Robert M. Bouchard acquired title to • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RICHARD D. ANDERSON REQUESTING REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER REGARDING THE UNDERS LOT AT 31 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (R-1) RECEI�� page two 35 Marlborough Road property. �j hRR -( P4 :10 • 7 . On July 7 1994, Robert M. Bouchard conveyed the 5 Marlborough Road property to its current owners, Richard and Cheri Andersq 8. 35 Marlborough Road is reflected as Parcel 73 orCKsYs&k ',Ns'5 951w, and 31 Marlborough Road is reflected as Parcel 71 on sa5A.L ssessors'Map 8 9. 35 Marlborough Road and 31 Marlborough Road are adjoining lots. 10. 35 Marlborough Road and 31 Marlborough Road were held in common owner- ship commencing on November 30, 1970 by Lionel J. and Louise Bouchard. 11. 31 Marlborough Road is a lot of approximately 5064 square feet. 12. 35 Marlborough Road is a lot of approximately 13,873 square feet. 13. In 1977, the Salem Zoning Ordinance was changed. Said zoning change increased the minimum lot size from a minimum of 7000 square feet to 14. Lionel and Louise Bouchard resided in a house situated on the property at 35 Marlborough Road. As of this date, Richard and Cheri Anderson reside in the house situated on the 35 Marlborough Road property. 15. In reliance upon a letter dated July 11, 1984 written by Mr. MacIntosh, former Building Inspector of the City of Salem, holding that the lot was known as 31 Marlborough Road was a "grandfathered" lot, Leo E. Tremblay, the Zoning Enforcement Officer, issued an opinion letter dated July 13, 1993 stating that the said 31 Marlborough Road property was a "grandfathered" lot, and was therefore a building lot even though said lot did not meet the now existing minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. 16. On November 2, 1994, the Building Inspector issued a Building Permit for 31 Marlborough Road, and thereafter construction began on the property with the pouring of a concrete foundation. 17. Mr. James Gemma, 36 Marlborough Road, opposed construction of the lot known as 31 Marlborough Road. 18. Mr. Roger Legend, 64 Marlborough Road, opposed construction of the lot • known as 31 Marlborough Road. 19. Mr. Michael Dennedy, 4 Orleans Avenue, opposed construction of the lot known as 31 Marlborugh Road. 20. Councillor Leonard O'Leary, Ward 4, opposed construction of the lot known as 31 Marlborough Road. 21. Richard and Cheri Anderson, 35 Marlborough Road, opposed construction of the lot known as 31 Marlborough Road. 22. A letter dated February 2, 1995 from Robert Ledoux, City Solicitor to Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Board of Appeals, was made part of the record. 23. A legal memorandum on behalf of Thomas Donovan, Trustee of the Trapper Realty Trust was submitted as requested by the Board, and was made part of the record. No such memorandum was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The lots known as 31 Marlborough Road and 35 Marlborough Road respectively merged in common ownership as of November 30, 1970. 2. As of the date of the 1977 Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Salem, both of the lots known as 31 Marlborough Road and 35 Marlborough Road respectively were non-conforming lots in as much as • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RICHARD D. ANDERSON REQUESTING REVI . ETHE.-r DECISION OF THE ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER REGARDING THE UNDERSIZE LOT AT 31 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (R-1) page three '95 MAR —6 P4 :10 • the new Zoning Ordinance required a minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. feet. 3. As of the date of the 1977 Amendment to the Zoning OrdinghT-* (ZCE 1f1fe0FFICE City of Salem, the lots known as 31 Marlborough Road and 35S1di 6i6u'g`h Road were held in common ownership; said lots having been held in common ownership since November 30, 1970. 4. By virtue of the doctrine of merger, the lot known as 31 Marlborough Road is not a 'grandfathered" lot, and is therefore an undersized lot, requiring a variance in order to build upon it. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 in favor of the motion to grant the Petition of Richard D. Anderson seeking enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance finding that the Zoning Enforcement officer erred in deciding that the lot known as 31 Marlborough Road was a "grandfathered" lot and therefore erred in issuing the Building Permit for said property on said basis, and the Board hereby orders the Building Permit for said property on said basis, and the Board hereby orders the Building Inspector to not approve the permit to build as filed. Petition Granted February 15, 1995 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 ..Nlem, �EaggadjunysEIvED jo g Pnttra of Aupeal • 9T5 rMAR �p-6 P4 :10 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS M. DONOVAN, TRUSTEE OFCTH pTRAj"i R�FFICE REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE FROM LOT SIZE FOR THE PROPERTY L GATED AT " " 31 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Arthur Labreque, 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 located at 31 Marlborough Road, was requesting a Variance from lot size requirements for the property located at 31 Marlborough Road. The relief which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 refuel may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. On September 30, 1994, Robert Bouchard, Trustee, conveyed the 31 Marlborough Road property to its current owner and petitioner, Thomas M. Donovan, Trustee of the Trapper Realty Trust. 2. 31 Marlborough Road is a lot of approximately 5064 square feet. 3. In 1977, the Salem Zoning Ordinance was changed. Said zoning change increased the minimum lot size from a minimum of 7,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet in an R-1 district. 4. In reliance upon a letter dated July 11, 1984, written by Mr. MacIntosh, former Building Inspector for the City of Salem, holding that the lot known as 31 Marlborough Road was a "grandfathered" lot, Leo Tremblay, the Zoning Enforcement Officer, issued an opinion letter dated July 13, 1993, stating that said 31 Marlborough Road property was a " grandfathered" lot . and was therefore a buildable lot even though said lot did not meet the now existing minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. feet . 5. In reliance upon the opinion letter dated July 13, 1993, stating that the 31 Marlborough Road property was a buildable lot, the petitioner purchased said property. 6. On November 2, 1994, the Building Inspector issued a Building Permit • RECEi V'_r) DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS M. DONOVAN, TRUSTEE OF THE TRAPPER REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM LOT SIZE FOR THE PROP.rsRTY.g6OC&TEPd :10 • AT 31 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (R-1) Y� 1fllt 0 page two CITY CLERK'S OFFICE for 31 Marlborough Road, and thereafter construction began 9A Nfi m. sT • property with the pouring of a concrete foundation. 7. Subsequent to commencement of construction, Richard Anderson, 35 Marlborough Road, filed a petition with the Board of Appeal seeking enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance and revocation of the building permit issued for the 31 Marlborough Road property ofn the basis that the Building Inspector erred in holding that the 31 Marlborough Road property was a "grandfathered"lot and therefore not subject to the now existing 15,000 square foot minimum lot size. The Board granted the petition and ordered the building permit not be approved. 