Loading...
1996-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF4ppq-� a ,� � 1 �5 �( 00S, of §§ttlem, Aussadjusetts ;aQ Pourb of }ape aR Z1 2 11 MIS CITY OF SALT-M. bass Cl FRK'S OFFfCF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROY F. GELINEAU, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27-29 BALCOMB STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1996 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's Attorney Richard Stafford, the Board of Appeal voted 5-1, 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 27-29 Balcomb Street. Granted leave to withdraw without prejudice. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE March 20, 1996 Y � 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 �4 of $alem, 'Husoadjusetts � 9 • Potts of (�Ppf 13 PM ''96 CITY ;01' SAt;, M, N.4,SS CLCRK'S DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NATAL BETTENCOURT REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 126 BAYVIEW AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held December 11, 1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Albert Hill and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance from sideyard setback to construct a garage for the property located at 126 Bayview Avenue, Salem. 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 petition was presented by John Nicosia, a licensed contractor. 2. There will be no structural change to the building. There will be no extension off the footprint of the building. 3. A letter from the Historical Commission asking to conform to surrounding properties. 4. A letter was in submitted in support of this petition by Everett Dawtskins, of 122 Bayview Avenue. 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 NATAL BETTENCOURT REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 126 BAYVIEW AVENUE (R-1) page two 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions submitted to and approved per the Building Inspector. 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 existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Variance Granted • December 11, 1996 ac Paul Valaskagis, 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 • • '�r��� Ctu 0{ �Stt1Pm, CmIIBBzldjuBetts 3oQ � Poura 0f '�Fpenl DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HILDA STERLING & HERBERT SELESNI,CK,.., .. ..; REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 BOSTON,STREE,T. .:`'': Fr$ (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held October 16, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywu, Albert Hill, Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 requests a Variance for a Change of Use from a business use to professional offices for the property located at 103 Boston Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. • c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of facts: 1. Petitioner was not present for the hearing of this petition. 2. A letter was submitted by Paul Butler of 32 Albion Street opposing this petition. 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. No special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property as opposed to the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable 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. • DECISION OF HILDA STERLING & HERBERT SELESNICK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 BOSTON STREET (R-2) page two • Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 0 in favor and 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 October 16, 1996 A Joseph Ywuc, 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 o._ ui cn Qyi N • Ctv of Iem, 'Mttssadjusetts `• r s Paura of '�upenl JUL 1 IU 35 Uii °96' CIIY Of 5AL! M. MASS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HERBERT & HINDA STERLING REQft6,TlING�,A)FiICF VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 BOSTON STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 19, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywu, Albert Hill and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requesting a variance to change use group from residential to business for six professional offices and a variance from parking for the property located at 103 Boston Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. • b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of facts: 1. Petitioners were represented at the hearing by Attorney Margolis. 2. Petitioners own the abutting property at 97 Boston Street which houses the business of Salem Door and Window among others. 3. The subject property is currently a 2 family home which the petitioners rent to tenants. There is also a garage on the property. 4 . The abutting property at 2-4 Nichols Street is a mulit-family residential property. 5. Across Nichols Street from the subject property is Colonial Terrace apartments, a Salem Housing Authority property. 6. There is minimal off-street parking for the subject property. 7. Paul Butler, 32 Albion St. , owner of 2-4 Nichols Street appeared and objected to the petition expressing concerns about the parking demands that an office use would impose on a neighborhood with already existing parking problems. He also expressed concerns about an extension of business uses into the residential district. • 8. There were no representations made concerning topographical or soil conditions which were un*Qque to the property. DECISION THE PETITION HERBERT & HINDA STERLING REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 BOSTON STREET (R-2) page two 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 . No special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property as opposed to the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3'. Desirable 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 5-0 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 June 19, 1996 ('SC�J Gary Barrett, 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 alto of ,$Ulem, 'Tassadjusetts y • 364 s pourb of �u}reu! OCT ZZ (o 05 hi °96 C1IY Oi ,ALCM. MASS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SHELL OIL COMPANY REQU0TIfNG II0WIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 146 BOSTON STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held October 22, 1996 with the following Board Members were present: Gary Barrett, Chairman Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Joseph Ywuc and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 Shell oil Company the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Variance to utilize additional area and install a car wash. Granted leave to withdraw without prejudice. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE October 22, 1996 • Gary Barrett, 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 • ''� ftlit of $Ulem' 'ffiusondjusetts 3oQ s Poara of (�u}ieul O N 2 ss t14 '� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GARTH YOUNG REQUESTI A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 45 BRIDGE STREET (B-(l y K. 4N,'S cirnK's orrice A hearing on this petition was held June 19, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywu, Albert Hill and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 45 Bridge Street request a Variance to allow a retail business and 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 owns the subject property, and operates a HVAC service business and warehouse materials at the property. 2. Petitioner intends to partition the front space of the property facing Bridge Street, and lease a portion said space to a woman who proposes to operate a retail business selling bingo supplies. 3. Petitioner indicated that the proposed tenant was needed to assist him in carrying the financial burdens of the property. 4. There is insufficient off-street parking spaces to support a second business on the property. 5. There was concern expressed that parking would overflow into the surrounding residential neighborhood. 6. Ther was no opposition to the petition. 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. No special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property as opposed to the district in general . 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GARTH YOUNG REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 45 BRIDGE STREET (B-1) page two :• 3. Desirable 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 3-2 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 June 19, 1996 Aran ls ^ C'S'C kx�- Gary Barrett, 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 • Ctu of . ttlem, �lagzarljusptts Puttra of Append • 4 �` JUL ZS 1019 pH 196 C11Y Of' SALI-M. MASS C! ["?,K'S Oi;"ICF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DOUGLAS G. DESROCHER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20-22 BRIGGS STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 17, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywu, Albert Hill and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 requests a Variance to convert a 3 family dwelling to a 4 family dwelling for the property located at 20-22 Briggs Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise, to the • petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of facts: 1. Petitioner seeks a variance to allow him to convert a three-story residence into two apartments. Petitioner's residence, a two family, consists of two apartments on one side and a single family home on the other side. This petition concerns the side that is a single family home, and does not affect the other side. 2. Thus the variance, if granted, would establish four residences on on the property. 3. A petition supporting the granting of the variance, signed by four neighbors, was submitted in favor of the petition. 4. Dan Pierce of 22 Andrew Street opposed the petition, stating that increases in density create parking and other difficulties, especially in an area like this one, where homes have been converted from multi-family use to single family residence. 5. Ward Councillor Regina Flynn stated her opposition to the proposed variance on grounds of increased density and parking • issues. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DOUGLAS G. DESROCHER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20-22 BRIGGS STREET page two • On the basic of the above findings of fact, and on the evidenc �b z. 10 �9f� 96 presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as fo 1. No special conditions exist which especially affect the CI CIf'ItK ,'IM' M4 S subject property as opposed to the district in general. 6111(:1-- 2. IIIL'I°2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable 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 2-3 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 June 17, 1996 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. Board of Appeal • of LSalem' �fflaggacljusett8 M Poara of Append +♦ JUL 3 3 19 P11 '96 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH SILVA REQUEST VARIANCE VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 BROADWAY��T(YTPjf; SAL0. BASS i,CL.PP';'K ., Of FIC, A hearing on this petition was held June 19, 1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Joseph Ywuc and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance for a Change of Use to allow a second business as a towing service for the property located at 18 Broadway. 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 was represented by Attorney Steven Lovely. 2. There was no neighborhood opposition. 3. Parcel of land in question is located in Bl district. The proposed use is an acceptable use for a B1 district. 4. The lot will share two different Businesses A) Bowling Alley, B) Towing Service. 5. Gilford Transportation Industrial expressed concern that the petitioner would cross the tracks to enter of leave the lot. Petitioner stated that there would be no entrance or exit over the R.R. tracks. 6. Lot would be used for storage of motor vehicles. 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. 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 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 building permit prior to beginning any construction. 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. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall maintain in good condition, a safety fence, which shall enclose the portion of the lot which will be used for the towing service. Variance Granted June 19, 1996 �� Joseph Ywuc, 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 . ttlem, �Haflgadjusetta ae s Pnara of Aupeal NY 20 10 22 hii 195 C'rr of > 4AM. MASS CI FNS 'g 0i f ICr DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GAETANO COLOMBA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 4 BUENA VISTA AVENUE WEST (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held May 15, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc and Albert Hill 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, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure at 4 Buena Vista Avenue West. The property is located in an R-1 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, • provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. 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. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GAETANO COLOMBA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 4 BUENA VISTA AVENUE WEST, SALEM. page two • The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Mr. Stephen Capellos and Mr. Albert LaChapelle 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. All construction shall be done per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 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 not limited to, the Planning Board. � s :a 7t C1 _ r 6 _O N ^7 D N M DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GAETANO COLOMBA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 4 BUENA VISTA AVENUE WEST, SALEM. page three • Special Permit Granted May 15, 1996 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 7 •p _ Cr> (G> i ICD w'7T • 10 ( '°� Ctu Of tzlem, �ttssadjusetts Paurb of �ppeal �� «,"" SU2q 1045 Ad `fib DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM HORTON BEEBE-CENTER REQUE;S�ING �: �,4" A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22 BUFFUM STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held September 11, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywu, Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 requests a Variance to create a third (studio) unit in an existing 2 family dwelling by adding a kitchenette to third floor for the property located at 22 Buffum Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise, to the • petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of facts: 1. Petitioner was not present for the hearing of this petition. 2. A petition was submitted with 13 names of neighbors in opposition to this petition. 3. A letter was submitted from Robert Peterson of 26 Buffum Street in opposition. 4. Ward 6 Councillor, Sarah Hayes appeared in opposition to this petition. 5. Shirley Cervoni, 28 A Buffum Street appeared in opposition to the petition. 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. No special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property as opposed to the district in general. • 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. DECISION OF WILLIAM HORTON BEEBE-CENTER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22 BUFFUM STREET (R-2) page two • 3. Desirable 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 0 in favor and 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 11, 1996 Joseph Ywuc, 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 • of �$ulem, ��Ettsstttjusetts i M �# f ��eo a our Pnl 2 55 Tl' ;� �s 4� iii SAL P:. t:+a55 Cii ia:'S Oi i ICi' DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GARDNER MATTRESS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 254 CANAL STREET (I) A hearing on this petition was held October 16, 1996 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Richard Dionne, Joseph Ywuc and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance from lot ares, front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks to allow construction of a new warehousing/manufacturing facility for the property located at 254 Canal Street (I) . 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 sought variances to undertake a substantial modernization of a mixed industrial and retail property on Canal Street that has been a mattress assembly plant for three generations. 2. Petitioner's plans include the erection of a new mattress assembly plant to replace 3 trailers, the renovation of an existing building for mixed retail and office use, and a re-engineered traffic pattern among the buildings on the 20,000 sq. foot site. 3. Petitioner's representative stated that the proposed plans were necessarily tentative, as the site work required SRA approval, Site Plan review, and approvals by the Conservation Commission. 4. There was no opposition the proposed plans. 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 GARDNER MATTRESS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 254 CANAL STREET (I) 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. 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions which are to be certified, submitted to and approved by the Building Inspector. 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 shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. Variance Granted • October 16,1996 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"-' o Board of Appeal c� cn ct� m Ctu of $Aem, C-Httssadjusetts M • �' Puttra of `A, peal NOR 27 1110 GN '96 I Y (lf- SAt 1"M. MASS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARJOD REALTY TRUS ' U ;STIVGfkjSPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13-15 CENTRA I EENT (B-5) A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1996 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 extension of the existing non conforming use for the property located at 13-15 Central Street. This property is located in a B-5 district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 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 is the owner of the subject premises and proprietor of Red's Sandwich Shop which is the restaurant located on the first floor of the premises. 2. The premises includes residential apartments on the second and third floors. There will not be an expansion of the residential use of the property. 