1997-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �oa-�� o � '�-pp�a\s
'� �. : �' @Iif�_�of �ttlern, �ttsstttl�usetts
A ` Pourb of 'al
+h. Z9 I1. J; 414 19 j
CITY OF SA
CLERK'S _ 4ASS
DECISION ON THE PETITION. OF JAMES A. NOBLE JR. REQUESTING A CF
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 BARNES CIRCLE (R-1)
A hearing on thisp' ef'it,ion 'was held October 15, 1997 with the
following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Nina Cohen,
Albert Hill , Joseph Ywuc and Paul Valaskagis. Notice of the hearing
was sent to 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 the
non-conforming structure to construct a second story addition for the
property located at 17 Barnes Circle.
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 wants to expand the existing single family home by
adding a second floor addition to accommodate his growing family
in his present home.
2. The proposed addition will not encroach on any of the existing
setbacks, and will be contained within the present footprint of
the existing structure.
3. There will not be any 2nd floor construction over the
existing stairway on the southwest (right) side of the existing
home.
4 . There was no opposition to the petition.
DECISION OF JAMES A. NOBLE, JR. REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 BARNES CIRCLE
page two lh:i 29 � � �0 AI": X91
5. All persons identified on the abutter's list attached;to the[H. MASS
petition expressed their support for the petitioner'slrequffstFfbrcc
relief by signing a petition submitted to the Board.
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 plans and dimensions
submitted 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 a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
6. Exterior finishes of the construction shall be in
harmony with the existing structure.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
October 15, 1997
Gary Barrett, Chairman
Board of Appeal
•
DECISION OF JAMES A. NOBLE JR, REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 BARNES CIRCLE
page three
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK CITY OF SALEM. MASS
CE
Appeal from this decision if an shall be made CLtnt t Of"Fits
Y� 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
ctu of $Ulem, � ussncljusrtts
• s Pourb of '�kppeul FJFC 3 2
4 Gf7vOF 'ALEM,
C(.ERK`S OF-ICESS
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT & ELAINE COOK REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 42 BAY VIEW AVENUE (R-1)
A hearing on this petition was held November 19, 1997 with the following
Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Nina Cohen, 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 from side setback to allow an addition for
the property located at 42 Bay View 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 Robert Cook appeared and presented the plans for his
proposed addition. He would like to bump out the kitchen area 4 feet
to give them additional space for their kitchen. Said addition will
not change the foot print of the existing structure.
2. Cynthia Hutchinson, 44 Bay View Avenue appeared and spoke in favor of
the petition.
3. Attorney Carmen Frattaroli, 76 Lafayette Street representing Carol and
George Kardenetz of 36 Bay View Ave. opposed this petition due to the
fact that they were not able to view the plans prior to the hearing and
said proposed addition would interfere with their ocean view.
4 . The plans were available for review and time was made to go over
the proposed construction of this 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 ROBERT & ELAINE COOK REQUESTING
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 42 BAY VIEW_ AVENUE
• 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, 4-0 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 and approved by the Building Inspector.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4 . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
5 . A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the
existing finishes.
•
Variance Granted
November 19, 1997
Albert Hill , Member
Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY
CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20
days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City
Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11 , the
Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a
copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20
days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has
been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South
Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner �of T-, rord
or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
CD w
Board of Appeal N ��
r
_I -O
nZ �
mD
rn rS>
rn
Ctu of Salem, C Httsstttljusetts
s44 '
P uarD a{ ettl i
�� FEs 25 2 37 FN 97
CITY, Of SALi;M, MASS
CLERK'S Of'FICF
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HILDA STERLING & HERBERT SELESNICK REQUESTING
TO RE-HEAR THE PETITION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 BOSTON STREET
(R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held October 16, 1996 with the following Board
Members present: Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc, Albert Hill, Richard Dionne and Paul
Valaskagis. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting a Variance for a Change of Use from a business use
to professional offices for the property located at 103 Boston Street.
The petition was first heard on June 19, 1996 and was denied. The petitioner
then went through the Salem Planning Board and made a material change, and
came back to the Board of Appeals for the October 16, 1996 meeting. The
petitioners were represented by Attorney Burton H. Margolis. On the night of
the hearing Mr. Margolis did not appear to represent his clients. The board
members took their vote and denied this petition. Mr. Margolis later
. sent a letter stating he was recovering from a previous heart operation and on
the afternoon of October 16, 1996 had chest pains. Mr. Margolis stated that
he had spoken with someone in the office of the Board of Appeal, but was no
clear as to whom he spoke with. No one in the office of the Board of Appeals
remembers speaking with Mr. Margolis or his secretary regarding the meeting of
October 16, 1996.
At the meeting of February 19, 1997, the Board had a discussion on the
decision to re-hear the petition of Herbert Selesnick & Hilda Sterling of 103
Boston Street.
Therefore, based on the above findings of fact and on evidence presented, the
Zoning Board of Appeals voted zero (0) in favor and five (5) opposed. Failing
to garner the necessary four (4) votes, the Petition was denied.
Request to Re-Hear Petition Denied
February 19, 1997
<C �J
Gary Barrett, Chairman
Board of Appeal
•
DECISION OF HILDA STERLING & HERBERT SELESNICK REQUESTING TO RE-HEAR THE
i PETITION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 BOSTON STREET.
page two
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY
CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of 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
Ilk
�.
at-ty of "Salem, { ttssndjusetts
• ; �uttra of ��ettl iu:� 7S 10 I � All 'ql
CITY OF SALEM. MASS
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SHARON HILTON REQUESTING A CLERK'S OFFICE
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 38 BROAD STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held October 15, 1997 with the following
Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Nina Cohen, Albert Hill,
Joseph Ywuc and Paul Valaskagis. Notice of the hearing was sent to
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 an addition
for the property located at 38 Broad Street (R-2) .
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this
Board that:
1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other land, buildings, or structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
• 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at
the hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The petitioner, Sharon Hilton appeared and represented herself.
2. The petitioner would like to build a two story addition to the
property.
3. Mr. Bill Lessor, 40 Broad Street appeared and spoke in favor of the
petition.
4 . 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.
•
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SHARON HILTON REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 38 BROAD STREET
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:
I . 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 and approved by the Building Inspector.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4 . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the
existing structure.
7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Boards or Commission
• having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
Variance Granted
October 15, 1997
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
•
(Glty of Salem, �Nttssacllusetts
• ,,Q s �ottra �f �vpeal AFC PN IQ/
CITY Of SALCM. MASS
CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BRITO REFRIGERATION, INC REQUESTING A VARIANCE
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 CANAL STREET (B-5)
A hearing on this petition was held November 19,1997 with the following
Board Members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, 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, is requesting a Variance for use of a portion of the premises
for ice manufacturing,wholesale ice storage, sales & storage of
refrigeration equipment & a Special Permit to allow (2) temporary
structures for a period of one year for the property located at 17 Canal St
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.
•
4
• DECISION OF THE PETITION OF BRITO REFRIGERATION REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT
AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 CANAL 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 . Petitioner, Brito Refrigeration, Inc. and the owner of the property,
Peabody Ventures, Inc. were represented at the hearing by Attorney
George W. Atkins of Salem.
2. The subject property is located in a B5 Central Business District
zone, and the use of refrigeration and manufacturing of ice is not
allowed in said zone.
3. In 1991, the Zoning Board of Appeal allowed a variance to permit the
use of wholesale meat distribution and sales at the subject property
in the same area of the building to be used for the proposed new
business.
4 . All equipment of the business operation to be conducted by the petition
will be located inside the building at the subject property.
5. The neighboring area surrounding the subject property is zoned as B4
which permits the use of refrigeration and ice manufacturing of ice.
6. The petitioner has been an operating business in Salem for 12 years,
• and employs four people.
7. The operating hours of the business will be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
seven days a week.
8. There are 5 vehicles associated with the petitioner's business
operations which will be parked on the property.
9. It was represented that the petition had a met with neighbors to
discuss the proposed use of the property.
10. There was no opposition to the petition.
11 . The subject property currently houses Big Fred's Roast Beef and
formerly was used for automobile sales,repairs and wholesale meat
sales.
12. Petitioner will require the use of two trailers for storage in the
side yard of the property for a maximum period of one year while doing
construction on the interior of the building.
13. Petitioner agreed to place any trash containers so as not to be
visible from the street.
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 exist which especially affect the subject
property and not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance woulit ai
involve substantial hardship on the petitioner.
a�
• w� N
�ffi s
(4➢ c
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF BRITO REFRIGERATION, INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 CANAL STREET
page three
• 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 unanimously, 4-0 to grant the relief
requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, codes
ordinances and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions
submitted and approved by the Zoning Officer.
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 shall be obtained.
6. 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.
• 7. Petitioner shall place any trash container/receptacle to be utilized
by the petitioner's business so as not to be visible from the street .
Variance & Special Permit Granted
November 19, 199,
�CLvy �C.rUC.Q� CSG
Gary Barrett, Chairman
Board of Appeal
ea T
C')
r
m o dyt
PK
PM
N D'
r
o r-i �
3
n 3
m0
•
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF BRITO REFRIGERATION, INC. REQUESTING A
VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 CANAL STREET
page four
• A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY
CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
MGL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing
of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter
40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not
take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the
City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that,
if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is
recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of
the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner°s Certificate of
Title.
Board of Appeal
T
rK
m o ry:
�N
r
O;-1 7
rn= Z
mn
(' •c
Cn•
( 1tu of ttlem, 'Tassadjusetts
M
jae ' Pattra of �upeat J, Zb Z 10 rA 191
CITYOF
OS
/
OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RITA M. DESANTIS FOR A VARIANCE & SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 18 EAST COLLINS ST. , 63 R BRIDGE ST. , 9 & 11 LATHROP STREET
A hearing on this petition was held January 15, 1997 with the following
Board Members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc,
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, is requesting a Variance to divide the
premises into four (4) lots.
Lot #1, 18 East Collins Street: Variance from lot size and front yard
setback requirements.
Lot #2, 11 Lathrop Street: Special Permit for a change of use in an R-2
District.
Lot #3, 9 Lathrop Street: Variance from Rear setback requirements and a
Special Permit for a change of use in an R-2 District.
Lot #4, 63R Bridge Street: Variance from Rear setback requirements and a
Special Permit for a change in use in an R-2 District.
• The Variances and Special Permits which have been requested may be granted
upon a finding by this Board that:
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the
petitioners.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented
at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings
of fact:
1. There will be a fuller use of the property when divided.
Speaking in favor of the petition:
Francis Mayo, Steven Wollman, Robert Herman, Joseph Mercurio,
John Clark, Stella Beote, Robert DeSantis and Eileen Dickenson.
Speaking in opposition to the petition: Philip Bedard.
•
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 variances and special permits requested, subject to the following
conditions:
Lot 111 . is for residential use.
1 . Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission
having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board.
Lot # 2.is to be used for storage of new automotive vehicles and equipment
only.
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
4. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission
having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board.
5. The Perimeter Fence on Lathrop Street and East Collins Street will be
replaced and or upgraded.
• 6. Access to Lot #2 will be from Lathrop Street, Bridge Street or Cromwell
Street.
7. Hours of operation will be from 7Am - SPM, Monday through Saturday.
8. Security Lighting shall be installed as to not intrude into the
surrounding residential Housing.
9. Audible Security Alarms should have 10 minute cutoff after alarm has
sounded.
Lot 113 is to be used for auto body repair and used auto sales.
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted
and approved by the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4 . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
•
page three
7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission
having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board.
• 8. The Perimeter Fence on Lathrop Street will be replaced and or upgraded.
9. Hours of operation will be from 7AM - 6PM, Monday through Friday and
8AM - 2PM on Saturdays.