8. The 31 Marlborough Road property is a unique triangular shaped lot with a sloping terrain. Because of its unique shape, the property has two frontages- one on Marlborough Road and one on Michael Road. 9. With the exception of lot size, the now proposed construction meets all other side and front setback and frontage requirements for an R-1 district. 10. On or about April 27, 1994, the previous owner of the 31 Marlborough property petitioned for a variance from setback requirements which petition was denied by this Board. At the time of said hearing, the immediate abutter, Cheri Anderson, 35 Marlborough Road, opposed the requested variance in part based on the then proposed construction proximity to her property line. Although opposed to the present request for a variance, Mrs. Anderson's in as much as setback requirements will be met, but rather in based on the lot size of the 31 • Marlborough Road property. 11 . Councillor Leonard O'Leary, Ward 4, opposed construction on the lot known as 31 Marlborough Road. 12. Mr. James Gemma, 36 Marlborough Road, opposed construction on the lot known as 31 Marlborough Road. 13 . Richard and Cheri Anderson, 35 Marlborough Road, opposed construction on the lot known as 31 Marlborough Road. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. The request relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four (4) in favor, one ( 1 ) Ms. Cohen, in opposition to the motion to grant the petition for the requested for the variance with 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. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS M. DONOVAN, TRUSTEE OF THE TRAPPER, REALLY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY AT 31 MARLBOROUGH • ROAD (R-1) •95 MAR -6 P410, page three CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department reSkaEve NtASsmoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Proper street numbering shall be meet. 6. Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Variance Granted February 15, 1995 Gary M. Barrett Board of Appeal, Member A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the 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 L"-5ttlem, �MttsSNCIJU eNIVEO 9 • oQ Potts of �FPenl '95 MAR -6 P41 0 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS M. DONOVAN, TRUSTEE CPITT`H�� fiRA`P E �FICE REALTY TRUST REQUESTING REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE ZONIN4'�trtriA ENFORCEMENT OFFICE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 35 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held January 18, 1995 and was continued on February 15, 1995 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, owner of the property, located at 31 Marlborough Road , was requesting enforcement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and revocation of the occupancy permit for the property located at' 35 Marlborough Road for the reason that the 35 Marlborough Road property lacks sufficient area and frontage to conform to the R-1 district requirements . The relief which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. The lot known and numbered as 35 Marlborough Road does not meet the minimum lot size of 15,000 square and minimum frontage of 100 feet as now required in an R-1 zone; and • 2. The Building Inspector erred in failing to revoke the Occupancy Permit for the 35 Marlborough Road property. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of facts: 31 Marlborough Road 1. By deed dated November 23, 1970, Lionel J. Bouchard and Louise Bouchard acquired title to the lot at 31 Marlborough. 2. By deed dated January 13, 1987, Louise Bouchard conveyed title to the 31 Marlborough Road property to Robert Bouchard, Trustee, of the Marlborough Street Realty Trust. 3. On September 30, 1994, Robert Bouchard, Trustee, conveyed the 31 Marlborough Road property to its current owner, the Trapper Realty Trust. 35 Marlborough Road 4. The property known as 35 Marlborough Road was acquired on February 9, 1965 by Lionel J. and Louise Bouchard. 5. Lionel Bouchard died on August 8, 1972, and by operation thereof Louise Bouchard became sole owner of the 35 Marlborough Road property. 6. By deed dated November 13, 1986, Robert M. Bouchard acquired title to 35 Marlborough Road. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS M. DONOVAN, TRUSTEE OF T -,-PAPP REALTY TRUST REQUESTING THE REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE Z 1Nd=IVI: I ENFORCEMENT REGARDING THE OCCUPANCY FOR THE PROPERTY AT 35 • MARLBOROUGH ROAD (R-1) page two '95 MAR —6 P4 :10 7. On July 7, 1994, Robert Bouchard, conveyed the 35 Mcgl or�oFugh �F Road property to its current owners, Richard and Cheri sf�C ,ris r, OFFICE 8. 35 Marlborough Road is reflected as Parcel 73 on Assessors' Neap 8, and 31 Marlborough Road is reflected as Parcel 71 on said Assessor;s Map 8. 9. 35 Marlborough Road and 31 Marlborough Road are adjoining lots. 10. 35 Marlborough Road and 31 Marlborough Road were held in common ownership commencing on November 30, 1970 by Lionel J. and Louise Bouchard. 11. 31 Marlborough Road is a lot of approximately 5064 feet 12. 35 Marlborough Road is a lot of approximately 13,873 square feet. 13. In 1977, the Salem Zoning Ordinance was changed. Said zoning change increased the minimum lot size from a minimum of 7000 sq feet to 15,000 square feet in a R-1 district. 14. Lionel and Louise Bouchard resided in a house situated on the property at 35 Marlborough Road. Said home has been occupied since that time, if not earlier, though this date. As of the date, Richard and Cheri Anderson reside in the house situated on the 35 Marlborough Road property. 15. Councilor Leonard O'Leary, Ward 4, opposed the petition. 16. Richard and Cheri Anderson, 35 Marlborough Road, opposed the decision. 17. A letter dated February 2, 1995 from Robert LeDoux, City Solicitor to Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Board of Appeals, was made part of the record. • 18. A legal memorandum on behalf of Thomas Donovan, Trustee of the Trapper Realty Trust was submitted as requested by the Board, and was made part of the record. No such memorandum was submitted on behalf of the petitioner. On the basic of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The lots known as 31 Marlborough Road and 35 Marlborough Road respectively merged in common ownership as of November 30, 1970. 2. As of the date of the 1977 Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Salem, both lots known as 31 Marlborough Road and 35 Marlborough Road respectively were non-conforming lots in as much as the new Zoning Ordinance required a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. 3. As of the date of the 1977 Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Salem, the lots known as 31 and 35 Marlborough Road were held in common ownership; said lots having been held in common ownership since November 30, 1970. 