Loading...
1998-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1998 BOARD OF APP 1 CITY OF SALEM MA f9Itu of "ittlem, Auss djusetfSER.'S OFFICE Poura of �Fpenl .1998 DEC 29 A q: 23 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHRYN M. HARPER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 ALLEN STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held December 16, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen;Chairman, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko and Stephen Harris. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 relief from height and dimensional requirements to expand an existing non-conforming structure for the property located at 3 Allen 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, Kathryn M. Harper represented herself. 2. A Special Permit was requested for relief from height and dimensional requirements to expand an existing non-conforming structure. 3. Plans for the expansion of the third floor were presented. 4. The property will remain a two family residence. The third floor expansion will be used as additional living space for the apartment on the second floor. • 5. The property is located in an R-1 district. 6. Peter Paskowski, Councilor of Ward I, spoke in favor of this petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KATHYRN M. HARPER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 ALLEN STREET R-1 page two 7. Frank Kulik, City of Salem Tax Assessor, spoke in favor of the petition. 8. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. 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 December 16, 1998 , Michael Ward, Member b �� Board of Appeal o • n 70O N -0 N CD n .:q c"1• N f*73 W D DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KATHRYN M. HARPER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 ALLEN STREET R-1 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of 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-) m CD rrn ;a C-) ;:K� N �,D c:) _o rn 3 N D W • (Zito of Salem, �Kussarllusetts Pottrb of Appeal APR 13 1033 AN '98 CITY Of SALEM. MASS DECISION OF THE PETITION OF BRIAN AND CHERYL GIDEON REQUESTINIG pK'S OFFICE VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22 BAY VIEW CIRCLE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held April 15, 1998 with the following Board members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Paul Valaskagis and Michael Ward. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 Variances from side setback to allow a garage to be constructed for the property located at 22 Bay View 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: I . The petitioner, Fir . Brian Gideon, represented himself. 2. A plan showing the proposed garage was presented to the board. 3 . There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows : 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general . 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 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. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF BRIAN AND CHERYL GIDEON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22 BAY VIEW CIRCLE (R-1) page two 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and safety shall be strictly adhered to. d . A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variances Granted April 15, 1998 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 9 � N O CJ 7 L'� N C� W I 3 CO ' t of 06 6 06 Yn '98 3 'oQ S p02ICa of ,�Aupenl CITY Of" S1,Lf.M. MASS CI i:RK'S OI 1"1 C r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JANET M. SIMMONS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27 BELLEAU ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held March 18, 1998 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 a Special Permit to allow a second floor addition and to close in a carport located at the rear of the structure for the property located at 27 Belleau 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 was represented by Attorney Henry Lucas, 133 Washington Street in Salem. 2. Petitioner seeks relief to enlarge the structure (raise the structure) . 3. There will be no change to the footprint of the property. 4. The increase in height will be 9 feet to the structure. 5. Enclosure to the carport will be to the lot line. • 6. Chester & Alice Kohn, 30 Belleau Road appeared and spoke in favor. n DECISION OF JANET M. SIMMONS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27 BELLEAU ROAD R-1 page two .• On the basis of the above findings of fact, and 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. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED March 18, 1998 Paul Valaskagis, Member Board of Appeal DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JANET M. SIMMONS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27 BELLEAU ROAD page three A COPY OF THIS' DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK, Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title Board of Appeal • • °�. (91ty of ttlem, ussttcliuse##s ' �uttra of ,�kppett! SEP I Ii 33 AH 198 CITY OF SALEM. MASS Cl.[:HK'S OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARTIN & JAYNE BOTTICELLI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 BELLEVIEW AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held August 19, 1998 with the following Board members present: Ronald Harrison, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 setback to construct an addition for the property located at 24 Belleview Avenue 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 . The petition was presented by Martin Botticelli . 2. The petitioner is removing a 6 x 24' porch to construct a 14x24 2 story addition with a gable roof. By doing this the petitioner will leave 9' to the property line therefore needing a variance. 3. Leonard O'Leary, Ward 4, Councillor was present to speak in favor of the petition. 4 . There were no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. • 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from . the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARTIN b JAYNE BOTTICELLI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 BELLEVIEW AVENUE R-1 • page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 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. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . The petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted • August 19, 1998 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 ctheAouth Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owne :�f c&cord or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.f-o c, Board of Appeal o w a m a S N N co • Tito of "ittlem, Aussad usetts q I T 10 33 Art '98 • Paurb oCI f �"r CTY Of SALfH. HASS CLERK'S OFI"ICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GOLDENEYE CORPORATION REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 BLANEY STREET B-1 A hearing on this petition was held July 15, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko 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 from front, side and rear yard setbacks for the property located at 10 Blaney Street located in a B-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 oY fact: 1 . Petitioner, Goldeneye Corporation, a new owner of the property, was represented by Attorney Joseph Correnti of Salem. 2. The petitioner seeks a variance for front, side and rear yard setbacks for the property located at 10 Blaney Street to reestablish the historical lot lines for the dwelling house located on the property. 3. The subject property is located in the B-1 District and contains a structure with (5) dwelling units. 4. In 1964, this lot, along with (4) other contiguous parcels, was acquired and continuously held by a single owner. Thereafter, the lots merged for zoning purposes. The stated purpose of reestablishing the dwelling house lot is so that the owner may be able to treat it separately for the purpose of management and financing. 5. There are no proposed changes to the footprint of the building and the new owner intends to invest in and upgrade the property. 6. Several neighbors of the subject property attended the hearing, • including Michael McLaughlin and Claudia Chuber, and made inquiries regarding the nature of the requested variance. No opposition to the petition was presented. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GOLDENEYE CORPORATION REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 BLANEY STREET B-1 page two • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. 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 approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. Variance Granted ` LQ _ • July 15, 1998 �% / CScr� Stephen Buczko, 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. k. Board of Appeal o w� N r C O 1 W Z W a �x a • m a N N co of �$nfrni, HttSSttcl _Yus�',� 8 FFICE A i • °', Poura of '�Appeal ,IM NOV I9 All: 11 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LOUISE & JOSEPH FAVAllA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 BOARDMAN STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held November 18, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 expand a non-conforming structure to add a dormer. Petitioners plan to change the third floor of their home, which presently is used as attic space, to provide room for family members who will be moving to their residence. They propose to raise the roof but still be will within the allowance granted under the code. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other land, buildings, or structures in the same district. • 2 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The petitioners represented themselves . 2. The petitioners presented plans of the proposed dormer addition. 3. There was no opposition to the plans. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LOUISE & JOSEPH FAVAllA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 BOARDMAN STREET R-2 page two • 3 . Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harureny with �7 the existing structure. m z r � M Variance Granted o � n • November 18, 1998 �C✓ry n /1 /lG�/J2 ( ��� ' or-. Ronald Harrison, Member Zia Board of Appeal 77 m J D A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 • JUN 19 1010 AH '98 fQit� of '�$tzlem' �IaSSUC44!00RSALEM• MASS a CLERK'S OFFICE • `'> Paurb of '�kpreal DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL ROBINSON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 BOSTON STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward, Ronald Harrison 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 Variances for a Change of Use from a paint and wall paper store to a retail computer and electronics store which will provide sales and services of a number of electronic devices. 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, financi*l or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the • public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The petition represented himself. 2. Petitioner will sell and services a variety of electronic goods, primarily computers, facsimile machines, printers, and other communication devices. 3. Petitioner will employ from three to five employees. 4 . Petitioner will make no structural changes to the building. 5. There was no opposition to the request for variance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. . 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL ROBINSON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 BOSTON STREET R-2 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: — .- 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. Variance Granted June 17, 1998 • Ronald Harrison, 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 • CITY ILERKA 'S OFFICE (gitg of �ittlem, �fflttssttcljusetts Pourb of (1kppral 1998 DEC -1 P 2: 41 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 44-60 BOSTON STREET A hearing on this Detition was held November 18, 1998 and continued to December 2, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 reouesting on Lot A, Variance for use and dimensional requirements in a buffer zone in a BPD district, Lot B, Variance from relief on buffer zone requirements for the property located at 44-60 Boston Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other land, buildings, or structures in the same district. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship; financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence _presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioner has an agreement to purchase a site at 60 Boston Street consisting of 3.2 acres of undeveloped land formerly used by Osram Sylvania in association with their electric light business . This site is zoned for Business Park Development (BPD) under the City of Salem Zoning Map. 2 . Petitioner, who was represented by Joseph Correnti, Esq. , of Serafini , Serafini 5 Darling. sought three variances from the zoning ordinance. The most highly contested variance was the request to develop a retail drugstore on a 1 .81 acre lot at the southeast edge of the site, with frontage on Boston St. and Bridge St. Petitioner also sought variances to enable the proposed drugstore and a second proposed structure, a 3 story office building, to be built fifty feet from the rear property line, which is within a mandated 75 foot buffer zone. 3. Petitioner met with the Federal Street Neighborhood Association on or about October 13, 1998. At that meeting, following a presentation on petitioner's proposal , the neighborhood association elected to oppose the application. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 44-60 BOSTON STREET ' page two 4 . The Zoning Board of Appeals heard arguments on Kennedy Development's petition at its regular meeting on November 18, 1998. At that meeting the Board requested additional information regarding the issue of the traffic impact of the drugstore on traffic flow on Boston and Bridge St. Petitioner agreed to continue the hearing on the Detition in order to present an analysis of traffic impact, and a second hearing the Board was scheduled for December 2, 1998. 5. At the December 2, 1998 hearing, Bruce Campbell of Transportation Engineers 6 Planners, presented an analysis of the proposed development's traffic impact. The architect presented rendering of the proposed structures, including elevation drawings . The developer, Tom Kennedy, was also present. 6. With respect to the legal issues, petitioner argued that the existence of a retail zone on the southern side of the property (across Boston St) and of a residential zone on the Dropertv line to the southeast creates a situation that would make literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance a hardship. The Board made no finding on the issue. 7. Vigorous opposition accompanied both presentation before the Board. The Board heard critical comment from more that 45 Salem residents. including 3 members of the City Council (Two City Councillors, Regina Flynn and Scott McLaughlin were strongly opposed, Joan Lovely, explained that due to a conflict she was unable to take a _position) . 8 . Residents voiced concern about the impact of the proposed retail use of traffic flow through the intersection of Boston and Bridge Sts. (which is currently rated at a Level of Service F. according to Mr. . Campbell, the traffic expert) , the impact of additional spill-over traffic on adjacent street, including Federal St. , the failure to explore alternate sites, the impact on Droperty values within the he historic district adjacent to tsite, the impact of a low-end use upon a site that is in the entrance corridor to the City of Salem, the failure to adhere to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, the failure to adhere to the City of Salem Master Plan, the impact of the proposed development upon planned state-funded improvements to the Bridge Street corridor, the presence of several other drugstores, including a planned Walgreen's across Boston Street, the absence of demand for additional such stores, and the precedential value of "soot zoning" . 9. The Board also received a petition in opposition to the proposed development, signed by 25 Salem residents. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence Dresented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subiect Drooertv 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. -e m� ren �o C J or �r1 _03 N c*�3 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 44-60 BOSTON STREET page three On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented • at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 to grant the variance requested, subiect to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having Jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 7. Applications for building permits on Lot A and Lot B shall be Dulled simultaneouslv. 8. Hours of operation for drug store use shall be Monday thru Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 D.m. • Variance Granted December 2, 1998 /a/ CS C Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ADDeal 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 Cit_v Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11 , the Variance or Special Fermit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Reeistry 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 Aooeal m rn o n �cP N y Olitg of "ittlem, �1assadjusetts 3 "> Puurb of C�Freul J0 30 3 00 PJd '98 AMENDED ' C11 Y 01' SALEM, MASS CL.1'11K'S OFFICF DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SUNCOR DEVELOPMENT OF MASS, L.P. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 45-53 BOSTON STREET, 59 BOSTON STREET, 3 POPE STREET AND 15 PROCTOR STREET R-3/B-2 A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward, Ronald Harrison 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 from parking requirements, to allow curb cuts in excess of 30 ft. from minimum parking aisle width of 24 ft, also a request for a Variance to allow a parking lot in an R3 district and a Variance from parking requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 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 Suncor Development of Mass. L.P. was represented by Bernard F. Shadrawy, Esq. of 15 Broad Street, Boston. 2. The subject property is a former industrial site located both in a B-2 zoning district and in an R-3 district. Ledge covers a portion of the property, and substantial changes in grade also restrict building on the site. Petitioner proposes to demolish existing structures and clean up the hazardous conditions that currently affect the site to enable a proposed Walgreen's drug store to be built thereon. 