10. The number of used automobiles for sale on display and visible from
Lathrop Street, shall not exceed three (3) automobiles at any one time.
11 . Security Lighting shall be installed as to not intrude into the
surrounding residential Housing.
12. Audible Security Alarms should have 10 minute cutoff after alarm has
sounded.
Lot #4. is to be used as automotive tire and spring sales and installation.
1. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission
having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board.
2. Hours of operation will be from 8AM - SPM, Monday through Friday and
8AM - 12Noon on Saturdays.
3. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
Variances and Special Permits Granted
January 15, 1997
O t C• 4J C5c�)
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 $nlem, f 3Hussadjusetts
S
3oQ pourb of Ekppezd Gra 18 2 44 P11 '91
C11Y OF SALCM. MASS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETERBOROUGH OIL CO. REQUESTIMOSMaGE
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 94 BRIDGE STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held March 19, 1997 and continued to
April 16, 1997 with the following Board Members present: Gary
Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Paul Valaskatgis 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 the enlargement of
the existing non conforming use and Change of Use to permit a
mini-mart for the property located at 94 Bridge 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 proposes to renovate property by demolishing existing
structure and erecting new structure while expanding existing
non-conforming use as gas station to include convenience store
and gas station.
2. After meeting with neighbors and listening to concerns relative
to projected noise and nuisance from proposed plans, petitioner
agreed to the following changes from original plans (subject to
approval by the Planning Commission) :
•
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PETERBOROUGH OIL CO.REQUESTING A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 94 BRIDGE STREET (R-2)
• page two
A. Building footprint reduced to 2,600 square foot max;
B. Reduced parking spaces to 11;
C. Removed all parking from rear property line;
D. Rear border will receive extensive plantings.
E. Landscaping island at Bridge Street property line will limit
crossover traffic between pumps;
F. Dumpster will be located next to building;
G. Signage locations to be decided on Bridge Street;
H. Building facade will reflect neighborhood, with clapboard siding,
asphalt shingle room and dormers.
3. The plan as altered met the enthusiastic approval of Eric
Williams, of 4 Pearl St, Jack Cempellin, of North River
Neighborhood Association, and Paul Ward of Pearl St. and the
N.R.N.A. Regina Ward also appeared in support of the petition.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence
presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1. The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially
derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the
ordinance.
2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the
public health, safety, convenience and welfare of .the City's
• inhabitants and may be granted in harmony with the neighborhood.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to
grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,
ordinances, codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall comply with all city and state 'statutes,
ordinances, codes and regulations.
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 Inspection shall be obtained.
6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or
Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to,0 a
the Planning Board.
r N
r.o pp
�N
w 7 N
r
• � F
n Y 3
D
N CO
0 �
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PETERBOROUGH OIL COMPANY REQUESTING
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 94 BRIDGE STREET
page three
•
7 . The footprint of building reduced to 2,600 square foot.
8. Petitioner shall make every effort to incorporate the changes
with regards to the landscape with the plans that were submitted
and stamped on April 14, 1997.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
April 16, 1997
/(J�lil GLJ y(
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
C .�
-+ 9
CD,
N
`� IV
O
.Z
"fl
S
A
N �p
41 �
•
(Gity of Salem' '�fltt55ttC1ju9ett6
s
'- - Potts Of �Aupftl
JUL T8 1 24 PH '97
CITY OF SALF.H. MASS
CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WITCH CITY CYCLES FOR A VARIANCE\SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 234 BRIDGE STREET (B-5)
A hearing on this petition was held July 16, 1997 with the following
Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Nina Cohen, 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, Gregory O'Soro, represented by Atty. Mario C. Capano is
requesting Variance\Special Permit for a Change in Use to use the
land and building for the sale and servicing of new and used
motorcycles for the property located at 234 Bridge Street.
The Variance\Special Permit which had 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. No one spoke in favor of the petition.
2. The immediate abutters, Robert Guerriero, Frances Korzeniewski
and Victoria Kulik all of 1 Washington Street spoke in opposition
to the petition.
3. Atty'. Mario C. Capano requested grant leave to withdraw the
Special Permit withoutprejudice, the request was granted by a
vote of 5-0.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WITCH CITY CYCLES FOR VARIANCE\SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 234 BRIDGE STREET, SALEM
page two
JUL 28 l 24 PM 197
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence
presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as foll0WS':OF SALEM. MASS
CLERK'S OFFICE
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) - 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
July 16, 1997
• ' 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
•
ofttlem, usstteljusetts
M
3 ' nary of '�upeal
JuL 1 2 36 PPi '97
CITY Of' S4 M. MASS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CORNELIS HOLTZER, TRUSTEE I1d0K S OF'FICF
A VARIANCE AT 143 CANAL STREET, (B-4)
A hearing on this petition was held June 18, 1997 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 side and rear setbacks to allow
the second and third floor porches to be closed in and to enlarge the
second and third floor apartments for the property located at 143 Canal
Street.
The apartments are to be enlarged as follows:
Second Floor will be reconstructed into two (2) , one (1) bedroom
apartments and two (2) , two (2) bedroom apartments;
Third Floor will be reconstructed into Three (3) , one (1) bedroom
apartments.
The second and third floor porches will be enclosed to accommodate the
enlargement the apartments.
• The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by
this Board that:
1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the
petitioners.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented
at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings
of fact:
1 . There was no opposition in this matter.
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 CORNELIS HOLTZER, TRUSTEE
FOR A VARIANCE AT 143 -CANAL STREET, (B-4)
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.
i. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the
existing structure.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
Variances Granted
June 18, 1997
oc
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
aitg of Salem, Aussadjusetts
3
• s Pnttra of �Fpeal 19-1 2540 '17
C:Ui it�;R":;� (Oif'iFIIICfF.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF VINNIN SQUARE LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCES AND
SPECIAL PERMITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAROL WAY & WEATHERLY DRIVE R-3
A hearing on this petition was held December 17,1997 with the following
Board Members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill,
Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskagis. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in
the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, is requesting Variances from maximum height of building, two
principal buildings on a lot, maximum height of fence/boundary
walls,minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot area per dwelling
unit, minimum dimensions of parking stall width, maximum width of entrance
and exit drives, setback to parking area & Special Permits for parking on
adjacent lot and new condominiums for the property located at Carol Way &
• Weatherly Drive.
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.
•
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VINNIN SQUARE LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE &
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAROL WAY & WEATHERLY DRIVE
page two
• 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,
and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1. Petitioner was represented by Attorney Joseph Correnti of Serifini,
Serifini & Darling, 63 Federal Street, Salem.
2. The requested relief consists of several variances and Special Permits
for the final phase (Phase IV) of construction of The Village at Vinnin
Square, a residential development.
3. The Village project commenced in the 1980's and the developers, the
Zieff family, has been involved with the project since 1983.
4 . The entire Village project, including Phase IV, consists of over
48 acres and will leave 516 residential units when completed. The
original plans for the entire project at its inception, called for
approximately 550 units.
5. Phase IV of the Village project will consist of 178 residential units
and parking over three (3) lots covering ten (10) acres.
6. The three lots of Phase IV are unique in size and shape and the land
has peculiar topography and consists of large areas of ledge and rock
outcropping and large areas of wetlands.
• 7. The property on which the Village sits also has a large pond and has
large differences in land variations.
8. The developers concerned public discussions of the plans for
construction of Phase IV of the Village project in March 1997 at an
Open House, and the official Planning Board process of site plan review
began in April 1997.
9 . The developers and the trustees of the Condominium Associations for
Phase I, Ii and III of the Village met over several months to discuss
the plans for Phase IV, and an agreement was reached between the
developer and the Trustees of Phase I, II, and III of the Village
with respect to the plan and petition submitted to the Board.
10. The agreement between the Trustees and the developer was the result of
months of negotiations and the plans and petition as submitted to the
Board incorporated amendments suggested by the Trustees and other
residents of the Village relating to traffic flow, improvements of
recreational facilities and parking among other things.
11 . Attorney George W. Atkins of Salem, representing the Trustees of Phase
I , II , and III of the Village spoke in favor of the petition and plans
as submitted as it incorporated matters which were the subject of
negotiations. C�.
12. The Trustees of Phase I and II of the Village unanimously eOiTor the
petition and plans, and four of five trustees of Phase IV •o `the,
'tillage approved of the plan and petition. p
a,
Gl
1� r
7
N
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VINNIN SQUARE LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAROL WAY AND WEATHERLY
DRIVE
page three
13. Several homeowners at the Village spoke in favor of the petition.
• 14 . August Miller, 70 Weatherly Drive, Chairman of the Trustees'
negotiating team, spoke in favor of the plan citing significant changes
made to the plans to address concerns about traffic flow, the number of
buildings proposed and entrance problems . Tests performed by the
developer to address concerns about water pressure and sewage were
also mentioned.
15. The original plans for Phase IV of the Village called for four (4)
buildings which was reduced to three (3) in the plans submitted.
16. The proposed plan has allowed for approximately 70% open space
calculations over the effected three lots.
17. Several homeowners and a Trustee of Phase IV of the Village spoke in
opposition to the plans and petition citing concerns for traffic
flow, property value, architectural design, sidewalk accessibility
and other matters.
18. The proposed Phase IV of the Village project must still undergo site
pian review before the Planning Board, and Beth Debski, Assistant
City Planner, stated that traffic flow concerns, utility and
architectural design issues were subject to review and approval by
the Planning Board.
19. Lot D2 as reflected on the plans will consist of a landscaped parking
lot with 25 spaces being exclusively dedicated to a nursing home on
abutting property and 38 spaces will be attributed to parking for
building sited on Lot A of the plans.
20. Due to the existing ledge on the property, outcropping,topography of
the land, existing pond and large wetlands, combined with the 'large
differences in land elevations between the lots and odd shapes, the
siting of buildings for Phase IV of the Village project is restricted.
• 21 . It was represented by counsel for the developer that they would accept
as a condition of the requested relief that developer will use access
to Loring Tower Road for a means of exit from the two buildings located
on Lot B of the plans.
22. The height of the 6-plex existing in Phase I-III of the Village are
approximately 40 feet above ground, and the height of the existing mid-
rise in Phases I-III are approximately 66 feet above ground.
23. The proposed building on Lot B will be approximately 56 feet above
ground.
24 . The proposed construction of Phase IV of the Village will complete
construction of the project.
25. Because of the topography of the land, and in order to allow the
developer to work with the natural topography of the land, some walls
on the property may exceed six feet.
26. The petitioner requested he following relief from the Zoning
Ordinance;
A. Variance from maximum height of building in feet with respect to
lots A and B.
B. Variance from maximum height of building in stories with respect
to lot B.
C. Variance for two principal building on one lot with respect to
lot B.
• ssvw
'K3.1rs 10-
�6� lid 55 Z 0� X30
• DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VINNIN SQUARE, LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE
& SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAROL WAY & WEATHERLY DRIVE
page four
D. Variance from maximum height of fences and/or boundary walls for lots
A and B.
E. Variance from minimum lot area per dwelling units for lots A & B.
F. Variance from minimum widths of parking stalls in underground garages
for lots A & B.
G. Variance from maximum widths of entrance and exit drives for lot A & B.
H. Variance from 2 front setback requirement for parking areas.
I . Special Permit to allow parking on adjacent lot with respect to lots
A and D2.
J. Special Permit to allow new condominiums.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
I . Special conditions do exist which especially affect the subject
property and not the district in general .
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship 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 unanimously, 5-0 to grant the relief
requested, subject to the following conditions :
I . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, codes
ordinances and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions
submitted and approved by the Zoning Officer.
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 shall be obtained.
6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the
existing structure.
7 • P IbogW,I'skall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem
SAkSor,,,% ol6£ti!d6 and shall display said number so as to be visible from
e street.