3. Petitioner wants to expand the first floor of the premises to expand storage and seating for the restaurant. 4. The proposed addition would be approximately 750 square feet, would be one story, would be built at the rear of the subject • DECISION OF THE P-ETITION OF ARJOD REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13-15 CENTRAL STREET (B-5) • page two property and would not be visible from the Central Street side of the premises. 5. Stephen Jepski, 20 Central Street, a representative of the condo- minium association for said address, spoke personally and on behalf of the condominium in favor of the petition. 6. Peter Merry, 3 Botts Court, spoke in favor of the petition. 7. John Drivas, owner of Red's agreed to the condominium association's request that the fence in the restaurant's dumpster with a white fence. 8. Ward 1 Councillor Peter Paskowski spoke in favor of the petition. 9. Guido and Elsie Piacentini, 20 Central Street, sent correspondence in opposition to the petition. 10. The new addition will permit Petitioner to expand seating capacity and upgrade restroom facilities. 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 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. 6. That the dumpster area which fronts Central Street be fenced along Central Street with a six foot fence approved by the Design Review Board and in conjunction with the Board of Health rules and regulations. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ARJOD REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A SPECIAL • PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13-15 CENTRAL STREET (B-5) page three SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED MARCH 20, 1996 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 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 of Title. • Board of Appeal • of Salem, Mason djusetts a ;,ems nttra of �ppeal,, 6 2 Di 'i.i:GEr DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHILIP SINGLETON REQUESTING A VARIANCE—FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 CHAMPLAIN ROAD. (R-1)/(RC) A hearing on this petition was held November 13, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Paul Valaskagis, Richard Dionne, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from front yard setbacks for two lots to build two single family dwellings for the property located at 6 Champlain Road. 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. The following were in opposition due to concerns for Blasting requirements for foundations and Water Drainage after construction is completed. Larry Dennis, Anita Cote, Tony Cote, Jean Gallant and Rene Belanger. 2. This will allow petitioner a fuller use of the property. 3. Petitioner was represented by Attorney John R. Keilty. 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 PHILIP SINGLETON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 CHAMPLAIN ROAD, SALEM page two 3. All construction and blasting shall be done as per the plan and dimensions submitted and approved by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. 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 each property from the city assessor. 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval for building from the Conservation Commission prior to any construction. 8. Petitioner shall install sidewalks for the entire frontage of both properties. 9. Petitioner shall provide preblasting assessments for abutters within 300 feet including Roger Levoie of 29 Willson Street. 10 Petitioner shall obtain claim procedures from the state for blasting and notify abutters of contents. 11. Petitioner shall obtain blasting procedures from the state and deliver • contents to abutters. 12. Petitioner shall convey property marked Parcel (Y) to Kling and Parcel (X) to Bernard. Plans dated October 3, 1996 and October 15, 1996. Variances Granted November 13, 1996 Albert C. Hill, Jr. Member, Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PHILIP SINGLETON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 CHAMPLAIN ROAD 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 • • (Gltu of $Aem, 'Tassadlusetts M • 3oQ� ' PnttrD of Aupeal ' 17 �d 56 44136 h`a 0! !-Iff: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GARY PALARDY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 37 CHESTNUT STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held December 11, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Paul Valaskagis, Richard Dionne, 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 Special Permit to convert an existing historic carriage house for the use as a single family dwelling. this carriage house is an accessory to the existing principal dwelling for the property located at 37 Chestnut 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 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 GARY PALARDY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 37 CHESTNUT 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. 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 previsions 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 and approved by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. 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. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GARY PALARDY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 37 CHESTNUT STREET, SALEM page three 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors office and shall display the street number so that it is visible from the street. 9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board and the Historic Commission. Special Permit Granted December 11, 1996 Cscj 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 • _ 1 (situ of $Ulem, � ttsstttljusetts j�� 9 �nttrD of �upeal JUL 30 1114 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARVIN S VANESSA DOLLINS REQQE�$TINGSALI_M MASS VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 CLARK STREET (R-l')' OifICF A hearing on this petition was held July 17, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywu, Albert Hill and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 requests a Variance to convert a single family dwelling to a two family dwelling for the property located at 6 Clark Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. • c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of facts: 1. Petitioners owns and resides at the subject property with three teenage children and Mrs. Dollin's mother Stella Lazaris. 2. Petitioner's children and Mr. Dollins are asthmatic, and the proposed expansion of the premises would permit them to live in rooms which were not located in the basement. 3. The configuration of the proposed expansion consists of an "in-law" apartment on a second floor with separate kitchen facilities, bathroom and separation from the first floor. 4. The property has been in Petitioner's family for over 40 years, and the current house was built in 1969. 5. Anges George, 8 Clark St. , Mrs. Dollins aunt, spoke in favor of the petition. 6. Jane and Jeffrey Bachman, 3 Clark St. spoke in opposition to the petition. 7. Patty Rutkowski, 5 Clark St. spoke in opposition to the petition. 8. David Russo, 0 Clark St. spoke in opposition to the petition. 9. Those speaking in opposition voiced concerns of adding a two-family dwelling to a single family zoned area. All were concerned of the permanent status of a two-family once the property were to be transferred from the Dollins 's ownership. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARVIN & VANESSA DOLLINS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED A 6 CLARK STREET (R-1) . page two • There also were concerns about parking demands required by a two-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 . No special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property as opposed to the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable 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 o-Sin 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 June 17, 1996 A 4'ic2ti�(SC • Gary Barrett, 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 Citv Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11, the Variance of Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copv 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 • (11ity of , $Utem, � Httssttctiusetts Punra of �kppeal APR 2 Z 45 PH '96 CITY Of SALFH. MASS CLFRK'S 011 I&,[- DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WALTER ABRAHAM REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 & 20 CLARK STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, 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, owner of the property, located at 18 & 20 Clark Street request a Variance to subdivide lots to build two single family homes. 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 seeks a variance to subdivide a lot of 20, 995 square feet into two lots. Petitioner proposes to build two single family residences on the property, ease presenting 50 ft. of frontage. 2. Petitioner's property abuts conservation land. He stated that he presented his proposal to the City of Salem Conservation Commission. Petitioner agreement with the City's Conservation Commission is in the public record. 3. Due to drainage problems existing on that section of Clark Street, the City Engineer received the owner's permission to create an easement over the Abraham property to allow water to drain from the street to the rear of the lot. 4. Four neighbors and abutters appeared in opposition to the proposed variance, citing overcrowding on the street, inadequate off-street parking conditions, and the anticipated continuation • or worsening of the existing drainage problem, which created dangerous ice conditions during wintertime. These neighbors were: David and Theresa Wong of 15 Clark St. , Donna Wilkins of 24 Clark St. , Ed. Nyskowski of 12 Clark St.and Ralph Calvani of 21 Clark St. Also appearing in opposition was John Donahue, Ward 3 Councillor. DECISION 0= THE PETITION OF WALTER ABRAHAM REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 & 20 CLARK STREET (R-1 ) page two • 5. Ward Councillor Leonard O' Leary appeared in support of the petitioner's petition. On the basic of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: I . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general . 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 3-2 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 March 20, 1996 1 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. Board of Appeal • (gitu of Salem, 'Tas5ndjusetts Paura of '�p Eaf y4T [ C11y0� Ill? ^ 1 �JQ DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ARTHUR RABY REQUESTING A C1/ 'r�O M '4QS Q 1 i-1 cl_ S VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 CLEVELAND STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held April 17, 1996 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. Petitioner, owner of the property request a Variance from use, lot size and frontage to allow parcel to be divided for the property located at 13 Cleveland 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 to allow the property to be divided into 2 lots for the purpose of building a single family home on one half of the property. 2. Petitioner stated, on behalf of his proposal, that the neighbors did not object to the division of the property into two lots, and that a prospective buyer of the new lot wished to construct a single family home on the property. 3. Support for the proposed variance was voiced by John Donahue, Ward Councillor for the district. 4. There was no opposition expressed to the proposed 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. 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 ARTHUR RABY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 CLEVELAND STREET (R-1) page two 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 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 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 City 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 April 17, 1996 / \\ Nina Cohen, Member JJ✓✓ 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 • (situ of . $afem, � ttssttcljusetts nttra ofeal ` `� MAY D 9 37 Ad '96 CITY Of SALI-M. MASS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN F. FRACZEK REQUESTRd IAK'SPEEIA1.f PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 29 CUSHING STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held May 15, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, 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 is requesting a Special Permit to expand a non-conforming structure to add a second story for the property located at 29 Cushing 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's residence consists of a single-story structure, to which he wishes to add a second floor, following the foot- print of the building's foundation. 2. There was on objection to 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: • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN F. FRACZEK REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 29 CUSHING STREET (R-1) page two 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 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 Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a Building Permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with = the existing structure. —_ a SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED " w MAY 15, 1996 �>- ca o� w Nina Cohen Member, Board of Appeal ; A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD ANS m THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MCL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • Board of Appeal ait� of $Nlem, '�Eagstz�lj2 usetts 3 r cr t9 sg °96 9 rr; ;,Q� �nttrD of enlyt,'+ ,-,i.i'ri. Mn>s 01t f DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KEVIN DUBE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 64 DEARBORN STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held October 16, 1996 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Richard Dionne, Joseph Ywuc and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance to add a dormer to a non-conforming structure for the property located at 64 Dearborn 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 sought to build an expanded second floor along the rear elevation of the house, raising the roof on an existing single-story porch to meet the higher roof line on the main structure and adding two dormers. The proposed changes would not alter the footprint of the house. 2. Sarah Hayes, Councillor for Ward 6, appeared in favor and added that the petitioner had already made improvements to the property. 3. Joseph Correnti, of 55 Dearborn Street, appeared and spoke in favor for the proposed change. 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 KEVIN DUBE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 64 DEARBORN STREET (R-1) page two 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions which are to be certified, submitted to and approved by the Building Inspector. 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 exterior structure. 5 . A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 7. Elevation to stay the same. • 8. Footprint will not change. Variance Granted October 16, 1996 _ 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 uat,il a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clcrk £bat 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, ifsuch 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 ownero record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title° C.^, Ln S cn • Board of Appeal V) cc v> o-. ( 1tu of Salem, {` assad7usetts �64p Y �O2ICa LIl ��f� 4.en. • AUG 13 i 43 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JAMES A. BAILEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 140 DERBY STREET (B-1) A hearing on this petition was held August 21, 1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Albert Hill, Arthur Lebreque, Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance from parking for the property located at 140 Derby 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 requests a Variance from parking. 2. Petitioner represented himself. 3. All opposition was withdrawn after proper clarification was made. 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. 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: DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JAMES A. BAILEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 140 DERBY STREET ( B-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 plans and dimensions which are to be certified, submitted to and approved by the Building Inspector. 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. 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. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted August 21, 1996 6, a (—Sc t,� • Richard Dionne, 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 • Cts of ,�alem, 'Tassadlusetts Pottra of Aupeal ci 4i � 9J flPF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GARY H. PALARDY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 206 DERBY STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held August 21, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Paul Valaskatgis, Richard Dionne, Arthur LaBrecque 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 a Change of Use from a Restaurant and Bar use to an Office use for the property located at 206 Derby 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: Not withstanding 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 GARY H. PALARDY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT 206 DERBY 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 . 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. 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 any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. Special Permit Granted August 21, 1996 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 a/° rtm 3 MAX 3 • T G� • (situ of 11em, 'T- assadjusetts M Pnttra of '�upeal JUL 3 3 19 Ph '36 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NICHOLAS M. BOVIO RETQUES'14INCi L� M. MASS VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 DUNDEE STRE(gtfli�§-11))cFIOF A hearing on this petition was held June 19, 1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Joseph Ywuc and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance from two sideyard setbacks and rear setback to construct a garage for the property at 2 Dundee 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 represented himself. 