Loading...
1999-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ClCLtRK 5' FFI OA flLitV of ttlem, ttssttdjuseffa e • `', Poara of Appeal 1999 MAR 22 p 3: 31 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARY LOU TRANOS REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 130 BAY VIEW AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held March 17, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Ronald Harrison, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko 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 Special Permit Nariance to extend a non-conforming structure for the property located at 130 Bay View Avenue located in an R-1 Zone. The province the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to the request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 0), 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 rules 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 MARY LOU TRANOS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 130 BAY VIEW AVENUE R-1 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. Paul Nelson, an architect who resides at 137 Bay View Avenue, represented the petitioner, Mary Lou Tranos. 2. Building plans prepared by Talbot Nilsson, an architectural firm located at 36 Commerce Way, Woburn, was presented to the Board. 3. Plot plan prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation of 47 Linden St. in Salem, was also presented to the board. 4. The petitioners requested a variance to extend a non-conforming structure to construct an addition. The plans also detailed remodeling of the interior of the house. According to the plans, the height of the building will be increased by 4 feet, but the foundation size will not be increased. Eighty square feet will be added to the first floor and 300 square feet will be added to the second floor. • 5. Everett Dawkins, Jr. of 122 Bay View Avenue, wrote a letter in support of the petition. 6. Manly Ratliff, owner of 136 Bay View Avenue and who currently resides in Richmond, Ma. Wrote a letter in opposition to the petition. 7. Barry Hyde of 96 Bay View Avenue, James Bums of 32 Beach Ave, Mary Wilson of 140 Bay View Ave. and Dawn Stapero, who resides at 136 Bay View Ave. all, spoke in favor of the petition. All spoke favorable of transforming the house from a summer cottage to a year—round residence. 8. There was no one present to speak In opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the requested Special Permit 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 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire n o Safety shall be strictly adhered to. x T • N Uj N N D r- 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. nri -3 m3 w D • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY LOU TRANOS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMITNARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 130 BAY VIEW AVENUE R1 5. Exterior finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. Special Permit &Variance Granted March 17, 1999 Michael Ward 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: A m� 0 T Board of Appeal N u'v N or �^3 rrns .. v W • Qlitg of �ttlem, ttssttcljuseftf8?(S OFFICE A Paurb of cAppeal 1999 NOV 30 A 10: 25 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HAWTHORNE COVE MARINA INC, et al, REQUESTING AN ADIMISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 BLANEY STREET I A hearing on this petition was held on November 17,1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cb-hen, Chariman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris, Stephen . Buczko and Ronald Harrison. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner are requesting an Administrative Ruling that the Board rescind the decision of the Salem Zoning Officer to issue a certificate of Zoning Compliance in connection with an application of a Waterways License for the structures located at 4 Blaney Street I. • After.hearing the evidence the Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioners, represented by Attorney George W. Atkins III, Esq. are abutters and neighbors of the property at 4 Blaney Street in an Industrial Zone that is owned by Goldeneye Corp. 2. Petitioners sought relief under Section 9-3 (d) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, requesting that the Board rescind the decision of Peter Strout, the Building Inspector, to issue a Certificate of Zoning Compliance, stating that the Goldeneye application and plans are not in violation of local zoning ordinances. Petitioners further seek to prohibit issuance of a Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy for any building or use at the Blaney Street property (the "site") as described in the Goldeneye application and plans. 3. Goldeneye is represented by Joseph C. Correnti, Esq. in connection with its application to this Board and also its application to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP")for a Waterways License for the site. 4. Goldeneye initially applied on August 18, 1999 for a Special Permit/Variance for marine related and water dependent uses for the site. At its initial presentation and at the subsequent site visit and subsequent meetings with the Board, Goldeneye described in general terms some of the intended uses for the site. These included a marina and pier, walkway, barge, gangways and terminal building, with parking for • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF HAWTHORNE COVE MARINA REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 BLANEY STREET page two 200 + cars. Goldeneye also submitted a "Vicinity Map" and plan entitled " Parking Lot Layout Plan" prepared by Bourne Engineering of Franklin, Ma. 5. Goldeneye's proposed plan was deemed not to be in compliance with existing zoning regulations affecting the industrial district. The Board asked for further information regarding the types of businesses that might operate on the site, but were not provide any further information by Goldeneye. 6. On October 20, 1999, Goldeneye requested leave to withdraw the petition on the grounds that the Board lacked authority to regulate uses of structures beyond the mean low water level. . . 7. Goldeneye's request to withdraw the petition was.denied, and the Zoning Board _ voted 5-0 to deny the requested relief. Therefore, based on the fact and on evidence presented, Nina Cohen made a motion and was seconded that the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the petitioners request for an Administrative Ruling. • 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has 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. (flit of ttlem, ussurljus�eIIA's}OFF CE A a • Potts of �{r}rettl 1999 OCT 21 P 2: 55 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GOLDENEYE CORP. REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMITNARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 BLANEY STREET I A hearing on this petition was held on September 15, 1999 and continued to October 20, 1999 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/Variance to allow Marine related and water dependent uses for the property located at 4 Blaney Street. • 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 used, 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 the lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the • purpose of the Ordinance. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GOLDENEYE CORP REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT/VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT4 BLANEY STREET I page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner, represented by Joseph C. Correnti Esq. of Serafini, Serafini, Darling & and Correnti LLP, sought a special permit/variance for marine related and water dependant uses for the property located at 4 Blaney Street. The petition, which was originally heard at the Board August 18, 1999, was continued at the petitioners request, to allow a site visit to take place on September 1,1999. 2. Petitioner in its initial presentation to the Board listed some of the intended uses for which the zoning variance was sought. The uses listed were: "construction and installation of a pier, walkway, barge, gangways, terminal building and parking area of 200 +/- cars. "Petitioner also submitted two drawings in support of the proposed plan, labeled "Vicinity Map" and " Parking Lot Layout Plan", by Bourne Consulting Engineering of Franklin, Ma." 3. In its oral presentation, petitioner indicated that detailed information regarding the prospective use and its impact on the traffic in the surrounding residential neighborhood would be presented to the neighbors at public hearings that would • take place as part of a "c.91 license application process". Goldeneye stated that Massachusetts coastal regulations required them to obtain a license under c.91 for the proposed uses of the waterfront property, and that the licensing process mandated by the state regulation guaranteed that local concerns would be heard, and questions answered. For this reason, petitioner asked to defer all questions regarding the intensity of the pier-borne uses, such as the number and type of boats to be run from the proposed pier until a more complete presentation could be make. 4. Subsequent to the initial hearing and site visit, petitioner changed its mind about the zoning application, and took the position that no zoning relief would be necessary since the proposed uses fall outside the jurisdiction of the City of Salem and its zoning ordinance. Goldeneye's position seemed to be that landside uses were accessory to the offshore uses. 5. Upon information and belief, petitioner's license application under c.91 was granted on or about September 28, 1999, with no further public hearings or presentations on the issues of traffic impact or intensity of use. 6. Petitioner's request to withdraw the initial petition was denied by unanimous vote of the Zoning Board on October 20, 1999, and the initial petition, requesting a variance/special permit for"marine dependent and water related uses/" remained before this Board for approval. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GOLDENEYE CORP REQUESTING A VARIANCE/ SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 BLANEY STREET I page three 7. The Board heard comments of neighbors regarding the burden that heavy bus and car traffic would impose on the residential owners on and around Derby Street, and several requests for additional information regarding the number and type of boats and boat trips. Neighbors also requested additional information about public access to the site, lighting, other activities or uses on the site in addition to the loading of boats, and whether boat trips would include gambling or gaming boats. 8. The petitioners did not undertake to answer the concerns of the neighborhood at this hearing. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board Of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. • 3. The 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. 4. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 0 in favor and 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 and Variance is denied. Variance & Special Permit Denied October 20, 1999 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GOLDENEYE CORP REQUESTING A VARIANCE/SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 BLANEY STREETI page four A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, is 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 _ grapted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certifica i n of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been f(ed, or that, if such appeal have 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. • • °�. 01itu of ttlem, ttssttclju�IYZTiti$S OFFICE a • '', Pourb of (�kppeal 1999 AUG 19 P 3: 0U DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL FERRARO & ROBERT BOCUZZI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 BOSTON STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held August 18, 1999 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen, Ronald Harrison, 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. At the request of the petitioner's Attorney, William Quinn of Salem, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for Variance for a Change of Use (check cashing store) for the property located at 40 Boston Street. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE August 18, 1999 / ,rte r,&"Csc • 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 MA (f 1tv of ,'5ttlem, ttssttcllu'se# slcE • 3 �upezil Iggq NOV 22 A 11. 30 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICK & MICHELLE CHASSE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 BOSTON STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held November 17, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris, 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 Special Permit to alter a lawful nonconforming use from retail sale of paint and wallpaper to the retail sale of new, used, and consigned clothing, accessories, furnishing, juvenile items and toys for the property located at 40 Boston Street R-2. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 0), 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 of 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 stuctures 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: Gi i 'Y OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE Iq DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICK & MICHELL CHASSE REQUESTINGaA9 Nov 22 A II: 30 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 BOSTON STREET page two 1. The petitioners, Patrick & Michelle Chasse, were represented by Attorney Daniel J. Casey, of 27 Congress Street, Salem, Ma. 2. The petitioner requests a Special Permit to alter a lawful nonconforming use from retail sale of paint and wallpaper to the retail sale of new, used, and consigned clothing, accessories, furnishings, juvenile items and toys, for the property located at 40 Boston Street. 3. The subject property is owned by Philip H. Berube. Patrick and Michelle Chasse plan on purchasing the property from Mr. Berube. 4. Patrick and Michelle Chasse currently operate a similar business at 94 Boston Street, Salem. 5. Meg Twohey provided conditional support on behalf of herself and the Federal • Street Neighborhood Association. Ms. Twohey requested that the business operation be limited to six days per week exclusive of Sundays, with operating hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with two evenings per week to 8:00 p.m. Mr. Twohey also requested that there be no outside storage of merchandise, that product for sale be primarily used and consigned goods with less than 50% new goods, and that no additional signage be placed on the Federal Street side of the building. 6. Councillor Regina Flynn submitted a letter in support of the special permit. 7. Mr. Brian Connelly of 188 Federal Street indicated that he was in support of the requested special permit provided that the conditions requested by Ms. Twohey were met. 8. No opposition to the requested Special Permit was presented. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows; 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 2. 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. CI ; Y OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PATRICK AND MICHELLE CHASSE REQUSTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 BOSTON STREET R-2 .Iggq NOV 22 A II: 30 page three 3. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, 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 Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having • jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 6. The business operation shall be limited to six days per week exclusive of Sundays, with operating hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. With two evenings per week to 8:00 p.m. 7. There shall be no outside storage of merchandise. 8. Product for sale shall be primarily used and consigned goods with less than 50% new goods. 9. No additional signage shall be placed on the Federal Street side of building. Special Permit Granted November 17,1999 ,-z� � d CSrn, Stephen Buczko, Member Board of Appeal • `��.�ER;CS OFF CEA 1999 Ntl 22 A 11 30 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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.thpt the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been ' filed; or that„if-SU6R.app ;a p been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is "'""r"e'co"rd�d"irtFie" UfYi'f ssex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of-rword-or iEjlee d aDd,Wted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • • �,,•� .,,` Ci-iyF SAILEM. A Ctu of �afem, �assacf fis`etls� ", �6narD of �p�rea! 1999 00 22 P 3: 02 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PETER COPELAS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135-137 BOSTON STREET B-2 A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 1999 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen, Stephen Harris, 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. At the request of the petitioner's Attorney William Quinn, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a Special Permit to expand non-conforming residential use, to reduce a non-conforming side setback and Variance form density regulations for existing two family and a new two story brick structure to contain 8 units for the property located at 135-137 Boston Street located in a B-2 zone. • GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE October 20, 1999 r� CSC- J 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 • �`. TitV Of tt1Pm, lU55UC1iu9Ptt% f Y OF SALEM, r CLERK'S OFFICE �',, �nttrD of ��eril 1999 MAR 24 P 2: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PILGRIM REALTY TRUST & RUGGLES- KLINGMAN MANUFACTURING REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27-29 BALCOMB STREET AND 5 FOSTER COURT R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on March 17, 1999, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Stephen Buczko, Michael Ward and Paul Valaskagis. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner requesting Variances for lot area, lot area per dwelling unit. Lot width, side yard & rear yard for a resubdivision for the property located at 27-29 Balcomb Street and 5 Foster Court. • The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exit which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner, represented by George W. Atkins, sought variances for lot area, lot per dwelling unit, frontage and side and rear setbacks to allow resubdivision of the property formerly used as apart of a manufacturing plant. Petitioner's plan is to create six residential lots on the site. 2. Petitioner received approval form the Planning Board to create three lots, which meet • all the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The fourth lot, Lot D, is slated for further subdivision to allow construction of a noe-family residence and two-family residence. Both of these proposed units require variances. In addition, the CITY OF SALEM. MA CLERKS OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PILGRIM REALTY TRUST & RUGGLES- KLINGMAN PROPERTY^LOCATED ATT27 29 BA COMB STREET-5 FOSTER COURTNG INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR �'aR 2i' P z 00 pagetwo proposed plan would add acreage to an existing two-family residence in such a way as to create a new lot that also requires a variance of the lot area per dwelling unit requirements. 3. Testimony by neighbors and abutters were presented to the effect the site is plagued by drainage problems. Petitioner affirmed that the City of Salem owns a drainage easement running diagonally across the property. The easement does not cross Lot D, however, drainage problems are experienced by surrounding homeowners. 4. The following homeowners spoke in opposition to the proposed subdivision: Mary St. Pierre, 6 Locett St., Nancy Fabiszewski, 26 Balcomb St., Mary Courtney, 2 Foster Ct. and James Poppy of 27 Bradford St. They were supported in their opposition by Ward Councillor Sally Hayes. Issues raised concerned the increase in density to the neighborhood, which are predominantly one of single family homes, the potential for further and damaging drainage problems, and the detrimental public safety effect of numerous additional cars using the narrow access roads. Additionally, the homeowners stated that petitioners failed to show a hardship that would meet the ordinance's requirement • On the basis of the above findings of fad, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially hardship to the petitioner. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 in opposition and 0 in favor to grant the requested variances. Having failed to gamer the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED March 17, 1999 Nina Cohen, Chadman • Member, Board of Appeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PILGRIM REALTY TRUSE & RUGGLES- KLINGMAN MANUFACTIRING INC.REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27-29 BALCOMB STREET- 5 FOSTER COURT page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A; Section 11, the Variance or Special Pennit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • � m N N N A om N n m 3 CD D • CI CLERK, 'S OFFICE (11itV ofttlem 'fflttssudlusetg ' MCI JUN l P 3. 10 Pourb of Append DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CYNTHIA OTTEN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30-32 BECKFORD STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, 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 requests a Special Permit to extend an existing nonconforming structure by the addition of a porch for the property located at 30-32 Beckford Street R-2. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 0), 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 of 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 stuctures 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: • • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CYNTHIA OTTEN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30-32 BECKFORD STREET R-2 page two 1. The petitioner, Cynthia Often is a Trustee of the 30-32 Beckford Street Realty Trust, the owners of the property located at 30-32 Beckford Street. The petition was presented by Mr. Often. 2. The petitioner seeks special permit to extend an existing nonconforming structure at 30-32 Beckford Street. 3. The dwelling structure will be modified by the addition of a new porch. 4. The subject property is located in an R-2 District. 5. Mr. Often stated that the existing porch would be removed with the exception of a portion of the foundation. 6. The existing porch abuts the property line, the new porch will be located 5' from the property line. • 7. No opposition to the petition was presented. 8. Speaking in favor of the petition were Attorney John H. Carr, of 7 River Street and Mary Lee Stores of 26 Beckford Street. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions 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 ani will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's L , inhabitants. ^�•r r w �rr) o rr73 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CYNTHIA OTTEN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30-32 BECKFORD STREET R-2 page three 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 statues, 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 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 finished 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 or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Special Permit Granted June 16, 1999 Stephen Buczko Board of Appeal iN O� r • "� O � � DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CYNTHIA OTTEN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30-32 BECKFORD STREET R-2 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 the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal J O� r W M. m3 — D 0 • CI Y OF SALEM. MA of �ZJJPM, ttssttcliuls�e#f OFFICE 1999 FEB 25 A if: 14 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT H. CURCURULL REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMITNARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 171 BOSTON STREET B-2 A hearing on this petition was held on February 17, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko and Stephen Hams. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit/Variance for additional Ryder Truck Renal, a used car dealership, signage for.truck rentals and a Special Permit for paint/spray booth for the property located at 171 Boston Street. • The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3 0), 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 reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Upon information and belief, petitioner operates the business known as All Star of Woburn, Inc. at the above address. Neither petitioner nor his representative Attended the public hearing conducted by the Zoning Board of Appeal • 2. Petitioner sought special permits and variances to enable him to expand the services offered by All Star of Woburn to include truck rentals, used car sales and automobile painting. DECISION OF ROBERT H. CUCURULL FOR A SPECIAL PERMITNARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 171 BOSTON STREET B2 page two 3. At the hearing, Ward 5 Councillor Leonard O'Leary and Ward 6 Councillor Sally Hayes stated that petitioner is currently in violation of zoning ordinance regulations regarding the businesses in operation at 171 Boston Street. Both city councillors opposed the petition on the grounds that an expansion of the existing businesses would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 4. The petition was opposed by two neighbors, Bob Brophy of 165A Boston Street and Francis Geany of 5 Bow Street, who stated that the petitioner's operations were currently not in compliance with zoning regulations. The neighbors further stated that they would oppose the installation of either a truck rental business or a used car business at that site. 5. The Board was unable to find any basis for hardship in the materials submitted in support of his petition. • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance: 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the Neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience and Welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 0 in favor and 5 in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to gamer the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit is denied. Special Permit Denied February 17, 1999 ca t T Mn Nina Cohen, Chairman ;� Board of Appeal No> -n • D -„3 rn3 _ D . DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT H. CUCURULL REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMITNARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 171 BOSTON STREET B-2 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the the City Clerk that 20 days have elapses 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 � r m �o W �T N C/1 `J' o r D ^M n• ' m z n GI'i Y OF<<SALEM, MA 01itu of tzlem, �tt882Itl' of iiiSS OFFICE • a Pnttra of ':�Fpen! Iqqq E4AY -5 All: 15 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DONALD WYMAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 BRIDGE STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held April 21, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from front, side and rear setbacks for a nonconforming structure to add dormers for the property located at 14 Bridge Street. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner was presented by Donald Wyman, the owner of the property 2. The petitioner would like to add 3 dormers and a wrap around deck to the property. 3. Side setback will beset at 0', rear setback will stay the same at 4' and the front setback will be changed form 5' to 1. 4. Four letters were sent in favor the petitioner. • Cii Y OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DONALD WYMAN REQUESTING A VARIpQft,WAY -S A 11: 15 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 BRIDGE STREET R-2 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire'Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Variance Granted April 21, 1999 /V/ CSS Paul Valakagis, Member Board of Appeal • vi f Y OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THE DONALD WYMAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 BRIDGE STREET R-2 page three 1999 MAY -5 A l l: lb A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • of ulPm �l2ISSUCtUeeI ttC f Y OF SALEM. MA � PnnrD of '�ppeul CLERK'S OFFICE 1999 MAY 28 P 2: 13 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JAMES V.D'AMIO JR.REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 180-220 BRIDGE STREET (1) A hearing on this petition was held MAY 19, 1999 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen, Ronald Harrison, 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. At the request of the petitioner's Attorney, Joseph Correnti, Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for Variances which would include residential, hotel office building & restaurant components& dimensional Variances; more than one principal building on lot, minimum depth of front yard & maximum height of building for the property located at 180-220 Bridge Street. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE May 19, 1999 /�}} IL !/t w 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 • ^v pK SAOFFICEA arty Of �ttlem, ttssttcljusetts • e Pours of �Fveal 1999 APR 23 A 10: 34 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GAETANO COLOMBA REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 BUENA VISTA AVENUE WEST R-1 A hearing on this petition was held April 19, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Michael Ward 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 Special Permit to extend an existing nonconforming structure for the property located at 4 Buena Vista Avenue West R-1. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 0), 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 of 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 stuctures 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: • CITY OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GAETANO COLOMBA REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 BUENA VISTO AVF,,tI?n A 10: 3U WEST R-1 page two 1. The petitioner, Gaetano Colomba, is a trustee of the Buena Vista Realty Trust, the owners of the property located at 4 Buena Vista Ave. West. The petition was presented by Gaetano Colomba. 2. The petitioner seeks special permit to extend an existing nonconforming structure at 4 Buena Vista Avenue West. 3. The dwelling structure will be modified by the addition of front and rear dormers, and a deck on the front second floor level. 4. The subject property is located in an R-1 District. 5. In 1996, the Zoning Board of Appeal ruled in favor of a petition of a petition for similar relief;however, the changes were not made and the granted relief lapsed. 6. No opposition to the petition was presented. • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 4. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, 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 Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. CITY OF SAL. CLERK'S OF '• DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GAETANO COLOMBA REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 BUENA VISTA AVENUE WEST page three 1999 APA 23 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finished 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 or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Special Permit Granted April 19,1999 C� Stephen Buczko 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 the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • 01itu of '5ttlem, ttssizrljusetfs `'Q� �nttrD ,rf ��ettl C5O N N u.? q DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LESLIE & LINDA WHITE REQUESTING A o VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 CALABRESE STREET R-1 ` A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side setback to construct addition for the property located at 16 Calabrese Street located in an R-1 zone. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner, Linda White, represented herself. 2. The variance was requested for the side setback in order to construct an addition. 3. The residence is located in an R-1 district where a minimum of 10 feet is required for side yard width. The proposed addition would reduce the side yard width to 5 feet. 4. A plot plan prepared by Reid Land Surveyors of Lynn, Ma. Was presented to the Board. In addition, a diagram of the proposed addition, prepared by First Choice • Construction, was presented to the Board. 5. There was no opposition to the proposal. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LESLIE & LINDA WHITE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 CALABRESE STREET R-1 On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner is to obtain Building Permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. —0 mo 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. N � N D 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having o rn - jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. • "� m3 C) _ v Variance Granted October 20, 1999 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is • recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. C)ry pF SALEM CLERK'S pFF10E A ftLit of "ittlem, Httssucljusefts • � a Pottrb of 'A"eal 1999 F EB 24 q 11: 53 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DARLENE GALLIEN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 130 CANAL STREET I A hearing on this petition was held February 17, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Michael Ward and Stephen Hams. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner Darlene Gallien , is requesting a Special Permit to extend a non-conforming structure for the property located at 130 Canal Street. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 0), 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 of 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 DARLENE GALLIEN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 130 CANAL STREET page two C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner operates a business known as North Shore Fruit Basket at the above address. Her husband represented her before the Board in connection with this matter. 2. Petitioner sought variances to enable them to construct an enclosed structure on an existing concrete foundation and thereby expand the work area of the business. The Special Permit is required because the existing structure is nonconforming In that it extends right up to the boarder of the property. 3. There was no opposition to the proposed special permit. • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 4. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, codes ordinances and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. • T r~ 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety �o Shall be strictly adhered to. ^� -' L- vin a D C-). cn Ma DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DARLENE GALLIEN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 130 CANAL STREET page three 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Special Permit Granted February 17, 1999 ./14, Com. cscA 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 the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal N U� aD r • D n. n- rn� � D w TitV of 'Sttlem, Ausendjusetts • > Pours of ( {Fpeul c O .n � o� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRED J. DION YACHT YARD INC. REQUESTIPp A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 266 CANAL STREET B-2 9 y A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris, 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 Special Permit to allow use of the premises for boat storage and maintenance for the property located at 266 Canal Street B-2. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 0), 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 of 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 stuctures 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: CLERK S OFFICE R • 1999 OCT 22 A 9= 18 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FRED J. DION YACHT YARD INC. REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 266 CANAL STREET B-2. page two . 