4 . The conveyance of the 35 Marlborough Road property to the Andersons improperly subdivided the 31 and 35 Marlborough Road • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS M. DONOVAN, TRUSTEE OF THE TRAPPER REALTY TRUST REQUESTING REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 35 MARLBOROUGH ROAD R-1 page three F+ECE11./' i 5. The house located on the 35 Marlborough Road property h b occupied as a single family residence at least since th daW o P4 :10 its ownership by Lionel J . and Lousie Bouchard to the present date. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 6. The Building Inspector committed no error in refusing to g�v�oiz;e MASO the occupancy permit for the property at 35 Marlborough Road. Therefore, the Board of Appeals originally voted two (2) in favor, three (3) opposed to motion to grant the Petition of Thomas M. Donovan, Trustee of the Trapper Realty Trust seeking enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance and the revocation of the occupancy permit for the property located at 35 Marlborough Road. Having failed to garner the required four (4) affirmative votes to pass, the petition is denied. Upon reconsideration, the Board voted zero (0) in favor, five (5) opposed to aforementioned motion to grant, and the petition was denied. Petition Denied February 15, 1995 �•o� �. f S« 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 of Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • of $Njem, 49assarijusetts 3 > Poara of Appeal ff pp la'z .3 �IrJy • rOrryy�nrm DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION FOR A r�grr 4,h4r1y MODIFICATION OF THE BOARDS DECISION OF MARCH 1992; REGARDING THE x ;a7JL,� PROPERTY LOCATED AT MOONEY ROAD AND DURKIN ROAD (RC/R1) A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 1995 with the following Board members present: Gary M. Barrett, Chairman(acting) ; Arthur Labreque, Joseph Ywuc, 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 located at Nos. 25,27,28,29, and 31 Mooney Road and 6,7, and 8 Durkin Road, was requesting a modification of the terms of the decision the Board of Appeals dated March 10, 1992. The relief which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 refuel may be granted without substantial detriment to the • public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. In March 1993, Petitioner was granted a variance by this Board from lot size and frontage with respect to lots which were located: entirely in an RC district(2) , partially within an RC district and partially within an R-1 district (3) and entirely within an R-1 district (3) . 2. The variance granted in March 1993 permitted the Petitioner to divide the aforementioned lots in conformance with the requirements of R-1 zoning. 3. The conditions which existed at the time of the granting of the previous variance continue to exist at present(viz,the redrawn RC zone effectuated in 1973 or 1974 by the City) and create a hardship upon the Petitioner. 4. In its March 1993 decision, the Board incorporated a document entitled Sable Heights II, Protective Covenants as part of the decision. 5. It is the Sable Heights II Protective Covenants which the Petitioner now seeks to modify in part as follows: a) Change to the minimum living area in the proposed dwelling from 2,000 sq. ft. to 1,500 sq. ft; b) Change to the minimum footprint of the proposed dwelling from 1,000 sq.ft. to exclusive of garage to 1,000 sq. ft inclusive of garage; • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE BOARD'S DECISION OF MARCH 1992, REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT MOONEY ROAD AND DURKIN ROAD (RC/R/1) page two c) Change the minimum roof pitch from 6: 12 to 4: 12 and • d) Delete the paragraph requiring that shutters,if used, be wood. 6. In September 1993, the Petitioner obtained approvals from the Planning Board and proceeded with construction of the development, installing underground utilities, drainage systems and roads to the binder course at a cost to the Petitioner in excess of $120,000. 7. Of the 14 existing homes in the neighborhood, 8 have living space of less than 1500 sq. ft. ; 3 are of between 1500-1800 sq. ft. ; 1 is between 1800-2000 sq. ft . and 3 are in excess of 2000 sq. ft. of living space. 8. There are 2 other buildable lots in the neighborhood which are not subject to restrictive covenants similar to those set forth in the Sable Heights II Protective Covenants. 9. Petitioner represented that on January 25, 1995, a letter was sent to all neighbors in the Mooney and Durkin Road neighborhood advising them of the Petitioner's intent to seek modification of the Sable Heights II Protective Covenants. A copy of said letter was made a part of the record. 10. In response to said January 25th letter, the Petitioner was contacted by a couple of neighbors who discussed their concerns about the Petitioner's plans. 11. On February 15, 1995, Petitioner again wrote the Mooney and Durkin Road neighborhood inviting the neighbors to attend a meeting to discuss in detail the plans to seek modification of the Sable Heights II Protective Covenants. A copy of said letter was made a part of the record. 12. On March 1, 1995, Petitioner held a meeting to discuss their plans with the neighbors. At said meeting, two residents of the neighborhood • attended and expressed their concerns about the Petitioner's plans. 13. The Petitioner's land runs along and/or lies beneath high tension electrical wires. 14. The Petitioner represented that to construct a home with a 2000 sq. ft. living area that it would be necessary to build a 2 story home on some of the lots. 15. The requested changes to the protective covenants are reasonable and modest in nature. 16. Their was no opposition to the Petitioner's request at the hearing. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. The request relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the requested relief, subject to the following conditions: • 11 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE BOARD DECISION OF MARCH 1992 REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT MOONEY AND DURKIN ROADS (RC/R1) page three 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, • codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the neighborhood and in compliance with the Amended Sable Heights II Protective Covenants. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Amended Sable Heights II Protective Covenants dated March- 15, 1995 and signed by the Petitioner Frank DeIulis are incorporated here in reference and made a part of this decision. Said covenants are to be attached to the within decision. Modification Granted March 15, 1995 Gary M. Barrett Board of Appeal, Member A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the 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 • 3 13 f'if '95 of Salem, �ttssttcl�us�e.. tsi 3oQ s vPOttrD of �uveul C( ""'� Hn''S Or i'IMA • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION REQUESTING A MODIFICATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT MOONEY ROAD AND DURKIN ROAD A hearing on this petition was held July 26, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen and Arthur LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, owners of the property requests a Modification of the Board's Decision of March 1992 regarding the property located at Mooney Road and Durkin Road (RC/R1) . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Chapter 40A, Section 3, Paragraph 2, specifically prohibits the regulations or restriction by zoning ordinances or by-law the interior area of a single family residential building. 