2. Garage would be used to store his motor vehicle and motorcycle. 3. Foundation size of garage would be 44.51 x 231 . 4. No neighborhood opposition. 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. 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: I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NICHOLAS M. BOVIO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 DUNDEE STREET page two • 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Variance Granted \ June 19, 1996 n �,� �c'Cn..` Vi1.A n%,,pJ'l, J 5 seph Ywuc, Member Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a • copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • '�. Ctu of ,Salem, 4Httssadjusetts 3 a • 'v4 S Foam of ( ,"eeE ec 19 319 PM 196 CITY Oi' 'ALCM MASS Ctvf S OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN R. KEILTY, ESQUIRE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 50 ESSEX STREET (R-2 ) A hearing on this petition was held December 11, 1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Albert Hill and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance to convert the property to four (4) residential condominium units for the located at 50 Essex Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of 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 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. Property is currently owned by the City of Salem, and formerly housed the Salem East Branch Library. 2. The property sits on the edge of the Salem Common National Historic District and has been vacant for a considerable length of time, causing it to fall into a state of fatal disrepair. 3. The petitioner Salem East Branch Library Associates is comprised of Philip Singleton and Matt Anderson Freeman Associated Architects. 4. Petitioner proposes to convert the existing structure into a four (4) residential condominium units in a R-2 zone, and thus require a Variance. 5. The petitioners will use the now existing footprint of the building and there will not be further dimensional non-conformity caused by any new construction. 6. The only proposed exterior changes to the existing structure would be the constructionof one exterior entrance way and the construction of a roof deck. 7. As part of the sale of the property the petitioners, the City will retain an easement for a pedestrian walkway from Essex St. to Forrest • Street. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN R. KEILTY, ESQUIRE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 50 ESSEX STREET (R-2) page two 8. The City and petitioners will also enter into a Deed of Facade Easement Agreement which will provide_ the Salem Historical Commission with design review over exterior alteration to the building. 9. The petitioners have agreed to provide an exclusive parking easement to the abutters at 8 and 12 Forrester Street, providing each with one dedicated parking space. 10. The petitioners have agreed to construct a fence along the property line of the abutting properties located at 8 5 12 Forrester St. The fence along the Parr property (8 Forrester St) will start toward the rear of the Parr property in order to allow cars parked to utilize a swing area to exist the parking areas. 11. The petitioners have agreed to consult the Parr's (8 Forrester St. ) and the Chionards (12 Forrester St. ) to discuss the design of the respective fences along their property line. 12. City Planner Craig L. Wheeler submitted a letter dated December 2, 1996 in support of the petition. 13. Michael Parr, 8 Forrester St. , spoke in favor of the petition. 14. There was no opposition to the petition. 15. The petitioners expressed a willingness to seek the design advice of the Historical Commission with respect to the appropriateness of designs. 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. 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions submitted to and approved per the Building Inspector. 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 existing structure. 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 not limited to, the Planning Board. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN R. KEILTY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 50 ESSEX STREET (R-2) page three 8. The petitioners agree to enter into a Deed of Facade Easement Agreement to provide the Historical Commission with design review over exterior alteration to the building, and agree to seek design advice from the Commission for fence design. 9. Petitioners agree to construct a fence along the property line of the abutting property owned by the Parrs at 8 Forrester St. and the Chionards at 12 Forrester Street. The location of said fences shall be in the approximate location as reflected on the plans submitted to the Board dated September 11, 1996. 10. Petitioners agree to provide exclusive parking easements to the owners of the properties located at 8 & 12 Forrester St. respectively providing one designated parking space for each of said properties. Variance Granted December 11, 1996 /&,z.z( Gary Barrett, 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 c n Board of Appeal -t — C�=SISI CO Lm D- C9 N .. C) Q. • JAN 2:5 IID .i�2 11M '9b Elty of ttlem, 'Tassadjusetts+r 01- s'avm' MASS 3oQ. �9 Pottra of '�ppeal DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE & JOAN HELLER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 313 ESSEX STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held January 17, 1996 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Arthur LeBrecque 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 for a Change of Use (Rooming House to 13 Unit Apartmentl . 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 Iand, 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 reduce the number of dwelling units from 16 to 13 units. 2. A representative of the Licensing Board spoke in favor of the change in use from a rooming house to apartments. 3. The change will stabilize and enhance the quality of life in the neighborhood. 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: DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE h JOAN HELLER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 313 ESSEX STREET (P.-2) 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. 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. i. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. B. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any city board or commission having jurisdiction, including but not limited to the Planning Board. Variance Granted • January 17, 1996 Stephen C. Touchette Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this 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 ih cthec.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. Z:O r-i) Board of Appeal > o o; w S N • T? N La N cr) Ctv of *Ilem, Alssttdjusetts - > Poura of Appeal j N �J 7 7 AMENDMENT TO THE DECISION OF 376 ESSEX STREET ^ a' This amendment is in regards to paragraph three (3 ) of the Decision of Donald L. Hodgeman. Paragraph should read: More specifically, the petitioner is requesting the Board rescind the decision of the Salem Zoning Enforcement .. Officer to issue a building permit and to prohibit 'issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the structure at 376 Essex Street , except for use of a portion of the structure as a professional office or home occupation by • the individual residential owner to the extent such use was established prior to enactment of the Salem Zoning Ordinance (R-2 ) . n Sa11Gy e. Murtagh Clerk, Board of Appeal • Ctu of , $Ulem, CTttssttcljusetts !1 Foam of �upeu! i APR CITY r�r �iIPH HASS K w DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD L. HODGEMAN et al REQUESTING THE BOARD TO RESCIND THE DECISION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 376 ESSEX STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held January 17, 1996 and continued again to February 21, 1996 and heard again March 20, 1996 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 are requesting an Administrative Ruling in accordance with Section IX of the Zoning Ordinance and MGL 40A. Section 7 relative to the use of the premises and Enforcement of Sections V-B (2) and VIII-E (6) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to said premises. More specifically, the petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting the Board rescind the decision of the Salem Zoning Enforcement Officer to issue a building permit for the property located at 376 Essex Street (R-2) . After hearing the evidence the Board of Appeal makes the following findings of • fact: 1. Both the petitioner and the owner of the premises were represented by counsel, each of whom made oral presentations and submitted written briefs. 2. The property at 376 Essex Street is located in an R-2 District. 3. From approximately 1941 through 1981, the property was owned and used by Dr. John Cunney as a private residence and professional office for his medical practice. In 1981, the property was purchased by Dr. Reynes and used as a residence and medical office until 1988, when it was sold to the Kirsches. They used it as a residence and professional office until it was sold to the present owner, Charter Trust. 4. The use of the property as a physician's office within a private residence was an allowed use pursuant to the 1955 Zoning Ordinances and it became a non-conforming use in 1965 when the Salem Zoning Ordinance was changed. 5. The non-conforming use as a physician's office in a private residence has been continuously maintained to the present time. 6. Dr. Shafer stated that she will use the premises as a medical office and a residence. She will see patients in conjunction with one (1) associate three (3) days a week. Dr. Shafer stated that she will employ other administrative and medical staff. • 7. Dr Shafer offered to register to vote in Salem, register her motor vehicle in Salem and use her Essex Street address for her professional licenses. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DONALD L. HODGEMAN FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 376 ESSEX STREET (R-2) • page two . C 8. The physical changes to the building involved painting the interior, replacing carpets, partitioning the "family" room into examination rooms, adding a handicap accessible bathroom and a handicap ramp. 9. The petitioners presented testimony that the floor plan submitted with the application for the building permit showed an increase in floor space devoted to the medical practice over that used by prior owners. The petitioners also presented testimony that Dr. Cunney did not have any associates in practice with him and that he had one (1) employee. 10. A number of documents were received by the Board and made part of the public record. They include the following: 1. Briefs submitted by both attorney's. 2. Letters, both in favor and opposition. 3. Signed petition from both in favor and opposition. Therefore, based on the above findings of fact and on evidence presented, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted three (3) in favor and two (2) opposed. Failing to garner the necessary four (4) votes, the Petition was denied. Petition Denied March 20, 1996 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 • Ctu of „Sttlem, �- asteadlusetts M Poura of �kppeal flaw 19 3 09 t°o '96 I:V Yui SA(( K MASS cr t r,K'S 01 V10E- DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & VICTORIA STEVENS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135 FEDERAL STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held November 13,1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill,Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskatgi. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 change a single family dwelling to a two family from minimum depth of front yard for the property located at 135 Federal Street, Salem. 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 was represented by Attorney Jeffrey Stelman. 2. Councillor Regina Flynn of Ward 2 spoke in favor of the petition. 3. A petition was submitted with 11 signatures in favor of the petition. 4. Steven M. Glovsky, 131 Federal Street appeared and spoke in favor. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RICHARD AND VICTORIA STEVENS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135 FEDERAL STREET (R-2) page two • 5. There was no opposition to this 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 fo 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 . All construction 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. All construction shall be done as per the plans submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. • 4. A building permit is to be obtained prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Limit parking to two (2) spaces to the second unit. 7. Second unit is to be no larger than approximately 425 square feet on two floors. 8. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering form the City of Salem Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visible form the street. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED November 13, 1996 11,L� 3/ ;",- Richard mowRichard Dionne Member, Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RICHARD & VICTORIA STEVENS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135 FEDERAL STREET • 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 • • of ,$Nlem, TRISSadjusetts M 3oQ„ s �uarD of �p}Ten! • JUL Z Z 13 F11 X96 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P.REQUESfI44 OA ;SLI-M. MASS VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 FIRST STREET (R-I'tI tK ' Of ICF A hearing on this petition was held June 19, 1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Joseph Ywuc and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance to install three antennas for the property located at 12 First 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 requests a variance to allow installation of three antenna arrays, each containing several panels for wireless communication relays, atop the multi-family residence at 12 First Street, known as Pequot Apartments. 2. Petitioner stated that the proposed equipment, relying on digital technology, requires installation at the height of land. In the City of Salem, the Pequot Apartment site represents one of the highest points above sea level, and would be an appropriate place to install the technology without having to erect additional structures. 3. Installation of the petitioner's antennae would benefit the City of Salem by enabling customers to transmit emergency and commercial messages using the digital technology currently available. 4 . There was no opposition to the proposed 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. DECISION OF SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 FIRST STREET 9R-1) page two 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial de trim nt ,to„ public good and without nullifying and substantiallf1 dga ,� r 'ting'M the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance' TA WOd,d 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 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 building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4 . All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. Variance Granted June 19, 1996 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 • (llitu of "Salem, (�Hnssndjusetts M oQ Pourb of �kppeal NOV 25 07 fil '96 DECISION-ON THE PETITION OF FIVE FLORENCE REALTY TRUST REQUESTING—A- SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 FLORENCE STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held November 13,1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill,Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskatgi . Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 for a Change of Use from printing to woodworking for the property located at 5 Florence Street Salem. 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. William Kielbasa owner of the property appeared before the board to represent 5 Florence Street. 2. Property is under agreement for sale. Special Permit will not effect the existing use of the property. 3. There was no opposition to this petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF FIVE FLORENCE REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 FLORENCE STREET (R-2) page two • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good 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. All construction 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. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 4. A building permit is to be obtained prior to beginning any construction. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED November 13, 1996 Gary Barrett, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title Board of Appeal • Ctv of Salem, 'Tassadjusetts II 3oQ Poiirb of �ppeal OCT ZZ 10 04 hN °96 CITY 01 SALFM. MASS ri I r,zIc nt ; If,i' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FIVE FLORENCE REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 FLORENCE STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held October 22, 1996 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Joseph Ywuc, Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 Five Florence Realty Trust the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Variance to change the use from R-2 to all legal uses for B-2. Granted leave to withdraw without prejudice. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE October 22, 1996 " � • 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 • Cts of -Salem, �Fttssndjusettq Q� ' �nura of }�enl•� ��t��`°96 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CONTRACT ENGI ING, INC. REQgESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 FRANKLIN,-STREET.,rf(;B:1) A hearing on this petition was held July 17,'1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Albert Hill, Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne and Joseph Ywuc. This petition was continued to August 21, 1996 with four members present. All were present with the exception of Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, requests a Variance from density regulations, lot coverage, sideyard setbacks,parking regulations and to allow mixed use of industrial and commercial for the property located at 7 Franklin 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. Joseph Correnti, of Serafini, Serafini 6 Darling represented the petitioner. 