Z OE X30
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VINNIN SQUARE, LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE &
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAROL WAY & WEATHERLY DRIVE
page five
•
8. Petition is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission have
jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board for Site
Plan Review and the Conservation Commission.
Variance & Special Permit Granted
December 17, 1997 r�
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 of Deeds and indexed under the name of
the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of
Title.
Board of Appeal
n O '
m
-,o O
N> N
C:o-: LnY V1
n 3
�a
N f.f1
N J
•
of &dem, 'ffinagpdJusetts
3 yep`
,04 s P02al of u}7e g5
r10 r.0
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF REX AND DOREEN TURBEN FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT/VARIANCE AT 14 CEDAR CREST ROAD. (R-1)
A hearing on this petition was held March 19, 1997 with the following
Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Paul Valaskagis, Arthur
Labrecque, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in
the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit/Variance from lot size to
enable a subdivision from three (3) existing lots to two (2) buildable
lots. Lot sizes are from 15,000 sq. ft. to 13,636 sq. ft. on Lot #118A and
13,112 sq. ft. on Lot 0 118. This is a Residential Single Family District
(R-1) .
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by
this Board that:
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
• land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the
petitioners.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented
at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings
of fact:
1 . There was no opposition in this matter.
2. This will allow the Petitioners fuller use of the Property.
3. The Petitioners requested grant leave to withdraw the Special Permit
without prejudice.
4. The request to withdraw the Special Permit without prejudice was
granted by a vote of 5-0, March 19, 1997.
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 REX & DOREEN TURBEN REQUESTING A VARIANCE\
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 CEDAR CREST ROAD
page two
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
3. All construction shall be done as per the 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. Petitioners 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.
7. Petitioners are to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission
having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
Variances Granted
March 19, 1997
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
•
Tity of $Ulem, Aussadjusetts
• jaQ" ' paura of A"eal M4R
of 24 Py 197
cirr
CCCRKSSC1:p,,,ASS
O"FICDECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL MCNIFF FOR A VARIANCE AT 13-15 CROSS
STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held March 19, 1997 with the following
Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Paul Valaskagis, Arthur
LaBrecque, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in
the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, is requesting a Variance to subdivide the Lot at 13-17 Cross
Street, a Variance from Lot Size and Frontage to construct a single family
house at 13 Cross Street and a Variance from Lot Size, Frontage, Side
Setback, Front Setback and Rear Setback at 15-17 Cross street.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by
this Board that:
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
• affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the
petitioners.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented
at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings
of fact:
1. This will allow petitioner fuller use of the property
2. There was no opposition in this matter.
3. Eric Williams of 15 Hawkes Street, Marblehead, Mass. , co-owner of
the abutting property at 4 Pearl Street was concerned about parking on
Cross Street and requested that only one curb cut be allowed at 13
Cross Street. Additionally, Mr. Williams requested that the petitioner
construct a six (6) foot stockade fence to separate the properties
located at 4 Pearl Street and 13 Cross Street.
4. Patricia Williams of 15 Hawkes Street Marblehead, Mass. , co-owner of
the abutting property at 4 Pearl Street requested that the petitioner
notify the neighbors prior to any demolition and that a rodent control
. program be in place prior to any demolition.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL MCNIFF REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13-15 CROSS STREET, SALEM R-2
page two
5. Jack Zempellin, 32 Lynde Street, requested the petitioner to build a
• colonial style house instead of a cape style house.
6. David Goggin, 300 Lafayette Street, was concerned with the quality of
the material in the Barn\Stable, if it is to be sold.
7. Virginia Shea, 10 Pearl Street, requested pest control prior to any
demolition.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant
the variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
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. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission
having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
• 7. Petitioner must obtain a Demolition Permit for 13 Cross Street.
B. Demolition at 13 Cross Street must not commence before 8:30am.
9. Notice of demolition must be given to neighbors five (5) days prior to
any and all demolition 13 Cross Street.
10. A Massachusetts Licensed Pest Control Company must be on site prior to
and during any demolition at 13 Cross Street.
11. There will only be one curb cut for parking at 13 Cross Street and that
curb cut will be located between 13 and 15-17 Cross Street.
12. A six (6) foot stockade fence is to be constructed separating the
properties at 13 Cross Street and 4 Pearl Street.
Variances Granted
March 19, 1997
Albert C. Hill, Jr.
Member, Board of Appeal
•
DECISION OF MICHAEL MCNIFF REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 13-15 CROSS STREET, SALEM R-2
page three
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY
• CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
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
•
(lyitq of $Ulem, �fflussacllusetts
M
3oQ„ s Pnnra of �kppenl
48 ZQ
0j, 20 PR #37
CITY
C(CRKSA 0 M_ CESS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID M. TAUBENECK FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 8 DERBY STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held March 19, 1997 with the following Board
Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Paul
Valaskagis 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, are requesting a Variance and Special
Permit of a non-conforming lot to enable to enlarge by means of an addition
for the property located 8 Derby Street.
The province the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this
request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 (j ) , which provides as
follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions
set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations
• and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes,
enlargement, extent expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and
uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or
expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
nonconforming use to the neighbor
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit
requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted
upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will
promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's
inhabitants.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of
the Board that:
A. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district.
B. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the
petitioner.
•
DECISION OF DAVID M. TAUBENECK REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 DERBY STREET R-2
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. Petition was presented by David M. Taubeneck, owner of the property.
2. A letter was submitted from the Historic Commission requesting review
and approval by commission.
3. The petitioner would like the addition as his family is growing and
needs the extra room.
4. There was no opposition to this 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 as per the plans and dimensions
submitted and approved by the Building Inspector.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
5. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to starting
construction.
7y
-rt�
N
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID M. TAUBENECK REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 DERBY STREET
page three
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 Historical
Commission.
Variance and Special Permit Granted
March 19, 1997
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
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
C)
0
K
a 1
RN
r
o n N
T= 1�d
' b
cn Z g
Fn r-
N Ca
N �
•
of $Rlem, cmusstttllusetts
3
• '�4 s PDttra of �`trpeal
A
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CRAIG C. BURNHAM, TRUSTEE REQUESTING q"
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 FRANKLIN STREET
N.
A hearing on this petition was held April 16, 1997 with the following
Board Members present: Gary Barrett Chairman, Nina Cohen, Joseph
Ywuc, Richard Dionne 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 for a Change of Use for
Office and Merchandise storage for the property located at 14
Franklin Street (B-5) .
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to
this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides
as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and
conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits
for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and
• for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming
lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such
change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be
substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to
the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit
requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be
granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special
Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and
welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence
presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the
following findings of fact:
1. Petitioner conducts a Marine Contracting business on the locus
property which was found to be a valid, prior non-conforming
use by the Land Court.
2. Petitioner purchased the property in 1992, and prior to this time
leased a portion of the subject property from a prior owner.
3. Peter Victory, 0 Lee Street, submitted a letter in support of the
petitioner.
4. Edward Ferris, 21 Naples Road, who conducts a auto recycling
•
DECISION OF THE CRAIG C.BURNHAM, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 FRANKLIN STREET (B-5)
page two
• salvage business on the property abutting the subject property,
spoke in favor of the petition.
5. Petitioner applied for and was issued a building permit to
construct a building for merchandise storage and office on the
subject property on November 14, 1995.
6. The proposed building is 130 feet in length by 30 feet in width
for a total of 3900 square feet on the first floor. The
mezzanine on the second floor of the building is 50 feet in
length by 30 feet in width or 1500 square feet for a total of
5900 square feet for the entire building.
7. On December 19, 1996, Petitioner was to ordered to cease & desist
all work and was furthered order to stop occupancy of the
building.
8. On March 10, 1997, Petitioner was notified by the Building
Inspector that the subject building was a violation of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance.
9. John Jennings, Building Inspector for the City of Salem,
testified that, based on his inspection of the building,less than
50% of the structure would be used for office space and the space
would be used for storage and warehousing of materials and
equipment.
10. Petitioner has been involved in several pending matters with the
City before the Land Court, Superior Court, District Court,
Conservation Commission, State Building Code, Board of Appeals,
concerning the use of the subject property.
11. The B-5 Zone which encompasses the subject property was created
• in 1985, and the intent of creating such B-5 zone was to enhance
the appearance and environment of the North River area.
12. The issuance of the building permit on November 14, 1995 does not
legalize the building which was constructed in violation of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance.
13. Petitioner's proposed construction of the subject building
constitutes an enlargement of the prior non-conforming use,
and the intended use as a office, storage, and warehouse facility
is a change of use referring issuance of a Special Permit.
14. Petitioner's intended use of the building will be for warehousing
of marine construction material and only a portion of the
premises will be used for offices.
15. Petitioners construction of the proposed building and intended
use thereof is not in harmony with the intent and purpose of the
B-5 zoning district and Salem Zoning Ordinance.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence
presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: a
�K
1. The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying a c
substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the �1!N
purpose of the ordinance. COQ w
Y tG
�= s
mn
u,
N �
•
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CRAIG C. BURNHAM, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 FRANKLIN STREET (B-5)
page three
•
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 in favor,
and five (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 G!�
April 16, 1997 ,�,uJ CSC�j
Gary Barrett, Chairman
Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK.
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section
17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the
date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special
• Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days
have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal
has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in
the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name of the
owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate
of Title.
Board of Appeal
n o_ ca
Nt
O$
m N �
Ctu of *Iem, C�Httsondjusetts
i w
e Pourb of �11111ffee 1q 1 24 M 197
CITYOf' ;ALCM. MASS
Ct.VRK'S 01'FICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DENNIS J. GRAY 6 ASSC.REQUESTING A VARIANCES
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 FLINT STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held March 19, 1997 with the following Board
Members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill,
Paul Valaskagis 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 Variance from front, side and rear setbacks and
a Special Permit to enlarge a non-conforming structure for the property
located at 40 Flint Street. This property is located R-2 zoning district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this
request for a Special Permit is section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the
• Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set
forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and
reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement,
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion
shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming
use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit
requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted
upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will
promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's
inhabitants.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of
the Board that:
A. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district.
B. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the
petitioner.
•
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DENNIS J. GRAY & ASSOC.REQUESTING A SPECIAL
• PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 FLINT 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. Petitioner, an architect, was retained by the owner of the single
family residence at 40 Flint Street to prepare plans for a second
floor addition to the existing structure.
2. The existing structure is nonconforming by reason of a failure to
meet front, rear and side setback requirements. The proposed second
floor addition would expand the nonconformity by approximately 2 feet
on all sides of the house. The petitioner sought variances to enable
the work to be done.
3. Petitioner also sought a Special Permit to enlarge the nonconforming
structure.
4. There was no opposition to the proposed relief.
• 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 exist which especially affect the subject
property and not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship 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 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 as per the plans and dimensions
submitted.
•
DECISION OF DENNIS J. GRAY & ASSOC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 FLINT STREET, SALEM (R-2)
page three
• 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 shall be obtained.
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 & Special Permit Granted
March 19, 1997
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 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
(city of $a1em, C-ttssadjusetts
• `; ' Pnara of '�, peal
JUN D IO ie GN '91
CITY 01' SAI.CH. MASS
Cl l RK'S OrFICF
DECISION ON THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF VARIANCES
GRANTED TO 7 FRANKLIN STREET
At a hearing held June 18, 1997, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously,
5-0, to allow a six (6) month extension for Variances granted from density
regulations, lot coverage, sideyard setback, parking regulations and to
allow mixed use of industrial and commercial for the property located at 7
Franklin Street . Subject variances were originally granted at a hearing
held on July 17, 1996. Said extension shall be up to and including January
17, 1998.