2. Three parts of condition # 5, titled Sable Heights II Protective Covenants, deal with the interior area of the proposed single family residential buildings; (a) Minimum living area - 2,000 square feet. (b) Minimum footprint -1,000 square feet, exclusive of garage and the second part of (d) refering to the minimum and maximum roof pitch. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION REQUESTING A • MODIFICATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT MOONEY ROAD AND DURKIN ROADS (RC/R1) page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . That according to the Protective Covenants of Sable Heights II, Section B) la - Minimum living area - 2,000 square feet be stricken. 2. Section B) lb .- 1,000 square feet exclusive of garage be stricken. 3. Section B) ld- Roofing must be asphalt singles, wood shingles or slate. Minimum roof pitch shall be 6" : 12"; maximum pitch 9" : 12" be stricken. 4. Original Covenants be recorded with this decision. Modification Granted July 26, 1995 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 .y� SABLE HEIGHTS II Protective Covenants DeIulis Brothers Construction Co. , Inc. , the owner of Sable Heights II subdivision, wishing to protect the integrity and preserve the value of the said subdivision and surrounding homes will establish the following Protective and restrictive covenants: A. USE` 1 . Lots may only be used for single family homes with attached garage or with garage under where appropriate for a maximum of two cars. 2. No business shall be conducted from the homes. 3. No yard or open area of any lot shall be used for storage of materials or storage or parking of commercial vehicles larger than a pick up truck, trailers, boats, recreational vehicle or equipment. • B. BUILDING RESTRICTIONS 1. No building shall be started until plans and specifications have been approved by the Grantor. The design of the homes shall be suited to the lots, shall be compatible with the surrounding homes and shall conform to the following requirements: a. Minimum living area - 2,000 s. f . b. Minimum footprint - 1 ,000 s. f . exclusive of garage. C. Siding must be wood clapboards 4" to weather, wood shingles 7" maximum to weather, or other wood siding approved by the Grantor. Aluminum or vinyl siding will not be permitted. d. Roofing must be asphalt singles, wood shingles or slate. Minimum roof pitch shall be 6" : 12"; maximum pitch 9" : 12". e. Chimneys must be brick or stone. f . Aluminum storm windows may not be used. g. Window shutters, if used, must be wood. h. Steps must be brick or stone; walks must be concrete, brick or stone and driveway must be concrete or bituminous concrete. i. Any retaining walls that are visible from the street must be of quarried stone with mortared joints. • Sable Heights II Protective Covenants CIT", Page 2 :{ VSs 2. No building shall be constructed closer to the lot lines than is allowed under the City of Salem zoning regulations in effect at the time. 3. : No fence shall be installed without the written approval of the Grantor. All fences shall be of wood construction. 4. No T.V. Antenna or satellite dish shall be installed without written approval of Grantor. C. COMPLETION OF WORK 1. All exterior work including painting, construction of driveway, walk, steps and retaining walls must be completed no later than one year from the date of approval of plans and specifications. 2. All work including landscaping must be completed no later • than 18 months from date of approval of plans and specifications. D. ENFORCEMENT OF COVENANTS The above Protective Covenants shall be incorporated in and become part of the Decision of the Board of Appeals in connection with this matter, so that the decision of the Board of Appeals shall read: 'The Special Permit is granted subject to the, following conditions. . . ' , and the conditions will then become a part of the formal Decision and enforceable by the City of Salem." (QDECISION (1�it� of ,.�ttlem, �` tzssucljusetts paura of �kppeal • OF THE PETITION OF JOHN A. HOAR REQUESTING A OCT ZG 57 Ph #95 VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 NAPLES ROAD (�71' ) OFS fl l�ll ALI:N. MASS A hearing on this petition was held October 18, 1995 with thW Wi[M ng Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen, and Arthur LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, owners of the property request a Variance from minimum lot width to build a single family dwelling for the property located at 11 Naples Road. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the • intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. This was determined to be a grandfathered lot. 2. There was no opposition to the request. 3. The abutters and the Osgood Park Neighborhood Association spoke in favor of the petition. 4. Many of the lots in the neighborhood have less than the required frontage. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN A. HOAR REQUESTING .: VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 NAPLES ROAD (R-1) • page two 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4 . A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. 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. Variance Granted October 18,1995 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 • altv . of Iem, '.ttssadjusetts • `a, s Pnttra of '�upeal tha 3 1125 R 035 cny or sa1_rm. NABS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ZOEL LABRIE FOR A VARIANCE C11,11K'S OFFIf.E FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 NICHOLS STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1995 and was continued to March 15, 1995 and continued again to April 19, 1995 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, owner of the property, located at 13 Nichols Street, was requesting a Variance from minimum lot width & rear setback & Variance from minimum lot area. 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, makes the following findings of facts: 1. Petitioner purchased the property at 13 Nichols Street in 1975. At that time petitioner owned and resided at a residence on an abutting property at 2 Albion Street, which he subsequently sold. 2. Petitioner stated that an existing single family house on the property at 13 Nichols Street was demolished, at his request, in or about 1979. Following this demolition, the only remaining structure on the property was a two car garage, which is still standing. 3. Petitioner sought variances in lot size requirement, lot width and rear setback requirement in order to build a one family house with a single car garage on the property at 13 Nichols Street. 4. Speaking or writing in favor of the granting of the Variance were the following neighbors: Robert Morin, 2 Albion Street, Gayle and Roy Shelton, 19 Nichols Street, Donna Taylor, 2 Albion, Str. , Deanna Launsley, 14 Nichols Street, Jean Poirier, 19 Nichols St. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ZOEL LABRIE FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 NICHOLS STREET (R-1) page two �l • 4 . Also in favor were Tanya and Leo Jalbert of 1 Butler r J1 Z5 Was 5. Speaking or writing inopposition to the granting ofH e VaNialcce gN� were the following neighbors: Elizabeth Fallon, of fC1411ba'66AtJ),,):�Oj: Arnold. Blanchette, 12 Nichols Street and Marquerite Pe1Q2E �r' In addition, a petition was submitted with the signatures of 19 other neighbors who opposed the granting of the Variance. 