2. Petitioner had previously been granted variances similar to those requester presently in 1994, but those variances lapsed, and the construction plans have been revised. 3. Petitioner submitted plans at the July 17, 1996 hearing which showed the proposed new building running along the property lines of abutting properties located on North Street behind the Merit Gas Station, McCarthy Insurance, and 94 North Street. The proposed setbacks reflected on the June 24, 1996 drawings were minimal (2-4 feet) 4. Tony Lenares, owner of the property at 94 North Street, spoke in opposition to the plans submitted at the June hearing because of the proximity of the proposed building to his property. 5. Sally Hayes, Ward 6 Councillor, spoke in opposition to the petition at the June meeting. 6. Leonard O'Leary, Ward 4 Councillor, spoke in opposition to the petition at the June hearing. 7. Staley McDermet, 30 Dearborn Street, expressed concerns about the proposed building design including the location of the building on the property line, the height of the building, the materials to be used in construction and the treatment of the rear wall facade to be facing North Street. Mr. McDermet expressed his opinion that the • building would be better situated on the opposite lot line of the property. 8. Petitioner submitted .revised drawings at the continued hearing after meeting with and discussing the abutting property owners. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CONTRACTING ENGINEERING, INC. REQUESTING • A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 FRANKLIN STREET (B-1) page two 9. The revised drawings dated August 8, 1996 showed the proposed building situated along the lot line of the property known and numbered as Lot 375 at 9 Franklin Street. 10. The setback from the property owned by Mr. Lenares was shown as being 6 feet as well as from property housing the McCarthy Insurance agency and property owned by Claire Clalifour. 11. The revised plans showed 16 on site parking spaces for the property, five fewer than would be required by the Ordinance. 12. Petitioner represented that it intended to address concerns about ,D N the surface water drainage problems existing on the property by installing catch basins which would connect to stormdrains on Franklin v� Street. 13. Petitioner also agreed to construct a six (6) feet stockade fence along N c the property line of the Merit Station, McCarthy Insurance, and the Lenares property. =•�c 14 . Mr. Lenares appeared at the continued hearing and spoke in favor of the �-, 31 petition indicating that the revised plans addressed his concerns. `" Y - 15. Sally Hayes, Ward 6 Councillor, appeared and expressed concerns v relative to the drainage on the property. 16. Gerald McCarthy, 92 North Street, spoke in favor of the petition provided that petitioner addressed the surface water drainage problems. 17. Staley McDermet, while stating that the revised drawings contained dramatic improvements from the previous plans, expressed concerns relative to the design of the backwall facade treatments, and expressed • hopes that existing trees on' the property line be maintained where possible. 18. Clair Chalifour, 96 North Street, appeared in opposition to the petition because of the six (6) foot setbacks from her property and because of concerns about drainage problems. 19. The petitioner estimates the creation of eight jobs at the proposed light manufacturing facility once constructed. 20. Petitioner agreed to continue concrete sidewalks and granite curbing along its property on Franklin Street. 21 . Paul Bourbeau, Jaquith & Semasko, appeared on behalf of the petitioner to describe the changes on the revised drawings. 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 CONTRACTING ENGINEERING, INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 FRANKLIN STREET page three • 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions which are to be certified, submitted to and approved by the Building Inspector, and the proposed building is to be located as reflected on the revised drawing dated August 8, 1996. 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. m N 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. to a`6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. N a c 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission N having jurisdiction including but not limited to, the Planning Board. C,_ r" 8. Petitioner shall construct a drainage system to address the surface water drainage problems on the property by installing catch basins — and drains which will connect to storm drains on Franklin Street. • 9. Petitioner shall construct a six (6) foot stockade fence along the property lines as reflected on the revised drawings dated August 8, 1996 submitted at the hearing. 10. Petitioner shall continue to create sidewalks and granite curbing along its property on Franklin Street. 11. Petitioner shall preserve to the extent possible existing trees on the property. Variance Granted August 21, 1996 Gary Barrett, 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.o m d V� ZE N • C.,! �5 c+j c, • Ctu of ttlem, 'fflttssadjusetts Potts of ' pPveal 4� Jul 25 10 zo AN '96 CI'iY Of SALON. MASS CL( RK'S WF ICF DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LEO J . HIGGINS JR. REQUESTING VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 GREENWAY ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held JuLY 17, 1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Joseph Ywuc and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance from side yard setbacks to construct an addition and a deck for the property located at 17 Greenway 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 . Petitioner was represented by his father, Leo Higgins Sr. 2. Petitioner requests a variance to construct a 14 x 16 deck and to add an addition. 3. 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 . 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. 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: DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LEO J. HIGGINS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 GREENWAY ROAD (R-1) page two 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and statetat�res ordinances, codes and regulations. 19L IGD II1 as i m ",I 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department rJat 3$ -b'V96ok,61&bd fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. CI FRR''S Oi; (Gity of Iem, { asstztllusetts • Jul. f0 20 AK �attra of �u}reul CI i Y OF SALE M- MASS Cl CpkK'S Of FICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS & JOANN DUBOIS REQUESTING VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30 HANSON STREET (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held JuLY 17, 1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Joseph Ywuc and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance from side setbacks to allow the existing deck to be closed for the property located at 30 Hanson 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 request variance from side yard setbacks to allow the existing deck to be closed. 2. Ward 4 Councillor, Leonard O'Leary spoke in favor of the petition. 3. 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. 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. • 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: DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS & JOANN DUBOIS REOUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30 HANSON STREET (R-1) page two 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and stat s atur s, ordinances, • codes and regulations. 29 CEO 2 requirements shallobestrictly adhered the Department r,� atKvetmtq„`qme and fire safety 3. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any — construction. 4 . All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to Building Inspector. 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 July 17, 1996 Richard Dionne, 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 �$ulem, (�RagzadjuBette • 'vQ ' . �uttra of �upeal OCT QIIY pi' AL('M. M N S S CIiR61 s 01110: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 HAWTHORNE BLVD. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held October 16, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Vice-Chairman; Paul Valakagis, Richard Dionne, 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 is requesting a Special Permit to allow a Change of Use for an Antique Shop and a Variance from Parking for the Property located at 3 Hawthorne Blvd. The 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 failed to appear before this Board to explain and justify why the Board should Grant the Special Permit and Variance. 2. The petitioner failed to provide evidence that the request could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ELIZABETH NORTON FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 3 HAWTHORNE BLVD. page two • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit and Variance 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, five (5) to (0) , 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 and Variance is denied. Special Permit and Variance Denied October 16, 1996 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 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 • (91ty of . $alem, �Kassadjusetts s POarb of (�ktrpel D 2 g IFIL DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RAYMOND SOBOCINSKI REg�11BS-jI'ivG�!diIF1. 'Yk1S VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 HERSEY STREET!l..i'(!R�2$)Diil11(1:iF� A hearing on this petition was held January 17, 1996 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Arthur LeBrecque 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, owner of the property request a Variance from side yard setback to construct a 12 x 20 one car garage for the property located at5 Hersey 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 petition. 2. There currently exists a 9'x18.5' one car garage on the property which is located 2.3' from the side lot line. 3. The existing garage is in a state of disrepair. 4. The proposed new garage would not further encroach on the now existing side lot line, the same distance as the current garage. 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 OF THE PETITION OF RAYMOND SOBOCINSKI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 HERSEY STREET (R-2) 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. 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. Variance Granted January 17, 1996 Joseph C. Ywuc 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 fhattL-�20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such jppa has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded inryfpe uth Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owned mord or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal m tib y y �< b7 (9itn ofttlem, � Httssttcljusetts M ` � s Potts of Appeal 111 F4 °96 f'" Of SALrM. PASSCI Cil :S 01 fICF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF A.T.6 T. WIRLELESS SERVICES FOR A VARIANCE AT 40 REAR HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-3) . A hearing on this petition was held August 21,, 1996 with' the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Paul Valaskatgis, Richard Dionne, Arthur LaBrecque 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 to allow three antenna arrays to be installed on the property located at 40 Rear Highland Avenue (R-3) . The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. • 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the 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. 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 A.T.&T. WIRELESS SERVICES FOR • A VARIANCE AT 40 REAR HIGHLAND AVENUE. page two 3. All construction shall be done as per the plan and dimensions by the Zoning Board of Appeal. 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. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. The antenna located on the Boston Street side of the roof will be located six (6) feet away from the edge of the roof line. 9. Antenna arrangements are as follows: North - on the roof. South - on the top outside face of the Elevator shaft. West - on the top outside face of the Elevator shaft. 10. The antennas and antenna cable located on the outside of the elevator shaft will be painted to match the surface color of the elevator shaft Variance Granted • August 21, 1996 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. 1J�110 �,,�11,�11�11'J Board of Appeal 5`1d'ANJ" d3S of Salem, 4- Hassttcllusetts • Paura of }peal 15 10 40 C( f'IrK' nM: 'a� S DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS N. KATSAPETSES REQUESTING;FOPdF VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held on November 13, 1996 with the.,,. following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Paul Valaskagis, Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne 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 Variance from lot size and front yard setback to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this single family district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance • would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There is a City of Salem mandate by the Salem City Council dated Oct. 28, 1993 that the backfill be removed and renew the property to its original grade. 2. In opposition are: Ward 3 Councillor, John Donahue, Ward 4 Councillor, Leonard O'Leary, John Lunt and Stanley Porier. 3. The petitioner failed to demonstrate or to meet the burden of proof relative to legal hardship. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS KATSAPETSES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 HIGHLAND AVENUE page two 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 five (5) to (0) , in opposition to the motion to grant, having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED NOVEMBER 13, 1996 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. BOARD OF APPEAL • of Salem, 'Tassadlusetts 3 9 Puara of �k}pezd a JUL 30 3 01 (0 96 t.IfCI I IRK'S�Of ! 101- DECISION ON THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF VARIANCES GRANTED TO 224-234 HIGHLAND AVENUE At a hearing held June 19, 1996, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to allow a six (6) month extension for Variances granted allowing the construction of an eight (8) foot fence and a Variance on parking for the property located at 224-234 Highland Avenue. The subject variances were originally granted at a hearing held on June 28, 1995. Said extension shall be up to and including December 19, 1996. A copy of the original decision have been filed with the Planning Board and with the City Clerk. Gary Barrett, Chairman Board of Appeal of $Ulem, 'Tassadiusetts • 364. ' Paura of Atrpeul DEC 10 1135 AN '96 CITY Of' SALEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN BRENNAN FOR A VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 373 HIGHLAND AVENUE (BPD) A hearing on this petition was held November 13, 1996 and continued to December 11, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Paul Valaskagis, 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 Special Permit per Article V, 5-3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a driving range & a Variance to allow a driving range on B.P.D.portion of the property located BPD district for the property located at 373 Highland Avenue. 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 BRENNAN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 373 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM • page two C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the 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 would like to open driving range on this property. 2. Petitioner was represented by Attorney Roy Geleneau. 3. Speaking in favor of the petition was: Kathleen Ingemi, 381 Highland Ave. ; Mr. Spilleni of Peabody, ; Marymargret Moore of 14 Heritage Dr. , and a letter from Robert Lees of Highland Gardens was read in favor. 4. Speaking in opposition to the petition: Dominic Ingemi, of 1 Cedar Rd. Mr. Richard Williams, 3 Thomas Circle; Mrs. Roberta Williams, 3 Thomas Circle; Josephine Hardy, 10 Barnes Road. 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 Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 4. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants. 5. The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted two (2) in favor(Barrett & Valaskagis) three (3) in opposed (Hill, Cohen and Dionne) the granting of the Special Permit\Variance requested. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit\Variance is denied. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN BRENNAN A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY AT 373 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM (BPD) page three Variance and Special Permit Denied • December 11, 1996 Richard Dionne, Member JJJ 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 • '� �anra of �u}Tenl SEP cai liK� �tl ler • �� CItY OI „LOf i �Gai'c'S Cl CfiK'� DECISION OF THE PETITION OF A.T. & T. WIRELESS SERVICES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (BPD) A hearing on this petition was held September 11 , 1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Joseph Ywuc and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance to install a 100 foot monopole with an antenna array for the property located at 488 Highland 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. The Petitioner was represented by Attorney Joseph Correnti of Serifini, Serifini and Darling, 63 Federal Street, Salem. 2. Ward 4 Councillor Leonard O'Leary spoke in favor of the request. 3. There was no opposition to this 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 A.T. & T WIRRELESS SERVICE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (BPD) SEP I� • page two II 3 0 On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the�evidence;.p� k� Anted at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted una.nimotus .- Cto grant the variance requested, subject to the following condit� 4ons: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions which are to be certified, submitted to and approved by the Building Inspector. 