• A copy of the original decision have been filed with the Planning Board and
with the City Clerk.
CEC
Gary Barrett, Chairman
Board of Appeal
•
Cts of . aletn, Tassadjusetts
e Paara of '�kupeat
Jum 3 2 su Pii '91
CITY OF SALEM. MASS
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHARLES E. CLIFFORD REQUEVIW9AIMCE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 26 GABLES CIRCLE (R-1)
A hearing on this petition was held May 21, 1997 with the following Board
members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Arthur
LeBrecque 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 setback to construct an addition
to the existing kitchen for the property located at 26 Gables Circle.
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 expand the footprint of the existing two-story
dwelling by constructing an addition to house a kitchen at the rear
of the structure.
2. The existing dwelling is non-conforming as to the side setback
requirements in this R-1 district, since it extends to within
13' of the property line.
3. The proposed addition will also extend to within 13 feet of the
property line, thus extending the existing nonconformity.
4 . There was no opposition to the proposed 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 CHARLES E. CLIFFORD REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 26 GABLES CIRCLE 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 and approved by the Building Inspector.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4 . Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the
existing structure.
5. Petitioner is to obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
Variance Granted
May 21, 1997 /�/l�. � '
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
•
Ctu of $Ulem, �ffiussadjusetts
ja4 ' Pottra of �Mettl QPR
• 15 8 s5 bq
C17 X97
Or
CI.r RKS�ffiH. HASS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONNA CLIFFORD REQUESTING A SPECIAL J OIFr�F
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 26 GABLES CIRCLE (R-1)
A hearing on this petition was held April 16, 1997 with the following
Board Members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Joseph
Ywuc, Richard Dionne 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 for office space for home
occupation involving the use of a room in a dwelling for the property
located at 26 Gables Circle.
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, Donna Clifford, an R.N. as well a Holistic
Nurse, represented herself.
2. Petitioner stated that there will be no employees and will only
see one or two patients a day.
3. The sole opposition was from Mrs. Bigosian of 28 Gallows Hill
Road with concerns of parking.
•
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DONNA CLIFFORD REQUESTING A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 26 GABLES CIRCLE (R-1)
page two Qp9
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and othel�vi ssnce
• presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follow�zY
`�y
1. The Special Permit requested can be granted withoQ1t• fib tan'ti�j
detriment to the public good or without nullifying and udas�:a� iak
derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose dYC
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. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or
Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to,
the Health Department.
• SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
April 16, 1997 Q
/ii��` lG,' ,,-
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
•
Ctg of ttlem, �fflttssadlusetts
i 9
• Pourb of (�
'I e 9 34 AN X91
Q Ii;�
CIiY OF ,ALCM. MASS
CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF TERRANCE NEYLON REQUESTING A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 GARDNER STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held October 15,1997 with the
following Board Members were present: Gary Barrett Chairman, Nina
Cohen, Albert Hill, Joseph Ywuc and Paul Valaskagis. Notice of the
hearing was sent 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.
At the request of the petitioner, the Salem Board of Appeal voted
5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a
Special Permit to amend the previously granted petition for the
property located at 10 Gardner Street. Granted leave to withdraw
without prejudice.
GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE
October 15, 1997
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 4OA, and shall be filed
within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the
office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 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
•
6 (a (11itu of �t�lem, �ttssttcllusefts
JAN 5 9 is Am '98 Poarb of �Appezd
CITY OF SALEM. MASS CITY OF LEM. MASS1
CLERK'S OFFICF Cl. ' K'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK F.EASLEY,TRUSTEE.FOR A VARIANAND SPECIAL
PERMITS AT 73-75 HARBOR STREET, (R-3).
A hearing on this Petition was held December 17. 1997 with the following 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, represented by Attorney George Atkins, is requesting a Special Permit for a Change in Use/also
Variance/Special Permit from parking requirements for the property located at 73-75 Harbor Street.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-
30), 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 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 and Special Permits 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, and after viewing the plans, makes the
following findings of fact:
I. There was no opposition to the Petition.
2. Jean Martin of the Point Neighborhood Action Group and Scott Gelber of 71 Harbor Street spoke in favor of
the Petition.
3. The current nonconforming use for this property is a restaurant/bar serving alcoholic beverages.The proposed
multiple uses will consist of three(3)units as follows:
a. Take out food restaurant which will not serve alcoholic beverages.
• b. Professional office for chiropractic services.
c. Retail or General office use.
4. This will allow the Petitioner fuller use of the property.
2
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK F. EASLEY,TRUSTEE, FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL
PERMITS AT 73-75 HARBOR STREET,(R-3)
• 5. The Petitioner requested, grant leave to withdraw the Special Permit for Parking requirements without prejudice.
The Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously,5-0 to grant 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:
I. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner.
3. the relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or
substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance.
4. The Special Permit and Variances 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:
I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances,codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and submitted and approved by the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
3. All requirements of the Salem fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
• 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
7. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors office for the business accessed
from Congress Street,and display said number so as to be visible from the street.
8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or commission having jurisdiction including,but not
limited to,the Planning board.
9. Petitioner shall ensure that the dumpster is not visible from the street and that the dumpster is a reasonable
distance from abutters.
Special Permit and Variance Granted e
December 17, 1997 K x
4.f1
Albert C. Hill,Jr.
Member,Zoning Board of Appeal
LA ray
w t�
•
3
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK F. EASLEY,TRUSTEE,FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL
PERMITS AT 73-75 HARBOR STREET,(R-3)
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.
Appeal from this decision, if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A,and shall be filed .
within twenty 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 r_
' r �
_J Ln
cn> CO
r
Z Ln
7:;Y
m,D
to LO
n m
•
s
fllitV of j5zttlem, �Nttsmdjusetto
• 36Q� s �uttrD of �{�rn� �� 1;; ��i '��
Cilar OF SAtt'M,. IIASS
CLFRK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MR. & MRS BRIAN L. HEATH FOR A SPECIAL
PERMIT/VARIANCE AT 3 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD.
A hearing on this petition was held September 17, 1997 with the following
Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman; 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, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit/Variance
to enable off street parking from the required 12 feet to 10 feet minimum
aisle width for the property located at 3 Hawthorne Blvd. (R-2)
The Special Permit/Variance which had 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.
3. The Petitioners requested, Grant Leave to withdraw the Special Permit
without prejudice. The request was granted,4 in favor, 0 in opposition.
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. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions
submitted and approved by the Zoning Enforcement Officer and the City
• Engineer.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MR. & MRS BRIAN L. HEATH FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT/VARIANCE AT 3 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD, SALEM
• page two
Variance Granted
September 17, 1997
C
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 Salem, r�Eassacljusrtta
M
304 ' �nttra of �p}�ettl 4813 8 Ss ki 127
CITY 04 SALM Hass
CI URN'S W-FICU
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID & MARIA GLAVIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 HERSEY STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held April 16, 1997 with the following
Board Members present: Gary Barrett Chairman; Nina Cohen, Joseph
Ywuc, Richard Dionne 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 enlarge a legal two (2)
family dwelling into a three (3) family dwelling for the property
located at 16 Hersey 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. The petitioner was represented by Attorney Muzio.
2. This property has been taxed as a three (3) family since 1986.
3. A number of abutters spoke in favor of the petition.
4. Councillor Kelley, Ward 5 spoke in opposition to the Special
Permit, sighting lack of parking and congestion in the
•
DECISION OF THE DAVID & MARIA GLAVIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 HERSEY STREET (R-2)
• page two
neighborhood. Three immediate abutters also spoke in opposition
citing lack of parking and congestion.
5. The petitioner requested to withdraw the Variance without
prejudice. Peition's motion to withdraw the Variance was granted
by the Board.
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 two (2) in favor, and
three (3) in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested.
Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass,
the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit is
denied.
SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED
. April 16, 1997
J ✓
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 ttije
owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certifica€e A
of Title. ^o cNr+
co
L"'r
o. ate+
nY
• ^N J
N
Man 5 2 v(01#�7of „—jttlCM, C ttssttc�l lzs5ett 41 PH 197
3' y
CITY OF SALEM. MASS Poarb a{ �ppeal CITY OF CLERK'SLOFF CESS
• e�
CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RALPH CERUNDOLO, TRUSTEE, HILLCREST REALTY
TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 207 HIGHLAND AVENUE
A hearing on this petition was held February 19, 1997 with the following
Board members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc,
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, requests a Variance from front yard setback to install a canopy
for the property located at 207 Highland Avenue, Salem. This property is
located in a B-2 zone.
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 would like to install a canopy 20 feet wide along length
of the building and 120 feet long on Highland Avenue.
2. The petitioner feels this will improve the appearance of the property
as part of the beautification of the Entrance Corridor.
3 . Robert Cerundolo, of 55 Cross Lane, Beverly spoke in favor to his
father's petition.
4. 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 RALPH CERUNDOLO, TRUSTEE, HILLCREST REALTY TRUST REQUESTING
A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 207 HIGHLAND AVENUE. (B-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:
I . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans submitted and approved
by the Building Inspector.
3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission
having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board.
Variance Granted �Lr!'',�K� Y*
February 19, 1997 CS C
/ ` � `J
Joseph Ywuc, Member
Board of Appeal
•
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED b'ITH 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 �$Aem, (:ffl: assadjusetts
q
• oQ Poura of tEe ZS 2 37 PH '97
CITY OF SALEM. MASS
CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NEXTWAVE TELECOM, INC.FOR A VARIANCE', AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (BPD)
A hearing on this petition was held February 19, 1997 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 Variance\Special Permit to install antenna on
existing 170 foot high tower for the property located at 488 Highland
Avenue. This property is located BPD zoning district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this
request for a Special Permit is section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the
• Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set
forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and
reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement,
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion
shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming
use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit
requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted
upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will
promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's
inhabitants.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of
the Board that:
A. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district.
B. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the
petitioner.
•
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NEXTWAVE TELECOM, INC. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 488 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 sought a special permit and/or variance for a change of use
to allow it to install a structure consisting of an array of 6 digital
transmitters on the existing 170 foot transmission tower that is
located on the Camp Lion property at 488 Highland Avenue in Salem.
2. On discussion, it appeared that the petitioner wished to withdraw it
request for a variance. Petitioner's motion to withdraw the part of
its petition requesting a variance was granted on unanimous vote by the
Board.
3. With respect to the request for a special permit, the petitioner stated
that the antenna array would serve the needs of Salem consumers by
providing radio transmission services for the use of cellular phone and
beeper systems, including 911 system used by police and fire department
personnel. The Nextwave equipment would be installed on the tower below
an array owned by Cellular One, and associated electrical equipment
would be installed in a fenced area at the foot of the tower where the
Cellular One electrical equipment no lies.
• 4. The new array would require monthly service by Nextwave technicians.
5. The Board heard questions raised about the advance of digital trans-
mission systems in Essex County that were raised by Richard Ajootian,
a member of the Middleton Zoning Board of Appeal. There was no other
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 do exist which especially affect the subject
property and not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship 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.
•
DECISION OF NERTWAVE TELECOM, INC. FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (BPD)
page three
• Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal 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 as per the plans and dimensions
submitted.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
5. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained.
6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the
existing structure.
Variance Withdrawn without prejudice
Special Permit Granted
February 19, 1997
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 of Deeds and indexed under the name of
the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of
Title.
Board of Appeal
n . .n
C)
eT+
a
N y
r
�X S
•
�. Ctu of , $Ulem, '-ttssadlusetts
M
jaQa �' Pnttra of �upenl
• b, .JUL I 2 37 Ffi 197
CI fy OF S.iLfH. ,MASS
["'X'S, 0" FICF
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CATHERINE H. DAVID FOR A VARIANCE AT 22
HILLSIDE AVE. (R-1)
A hearing on this petition was held June 18, 1997 with the following Board
Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc, 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 a Variance to subdivide
one lot into two original separate lots for the property located at 22
Hillside Avenue. This is a Residential Single Family District (R-1) .