1. The petitioner, Fred J. Dion Yacht Yard Inc. was represented by Attorney George W. Atkins III, of 59 Federal Street, Salem 2. The petitioner requests a Special Permit to allow use of the premises for boat storage and maintenance in accordance with Section 5-3 (f) (2) and Section 9-4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 3. The subject property is owned by 266 Canal Street Trust of which John Bertini is a Trustee. Fred J. Dion Yacht Yard, Inc. plans on leasing the property from 266 Canal Street Trust. 4. A zoning district boundary divides the subject property; the property is located in both the B-2 District and I District. The proposed use is an allowed in the I District and special permit use in the B-2 District. • 5. No changes to the structure are planned. Minor construction including the installation of a ramp and expanding access doors will be performed. Also, a sprinkler system will be installed as per the request of the Salem Fire Department. 6. Approximately 60 boats will be stored on site with half being stored outside and half inside. 7. Boat maintenance to be performed includes simple maintenance, waxing/polishing, winterizing engines, replacement of parts, equipment installation, bottom sanding and painting. The sanding and painting operation will be performed inside the existing building. Major work will be performed at Fred J. Dion Yacht Yard, Inc.'s Glendale Street facility. 8. Only incidental sales will be performed at the site. 9. No opposition to the requested Special Permit was presented. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows; 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 2. 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. CIT` OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF FRED J. DION YACHT YAT9gINCi R§QU npq • SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 266 CAyNAL SIRE B-2 page three \6/ 3. T_he Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and ill promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. o V� ��`VTherefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief 0� requested, subject to the following conditions: a a 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, 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 Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. • 6. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering form the City of Salem Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board and Conservation Commission. Special Permit Granted October 20, 1999 CSC Stephen uczko, 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 the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been • filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. (situ of '$ttlem, lHttssttcliusetts '� II �• °', Paura of '�Fvezd z rn o �o �rn or -T13 w n' C) n DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VINNIN SQUARE LLC, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAROL WAY & WEATHERLY DRIVE R-3 A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance to the minimum distance between buildings for the property located at Carol Way and Weatherly Drive R-3. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Attorney Joseph Correnti, of 63 Federal Street represented the petitioner's. 2. Attorney Tim Davern representing the abutters, voiced approval. 3. There was no opposition to the plan. 4. Petitioners previously had variances approved but have failed to ask for one last Variance for the minimum distance between buildings. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VINNIN SQUARE LLC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAROL WAY & WEATHERLY DRIVE R-3 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner is to 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 shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted October 20, 1999 Richard Dionne, Member Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VINNIN SQUARE LLC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAROL WAY & WEATHERLY DRIVE 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such-appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • of �$ttlem, tts jus ' n �• a Poura of 'cc1{penl REQUEST TO MODIFY THE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VINNIN SQUARE LLC FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAROL WAY AND WEATHERLY DRIVE (date- stamped Dec. 30, 1997) A hearing on this petition was held on May 19, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko 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. The petitioner's Vinnin Square LLC, represented by Attorney Joseph Correnti requests to modify the decision of the petition date stamped December 30, 1997 for the property located at Carol Way &Weathery Drive. • The provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which are applicable to the request modification to the Special Permits and Variances and Section 5-3 0) and Section 9-5, 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 are not generally affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, • buildings, or structures in the same district. Of REQUEST TO MODIFY THE DECISION OF VINNIN SQUARE LLCO T.t�E PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAROL WAY AND WEATHERLY DRIVE�(d4�ted- stamped Dec. 30, 1997) page two B. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. This request comes to the Board following an agreement reached in a civil action in Essex Superior Court, C.A. No. 98-0083B, brought by neighbors in the appeal of a decision of the Board granting certain variances and special permits to the owners of land known as Phase 4 in the Village of Vinnin Square. 2. The Board's decision was challenged by condominium owners based on objections to the traffic conditions and increased density likely to result from the planned • improvements in Phase 4 at the Village at Vinnin Square. 3. Following extended discussions, the parties agree on their desire to modify the Board's decision by making the following specific changes; a. The maximum height of the buildings shall be as follows: Building A will be F.F.E.73, is 4 and Y2 stories without an attic and will be 56' high. Building D will be F.F.E. 91 or lower, is 4 and Y2 stories without an attic and will be 56' high. b. The principal buildings on Lot 1 shall be 16 townhouses, two 6-unit residential building, and one midrise building (Building D). c. The maximum height of fences and/or boundary walls shall not exceed 10 feet. d. The total number of units in Phase 4 shall not exceed 148 and shall be distributed as follows (1) on Lot 1, one midrise building with 60 units (Building D), 16 townhouses ..and two 6-unit residential buildings; (ii) on Lot 2, one midrise building with 60 units (Building A). e. .The maximum width of entrance and exit drives shall not exceed 36 feet. 4. The front setback for parking areas shall not be less than feet from all lot lines and 5 feet from street lines (excluding parking along Weatherly Drive/America Way). • 4. In addition to Mark Blair, the Ward Councillor, the following residents spoke in favor of the adoption of the proposed agreement in its entirety: Timothy Davem, Esq., Gardner Gould, Leon McDowell and Hal Rosenthal. J� "2 P • REQUEST TO MODIFY THE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VINNIN SQUARE, LLC FOR-THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAROL WAY AND WEATHERLY DRIVE (date stamped Dec. 30, 1997) page three 5. By written letter, the abutting owners of the Grosvenor Nursing Home objected to the proposed agreement via their attorney, Jeffrey Shribman, Edq. 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 sustantial 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 this ordinance. 4. The modification requested 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 voted 5-0 to grant the request to modify the decision of Vinnin Square LLC, for the property located at Carol Way and Weatherly Drive date stamped Dec. 30, 1997. 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 ll, the Variance-or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of this decision, hearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has 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 0 01itu of "ittlem, ttsstttlluseffs PnttrD of .Appeal 1999 SEP3 29 P ' 3 L DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RUDY NAZAIRE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7-9 CHERRY STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held September 15, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris,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 Special Permit to extend a non-conforming structure for the property located at 7-9 Cherry Street R2. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 Q), 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 of 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 stuctures 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: • CICR CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RUDY NAZAIRE REQUESTIN&AP€CML P 3' 32 PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7-9 CHERRY STREET R-2 page two 1. The petitioner, represented by Jack Keilty, Esq. Requested a Special Permit to extend the third-floor living area of his nonconforming four-family residence to allow him to office additional living space on the third floor to the tenants of the second-floor apartment. Plans submitted with the petition showed the proposed expanded height of the roofline, in addition to a proposed interior layout. 2. Petitioner stated that the newly created living space would become part of the existing apartment and would not create a new or separate dwelling unit. 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 hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows; 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial • hardship on the petitioner. 2. 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. 3. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, 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 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. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RUDY NZAIRE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7-9 CHERRY STREET R-2 page three 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Special Permit Granted September 15, 1999 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 the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal n rn �o N NN 9 O r nm w m� w N • CITY FOF SAOFFICEA (91tg of "§ulem, f ttssarlilrs�19 ' s Poarb of (�kpreul 1999 t4AY 21 P 2: 10 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RUDY NAZAINE REQUESTING A VARIANCE/SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7-9 CHERRY STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on May 19, 1999, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Stephen Buczko, Michael Ward and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other and notices of the hearing were properly published in-the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner requesting Variances to extend a non-conforming use to allow two additional dwelling units and relief from parking restrictions for the property located at 7- 9 Cherry Street. A motion was made to withdraw the Special Permit with all in favor. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: • a. Special conditions and circumstances exit which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner, Rudy Nazaire of 28 Becket Street, represented himself and was assisted by an architect, Robert Vorbach of Nashua, NH 2. William Kelley, Councillor of Ward 5, and Mary Wilbert, of 7 Cedar Street, a neighbor represented opposition to the petition, based mainly on the lack of parking in a congested area. Both spoke of the congested area and the lack of present parking for residents. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, • the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. J C CLERK SAOFFICE A • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RUDY NAZAINE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7-9 CHERRY STREET R-2 page two MCI MAY 2l P 2: 10 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially hardship derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 in opposition and 0 in favor to grant the requested variances. Having failed to gamer the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED ` May 19, 1999 GeQGZ/` J CSC Ronald Harrison, Member • Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH TME PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • CITY OF SALEM: MA Qlity of �$ttlem, �ffia5Satqj& ffS9FFICE Poara of '�Fveal 1999 APR 21 A 11: 08 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS BUBIER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 CHURCHILL STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held April 21, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko 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. The petitioners have requested a Variance from side setback to construct a deck for the property located at 16 Churchill Street R-1. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Thomas Bubier and Andrew Perkins, Trustees for the Phoenix Real Estate Trust, represented themselves as petitioners. 2. The petitioners requested a Variance from side setback to construct a deck off the rear of the house. The proposed deck is less than five feet from the side property line, and zoning requires ten feet in an R-1 district. 3. A plot plan, prepared by Reid Land Surveyors of Lynn, Massachusetts, was presented. • 4. Thomas Bubier presented photographs of the current house. 5. Andrew Perkins explained that the deck would be built over existing cement slab. CITY OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS BUBIER REQ��TINgA VARJA� FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 CHURCHILL STR ET -1 page two 6. There was no one at the meeting who spoke either in favor or opposition to the Variance requested. On the basis of the above findings of fad, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 4. A building permit is to be obtained. • 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be issued. Variance Granted April 21, 1999 Y)',a � \ Michael Ward Board of Appeal, Member • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THE THOMAS BUBIER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 CHURCHILL 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 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name ofdhe owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Mo Board of Appeal C)r— D rnrn m rn� o v 0o ' CITYOFSALEM, MA 0{ ulPm, KagenrIjL18PIIS11 S OFFICE • ��a� PDMCD of '�"P21j .1999 FEB 23 P 3- 02 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ALFRED V. FRAUMENI JR.REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 CLARK AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held February 17, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko and Stephen Hams. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners are requesting a Variance from frontage to create two single family house lots for the property located at 18 Clark Avenue located in an R-1 zone. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or . structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner, who was represented by Joseph Correnti, OF Serafini, Serafini and Darling, sought a variance from frontage requirements to create two buildable lots at 18 Clark Avenue, which contains over 42,000 sq. ft. of land. 2. One of the proposed lots, Lot 358, would have 86.74 feet of frontage. The other lot, Lot 359, would have the full 100 feet of frontage required b the ordinance. 3. The lots in question have been designed for optimal utilization of a rise in land, behind which a steep sloped hillside will make construction difficult. • 4. There was no opposition to the proposed petition. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ALFRED V. FRAUMENI JR., INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 CLARK AVENUE R-1 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, an on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variances requested subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. The petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering form the City of Salem Assessors Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. • 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having Jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Conservation Commission. Variance Granted February 17, 1999 A�- Nina Cohen Board of Appeal, Chairman • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ALFRED V. FRAUMENI JR, INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 CLARK AVENUE R-1 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • rn c� r� M T, N N N W 0D Trn -n:r F- w rn: O D N • °°. Ctu of Salem, 4HUSINAljll$ �fFICEA • e Pottrb of (�kppeal 1999 AUG 20 A. 10. 43 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RIVER WHARF REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 COMMERCIAL STREET BPD A hearing on this petition was held August 18,1999 with the following Boaed Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from front yard setback to construct a greenhouse for the property located at 18 Commercial Street. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or • structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Wendy Goldsmith, of 7 Mall Street appeared before the Board and presented the plans. 2. The petitioner, River Wharf Realty Trust, d/b/a/The Bioengineering Group, Inc. has purchased the subject building and plans to add a greenhouse area to the front of the building, not for the growing of plants and vegetation, but to improve the appearance of the building and to provide a place for its employees to spend their time on work breaks. In order to erect a modular greenhouse, a Variance from the front yard setback is required since the structure would protrude within the allowed area for a setback. • 3. There was no opposition to this petition. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RIVER WHARD REALTH TRUSTS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 COMMERCIAL STREET BPD page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the hearing,.the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner 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. 9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted August 18, 1999 Ronald Harrison, Member Board of Appeal • ,• DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THE RIVER WHARF REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 COMMERCIAL STREET BPD 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • JF SALEM, 0 . � CLt I -S OFFICE 01itu of �ttlem, �Httsend usetts • °a _ Paurb of � 22 ppenl p 3. 35 4`""` 1999 IdOV DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ELIZABETH BRADT REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 COMMERCIAL STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held November 17, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris, 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 Special Permit to under Section 9-4 (b) to allow a change from one nonconforming use to another (Veterinary Office) for the property located at 20 Commercial Street BPD. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 Q), 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 of 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 stuctures 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: a.OFCEA F y�FRES DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ELIZABETH BRADT REQUEl v �eEC ' 35 PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 COMMERCIAL STREET BPD page two 1. Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Congress Street, represented the petitioner. 2. Many letters of support were read from Federal Street Neighborhood Association. 3. Attorney George Atkins, representing the seller of the property, spoke in support of the request. 4. Petitioner would like an open a Veterinary Office. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows; 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 2. 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. 3. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, 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 Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. • 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 7. No outside kennels. Y OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ELIZABETH BRADT REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 COMMERCIAL STREET BPD page three 1999 NOV 22 P 3: 35 8. Overnight hospitalization allowed but no boarding of healthy animals. Special Permit Granted / November 17,1999 Ct �W CTC 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 the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • of "'2§z1fem, usstttliusetts �+ a • Q4.R Puara of {Peal c; p �� rn N N N F N n� W rn3 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SHAWN & ROBERTA LINEHAN REQUESTING- v VARIANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 CROSS AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held September 15, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, 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. The petitioner is requesting Variances from density, side setback and rear setback to construct deck with roof over for the property located at 1 Cross Avenue. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner, Shawn Linehan represented himself. 2. Petitioner sought relief from density, side and rear setbacks in order to construct a 10' x 15' deck with a roof in the rear of his property. 3. Subject property is located in an R-1 District. 4. Petitioner presented plans for the design and the location of the deck. A plot plan of the existing,dwelling was prepared by Eastern Land Survey of Peabody • 5. Edward Wolfe, of 95 Bay View Ave., spoke in opposition of the roof on the deck. However, Mr. Wolfe was not against the construction of the deck if it is not built on a DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SHAWN & ROBERTA LINEHAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 CROSS AVENUE R-1 page two foundation. Mr. Wolfe also presented an undated assessors map that showed the showed the existing dwelling on 1 Cross Avenue may encroach upon the "paper _. extension" of High Street. 6. Robin Scott, of 3 Cross Avenue, did not speak in opposition or support of the proposed variance. She did ask questions regarding the plans. 7. There was no other opposition to the requested variance.. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. Petitioner is to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 8. The porch shall be located a minimum of four feet from the nearest point of the south east property line. Variance Granted September 15, 1999 pf tea: Michael Ward, Member Board of Appeal r^o " N N N p N n O C')- i DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SHAWN & ROBERTA LINEHAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1CROSS AVENUE R-1 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • r rn N rn� V 1 C7' w rn� v • Of ttlem, R1SSIICIIJAU S OFFICE A • �aQ� � �Rottra of � pettl Ig49 DEC 22 P 3: 08 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PRINCETON PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, INC. REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 289-293 ESSEX STREET B-5 A hearing on this petition was held December 15, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Stephen Buczko, Michael Ward, 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 Special Permit so as to allow a change from commercial use to one additional residential unit for the property located at 289-293 Essex Street B-5. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 6), 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 of 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 stuctures 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: • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PRINCETON PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, INC. REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 289-293 ESSEX STREET B-5 page two 1. The petitioner, Princeton Properties Management Inc. was represented by Joseph C. Correnti, Esquire. 2. The petitioner requests a Special Permit to allow a change from the commercial use to one additional residential unit for the property located at 289-293 Essex Street B-5. 3. In 1987, the former Salem Theater was demolished, and the Essex House was subsequently constructed. In a series of Decisions, the Board of Appeal granted Variances to allow for a total of 45 apartments. A total of 43 residential units and one ground floor commercial unit were constructed. 4. The petitioner's request is to allow for the discontinuance of the commercial unit and the construction of one additional residential unit in its place. This would bring the total number of residential units on the site to 44. • 5. No exterior changes to the building will be made. 6. There are 33 indoor parking spaces at the site. 7. No opposition to the requested Special Permit was presented. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows; 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 2. 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. 3. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief. requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, codes ordinances and • regulations. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PRINCETON PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, INC. • REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 289-293 ESSEX STREET B-5 page three 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 Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. Special Permit Granted � j� \ December 15,1999 Gc4 �SC"� ) 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 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 the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • of "ittlem, 4KussttdjU9-1A 61:A OFFICE A • °e Pottra of �kppeal 1999 DEC 28 P 2 22 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JEANETTE M. MALAWAK REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 165 FEDERAL STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held December 15, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko 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 requests a Special Permit to reinstate 165 Federal Street to a two family and a Variance for parking requirements for the property located at 165 Federal Street R-2. The province the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to the request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 0), 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 rules 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. • i Y G(= SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JEANNETTE MALAWKA REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT &VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 165 FEDERALIS1j1��- Z$ P 2• 22 R-2 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. The petitioner, Jeanete Malawka, requested a Special Permit to reinstate 165 Federal Street to a two family dwelling and a Variance from parking requirements. 2. Her accountant, Tom Gallo, represented the petitioner. 3. Mr. Gallo stated that the residence was formerly utilized as a two family home and submitted architectural plans that were prepared by Shay B. Leary, of 25 Exchange Street in Lynn, in 1925. The plans displayed the floor plan layout of the tow family residence. 4. The residence is located in an R-2 district. 5. Adelaide Quaresma spoke in favor of the proposal. Ms. Quaresma and Mr. Hilario are prospective buyers of the property. They claimed that they would reside in the home. • 6. There is on street parking allowed in front of the property. 7. Regina Flynn, Ward 2 Councillor, submitted a letter in opposition to the proposal because of current neighborhood density and concerns that the property would be managed by an absentee landlord 8. No one was present in opposition to the proposal. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the requested Special Permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. Special Permit & Variance Granted ^- December 15, 1999 • Michael Ward, Member Board of Appeal CITY OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JEANETTE MALAWAKA REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATEPjq�TgLt528 P 2 22 FEDERAL STREET R-2 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of 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 OFOFA fllttt EM. MA of �ttlem, �ussttr11d4iff OFFICE n e Poarb of '�Fpenl 1999 14AY 20 P b- 43 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RYZARD KONARSKI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28 FORRESTER STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on May 19, 1999, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Stephen Buczko, Michael Ward and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner requesting Variances to convert two family dwelling into three family dwelling for the property located at 28 Forrester Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: • a. Special conditions and circumstances exit which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner, Ryszard Konarski, is the owner of the property located at 28 Forrester Street. The petition was presented by Mr.Richard W. Griffin, an architect from Salem. 2. The subject property is located in an R-2 District. 3. The petitioner seeks a variance from the permitted uses in an R-2 district to convert a two family dwelling to a three family dwelling. • 4. Mr. Griffin presented plans of the proposed conversation, which consisted of a two bedroom apartment on the third floor. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RYSZARD KONARSKI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28 FORRESTER STREET R-2 page two 5. Mr. Griffin presented plans of the proposed conversation, which consisted of a two bedroom apartment on the third floor. 6. The Board determined that the site had sufficient parking for the five cars. 7. Mr. Konaski stated that he was out of work due to an injury and that he could use the extra rental income the requested additional unit would provide. 8. Opposition to the requested variance was voiced by Ms. Marie Bescia of 48 Essex Street and Councillor Regina Flynn of 62 Washington Square South. Concerns expressed involved the availability of parking, density in the area, and retaining the character of the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. • 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially hardship to the petitioner. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 in opposition and 1 in favor to grant the requested variances. Having failed to gamer the four affirmative votes required to,pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED (/rJ��� CSG^�J May 19, 1999 ,yv Stephen Buczko, Member c: Board of Appeal C-'" � m-c v �o N uj U O Or Trr l.! n C? m 3 • D W • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RYSZARD KONARSKI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28 FORRESTER 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 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 Permgranted herein shall- lot take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal r: • r t rnCID N N O n � rn� xr �J • Tity of ttlem, ussttcljusetts 9 <� ��, e Pottra of '�Fpeal G JP v� •y � 9 R O DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CARLOS &ANA BORGES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 '/z GOODELL STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held August 18,1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from rear setback to construct an addition for the property located at 21 '/2 Goodell Street. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioners, Ana & Carlos Borges, are owners of the property located at 21 Yz Goodell Street. The petition was presented by Carlos Borges. 2. The petitioners seek a variance from rear setbacks to allow the construction of a 17 x 17 two-story addition for the property located at 21 Y� Goodell Street. 3. The subject property is located in an R-2 District. 4. Mr. Borges indicated that the addition would not include a basement. • 5. Mr. Richard Bencal of 19 Goodell Street submitted a letter requesting that restrictions be placed on the hours of construction if the variance was granted. CITY OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE 1999 AUG 23 A la 50 • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CARLO & ANA BORGES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 '/2 GOODELL STREET R-2 page two 6. Mr. Borges indicated that the addition would be used as a living room and master bedroom. 7. Mr. Borges agreed to install a dry well to handle runoff from the roof of the new addition. 8. It was determined that lot coverage provisions will not be exceeded. 9. The petitioners were granted relief from the rear setback requirement, to construct a single story 17 x 17 addition for the property, by the Zoning Board of Appeals on February 17,1999. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Hours of construction shall be limited to 9am-pm Monday thru Friday. No construction shall be allowed on Saturdays, Sundays or Holidays. 9. Petitioner shall install a dry well to handle runoff from the roof of the addition. Variance Granted August 18, 1999 • CScf� Stephen Buczko, Member Board of Appeal L.I i r ur Z)AUM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE 1999 AUG 23 A 10: SO DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CARLOS & ANA BORGES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 % GOODELL STREET R-2 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • Ctu of �$tfem, 'Massarl,ITYO'S OFFICE A a ,. • e Pottrb of (�ppeal 1999 FEB 24 P 2: 16 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANA PAULA BORGES REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 Y2 GOODELL STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held February 17, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Michael Ward and Stephen Hams. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters 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 Special Permit from rear setbacks to construct a 17 x 17 single story addition for the property located at 21 '% Goodell Street. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 0), 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 of 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 stuctures 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: • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANA PAULA BORGES REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 '/s GOODELL STREET page two 1. The petitioners Ana Paula and Carlos Borges are owners of the property located at 21 % Goodell Street. The petition was presented by Carlos Borges and his architect. 2. The petitioners seek a special permit from rear setbacks to allow an extension of a nonconforming structure to construct a 17 x 17 single story addition. 3. The subject property is located in an R-2 District. 4. Mr. Borges indicated that the addition would not include a basement. 5. Mr. Richard Bencal of 19 Goodell Street expressed concern regarding a ground Water problem in the area, questioned the use of the addition, and asked that restrictions be placed on the hours of construction if the special permit were granted.' 6. Mr. Borges indicated that the addition will be used as a living room 7. Mr. Borges agreed to install a dry well to handle run off from the room of the new addition. 8. It was determined that lot coverage provisions were not exceeded. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 4. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, codes ordinances and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Z • 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire saf&4 Shall be strictly adhered to. rn zC-- N n D -,rn N �3 ' m3 a- D • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANA PAULA BORGES RQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 '/x GOODELL STREET page three 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finished 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 or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 7. Hours of construction shall be limited to 9a,m, - 5 p.m. Monday thru Friday. No Construction shall be allowed on Saturdays, Sundays or Holidays. 