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 is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted September 11, 1996 • Richard Dionne Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeai from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • �`°�. Ctu of *1em, 49assadjusetts �s y �� �ottra of �ppenl • 4 JUL DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN BETTENCOURT REQUESTING �.iVARIANACE ff FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 HILLSIDE AVENUE (R-1 ) Ct GfcK'SrOf+f�PRf= A hearing on this petition was held June 19, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywu, Albert Hill and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 requests a Variance to subdivide a lot and Variance from parking for the property located at 24 Hillside Avenue. 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 owns the subject property, and proposes to subdivide the existing 26,249 sq. ft. lot into two lots. 2. If the subdivision were to be allowed, Lot 1 would consist of 17,370 sq. ft. and frontage on Hillside Avenue of 15 feet; Lot 2 would consist of 8,830 sq. ft. , having frontage of approximately 75 feet, with the existing house sitting on Hillside Avenue with no setback. 3. Petitioner represented that an elderly aunt lives in the existing house, and that he would live in the proposed house to be built on Lot 1 . 4. The nearest five lots on the same side of Hillside Avenue to the subject property have the following lot sizes: 20 Hillside, 19,851;- 22 Hillside- 17,874; 26 Hillside,16,350; 28 Hillside 14,760 and 30 Hillside-16, 387 and all have similar rectangular lot shapes. 5. The proposed subdivision would create two odd-shaped lots. 6. Hillside Avenue is a winding street, and well - trafficked. 7. Neighbors attended the meeting to learn about the proposed petition, and were neither opposed to nor in support of the petition. 8. There were no representations made concerning topographical or • soil conditions which were udique to the property. DECISION THE PETITION JOHN BETTENCOURT REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 HILLSIDE AVENUE (R-1) page two • 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. No special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property as opposed to the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable 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 5-0 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 June 19, 1996 Gary Barrett, 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 Ctu of .$Zdem, � ussttcljusetts s Punra of �upeal 2 36 Nar 16 Hass CITY O`�IIiK"� OMpICiT DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN S SUSAN TEHEEN REQUESTING A SFPEGIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 INTERVALE ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held May 15, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, 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 is requesting a Special Permit to expand a non-conforming structure to build an addition for the property located at 13 Intervale Road (R-1) . The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in 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 Susan and John Teheen were present during the hearing, along with their builder Arthur Wenson from Timberline, Inc. 2. Petitioner wants to add a second floor to the existing structure. 3. There will be no change to the existing foundation. 4. The structure is unoccupied at this time. 5. There was no neighborhood opposition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & SUSAN TEHEEN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 INTERVALE ROAD (R-1 ) page two //,�� ,, 1 . The Special Permit requested can be granted without substgr� • detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substetiay derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of �1O— ordinance. i��X»fp�: 6 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will S 0� �/� g g p q promote the 1 A?4, •T public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and may be granted in harmony with the neighborhood. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to. 4 . A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a Building Permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED MAY 15, 1996 Joseph Ywuc Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • Ctg of Iem, 'Masleadjusetts Pnttra of Avpeul 105 25-61TIM0131 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NICKOLAS KARAMBELAS REQUES'OINQ(A t!i'.H.'k"A` VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 271 JEFFERSON AVENUE:t(BL!A%:Orf1c1- A hearing on this petition was held June 19, 1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Joseph Ywuc and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 request a Variance to allow expansion of non conforming structure and Variance from parking for the property located at 271 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's property, a three story residential building with a pet supply occupying the first floor is presently a a mixed-use property in a predominantly residential neighborhood. 2. Petitioner previously came before the ZBA in 1995 with a request to increase the number of units in the building. The original request was denied by this Board on September 27, 1995. 3. Subsequently, petitioner modified his plan, and on April 4, 1996 received from the Salem Planning Board a determination that the new constituted a specific and material change form the original plans. 4. Petitioner's special permit request was supported by a petition signed by 11 neighbors, who contend that the petitioner's plan addresses the concerns of the neighborhood regarding increased density and parking problems. 5. Petitioner's request also received support from neighbors Henry Gagnon and William Bailey, and from Ward Councillor John Donohue. 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 NICKOLAS KARAMBELAS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 271 JEFFERSON AVENUE (B-1) • 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. 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 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 building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. A Certificate of Inspection is to 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. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted June 19, 1996 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 �''' � °`� Qlitu of . ttlem, ruSSttClluSetts j�� 9 aQ Paura of EYWfiflly 1 931Im 196 CITY Of' SALfH. MASS CI CRK'S W I wr DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KIKOLAOS KARAMBELOS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 271 JEFFERSON AVENUE (B-1) A hearing on this petition was held April 17, 1996 with the following Board Members were present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Associate Member 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. At the request of the petitioner Kikolaos Karambelos the Board of Appeal voted 5-1, to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Variance from density requirements to allow a fourth dwelling unit. Granted leave to withdraw without prejudice. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE April 17, 1996 �i z�lz�5-, Crc-i • 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 $Ulem, C ttsstttljusefts w S • '� Q� �nttra of �� cr [3 11 08 &1co", S'jLr14 '96 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KIMBERLY A. HEATH REQ ES r QUESTING •'(''VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 LARCH AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held October 16, 1996 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Richard Dionne, Joseph Ywuc and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance from two side and rear setback to install a 8' x 10' shed for the property located at 7 Larch 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 . A letter was submitted in favor of petition signed by George Ray, of 10 Bayview Cir. and Robert St. Pierre of 9 Larch Avenue. 2. Richard Boisvert of 5 Larch Ave. was present and opposed the petition with reasons of shed being to tall and to close to the fence. 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 KIMBERLY A. HEATH REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 LARCH AVENUE (R-1) page two• n ,J On the basis of the above findings of fact, and oiff�43 evNd6n4j p5esented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal votedrunanimously, 9-0 @o grant the variance requested, subject to the following condi;tdns:y SAS t /1K' 0I !'!C(. 5 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions which are to be certified, submitted to and approved by the Building Inspector. 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 exterior structure. Variance Granted October 16,1996 Paul Valaskatgis 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 • fgitg of .� 1em, � HttssurS et��21� Ii '96 3�p �1 9 2Eb fl26 Poura o �U�1f211 • CICY Oi iAl.0i F (',F e g� bfl N� cl s li,'s of ICF C't ECiS"S ©1�E'(iCF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JEFFREY BARROWS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 330 LAFAYETTE STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held September 11 , 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett Chair-an, Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc, Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskatgis. 1•:otice of the hearing was sent 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. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit for a Chanee of Use from a 14 room rooming house to 8 multi dwelling units for the property located at 330 Lafayette 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. Petitioner, through his legal representative, George Atkins, requested to withdraw his petition without prejudice. 2. Two Ward Councillors and three abutters objected to the request for withdrawal on the grounds that the petitioner 's proposal could then be reshaped and resubmitted for approval at anytime. It was their position that any petition for multi-family use of the structure at 330 Lafayette Street would impose a hardship • DECISION OF THE JEFFREY BARROWS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE • PROPERTY LOCATED AT 330 LAFAYETTE STREET (R-2) page two SEP IB 11 24 AM '96 neighborhood by increasing density, parking problemsfand nuisanceASS issues arising from the cohabitation of unrelated adif,110WridOFFICE students. 3. Petitioner's request was denied by the Board. No further discussion took place regarding the petition's proposal. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety,convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5 in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit is denied. • SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED \ September 11, 1996 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 MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • of ttlem, 'Tanadlusetts bourn of CAU penl .11uc T3 10 03 44 °96 DECIS'_ON OF THE PETITION OF PATROWICZ :.AND ENGINEERING REQUESTING . . VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 73 R LAWRENCE STREET (R`2;jS`�lrI-IN SS A hearing on this petition was held August 21,1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Albert Hill, Arthur Lebreque, Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance from lot size and lot frontage to allow the property to be sold as a single family building lot for the property located at 73R Lawrence Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of 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 :and, 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 was bringing the petit'-on on behalf on the owners of the property Enrico Tassinari, 72 Valley St. , Salem and Liliana Tassinari. 22 Munroe St. , Lynn. 2. Scott Patrowicz, Patrowicz Land Engineering, 65 Eastern Ave. Lynn, appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 3. The owners of the property purchased in Play 1983. 4. Petitioner represented that the dilapidated structures existing on the property will be removed. 5. Petitioner represented that the contemplated structure to be constructed will have a footprint of 2100 sq. ft. ;a 15 foot front- yard setback; 10 foot sidevard setbacks; a 30 foot rearyard setback; and would have a height of 35 feet or less - conforming to all such requirements in the R-2 District. 6. The lot size of the subject property is 6050 sq. ft. which is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. 7. The frontage of approximately 60 feet is also consistent with the lot size in the surrounding neighborhood. 8. Gerard Tardiff, 8 Juniper Valley Road, Beverly, nephew of the owners spoke in favor of the petition. 9. The requested variance had been previously granted by the Board of • Appeals in September 1994. 10. Neil and Mary Yetz, 69 Lawrence St. , spoke in opposition to the petition expressing concerns that the proposed house lot would further crowd the neighborhood and that it would obstruct the views from their DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PATROWICZ LAND ENGINEERING REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR TF_- PROPERTY LOCATED AT 73R LAWRENCE STREET (R-2) • 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 condi:'-ons 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. 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construct-on shall be done as per plans and dimensions which are to be certified, submitted to and approved by the Building Inspector. 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. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the surrounding n=eighborhood. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Variance Granted August 21, 1996 _ CScr Gary Barrett, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this recision, 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 hearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, is 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. of �"iWem, � Httssttclju$etts A Poura of �tr}�eul • 4».� .11llL�� � (051 "� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & ELIZABETH COOMBS REQUE9%Tr9d0p,`f '.-- SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 LINDEN STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 17, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Joseph Ywuc and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 delete condition #6 of the Special Permit granted in 1988 with regards to limiting the permit to 4 years for the property located at 17 Linden 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 . The petitioner's were represented by Attorney Richard Stafford. 2. Petitioner's request to delete condition #6 of the Special Permit granted to them in 1988 with regards to limiting the permit to 4 years. 3. Two petitions were submitted with 18 names and addresses stating the fact that they are in favor of this petition. 4 . Jonathan Parker of 20 Linden Street spoke in favor. 5. Mr. Rose of 25 Linden Street spoke in favor. 6. There was no opposition to this petition. • u DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM 5 ELIZABETH COOMBS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 LINDEN STREET • page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good 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. This Special Permit shall remain in full force and effect so long as William and Elizabeth Coombs, or either of them, or any of their children own 17 Linden Street and occupy the property. 2. All remaining conditions will stay the same as granted in November 16, 1988 will still be effect. • SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED July 17, 1996 Joseph Ywuc Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • of , $Nlem, � Httssttcliusetts �9 `aQnttra ofe CITY 9 31 GM 196 � TTY OI SALEM. MASS Cl ! RK'S Of : ICF DECISION ON THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF VARIANCES GRANTED TO 17 LUSSIER STREET (R-1) , OWNED BY ROY & ELEANOR LAPHAM At a hearing held April 17, 1996, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to allow a six (6) month extension for Variances granted originally for the above property on March 15, 1995. Said extension shall be up to and including October 3, 1996. A copy of the original decision have been filed with the Planning Board and with the City Clerk. • Stephen C. Touchette, Chairman Board of Appeal • ( 1tu of , 5nlem' 'Htcssndiusetts • �y �uura Cf 'NF L( Q� qPn 2 45 I'ri 195 cnY Of SaLFM. MASS Cl I Ii K'S Of FICF DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RAYMOND AND RONALD FALITE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10-14 LYNCH STREET (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1996 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. Petitioner, owner of the property request a Variance from parking for the property located at 10-14 Lynch Street (R-3) . 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 to allow on-street parking for cars belonging to the future residents at 10-14 Lynch Street. 2. Petitioners plan to convert the building on this property to a multi- family unit for 12 families without changing the footprint of the existing structure, which was previously a rooming house is currently unoccupied. 3. Because the lot size is incompatible with a parking lot that could accommodate the required number of parking places, the building would be unusable as a multi-family dwelling if a parking variance were not granted. 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 RAYMOND AND RONALD FALITE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1D-14 LYNCH STREET (R-3) . 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. 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 issued. Variance Granted March 20, 1996 . • 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 • � ' � °�. Ctu of , 541em, C-ttssadjusetts 3'1y .�� 9 tf Mr �f,,i 1��'_i 9 ��Ura Y• � GW " 5e II6 9 QM 'S-3s DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ELLIOT MILFORD & FRANCsl&) ATCH3S'ONyA,55 REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT C7�tEY�NN�� �STBEE� (D-2) A hearing on this petition was held September 11, 1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Joseph Ywuc and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance from side setbacks to construct a 10' x 15' deck with the installation. of a 5' French door for the property located at 7 Lynn 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 appeal. 