The Variance which had been requested may be granted upon a finding by this
Board that:
1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the
• petitioners.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented
at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings
of fact:
1 . There was no opposition in this matter.
2. One neighbor, Lauren Levesque, asked if the separated lot, (lot 24)
would be buildable, and what type of home would be built upon that lot.
3. The Lots, known as Lot 24 and Lot 25 require the following relief:
Lot 25, Variance from Frontage, Side and Lot Width requirements:
Lot 24. Variance from Lot Width requirement.
4 . 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.
f
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CATHERINE H. DAVIS FOR
A VARIANCE AT 22 HILLSIDE .AVE. SALEM
page two
• 2. 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.
3. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission
having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
Variance Granted
June 18, 1997
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
•
Ctu of ,$Ulem, � ttssttdjusetts
3 r
• Paura of �u}7eu1JUN 33 r
11$gIP�`�1
,C I I r;O F!'&A L t:M.;Miss
CLCRK'S;OPFIn,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLAUDETTE BERNIER REQUESTING A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 HOLLY STREET
A hearing on this petition was held May 21, 1997 with the following
Board Members present: Gary Barrett Chairman, Nina Cohen, Paul
Valaskagis, 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 is 'requesting a Special Permit to enlarge a two family
dwelling to a three family dwelling for the property located at 2
Holly Street (R-3) .
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to
this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides
as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and
conditions set forth in 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 indicated that she wanted to construct a third
apartment for a grandchild and great grandchild.
2. Petitioner had previously appeared before the Board in March of
1997 and at that time represented,in light of neighborhood
opposition, that she had no intention to create a third apartment
at the subject property.
3. Nadine Lada, 4 Holly Street, spoke in favor of the petition.
4 . Mrs. Rodgers, 3 1/2 Holly Street, spoke in favor of the petition.
•
DECISION OF THE CLAUDETTE BERNIER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 HOLLY STREET (R-3)
page two
• 5. Petitioner submitted a petition signed by 28 neighbors in favor
of the petition.
6. Petitioner could not inform the Board how many of those who
signed the petition were tenants at their listed address or which
signers were property owners.
7. Ms. Pike, petitioner's daughter who resides in the 1st floor
apartment of the property spoke in favor of the petition.
8. There is no additional parking available at the subject property,
and therefore there is inadequate parking to support a third
floor apartment.
9. William Kelley, Ward 5 Councillor, spoke in opposition to the
petition raising concerns about density and parking.
10. John A. McCarthy, 2 1/2 Holly Street, wrote a letter in
opposition to the petition.
11 . The Holly Street neighborhood and surrounding area rear the
subject property is densely populated and suffers from inadequate
off-street parking.
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 in favor,
and five (51 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
May 21, 1997
Gary Barrett, Chairman
Member, Board of Appeal
•
DECISION OF CLAUDETTE BERNIER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 HOLLY 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 �ialem, ��Httssttcltusetts
3oQ„ Paura of �upenl
ElT•Y Off- $A,LfJ�1
�l( RK't�`O�FICA.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLAUDETTE Y. BERNIER FOR A VARIANCE/SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 2 HOLLY STREET. (R-3)
A hearing on this petition was held February 19, 1997 with the following
Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, 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 Variance/Special Permit
to expand a nonconforming structure 2 Holly Street. 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.
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 CLAUDETTE Y. BERNIER FOR A VARIANCE/SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 2 HOLLY 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. Lucine Pike, 2 Holly Street and John McCarthy, 2 1/2 Holly Street spoke
in favor of the petition.
2. There was no opposition to the petition.
3. The Petitioner, Claudette Y. Bernier requested leave to withdraw the
Variance without prejudice.
4. The Zoning Board voted unanimously 5-0, granting the petitioner leave to
withdraw the Variance without prejudice.
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
Special Permit 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 to complete the Dormer.
•
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLAUDETTE Y. BERNIER FOR A VARIANCE/SPECIAL
PERMIT AT 2 HOLLY STREET, SALEM
page three
• 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.
Special Permit Granted
February 19, 1997
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
,y
n,.z
,a T
N
�3 s
'�'w eto
•
altu of "$ttlem, �Httsstzcltusetts
• oQ S POura of '�F pfaloEC 19
J 10 4s QN °97
rrr r nr ,
rI I YSAL"-M: HA SS
C Lr
DECISION _OF THE PETITION OF KERR LEATHER COMPANY REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 63 JEFFERSON AVENUE (I/RC)
A hearing on this petition was held December 17, 1997 with the following
Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Nina Cohen, Albert Hill,
Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskagis. Notice of the hearing was sent to
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 use regulation;minimum lot area, lot
width, depth front yard,depth rear yard and maximum lot coverage for the
property located at 63 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, a prospective buyer of the property, seeks variances from
use requirements to allow the existing leather wholesaling business to
continue to operate in the R-C zone.
2. Additionally, petitioner hopes to obtain permission from the Planning
Board to subdivide the lot at 63 Jefferson Avenue. Accordingly,
petitioner seeks variances from lot area, lot width, lot coverage and
front, side and rear yard setbacks for that part of the property on
which the leather business will operate, and variances from lot area
and lot width for the newly created part.
3. Opposition to the proposed petition was voiced by Dennis Baker, a
commercial real estate broker, representing Aaron Glickman, of Titus
Furniture. Mr. Baker objected to the creation of a strangely shaped lot
on the abutting 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 KERR LEATHER FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 63 JEFFERSON AVENUE
page two,
3. Desirable relief can be grantedwi-thout 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
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
3. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
4. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commissions
having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board
and Conservation Commission.
Variance Granted
December 17, 1447 �V.(/�'G� l C✓� CSC:J
• 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
•
Ctu of �15ulem, �Ettssttdjusetts
Foam of Appeal
� X10 1 � f'� '9l
CIT' of
K SLOrfICFSS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BARBARA DUPRAY-COOK REQUESTING A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 317 LAFAYETTE STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held March 19, 1997 with the following
Board Members were present: Gary Barrett Chairman, Nina Cohen,
Albert Hill, Paul Valaskagis 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 Barbara Dupray- Cook, the Salem
Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition
without prejudice for a Special Permit for a Professional office,
involving the use of a room in a R-2 dwelling unit. Granted leave to
withdraw without prejudice.
GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE
March 19, 1997
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
•
Tity of Salem, { Httssttdjusetts
• `ae Pours of �'FPeul "R ?S
city of. ? Sy P� X97
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JAMES NICHOLSON REQUESTING A CAN(P� ({E y y
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 330 LAFAYETTE STREET (R-2) Of'f-,CFSS
A hearing on this petition was held March 19, 1997 with the following Board
members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Arthur
LeBrecque and Paul Valaskagis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 second building to be build with
two dwelling units for the property located at 330 Lafayette Street (R-2) .
This property is located in a residential two family district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this
Board that:
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other land, buildings, or structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the
• intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at
the hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1. The subject property is located in a neighborhood of predominantly
two family structures.
2. The subject property is unique in that it is a through lot from
Lafayette Street to Wisteria which is uncharacteristic of the
neighborhood creating hardship to the petitioner.
3. The Historic Commission estimates that the existing structure was built
around 1902.
4 . The petitioner is willing to consult the Historic Commission for design
review of any exterior alterations to the existing structure.
5. With respect to the existing structure, petitioner plans to make one
unit on the first floor, and a second unit containing the second and
third floors. Petitioner intends to remove the exterior stairs on the
upper floors of the existing house as well as the enclosure of the
second floor on the front of the house.
6. Petitioner also plans to construct a two-story, duplex structure on the
Wisteria Street side of the lot. The new construction will be two
units.
7. There will be 8 off-street parking spaces between the two structures
which is in compliance with the zoning ordinance.
8. Petitioner plans to take the necessary steps in order to make the four
units that will be created into a condominium under state law.
9. Petitioner met with neighbors in the area to discuss his plans, and
• there were changes to his original plans as a result of such meetings.
10. Petitioner is willing to erect a fence on the southerly side of the
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JAMES NICHOLSON FOR A VARIANCE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 330 LAFAYETTE STREET
page two
• property, and indicated that he will landscape the property.
11. Louis Goutzos and Edwina Labreque, 332 Lafayette St. , spoke in favor
of the petition.
12. Richard L'Heureux, 26 Wisteria Street, spoke in favor of this petition,
but expressed concerns about water run-off and drainage.
13. David Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, and owner of 300 Lafayette Street,
spoke in favor of the petition.
14 . Georgeann Kalat, 326 Lafayette Street, spoke in favor of the petition.
15. Petitioner requires a variance from lot size, lot frontage; side yard
setbacks;rear yard setback (Wisteria St) ;lot size; and minimum lot area
per dwelling unit. Petitioner also requires a variance in order to put
2 detached two-family dwellings on one lot; to allow more than one
dwelling on a lot; to permit four families to reside on the lot.
16. The proposed construction will improve the property and 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.
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. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4 . Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the
existing structure.
5. Petitioner is to obtain a buildingpermit p prior to beginningcpaf x
construction. e�
�o w
a-
6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
L;a N
r
7. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the Cite Siem
Assessor's office and shall display said number so as to be NzSibleo
from the street. H
N
•
Rww11.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JAMES NICHOLSON REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 330 LAFAYETTE STREET
page three
8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission
having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
9. Petitioner shall consult with the City Engineer to design and assure
proper drainage of surface water from the property.
10. Petitioner shall install a fence along the southerly side of the
property.
Variance Granted
March 19, 1997 � ��,�.,,
C.
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 0 a
A~ �
ro Grl
;K`p
V,> N
o rrn
cn z a
rnb
(n to
ut �
r
°�. (Gltu of ttlem, � ttssttcliusetts
Poura of �rpeal
JUN N 10 45 AM '97
CITY Or SALCM, MASS
Cll'RK'S OFFICE
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AT.& T WIRELESS SERVICES REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 LORING AVENUE (R-3)
A hearing on this petition was held June 18, 1997 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 installation of antenna arrays
& equipment cabinets for the property located at 1000 Loring 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.
2. Questions were raised concerning possible health issues and were
answered by AT & T representives.
3. Petitioners would like to install the antenna arrays and presented
photographs of previous work done in Salem.
4. 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 AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 LORING AVENUE (R-3)
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 and approved by the Building Inspector.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4 . Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the
existing structure.
5. Petitioner is to obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
Variance Granted
June 18, 1997
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
c
j N
R Ln
cn> o
r
T
F;s a
rn>
N c.a
N
���°� (1�it� • of �ttlem, c�Hussttcllusetts •
A
• j; 9 PnttrD of
`AV
eaJUL 2 I. 25 PPI '97
CITY OF SALFM. MASS
CLfRK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MELLO REALTY. TRUST REQUESTING A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 LINDEN STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held June 18,1997 with the following
Board Members present: Gary Barrett Chairman, Nina Cohen, Joseph
Ywuc,Richard Dionne and Albert Hill. Notice of the hearing was sent
to abutters and others and notices of the hearin,g' were properly
published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to enlarge a three family
dwelling to a four family dwelling for the property located at 10
Linden 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. Attorney James Mears appeared representing the petitioners.
2. Correspondence from Attorney Mark Cassidy representing Robert and
Jane Readon of 8 Linden St. in opposition to the petition was .
read.
3. The subject property has a paved area of 44 feet x 35 feet and an
unpaved yard of approximately 12 feet by 35 feet.
4 . No scaled drawings reflecting the required number of 9 feet x 22
feet parking spaces were submitted to the Board at the hearing.