3. Petitioner requests four different variances. Petitioner seeks a parking variance to offer off-street parking for 63 cars instead of the required 81 . Secondly, because the proposed project has entrance/exit drives on three roadways, petitioner also seeks variances from width requirements for three planned curb cuts. One of the curb cuts falls within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District; for this curb cut petitioner requests a variance form the 24 ft. maximum width specific to such districts. For the other two curb cuts, petitioner seeks de minimus variances from the 30 ft. maximum width. • 4 . The third variance is for aisle widths within the parking lot which do not the minimum requirement in two places. The fourth variance is to allow five accessory parking spaces in the R-3 zone that is on the Pope St. side of the property. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SUNCOR DEVELOPMENT OF MASS, L.P. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 45-53 BOSTON STREET, 59 BOSTON STREET, 3 POPE STREET AND 15 PROCTOR STREET R-3/B-2 page three '. 8. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 9 . Petitioner will cause to be erected or marker, whichever is appropriate, a permanent historical marker noting the Great Salem Fire originated near this site. The marker must provide detail as to the date, significance of the fire on this city's rich history as to acreage destroyed, persons displaced, and total financial impact at the time. The description must be approved by a local historian familiar with details of the fire. And lastly, after set in place, the marker must be kept free of obstruction by landscaping, ect. that would keep it from being noticed by passerby. Variance Granted r June 17, 1998 lq� ld wAle ((( Ronald Harrison, 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 z r o O r ^' o •s T' -o • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SUNCOR DEVELOPMENT OF MASS, LP.P REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 45-53 BOSTON ST. , 59 BOSTON STREET, 3 POPE STREET AND 15 PROCTOR STREET R-3/B-2 page two 5. In support of their request, petitioner stated that, with the addition of drive-through prescription pickup windows, it is anticipated that parking needs will be adequately met by the proposed 63 space lot. Aisle widths are dictated by the requirements of truck access and traffic flow; one of the narrow spots occurs at the corner of the lot nearest to the ledge outcropping. Petitioner further stated that the plan for the reuse of this site will be reviewed by the Planning Board at an upcoming meeting, and that it would be willing to modify hour of business operation in accordance with community wishes. 6. Speaking in opposition, Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street and Betsy Burns of 22 Beckford St. stated that the proposed parking variance would reduce available parking on the site by nearly a third of the required amount, that parking in that sector can be very tight, and that increased traffic at the intersection of Pope and Boston Street would be very detrimental to traffic flow in the City. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. • 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2 . All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visible from • the street. r, ` ^0 0 a-+ r o �3 0 r = r+�s JUL 1 3 oe PN '98 (Ilii of "Salem, ttsstttlWe is s ITY OF SALEM. MASS • Paura Of �"eaf CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN C. JEFFERS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 164-166 BOSTON STREET (I) A hearing on this petition was held July 15, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko 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 to subdivide lot lA into lA & 1B, at 164-166 Boston Street and Variance from front, rear, and side setbacks to re-create a non-conforming 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 . Petitioner, John C. Jeffers was represented by Leonard Berkal, Esq. , sought dimensional variances for front, rear and side setbacks for the above property, on which an existing residential multifamily home has stood for many years. 2. As a result of a recent property transfer of a portion of the petitioner's property, petitioner's lot became merged into the remainder of the property, which is commercial. Petitioner sought variances to allow the existing nonconforming residential property to be served from the rest of the property. 3. 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. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN C. JEFFERS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 164-166 BOSTON 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: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. Variance Granted / CSC J July 15, 1998 Nina Cohen, 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 Nr^ co N N • of ,�$tzlem, �fflttssadjusetts • Pourb of (�ppeAAR 16 1113 AM '98 CITY Of' SALFM. MASS CIfRK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH SKOMURSKI REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 156 BRIDGE STREET (R2/I) A hearing on this petition was held April 15,1998 with the following Board Members were present: 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 petitioner's Attorney, Stephen Lovely, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 4-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a Special Permit to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling for the property located at 156 Bridge Street. Granted leave to withdraw without prejudice. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE • April 15, 1998 Nina Cohen Board of Appeal COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. Appeal from this decision,if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the 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 oftzlem, ttssttcllusPtts • 3oQ� ' �3uttra of ��eul J4/128 2 44 carr n,. P 98 11 �� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANTHONY GATTINERI TRUSTEE C�'REII6SQII#,,4fpS SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 142 CANAL STREET (I) A hearing on this petition was held January 21, 1998 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 Special Permit to allow a self-storage warehouse and a Variance from parking for the property located at 142 Canal 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 was represented by George W. Atkins of 59 Federal St. 2. Petitioner requests to withdraw the Variance from parking without prejudice. 3. Petitioner sought a Special Permit to allow the building at 142 Canal Street to be used for a self-storage warehouse business containing up to 150 storage units, which is a retail use. 4 . Petitioner explained the proposed use would operate during normal business hours, and would increase traffic to the site by not more than 150 visits per month during normal business hours, and would enable some of the unused floor space within the building to be utilized. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANTHONY GATTINERI, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR' THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 142 CANAL STREET page two • 5. In opposition to the proposed relief, Mr. John Costa of 104A Lafayette Street stated that the proposed use does not fit the neighborhood, and that 150 storage units would be too much €br `die site. z On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence- presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: `)y N 1 . The Special Permit requested can be granted withoutsubstantlal� detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantiially= derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of theme ordinance. v+ ao 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and may be granted in harmony with the neighborhood. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0 to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per 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 . A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED January 21 , 1998 Nina Cohen Board of Appeal DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANTHONY GATTINERI REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 290 CANAL 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 n c... x. N R I� I 3 • N m • r• CtV of ,,Sttlrni, tttliusetts ' Pourb of �Fpezd MAY 21 6 16 P71 '98 e� C1Y Of' SALI'M, MASS CIJAIK'S Of FICF DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GARNDER MATTRESS, INC.REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 254 CANAL STREET (I) A hearing on this petition was held May 20, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward, Ronald Harrison and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 Variances on rear setback to allow new enclosure of a loading dock for the property located at 254 Canal Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other land, buildings, or structures in the same district. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. • 3 . Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The petitioner was represented by John R. Kielty, Esq. 2 . A plan for the enclosed loading dock, which is to join the older, established Gardner Mattress Co. building with a newly constructed building, was presented. 3. It was noted that a prior variance dated October 25, 1996, allowed for a 6 foot rear setback for the new building. a . The 3 foot rear setback that is requested by the petitioner would jut into an unused railroad spur which is currently being prepared as part of the city's new bike path. 5. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property • and not the district in general . 2 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GARNDER MATTRESS, INC REQUESTING A VARIANCE • FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 254 CANAL STREET (I) page two 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2 . All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6 . Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • 7 . A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board and Historic Commission. 'Variance Granted May 20, 1998 Ronald Harrison, 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 CjC ERK S0CE� FAA (�itv of �ttlem, �ttss�zcljusetfs ' a e Pottrb of A Fpenl 1998 OEC 23 P is 38 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CANAL STREET SERVICES, INC.REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 290 CANAL STREET B-2 A hearing on this petition was held December 16, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen;Chairman, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko and Stephen Harris . Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow a mixed use with a maximum 8 car capacity for rental, leasing and sale of cars for the property 290 Canal 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 was represented by Steven Bornstein, Trustee for the JEDS Realty Trust of Peabody. 2. Petitioner sought a special permit to allow the property to be used for the purpose of selling no more than 6 used cars. Presently he operates a gas station\mini mart with a car wash and a car rental and leasing business on the site. The car rental and leasing business was permitted by this Board under a decision issued in March 19998. 3. Petitioner stated that he has applied to the Licensing Board for a used car lot permit, but was told that the permit could not be • considered until the Zoning Board issued a special permit for a used car business on the site.. DECISION OF CANAL STREET SERVICES, INC REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 290 CANAL STREET page two • 4. The Variance was withdrawn without prejudice. 5. There was no opposition to the special permit. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and 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 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 Licensing Board. 5. Hours of operation shall not extend past 9:00 p.m. Special Permit Granted December 16, 1998 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal r; o M. rn �p N Vim W I> o r- nrn rn. m 3 W D 00 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CANAL STREET SERVICES, INC. REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 290 CANAL 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 GOA 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 owners Certificate of Title Board of Appeal • rn 0 n ;K N W O D D nrn rn� c�• rn� w D • of inlem, 'ffinfleadlusetts oara of eal XAR B 10 12 IM , DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CANAL STREET SERVICES REQUESTING ACIIY 1' AL rM. AASg SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 290 CANAL STREET (B-2' 11 W S O3FKr A hearing on this petition was held March 18, 1998 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 a Special Permit to allow the lease and rental of-automobiles for the property located at 290 Canal 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 Steven Bornstein represented himself. 2. A plan for proposed parking and storage of a maximum of 8 vehicles was presented to the board. 3. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and 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. 0 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CANAL STREET SERVICES REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 290 CANAL STREET B-2 page two • 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested wilbppr&oQ 6Qeqh ,96 public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City' s inhabitants and may be granted in harmony with the nCgbbL0r110,0d"4. MASS CI.CRK'S OFFICE Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall stripe parking lot as shown in plans. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . A maximum of 8 vehicles to be stored on sight. 5. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED March 18, 1998 • Richard E. 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 MCL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification .of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title Board of Appeal of "ittlem, dMussadjusetts ' a • Pnxra of �{�real Sp ZZ 2 33 F "SO CITY OF SALEM. MASS CI. fRK'S OFI'ICF. AMENDED DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITION OF JAMES NICHOLSON&ALBERT BUSSINK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 CARPENTER STREET R2 A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen,Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward, Ronald Harrison, 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 requested a Variance to construct 5 dwelling units in the former Newhall Nursing Home located in an R2 zone for the property located at 7 Capenter Street. The requested Variance could 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 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, made the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner seeks a use variance to convert the property at 7 Carpenter Street into five units of condominium housing. The former use for the property was nonconforming: it had operated for many years as a nursing home. Petitioner also seeks relief from dimensional requirements regulating minimum lot area and number of dwelling units on one lot. 2. Conversion of the property, which is located within the McIntyre Historic District District, would require no change to the existing footprint of the building, and . existing parking arrangements are adequate for the proposed units. AMENDED DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONE NICHOLSON &ALBERT BUSSINK REQUESTING A VARIANEFORU ,98 PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 CARPENTER STREET R 2 CI r r of SA1. K MASS C11*PWS OFFICE Page two 3. Speaking in support of the proposed plan were Betsy Bums of 22 Beckford Street, Carol Dearborn of 12 Carpenter Street, Cynthia Duda of 4 Carpenter Street, Gay Goudreau of 4 Gifford Court, Dr. Peter Janney and Carol Janney of 12 Carpenter Street, Dr. Chris Munkholm of 12 Gifford Court, Dick Pabich of 31 Essex Street, and Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street. They stated their belief that the proposed use was an improvement over the previous grandfathered use as a nursing home because it would entail less traffic and would introduce homeownership where there was previously none. Additional arguments made by the petitioners' supporters were that the change from the allowed use would likely increase the value of their properties, and that the vacant building is detrimental to the neighborhood. 4. Among those speaking in opposition to the petition was Kimberly Russell of 5 Carpenter Street,who stated that the proposed condominium project would introduce non-owner occupancy to a street which is predominantly owner • occupied. She also stated her belief that the presence of the condominium project would decrease the value of her property by increasing the density of residential development on the street. 5. Other neighbors in opposition were John Carr, 7 River Street, Kathleen Karydis of 8 Carpenter Street, Ann LeBlanche, a Trustee of 3 Carpenter Street, Lytle and Barbara Smith, Trustees of 10 Carpenter Street, and Thomas Turner of 5 Carpenter Street. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concluded 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 substantial 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 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: • SBP 13 3 AMENDED DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITION OF S PadSS NICHOLSON & ALBERT BUSSINK REQUESTING A VARIANT tt E PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 CARPENTER STREET R 2 Page three 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 dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Historic Commission. • 7. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. On July 16, 1998, the decision of the Board of Appeals was appealed pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40A, Section 17, by Kathleen A. Karydis, Kimberley A. Russell, Lytle C. Smith, Jr., and Barbara M. Smith, plaintiffs in Superior Court Civil Action No. 98-1346C (the "Appeal") as to which James Nicholson, Albert Bussink, and the Salem Massachusetts Board of Appeal consisting of Nina V. Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Vice Chairman,Michael Ward, Richard Dionne, and Paul Valaskatgis were named as defendants. The Appeal has been terminated by Agreement for Judgment executed by all parties to the Appeal and duly filed with the Superior Court, by which Agreement for Judgment, all parties have agreed and acknowledged that the number of dwelling units to be permitted at the premises known as 7 Carpenter Street shall be limited to four rather than the originally requested five. In accordance with the terms of the Agreement for Judgment, the original variance decision is hereby amended as follows: a. the permitted number of dwelling units is hereby reduced from 5 to 4; and • b. the second condition to the granting of the variance with respect to construction being done "as per the plans and dimensions submitted" shall be • AMENDED DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITION OF JA1*Z3 3 09 Ai '98 NICHOLSON & ALBERT BUSSINK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 CARPENTER STREET R-2 CITY O F Sa Lr.H. MASS Q1:RK'S OFFICE deleted and the following substituted in place thereof: "All construction shall be done in accordance with plans submitted as said plans shall be revised to reduce the number of dwelling units from 5 to 4." Variance Granted "G Csc � June 17, 1998 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • • of �Sttlem, �Nagsarljusetrs Q Poura of �Fpeaf ja 3 circ r DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JAMES NICHOLSON & ALBERT BUSSINK REq rA s4. � A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 CARPENTER STREET R2 ®7,J-icr RASS A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward, Ronald Harrison 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 construct 5 dwelling units in the former Newhall Nursing Home located in an R2 zone for the property located at 7 Carpenter Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other land, buildings, or structures in the same district. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the • intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioner seeks a use variance to convert the property at 7 Carpenter Street into five units of condominium housing. The former use for the property was nonconforming: it had operated for many years as a nursing home. Petitioner also seeks relief from dimensional requirements regulating minimum lot area and number of dwelling units on one lot. 2. Conversion of the property, which is located within the McIntyre Historic District, would require no change to the existing footprint of the building, and existing parking arrangements are adequate for the proposed units. 3. Speaking in support of the proposed plan were Betsy Burns of 22 Beckford St. , Carol Dearborn of 12 Carpenter St. , Cynthia Duda of 4 Carpenter St. , Gay Goudreau of 4 Gifford Ct. , Dr. Peter Janney and Carol Janney of 12 Carpenter St, Dr. Chris Munkholm of 12 Gifford Ct. , Dick Pabich of 31 Essex St. and Meg Twohey of 122 Federal St. and Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street. They stated their belief that the proposed use was an improvement over the previous, grandfathered use as a nursing home because it would entail less traffic and would introduce homeownership where there was previously none. Additional arguments made by the petitioner's supporters were that the change from the allowed use would likely increase the value of their properties, and that the vacant building is detrimental to the neighborhood. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JAMES NICHOLSON & ALBERT BUSSINK REGARDING VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 CARPENTER STREET R2 page two 4 . Among those speaking in opposition to the petition was Kimberly Russell j• of 5 Carpenter St. , who stated that the proposed condominium project would introduce non-owner occupancy to a street which is predominantly owner occupied. She also stated her belief that the presence of the condominium project would decrease the value of her property by increasing the density of residential development on the street. 5. Other neighbors in opposition were John Carr, 7 River St. , Kathleen Karydis of 8 Carpenter St. , Ann LeBlanche, a Trustee of 3 Carpenter St. , Lytle and Barbara Smith, Trustees of 10 Carpenter St. , and Thomas Turner of 5 Carpenter Street. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: • 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Historic Commission. 7. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted June 17, 1998 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • ^ 0 0 a� N� W or o �= r ,s a rn n tn ca w, m DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JAMES NICHOLSON & ALBERT BUSSINK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 CARPENTER 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 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< p O� ty �.r.- „Z t CITY OF SALEM. MA aitq Of �szlle tj H2ISS2itIIliSPtISERK'S OFFICE i • ''Q Pottra of ' pFvenl 1998 DEC - I P 2: 00 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EDWARD J.CONNICK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2A CLARK STREET EXTENSION R-1 A hearing on this petition was held November 18, 1998. with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 1001to 79.92' frontage on lot 2A to construct a single family dwelling for the property located at 2A Clark Street Extension. 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 his son, Joseph Connick. 2. The petitioner is requesting a variance from frontage to build a single family dwelling. 3. There was no opposition to this petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant • the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EDWARD C. CONNICK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2A CLARK STREET EXTENSION page two • 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5 . Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors office and shall display said numbers so as to be visible from the street. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board and Conservation Commission. Variance Granted (gG \ November 18, 1998 1'jf ll ii,'rIJW, ,,_�, ",J1 Nina Cohen, 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. M C'J Board of Appeal m — r� o m rn Z}O n g�"Tl V)N CDD r N n� .. m3 C) D • o °�. Ctg of ttlem, ttssttcllusetts • Pourb of c Fveal JA1$ 5 3Q n is DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT & JACQUELINE TARNOWSKI REQUftIf21n S41:M, 14ASS A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CROSBY STREET R-1 C'"0S .OFFICF A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward, Ronald Harrison 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 from lot area and lot width for the property located at 10 Crosby Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other land, buildings, or structures in the same district. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. • The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioner was represented at the hearing by Attorney George W. Atkins,III of Salem, Mass. 2 . The petitioner's requested had been continued from the May 20, 1998 hearing. 3. The lot is owned by Crosby Realty Trust, Theresa M. Bedard is the Trustee. 4. The lot was legally subdivided in 1985, and the Variance from lot area was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Because of time statutes, Variance for both lot area and lot width must be requested. 5. The subject property sits in a one family residential district (R-1) , and the requested relied is necessary when one applies lot area and lot width restrictions. 6. Variance has been requested in order to allow the construction of a one family residence. 7 . Mr. & Mrs. Tarnowski, son-in law and daughter of Theresa M. Bedard, intend to reside in the proposed one family residence. • 8. Mr. Atkins presented plans for the proposed residence. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT & JACQUELINE TARNOWSKI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CROSBY STREET page two 9 . Mr. & Mrs. Tarnowski sent a letter to neighbors to disclose their plans, -• which included blasting as part of the construction. The Petitioner also conducted a meeting with all concerned abutters and neighbors to discuss their plans. 10. At the May 20, 1998 hearing, Richard Callahan, 14 Verdon St. , Joe Melin, 15 Verdon St. , John Rooney, 3 Crosby St. , Steve Levesque, 16 Verdon St. , Richard Deschamps, 15 Crosby St. and Kevin Barry, 11 Crosby St. all expressed concerns about the blasting of the land. 11. At the June 17, 1998 hearing, Theresa Bedard, 17 Verdon St, and Penny Hewitt, 18 Verdon St. appeared and spoke in favor of the petition. Richard Dechamps, 15 Crosby St. also appeared and spoke in favor of the petition and withdrew his concerns about the blasting. 12. At the June 17, 19998 hearing there was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from • the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 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. 3 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. S. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. A pre-blast survey must be conducted. _ Variance Granted /q /� June 17, 1998 //� ren—) Michael Ward, Member Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT & JACQUELINE TARNOWSKI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CROSBY 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 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 • (gity ofttlem, ttssttcljuseffs Paurb of 3 .29 Cil r r, r ri I-P%X,sLo7`SHF ss DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID & LINDA JEPSON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30 CUSHING STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held August 19, 1998 with the following Board members present: Ronald Harrison, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from front and side setbacks to add a second floor addition for the property located at 30 Cushing Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other land, buildings, or structures in the same district. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the • public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The petitioners, David & Linda Jepson, are owners of the property located at 30 Cushing Street. The petition was presented by David Jepson. 2. The petitioners seek a variance for front and side setbacks for the property located at 30 Cushing Street in order to construct a second floor addition to their home. 3. The subject property is located in a R-1 District. 4 . Mr. Jepson presented the Board with three letter in support of the project from neighbors Sarah T. David, 27 Cushing Street, John Fraczek, 29 Cushing Street and John & Sheila Stamatopolus of 26 Cushing Street. 5. The petitioner's family is growing, and the additional living space is necessary in the residence. 6. No opposition to the petition was presented. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. DECISION OF DAVID & LINDA JEPSON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30 CUSHING STREET R-1 page two 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would • involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 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. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . The petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 3. 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 of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted August 19 , 1998 CSC Stephen Buczko, 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 ctv of 6sulem, �fflussarllusetts • Paurb of �} eal SEP Z3 2 33 PH '98 CITY OF SALEM, MASS Ct "K'S OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LAURA SHAPLAND REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 64 DEARBORN STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held September 16, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 setback to construct an addition for the property located at 64 Dearborn Street 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. The petition was presented by Laura Shapland. 2. Petitioner sought a variance for side setback requirements to enable her to renovate the above-captioned property by adding a single story addition in an existing nonconforming two story building. The addition would extend the overall length of the dwelling by 14 feet and would be 6 feet from the property line for the entire length. 3. Petitioner offered a petition signed by 12 neighbors in support of the proposed renovation. One neighbor, Sandra Cahill, 40 Felt Street, spoke in support of the petition. 4. There were no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property • and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LAURA SHAPLAND REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 64 DEARBORN STREET R-1 page two 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to • public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per 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 . The petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. • Variance Granted September 16, 1998 /j2v L Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. � y Board of Appeal o ^, .cn O r Lt O '117 L • y y Ctu of Salem, {` ttssadjusetts • 3oQ 9 Potts of �Au{�eul HGR 13 2 09 CIIy Of SALCM. MASS CI.CRK'S Of FICF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LOUIS J. KARLBERG REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 285 DERBY STREET (B-5) A hearing on this petition was held March 18, 1998 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 petitioner, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a Special Permit to allow a natural discovery museum-"Micro Zoo" for the property located at 285 Derby Street. Granted leave to withdraw without prejudice. • GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE March 18, 1998 Gary Barrett, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEE14 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 CITY OF SALEM. MA of "JttleM, Cffl IC�j1ISeffB CLERK'S OFFICE Pnnra of �kppenl 1996 DEC 2U A la 13 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JACOB LEVON, TRUST REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 298-300 ESSEX STREET B-5 A hearing on this petition was held December 16, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen;Chairman, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko and Stephen Harris. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and 'others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert existing office space to an apartment for the property located at 298-300 Essex Street. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows : Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such • _; change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The petitioner was represented by Eling Flack. 2. A plan showing a 1 bedroom, 1100 square foot apartment was presented to the board. 3. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and 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 OF THE PETITION OF JACOB LEVON, TRUST REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 298-300 ESSEX STREET page two • 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. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5 . Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. • - 8. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering for the City of Salem Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 9. The trust to continue to lease 3 parking spaces, so as to make a total of 18 parking spaces for the building. Special Permit Granted December 16, 1998 Richard Dionne Board of Appeal c-� M T L N (>>Lo .C7 O L C)r- A �M C-) E5 rn 3 _ D W • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JACOB LEVON, TRUST REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 298-300 ESSEX STREET B5 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 owners Certificate of Title Board of Appeal e C—? m Co N viy o r- D -n n• a m:, w • '�.. Olity of �$ttlem, �Ettssarllusetts Pours of �Fpenl S&1/ 2 OS P 038•, a+ra CITY 0l' , J1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ERIC HOLLAND & STEVE BUHLER REQUESTING A F"?CFS SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 328 ESSEX STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held September 16, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Ronald Harrison and Michael Ward. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 in accordance with Section 5-3(j ) ,8-6, and 9-4 for interior alterations of a nonconforming structure and change of a nonconforming use from a six (6) family residence to one (1) owner occupied residence with either eight (8) guest rooms for hire as a bed and breakfast. Fourteen (14) vehicle parking spaces are provided on the site as shown on plans submitted to the board. In accordance with Section 5-3 (j ) , the change of use requested is not more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing six (6) family use. In addition, the Special Permit may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the • zoning ordinance, as required by Section 8-6. Further, since the use as changed (1) will not depart from the intent of the zoning ordinance, (2) will not depart from the prior degree of use as a six (6) family residential structure, and (3) will unreasonably increase the prior nonconforming use in volume or area, the Board is authorized in accordance with Section 9-4 (b) to grant a Special Permit. 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. • s DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ERIC HOLLAND & STEVEN BUHLER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 328 ESSEX STREET R-2 page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The petitioners were represented by Attorney George Atkins. 2. Architect Staley McDermet of Salem, representing the petitioners, displayed architectural drawings as to what was intended with the property, a large Federal-style mansion originally constructed in 1818 and remodeled in 1888. 3. A letter was read from H.B. and J. Peabody of 6 Federal Court in favor of this petition but with several conditions that were suggested. 4. In addition, two letters in opposition were received from Christine Connelly of 346 Essex St, and Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Griffin of 14 Beckford Street. 5. An additional letter, from the Salem Historical Commission, Helen Sides, chairwoman, stressed that if the board approved the petition, the petitioners must still meet and gain approval from the commission. 6. Speaking in favor of the petition and attending the meeting were Dale Yale, 153 Federal St. , Sarah Smith, 17 High St. , Julie Tache, 22 Shore Ave. , who identified herself as the real estate broker of the property, and Thomas Kovac of 333 Essex Street. • 7. Fourteen members of the neighborhood group, along with Ward 2 Councillor Regina Flynn and Ward 3 Councillor, Joan Lovely, spoke in opposition to the petition. Those residents speaking in opposition were: William Burns, 22 Beckford St. , John Kelly, 3 Cambridge St, Peter Kempthorne, 7 Botts Ct. , John Carr, 7 River St. ,Diane Williams, 342 Essex St. , Williams Gunther, 365 Essex St. , Diane McBride, 330 Essex St. , John Fifield, 43 Chestnut St. , John Bedell, 6 Cambridge St. , James Carney, 1 1/2 Cambridge St. , Tim Clark, 361 Essex St, Jeremiah Burns, 15 Chestnut St. O.Palmer Sweeker, 380 Essex St.and Peter Merry, 8 Botts Court. 