6. Attorney William DiMento who represented Elizabeth Fallon of 6 Albion Street also was opposed to the granting of the Variance. On the basic of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, 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 Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 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 April 19, 1995 Nina 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 of Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • n m CtU of Salem, C ttssttcliusetts Q 3 sN� N • Pottra of �u}1en1 T rna a w 0 L-n DECISION ON THE PETITION OF TIMTOHY W. LUTTS FOR A VARIANCE AT 176 NORTH STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held January 18, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Albert Hil, Stephen O'Grady 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 for use as a "Professional Offices" at 176 North 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 • 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. Property was given a variance in 1979 allowing offices for a professional association consisting of medical, psychological, and educational services only. 2. With the creation of (7) on-site parking spaces, the petitioner meets all requirements to parking for this. specific use. 3. Council President & Ward 6 Councillor Sally Hayes sent a letter of support and Ward 4 Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor. 4. By granting variance, the petitioner will get a fuller use of existing property and will eleviate a much needed parking situation in the area. 5. One neighbor spoke of concerns for parking and was given the opportunity to see the new plans. • DECISION OF TIMOTHY LUTTS FOR A VARIANCE AT 176 NORTH STREET (R-2) page two • 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. 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 statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the land and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Sale Fire Department relative to smoke and fire shall be strictly adhered to. 4. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. • Variance Granted January 18, 1995 Stephen O'Grady Board of Appeal n� s N v> N r o n h+ T= r T. �z a n c.o N iJl • t137' F�gitU Of $AVM, { ttssttdllA etts II 37 ah '95 • n PDMra of �t1U}7¢211 CITY OF SAU F1 MASS CLCI1K'S OFFICL DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LISA GALLAGHER FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28-30 OSGOOD STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held April 19, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrette, Albert Hill, 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 Lisa Gallagher, owner of the property at 18-22 Osgood Street is requesting a Variance to enable Linda Austin of 28-30 Osgood Street to sell a portion of her land which falls behind the Gallagher property at 18-22 Osgood Street. The property is located in an R-2 District. The relief which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 refuel may be granted without substantial detriment to the • public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the proposed request. 2. Neighbors of the petition and abutters to the subject property appeared in support of the petition including Bruce Carito, 22 Osgood Street. 3. A letter in support of the petition was submitted by Counsillor Kevin Harvey. 4. Joan Grenier, sister of Lisa Austin, spoke in favor of the petition, stating that the large lot owner by her sister had become a burden for her sister to take care of. 5. The portion of the lot the petitioner would like to acquire is a portion of a large landlocked piece of land which sits directly behind the 22 Osgood Street locus. 6. Subsequent to the subdivision of the land, Linda Austin will retain a substantial piece of property. • DECISION OF LISA GALLAGHER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28-30 OSGOOD STREET. (R-2) page two • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on evi4e,nq� w sented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as fot�, Pws4�iK.s 01'�{ C.l 1. 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. The request relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the requested relief, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. • Variance Granted April 19, 1995 / �,nl C'vy �. //l�''ZLL SCA) Gary M. Barrett Board of Appeal, Member A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the 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 • Tits of .inlem, 'fflttssadjuscite M Puttra of (�ppeul DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LEONIDAS PHILIPEDES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 PARALLEL STREET A hearing on this petition was held July 26, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen and Arthur LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, owners of the property request a Variance from front yard setback-to construct a single family dwelling for the property located at 21 Parallel Street (R-C) The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the . intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner's property encompasses a 9,460 sq. ft. pond, and it borders a protected wetland on two sides. Petitioner proposes to build a single family house on the site. 2. To meet the fifteen-foot setback requirement of the zoning ordinance, the proposed dwelling would encroach upon a 12 ft. buffer zone extending outward from the wetlands'outer edge. 3. Petitioner requests a variance to allow the dwelling to be situated nine feet from the roadway, to permit a greater distance between the wetland and the rear of the dwelling. 4. Petitioner submitted a Notice of Intent from the Salem Conservation Commission, approving the proposed dwelling on the site requested. 5. Ms. Cara Coddens, an abutter,opposed the granting go the variance on the grounds that the proposed building would destroy an area of remaining wetland, and also because the granting of the variance would significantly reduce her privacy. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would • involve substation hardship to the petitioner. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LEONIDAS PHILIPEDES FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 PARALLEL STREET (RC) page two 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to • public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 in favor, 1 opposed to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering for the Mit of Salem Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. • Variance Granted / July 26, 1995 ��Nina 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 • buc I 3 13 Pig 195 a Of SALPM. MASS Ctv of ,�alem, ttssucllusetts�� rrcx"S O�nu Puttra of �' Peal DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEPHEN J. PELECHOWICZ REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 PHILLIPS STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held July 26, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen and Arthur LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, owners of the property requests a Variance from side setbacks to construct a deck and a pool for the property located at 12 Phillips Street. (R-1) . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the petition. 