DECISION OF MELLO REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT
• FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 LINDEN 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
•
•
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MELLO REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 LINDEN STREET
page two
• 5. Bobbie Funue, 10 Linden Street, a tenant at the subject property
spoke in favor of the petition.
6. Councilor-at large- Tom Furey, 7 Linden Street, submitted a
letter in opposition to the petition.
7. Ward 5 Councilor, William Kelley, detailed a history of
complaints against the property, and spoke in opposition to the
petition.
8. Eleanor & John Derby, Alice Rainey and Kathleen Titus, all of 12
Linden Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed fourth
apartment.
9. David Guy, 7 Linden Street, voiced his opposition to the petition
because of the increased density and parking problems which would
be created in the neighborhood with an additional apartment unit.
10. Stephen Dibble, 74 Moffatt Road, whose mother resides at 12
Linden St. spoke in opposition to the petition, and submitted a
letter from. Michael Sullivan, 13 Linden St. in opposition to the
petition.
11 . Jean Readon, 8 Linden Street, spoke in opposition to the
petition.
12. The neighborhood is a densely populated area with minimal side
yard setbacks.
13. The neighborhood experiences on-street parking problems.
14. The subject property has been the subject of numerous complaints
because of debris, general upkeep and noise from neighbors for
quite sometime.
15. Petitioners failed to demonstrate hardship in order to establish
the need for the requested variance.
• 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 in favor,
and five (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 ��J J�
June 18, 1997 ✓r' '\)C✓L�(,�.
Gary Barrett, Chairman
Member, Board of Appeal
•
(situ of $Avm, f` assadjusetts
3 r
Potts of ' {Fpenl
.Ja .I 2 .3-i
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF IPSWICH SAVINGS BANK REQUESTIY Of
P
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 600 CORING AVENUE (R3;12aJ 'S OFfLCF
A hearing on this petition was held June 18,1997 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 an ATM Machine
in a portion of an R3 zone for the property located at 600 Loring 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 property at 600 Loring Ave. consists of a commercial office building
on a lot located in two zoning districts. The Zoning Board granted a
variance to the property owner on May 30, 1985 to enable the owner to
extend a portion of the existing structure for a distance of 30 feet
into a portion of the property in accordance with section 7-9 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
2 . Petitioner is the lessee of a portion of the property that was formerly
used as a bank branch with a drive-up automatic teller. Petitioner
wishes to rebuild the drive-through ATM on the site formerly used for
the same purpose, but the proposed plans extend slightly into the R-3
area, beyond the 30ft. permitted extension.
3. There was no opposition to the proposed relief.
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 IPSWICH SAVINGS BANK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 600 LORING AVENUE (R-3)
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 and approved by the Building Inspector.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4 . Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the
existing structure.
5. Petitioner is to obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
6. A Certificate of Inspection is to obtained. \
Variance Granted
June 18, 1997
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
•
Ctu of . $Nlem, T- ussadlusEtta
x
3oQ 9 Pourb of `k Jui 2 '
97
CITY OF S1!LCN. }PASS
CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH FITZGERALD REQUESTING A VARIANCES AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 80 MARGIN STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held June 18, 1997 with the following Board
Members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill,
Richard Dionne 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, is requesting a Variance as to parking and density regulations
and a Special Permit to remove existing garage and 'construct an addition
for storage of automotive parts for the property at 80 Margin Street.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this
request for a Special Permit is section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the
Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set
• forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and
reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement,
extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,
provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion
shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming
use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit
requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted
upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will
promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's
inhabitants.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of
the Board that:
A. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district.
B. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the
petitioner.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH FITZGERALD REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT
AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 80 MARGIN 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. Petitioner, Joseph Fitzgerald is the owner of NAPA Auto Sales.
2. Attorney George Atkins was present and represented the petitioner.
3. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to remove an existing
garage and construct a new addition to the existing building.
4. The new addition will be non-conforming and needs relief in the
following'manner:
1. Side set back; Regulation 10 feet- New addition 8 feet
2. Rear set back; Regulation 30 feet - New addition 2 feet
3. Lot coverage ; Regulation 35% - New addition 60%
5. The petitioner is requesting a Variance for parking density.
Petitioner has 10 spaces and regulation states 19 spaces are needed.
6. Mr. Femino of 90 Margin Street and Mrs. Pizzello of 37 Endicott Street
both expressed concerns of trucks leaving the engines running during
deliveries. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that he would try to minimize
engine noise, asking the truck drivers to shut down during deliveries.
7. Mr. Femino also expressed concerns regarding snow removal.
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 exist which especially affect the subject
property and not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship 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 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 as per the plans and dimensions
submitted and approved by the Zoning Officer. Plans submitted
S
DECISION OF JOSEPH FITZGERALD REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 80 MARGIN STREET, SALEM (R-2)
page three
and was dated May 19, 1997.
• 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 shall be obtained.
6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the
existing structure.
7. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained.
8. The addition of trees to the north side of the property will be added
as shown on the plans dated May 19, 1997 and submitted on June 18, 1997
meeting.
Variance & Special Permit Granted
June 18, 1997
y
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 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 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
•
AMENDMENT TO THE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH FITZGERALD
• REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 80 MARGIN STREET (R=2)
This Amendment is made to correct an inadvertent error in the
Decision of the Board as filed with the City Clerk' s office on
July 2 , 1997 . To wit :
Paragraph 4 of the findings of fact is amended to read as follows :
1 . Side set back;: Regulation 10 feet - New addition 2 feet
2 . Rear set back; Regulation 30 feet - New addition 19 feet
10% inches
In all other respects the previously filed decision is affirmed and
ratified.
CITY OF SALEM
BOARD OF APPEAL
Q N
a�
% //7
= g U
• Ln _O
L1�
>V
� U
•
r te` , flit of Salem, fflttsstteliusetts
3 V !
Poura of �Wenl rh:' 18 IO d,1 GI' '9j
CII °f SALFH Hass
I RK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NORTHSHORE AMBULANCE REQUESTING A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 89 MARGIN STREET (B-5)
A hearing on this petition was held October 15, 1997 with the
following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Nina Cohen,
Albert Hill , Joseph Ywuc and Paul Valaskagis. Notice of the hearing
was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were
properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the use of an
office trailer for a period of one (1) year for the property located
at 89 Margin 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 . David Tusburry appeared and represented Northshore Ambulance.
Mr Tusburry said due to more help the office space is to small
to accommodate the extra office help who work there.
2. Petitioner would like temporary space for office help by putting
a 60 x 28 trailer on the property .
3. John Femino, 90 Margin Street appeared and had some concerns
regarding this petition. Mr. Tusburry answered his concerns and
and will work with all of the abutting neighbors.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence
• presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NORTHSHORE AMBULANCE REQUESTING A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 89 MARGIN STREET. (B-5)
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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke
and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
4. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained.
5. Exterior finishes of the temporary construction shall be in
harmony with the existing structure.
• 6. Trailer shall be placed on the south end on the property.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
October 15, 1997 �
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
•
�'��°`�. altu of Salem, �ttssttcljusetts
3�Q �ottrtD�rf2ugae� PM °97
CITY Oft SALEM. MASS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN J. JERMY��REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 96 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (R-1)
A hearing on this petition was held December 17, 1997 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 on lot area & lot width to build a
single family home for the property located at 96 Marlborough Rd.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding
of the Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially
affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not
generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same
district.
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
would involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise, to the
• petitioner.
c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating
from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence
presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of facts:
1. The petition was presented by John J. Jermyn, trustee to the
property. Relief from lot size was asked for size being only 4924
square feet, and relief from frontage was another issue, only
50 feet exists.
2. Several abutters appeared and spoke in opposition to the
petition. They were; Arthur Bates, 4 Vista Ave. , Thomas. Ciereno,
4 1/2 Vista Ave. , James Gautreau, 92 Marlborough Road, and Dan
Dandreo of Rock Ave. Swampscott cousin of James Gautreau.
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 THE PETITION OF JOHN J. JERMYN REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 96 MARLBOROUGH ROAD R-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 2 in favor and 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
December 17, 1997
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 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 .$Avm, C�9m55nC1JU6eit9
`'-�4� �nttra of �p�renl
JUN 1 i® FA X97
CITY OF SALCM. MASS
CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL P. CHOUINARD REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 64 MOFFATT ROAD (R-1)
A hearing on this petition was held May 21, 1997 with the following Board
members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Paul
Valakagis 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 and rear setbacks, to allow an
addition to garage in a second floor home shop area for the property
located at 64 Moffatt Road.
The Variance which has been requested may tie 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 will remove existing garage to install new garage with
2nd level and to extend an additional 10' beyond existing footprint.
The change would be made to side and rear setbacks side 5 ' to 41 , rear
301 to 24.
2. Steve Dellorfano, . 62 Moffatt Road spoke in opposition only to identify
'the use for the second floor over garage. Initial use would be for
work area and later to be used as a playroom.
3. A demolition permit would be necessary.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
11 . 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 MICHAEL P. CHOUINARD REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 64 MOFFATT ROAD
• page two jLw 1 1 1$ Pal X97
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on t rAW� g�ted
at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanii��am@ypMIS . I� rant
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 and approved by the Building Inspector.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4 . Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the
existing structure.
5. Petitioner is to obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
6 . A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
7. A demolition permit is to be obtained.
'l
Variance Granted
• May 21, 1997
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 4OA, and shall be filed within 20
days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City
Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 4OA, Section 11, the
Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a
copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20
days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has
been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South
Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record
or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
Board of Appeal
•
Ctu of $Ulem, � ttssttcllusetts
� r
• `'a, s Pours of �"eal
0/.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL CHOUINARD REQUESTING A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 64 MOFFATT ROAD (R-1)
A hearing on. this petition was held July 16, 1997 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 allow the expansion of a
non-conforming structure, and add a second floor to main structure
for the property located at 64 Moffatt Road.
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 appeared and presented his plans to expand and
add a second floor to the main structure.
2. 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 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 MICHAEL CHOUINARD REQUESTING A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 64 MOFFATT ROAD
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 comply with all city and state statutes,
ordinances, codes and regulations.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke
and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning
any construction.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony
with the existing structure.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
July 16, 1997 ( //►/ /, ✓" " rsc ''`�
• cCL �hncZ.
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 Certifican
of Title < r
Board of Appeal o C-0
a:N
v a ._
T•2 u)
n= 3
• ma
N CG
N �
of js- ttlem, � awaadlusefts
Puttra of �upeal csjy�SFP � 2 p� ,9_
C!oRKSSCop " IfASS l
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN A. HOAR REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 NAPLES ROAD (R-1)
A hearing on this petition was held September 17, 1997 with the following
Board members present: 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 minimum lot width, frontage and left
side setback to allow a house w/2 car garage to be build for the property
located at 11 Naples Road (R-1 ) .
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this
Board that:
1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other land, buildings, or structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
• 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at
the hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The petitioner, John A. Hoar appeared and represented himself..
2. The petitioner would like to build a single family dwelling with a
two car garage.
3. Mr. Donald Michaud, 12 Savoy Road appeared in favor of the petition.
Ms. Lorraine Fagone , 14 Savoy Road appeared in favor of the petition.
4 . 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.
•
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN A. HOAR REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 NAPLES ROAD
• page two
C_�P 13
cr7r „� r_2 ': FM X91
3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantialdet �zmeAtr,to
public good and without nullifying and substantially �� o � ,o
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, 4-0 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 and approved by the Building Inspector.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4 . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
6. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem
Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible
from the street.
• 7. Left side shall be no closed than 5 feet from the side setback.