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. n rn m OK N o,-r YO Ln r;2 rnn N � N m DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ERIC HOLLAND & STEVE BUHLER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 328 ESSEX STREET R-3 page 3 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 2 in favor, and 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 September 16, 1998 Ronald Harrison 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 cli N K a_ v> N r O.^ p �2 Vt M 2 ma N m • Ctu of "'521lem, �Kttssarljusetts ' Paurb of j1 51 Ch X98 CliRK'S 01V CE C, � SS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DONALD L. HODGEMAN ET.AL . FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 376 ESSEX STREET The prior decision of the Board of Appeal dated March 20 , 1996 , filed under the City Clerk' s Office on April 3 , 1998 , as amended by an undated Amendment filed with the City Clerk ' s Office on May 24 , 1996, is hereby further amended in compliance with the Judgment of the Land Court dated June 1 , 1998 in David et. al . v. Touchette et . al . , • Miscellaneous Case No. 227758 , (hereinafter "Judgment" ) , a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference , as follows : 1 . The decision of the Building Inspector/Salem Zoning Enforcement Officer to issue a building permit with regard to the property at 376 Essex Street is reversed to the extent necessary to comply with the Judgment. 2 . The Building Inspector/Salem Zoning Enforcement Officer is instructed that any occupancy permit for the property at 376 Essex Street must be issued in accordance with the Judgment and must be made available for review by the City Solicitor to ensure that the Certificate of Occupancy is so conditioned. D \ Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS LAND COURT 19 DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT CITy OF CLLRK'SL55 OFFICE Miscellaneous Case No. 227758 JOHN F. DAVIS,Jr., ALYCE M. DAVIS, STEVEN K. GREGORY, MARY KATHRYN BRATUN, PALMER SWECKER,and ELMA SWECKER, Plaintiffs VS. STEPHEN TOUCHETTE,GARY BARRETT, NINA COHEN, ALBERT HILL, and JOSEPH YWUC, AS THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SALEM, LEO E. TREMBLAY,AS HE IS THE INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS AND ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE CITY OF SALEM,and LINDA W.NICHOLS, AS SHE IS THE • SOLE TRUSTEE OF CHARTER TRUST, Defendants dli�S�ll�l�ttT This action was tried and a decision of today's date was rendered. In accordance with that decision it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that use of the property at 376 Essex Street, Salem, in the manner indicated by the plans submitted with the application for building permit 430-1995 (exhibit 5 in this action), or use of the property in the manner indicated by the"as- built"plans submitted at trial,would be a substantial change in the nonconforming use of the property; and it is finther ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any certificate of occupancy for the property must indicate that only one physician may practice medicine at locus and that that physician must reside at the property at least three week-day nights a week,two Friday nights a month and one Saturday night a month, vacations and emergencies excepted; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is remanded to the board of • appeals so that it may render a decision reversing the determination of the building inspector to the extent necessary to comply with this judgment and instructing the building inspector that any • occupancy permit for the property must be in accordance with thisj L3 ell 19 P� 99 By the Court. (Kilbom, C.J.) CITY 01' SALEM. MASS CLI'll K'S 0FFICF. Attest: Charles W. Trombly, Jr. Recorder DATED: June 1, 1998 A'rTFSTt 4��� "" i�`� ° ' naf n�ncp • • of "'4ttlem, C�fflttssarhusetts • .` " �'9 Paura of CAIEP L3 II 19 PI1158 CITY OF SALrM-CIERK'S OFFICESS AMENDMENT TO THE DECISION OF 376 ESSEX STREET This amendment is in regards to paragraph three ( 3 ) of Ehe Decision of Donald L . Hodgeman . Paragraph should read : More specifically, the petitioner is requesting the Board rescind the decision of the Salem Zoning Enforcement Officer to issue a building permit and to prohibit issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the structure at 376 Essex Street , except for use of a portion of the structure as a professional office or home occupation by • the individual residential owner to the extent such use was established prior to enactment of the Salem Zoning Ordinance ( R-2 ) . 41i Sally Murtagh Clerk, Board of Appeal • O&W tEP Z3 it 19 fh `9 30ara tri Augeal GPS CIiY OF SALT:4..MASS _ CIiRK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE ?=T"TION OF DONALD L '-:ODGE:MAN et a_ REQUESTING THE BOARD TO RESGL?iD TF.E DECISION FOR TSE ??OPERTY _ C.L'i) .4T 376 ESSEX STREET (R-2 ) A hearing on this petition was held January i7, 199^ and continued again to February 21, 1996 and heard again March 20, 1996 with the following Board ?embers present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Cary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill and Joseph Ywuc. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with [Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners are requesting an Administrative Ruling in accordance with Section I:{ of the Zoning Ordinance and MGL =OA. Section 7 relative to the use of the premises and Enforcement of Sections '1-B (2 ) and `.'l::-E (6) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to said premises . :.!ore specifically, tie petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting the Board rescind the decision of the Salem Zoning Enforcement Officer to issue a building permit for the property located at 376 Essex Street ( R-21 . • After hearing the evidence the Board of Appeal sakes the following findings of fact: 1 . Both the petitioner and the owner of the premises were represented by counsel, each of whom made oral presentations and submitted written briefs . The property at 376 Essex Street is located '_n _❑ R-2 District. 3 . From approximately 1941 ctrough 1981, the property was owned and used by Dr. -'ohn Cunney as a private residence and professional office for his medical practice. In 1981, the property was purchased by Dr. Reynes and used as a residence and medical office until 1988, when it was sold to the Kirsches. They used it as a residence and professional office until it was sold to the present owner, Charter Trust. 4, The use of the property as a physician's office within a private residence was an allowed use pursuant to the 1955 Zoning :;rdinances and it became a non-conforming use :n 1965 when the Salem Zoning Ordinance was changed. 5 . The non-conforming use as a physician's office in a private residence has been continuously maintained to the present time. 6. Dr. Shafer stated that she will use the premises as a medical office and a residence. She will see patients in conjunction with one ( 1 ) associate three (3) days a week. Dr. Shafer stated that she will employ other administrative and medical staff. • 7 . Dr Shafer offered to register to vote in Salem, register her motor vehicle in Salem and use her Essex Street address for her professional licenses. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DONALD L. HODGEMAN FOR THE PROPERTY • LOCATED AT 376 ESSEX STREET (R-2) page two SEP B 1119 PH '98 CITY 01' SALEM. MASS 3. The physical changes to the building involved painting the $dd4A-'drQFFICE replacing carpets, partitioning the "family" room into examination rooms, adding a handicap accessible bathroom and a handicap ramp. 9. The petitioners presented testimony that the floor plan submitted with the application for the building permit showed an increase in floor space devoted to the medical practice over that used by prior owners. The petitioners also presented testimony that Dr. Cunney did not have any associates in practice with him and that he had one (1) employee. 10. A number of documents were received by the Board and made part of the public record. They include the following: 1. Briefs submitted by both attorney's. 2. Letters, both in favor and opposition. 3. Signed petition from both in favor and opposition. Therefore, based on the above findings of fact and on evidence presented, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted three (3) in favor and two (2) opposed. Failing to garner the necessary four (4 ) votes, the Petition was denied. Petition Denied March 20, 1996 LZ• Stephen Touchette, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • (llitg of "ittlem, ttsstttllusetts ' a • Potts of {veal J& 30 3 Ql DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH CONTRADA REQUESTING A SPECIAL'�i.�?n S UF1CFSS PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27 FAIRMONT STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1998 with the following ` Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Paul Valaskagis, Ronald Harrison and Michael Ward. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 expansion of a non conforming structure for the property located at 27 Fairmont 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 Joseph Contrada, represented himself. 2. Mr. Contrada showed plans of the proposed expansion and explained how he would like to be able to enlarge the rooms. 3. Councillor Sarah Hayes wrote a letter stating opposition from the neighbors. 4 . A number of neighbors and abutters spoke in opposition to the request, stating objections to density, restricted parking, and esthetic design. 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 JOSEPH CONTRADA REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27 FAIRMONT STREET R2 page two • 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 1 in favor, and 4 in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit is denied. SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED June 17, 1998 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 LrL the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name o€ tlg owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certiji-cato of Title. ^•� Board of Appeal g —o � N � • CITY OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE Ctv of �ttlem, Hussttcllusetts Pourb of &Appeal i 1998 NOV 19 P 4: 21 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17-27 FIRST STREET R-3 A hearing on this petition was held November 18, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 construct 8 new homes for the property located at 17-27 First Street in a R-3 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, Salem Housing Authority, was represented by Mr. Bill Hammer of HKT Architects, Inc. , designers of the project. 2. The subject property, located at 17-27 First Street, is in a R-3 District and consists of 435,678 square feet. 3. The petitioner seeks a variance from one side setback on each of the eight lots to allow for 1010"instead of the required 20101 . Also, the petitioner is requesting a variance from rear setbacks on lots 1,2,5 & 6 to allow for 2010" instead of the required 3010" . 4 . The parcel is a large and difficult site consisting of almost solid rock. The layout of the units is designed to take the best advantage of the site and to minimize blasting. 5. The land leftover from the project, approximately six (6) acres, is to be given back to the City as Conservation land. 6. A letter in support of the project was submitted by Walter B. Power III Chairman of the Planning Board. 7 . Joan Lovely, Ward 2 Counselor, spoke in favor of the project. 8 . The project will afford low-income families an opportunity to purchase a home. 9 . The homes design and construction will conform with the requirements of HUD . 10. Abutters Frederick McDonald and Lawrence Vatcher spoke in opposition to the project. Mr. McDonald was concerned with blasting that will • occur at the site and with stormwater and sewage drainage. Mr. Vatcher was concerned with a decrease in property values of abutting condominiums as a result of the project. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17-27 FIRST STREET R-3 • page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general . 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2 . All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • 4 . Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem . Assessors office and shall display said numbers so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board and Conservation Commission. Variance Granted November 18, 1998 CSC.' Stephen Buczko, Member Board of Appeal � c7 r� C:) m :YJ C) • -0 N D 0 T m 3 N D DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17-27 FIRST STREET R-3 page three • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • c-> m r c zo Mo _ Ncn o— n rTj n• m3 N D • Ctu of *Iem, �fflttssttcllusetts Pourb of -APPeal May 21 2 07 Pli '38 CITY 01' SAIf.M, MASS CLCRK'S OFI"ICL DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAGE 6 DEBRA DAY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 GOODELL STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 20, 1998 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen, Michael Ward, Ronald Harrison, Paul Valaskagis and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were Properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. At the request of the petitioner's Attorney, George Aktins, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a Variance for subdivision, Lot 1, Variance on lot area and width, front 6 side setbacks. Lot 2, Variances on lot area, lot width and rear setbacks for the property located at 23 Goodell Street. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE May 20, 1998 • Nina Cohen Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. Appeal from this decision,if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • a.* '��•e� LICLERK SaOFFICEA 'g,tg of ttlem, ttsstttljusetts Poarb of �Fveal IM DEC 23 P I: 39 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STUTZ PLAISTED REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 GREENLEDGE AVENUE (B1\I) A hearing on this petition was held December 16, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen;Chairman, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko and Stephen Harris. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner are requesting a Special Permit for relief from density to construct an addition for the property located at 5 Greenledge Avenue. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows : Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and • conditions set forth in 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 t+e following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioner seeks a Special Permit for relief from the requirements of the ordinance to construct an improvement to the existing non- conforming commercial property located at 5 Greenledge Avenue, which is owned by Stutz Realty Trust of Salem. 2 . The proposed addition will contain a utility room for two furnaces, several waste oil tanks and the air compressors that are currently used by the business, which is an automotive repair and body shop. The proposed addition will increase the square footage of the existing nonconforming structure to enable the business to • operate more efficiently. 3. The Variance was withdrawn without prejudice. 4. There was no opposition to the special permit. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STUTZ PLAISTED REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 GREENLEDGE AVENUE page two • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and may be granted in harmony with the neighborhood. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions; 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2 . All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements, of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any • - construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. Special Permit Granted /� n December 16, 199 /Ni n Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal C=) rn rn MCD n . N N(n W D C)r— D �n 3 CM) m i U.) b • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STUTZ PLAISTED REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 GREENLEDGE AVENUE page three • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry 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 co r-c M M �o C11) Ln x w N D C)r nM n+ M3 � D • (11itu ofttlem, ttssttdlusetts Pourb of '�Appeul H4► 29 3 22 FII '98 CITY or SACCw. MASS C(.CRK'S OFFICF. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RAYMOND & BARBARA HAIGHT REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 GROVE STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held May 20, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Yard, Ronald Harrison and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent ttys and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the SaleTm2RvMirA News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws ChCH "6..SOA. �0 C(.CRK, C(.H. HA Petitioner requests a Variances from side setbacks to allow e%@1'6t�yr73sof existing deck for property located at 24 Grove Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other land, buildings, or structures in the same district. 2 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the • public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The petition was presented by Manual Raymond. 2. The petition was to enclose an existing deck not to exceed the existing roof line. 3. Plans were submitted that were 10 years old which were not accepted, but Mr. Coggin made the comment that without plans there would be no approval by the building department. 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 THE PETITION OF RAYMOND & BARBARA HAIGHT REQUESTING A • VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 GROVE 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. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 7 . Exterior finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • 8. Proper plans to be submitted to the Building Inspectors Office. Variance Granted �PJ (May 20, 1998 u �7.vt CSC" 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. c+ v Board of Appeal r;o ?Z N � S n� ny tP N alty of ttlPm, ttsstttl�usPtts • ; 4 � PnttrD of E'�u�enl fro ZS 3 14 Pi Cf1Y 01- 1.VH. 4. Ci t'k.+,'� Oi F'IC.t DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT SHEA REQUESTING A VARIANCE /SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22 HARDY STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held February 18, 1998 with the following Board Members present: 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. ?etitioner requests a Variance/Special Permit to allow existing fence to remain at 6110" for the property located at 22 Hardy Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district . • b . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise, to the Petitioner. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating fro- the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of facts : 1 . The petitioner, Robert Shea represented himself. 