2. There were three (3) letters presented to the board in support of the petition. They were Edmond Morneau, 33 Bridge Street, Ar'_ene & James Shea, 1 Lynn Street and Mary & Tim Doggett of 9 Lynn Street. 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 ELLOITY MILFORD & FRANCIS ATCHISON REQUESTING • A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 LYNN 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 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 construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions which are to be certified, submitted to and approved by the Building Inspector. 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. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted September 11, 1996 ., J • Paul Valaskatgis 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 LOA, 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 LOA, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • Ctu of Salem, Httssttdiu�etts Puiirb of ' peal #4r 7 27 Pfl FSS Ory nl r.� rr,r;�trrs. M.4, DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT SOLOMAN REQUESTING A SPE0l/At(f,,F" PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MALL STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 15, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, 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 is requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a second floor on an existing single story dwelling for the property located at 7 Mall 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. The petitioner had been previously heard before the Board at hearings on May 18, 1994 and June 15, 1994. An appeal of the Board's decision was subsequently filed in Superior Court and captioned Philip Wales v. Wendi Goldsmith st als. ' Civil Action No. 94-1653. The matter is now before the Board on remand as a result of an Agreement for Judgment executed by the parties and an Order entered in the Superior Court action. 2. Petitioner purchased the property in 1992, and currently resides at the property. 3. Petitioner intends to use the proposed addition for residential • DECISI OF RT PERMITOFORFTHEEPROPERTYNLOCATEDEAT 70MALLNSTREETS(RNYIA SPECIAI„dr 17 page two ff►I 1 27 P11 096 CITY U1- space for a growing family. C11l+K;, !-ft9 HAgS 4. Petitioner stated that there would be no business conducted at ' 01 '-1!,1 the 7 Mall Street address. 5. The proposed second story addition would be built on an existing 121xl2' structure. 6. The existing 121x12' addition has been in existence for at least 10 years. 7. Petitioner stated there would be no windows on either the first or second floor of the proposed new addition facing the property owned by Philip P. Wales at 16 Williams Street. Petitioner further advised that it was the intention to follow the now existing roof line of the main structure for the proposed addition and that a sunlight would be installed on the roof. 8. Petitioner further stated that despite the fact that the property is not within a historic district there is a willingness to submit the plans t the Historic Commission for review and comment 9. Pam, Shirley and Theodore Angelakis, 9 Mall Street, submitted a letter in support of the Petition. 10. Nancy Farrett, 5 Mall Street submitted a letter in support of the petition. 11. Joseph and Elizabeth Palamara, 6 Mall Street appeared and expressed their support for the Petition. 12. Peter Farrrell, 5 Mall Street, appeared and spoke in favor of the Petition. Mr. Farrell felt the proposed addition would improve the neighborhood and would be another example of the Petitioner's • effort to upgrade the property and area. 13. Philip P. Wales, 16 Williams Street, an abutter, and his counsel, Dan Casey, appeared and opposed the Petition. 14. Mr. Wales expressed a concern that the proposed addition would "box" in his yard and effect the view from his property. 15. Mr. Wales submitted a letter dated May 15, 1996 setting forth his opposition to the Petition. 16. A letter dated April 17, 1995 from Gail M. Sdos, 16 Williams St. was submitted in opposition to 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: • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT SOLOMAN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MALL STREET (R-2 ) . page three • 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statunelY,�] 127 P� e ordinances, codes and regulations. 96 CI rY pi' SA! f 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimEhS�gns '0 H: MAgg 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 Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a Building Permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 7. Petitioner, in accord with his agreement to do so, shall submit the plans for the proposed addition to the Historic Commission for review and comment as to the exterior finishes so they will be in harmony with the existing neighborhood. 8. There shall not be any windows installed on the 1st or 2nd floor of the proposed new addition on the vertical wall facing the property owned by Philip P. Wales at 16 Williams Street. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED • MAY 15, 1996 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 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 • ofttlem, Cussttcljusetts Potts of (�u}iettl Jul 30 1114 h'O '96 i f(Y Of S!:!.! H. MASS GIIP K'S OffICI DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEONARD BONFANTI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 67 MASON STREET (I) A hearing on this petition was held July 17, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywu, Albert Hill and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 requests a Variance to convert a three family dwelling to a four family dwelling for the property located at 67 Mason Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance • would involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of facts: 1. Petitioner is the owner of the subject property as he is the trustee of Ruth Realty Trust, and as Trustee, he also owns property at 61 Mason Street and 69-71 Mason Street. 2. Petitioner was represented at the hearing by Attorney Neil Sahagian, who represented that Claire Nunes from ARC, had been in attendance at the hearing to speak in favor of the petition. 3. Petitioner currently leases three apartments at the premises to a blind person and two disabled individuals through ARC. Counsel represented that none of these tenants operate a motor vehicle. 4. Ruth Bonfanti, petitioner's wife, spoke in favor of the petition, and represented that the proposed fourth unit would be occupied by her grandson who will be attending Salem State College. 5. It appeared that the subject property had insufficient on-site parking for the proposed expansion, and no plans were submitted to demonstrate otherwise. The on-site parking which was suggested required "piggy-backed" spaces which are not permitted. 6. Petitioner represented that there would be sufficient parking made available at the property he owned at 61 Mason Street and • or at 69-71 Mason Street. 7. The property had once been used as a four-family dwelling, and there would be no construction aquired at the property. 8. The subject property is located in an industrially zoned area. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEONARD BONFANTI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED A 67 MASON STREET (I) . page two • 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 . No special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property as opposed to the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable 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 3 in favor and 2 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 June 17, 1996 Gary Barrett, 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 Citv 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 $Ulem, 'T. Ussttcllusetts • 304 39uttra of �, peal , 23 ;� �Ri�T:u - DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GABRIEL & MARY ROSSI,A R. REQUEST3.NGV' S VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 73 NORTH STREET` �_(�B=P:)`L} ('I;G'E C1I UN A hearing on this petition was held August 21, 1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Albert Hill, Arthur Lebreque, Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance to allow a sign to be install for the property located at 73 North 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 . Mr. Gabriel Rossi , Jr. represented himself. 2. A letter form the City Planner, Craig Wheeler submitted a letter in favor of the petition. 3. Mr. McDermitt of Dearbord Street spoke in favor of the petition. 4. Councillor Leonard O'Leary spoke in opposition, citing non-conformity with the city's sign ordinances. 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. • 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: DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GABRIEL AND MARY ROSSI, JR. REQUESTING . A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 73 NORTH STREET (BP) page two 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions which are to be certified, submitted to and approved by the Building Inspector. Plans from Portelance Sign Company , 4ft. x 3716. 3. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. Variance Granted August 21, 1996 ` Richard Dionne, 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 • (fit" of Salem, f ttssadjusetts 3 � M Putts of Appeal Orr 30 II 3T, i,, `96 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SHELL OIL COMPANYCREQUESTINqu, .A VARIANCE AT 111 NORTH STREET. (B-1) CI i !t X,S 0 !-Irr A hearing on this petition was held October 16, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Vice-Chairman; Joseph Ywuc, Richard Dionne, Paul Valaskagis 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 Variance from rear yard setback to allow construction of a car wash at 111 North Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. • c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 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 were no abutters speaking in favor of the petition. 2. Speaking in opposition to the petition were: Roland Wilcock, 12 Buffum Street John Christiansen, 21 Buffum Street Sheila Lynch, 35 Buffum Street Theodore Yeannokopolus, 109 North Street Joseph Murphy, 18 Buffum Street Dolly Doda, 35 Barr Street 3. A petition with 163 signatures opposing granting of the petition was entered into the record. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • DECISION OF SHELL OIL COMPANY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 111 NORTH STREET (B-1) page two 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the 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 Five (5) to Zero (0) in opposition to the motion to grant, having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED October 16, 1996 0. #'46 . 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. BOARD OF APPEAL • I of Salem, CT=99ttc1iu6ett9 i s • 'o, ' Potts of �ku}renl OCT 31 11 is IM `96 city Oi S4Li h• HASS c! DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAMELA ZERBER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 132 NORTH STREET (B-I) A hearing on this petition was held September 11,1996 and continued again until October 16, 1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Joseph Ywuc and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance to expand a non conforming structure to add a dormer for the property located at 132 North Street (B-I) . 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 in order to construct a dormer on the third floor of a non-conforming structure in as much as the existing structure does not meet current setback requirements. 2. Petitioner indicated the use of the building as a Tanning Salon and gift shop. 3. The proposed dormer would provide a means of egress from the third floor. 4. Peter Kovtvakis, owner of Peter's Bait & Tackle Shop, of North St. , and a resident of 1 Randall St. spoke in favor of the petition. He expressed his belief that the proposed project would improve the neighborhood. 5. Joseph Capolla, 143 North St. owner of Lena's Sub shop and a direct abutter spoke in favor of the petition. He indicated that the proposed project would improve the neighborhood. 6. Nina Buba, 130 1/2 North St. , a direct abutter expressed her concerns about the proposed project at the initial hearing before the Board through her attorney Charles Goddard. 7. Petitioner represented the closing hours for the proposed business • would be 9:00 p.m. 8. The matter was continued for a second hearing in order to allow the petitioner to meet and discuss the proposed project with Mrs. Buba, the direct abutter. 9. At the continued hearing, by letter Charles Goddard, Esq. representing DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAMELA ZERBER REQUESTING A VARIANCE • FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 132 NORTH STREET (B-1) page two the direct abutter, Mrs. Buba, indicated that his client and the petitioner had related agreements relative to her concerns and that she was in favor to the petition. 10. Jim Fleming, 47 Buffum St. expressed concerns that the subject property was in past a residential zone and further expressed concerns about converting a residential property to Business Use in speaking in opposition to the petition. 11 . Ward 6 Councillor Sally Hayes expressed her opposition to the petition raising questions about the proposed use of the property as a tanning salon and requested an administrative appeal . 12. The Board advised Councillor Hayes that a request for an administrative ruling was not properly before the Board as a result of a failure to comply with the proper administrative filing requirements. At the continued hearing a proper request for an administrative ruling had still not been filed. 13. The existing non-conforming structure is located at the rear of the lot and side lot lines. 14. Petitioners have done extensive restoration work for 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. 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions which are to be certified, submitted to and approved by the Building Inspector. 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. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. • 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAMELA ZERBER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 132 NORTH STREET (B-1) page three is having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board, particularly with respect to approval of signage. 8. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 9. Terms and conditions of Mr. Goddard letter dated September 26, 1996 and initialed by the Petitioner are incorporated herein by reference as conditions of this decision. Variance Granted October 16, 1996 Gary Barrett, 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 • &DECISION alty of Ivm, CMusstzdjusetts ourD ofpeal ON THE PETITION OF HOA T. COA d/b/a ANDY'S SUPERETTE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 207 1/2 NORTH STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held September 11, 1996 with the �=_ b following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Nina Cohen� < Joseph Ywu, Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with o • Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. o. w 3 Petitioner requests a Variance to allow the sale of beer and malt in -T v an R-2 Zone for the property located at 207 1/2 North Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to • the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of facts: 1 . Petitioner leases and operates a convenience store at 207 1/2 North Street. He seeks a variance to enable him to sell beer and wine at that location, if the City Licensing Board were to grant him a liquor license. 2. Opposition to the proposal was voiced by ten neighbors, including the Ward Councillor, Sarah Hayes, on the following grounds: (a) That because the store is located at the entrance to McGlew Park, the sale of liquor at that store would likely increase drinking in the park; (b) That traffic to the store would increase as a result of the liquor sales with resulting inconvenience and increased danger to neighborhood residents; (c) That the location of a store which stocked liquor on a school bus stop would encourage underage drinking; (d) That the litter in the neighborhood would increase and would likely include broken glass and beer cans, thus putting additional burdens on the neighbors. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HOA T. COA d/b/a ANDY'S SUPERETTE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 207 1/2 NORTH STREET (R-2) page two • 3. No one spoke on the petitioners 's behalf. 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 . No special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property as opposed to the district in general. m 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would not involvve substantial hardship to the petitioner. Co 3. Desirable relief requested cannot be granted without substan'tda1 detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 3 Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 0 in favor and 5 in opposit oc m 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 11, 1996 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. Board of Appeal • (gitu of "!ittlrm, �fflttssaCliusetts 3 r Dura Of Airpral 7� • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP B@ST� REQUESTIKG A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 226 NORTH,)ST.REE-,T,r,(Rjj JS T ICE A hearing on this petition was held August 21, 1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Albert Hill, Arthur Lebreque. Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance from front setback to allow an addition to the office for the property located at 226 North 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 . jim Walsh, Engineer for the Archdiocese of Boston, and Assistant Director of Cemeteries, appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The proposed construction of the addition the existing office building at St. Mary's Cemetery will be part of a 5250,000 improvement proiect at the cemetery which will include roadwork, water work and fence repairs. 3. The proposed office building addition wil'_ be 24' x 24 ' and will be one story. 