Variance Granted
September 17, 1997
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
•
'''��°`�. Ctg of ttlem, ttsstttljuse##s
poura orf Appeal
• '`""` FEB g 5 14 PN 9T
MASS
AMENDED DECISION IN THE PETITION OF SHELL OIL COMPANY Rffip.� @j'�SA01M4}ry$rA CE
AMENDMENT OF AN EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT AT 111 NORTH STREE M
MASSACHUSETTS
A hearing was held on this Petition October 16, 1996 with the following Board
Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc, 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 Law Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a variance from the rear yard
set back; modification to a previously granted special permit pursuant to
Section 5-3(j ) ; and/or in the alternative a special permit pursuant to 5-3(e)
(2) in order to construct a car wash at the site of its existing service
station.
The variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
board that:
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other lands, buildings or structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
• involve substantial hardships, financial or otherwise, to the Petitioners.
3. Desirable relief maybe granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent
of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The modification of the special permit as well as the new special permit must
include the items noted above for the variance absent only the hardship. The
City of Salem Bylaw defines special permit use as: "a use which would not be
appropriate generally or without restriction throughout the district but
which, if controlled in a neighborhood, would promote the public health,
safety, convenience, morals and welfare of the city's inhabitants.
The desired relief seems to require a modification of the existing special
permit. (A special permit issued to allow a service station in the B-1 zone. )
Inasmuch as this appears to be the proper relief requested, the application
for a new special permit is hereby dismissed.
A number of neighbors spoke in opposition to the variance and the modification
of an existing special permit. These include the following:
1. Roland Wilcock 12 Buffum Street
2. John Christiansen 21 Buffum Street
3. Sheila Lynch 35 Buffum Street
4. Theodore Yeannokopolus 109 North Street
5. Joseph Murphy 18 Buffum Street
6. Dolly Doda 35 Barr Street
•
AMENDED DECISION IN THE PETITION OF SHELL OIL COMPANY REQUESTING A VARIANCE
AMENDMENT OF AN EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT AT 111 NORTH STREET, SALEM
IS page two
Additionally, a Petition with 163 signatures opposing the Petition for a
Variance and/or a modification of a special permit were entered into the
record.
There seems to be no question that the addition of a car wash will increase
the noise being generated from the site and thus further impact the
residential dwelling which abut the property on three sides.
The traffic to be generated from the site after the erection of the car wash
will impact not only the residential neighbors but will also tax an already
over burdened North Street.
A serious problem has arisen when the Petitioner, after having met with the
Ward Councillor and neighbors to discuss this matter, substituted new plans
which had not been reviewed by the neighbors, the Ward Councillor or the Board
of Appeals.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at
the hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. As to the variance;
No evidence having been submitted, the Board denies the variance.
2. As to the special permit;
Inasmuch as the new special permit is not required it is hereby
• dismissed.
3. As to the modification of the existing special permit;
There are no conditions other than those constructed by the Petitioner
which especially affect the subject property and not the district in
general.
The relief requested cannot be granted without detriment to the public good
(noise and traffic) as 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.
ti y
07 y
,may u� Gary M. arrett
a a Chairman, Board .of Appeal
N Y
K
W r Z;
� V
•
AMENDED DECISION IN THE PETITIONOF SHELL OIL COMPANY REQUESTING A VARIANCE
AMENDMENT OF AN EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT AT 111 NORTH STREET, SALEM
• page three
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD ANT THE CITY
CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days
after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the copy of
the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed,
that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry
of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and
noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
Board of Appeal
o� „m
Z .tea:
_.
� ate:
-C:D
• Las ��
uv�
•
(Gltu of '-5ttlem, �Httssadlusetts
;a 9 Paurb of SH 30 10 AM 097
CITY OF SALCM. MASS
C(_( RK'S OFFICF
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN HARRIS REQUESTING A
VARIANCE\SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 148 NORTH STREET
(R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held September 17,1997 with the
following Board Members present: 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\Variance to enlarge a non-
conforming structure for the property located at 148 North 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 requested and was granted leave to withdraw the
Variance without prejudice.
2. Petitioner would like to enlarge the 2nd floor apartment unit
by adding two dormers.
3. A letter was submitted from Staley McDermet with concerns of the
petitioner wanting to increase the number of dwelling units at
the property.
4 . Bill Wilkins, 29 Upham Street appeared to speak in favor of this
petition.
•
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEPHEN HARRIS REQUESTING A SPECIAL
PERMIT\VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 148 NORTH STREET. (R-2)
page two
• On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence 30 10 4h
presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: CITY of, r 197
CLPRK S W_-M.
1. The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial CE
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, 4-O to
grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,
ordinances, codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions
submitted and 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 a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
• 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony
with the existing structure.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
September 17, 1997 x\
Joseph Ywuc, Member
Board of Appeal
•
DECISION OF STEPHEN HARRIS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT\VARIANCE FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 148 NORTH STREET (R-2)
page three
SFp 30 10 :" AM '97
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BO? AND
THE CITY CLERK CII Y ON SALEM. MASS
CLERK'S OFFICE
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 '-5ttlem' �Ntzssadjusetts
Sryi .� � s. �nttra of �p}iettl 9 11 -, 4�
ciTY
•,.,�.,.as" cl.—RK'SL01- HASS
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD W. LAPHAM FOR A VARIANCE AT
160 OCEAN AVENUE WEST (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held October 15, 1997 with the following
Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Paul Valaskagis, 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, represented by Attorney Stephen Lovely,
is requesting a Variance to subdivide property; Lot A, Variance from lot
size, frontage and side setback; Lot B, Variance from lot size and frontage
to allow a dwelling to be built on the property located at 160 Ocean Avenue
West, (R-2) .
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by
this Board that:
• 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the
petitioners.-
3.
etitioners: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. Kevin Talbot and Donald Hess spoke in favor.
3. This will allow petitioner a fuller use of the property.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant
the variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
• Lot A:
1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EDWARD W. LAPHAM FOR
A VARIANCE AT 160 OCEAN AVENUE WEST, SALEM
page two 29 1
Ilc,
,Q.
2. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem
Assessors Office. C!+-. OF SALCM. MASS
CLfRn'S OFFICE
3. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission
having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
4 . Petitioner will create a covenant to restrict the use of the property
for a single family dwelling only.
5. Petitioner shall convey said deed to the property restricted for use to
a single family dwelling and have such language recorded for this
property recorded in the Essex County Registry of Deeds.
Lot B.
1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, 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.
3. Petitioner will create a covenant to restrict the use of the property
' for a single family dwelling only.
4 . Petitioner shall convey said deed to the property restricted for use to
a single family dwelling and have such language recorded for this
• property recorded in the Essex County Registry of Deeds.
Variances Granted
October 15, 1997 C�C� Gw�✓� TT—�G �/L. 41C � \
Albert C. Hill , Jr. 000 J
Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY
CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20
days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City
Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the
Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a
copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20
days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has
been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South
Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record
or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
• Board of Appeal
(91tu of ttlem, �' assadjusetto
90, an
• 3oQ Pnttra of 'a130 II 0, AM '37 JUL N II
SALpFMF1MCESS CITCL��K'S OFFICE
VARIANCE FOR DECISION OF TTHE PPROPERTY OLOCATED AAT 192TOCEANEAVE�fi �cWfi)
A hearing on this petition was held July 16,1997 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 a Change of Use to enable the
garage to be used for storage of commercial equipment for the property
located at 192 Ocean Avenue West.
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 requested to grant to withdraw the Special Permit without
prejudice and was granted by Board of Appeals Members.
2. Petitioner, lives in Marblehead and operates a landscaping business
in which he stores some of his equipment in this garage.
3. A letter was read from Councillor John Donahue, Ward 3 with his concerns
with the appearance of the garage and stating that the garage should be
restricted from being a place of business and limited to storage only.
4. Mark Tibada of Jefferson Avenue spoke in favor to the petition.
5. Mr. Beauvis, 202 Jefferson Ave. spoke in opposition to the petition with
concerns about the appearance of the property and equipment being stored
outside of the 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.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF REGINALD HARTLEY REQUESTING A
. VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 192 OCEAN AVE. WEST
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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
3. 'go storage of equipment outside of garage except for hydro seeders.
4. Garage to be painted by October 1, 1997 and property be kept
maintained.
Variance Granted
July 16, 1997
• oseph Ywuc, Member J
Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY
CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20
days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City
Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the
Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a
copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20
days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has
been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South
Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record
or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
Board of Appeal
•
Qlity of , ttlem, � ttssttcljusetts
3 ip i
• e B
a �Bnttra of (�FPPH D. 211
CITY 01' SALEM. MASS
CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT & RACHEL LUTTS REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 92 ORNE STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held April 16, 1997 with the following Board
members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc, Arthur
LeBrecque 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 setback to construct a two car
garage with family room above for the property located at 92 Orne Street
(R-1) .
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this
Board that:
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other land, buildings, or structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
• 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at
the hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1. The petitioner was represented by Craig Bell, an architect.
2. The petitioner requests to construct a two car garage with family
room above.
3. The petitioner also requested to withdraw the Special Permit without
prejudice. Petitioner's motion to withdraw the Special Permit was
granted by a unanimous vote by the Board.
4. 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 ROBERT & RACHEL LUTTS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 92 ORNE STREET
• 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 and approved by the Building Inspector.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the
existing structure.
5. Petitioner is to obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
Variance Granted
April 16, 1997
• 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
•
aitu of LSalem, 'Mason djuBetts
• 304 Potts Irf (�"QpPR 19 2 u FA 137
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN & ANN SNOW REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 54 OSGOOD STREET (R-1) CITY OF SALEM. MASS
CLERK'S OFFICE
A hearing on this petition was held April 16, 1997 with the following Board
members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc, Arthur
LeBrecque 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 setback to construct a garage
for the property located at 54 Osgood Street (R-1) .
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this
Board that:
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other land, buildings, or structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
• The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at
the hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1. The petitioner requests to construct a 24 x 24 two car garage.
2. The petitioner also requested to withdraw the Special Permit without
prejudice. Petitioner's motion to withdraw the Special Permit was
granted by a unanimous vote by the Board.
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 JOHN & ANN SNOW REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 54 OSGOOD STREET (R-1)
page two
• 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions
submitted and approved by the Building Inspector.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
safety shall be strictly. adhered to.
4. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the
existing structure.
5. Petitioner is to obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
Variance Granted
April 16, 1997 l �G
-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 Sulem, 'Mussadjusetts
Pours of �upeal
MAR 5 3 31 PM '97
CITY OF SALEM. MASS
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN JERMYN REQUESTING A VARIAOXIERFCA ODHBCE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 OUTLOOK AVENUE (R-1)
A hearing on this petition was held February 19, 1997 with the following
Board members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywuc,
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, requests a Variance from front yard setback to allow expansion
of the property to construct a 2nd floor addition for the property located
at 1 Outlook Avenue. This property is located in a R-1 zone.
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 plan presented.
2. The proposed 2nd floor addition will have a negligible effect on the
neighborhood, and will not produce a further encroachment on the
existing non-conforming front setback which had been previously granted
by the Board in 1985.
3. The proposed covered porch will allow petitioner better utilization
of the sideyard which is now limited due to the slope of the terrain.
4. The proposed covered porch will have a negligible effect on the
neighborhood, and only minimally encroaches on the existing side
setback.
5. The petitioner's property is well-maintained.
6. The petitioner's family is growing, and additional living space is
necessary in the residence.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
•
DECISION OF JOHN JERMYN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1 OUTLOOK AVENUE R-1
page two
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property
and not the district in general.
• 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substation hardship to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to
public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from
the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance.
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 submitted and approved
by the Building Inspector.
3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission
having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board.
• 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
7. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the
existing structure.