2 . N George Pena spoke in favor of the petitioner. 3. Attorney Harris representing an abutter, Mrs. LeBlanc, spoke in opposition to the request, sighting hardship of his client to see over the fence from her house. It was stated that she is handicapped. No argument of hardship was presented by the petitioner. On the basic of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . 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 ROBERT SHE REQUESTING A VARIANCE /SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22 HARDY STREET R-2 page two 3. Desirable relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 0 in favor and 4 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 5 Special Permit Denied February 18, 1998 n� Richard Dionne, Member Board of Appeal • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED k'ITH THE PLArvRING 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 :'_thin 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chatter 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 • ofttlem, ttsstttljusetts e� Poarb of �Fpcul Joi 23 141 PH '98 CITY Of' SALFM. MASS CLIiRK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHILLIP & CHRIS CRAWFORD FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT AT 22 HERBERT STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held July 15, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko, 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 to enlarge second floor and add third floor space, Variance on width to allow vehicle parking, Variance on rear setback and a Special Permit to allow a home office for the property located 22 Herbert 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 PHILLIP & CHRIS CRAWFORD REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22 HERBERT STREET R-2 page two r 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. Petitioners, represented by Attorney Joseph Correnti, Esq. , outlined a planned project to renovate a two story residence at 22 Herbert Street, adding a third floor. 2. The existing residence is nonconforming. Petitioners requested variances to allow an addition to the first floor, to enlarge the second floor and add third floor space, and variances from rear setback and driveway width requirements. 3. Petitioners further requested a Special Permit to allow a home office. 4. A letter from Councillor Paskowski was submitted in favor of this petition. 5. A petition with ten (10) names was also submitted in favor of this petition. 6 . Joseph Wioncek of 23 Herbert Street appeared and questioned the matter of a home office to the proposed project. He was satisfied with the • answers to his questions. 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 especial+y 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: 0 1T. X C, C a y DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PHILLIP & CHRIS CRAWFORD REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22 HERBERT STREET r-2 page three 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. 6. Exterior finishes of he new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance and Special Permit Granted July 15, 1998 Nina Cohen, 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 N 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 Certi€.icate of Title. h Board of Appeal jr "to O r n �n a N • g oftzlem, tzsstttl�usetts i • ��,� PnttrD of In 33 IN °l CITY 0'F 'j CI CI.I:RK'S O'FFICF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PETER BELESIS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 111 HIGHLAND AVE./ONE WILLSON STREET (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held April 15, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Nina Cohen ,Ronald Harrison and Michael Ward. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 petitioner to operate a take-out style restaurant for the property located at 111 Highland Avenue/One Willson Street (R-1) The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits • for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Attorney Kevin Daly, 30 Church Street represented the petitioner Peter Belesis. 2. The owner of the property Edward Zarorians, was present at the hearing and spoke in favor of the petition. 3. The proposed restaurant would be a seafood & roast beef take out style, seating around 15 and having a delivery service. There would be parking for 15 cars. The proposed hours of operation would be from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. • r 'l DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PETER BELESIS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 HIGHLAND AVENUE/ONE WILLSON STREET two 4 . There would be no expansion to the footprint of the building. • 5. Landscaping would provide for a buffer to the property and a dumpster to be placed behind the building in a fenced in coral. 6. Several letters in opposition were submitted to the board. Councillors Kevin Harvey, Scott McLaughlin and Joan Lovely presented letters in opposition signed by 3 abutters of the property. Mr. & Mrs. Guinta of 117 Highland Ave. , Mr. & Mrs. Economides of 118 Highland Ave. and Bernard Caron of 108 Highland Ave. There was also a petition presented opposed to the petition signed by the following; Mr. Lavoie, 9 Cottage St. , Mr. Griffin of 7 Cottage St. , Mr. Volanty of 1 Willson St. , Mr. Genovese of 108 Highland Ave. , Mr. & Mrs. Von Veiss, 107 Highland Ave & Mr. Pellitier of 6 Cottage St. 7. Those present in opposition to the petition were Stanley Poirer of 8 Cottage St. and Joseph Marfongelli of 3 Willson Street. 8. All those in opposition addressed concerns of traffic being a problem, odors and a possible rodent problems. 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 0 in favor, and 5 in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to garner the four affirmative .votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit is denied. SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED April 15, 1998Vp Paul Valaskagis Member, Board of Appeal n : H C> L.. 00> O r O^ W �> T D N 60 N, m • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PETER BELESIS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 111 HIGHLAND AVENUE/ONE WILLSON 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 • n a c �:z x ^O 4] Co S O r nx � T D V LO N m • of "'5ttlem, 'fflttssudlusetts • Pourb of �ppeal 6, `� 9 56 AN 198 CITY OF "iii�y. MASS C! . IA'$ Of FICF DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN & KATHLEEN MORIARTY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 399 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held October 21, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne, Paul Valaskagis and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 along front and side lot lines in an entrance corridor to maintain a 6 foot height on an existing fence for the property located at 399 Highland Avenue. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other land, buildings, or structures in the same district. 2 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. • 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. John Moriarty the owner presented the petition. The fence in question is already existing in the rear and side of the property located at 399 Highland Avenue. Photographs were presented of the property and the fence. 2 . Several people spoke in favor of the petition. Representing that the fence was not a problem and that only a portion of the fence could be seen from the street. 3. Joyce Nelson of 401 Highland Avenue was opposed to the petition for esthetic reasons which she requested the fence be brought to 4 ft. Her only concern was a small section of fence which abutted her 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 JOHN h KATHLEEN MORIARTY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 399 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1 page two 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to • public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. 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. Variance Granted �G - October 21, 1998 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 = H � A S r' K N? (� 0Ul r nY =r �n y Co C= • of satem, ttssttcliusetts • 3oQ Poura of � ,44 10 52 'S8 CH Y OF SAifM, MASS C11 RK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF TODD WALLER, TRUSTEE OF TRMENDOUS REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 4 JEFFERSON AVENUE, (I) . A hearing on this petition was held March 18, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Paul Valaskagis and Albert Hill. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, represented by Attorney Scott Grover is requesting a Special Permit to allow alteration of a nonconforming structure for the property located at 4 Jefferson Avenue. The property is located in a Industrial 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 TODD WALLER, TRUSTEE OF TREMENDOUS REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 4 JEFFERSON 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 . Ms. Mary Spange, Ms. Pauline Tribou and Ward 3 Councilor, Joan Lovely spoke in favor of the petition. 2 . There was no opposition to the petition. 3. The Board of Appeal found that the proposed alterations to the existing building would not be more detrimental than the previous business which had been in place at this address. 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. 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. herefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, codes ordinances and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 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. N 7:r rho L L7� • I. ;:;:x T N L� `..v DECISION ON THE PETITION OF TODD WALLER, TRUSTEE FOR TREMENDOUS REALTY TRUST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 4 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SALEM • page three 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. S. Hours of operation are limited to the following: Monday thru Saturday. B:OOAM to 6:OOPM Sunday, 12Noon to S:OOPM 9 . All Parking spaces will be striped. Special Permit Granted March' 18, 1998 #-W Albert C. Hill , Jr. Member, Board of Appeal COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11 , the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal n a a � N R Gc N> O r o r. tJ1 T. _ n> y D N G� N C= • "�. Ctu of *Iem, Alsoadjusetts -• Paurb Qf Appeal MAR 17 345 AM '98 Crrr OF SALI'M. MASS DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NORTHSHORE AMBULANCE,INC. REQUESTIN C1X1? G A01-f:10E VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 63 JEFFERSON AVENUE (I/RC) A hearing on this petition was held March 18, 1998 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 Variances from side yard and rear yard setbacks, maximum lot coverage and Variance for use and parking requirements for the property located at 63 Jefferson Avenue. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: I . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other land, buildings,. or structures in the same district. 2 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. • 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal , after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioner was represented at the hearing by Joseph Correnti , Esquire of Serifini , Serifini 6 Darling, 63 Federal Street, Salem; Massachusetts. 2. Petitioner was also represented at the hearing by its head of operations David Tuxbury who is in charge of the current facility on Margin Street in Salem. 3. The requested relief is necessary in order to permit the Petitioner to construct a new building of approximately 15, 000 square foot building which will be utilized for their business operations. 4. The subject property is located on Jefferson Avenue and abuts the Kerr Leather Company building and the Titus Furniture property. 5. The subject property sits in part in an industrial zone (I) and in part in a residential-conservation zone (RC) , and the requested relief is necessary when one applies the more restrictive density requirements of the RC zone to the entire lot. 6. The proposed new building would consist of approximately 7,00 square feet of space which would be dedicated to light maintenance and storage • of ambulance vehicles, and the remaining portion of building consisting of approximately 8,000 square feet would house the company's business headquarters in part of the building. DECISION OF NORTHSHORE AMBULANCE, INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 63 JEFFERSON AVENUE page two • 7. There will be no gasoline storage tanks located on the property. 8. The petitioner intends to create a buffer zone along the property where it abuts wetlands near the property. 9. The petitioners project is still required to undergo site plan review before the Planning Board and must be reviewed by the Conservation Commission. 10.The requested relief from the parking requirements is being requested because of the per diem and shift workers employed by the nature of the Petitioner's business operations. 11 . Mayor Stanley J. Usovicz, Jr. submitted a letter dated March 4, 1998 expressing his support for the petition. 12. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. • 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 5 . Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commissions having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board and Conservation Commission. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. C, o 9 • -[ N •-.O J ]C�� LD O un T:C (n CD N 00 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NORTHSHORE AMBULANCE, INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 63 JEFFERSON AVENUE page three 8. 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. Variances Granted March 18, 1998k\ C Gary Barrett, Chairman J Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • Board of Appeal n v a` oX Z Ln � ng � m> u+ cD N G� • Titu of 'Salem, 'fflttssadjusetts • Paurb of �kppezd Am 31 2 45 fn 999 Clay Of' SA,- ('M. Mass "p'j'+K DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ARTHUR THIBODEAU REQUESTING A 'SS oVrire SP JC 1 PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 200 JEFFERSON AVENUE R-3 A hearing on this petition was held August 19, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Ronald Harrison, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 was requesting a Special Permit to allow a third floor apartment for the property located at 200 Jefferson Avenue. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in 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, Arthur Thibodeau, was represented at the hearing by Stephen P. Lovely, Esq. of Salem, Mass. 2. A Special Permit was requested in order to allow a third floor apartment. 3. The property is located in a R-3 district. 4. Plot plans and a plan for the proposed third floor apartment were presented to the board. 5. The property maintains a sufficient number of parking spaces. 6. Leonard O'Leary, Councilor of Ward 4, spoke in favor of the • petition. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ARTHUR THIBODEAU REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 200 JEFFERSON AVENUE R-3 page two Quc 0 , 4$ e98� 6. There was no opposition to the petition. P CITY Op Sg1C. presentedOn the S1thefthe BoardaofvAppeallconcludess of cas follows:the 1. 01-Fr SS 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, 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. • 4. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Special Permit Granted August 19, 1998 Michael Ward, Member Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ARTHUR THIBODEAU REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 200 JEFFERSON AVENUE R-3 page three AUS 31 245 PN 199 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING B(PAR® ONBALCH MASS THE CITY CLERK Cl I'RK'S OFFIC.F 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 • • (Gltg of jittlem, fflttssadjuutts 3 • 'oe S Paurb of Appeal #4k 2 q 3q n� ► crry( 0`1- n42 1 98 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE & JUDITH JETER REQUJ�JJN(D'- MASS VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 272 JEFFERSON AVENUE (B F A hearing on this petition was held February 18, 1998 with the following Board members present: 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 Variances from land area, lot width, lot coverage, sideyard & rearyard setbacks and a Variance from parking to divide the lot for the property located at 272 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 . The property at 272 Jefferson Avenue consists of a 5,000 square foot lot with two buildings. The building closest to Jefferson Avenue is a four-family residence, and the building at the rear of the lot is a single family residence. 2 . Petitioners, who have owned the property since 1991, sought permission to divide the property into two lots. 3. Petitioner was represented by Attorney Stephen P. Maio of 85 Constitution Lane in Danvers. 4 . Petitioner also sought variances from the requirements of the ordinance with respect to each of the newly-created lots. With respect to the lot closest to Jefferson Ave. shown on the drawings as Lot 2, petitioner sought variances from front, side and rear setbacks, from lot size, maximum lot coverage, frontage, and parking requirements. 5 . With respect to the rear lot, shown on the drawings as Lot 1, petitioners sought variances from front, side and rear setback, lot area and frontage requirements. • DECISION OF GEORGE AND JUDITH JETER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 272 JEFFERSON AVENUE • page two 6. Ms . Elizabeth Kauler, an abutter at 274 Jefferson Ave. , appeared and requested that the Board require a fence to be installed between her property and the petitioner's property to set apart areas that will be used for vehicular traffic (on the Jeter's side) from areas to be used for play (on her side) . 7. 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. 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: Lot 1 • 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 Occupancy 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. 3. Petitioner is to install a fence on the southerly side. 6. Cross easement for Lot 2 to enter and exit. Lot 2 I . 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 Occupancy shall be obtained. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE AND JUDITH JETER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 272 JEFFERSON AVENUE page three 4 . Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission • having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 5. Cross easement to enter and exit the property. Variances Granted February 18, 1998 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 • (gitU of ttlem, 3Httssttrllu�etts it Pourb of Aft" all za WS �Cil!7'.Y i0=f ;5411L!flhl. IW.,B DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LOUIS J. KARLBERG REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 73-77 LAFAYETTE STREET (B-5) A hearing on this petition was held February 18,1998 with the following Board Members were present: 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 petitioner, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 4-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a Special Permit to allow a natural discovery museum-"Micro Zoo" for the property located at 73-77 Lafayette Street. Granted leave to withdraw without prejudice. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE • February 18, 1998 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. to Board of Appeal Ctv of "ittlear, ttssttcljusetts Poarb of C pFv 9 51� Pt1 '98 AMENDED l� MASS • SALCM DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN POLEMENAKOS 1s oFICE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 237 LAVE ST/1-3 LEACH ST. B-1 A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward and Ronald Harrison. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 use of the property from commercial use to a residential use for the property located at 235 Lafayette St./3 Leach 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 was represented by Attorney George Vallis of Salem. 2. A petition was submitted with a number of abutters who are in favor of this petition. 3. Councillor William Kelley appeared and spoke in favor to this petition. 4 . Petitioner wish to change the use from commercial to residential to make 2 apartment units. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEVEN POLEMENAKOS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 235 LAFAYETTE ST/3 LEACH ST. page two 1. The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial • detriment to the public good or withoutnullifying and substantially derogating from the intent 'of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and may be granted in harmony with the neighborhood. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions; 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of • Salem Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Board of Health. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED Q , June 17, 1998 r C�c..,Jl Paul Valaskagis, Member Board of Appeal • DECISION OF STEVEN POLEMENAKOS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 235 LAFAYETTE ST/3 LEACH STREET page three • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this' decisicn, 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 owners Certificate of Title • • (11itu of �$ulem, 'Mttssadjusetts Pnarb of ( g"eal 1 1 2 57 Ph 898 WY U.f .SAUM, MASS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN POLEMENAKOS REQUEST NGl AA,S OIfICF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 235 LAFAYETTE ST/3 LEACH ST. B-1 A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward and Ronald Harrison. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 use of the property from commercial use to a residential use for the property located at 235 Lafayette St./3 Leach 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 was represented by Attorney George Vallis of Salem. 2. A petition was submitted with a number of abutters who are in favor of this petition. 3. Councillor William Kelley appeared and spoke in favor to this petition. 4 . Petitioner wish to change the use from commercial to residential to make 2 apartment units. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence • presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEVEN POLEMENAKOS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 235 LAFAYETTE ST/3 LEACH ST. page two 1. The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial •i detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and may be granted in harmony with the neighborhood. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of • Salem Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Board of Health. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED June 17, 1998 Paul Valaskagis, Member �o Board of Appeal N o �S .o my � N N • DECISION OF STEVEN POLEMENAKOS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 235 LAFAYETTE ST/3 LEACH 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 n<. rn o r a` vt N os � .�s g • Ctg of intem, �fflttssarljusetts >4.., Pourb of ,,4}ieul Ibi Zi 2 01 C9i7 d1F 5��1 . MASS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN & MARY ELLEN GALARIS REQ UETfUt "c SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 301 LAFAYETTE STREET (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held May 20, 1998 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen, Michael Ward, Ronald Harrison, Paul Valaskagis and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent 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's Attorney, Henry Lucas, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a Special Permit to enable to re-build non-conforming structure to its original status for the property located at 301 Lafayette Street. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE May 20, 1998 act Nina Cohen Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. Appeal from this decision,if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 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. • /S _ Ctu of 'Salem' �ttssttclji%set�t LEM MA ' CL_kt 'S OFFICE • `'Q Pottrb of ':�Fveal DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN HOSKINS & ELIZABETHI%flVRt5UF/ktk11 A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22 LARCHMONT ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held November 18, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 convert existing attic to living space, consisting of two bedrooms and a full bath. The roof line will be changed as a result of the construction, but will still be less than allowed in an R-lzone. The proposed project will not change the footprint of the house and all exterior changes will be kept in harmony with the house. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other land, buildings, or structures in the same district. 2 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would • involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The petitioners represented themselves . 2. The petitioners presented plans of the proposed dormer addition. 3 . The petitioners also presented signatures from ten ( 10) neighbors indicating there was no opposition to the plans. 4 . Raymond Truche of 24 Larchmont Rd. , who lives next door, appeared in opposition saying he had not been informed of the proposed project. He objected to a possible loss of light and its effect on his landscaping. 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 0 involve substation hardship to the petitioner. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN HOSKINS & ELIZABETH BRADT REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22 LARCHMONT ROAD R-1 page two • 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted . • November 18, 1998C Ronald Harrison, Member Board of Appeal o ^, w nrn A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARDIAND THE IZT_Y CLERK I -'k-n -a cvi cn Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to 55Jrction l�sf the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filedzwithin .ZD,3 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the Cis -v Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, S&tion ll, jfhe Variance 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 ( 1tV of ialem, �Rassndjusetts t e �uttrD of F1{r}tenl JUN 19 314 CITY of DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT SOLOMON REQUESTING A C1CRoA"rFF,�FSS SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MALL STREET A hearing on this petition was held April 15, 1998 and continued until June 17, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward and Ronald Harrison. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 addition of a second story on an existing single story addition and address the questions of the Honorable Nancy Merrick, Justice Essex Superior Court (Court Order 10/31/97) . The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and • for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the 'neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioner seeks a special permit to build a second story addition onto an existing nonconformin structure at 7 Mall Street in Salem to be used for residential purposes. 2. Petitioner's request has twice been appealed and twice remanded to this Board. After it was initially heard by the Board on May 18, 1994 and June 15, 1994, an appeal of the Board's decision was filed in Superior Court, captioned Philip Wales v. Wendi Goldsmith et als. , C.A. NO. 94-1653. On remand, petitioner's request was granted in a Zoning Board decision dated May 17, 1996. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT SOLOMON REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MALL STREET page two JUX 29 • 3. An appeal was taken from the May 17, 1996 decision, captioe 1� P� �9g Philip Wales V. Robert Solomon, et al.s, C.A. No 96-1142. e0P S4Lf present resenhearingsis held in October compliance with a Superior Court WIS01,INFSS 7. 4 . Petitioner purchased the property at 7 Mall in 1992. The residence at the time of the purchase comprised a main two-story building and attached one-story ell, used as an auxillary entrance. 5. The building and auxillary structure at 7 Mall Street is a nonconforming structure within the meaning of the Salem Zoning Ordinance because it pre-existed the enactment of the ordinance and would not meet the requirements of the current law if it were to be constructed today. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and 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. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED June 20, 1998 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title • ofttlem, ttssttcliuseffs a 'A" � 3* 98 'e nura of enl � W5 ip,jj r Gilr DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM PARSONS REQUESTING A C1 (0"RK-c ' . Ha$S Q Ald.y VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 41 MARCH STREET (R-2) OFFIgF A hearing on this petition was held August 19, 1998 with the following Board members present: Ronald Harrison, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 right side setbacks to construct an addition for the property located at 41 March Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other land, buildings, or structures in the same district. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. • The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The petitioner, William Parsons represented himself. 2. Plans for an addition off the rear of the house were presented to the board. 3 . The petitioner requested a Variance from right side setback. 4. James Santo, of 42 March Street, spoke in support of the petitioner. 5. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM PARSONS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 41 MARCH STREET R2 • 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, 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. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. The petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the/Pllannin/ng Board. Variance Granted • August 19, 1998 Michael Ward, 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. 2 Ir Board of Appeal ^< ^o : 3 Tm T' • s rn n � to N W Ctu of '�$ttlem, cfflussadjusetts �+ a pours of Appeal .u0. 1 2 5e Ph 198 CIiY Or SALEM. MASS CLE'RK'S Of"FICF DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARK J.TERRY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 120 MARLBOROUGH ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward, Ronald Harrison 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 from lot area, lot width, side and rear yard requirements for the property located at 120 Marlborough Road. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other land, buildings, or structures in the same district. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the • public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Mark J. Terry was represented by Attorney John Serafini, Jr. of 159 Federal Street, Salem, Mass. 2. Petitioner wishes to reconfigure their existing two lots "C" and "352" into one lot to allow continuance of the existing deck. 3. Petitioner request four variances consisting of lot area, lot width, side and rear yard requirements. 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 ON THE PETITION OF MARK J. TERRY REQUESTING A V AN E FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 120 MARLBOROUGH ROAD R1 ` F 258 PM '98 • page two CITY Of' SALI:M. MASS On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidCC�t�&� rWhr&d 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. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. Variance Granted June 17, 1998 (Z CSC.' 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 • of ttlem, 'fflttssadjusetts 3 puttrD of �pp},ettl Har 29 3 22 PH '9B •,e� CITY OF S C ' MASS L('(in'S OFFICF DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH GRENIER, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 129-133 MARLBOROUGH ROAD R1/RC A hearing on this petition was held May 20, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward, Ronald Harrison and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 Variances on lot area and lot width. Also requesting a Variance on side setback for the located at 129-133 Marblorough Road. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other land, buildings, or structures in the same district. 2 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. • 3 . Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal , after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The petitioner was represented by John R. Kielty, Esq. He is seeking variances from Ordinance requirements for lot area, frontage and lot width. 2 . Petitioner submitted a subdivision plan for this property to the Salem Planning Board and received approval for seven lots for single family homes . The property contains both conservation land and a waterway, Strong Water Brook. 3 . The seven lots will share three common driveways for ease of access onto Marlborough Road. L . There were no objections to the proposed variances . 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 ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH GRENIER, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A VARIANCE • FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 129-133 MARLBOROUGH ROAD 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. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6 . 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 is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board and Conservation Commission. 8. No more than three driveway openings; 1 at Lot 3 & 4, 1 at Lot 5 & 6 and 1 at Lots 1 ,2 & 7. 9 . Compliance to meet with Section 7-7 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 10. All curb cuts shall be reviewed and meet the requirements of the City Engineer. Variance Granted <• hav 20, 1998 /�'1ZL'cJ ILC-�Ct7�—J Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal 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 • • alto of "inlem, ttsstttllusetts • Poara of �kppenl At 18 9 31 Im 198 CITY OF SALEM. MASS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DOREEN NELSON REQUESTING A SPECIALCLI,RK'S OFFICE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 60 MOFFATT ROAD P,-1 A hearing on this petition was held July 15, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward and Ronald Harrison. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 was requesting a Variance from side & rear setbacks to allow for new addition and withdrew without prejudice and asked for a Special Permit for a 17 x 17 addition for the property located at 60 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 . This petition was a continuation from June 17, 1998. 2. There were letters submitted from Dr. Bucklev & Richard Goodenough M.D. , that Dr. Buckley & Richard D. Goodenough M.D. that Albert Gallant was ill and would need assistance. 3. Doreen Nelson being the daughter was going to move in to 60 Moffatt Road and the addition would be for her parents. 4 . The proposed addition was 23x 23 needing a variance from side & rear setbacks. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DOREEN NELSON REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 60 MOFFATT ROAD R-1 page two 5. Opposition was made from a number of neighbors . There• cogcerps 'Qp varied from parking to lot coverage as well as a possib Q r 31 Ah 98 drainage problem. CITY OF SALCM, MASS 6. A continuation of the petition was requested to re-evaluat&Lfog'S OFFICE. petitioners request and consult further with neighbors. 7. The petition was revisited on July 15, 1998 meeting of the Board of Appeals. 8. Doreen Nelson presented a new drawing reducing the addition to 17 x 17, no windows or doors. The shed and screen house in the yard would be removed, therefore providing additional parking off the street. With the reduction of the size of the addition, no variance for setbacks would not be necessarv. 9. The drainage issued was addressed also. The builder of the addition Robert Malia, spoke to answer all those questions about the parking, drainage & any other questions that came up. 10. The Delorfano's seemed to still have a problem with the drainage, scenery and possible devaluation of the property with this addition. On .the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial • detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 2 . The granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and may be granted in harmony with the neighborhood. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions; 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DOREEN NELSON REQUESTING A SPECIAL • PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 60 MOFFATT ROAD R-S page three 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Exterior finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED July 15, 1998 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 Tiled, 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 m N> r or w rnz s m> N 60 N ap • fgitu ofttlem, ttssttcllusetts e4 PDMia of �v peal c_ n� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HENLEY ENTERPRISES, INC. REQUESTING"A +ARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 87 NORTH STREET (B+-4) tp A hearing on this petition was held January 21, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett; Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, 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 a service station and a variance on lot area, lot width, setbacks and curb cut dimensions for the property located at 87 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 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. C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the • intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF HENLEY ENTERPRISES, INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 87 NORTH STREET page two • The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioner was represented by Attorney John J . Serifini, of 63 Federal Street, Salem. 