2. The proposed location of the deck and pool is the only location that will allow for access to the rear yard. 3. The granting of this petition will enhance the quality of life for the petitioner. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEPHEN J. PELECHOWICZ REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 PHILLIPS STREET (R-1) page two • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations . 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. Variance Granted July 26, 1995 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 . $Aem, �Rttsszldjusetts a,V s Pourb of �ppeal iCITY(f3(`��1ti1(1?F.1.M4Yt�$ (C lfGli-K"v°(4liifiCCa DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FATIMA M. HOBART BATISTA FOR A VARIANCE AT 13 PLEASANT STREET (R-2 ) A hearing was to be held on this petition January 18 , 1995 with the following Board Members present : Stephen Tochette, Chairman; Nina Cohen, Gary Barrett , Stephen O ' Grady 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. The petitioner, Fatima M. Hobart Batista, requested to withdraw the petition for a Variance at 13 Pleasant Street . In a roll-call vote, the Board of Appeals voted 5-0 to allow the petition to be withdrawn without prejudice . GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE JANUARY 18 , 1995 Albert C. Hill Board of Appeal ofttlem, ��Httsstzcllusetts • `aQ a Pnttra of (�upeal ,n DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KEN STEADMAN/JIM FLYNN FOR#ARAIA0Pj2 ON MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND VARIANCE FR�; MULTI- AN 95 USE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9 POPE STREET (R-1) 01" e C, 'R OALOEM. MASS A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 1995 with the folio. q Board members present: Gary M. Barrett, Chairman(acting) ; Arthur Labreque, Joseph Ywuc, 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 located at 9 Pope Street request a Variance on minimum lot distance between buildings and Variance from Multi-Family . The relief which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 refuel may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioners Ken Steadman/Jim Flynn sought variance from rear setback requirements and minimum distance between buildings to allow development of a 4 unit condominium complex to be built on the property at 9 Pope Street. 2. Plans submitted by petitioner showed a proposed development of four separate single-family homes with garages, connected by a paved access road in the form of a cul-de-cas. 3. Approval of the petitioner's proposed development plan was voiced by Steven Baliotis, owner of Ideal Fishing Co. at 15 Proctor St. , Sharon Maraffa, of 8 Pope Street and Thomas Brophy of 25 Proctor St. 4 . Three abutters gave guarded approval, expressing concern over the potential effect that the proposed development could have on an existing drainage problem in the lower part of Pope Street. State- ments by Mike Allen, 15 Pope St. ,Marion Tina of 43 Proctor St. and Robin Allen of 17 Pope St. attested to the presence of standing water in the street and in their properties following rainy weather. • DECISION OF KEN STEADMAN/JIM FLYNN FOR A VARIANCE OF MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND VARIANCE OF MULTI-FAMILY USE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9 POPE STREET. (R-1) • page two 4 5. Speaking for both developers, Ken Steadman stated that he w/d}rld his engineers to investigate the standing water problem. a Qnde�t�o to follow up with the abutters to ensure that the new develop wo f not worsent he existing water problem. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presentee at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. The request relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the requested relief, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and . fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. 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. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but no t limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted March 15, 1995 Nina Cohen Board of Appeal, Member • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the 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 i•�i. J,%, 0:i • �C� PIP • (situ of ttlem, '�Eassttdlusetts M 3oQ ' Paura of '�ppeul JUN I 2 os PN '95 C17Y OI' SALEM, MASS; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NORMAN AND ANN MICHAUD FOR A VAR IAfi6 RA'1S'3(4FFICF PROCTOR STREET. (R2) A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Arthur LaBrecque, 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 on lot size, lot coverage, front, side and rear setbacks to subdivide the lot to create a new lot at 34 Proctor Street. 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. Speaking in favor of the Petition where: Thomas Brophy, 35 Proctor Street, Marion Germont, 30 Proctor Street, Edward and Muriel Santos, 6 Langdon Street and Kevin Harvey, 2-4 Winter Island Road. 3. This will allow petitioner a 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 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 NORMAN AND ANN MICHAUD FOR VARIANCE AT 34 PROCTOR STREET, SALEM page two 3. All construction shall be done as per the plan• and/I*iminsi9ons submitted. < 05 '3S 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior o �q O Af a�� construction. '..^,gyp TINASS 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the. City of Salem ., Assessors ofice and shall display said number so as to be .visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction, including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 8. Petitioner shall correct, at Petitioner's expense, any addditional water problems created at 6 Langdon Street and certify same. The Certifying Agent will be the City of Salem City Engineer. 9. Petitioner, at Petitioner's expense, shall install a Sump Pump at the residence of Edward and Muriel Santos, 6 Langdon Street, Salem when requested by Edward and/or Muriel Santos. Variances Granted May 17, 1995 Albert C. Hill, Jr. 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 • SEP R (Gity of ,$Hlem, Ans9ndjusetto ct,r p, � Cl l i'2R'o 'i � M'AoS Poura of �u}renl a �rjrr • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID W. BYORS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 70 SUMMER STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held September 20, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill and Associate Members Joseph Ywuc 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, located at 70 Summer Street, is requesting a Variance to add (2) two additional units and a Variance from parking. 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, makes the following findings of facts: 1. Petitioner's property is a three story, four unit building at the corner of Summer and Endicott Streets, in a densely populated neighborhood. 2. Petitioner has improved the property by making necessary repairs and has paved an area in the rear to add parking for two cars. He proposes to add two additional living units to the building. 