4. The front setback will be five (5) feet. 5. Jim Cooke, Petronelli Construction, Inc. appeared on behalf of the petitioner and described the proposed construction. 6. Sally Hayes, Ward 6 Councillor, spoke in favor of the petition. 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. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would _ involve substation hardship to the petitioner. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON REQUEST'-NG A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 226 NORTH STREET (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. 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions which are to be certified, submitted to and approved by the Building Inspector. 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. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. Variance Granted August 21, 1996 Gary Barrett, 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 ..izzlem, 4.1155adjusetts Poura of �upeul QPR 3 2 ss 1',1 0 96 CITY 01' r DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RALPH & JANET FEINBERG REQUESTIAQtVK A<< H, yAS A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4-6 NORTHEY STREET (R-2;I OFFICF S A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1996 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. Petitioner, owner of the property request a Variance from sideline setbacks for the property located at 4-6 Northey 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 was represented by Attorney Peter Merry. 2. No neighborhood opposition. 3. Structures have existed for over 50 years. 4. Petitioner is presently doing renovation to each of the properties. 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 RALPH & JANET FEINBERG REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4-6 NORTHEY STREET (R-2 ) . page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 in favor of this petition. Albert Hill voted present. 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all°city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted March 20, 1996 oseph Ywuc 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 • aitu of Ifm, �Kttsszldlusetts Puttra of Aupeal Cl I Y G-F 'SIWPIHMASS CIL["G I('3 ;IJQ 'iflcr DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL A. BURKE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 47 OCEAN AVENUE (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held June 19, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Richard Dionne, 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 is requesting a Special Permit for a Change of Use (Professional Offices to Antique Shop) 47 Ocean Avenue. The property is located in an (R-3) district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 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 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 PAUL A. BURKE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 47 OCEAN AVENUE, SALEM • page two C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the 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. Marsha Lambert, 58 Ocean Avenue & Sandra Power, 18 Loring Avenue shared concerns regarding: Signage, Off-Street Parking, Window Displays, Property Cleanliness, Outside display of Antiques. 2. The Petitioner assured the above that there will not be any Signage out in front of the building, window displays will be in good taste, property will be kept clean, there will not be any outside displays of Antiques, parking will be on-site for Customers and Employees . This business is conducted by appointments only. 3. There was no opposition to the petitions. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 4. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, codes ordinances and regulations. 2. _ All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL A. BURKE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 47 OCEAN AVENUE, SALEM page three 3. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. • 4 . Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 5. The number of Employees is limited to 4 (Four) . Special Permit Granted June 19, 1996 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 • Titg of �Ulem, � ussttcllusetts JUL 30 I I is �h 'fib GIiY 0i, Si.' I' !. MASS f.lIiK ; OiE !GF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL A. BURKE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 47 OCEAN AVENUE (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held July 17, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Richard Dionne, 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 is requesting a Variance from retail parking requirements for the property located at 47 Ocean Avenue. The property is located in an (R-3) district. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 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 Variances 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 Variance requests, guided by the rule that a Variance request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Variance will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Variance 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. • • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL A. BURKE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 47 OCEAN AVENUE (R-3) page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the request. 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 Variance 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. Variance Granted July 17, 1996 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 (Qitn of $Ulem, 'Htcssttcliusetts M Poarb of �Fpeal '''1 I • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN & BERTHA CAPPUCCIO REQhS ING 3 05 FIS 96 VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 49 ORCHARD STREET (�R71•)t11 ;Ai.FM. MASS C! It!K'S 01ilCE A hearing on this petition was held July 17, 1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Joseph Ywuc and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance from rear setbacks to be able to install proposed rear porch for the property located at 49 Orchard 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 request variance from rear setbacks to install a enclosed porch. 2. Ward 4 Councillor, Leonard O'Leary spoke in favor of the petition. 3. Ward 6 Councillor, Sarah Hayes also spoke in favor of this petition. 4. 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 . 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. 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: • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN 6 BERTHA CAPPUCCIO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 49 ORCHARD STREET (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 building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to Building Inspector. S. 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 July 17, 1996 oseph Ywuc, 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 • OCT D 11 09 tl i 'Cis flit of 551em, r�Hussttclluset,ts;rs., u, f;ss c! I PKI; Oi FICF • 'oQ S �OoIIra of L� eAl DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EDWARD ROSE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 61 ORD STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held October 16, 1996 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Richard Dionne, Joseph Ywuc and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance from two sideyard setbacks and rear setbacks to build an addition for the property located at 61 Ord 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. The footprint will be increased with an additional 970 sq. feet added. 2. The addition is for additional bedrooms and baths. 3. There was no opposition to this 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 EDWARD ROSE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 61 ORD STREET (R-1) page two • 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions which are to be certified, submitted to and approved by the Building Inspector. 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 exterior structure. Variance Granted October 16, 1996 / /-3 CS r, Paul Valaskatgis 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 o n Board of Appeal o N w �c t, o Lo • j I �7 L7 ofttlem, ttsstttljusetts • j;�" �9 PnarD of Aupeal JUL 30 1115 AN '96 CHY Oi SAL(-H. MASS f.i i RK'S Oi f"ICF DECISION ON THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF VARIANCES GRANTED TO 21 PARALLEL STREET (R-C) , OWNED BY LEONIDAS PHILIPEDES At a hearing held July 17,1996, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to allow a six (6) month extension for Variances granted originally for front yard setback to construct a single family dwelling. Said extension shall be up to and including January 25, 1997. A copy of the original decision have been filed with the Planning Board and with the City Clerk. • Gary Barrett, Chairman Board of Appeal • ''' �°�. ( 1tu of . 5alem, � Httssttcltusetts M 9 • jo'O4.e.. Peary of ' uVpeal 4PR 3 2 s9 F;f `96 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL REQUEST06y oj- ;yl�-� MASS A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 PEABODY STREET (B-60I-p "A 011 IC A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1996 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. Petitioner, owner of the property request a Variance from SRA Guidelines to allow a free standing sign for the property located at 1 Peabody 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 . The property is located in an SRA designated area. 2. The sign will have directional signage for parking and a space for promotional messages. 3. The sign is free standing. 4. There was opposition from City Councillors, Kelley, Flynn and Pakowski. 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 WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 PEABODY STREET (B-5) . 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. 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. Petitioner is to obtain approval from the Planning Department's Design Review Board with respect to size, materials, content and lighting. Variance Granted March 20, 1996 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 CN of sulem, C-Httssadjusetts s Poarb of ( p"eal Noe ZS 3 07 IN 196 `Y O ;A! { 'I. MASS C1 kKIS OFf Wr DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ERIDANIA RODRIQUES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 PINGREE STREET (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held November 13, 1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Albert Hill and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance from front setback to enlarge the front porch for the property located at 40-Pingree 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 would like to enlarge her front porch approximately 12.5 feet toward the driveway. 2. A petition was submitted with 4 names in favor of this petition. 3. There was no opposition to this 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. • 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: DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ERIDANIA RODRIQUEZ REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 PINGREE STREET (R-3) page two • 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions submitted to and approved per the Board of Appeals. 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 existing structure. Variance Granted November 13,1996 Paul Valaskagis, 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 • J'f 4`°�. f1lit of inlem, Attssadjusetts 14 �9 P • 34Q� � uttrD of en1 JIlt► 19 9 38 Am `96 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JULIE ARCARI COOK REQUE§ IR6 !MLFM. MASS VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 PLEASANT STREWS 91` Pf FICF A hearing on this petition was held January 17, 1996 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Arthur LeBrecque 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 to replace a sign on a building for the property located at 3 Pleasant 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. Julie Arcari Cook appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is seeking to replace an existing sign on the building located at 3 Pleasant Street. 3. The sign to be constructed will be 30" in height, 167" in length and 5/8" in width, the exact same dimensions of the sign it is replacing. 4. The sign will be constructed of wood with hand-carved lettering with gold leaf and black background, and the sign will not be lighted. 5. The proposed sign will be placed in the exact same location of the sign which it is replacing. 6. Tom McGinn, a representative of the sign maker, described the proposed sign as a replica of the previous sign. 7. Ms. Cook stated that the sign was a necessity to attract customers to the oriental rug business being conducted on the premises. 8. There was no opposition to the requested 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. 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 ON THE PETITION OF JULIE ARARI COOK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 PLEASANT 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 statures, 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 January 17, 1996 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 • ofttlem, � ussttclii � s IIQai °:9� �t CITV ;91 �t:l_i.aA. MASS '04 9 Poara UI �Vpeal G:1I DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BARBARA A. ERNY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 PLEASANT STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held January 17, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Associate Member Arthur LaBrecque 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, owner of the property, located at 4 Pleasant Street request a Variance to allow four (4 ) unrelated people to occupy the 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 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 requested a variance to legalize an existing living arrangement whereby four unrelated persons inhabit a condominium unit owned by petitioner and located at 4 Pleasant Street. 2. In opposition to petitioner's request, the owner of the adjoining condominium, Pamela Scmidt, stated that the unrelated tenants in the Erny unit at 4 Pleasant Street had caused several nuisance conditions on the property over the last 3 or 4 years, specifically: failing to take out their garbage, failing to clean up bottles in the yard, failing to clean rain gutters and storm drains, failing to park in allotted spaces, failing to deal with vermin infestation, causing excessive noise and occasional rowdy and messy parties. 3. Ms. Scdmidt further stated that the identity of the tenants changed frequently so that she could not always tell which persons on the property were tenants and which were visitors. 4. Additional comments to the effect that the tenancy's poor management of the property was detrimental to the neighborhood • were entered in the record by Julie Arcari, an abutter, Regina DECISION OF THE PETITION OF BARBARA A. ERNY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 PLEASANT STREET (R-2) page two • Flynn, a neighbor and Ward Councillor, and Kevin Harvey former Ward Councillor. i. Petitioner stated that she had attempted to deal with the nuisance conditions by changing to a different property manager and had evicted tenants who had caused nuisance conditions in the past years. 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 4-1 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 • January 17, 1996 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 non �— appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed �€had� is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Esser o 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. '10 N 9 d Board of Appeal o'x w nZ � rn� .� co us m • ff itg of Salem, 'Mttssadiusetts • ew.. Pours of �"eal FE8 Z3 Citr nr 'O.' M7i rt.fJ;K . 'S of Y irE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROLLS BATTERY ENGINEERING, INC. FORMERLY KNOWN AS "SURRETTE SUPPLY COMPANY,INC. " FOR A VARIANCE AT 8 PROCTOR STREET. (R-.2) A hearing on this petition was held February 21, 1996 with the following Board Members present: 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 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance to alter a non-conforming lot for the property located at 8 Proctor Street. The Petitioner wishes to convey a portion of the property at 8 Proctor Street to adjoining landowners, William and Michael McHugh. The portion of land to be conveyed will be used for a driveway and parking for the McHugh's home at 67 Boston Street. Parcel B to be conveyed to the owners of the contiguous land as shown, as belonging to McHugh. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. • 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the 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. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0 -to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROLLS BATTERY ENGINEERING, INC. FORMERLY KNOWN AS "SURRETTE SUPPLY COMPANY,INC. " FOR A VARIANCE AT 8 PROCTOR STREET (R-2) • page two Variance Granted February 21, 1996 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 intem, �R- amindluortts Pottra of �Fveal 014 ClE'f;K" Ct3'1 # DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NADINE M. TONDREAULT REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 ROPES STREET (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held October 16,1996 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Joseph Ywuc, Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskatgi . Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 enable a home occupation involving the use of one room to practice Certified Myotherapy for the property located at 12 Ropes 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 . The petitioner was represented by Attorney Michael Mahan. 2. A petition was submitted with 11 names in favor of the petition. 3. There was no opposition to this petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • e DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NADINE M. TONDREAULT REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 ROPES STREET (R-3) page two 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 . All construction 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. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 4. The hours of operation shall be between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 5. A limit to three (3) years and at that time review the operation. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED October 22, 1996 / Richard Dionne Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • arty of "§3ttlem, '�-flttssadjusetts �BuarD of ��eal HAr 9 30 CITY OF SALFM. MASS CLFRK'S Of f ICF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CARLOS M. ESPINAL FOR A VARIANCE AT 32-34 SALEM STREET. (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held April 17, 1996 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 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance to convert a (2) two family dwelling to a (3) three family dwelling for the property located at 32-34 Salem Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the • 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 CARLOS M. ESPINAL FOR A VARIANCE AT 32-34 SALEM STREET page two • 3. All construction shall be done as per the plan and dimensions submitted and approved by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Parking Spaces will be marked in accordance with City Ordinance 7-2. Variances Granted April 17, 1996 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 ZO 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 01itu of "itttem, ' lassadjusetts a{ IflRRl 2 10 I�1 ' • CITY na rALF4-5. MASS CtFRK'S 0; '171Cf DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & CHERYL GALLAGHER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 SCENIC TERRACE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1996 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 William Gallagher, the Board of Appeal voted 5-1, to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Special Permit to allow the sale of firearms in a R-1 District. Granted leave to withdraw without prejudice. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE March 20, 1996 ^ vCSch� • 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 • ��°`� Ctv of , $Ulem, �lussacljusetts M 3`,�'��9 Poara of Atrpettl ``� ` ' ,(IP.R r23 I L� PH IG CITY 0 'Sti.l'rm.'HASS Cl t RK'S OFFtCF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM 6 CHERYL GALLAGHER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 SCENIC TERRACE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held April 17, 1996 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 the home sales of firearms in a R-1 District for the property located at 3 Scenic Terrace (R-1 ) . The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for 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 has been a Federally and State licensed firearms dealer for 12 years and has been licensed to sell firearms for 8 years at the subject property. 2. Petitioner's records indicate 52 firearms transfer transactions over the last 12 years. 3. Petitioner indicated that he stores no firearms for sale at his residence, and that most firearms are picked-up on the same day that he. accepts delivery. • DECISION OF THE WILLIAM & CHERYL GALLAGHER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 SCENIC TERRACE (R-1) • page two 4 . Petitioner represented that his customers are people he knows- friends, neighbors and family. 5. Petitioner represented that his home has a safe for storage of firearms when they are on-site as well as a security/alarm system. 6. Petitioner submitted a petition signed by 12 neighbors who indicated that they had no problem with his request for a special permit for the home sale of firearms. 7. No one in attendance at the hearing spoke in favor of the petition. 8. Ward 4 Councillor Leonard O'Leary spoke in opposition to the petition. 9. Robert Roderick, 18 Scenic Avenue opposed the petition and submitted a petition containing the signature of 18 neighbors who also opposed the petition. Two names appearing on this petition also appeared on the petition submitted by the petitioner. 10. William Michaud, 1 Scenic Way; John Jermyn, 1 Outlook Avenue; Cheryl Terry, 6 Scenic Place; Jean Solimeno, 138 Marlborough Rd; Eileen Kendall, 6 Scenic Place; Maureen Lloyd, 18 Scenic Ave; Rita Wilkie, 22 Scenic Ave. spoke in opposition to the petition citing concerns for the safety of the neighborhood and its children and generally opposing a business being conducted in a residential area. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • 1. The Special Permit requested 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 unanimously, 0-5 in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit is denied. SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED April 17, 1996 Gary Barrett Member, Board of Appeal f i � 04 U • n3 T 7 N DECISION OF THE WILLIAM & CHERYL GALLAGHER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 SCENIC TERRACE (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 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 o^ v n y K-02 iN • aity of Salem, 'EttssttcliuBette II j ' �uttra of �c+upenl Nae 27 1110 1ii1 '96 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT FOR A VA[,Tff(;A ATL6NSK � STREET COURT (R-2) CtIRK'S OfFICF A hearing on this petition was held March 20, 1996 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 Variance from all density requirements to allow construction of a single family dwelling for the property located at 5 Skerry Street Court. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. • c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The single family dwelling proposed by the petitioner will encroach to within six (6) feet of Skerry Street Court. 2. The petitioner failed to demonstrate or meet the burden of proof relative to legal hardship. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 SKERRY STREET COURT (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 Zoning Board of Appeal voted three (3) in favor, two (2) , in opposition to the motion to grant the variance. Having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED March 20, 1996 (sc�5 Albert C. Hill, Jr. Member, Board of Appeal COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MGL CHAPTER 40A AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSUANT TO MGL CHAPTER 40A, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION BEARING THE CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE PASSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL • of Salem, ussttcllusetts 9 • a4 Pnttra of Appeal 2� iO 4g iiia °9b ;lt &AL o-i: MASS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHILIP SINGLETON REQUEST,INGOAFVARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24-28 SOUTH STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held November 13, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 requests a Variance to divide 23,400 sq. ft. lot 11524, to allow three (3) buildable house lots, which require Variance on lot size and frontage for the property located t 24-28 South Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise, to the • petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of facts: 1. Petitioner executed a purchase and sale agreement with the realty trust that owns the property located at 24-28 South St. Petitioner seeks a variance from lot size and frontage requirements to allow construction of 3 single family houses on the property. 2. The property at 24-28 South St. consists of 23, 400 sq. ft. of land on steep slope, with utility easement running parallel to the rear property line. The property has hitherto been deemed an "unbuildable lot",and that status is indicated in the City tax assessor's records. 3. Eight neighbors appeared in opposition to the petition, on the grounds that drainage problems would result from any construction on the property. The neighbors further argued that a substantial concrete wall would have to be built to create enough level area on the slope to support the proposed homes, and such a wall would substantially derogate from the value of their homes. • 4. City Councillor Leonard O'Leary opposed the petition on the grounds that the proposed construction would be detrimental the neighboring homes. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PHILIP SINGLETON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24-28 SOUTH STREET (R-1) page two • 5. Paul Butler, one of the neighbors appearing in opposition submitted at a petition with 14 signatures of neighbors and abutters who also opposed the proposed 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. No special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property as opposed to the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable 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 0 in favor and 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 November 13, 1996 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 • of � ttlem, Httssttcljusetts 3 • ;,4 s Pours of ESI e�ln� ff `s tiffa' Di AV'M. MAa5 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DANA & DAVID DILISO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 98-100 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD) A hearing on this petition was held October 16, 1996 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Joseph Ywuc, Albert Hill and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance for a Change of Use to allow a miniature golf course for the property located at 98-100 Swampscott Road (BPD) . 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 was represented by Attorney Joseph Correnti of Serifini, Serifini and Darling. 2. Mr. Fred Hutchinson express concerns of using Robinson Road as an entrance into the golf course. Mr. Correniti assured Mr. Hutchinson that Robinson Road would not be used as an entrance or exit. 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. • 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: DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DANA 5 DAVID DILISO REQUESTED A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 98-100 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD) • page two 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions, dated June 24, 1996 which are to be certified, submitted to and approved by the Building Inspector. 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 shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission particularly with respect to the Conservation Commission. Variance Granted October 16,1996 jm-q4 Joseph Ywuc, 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 .'Sttlem, '�fflttssadjuBetts Paura of ' pFveal Aq 18 2 ss PH 196 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF FRANCIS TAVAREZ REQUESTING P iY Oi„S't+ M. MASS VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 256-262 WASHINGTON S'�RI V(;BC1F)F-ICF A hearing on this petition was held June 19, 1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Joseph Ywuc and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 request a Variance for a Change of Use from a Variety Store to a Travel Agency. This is for the property located at 256-262 Washington 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. Bill McKinnon, director of the H.L. Realty Trust, appeared for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner seeks a variance for a change of use to allow a travel agency to conduct business in the property at 262 Washington Street. Petitioner also seeks a parking variance, for thesame purpose. 3. There was no opposition to the proposed action. 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 FRANCIS TAVAREZ -REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 256-262 WASHINGTON STREET (B-1) page two . 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 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 building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. Variance Granted June 19, 1996 CSC ` �.v)2Gv nJJ1 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 Iem, 49assadjusetts "• s Punrb of �upeul n r J_ �47 �O 1 7 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT & SUSAN O'CONNELL REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 38 VALLEY STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held June 19, 1996 with the following Board Members were present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Joseph Ywuc and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 Robert & Susan O'Connell the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition for a Variance to allow a 61sq. ft. sign to remain in a R-1 Zone for a Day Care. Granted leave to withdraw without prejudice. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE • June 19, 1996 i Gary Barrett, 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 5zdem, 'fflttssadjusetts M PuttrD 0{ (�upenl JAN 19 38 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KEVIN O'DONNELL REQUESTIf'G#;Ay (3# SALFM MASS VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 53 WEST AVENUE �Ct('itC S 0# fICF A hearing on this petition was held January 17, 1996 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Arthur LeBrecque 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 to add a second story addition for the property located at 53 West 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 recently acquired the property which had been in foreclosure. The property has been in disrepair and unoccupied for sometime. 2. Petitioner intends to add a second story to the building located on the property. The proposed addition will add a one foot overhand to the front and back of the building over the existing footprint of the current building. 3. The surrounding neighborhood consists primarily of 2 story structures. 4. Petitioner intends to rehabilitate the property for his personal use or for resale as a single family home. 5. Karen Reardon, 26 West Terrace, a realtor ,spoke in favor of the requested variance. 6. There was no opposition to the requested variance although neighbors appeared to express their concerns about the property. 7. Pauline Morency, 4 West Avenue, a direct abutter, expressed concerns about an existing fence and some trees along the property line as well as the current conditions of the property. 8. Robert Brennan, 3 West Terrace, expressed his concern relating to the current state of disrepair 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. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KEVIN O'DONNELL REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 53 WEST 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. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted specifically with regard to the additional one foot overhang over the existing footprint of the building at the front and back of building. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. L . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Variance Granted �� '' (SCS January 17, 1996 / , '� • 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 (gitg of .�alfm, �Rttssadjusetts Paura of �upeul 'JUL Zq 10A`pp r�t� �j • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID & CHRISTINE PERKINS REQUESTING �4 aO" �� VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30 WINTER ISLAND ROADPiv(R'=1)1f;7yP ) )_� yAS C, f"'i K'.i 0 I . t ( t.f2K'S A hearing on this petition was held JuLY 17, 1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Joseph Ywuc and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance to allow the expansion of a non-conforming structure by one foot due to the installation of a new Bow window. Existing footprint will not change. 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 wants to raise the existing structure one story without increasing the foundation size. 2. The non-conforming structure will increase by one foot due to the installation of a new bow window. 3. A letter was presented at the meeting in favor of the petition by Joanne Scott of 29 Winter Island 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. 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. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented • at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 3-0 to grant the variance reauested. subiect to the followine conditions: DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID & CHRISTINE PERKINS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30 WINTER ISLAND 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 building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. , All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Variance Granted July 17, 1996 Joseph Ywuc, 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 .$Ulem, � ttssttcllusetts cow" s Poara of �u}zettl DEC M 3 CITY m- DECISION DECISION OF THE PETITION OF TOD JOHNSON & MUSGRAVES RL�QI�64f'��,,"ANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8-10 WINTER STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held December 11, 1996 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, ,Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Albert Hill and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, requests a Variance to expand a non-conforming structure to add a dormer for the property located at 8-10 Winter 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. Petitioners own a two-family residence at 8-10 Winter Street. 2. Petitioners seek a variance to build an additional room or rooms onto the third floor without changing the building' s footprint by raising the roof line at the rear of the building. Petitioners plan to add windows and to finish the addition with wood shingles in order to maintain the appearance of the original house. 3. Two neighbors offered their support for the petitioner's plan: Jane Lyness of 22 Oliver St. , and Paul Herrick of 12 Winter St. 4. Three neighbors opposed the proposed variance on the grounds that they felt it would lower their property values and reduce the light and air their property received. These were Ann Sweeton and Randy Yoder of 20 Oliver St. , and Joan Duhaime of 18 Oliver St. 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 TOD JOHNSON & MARCIA MUSGRAVE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8-10 WINTER 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. 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions submitted to and approved per the Building Inspector. 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 existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Variance Granted December 11 , 1996 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 c7� �Ln O r H �a ..z —v <A