2. Petitioner proposes to build a new brick building with two bays to be used to house a quick oil change facility. 3. A petition was signed by the Salvation Army and Joseph Jones, immediate abutters to the subject property was submitted expressing their support for the petition. 4 . The subject property is an oddly shaped lot situated at the intersection of Commercial and North Streets in a B-1 zoning district which formerly housed a gasoline service station. 5. The unique shape of the lot makes it impossible to situate a building which would comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 6 . Donald Smith, President of Henley Enterprises, Inc. described the proposed business as a "drain and fill" oil change business where customers would average 10-15 minutes per visit. 7. The property as designed showed 6 parking spaces which would primarily be used for employee parking for an expected staff of 2-5 employees. This is one space more than required by the ordinance. The business was described as a drive-thru oil change business where customers never leave their vehicles. . 8. The business operation does not utilize air tools, and compressors at the facility will be in self-contained rooms. 9 . The petitioner intends to execute a 25 year lease for the property and further plans to demolish the existing structure to enable it to build • a new building. 10.Councillor Sarah Hayes, bard 6, spoke in favor of the petition, and spoke favorably of the petitioner's approach to the neighbors and to her as they were presented an opportunity to review and discuss the plans for the project. She thought the project would be consistent with neighboring uses and would improve the area. 11 .The owner of McCarthy Insurance Agency, a business located across the street from the subject property, spoke in favor of the project. 12 .There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions 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 derWat4g from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. - �+ o t w to N m DECISION OF THE PETITION OF HENLEY ENTERPRISES, INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 87 NORTH STREET page three 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 Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 8 . Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board of Commission • having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Sign Review Board. 9. The petitioner must obtain a demolition permit prior to commencing any demolition on the property. ' Variance & Special Permit Granted January 21, 1998 ,,92,�� 63ajt e CSe�,J Gary Barrett, Chairman Board of Appeal o T a w w • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 +� T o- �x ca =x m • ofMIPm, tt88ttCIluSPtiB • Poarb of �kpveal hu 11 CIi Y01" ;AIA-M- MASS C(.f11K'S 01Firr DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANDREW COVELLUZZI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 47 OCEAN AVENUE (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held May 20, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward, Ronald Harrison and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 Variances on use and parking to allow a Hair, Nails & Skin Care Salon for the property located at 47 Ocean 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, Andrew Covelluzzi, a prospective buyer of the property was represented by Attorney George W. Atkins of Salem. 2 . The petitioner seeks a variance from the use provisions and parking provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for use of the building as a hair, nails and skin care salon. 3. The subject property is located at 47 Ocean Avenue at the corner of Ocean Avenue and Lafayette Street in a R-3 district and within the Lafayette Street Historic District. 4 . In 1986, the Zoning Board of Appeal granted a Special Permit to allow the premises to be used for professional offices; however, the building was never occupied. i. The petitioner has maintained and operated a salon on Essex Street in Salem for the past 14 years. 6. The operating hours of business will be restricted to 8;00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. , Monday through Thursday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. , Friday and • Saturday. 7. Client services will be provided by appointment only and no "walk-in" services will be provided. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDREW COVELLLUZZI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 47 OCEAN AVENUE R-3 page two 8. No tanning beds will be operated on the premises . • 9. No toxic chemicals will be used on the premises. 10. No more than 10 employees will be located on the premises. 11 . The petitioner will be an on-site owner operator. 12. The existing parking and landscaping will be maintained and the exterior of the building will remain unchanged subject to any required repairs approved by the Historic District Commission. 13. The petitioner is negotiating with Andrew J. Baungatner, Executive Director, United Cerebral Palsy Association of the North Shore, to obtain parking for his employees at the United Cerebral Palsy Association of the North Shore's parking lot on Lafayette Street. 14. It was represented that the petitioner had meet with neighbors to discuss the proposed use of the property and had invited the neighbors to visit his Essex Street Salon. 15. No opposition to the petition was presented. 16. A letter in support of the petition was submitted by Florence LeGoff of 255 Lafayette Street. 17. Speaking in favor of the petition was Ward 5 Councillor William Kelley, Patricia Kessler, 284 Lafayette St, David Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, • and Anthony Gattineri , owner of the California Olive Oil Company of 134 Canal Street. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. 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. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANDREW COVELLUZZI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 47 OCEAN AVENUE R-3 page three • 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board and Historic Commission. 9 . Three on-site parking space shall be maintained. 10. No more than ten employees. 11 . Front lawn area facing Lafayette Street be maintained as a lawn with with appropriate planting and under no circumstances shall parking be allowed on this area. 12 . Character of the exterior of the building not to be changed. • Variance Granted /� ��i�JG4, May 20, 1998 Stephen Buczko, 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 ofttlem, Httssttcllusetts oQ pourb of 4 pA"eal NY 19 3 22 F$ '9$ CITY 0," SALEM. MASS CIfRK'S 01-FICC: DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DONALD & RUTH HESSE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135 OCEAN AVENUE WEST R-2 A hearing on this petition was held May 20, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward, Ronald Harrison and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 Variances on side and rear setbacks to allow an addition for the property located at 135 Ocean Ave 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 petition was presented by Donald Hesse, owner of the property. 2 . Basic plans were submitted and to be approved by the Building Inspector. 3. Kevin Talbot of 134 Ocean Ave. 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. 3 . Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DONALD & RUTH HESSE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135 OCEAN AVE WEST page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented • at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 7. Exterior finished of the new construction shall be in harmonv with the existing structure. Variance Granted May 20, 1998 Cai �Paull Valas , hiemb'er 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 • of �$Zflrm, cffl Jut 39 9 ,98 '. e►.C.RK"� 9ff Ilk • Pourb of �ppral DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES SMITH REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 PARADISE ROAD (B-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 15, 1998 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko, Paul Valaskagis and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. At the request of the petitioner's Attorney George Vallis, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a Variance for relaxation from the parking ordinance for the number of parking spaces from 19 to 10 to allow a drive thru window for the property located at 4 Paradise Road. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE July 15, 1998 / CS • Nina Cohen Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH-THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. Appeal from this decision,if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • I of "itttem, �R165adlusetts • i i PoarD of Appeal 10 CITY OF SAL[H MASS ClERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STACY JOHN THOMAS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE AT 22-24 PARK STREET (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held February 18, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairwoman; Richard Dionne, Paul Valaskagis and Albert Hill . Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to allow the expansion of a nonconforming three (3) family dwelling to a four (4) unit dwelling and a Variance from parking requirements for the property located at 22-24 Park Street. The property is located in a R3 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 B-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The 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. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STACY JOHN THOMAS FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT • AND VARIANCE AT 22-24 PARK 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, at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The Petitioner did not submit a scaled drawing for the property. 2 . Jean Martin of 32 Park Street, Salem, Mass. spoke in opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The Special Permit and Variance cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit and Variance requested will not be in harmony with the neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City's inhabitants. • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, against the granting of the Special Permit and Variance requested. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit and Variance is denied. Special Permit and Variance Denied February 18, 1998 Albert C. Hill , Jr. Member, Board of Appeal m �H m r� N �T ;K _ to n O r T- _ C1.> Z mn to to Cc DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STACY JOHN THOMAS REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22-24 PARK 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 of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • - m -n m C) N r m p J A•^ r C>n Z, ma N m Ctu of ,Salem, cfflttsstttllusetts • ', Pours of � en1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LILLIAN PAPALEGIS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 29 PIERCE ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1998 with the following _ ._ Board Members were present: Nina Cohen, Michael Ward, Ronald Harrison, Paul Valaskagis and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. At the request of the petitioner Lillian Papalegis, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a Variance from side setbacks to allow proposed addition. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE June 17, 1998 Nina Cohen • Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. Appeal from this decision,if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal p7 a s H fllity of ,Salem, �fflttssttcliusetts Poara of AFPeal kX 10 3 22 Ph '98 CITY Of SALE MASS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN TREGGIARI REQUESTING A VARtmes dj' CF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 PIONEER CIRCLE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held July 15, 1998 and continued to August 19, 1998 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko, Paul Valaskagis and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. At the request of the petitioner, John Treggiari, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 4-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a Variance from rear setbacks, Variance for accessory building greater than 120 square feet for the property located at 5 Pioneer Circle. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE August 19, 1998 � LJ • Ronald Harrison, 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 Salem, �Rttssadjusetts M • ;aQ� s PDttrD of A, peal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILDRED ESPINAL REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 38 PRINCE STREET (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held February 18, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Albert Hill 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 operate a Transportation business from a R-3 Zone at the property located at 38 Prince 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 allow her to operate a taxi company at 38 Prince Street, which is in an R-3 district. Licensing for such a business previously had been issued by applicable authorities within the City of Salem. 2. Petitioner has operated the business since March 1997 from her home at 38 Prince St. with one full time employee (she herself works part-time) . and four (4) drivers . 3. On behalf of the business,petitioner has leased 2 parking spaces in a lot across the street;in addition, the business uses one space on site and two spaces on the street for overnight parking for company vehicles. 301330 S,M*10 SSVH 'HIIVS 30 d!13 866 4V 01 tl 93A DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILDRED ESPINAL REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 38 PRINCE STREET R-3 page two • 3. On behalf of the business, petitioner has leased 2 parking spaces in a lot across the street;in addition, the business uses one space on 'site and two spaces on the street for overnight parking for company vehicles. 4 . Petitioner has strong community support for the business, which is relied on by non-English speaking Salem residents for urgently- needed transportation to work, school and medical appointments. Petitioner submitted a petition in support of the business signed by 78 residents . 5. Petitioner also received the support of the following people who either attended the meeting or sent letters: Jorge Guerrero, Esther Marmolejo, 52 Dow St, Luis Fernandez, Rainbow Tr. , Richard Santana, 23 Beaver St. , Erminia Ventura, of 23 Beaver St. , Carlo Taveras, 17 Leavitt St, Martha Gomez, 52 Dow St. , Scott Galber of the Neighborhood Improvement Association, and Jim Haskel of the Salem Harbor CDC. 6. Opposition to the proposed petition centered on the very difficult on street parking conditions on and around the property, and was submitted by Ed Holden, of 48-50 Prince St. , U. Rodriguex, 43 Prince St. , Marie Rodriguez,40 Prince St. , Jerry Lee, 43 Prince St. ,Claire Chalifour, 40 Prince St. , Jean Martin of the Point Neighborhood Action Group, and Pablo Valdez, 39 Prince St. 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,convenienc& and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 0 in favor, and 4 in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit is denied. SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED ! J February 18, 1998 SC � � Nina Cohen, Vice Chairman Member, Board of Appeal 301330 SINH310 SSVN 'HIIVS 30 .Uf3 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MILDRED ESPINAL REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 38 PRINCE 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 • 391�d0 g,�iti310 SStlW W]1dS .10 ill 6e r of Salem, ttssttcljusefts • ; s Paurb of eAFFal NAR 3 2 44 ph 138 CII7 Oi' SALrM MASS CL1.Pox 'S Off'ICF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE & MARIA COEHLO REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 SUMMIT STREET (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held February 18, 1998 with the following Board Members present: 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 a Special Permit from non-conforming structure to enlarge a second floor bedroom for the property located at 15 Summit 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 would like to enlarge the second floor bedroom. 2. Petitioner states he has a growing family and needs the extra space. 3. Mr . Blanchette, of 6 Summit Street appeared to speak in favor of this petition. 4 . There was no opposition to this petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE & MARIA COEHLO REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 SUMMIT STREET 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, 4-0 to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per 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 . Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED February 18, 1998 ac�- Paul Valaskagis, Member Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE & MARIA COEHLO REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 SUMMIT 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 • • ''''rte°, .. (I�it� of �ttlPm, �Httssucliusetts i • paura of �"rzd AHENDED DECISION ON THE PETITION OF D & D REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 100- 114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD) A hearing on this petition was held April 15, 1998 with the following Board Members were present: 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 petitioner's Attorney, Joseph Correnti, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 4-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a Variance to allow mini-kart course for the property located at 100-114 Swampscott Road. Granted leave to withdraw without prejudice. n �v GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE = �0 April 15, 1998 N' O z Nina Cohen =,? Board of Appeal n m a A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. Appeal from this decision,if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • ('gitu of ttlem, ttssttdjuseffs • Pourb of �pteal At �� 25 " e C;1Tly "Ass orrilcF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANA DILISO REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 100-114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD BPD A hearing on this petition was held July 15, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 was requesting a Special Permit for an ice cream stand with hours not always the same with golf facility and a Variance from the required number of parking spaces for the property located at 100-114 Swampscott 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. Petitioner, Dana DiLiso, Trustee of D 6 D Realty Trust, was represented at the hearing by John R. Keilty, Esquire, of Peabody, Mass. 2. The petitioner's request had been continued from the June 17, 1998 hearing. 