9. Petitioner shall install a dry well to handle run off from the roof of the addition. Special Permit Granted February 17, 1999 • Stephen Buczko / ('SC h 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 the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • N �� O> -,m Ma J D of "ittlem, ttssucljusefts s Pottrb of �p}ienl r� a r�r DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAGE & DEBRA DAY REQUESTING A VARIANCE D FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 GOODELL STREET R-2 U m W F3 A hearing on this petition was held on March 17, 1999, with the following Boards, r7l Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Stephen Buczko, Mif:hael Ward and Paul Valaskagis. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner requests a Variance for subdivision, Lot 1, Variance on lot area, width, and front and side setbacks, Lot 2, Variance on lot area, lot width and rear setbacks, for the property located at 23 Goodell Street r-2. • The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exit which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to.the petitioner c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioners, Page T. and Debra Day are owners of the property located at 23 Goodell Street. Attorney George Atkins, of 59 presented the petition Federal Street, Salem. 2. The petitioner seeks variances from dimensional regulations for Lot area and lot width for proposed Lots 1 and 2, existing front and side yards for existing dwelling . On Lot 1, and rear yard for the proposed dwelling on Lot 2, in order to allow for Subdivision of the existing lot on the comer of Goodell and Highland Streets into Two lots consisting of the existing single family dwelling on Goodell Street (Lot 1) And a proposed single family dwelling on Highland Street (Lot 2). • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAGE AND DEBRA DAY REQUESTING A C-' VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 GOODELL STREET R-P roc page two NCn N t' 3. The subject property is located in an R-2 District. �' m 4. The existing lot is 10,207 square feet and is larger than existing lots in the are, ,, rrn:K .. v 5. The Page's presented a petition in support of the requested variances which v s signed by 14 friends and neighbors. 6. City Councillor Sally Hayes spoke in favor of the requested variances and stated that she was not aware of any opposition. Ms. Hayes did request that any approval be conditioned to allow only a single family dwelling on Lot 2. 7. Mr. Richard Bencal of 19 Goodell Street expressed concern regarding an under ground brook, which runs through the subject property and stated that there is a ground water problem in the area. Mr. Bencal was also concerned with the lot sizes, which would result from subdivision of the existing lot. Mr. Bencal strongly opposed the granting of the requested variances. 8. The petitioners agreed to address drainage issued with the City Engineer. • 9. The minimum lot area required in an R-2 Zoning District is 15,000 square feet. The requested variances would result in one 5,202 square foot lot and one 5,005 square foot lot. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially hardship to the petitioner. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 1 in favor, and 4 in opposition to grant the requested variances. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED C • March 17, 1999 a,4 (Sc- JJ�� Stephen Buczko Member, Board of Appeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAGE AND DEBRA DAY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 GOODELL STREET R-2 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • Mo x N N Ln w o D r- � �3 .. m3 N D w • CCL(E SALEM. (1lttu of "ittlem, �ZISSadjuSetts Rx S OFF16E A Pottrb of �kppeal 1999 FEB 22 P 3, 21 7 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARY ZAPPAS & HELEN JENKS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13-15 GREENWAY ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held February 17, 1999 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. Petitioners are requesting a Variance from frontage and minimum lot area requirements for both lots and to subdivide one existing lot into two for the property located at 13-15 Greenway Road R-1 The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. • 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner was represented by Attorney Joseph Correnti of Federal Street in Salem. 2. A signed petition with 12 signatures supporting the request was submitted. 3. Lot 59 will be subdivided so as to be a separate buildable lot. 4. Lot 60 would be would be 12,151 square feet and have 95 feet of frontage. 5. There was no opposition to this petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on , the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variances requested, • subject to the following conditions; . DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARY ZAPPAS & HELEN JENKS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 13-15 GREENWAY ROAD R-1 page two 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 3. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction_including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variances Granted February 17, 1999 Richard Dionne Board of Appeal, Member A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the nam@ 9f the c owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal w -n N NN N pr— "M w c�- m� N D . J $AI t , ifA Tity of 'Sttlem, �Eass rljuset}g`R� S OFFICE • Poura of '�Fpenl Ig99 AIN -2 P I: 12 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILDRED, SAMUEL & RICHARD VITALI FOR AN ADIMISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201R FAYES AVENUE R-C A hearing on this petition was held on March 17, 1999 and continued to the May 19, 1999 meeting with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chariman, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko 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. Petitioners are requesting an Administrative Ruling in accordance with Section IX of the Zoning Ordinance and MGL 40A, Section 7 relative to use of the premises and • enforcement of Section V-B (2) and VIII- E (6) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to said premises. More specifically, the petitioners request the Board of Appeal to order the Inspector of Buildings to revoke the issuance of a building permit to allow construction of a new single family dwelling. After hearing the evidence the Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioners appeal the issuance of January 6, 1999 of a building permit for the construction of a single-family home at 201 Rear Fayes Avenue. Petitioners are the owners of the property that directly abuts the subject lot. 2. Petitioners argue, through their Attorney, Francis T. Mayo, that the permit was improperly issued because the subject lot lacks the required 50 feet of frontage on a public way. The existence of frontage sufficient to meet the requirement of the zoning ordinance appears to be the sole issue before the Board. 3. Mr. Kevin Buchanan, the owner under agreement of the subject lot, argued in defense of the issuance of the building permit, stating that the subject lot has a deeded right of way on an unimproved street with access to Fay Avenue. The unimproved street, Lakeview Road, is shown on an assessor's may for the City of Lynn and also on a plot plan prepared by a surveyor on or about June 21, 1982. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MILDRED, SAMUEL & RICHARD VITALI FRO AN ADMINISTRATIE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201 REAR FAYES AVENUE R-C page two 4. It is uncontested that the proposed or paper street, Lakeview Road, was never built. At some point a private road was created on the approximate locus of the paper street to serve the needs of an abutting property owner, the Lions Club of Lynn, which operates a children's supper camp thereon. According to Mr. Joseph Sano, Esq.of theCamp Lion Board of Directors, the existing road, John Cann Way, is a private driveway maintained by the Lions Club organization for their benefit and for the benefit of those entering the camp. 5. It is the position of the Camp Lion directors that their private driveway cannot be deemed to provide frontage for the subject lot because it is a private road rather than a public way, and because it may not be coterminous with the street shown on assessors mays and deeds for properties. It is their position that some part of the subject lot does not directly abut upon John Cann Way, the existing driveway. 6. On May 15, 1999, the Board of Appeals made a site to the subject lot. At that time the Board heard several other neighbors express their disapproval of the • issuancence of the building permit. Mr. Buchanan, who was present, indicated he would create a driveway connecting the proposed house to John Cann Way, and would use that route to access Fay Ave. Therefore, based on the fact and on evidence presented, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 in opposition to the petitioners request for an Administrative Ruling the overturning the issuance of a building permit. inN a hen, 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has 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. ul fY OF SALEM. MA Tito of "'5ttlem, ttssticc i e tslcE • ���,. � �ottra of �1�,ea1 1999 AUG 19 P 3: 01-1 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SALVATION ARMY REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 274-276 HIGHLAND AVENUE B-2 A hearing on this petition was held August 18, 1999 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen, Ronald Harrison, 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. At the request of the petitioner's Attorney, William Dimento of Swampscott, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for Variance from parking requirements for the property located at 274-276 Highland Avenue. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE August 18, 1999 /Uo;�rs cam,, • 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 • t;LERK'S OFFICE flit Of �$Aem, �fflttszndjuseffs SCP I l A, 10: 13 • oQs pours of EAovttl DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK F. EASLEY REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 73-75 HARBOR STREET R-3 A hearing on this petition was held September 15, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris,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 Special Permit to add a commercial unit and increase the licensed amount of dwelling units from 15 to 18 for the property located at 73-75 Harbor Street R3 The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 Q), 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 of 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 stuctures in the same district. B. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve Substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: • �i I r OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE ' t Id ,S:n 1999 SCP I l A 10: 13 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK F. EASLEY REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 73-75 HARBOR STREET R-3 page two 1. The petitioner, Mark F. Easley is Trustee of EAZ Realty Trust, the owner of the property located at 73-75 Harbor Street. The petition was presented by Mark F. Easley. 2. The subject property is located in an R-3. 3. The current nonconforming use of the 7000 sq.ft. building located at 73-75 Harbor Street is as follows; I" Floor Commercial Space Unit 1-A, 925 sq ft. retail or general office use, currently ''/z of space is rented to "Maids" Cleaning Co Unit 1 B, 925 sq. ft. retail or general office use, currently used by chiropractic services. Unit 1 —C— 725 sq. ft., restaurant/food establishment which does not serve Alcoholic beverages. • 2nd and 3rd Floors Residential Currently are 16 rooms and 2 one-bedroom (current license states that only 15 units may be occupied at any one time). 4. The petitioner seeks a Special Permit to add a fourth commercial unit on the first floor (Unit 1 D) so that an existing —450 sq. ft unit not currently rented could be (Unit 1-D is comprised of the unrented portion of the current unit 1-A). The petitioner also seeks to increase the licensed amount of dwelling units on the 2nd and 3'd floors from 15 to 18 so that they may utilize all the units (16 rooms and 2 one-bedrooms). 5. A letter in support of the additional first floor commercial unit was submitted by Mr. James T. Haskell, Executive Director, Salem Harbor Community Development Corporation. 6. Mr. Scott Galber, an owner of the property on Harbor Street, spoke in support of the requested Special Permit. 7. No opposition to the requested Special Permit was presented. 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. CI 1"Y OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARK F. EASLEY REQUESTINGIA9SPECIAL 10 13 • PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 73-75 HARBOR STREET R-3 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 unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, 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 Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Licensing Board and the Planning Board. 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. Special Permit Granted September 15, 1999 / Stephen Buczko Board of Appeal • �i I r ul, SALEH. MA CLERK'S OFFICE 1999 SEP I l A 10: 13 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARK F. EASLEY REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 73-75 HARBOR STREET R-3 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 the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • Board of Appeal • of "iulem, ussucl'jise#tSS OFFICER d • �Sottra of ( l"eal Mo FEB -3 P 5: 00 AMENDED DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARK R. EASLEY REQUESTING A V ARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 73-75 HARBOR STREET R3 A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, 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. The petitioner is requesting Variance as to on-site parking for the property located at 73- 75 Harbor Street located in an R-3 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner, Mark F. Easley, is a Trustee of EAZ Realty Trust, the owner of the property located at 73-75 Harbor Street. The petition was presented by Mark F. Easley. 2. The subject property is located in an R-3 District. 3. The petitioner requests a variance as to on-site parking. The current nonconforming and conforming uses of the structure do not conform with the parking provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARK F. EASLEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 73-75 HARBOR STREET R-3 page two 4. On September 15, 1999, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the petitioner a Special Permit to add a fourth commercial unit on the first floor, and to increase the licensed amount of dwelling units on the second and third floors from 15 to 18, 16 rooms and 2 one bedrooms. 5. In January of 1999, Eric Easley and Scott Galbert (owner of 71 Harbor St)purchased 65 Harbor Street, which was made into a parking lot. The parking lot provides 20 parking spaces. Mr. Easley and Mr. Galbert have divided the lot so that they each have 10 spaces available for use. 6. Mr. Easley has eight parking spaces available on the property at 73-75 Harbor Street. The total number of parking spaces available for 73-75 Harbor Street is 18. 7. Mr. Scott Galbert spoke in support of the requested variance at the September 15, 1999 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. 8. No opposition to the requested variance was presented. On the basis of the above findings of fact, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted • unanimously, 5 in favor to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions; I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having Jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, the Licensing Board and the Planning Board. Variance Granted October 20, 1999 Stephen Buczko, Member Board of Appeal DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARK F. EASLEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 73-75 HARBOR 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • • LE N. Mi A of "ittlem, ussttcljusetts � ; s . BICE ' a • ` , Potts of Appeal 199Ci 21 P 3: 12 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARK F. EASLEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 73 — 75 HARBOR STREET R-3 A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance as to on-site parking for the property located at 73-75 Harbor Street located in a R-3- zone. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner, Mark F. Easley, is a Trustee of EAZ Realty Trust, the owner of the property located at 73-75 Harbor Street. The petition was presented by Mark F. Easley. 2. The subject property is located in a R-3 District. 3. The petitioner requests a variance as to on-site parking. The current nonconforming and conforming uses of the structure do not conform with the parking provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARK F. EASLEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 73-75 HARBOR STREET R-3 page two 4. On September 15, 1999, the Zoning Board of Appeal granted the petitioner a Special permit to add a fourth commercial unit on the first floor, and to increase the licensed amount of dwelling units on the second and third floors from 15 to 18. 5. In January of 1999, Eric Easley and Scott Galbert(owner of 71 Harbor St) purchased 65 Harbor Street, which was made into a parking lot. The parking lot provides 20 parking spaces. Mr. Easley and Mr. Galbert have divided the lot so that they each have 10 spaces available for use. 6. Mr. Easley has a eight parking spaces available on the property at 73-75 Harbor St. The total number of parking spaces available for 73-75 Harbor Street is 18. 