3. Speaking in opposition to the petition, the following neighbors expressed that the neighborhood is too congested to support any additional units and that parking situation is already difficult for residents of the area and would be worsened by the granting of a parking variance for two added units. Carlotta Oddi 41-43 Endicott Street Cynthia Oddi 41-43 Endicott Street Caroly Bretta 79 Summer Street Joan Giardi 73 Summer Street Vincent DiBona 53 Endicott Street Diane Miller 68 Summer Street • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID W. BYORS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 70 SUMMER STREET (R-2) page two 5. In addition, City Councillor John Donahue appeared in opposition • to the proposed variances, stating that an increase in density would be detrimental to the neighborhood and would worsen the parking problems on those streets. On the basic of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, 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 Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 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 September 20, 1995 • Nina 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 of Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex n voa Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of rec- or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal � O co -D .meq t� • Ctv of �5ulem, �Rnssadjusetts �9 Pvara of � peal SEP Zb 3 15 frl '95 • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE S MARIA COELHO RE&U9STYNGALIM. MASS A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 SUMMIT STREEfl 1(ft-T)O1FICC A hearing on this petition was held September 20, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc and Arthur LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, owners of the property request a Variance to enlarge non conforming structure at roof level on east side of the property located at 15 Summit Street (R-1) . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the • intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioners have owner the property for 4 years and their family is growing larger. 2. The Ward 4 Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor of the petition. 3. There was no opposition to the request. 4. The plans call for adding a dormer on the east side of the structure. 5. The granting of this petition will enhance the quality of life for the petitioner and allow a fuller use of the property. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to • public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE & MARIA COELHO REQUESTING A • VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 SUMMIT STREET (R-1) SEP Z6 3 15 N1 195 page two CI I Y Of' SAIL W. MASS Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 toIglrlant; fieICF variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 5. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted September 20, 1995 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 untt$,4, copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk tk9f,,*' days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such ll'.P� been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the 34uo 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 Au& q I 159111 '95 C'tu of Salem, 'Massadlaorttim. M. MASS rtI k,S Of FICF °e 3f�azira of �}rperil DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MIRIAM E. ADAMO, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 THOMAS CIRCLE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held July 26, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen and Arthur LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, owners of the property request a Variance to convert a single family dwelling to a two family dwelling for the property located at 21 Thomas Circle. (R-1) The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the • intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. James Adamo, petitioner's son and resident at 21 Thomas Circle appeared on behalf on the petitioner. 2. Petitioner desires to construct an efficiency apartment in the existing basement of the one family dwelling to allow someone to live at the property while petitioner is out of town. 3. A two family dwelling is an allowed use in a B-2 zoning district. 4. Petitioner was granted the existing one family dwelling in 1989. 5. Petitioner requested that the only exterior change to the existing building would be the addition ofa second front door entrance. 6. The proposed construction would not expand the now existing encroachment on setbacks or lot coverage\density, and will not expand the non conformity. 7. Petitioner represented that he had spoken with his neighbors and that nobody expressed opposition to the petitioner and no neighbors appeared at the hearing. 8. Richard Deshhamps, 15 Crosby Street spoke in opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property • and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MIRIAM E . ADAMO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 THOMAS CIRCLE (R-1) page two 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to • public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the exterior finishes. 6. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 7. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. • Variance Granted July 26, 1995 Gary 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 ehe "uth Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner-,4�r L%cord or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. L Board of A ? Appeal o!— N �x s mn (A cc • "' cn of . ttlem, � Httssttcliusetts M Pnura of &Aupeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT & DARLENE TRUMBAR REQUESTING 58 PPi `g� A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 TREMONT PLACE CI(RN 11) ;AL('M. MASS Cl I RK'S O1-f'l0F A hearing on this petition was held October 18, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen, and Arthur LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, owners of the property request a Variance for a to expand non conforming structure to build addition for the property located at 6 Tremont Place. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are. not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the • intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The petitioners are looking to open a closed in front porch and add a bathroom to the second floor. 2. There was no opposition to the request. 3. The granting of this petition will allow the petitioner a greater use of the property. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the • variance requested, subject to the following conditions: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & DARLENE TRUMBAR REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 TREMONT PLACE (R-1) page two • 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2 . All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to the Building Inspector and presented at this hearing. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered. to. L . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 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 October 15, 1995 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 sucA aal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in=th_ South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owngrjofinecord or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.