3. The lot is currently used as an outdoor miniature golf course, and soft serve ice cream is sold in conjunction with this operation. 4 . Petitioner made a motion to remove the request for a variance from parking space requirements as the lot is in compliance. Motion • was approved. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DANA DILISO REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT .FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 100-114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD BPD page two 5. No construction is necessary. � JUL 18 1105 AP► '98 6. John R. Keilty presented a memorandum, which summarized the neighborhood meeting held on June 30, 1998. CITY OF SALf.M. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE 7. In the memorandum; the Petitioner represented that the hours of the ice cream stand may not always be in concert with the hours of the miniature.golf course. In addition, the proposed signs for the property would be internally lit vinyl, which would be turned off at 11:00 p.m. 8. Councillor Joan Lovely, who attended the June 30, 19998 neighborhood meeting, did not present any neighborhood opposition - and only requested that "load" music would not be permitted on the premises. I 9. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and 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 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 shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Conservation Commission. Special Permit Granted July 15, 1998 ,!1� / ,\„ n (Sc; . Michael Ward, Member Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DANA DILISO REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 100-114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD BPD page three • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING B)SD�RR ANDII 05 b� , THE CITY CLERK CITY 01' 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 • • 011tg of "'5ttlem, ttssttc!lusetts • Poura of (�kpveal APR I6 1113 AN 198 CITY OV ;ALrN. MASS CLERKS 01-FIC17 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF D & D REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 100- 114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD) A hearing on this petition was held April 15,1998 with the following Board Members were present: 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 petitioner 's Attorney, Joseph Correnti, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 4-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a Special Permit to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling for the property located at 100-114 Swampscott Road. Granted leave to withdraw without prejudice. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE •' April 15, 1998 JY Nina Cohen Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. Appeal from this decision,if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. of S�Ulem, f ttssadjusetts • ia4 s P aura of (�"eal FEB q 2 50 PM 198 CITY OF SAEEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND & CHARLETTE NOYES FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 60 WARD STREET (R-3) A hearing on this petition was held January 21, 1998 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. Petitioners, and owners of the property, represented by Attorney Athan Vontzalides are requesting a Special Permit to allow the expansion of a nonconforming use and structure for the property located at 60 Ward Street. The property is located in a 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 RAYMOND & CHARLETTE NOYES FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 60 WARD STREET, SALEM • page two C� T � B C�< L C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detrim&� tp the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogatinCtromithe intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. —o The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidenc€^§resated, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact`.^ pO 1. Kevin Mahar of 56 Ward Street initially opposed the Petitioners request, but after reviewing the plans Mr. Mahar withdrew his opposition. No further opposition was made. 2. Speaking in favor of the petition were: Richard White, 18 Friend Street, Beverly, MA Linda Kent, 56 Ward Street, Salem, MA Timothy Banas, 56 Ward Street, Salem, MA Shetland Industries, 27 Congress Street, Salem, MA, represented by Mr.Thomas Kent. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 4. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, codes ordinances and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any • 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND & CHARLETTE NOYES FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 60 WARD STREET, SALEM page three 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. Special Permit Granted January 21, 1998 Albert C. Hill, Jr. Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of • MGL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein' shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal n.� o � g -,- --gym mq • aitg of �sttletti, ttsstttllusetts Pnarb of �Fpeal At Io 3 z3 Pjj ° cllr OF sa�r_H Ct.i.RX 'A _x 4ss DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ALAN B. SHERR REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 74 WASHINGTON SQUARE EAST R-2 A hearing on this petition was held August 19, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Ronald Harrison, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 was requesting a Special Permit to use garage on the property as an art studio for his own use. Certain changes to the building will be made including adding heat, bathroom facilities and adding skylight and permission for these will be sought at a later date. This petition concerns only the CHANGE IN USE of the building. 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 represented himself. 2. There was no opposition to the request for a Special Permit. 3. Petitioner has contacted all abutters and gained their approval of his plans. 4 . The garage is a historical building, a carriage house, and thus needs the approval of the Historic Commission to make any changes. • 5. The building is without a foundation and petitioner will put one in. The Historic Commission has issued a permit of non-applicability to the petitioner to add the foundation. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ALAN B. SHEER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 74 WASHINGTON SQUARE EAST R-2 • page two 6. Petitioner understands that any other structural changes, the addition of heat, bathroom facilities and skylights, need the approval of the building inspector and any other appropriate city agencies. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and 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, 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. 4 . All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. i. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6 . Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Historic Commission. Special Permit Granted August 19, 1998C✓1'LCIl�C� 7/ Ronald Harrison, Member Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ALAN B. SHERR REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 74 WASHINGTON SQUARE EAST 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 • • ,��°'�; (�it� of �tclem, �ttssttrllusett�o� n • '°Q Pnurb of �ppealo3V '`? o7 Py '9g DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SIMSBURY ASSOCIATES REQUESTING A VAR Q:Er•� SS SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 155-189 WASHINGTON STREET B-GF A hearing on this petition was held October 21, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen; Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Stephen Ward, Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskagis. Noticeof the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, is requesting a Special Permit to allow a Change of Use for Assisted Living in a B-5 zone and a Variance to allow for 100% lot coverage and side yard setback for the property located at 155-189 Washington 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. 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: • PETITION OF SIMSBURY ASSOCIATES FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 155-189 WASHINGTON STREET page two 1 . Petitioner proposes to acquire and demolish the building at 155-189 • Washington Street in order to erect a new 6 story edifice to house assisted living for elderly residents. 2. Petitioner's proposed building will contain 80 units on upper floors, an underground parking garage with spaces for 39 vehicles, and approximately 15,000 square feet of retail space on the ground level. A circular drive will provide access to the complex from Front Street. 3. Variances are required due to the lack of mandated lot area per dwelling unit, lot coverage in excess of 50% absence of side yard requirements and lack of adequate off street parking. Use variances would allow combined housing and retail use of site that had previously been dedicated to commercial use as an editorial and distribution office for a daily newspaper. A parking variance is needed because the number of residential units greatly exceeds the available parking on the site. 4 . In support of the proposed variances, petitioner states that its plan offers to create housing for elderly residents in a central location that includes services and amenities appropriate to their needs. Existing buildings which were built before the Zoning Ordinance was enacted, also exceed lot coverage and side yard requirements. 5. Parking requirements were based on a projected number of workers and visitors on site during peak time periods of the day. These estimated numbers were derived from conditions at other assisted living centers managed by the Simsbury group in Beverly and in West Springfield, Via. It is projected that the residents of the assisted living home will • not own or operate vehicles themselves. 6. In opposition to the proposal, Marlow Tuttle, of Larchmont Street argued that the proposed building was far too massive for the site in downtown Salem. The increased density would be detrimental to the existing residential neighborhood. The increased demand created by an 80 unit mixed use building would exacerbate the need for offstreet parking in an area where parking needs exceed availability. 7. Also speaking in opposition to the proposal were Meg Twohey of the Federal Street Neighborhood Association and Carlos Buretta of the Heritage Plaza Condominium Association, who observed that the parking provisions seemed inadequate for the need created by the complex, and that the height and scale of the proposed building were excessive for this site. 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. x u� 6ti3 x DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SIMSBURY ASSOCIATED REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 155-189 WASHINGTON STREET • page three 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 4. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted, 4-1 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 Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 7 . Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 8. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 9. Exterior finishes of the new constrLrction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted f /}G October 21, 1998 �C/// C C Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal n o n-c o� W Ln r • O co m N N DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SIMSBURY ASSOCIATES REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 155-189 WASHINGTON 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 • C� p � 6 n� r O V) U W n� S m N cD • (11ity of Salem, �Nagsadjusetts Paura of ( "en1SE1 17 3 4s PH 198 CITY OF SALEM. MASS CLERK'S OFFICF. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SIMSBURY ASSOCIATES REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 155-189 WASHINGTON STREET (B-5) A hearing on this petition was held September 16, 1998 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko, Ronald Harrison and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. At the request of the petitioners Attorney, George Atkins, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a Special Permit to allow for a Change of Use for assisted living and a Variance to allow for 100% lot coverage and side yard setbacks for the property located at 155-189 Washington St. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE September 16, 1998 Nina Cohen, Chariman 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 • CITY OF SALEM. MA (flit of ttlem, ussaCjjuseffs • Poara of �Fpeal 1998 NOV 25 A II: 35 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH REITHER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 WILLSON STREET Rl\Bl A hearing on this petition was held November 18, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Ronald Harrison and Michael Ward. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 pursuant to Article IX, Section 9-4 (b) which would allow the building to be used at a two (2) family dwelling. In accordance with Section 5-3 (j ) , the change of use requested is not more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing six (6) family use. In addition, the Special Permit may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance, as required by Section 8-6. • The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants . The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner is th&owner of the land and buildings at 12 Willson Street. In April of 1997 petitioner sought an administrative ruling form this Board to reverse the Building inspectors finding • that the legal use of the property was as a single family dwelling. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH C REITHER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 WILLSON STREET • page two 2. Petitioner made a timely appeal from the Board' s April 1997 ruling. During the course of the ensuing lawsuit, the Court asked the City of Salem to enter into mediation with petitioner. While in mediation the parties agreed that, in an effort to resolve the dispute, the petitioner would apply to this Board for a special permit to allow the building to be used as a two family. 3. Petitioner who is represented by Attorney Kevin T. Daly of Salem stated that the building is equipped as a two family, that the surrounding homes include many that are two families and even multiple family dwellings and that available off-street parking would accommodate three vehicles. 4. In opposition, Steve Lerman, trustee of M S L Realty Trust at 250 Jefferson Avenue, stated that his property is adversely affected by water flow from the 12 Willson Street property, which worsened when the subject house was installed on the lot, and that he believed the problem would be exacerbated by the hot-topping of the driveway area thereon. 5. Also speaking in opposition were Erie Soper, who stated that the permit allowing the building to be used as a two family would increase density and congestion, worsen traffic conditions for the surrounding homes, and would increase the likelihood that the building would become absentee landlord owner. All these factors • would be detrimental to the neighborhood. 6. Robert Lemelin spoke in opposition, stating that traffic conditions on Willson Street had worsened in recent years, increasing the number of traffic accidents. 7. Tony Lysiak, of 258 Jefferson Ave. and Ann and Rena Pelletier of 3 Horton Street, also opposed the petition because it would increase congestion in the neighborhood, worsen existing parking problems, and exacerbate the water flow off the property. 8. Joan Lovely, Ward Councillor for Ward 3, opposed the granting of petitioner petition, stating that the proposed driveways would increase the neighbor's drainage problems and would detrimentally affect density and congestion in the area. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows : 1 . The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. Z n CD r,-y o rim X70 N R TI C C/3 • D nrn C.). m3 cn D DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH C. REITHER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 WILLSON STREET 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 0 in favor, and 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 November 18, 1998 /Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN 7ILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MCL Chapter 40A, Section 11 , the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. C-) Board of Appeal r" m� N N N r C:) D -n a cn' u.l D Ln • Y Tity of ttlem, ttssttrljusetts Poarb of ,Jwa 3 28 PH '98 CITY OF SALEM. MASS CI FRK'S OFFICF DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RICHARD PABICH REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 35 WINTER ISLAND ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward, Ronald Harrison 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 locate garage in front yard, Variance to locate garage nearer than 10 feet to principal structure and Variance from side setback of 5 feet for the property located at 35 Winter Island Road. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other land, buildings, or structures in the same district. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. . 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioner sought three variances from density requirements in order to reconstruct a dilapidated garage that has been located in his front yard. 2. The variances needed were; front yard setback requirement, variance from minimum distance between buildings on lot and side yard setback requirement. 3. There was no objections to the proposed variances. 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 wand not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RICHARD PABICH REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 35 WINTER ISLAND ROAD R-1 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with existing structure. Variance Granted (] June 17, 1998 Nina Cohen, 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