7. Mr. Scott Galbert spoke in support of the requested variance at the September 15, 1999 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. 8. No opposition to the requested Variance was presented. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; • 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Licensing Board and the Planning Board. Variance Granted October 20, 1999 Stephen Buczko, Member Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARK F. EASLEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 73-75 HARBOR 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • Of 2llt?llt IISSiIt'� ;llSef 'SILEM MA I , , OFFICE • e Potts of 'Appeal 1999 DEC 2l All: 19 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AUTUMN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 205 HIGHLAND AVENUE B-2 A hearing on this petition was held December 15, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, 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. The petitioner, Autumn Development Company, Inc. is the owner under agreement of the Vincent's Potato Chip site on the corner of Highland Avenue and First Street. The site is presently vacant as a manufacturing operation has been moved to Lynn. The petitioner seeks to demolish the existing factory and warehouse, and construct in its place 120 luxury rental units as shown on the plans submitted herewith. • The plans calls for five residential buildings, three stories high, with 24 units each. A clubhouse and outdoor pool are also planned. The design calls for extensive landscaping along the perimeter of the property with a large, undisturbed green buffer between the site and its only abutters, the Cloisters Condominium complex. The site, which totals 6.9 acres, will have 180 parking spaces per unit as required by the ordinance. Once constructed, Corcoran Management Company, a leader in the property management field, will become the manager of the complex. Corcoran currently has over 8,000 high-quality residential units under management in New England and the southeasterly United States. Locally, Corcoran manages the Beverly Commons, the Saugus Commons and the Andover Commons among others. The site, which is located in a B-2 District, requires a variance from the Ordinance to permit the residential use as submitted. Additionally, a variance to the maximum height of buildings, which in the B-2 District, is 30 feet is also necessary as the height of the proposed structures will generally be 40 feet, pus or minus. Finally, because the lot will not be subdivided and will be owned and maintained as a Single complex, a variance allowing more than one principal building on a lot is necessary. The petitioner believes that this project will further enhance the already residential neighborhood along First Street, and is a worthwhile project for the City. • Wherefore, the petitioner respectfully requests that the necessary relief be granted. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AUTUMN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 205 HIGHLAND AVENUE B-2 page two The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: • 1. The petitioner was represented by.Attorney Joseph Correnti Jr. of the firm of Serafini, Serafini, Darling and Correnti. 2. A set of proposed plans were presented along with a rendering of the completed project. 3. There was evidence that the petitioners had met previously with residential abutters in the area to apprise them of the plans for the project. 4. A number of abutters along with several members of the city council were present to speak in favor of the project. Those going on record as being in favor of the proposed plans were: Cindy Anselmo, property manager of the Cloisters, a condominium community abutting the proposed area to the south, who presented signatures of 28 of her residents saying they were in favor of the project.; Patricia Bagley, a homeowner at 29B First Street for the past 15 years; Scott Lanes, of 13 First Street; Joan Gilman, of 9D First Street; Fred Rollins, of the Cloisters; Ralph Cerandulo of 207 Highland Avenue; Iona Hayden of 31 B First Street and William and Diana Malhoit of 15 First Street. 5. Mayor Stanley Usovicz appeared to speak in favor of the project calling it a good Project for the city and saying that a number of uses for the property had been sought among industrial and retail potential clients for nearly a year and no expressed any interest. A number of city councilors appeared or sent work that they were in favor of the project. Those appearing at the meeting were: Councilor Joan • Lovely in whose ward the project falls; Councilor Thomas Furey and Councilor-elect Joseph O'Keefe. Additionally, Councilor Kevin Harvey sent a letter in favor of the • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AUTUMN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 205 HIGHLAND AVENUE B-2 page three project and urging passage. Councilor Leonard O'Leary sent work through Ms. Lovely that the project had his support. 6. Councilor Lovely, noting that the Board of Appeal had the power to independently change the use of the parcel, stated that if it otherwise had to be submitted to the City Council for approval she felt certain that approval would be forthcoming. 7. There was correspondence received going on record as being opposed. Letters were received from Walters B. Powers III, Chairman of the Planning Board; and and City Planner Patrick Reffett. Chairman Power expressed the board's strong objection to the petition, while the City Planner has some significant limitations which make it a unique property and impede conventional development. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows; 1. The variance for the property in questing can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from • the intent to the district or the purpose of the ordinance, subject to the following conditions. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 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 structures. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AUTUMN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY • REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 205 HIGHLAND AVENUE B-2 page four 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. 9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 10. Hours of blasting shall be conducted per the Salem Fire Department rules and regulations. 11. Access shall be made through First Street. Variance Granted December 15, 1999 L O'y /a"a� C,S'c t ) Ronald Harrison l 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • Ctg ofttlem, ttssutllusettj&LEM� MA D ERK'S OFFICE • ��p� �DIIL�I D� �C1�1Q21� V iggq APR 28 P 2� 32 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS MCAULIFFE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 333 HIGHLAND AVENUE B2 A hearing on this petition was held April 21, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side setback requirements in order to add an addition to the existing building for the property located at 333 Highland Avenue. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner represented himself and presented plans of the addition. 2. This addition will house an elevator shaft and an additional 900 sq. ft. of office space. 3. A letter was sent in favor of the petition. 4. There was no opposition to the petition. • V;;Y �r 1�SApFFICEA • CLER DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS MCAULIFFE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 333 HIGHLAND AVENUE B2 page two p 2: 32 1999 APR 28 On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. • 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted April 21, 1999 qv6l-� ac Richard Dionne, Member Board of Appeal • LEM L�CLERK'S AOFFICEA DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THE THOMAS MCAULIFFE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 333 HIGHLAND AVENUE B2 page three 1999 APA 28 P '2: 32 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • MA fQitti ofttlem, ttastt>;kju 'PftBE s • `', Potts of Appeal 1999 SEP 23 P b: I l DECISION OF THE PETITION OF FRANK D. STIROS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 461 HIGHLAND AVENUE B-2 A hearing on this petition was held September 15, 1999 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen, Ronald Harrison, 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. At the request of the petitioner's Attorney, Christopher T. Casey, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a Special Permit to allow the sale of used automobiles for the property located at 461 Highland Avenue located in a B-2 zone. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE September 15, 1999 - "� 6,�6scn� 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 �T C1ly OF SALEM 011ty Of "infem, �Izzgs djusetfo ER1f' S OFFICE A ' s e Potua of �kFf`ettl 1949 MAR I DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FAYE CATALANO REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 HOSMER AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held March 17, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Stephen Buczko, Michael Ward 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 Special Permit for relief from side and front setbacks to add a deck on top of an existing non-conforming structure for the property located at 2 Hosmer Avenue R-1. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 Q), 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 94, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension of 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 stuctures 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: • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FAYE CATALANO REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 HOSMER AVENUE R-1 page two 1. The petitioner, Faye Catalano, is the owner of the property located at 2 Hosmer Avenue. 2. The petitioner seeks special permit from front and side yard setbacks to allow the construction of a deck on top of an existing non-conforming structure. 3. The subject property has minimal yard space. The addition of a deck will afford Ms.Catalano an area on which she can spend time outdoors. 4. Gerald & Marian Hosman of 51 Bay View Avenue sent a letter in support of the deck addition. 5. Several neighbors, including Kathleen Hall of 16 Beach Street and Josephine Carro of 14 Juniper Avenue, spoke in support of the requested special permit. 6. No opposition. On the basis of the above findings of fad, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial • hardship on the petitioner. 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 4. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: n 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, codes ordinances and70 m� regulations. v�U' v 2. All construction shall be done per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved rrn by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. :!:r _ 0- 77 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety_ my Shall be strictly adhered to. co 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. • 5. Exterior finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. .� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF FAYE CATALANO REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 HOSMER AVENUE R-1 page three 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall 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 March 17,1999 Stephen Buczko 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 the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal p n� rn �N Tr D 00 • Ctu DftIlellt 22882ItI 118Pt,t� OF SALEM MA ' I t. R;'S OFFICE Poura of �kppeal 1999 APA 21 A II: 09 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GRANESE BROTHERS REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 53-59 JEFFERSON AVENUE I A hearing on this petition was held April 21, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris, Stephen Buczko 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. The petitioners have requested a Variance for increase of frontage for 59 Jefferson Avenue and a Variance from side lot for 53 Jefferson Avenue. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Granese Realty Trust, represented by Attorney David Ankeles, owns the property at 59 Jefferson Ave., which is currently used for commercial purposes consonant with its industrial district. 2. Newark Boxboard Co. ("Newark") is the owner of record of the adjoining property at 53 Jefferson Avenue. On this location, North Shore Recycled Fibers operates is business in conformance with the use limitations of the zoning district. Jeffrey Shribman, Esq., represented this party at the hearing. • 3. Granese and Newark with to enter a mutual land swap. Newark proposed to exchange a triangular portion of the lot on the Jefferson Avenue lot line for a portion of the Granese lot location on the lot line closest to the North Shore Recycled Fibers CITY OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GRANESE BROTHERS REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 53-59 JEFFERSON AVENUE 1 1999 APR 21 A II: 09 building. The proposed land swap would exchange land of roughly equal value and would create a new, more perpendicular borderline between the lots. 4. The proposed exchange would affect the zoning requirements in three ways. It would increase the frontage of the Granese lot on Jefferson Ave. from 130 ft. to 150 ft;, thus bringing the lot into compliance with the frontage requirements of the ordinance without rendering the Newark lot nonconpliant as to frontage. 5. On the Newark lot the proposed would eliminate and existing nonconformity as to side yard requirements on the side adjoining the Granese lot, thus ease access for maintenance, fire and emergency use at the North Shore Recycled Fibers plant. However, the swap would result in a nonconformity on the Newark lot as to side yard requirements at the Jefferson Avenue end, where the transfer to Granese creates a lot line within thirty feet of the front comer of the Recycled Fibers plant. 6. The parties did not testify as to the exact dimensions of the corrections and the Resulting nonconformity on the two lots. However, they averred that the proposed reconfiguration would be referred to the Planning Board and approval, presumably the precise dimensions, with plans, would be submitted at that time. • 7. There was no opposition to this proposed petition. On the basis of the above findings of fad, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. Variance Granted April 21, 1999 �^� • Nina Cohen, Chairman W Board of Appeal CITY OF SALEM. MA CLEWS OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THE GRANESE BROTHERS REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5359 JEFFERSON AVENUEI page three 1999 APR 21 A 11: 09 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • CITY OF SALEM. MA ttlem, AttssMrII116r 1 $Rii Cita of 'S OFFICE t .• Pourb of �Appfal 1999 JUL 2b P I: 3LI DECISION OF THE PETITION OF E.M.R. DRYWAYY, INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 63 JEFFERSON AVENUE WRC A hearing on this petition was held July 21,1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko and Stephen Hams. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side yard & rear yard setbacks, Variance to parking requirements and a Variance to fence height for the property located at 63 Jefferson Avenue. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board th at: • ?.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner seeks to relocate his woodworking and custom carpentry business to 63 Jefferson Avenue, where he can construct a new facility large enough to accommodate the needs of his operation. Petitioner, who was represented by Joseph C. Correnti, Esq., owns the 63 Jefferson property through the R.T.D. Nominee Realty Trust. _. The proposed building plan required variances from the dimensional requirements of the ordinance: a side setback at 13'6", a rear yard setback at approximately 90' (precise dimensions of the rear setback to be determined according to the plans • submitted to and approved by the Building Inspector, which are viewed by the Board of Appeal in a reduced format) a variance to allow placement of a building overhang 10' into RC zone. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF E.M.R. DRYWALL REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 63 JEFFERSON AVENUE I/RC page two 3. Petitioner further requested variances from the parking requirement to permit the structure to include 22 parking spaces instead of the 26 required, and from fence height restrictions, to permit installation of a 12' fence surrounding the rear yard. 4. The requested variances were considered necessary for the operation of the business. The proposed plan and the relocation of the petitioner's business received support of Joan Lovely, Ward 3 Councillor. 5. There was no opposition to the proposed petition. On the basis of the above findings of fad, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations 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. 6. A Certificate of Inspection 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. i. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Completion of all site work shall be completed within nine (9) months. Variance Granted July 21, 1999 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THE E.M.R. DRYWALL, INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 63 JEFFERSON 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 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • L'lTY OF SALEM. MA of ttlem, HttBoat ju. e s ICE ' s • `Q �nttrD of ��eul • 19g9 MAR -3 A ID 12 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SCOTT MOORE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10-12 LEACH STREET R- 2 A hearing on this petition was held February 17, 1999 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 Variance to convert two family dwelling to a three family for the property located at 10-12 Leach Street located in an R-2 zone. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or • structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. • 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petition was continued from January 20, 1999 Zoning Board meeting. 