=o Board of Appeal • �'''' �'�. fl�itg of �ttlem, C�3Httssttcllusetts r s n = Paurb of (:�vpeul N� N r O-1 Ln F T� 7 ma DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN KARAMETSOPOULOS FOR VARIANCES AND SgECIA PERMIT AT 20 VALLEY STREET. C^ A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette; Chairman, Arthur Labrecque, 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 a Variance from side and rear setback, lot size, lot frontage and a Special Permit to remove a non-conforming existing dwelling located at 20 Valley Street. The property is located in an R-2 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and • reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The 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 JOHN KARAMETSOPOULOS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT • AND VARIANCE AT 20 VALLEY STREET, SALEM page two C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Ward 4 Councillor, Leonard O'Leary spoke in opposition to the petition. 2. Cynthia and Peter Georgelas of 22 Valley Street spoke in oppositon to the petition. 3. George Psomos of 2 Malm Avenue spoke in opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the 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 construction. �' a n� a 5. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. a o N> N on � �x r ti v, co cn DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN KARAMETSOPOULOS FOR VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 20 VALLEY STREET. page three 6. Petitioner states that no blasting is required for construction of a • foundation. Special Permit and Variances Granted February 15, 1995 Albert C. Hill, Jr. Member, Board of Appeal c> s m X 0 �n> N r C:, Lq N G� N Z-5 • • of .Salem, Alassadiusetts M ;oeV Po2ICb af �kI7peal CITY 01' SALUM, MASS CLERK'S OFFICF AMENDMENT TO THE DECISION OF 20 VALLEY STREET DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN KARAMETSOPOULOS FOR VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 20 VALLEY STREET. A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1995 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette; Chairman, Arthur Labrecque, 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 a Variance from side and rear setback, lot size, lot frontage and a Special Permit to remove a non-conforming existing dwelling located at 20 Valley Street. The property is located in an R-2 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, •; extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The 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. • AMENDMENT TO THE DECISION OF 20 VALLEY STREET DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN KARAMETSOPOULOS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 20 VALLEY STREET, SALEM page two • C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Ward 4 Councillor, Leonard O'Leary spoke in opposition to the petition. 2. Cynthia and Peter Georgelas of 22 Valley Street spoke in oppositon to the petition. 3. George Psomos of 2 Malm Avenue spoke in opposition to the petition. 4. Board Member, Arthur LeBrecque spoke in opposition, stating to many violations. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: I. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve • 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 4, in favor and 1 opposed, 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. L . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. • ADMENDMENT TO THE DECISION OF 20 VALLEY STREET • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN KARAMETSOPOULOS FOR VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 20 VALLEY STREET, page three 5. A Certificate. of Inspection is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner states that no blasting is required for construction of a foundation. Special Permit and Variances Granted February 15, 1995 r ad""t 0 Albert C. Hill, Jr. Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD ANT 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 is 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, �Eassadju ett� M Al 2 10 P4 P35 io �nttrD of �tr{rettl ciryo 4'41.7tf. Mnss • CI.('RK's of f ICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MIGUEL FUNEZ FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 256-262 WASHINGTON STREET (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1995 with' the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrette, Albert Hill, 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 is requesting Variance for Change in Use (Variety Store) & a Variance from parking for the property located at 256-262 Washington Street. This property is located in a R-3 district. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other 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 derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The location has been in continuous commercial use. 2. The petitioner will sell toys, novelties, baby items, etc. 3. There will be no food sold. 4. There was no opposition to the request. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. • PETITION OF MIGUEL FUNEZ FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 256-262 WASHINGTON STREET (R-3) page two 3. The request relief can be granted without substantial detriment to • public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the requested relief, 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 shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Inspection. 4. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any city Board or Commission having jurisdiction including but not limited to the Board of Comm- ssion having jurisdiction over the Salem Sign Ordinance. Variance Granted May 17, 1995 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 � s ti m � V 7 7 �Vf C1> N O r: pr �Y B ^n a N x.1'1 • �,.�y JUL 6 3 31 PN '95 CIFY of, SALEM. &JIV of ttlem, C�Hussacljusetts i CtI:RK'S OFFICF. 'oQ Y POA[a �C1tJpeal • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOAQUIM & MARIA CANAS FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 WILLIAMS STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 28,1995 with the following Board Members 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. Petitioner, owner of the property, located at 19 Williams Street, is requesting a Variance to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling. 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 maybe granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of facts: 1. The petitioner purchased the property approximately six (6) years ago as a two (2) family dwelling. 2. The building presently housed three (3) units. 3. There was opposition to the petition citing the negative impact of increasing density in the neighborhood. 4. The dwelling is not owner occupied. On the basic of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, 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 Ordinan would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. • PETITION OF JOAQUIM & MARIA. CANAS FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 WILLIAMS STREET (R-2 ) page two • 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 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 cc CsC�� June 28, 1995 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 of Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the • certification of the City Clerk that20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or• denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal s •