Variance Granted
February 19, 1997 _%/�
Gary Barrett, Chairman
Board of Appeal
•
DECISION OF TLL$ PETITION OF JOHN JERMYN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 OUTLOOK AVENUE 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
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 Spetial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a
copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20
days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has
been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South
Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record
or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
Board of Appeal
•
•
of $Aem, 'fflttssurljusetts
;o4p S �OMTD Ol �C1�PA1 J*8
IOWAr�iKr
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF D.L. COTE REQUESTING A VARIANCE\SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 PARKER COURT (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held March 19, 1997 with the following Board
members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Arthur
LeBrecque and Paul Valaskagis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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\Special Permit to allow accessory structure
to be located in front yard and also to enlarge said structure from 120 sq.
ft. to 160 sq.ft. and to allow side setback relief for the property located
at 3 Parker Court.
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 from the Historic Commission. Commission
was not opposed, but would like a design review.
2. There was no opposition to this petition.
3. The petitioner stated that the shed is for the storage of his tools.
4. The petitioner requested to withdraw the Special Permit without
prejudice . Petition's motion to withdraw the Special Permit was
granted by a unanimous vote by the Board.
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 D.L. COTE REQUESTING A VARIANCE\SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 PARKER COURT (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. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the
existing structure.
Variance Granted
March 19, 1997
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
n� a
�N
N
N J
•
of Salem, �fflttssacljusetts
36Q Poarb of �Fpeal SFP 23 2 Py '97
CI7yor SALEM. MASS
CI.fRK'S OFFICF
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LOIS DELP REQUESTING A VARIANCE\SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 58 SALEM STREET (R-3)
A hearing on this petition was held April 16, 1997 and continued
several times until September 17, 1997 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\Variance to convert a legal
two (2) family dwelling to a three (3) family for the property
located at 58 Salem Street. A motion was made for the requested
Variance and was opposed, as the petitioner did not need the
Variance.
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. Testimony at the petitioner's initial hearing supported the
assertion that the property at 58 Salem Street has been used as
a (3) three-family dwelling for some years, and that building
permits had been issued in the past to allow improvements to
units on the second and third floors.
2. The Board received an opinion from the City Solicitor dated
September 16, 1997, stating that the building's use as a three
family dwelling for more than six years after the issuance of a
• building permit prevents an action to compel abandonment of the
use.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LOIS DELP REQUESTING A SPECIAL
PERMIT\VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 58 SALEM STREET. (R-3)
page two
SF? D 2 Pel '97
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence
presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: CITY OF ;AL3.-H. MASS
C.l FRK•S OFFICE
I . The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially
derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the
ordinance.
2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the
public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's
inhabitants and may be granted in harmony with the neighborhood.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0 to
grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,
ordinances, codes and regulations.
2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke
and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
September 17, 1997
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, Alssttcliusetts
CI77 AIF ��.YB J9. MASS
CLUR'K'S O F'Irr
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LESLIE BYRNE FOR A VARIANCE AT 16 SAUNDERS
STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held May 21, 1997 with the following Board
Members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Paul Valaskagis,
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 a Variance from front and
side and rear setbacks to construct a deck for the property located at 16
Saunders Street.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by
this Board that:
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
• involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the
petitioners.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented
at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings
of fact:
1 . There was no opposition in this matter.
2. 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 LESLIE BYRNE FOR
A VARIANCE AT 16 SAUNDERS STREET, SALEM
page two
.JUN 4 FIM 17
3. All construction shall be done as per the plan andp
submitted and approved by the Zoning Enforcement Offif ;�'E'C�W. 'M.A` S
@� .RK S OFFIC'F.
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.
Variances Granted
May 21, 1997
/I
/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
•
Ctu of �'5'ttlem' �Nttssadlusetts
M
joQ4 POura of ct1"eal
1a zi 1 40 N. g
CITY' OF SALEM..MASS
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DIANE S. O'BRIEN, TRU§WR1§QAi§YIG A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 SKERRY STREET COURT (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held July 16,1997 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 lot area, area per dwelling unit,
frontage, side yard and rear yard dimensional regulations in order to
renovate an existing carriage house for use as a two family dwelling on the
existing foundation and existing lot.
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 George Atkins, of 59 Federal
Street.
2. Petitioner is the owner of an "L" shaped lot in an R72 district that
has 50 feet of frontage on Skerry Street Court. On the lot is a very
old and dilapidated structure that was formerly used as a barn.
3. Four of the abutting homeowners submitted brief letters in support of
the proposed petition. These were: Susan J . Bishop, 3 Skerry St. Ct. ,
Raymond Hodge, 6 Skerry St, Victoria M. Tache, 62 Bridge St. and
Rosemary Lack of 70 Bridge Street.
4. There was no opposition to the proposed relief.
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 DIANE S. O'BRIEN, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 SKERRY STREET COURT
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 the plans and dimensions
submitted and approved by the Building Inspector and to include Plan
A-3, dated July 16, 1997.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4 . Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the
existing structure.
5. Petitioner is to obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to obtained.
7. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with
the existing structure.
• Variance Granted
July 16, 1997
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
•
Ctu of . ttlem, Ans6ndjusetts
3oQ� ' �uttrD of �upen! ��d
CITY 0- r °� $s PM ►
rtrn�'��T.a� Ha
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF D & D REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE r/rFS$
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 100-114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD).
A hearing on this petition was held June 18, 1997 with the following
Board Members were present: Gary Barrett Chairman, Nina Cohen,
Albert Hill, Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskagis. Notice of the
hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
At the request of the petitioners Attorney Joseph Correnti, the Salem
Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition
without prejudice for a Variance to allow a drive-in snack bar and a
Variance from parking for the property located at 100-114 Swampscott
Road. Granted leave to withdraw without prejudice.
GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE
June 18, 1997
• 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
•
'''f�4`°�. aitV of $Ulem, �Httssadjusetts
• '4.: - ' Pnttra of (�ppenl Nov ?6 �Jp �
�497
CITY OF 5At EM MASS
CLERK'S OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF E.M.R. DRYWALL REQUESTING A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5-7 WEBSTER STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held November 19, 1997 with the
following Board Members present: Gary Barrett Chairman, 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 is requesting a Special Permit to Change the legally
existing non-conforming use of the property as a Machine Shop
manufacturing to a commercial Drywall business for the property
located at 5-7 Webster 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 sought a Special Permit to operate a commercial
drywall business at the site. He was represented by Athan
Vontzalidez, Esq. of Peabody.
2. Under the proposed use, petitioner would install an office and
would use the building for the storage of equipment, tools and
ladders used in drywall installation. A maximum of 5 or 6
employees would be on site; the majority of workers would be at
offsite job locations, and no heavy machinery would be installed
•
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF E.M.R. DRYWALL REQUESTING A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5-7 WEBSTER STREET
page two
• at the property.
3. Petitioner explained that the business requires one
tractor-trailer delivery per week, and that employees begin their
day at 4:00 a.m. by loading the tools required for the job onto
the work truck.
4 . The proposed use has the approval of neighbor Boleslaw
Przydziaol, at 13 Spring Street.
5. Paul Pelletier, of 1 Webster St. , and Celia Erwins, at 4 Webster
St. objected to the proposed use on the grounds that the .night-
time noise would interfere with their enjoyment of their
residential property on the street, and Mr. Pelletier further
objected to the anticipated parking congestion that could result
from the use.
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 2 in favor, and 2 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
November 19, 1997
Nina Cohen, Vice Chairman
Member, Board of Appeal
•
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF E.M.R. DRYWALL REQUESTING A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5-7 WEBSTER 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
•
•
flit of ttlem ttSSttCItuSPttgg � 1 2 sa Pm �ql
3 V ` CI CL SALEM, MASS
• 0�4 , 9 POIITa Of ,peal S OFFICE
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE BELLEAU REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 THOMAS CIRCLE (B-2)
A hearing on this petition was held November 19, 1997 with the following
Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Nina Cohen, 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 from lot area, minimum lot width and use for
a single family dwelling for the property located at 19 Thomas Circle.
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, George Belleau appeared as the contractor to represent
the owner Veto Adamo.
2 . The petitioner would like to build a single family dwelling at this
location.
3. Mrs. Roberta Williams appeared and had concerns of the petition.
Her concerns was all answered and has no objection 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:
I . 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 GEORGE BELLEAU REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 THOMAS CIRCLE
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, 4-0 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 and approved by the Building Inspector.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4 . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Boards or Commission
having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
Variance Granted
November 19, 1997
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 incthe_South
Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owne%:�f record
or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. ,,o
0
�N
nn N
Board of Appeal o
rl
rnn 3
V, :O
' ��, aitU of LSale , � assttcljusetts
.. m�nttra of Aupeal
ciaci INK
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CATHOLIC CHARITABLE BUREAU REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 278-280 WASHINGTON STREET B-1
A hearing on this petition was held December 17, 1997 with the following
Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Nina Cohen, Albert Hill,
Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskagis. Notice of the hearing was sent to
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 off-street parking requirements for the
property located at 278-280 Washington Street. This property is located in
a B-1 district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this
Board that:
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other land, buildings , or structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
• involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at
the hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1. The petitioner was represented by Attorney John Serifini Jr.
2. The only opposition was from an abutter, Mr. Richard Socolo of Atlantic
Credit, who voiced concern of lace of parking in the area. His concerns
were addressed and opposition was withdrawn.
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 CATHOLIC CHARITABLE BUREAU REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 276-260 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 construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions
submitted and approved by the Building Inspector.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
Variance Granted
December 17, 1997
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
•
Ctg of "ittlem, Alttssttcllusetts
• ;' Pourb of pyp' l
C/T,y 01.
CCF["KJSp''M.:A f5S
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH REITHER FOR AN
ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
12 WILLSON STREET (R-2\B1 )
A hearing on this petition was held September 17 , 1997 ,
with the following Board Members present ; 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 an Administrative Ruling in
accordance with Massachusetts General Law 40A, Section 8 .
The undersigned disagrees with the determination of the
Zoning Enforcement Officer as to the legal use of the
dwelling located at 12 Willson Street .
More specifically, the petitioner request the Board of ,
Appeal to overturn the Zoning Officer ' s finding that the
legal use of the property as being a single family
• dwelling.
The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the
evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following
finding of fact :
1 . Attorney Kevin Daly of 32 Church Street represented
the petitioner .
2 . Petitioner sought a ruling pursuant of MGL c . 40A,
Section 8 , overturning the Zoning Officer ' s finding
of July 11 , 1997 , that the legal use of the property
at 12 Willson Street was as a single family dwelling.
3 . The Board heard testimony by City Coucillors John
Donahue and Kevin Harvey, stating that the previous
owner of the property applied for a waiver from
frontage requirements to the City' s Planning Board.
According to the City Councillors , the waiver as
granted upon the condition that the property would
become available for a single family dwelling only.
The councillors ' testimony was corroborated by a copy
of the hearing transcript submitted to the Board .
4 . Testimony by an abutter, Wayne Malionek, 6 Willson 'St .
stated that years ago the sellers told him they would
request permission to allow a single family dwelling
• on the lot . On the basis of this understanding, Mr, .
:• DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH REITHER FOR JEP 8 2 - rpi e91
ADMINISTRATIVE RULING AT 12 WILLSON STREET
page two CITY OF S,, '-
- MASS
C! (:RK'S OFFICF
Malionek did not raise an objection when the property
owners petitioned this Board to sever their property
and create a buildable lot .
5 . A petition was submitted with 12 names in opposition
to the owner to convert property into a two family
dwelling.
Therefore , based on the above findings of fact and on the
evidence presented, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal voted
unanimously, 4-0 to oppose the petitioners request for an
Administrative ruling regarding the legal use of the
property.
r
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 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
•