2. Petitioner, Scott Moore represented himself. 3. A variance was requested to convert a two family dwelling to a three family dwelling in an R-2 district. 4. Request for a Special Permit was withdrawn. 5. Plans for the third floor were submitted. There will be no enlargement to the building • or changes to the exterior. All construction will be done to the interior of the third floor to make room for a bathroom and a galley-style kitchen. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SCOTT MOORE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10-12 LEACH STREET • page two 6. Plans for parking arrangements were submitted. Gail L. Smith, of North Shore Survey Corp. prepared plot plan, with diagramed parking spaces. Plot plan Displayed five legal parking spaces (4.5 spaces are required). 7. Scott Moore, the petitioner, claims that he will live in the third floor apartment and rent the other two floors. He also stated that his plans were for the property to continue to be owner occupied. Petitioner's arguments also addressed the fact that there are a number of existing mulit-family residence in the immediate area. 8. Petitioner claimed that he would have difficulty with mortgage, maintenance, and upgrades to the property without variance approval. 9. Bill Kelley, Ward Counselor, was opposed to the variance request. He cited on- street parking area density problems, and transient tenants as the reasons for his opposition. 10. Gary Moore, Manager of Winter Island, spoke in support of the petition. • 11. Don Moore, 155 Ford Avenue, spoke in favor of the petition, He is the father of the petitioner and claims that their family has lived in the ward for over 20 years and • that the petitioner has no intention of leaving the area. 12. Joseph Riley, former landlord of the petitioner, provided a letter in which he favors the petition and spoke highly about the petitioners character. 13. Reid Cutting, Marblehead Selectman, provided a personal reference letter on behalf of the petitioner. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-1 to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and Regulations 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety :3 `—' shall be strictly adhered to. r-c m O 3. The petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. v 4. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. D n rn .i • P rn3 D N • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SCOTT MOORE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10-12 LEACH STREET R-2 page three • 5. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 6. The parking lot area (the driveway) must be paved and maintained in order to provide five (5) parking spaces for the property. Variances Granted February 17, 1999 - f 4zZ W atk, CS'C� Michael Ward Board of Appeal, Member A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND • THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the • Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal r- m ;3zo ' cn v o r-- rn ca m 3 _ D N • • CITY OF SALEM. MA Qlitg of "Salem, ttsstttf set OFFICE i • `', Paura of �"eal 1999 OR 23 A 10: 34 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN PL VASILIOU REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 LEAVITT COURT B1 A hearing on this petition was held April 19, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Michael Ward 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 Special Permit for alterations of an existing nonconforming structure by enclosing outside stairs, extending the stairs to third floor and roofing over the stairway for the property located at 5 Leavitt Court B1. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 0), 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 of 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 stuctures 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: • TY OF SALEM. CICLERR K'S OFFICE • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN P. VASILIOU REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 LEAVITT COgg WR 23 A 10 34 page two 1. The petitioner, John P. Vasiliou is the owner of the property located at 5 Leavitt Court. The petitioner was represented by his son Peter Vasiliou. 2. The petitioner seeks special permit for alterations of an existing nonconforming structure by enclosing outside sides, extending the stairs to the third floor, and roofing over the stairway for the property located at 5 Leavitt Court. - 3. The subject property is located in a B-1 District. 4. The petitioner was represented by Salem Attorney George W. Atkins III. 5. Attorney Atkins indicated that construction at the site had been performed with out obtaining a building permit and the required Special Permit for the work. Attorney Atkins also stated that the petitioner was under vigorous enforcement by the Building Inspector. 6. Attorney Atkins stated that the petitioner wanted to comply with the Zoning Ordinances and therefore was requesting a Special Permit for the work, which had been performed. Attorney Atkins further stated that the petitioner would be • willing to perform any changes deemed necessary by the Building Inspector to bring the structure into compliance with the building code. 7. Attorney Atkins stated that the building was to be used a two family dwelling. 8. Mr. D. Cote, the petitioner's building contractor, indicated that he would work with the Building Inspector to insure the structure was brought into compliance with the Building Code. 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. CITY OF AA CLERK'S • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN P. VASILIOU REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 LEAVITT COURT B1 199`1 APR 23 A 10: 34 page three Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, 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 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 finished 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 or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. The petitioner will comply with all requirements deemed necessary by the Building Inspector to bring the structure into code. Special Permit Granted April 19,1999 6 cSc� Stephen Buczko Board of Appeal • CITY OF SALEM- R CLERKS OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN P. VASILIOU REQUESTING A $ffq4gj23 A 10. 314 PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 LEAVITT COURT B1 page four A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17, of MGL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • CITY OF SALEM. MA a Ctu1 of MIPTit, HZISSMt�j1I8Pft$LERIi'S OFFICE • Plum of 4Peal 1999 JAN 2b A 9: 29 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN P. VASILIOU REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 LEAVITT COURT B1 A hearing on this petition was held January 20, 1999 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen, Ronald Harrison, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko and Stephen Hams. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 Attorney George Atkins, who represented the petitioner, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a Variance from required parking and use of the premises as a three unit dwelling for the property located at 5 Leavitt Court. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE January 20, 1999 • 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 '''�. Qlitg of ulem, �{ttssadjusetts • Pottrb of Appeal o m n DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM WHITE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 180 LORING AVENUE R-1D om. -ZZ A hearing on this petition was held on December 15, 1999 with the following Board 9? m. Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Ronald Harrison, Stepheio..r D Buczko 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 a new nonconforming use (Dentist Office)for the property located at 180 Loring Avenue located in a R-1 zone. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3 0), 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 94, 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 reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner, represented by Joseph C. Correnti, Esq., has entered an agreement to purchase the house and grounds at 180 Loring Avenue that were used as a medical office by the Fallon Medical practice until earlier this year. 2. Prior to the Fallon use, the owner of the premises was granted by Special Permit from this Board the use of the property as a medical office limited to no more than 2 Doctors and 3 other employees (nurse, secretary and medical assistant). Tow special permits were granted subject to conditions limiting the office hours of the practice to 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., no more than four days per week. • 3. Other conditions of the earlier decision, filed on Oct. 23, 1979 and December 15, DECSION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM WHITE REQUESTING A SPECIAL • PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 180 LORING AVENUE R-1 page two 1986, governed the signage, maintenance and parking areas at the site. See prior decisions of this Board re: 180 Loring Avenue. 4. Dr. William White stated that he wished to move his dental cosmetic surgery practice to this location, where he will practice with two other dentists, including his father, who is also a dentist. This practice will have office hours six days a week, as follows: . 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Tues, Wed., and Thursdays, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday and Friday, and 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturdays. In addition to the 3 doctors, there will be 6 other staff, most of whom will work part-time hours at different times during the practice's regular office hours. 5. Dr. White stated that the staff will park their cars in the two car garage and along the driveway, which can accommodated 6 cars parked one behind the other (Dr White said the staff will move cars around as needed). Patient parking will be in the lot on Loring Avenue side, which can accommodate two cars, and offsite, and along Loring Avenue. 6. The proposed plan was supported by three neighbors: Dale and Julie Beaver, of 176 Loring Avenue, and George McGuire of 4 Moffatt Road. Joseph O'Keefe, Councillor—Elect of Ward 7, requested that the Board not set aside parking along Loring Avenue for the exclusive use of the dental practice, and that such be made a condition of any permit granted. • 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 3 in favor and 2 in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit is denied. Special Permit Denied December 15,1999 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal SE t Z no bbbl CIW�6d3l�iS�0 �)i7 • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM WHITE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 180 LORING AVENUE R-1 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of 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 the City Clerk that 20 days have elapses 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 • CM M C-) t3 N vi D 0 D -n3 co c� m3 w D. Ul • CCU Of Salem, AnseadjusettscLERK'S�OFFICEA • �Roara of Appeal 1999 JAN 2b A 9-. 30 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STERDU REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 189 LORING AVENUE A hearing on this petition was held December 16, 1998 and continued on January 20, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Ronald Harrison, Michael Ward and Stephen Hams. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters 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 Special Permit to allow a Change of Use from photography studio to retail fur establishment and a Variance from parking requirements for the property located at 189 Loring Avenue. The province the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to the request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 Q), 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 rules 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 1. Petitioner, Sterdu Realty Trust, a prospective buyer of the property, was represented by Attorney Henry A. Lucus, Jr. of 133 Washington Street. 2. The petitioner has requested a Special Permit to allow a Change of Use from a photography studio to a retail fur establishment, and a Variance from the parking requirements. 3. The subject property is located at 189 Loring Avenue and Grant Road in an R-1 District. 4. In 1989, the Zoning Board of Appeal granted a Special Permit and Variance allowing a building addition and use thereof. 5 The petition has maintained and operated a retail fur establishment at the othe locations in Salem, including 131 & 191 Essex Street and 540 Loring Avenue. 6. The petitioner will be an on-site owner operator. 7. The proposed business will have two full and one part time employee. 8. The operating hours of the business will be restricted to 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and by appointment on Sundays. 9. The petitioner anticipated a having 5-0 customers per day and described the business as a low impact use which will have little affect on the neighborhood. 10. The proposed use will involve no construction and no changes internally or externally to the structure. 11. No toxic chemicals will be used on the premises. 12. There will be no external refrigeration or air conditioning units. m 13. The petitioner plans on building a new home at 185 Loring Ave, a lot z l' which had previously been used as a parking lot for the 189 Loring Ave. ov business. D -n m 14. Nishan Moofatian of 198 Loring Ave., and Rose and Leonard Levy, the current �9 m 3 owners of the property, spoke in favor of the proposed use. o 15.City Councilor Mark Blair, indicated that he was in favor of the use of the property as a retail fur establishment;however expressed concern regarding paking, signage, possible noise from air conditioners and use of chemicals on the premises. 16. Councilor Blair stated that he would ask the City Council to change the parking • Restriction on Grant Road from Resident Sticker Parking Only to One Hour Parking for the area of Grant Road contiguous with the 189 Loring Ave. and 185 Loring Avenue properties. • 17. James Tobin of 2 Grant Road expressed concern regarding noise, use of external air conditioner units and trash dumpsters. 18. Roger Ouellette and Anna Lisa Oulette of 3 Grant Road expressed concern regarding parking, the volume of customers the business would service, use of chemicals on site, the number of employees the type of clientele the business would attract, and any changes in the current parking restrictions., Mr. Oulette states he was strongly opposed to the change in use. 19. Renald Purcell of 183 Loring Avenue and his son Rick Purcell were opposed to the operation of the business at 189 Loring Avenue without use of the parking lot at 185 Loring Avenue. 20. Robert Gates of 1 Grant Road spoke in opposition to the variance for parking. On the basis of the above findings of fad, and on the evidence presented at the hearings the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the requested Special Permit to allow change of use from a photography studio to a retail fur establishment, and the Variance from the parking requirements, 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 is to be obtained. 4. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 5. There shall be no external machinery, refrigeration or air conditioning units. 6. There shall be no use of hazardous chemicals such as dry cleaning solvents. 7. Signange shall be limited to one sign. 8. The Special Permit to allow a change of use from a photography studio to a retail fur establishment shall have a time limitation of seven years. 9. The number of employees shall be limited to two full time and one part time. ` m� p O Z �T N Witn Special Permit&Variance Granted o> January 20, 1999 D Tm —3 • _o w D 0 • Stephen Buczko Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • C-) r� M ]s X-n Z �� NV1U) a- > o r— �in3 C-). " m 3 w D 0 • CITY Lf SALEM. MA f1�it of ttlem, ussiz�fIle°f 0 • °'> Putts of Appeal iggq AUG 31 P I: 39 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF TIMOTHY & AMY SALVO REQUESTING A WETLANDS AND FLOOD HAZARD VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 265 LORING AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on April 21, 1999 and continued monthly until August 18, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko and Stephen Harris. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioners are requesting a Variances under Section 7-16 (g) of the Zoning Ordinance to construct a single family dwelling on the property located at 265 Loring Avenue also known as Lot 316 Pierce Road located in an R-1 zone. Section 7-16 (g) of the Ordinance states; A variance may be granted from the provision of this section in accordance with the terms of this zoning ordinance and with the terms of Massachusetts General Laws, • Chapter 40A, Section 10, but only upon the following additional terms and conditions: (1) A special permit has been applied for in accordance with this section and has been denied. (2) The board of appeals shall only grant a variance from the provisions of this section upon: a. A showing of good and sufficient cause* b. A determination that failure to grant a variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant;* c. A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expenses, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances;* and d. A determination that the variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief.* (3) Along with the petition for a variance hereunder, the petitioner shall file; a. A written report describing the proposed development or use relative to the conditions in this subsection (g); b. The special permit application as filed with the planning board; c. A copy of the planning board decision relative to the Special Permit The board of appeals shall establish a hearing on the petition under the provisions of Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws and in accordance with the board's • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF TIMOTHY & AMY SALVO REQUESTING A WETLANDS AND FLOOD HAZARD VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 265 LORING AVENUE R-1 page two administration rules, section 9-3 of this ordinance, and shall notify the planning board, city engineer, board of health, conservation commission and historical commission of said hearing. The board of appeals shall notify the applicant in writing of its decision on the petition. In the event a variance is granted, the board shall document in its decision the nature of the variance from the provisions of the wetlands and flood hazard districts as well as the grounds for its granting. A variance from the flood hazard district shall include the following statement; " The construction of a structure below the base flood level increases risks to life and property and will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25.00 for$100.00 of insurance coverage". The board of appeals shall, as a condition of the variance, require that a copy of the variance be recorded by the applicant at the registry of deeds. The Variance, which has been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of facts: 1. Petitioner Tim Salvo is seeking a variance for a Special Wetland Permit pursuagfto Article VI 1, Section 7-16 (g) of the Zoning Ordinance in order to build a single. 'ti family home on the lot at 265 Loring Avenue , also known as Lot #316 Pierce Pgad. x w vice 2. Petitioner Joyce Salvo is seeking a variance pursuant to Art. VIII, Section 7-16 C)m to construct a single family house at 265 Rear Loring Ave., also known as Lot # 7 -2� Pierce Road. - m • w D CITY OF SALEM, M , CLER ( S OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF TIMOTHY & AMY SALVO REQUESTING A WETLANDS AND FLOOD HAZARD VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERT L?CNED AT 265 LORING AVENUE. R-1 1999 AUG 31 page three 3. Both petitioners' properties lie within the Wetlands District Buffer Zone as defined by the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The properties are also within the Flood Hazard District as defined by the Ordinance. As such, the proposed development could have been approved by the City of Salem Planning Board. The Salvos applied to the City of Salem Planning Board for special permits pursuant to Section 7-16 (c) of the Ordinance, which gives the Planning Board authority to grant a special permit to construct homes within the Wetlands and Floor Hazard District. 4. The Planning Board denied the Salvos application for special permits pursuant to Section 7-16 (c). See decision of the Planning Board dated February 28, 1997. The Salvos appealed the decision of the Planning Board, and the parties anticipate a trial on this appeal in September 1999. . 5. Notwithstanding, the pendency of the Salvos' appeals, the Zoning Board of Appeals heard argument at its May 19, 1999 general meeting on the question whether two variances could be issued to the Salvos pursuant to Section 7- 16(g) of the Ordinance. The Zoning Board also heard argument at subsequent • meetings that were attended by the Salvos, their attorney Edmund C. Smith, concerned neighbors and City Councillor Mark Blair, Ward 7. 6. Neighbors opposed to the proposed development raised concerns regarding the hazards of water runoff from and through the site, flooding on the site, damage to marsh—dwelling wildlife, traffic safety from cars exiting onto and entering from Loring Avenue, preservation of wetland and neighborhood density. Among those who appeared and spoke in opposition to the proposals were: Loretta and Randall Wieting, Robert Mackay, Cathy O'Donnell, Gerogette Gay, Anthony Zarkades, Gene McCarthy and Ward 7 City Councillor Mark Blair. 7. Friends and neighbors speaking in support of the proposal argued that the development would improve a vacant lot, that the Salvos had obtained permits from relevant state agencies regarding traffic flow and conservation issues, and that the construction of housing of properties on the site would contribute to overall tax revenue in the City of Salem. Among those who spoke in favor of the petitioners were: Arthur King, Victoria Kulik, Clayton Smith, George Levesque, Robert Blenkhorn and Gary Pierce. Steve Salvo and Tony Salvo, father and uncle to the petitioner also argued in support of the petitioners. 8. In May the Zoning Board solicited an opinion from William Lundrergan, City Solicitor, regarding the legality of hearing the Salvo petitions while the outcome of • the Salvos' appeal was pending. The City Solicitor issued an opinion on that subject on June 8, 1999. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF TIMOTHY & AMY SALVO REQUESTING A WETLANDS AND FLOOD HAZARD VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 265 LORING AVENUE R-1 page four See letter of William Lundregan to Nina Cohen. The Zoning Board also received notice from Craig L. Wheeler, of this opposition to the issuance of a variance under Section 7- 16 (g) of the ordinance. See letter of Craig Wheeler to Nina Cohen, dated April 16,1999. The Salvos vigorously opposed these positions in correspondence directed to the Zoning Board from Attorney Edmund C. Smith and in open argument. 9. The Zoning Board of Appeal did not make specific findings regarding the issues of traffic safety, water runoff and flooding, or conservation raised by the neighbors in opposition to petitioners. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Petitioners have shown good and sufficient cause. • 2. Failure to grant a Variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, 3. The granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expenses, create nuisance, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances; On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 in favor and 1 in opposition, to grant the variances requested subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2.All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3.All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner is to obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF TIMOTHY & AMY SALVO REQUESTING A VARIANCE/SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 265 LORING AVENUE page five 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 Planning Board and Conservation Commission. - -_ -;» 8. DEP Conditions to be adhered to. 9. A 4 ft. wooded fence shall be erected and maintained around the perimeter of the property. 10. Signs shall be posted "No Left Turn" into or out of the property. • Variance Granted August 18, 1999 a"L Gsc�, Nina Cohen, Chairman p mon Board of Appeal or -nom, y 9 • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF TIMOTHY & AMY SALVO REQUESTING A WETLANDS AND FLOOD HAZARD VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 265 LORING AVENUE R-1 page five A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Cer6ficatio of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed an no appeal has been filed, or that if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. • r. �- 9 �CD N v -13 � Of r y LJ� r • pF,SALEM. MA of $Arm, fflttssnr' usPt-fss OFFICE .• e Paurb of �"eal 4..� 1999 SEP - 1 A 11, 51 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOYCE SALVO REQUESTING A WETLANDS AND FLOOD HAZARD VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 265 REAR LORING AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on April 21, 1.999 and continued monthly until August 18, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko and Stephen Hams. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioners are requesting a Variances under Section 7-16 (g) of the Zoning Ordinance to construct a single family dwelling on the property located at 265 Rear Loring Avenue also known as Lot 317 Pierce Road located in an R-1 zone. Section 7-16 (g) of the Ordinance states; A variance may be granted from the provision of this section in accordance with the terms of this zoning ordinance and with the terms of Massachusetts General Laws, • Chapter 40A, Section 10, but only upon the following additional terms and conditions: (1) A special permit has been applied for in accordance with this section and has been denied. (2) The board of appeals shall only grant a variance from the provisions of this section upon: a. A showing of good and sufficient cause* b. A determination that failure to grant a variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant;* c. A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expenses, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances;* and d. A determination that the variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief.* (3) Along with the petition for a variance hereunder, the petitioner shall file; a. A written report describing the proposed development or use relative to the conditions in this subsection (g); b. The special permit application as filed with the planning board; c. A copy of the planning board decision relative to the Special Permit • The board of appeals shall establish a hearing on the petition under the provisions of Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws and in accordance with the board's CITY OF SALEM, MP CLERK'S OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOYCE SALVO REQUESTING A WETLANDS AND FLOOD HAZARD VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2651999 SEP — 11 All: ' REAR LORING AVENUE R-1 page two administration rules, section 9-3 of this ordinance, and shall notify the planning board, city engineer, board of health, conservation commission and historical commission of said hearing. The board of appeals shall notify the applicant in writing of its decision on the petition. In the event a variance is granted, the board shall document in its decision the nature of the variance from the provisions of the wetlands and flood hazard districts as well as the grounds for its granting. A variance from the flood hazard district shall include the following statement; " The construction of a structure below the base flood level increases risks to life and property and will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25.00 for$100.00 of insurance coverage". The board of appeals shall, as a condition of the variance, require that a copy of the variance be recorded by the applicant at the registry of deeds. The Variance, which has been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of facts: 1. Petitioner Tim Salvo is seeking a variance for a Special Wetland Permit pursuant to Article VI 1, Section 7-16 (g) of the Zoning Ordinance in order to build a single family home on the lot at 265 Loring Avenue , also known as Lot#316 Pierce Road. 2. Petitioner Joyce Salvo is seeking a variance pursuant to Art. VIII, Section 7-16 (g) to construct a single family house at 265 Rear Loring Ave., also known as Lot #317 Pierce Road. • �1CI-ERK'S OFFICEQ DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOYCE SALVO REQUESTING A WETLANDS AND FLOOD HAZARD VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2645 II; 51 REAR LORING AVENUE. R-1 1999 SEP page three 3. Both petitioners' properties lie within the Wetlands District Buffer Zone as defined by the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The properties are also within the Flood Hazard District as defined by the Ordinance. As such, the proposed development could have been approved by the City of Salem Planning Board. The Salvos applied to the City of Salem Planning Board for special permits pursuant to Section 7-16 (c) of the Ordinance, which gives the Planning Board authority to grant a special permit to construct homes within the Wetlands and Floor Hazard District. 4. The Planning Board denied the Salvos application for special permits pursuant to Section 7-16 (c). See decision of the Planning Board dated February 28, 1997. The Salvos appealed the decision of the Planning Board, and the parties anticipate a trial on this appeal in September 1999. . 5. Notwithstanding, the pendency of the Salvos' appeals, the Zoning Board of Appeals heard argument at its May 19, 1999 general meeting on the question whether two variances could be issued to the Salvos pursuant to Section 7- 16(8) of the Ordinance. The Zoning Board also heard argument at subsequent • meetings that were attended by the Salvos, their attorney Edmund C. Smith, concerned neighbors and City Councillor Mark Blair, Ward 7. 6. Neighbors opposed to the proposed development raised concerns regarding the hazards of water runoff from and through the site, flooding on the site, damage to marsh—dwelling wildlife, traffic safety from cars exiting onto and entering from Loring Avenue, preservation of wetland and neighborhood density. Among those who appeared and spoke in opposition to the proposals were: Loretta and Randall Wieting, Robert Mackay, Cathy O'Donnell, Gerogette Gay, Anthony Zarkades, Gene McCarthy and Ward 7 City Councillor Mark Blair. 7. Friends and neighbors speaking in support of the proposal argued that the development would improve a vacant lot, that the Salvos had obtained permits from relevant state agencies regarding traffic flow and conservation issues, and that the construction of housing of properties on the site would contribute to overall tax revenue in the City of Salem. Among those who spoke in favor of the petitioners were: Arthur King, Victoria Kulik, Clayton Smith, George Levesque, Robert Blenkhorn and Gary Pierce. Steve Salvo and Tony Salvo, father and uncle to the petitioner also argued in support of the petitioners. 8. In May the Zoning Board solicited an opinion from William Lundrergan, City Solicitor, regarding the legality of hearing the Salvo petitions while the outcome of • the Salvos' appeal was pending. The City Solicitor issued an opinion on that subject on June 8, 1999. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOYCE SALVO REQUESTING A WETLANDS AND FLOOD HAZARD VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 265 REAR LORING AVENUE R-1 page four See letter of William Lundregan to Nina Cohen. The Zoning Board also received notice from Craig L. Wheeler, of this opposition to the issuance of a variance under Section 7- 16 (g) of the ordinance. See letter of Craig Wheeler to Nina Cohen, dated April 16,1999. The Salvos vigorously opposed these positions in correspondence directed to the Zoning Board from Attorney Edmund C. Smith and in open argument. 9. The Zoning Board of Appeal did not make specific findings regarding the issues of traffic safety, water runoff and flooding, or conservation raised by the neighbors in opposition to petitioners. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. • 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 2 in favor and 3 in opposition, against the motion to grant, having failed to gamer the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. PETITION DENIED August 18, 1999 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOYCE SALVO REQUESTING A WETLANDS AND FLOOD HAZARD VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 265 REAR LORING AVENUE R-1 page five A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein-shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certificatio of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed an no appeal has been filed, or that if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. r C)",_: +• do m m �T o N P or T rYl D T3 n• CIT �OF SALEM, MA Tttv1 of '�$Zflrm, uSStttljuSt?t $ RD'S OFFICE n Pours of 'p}teal 1999 MAR 22 P 3: 30 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN & NELLIANN SHEA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 MAPLE STREET R- 1 A hearing on this petition was held March 17, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko and Paul Valaskagis. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were property published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioners have requested a Variance from rear setbacks to construct a 23 x 16 addition for the property located at 5 Maple Street located in an R-1 zone. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or • structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner, John Shea, represented himself. 2. The petitioner requested a Variance from side and rear setbacks in order to construct a 23 x 16 addition. With the addition, the rear setback will be 23.4 feet and zoning and zoning requires 15 feet. 3. Building plans, prepared by architect, David Jaquith of 8 Enon Street in Beverly, were presented to the board. 4. Plot plan, prepared by Bartram Land Survey of 18 Union St. in Beverly, was also • presented to the board. 5. Lucy Tdicomi, of 6 Maple Street, spoke in favor of the petition. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN & NELLIANN SHEA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 5 MAPLE STREET R-1 page two 6. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fad, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions submitted and approved • by the Building Inspector. 4. The petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Exterior finishes of the of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted c March 17, 1999 14ckd Michael Ward Board of Appeal, Member n a c�-+ m y �o N ND or nm -na w C.). • m3 O DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THE JOHN & NELIANN SHEA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 MAPLE 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 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of recons or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • Board of Appeal n 3 'Z C:) N cn D N 0 r In � T 3 n• W m 3 W D O • rV nMA , I I OF SALEM, (Gita of ttlem, �ttssttclj�u"'ffvICE • 3oQ Potts of '�Appenl MCI NOV 22 A11= 30 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH H. GRENIER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 129-133 MARLBOROUGH ROAD R-1/R-C A hearing on this petition was held November 17, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Stephen Harris, 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow for front setback, width of 46 feet for Lot 1, and back width of 46 feet for lot 1, and area of 12,300 sq. ft. and minimum lot width of 22 feet for the property located at 129-133 Marlborough Road. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner, Joseph H. Grenier, was represented by John R. Keilty, Esq. 2. The petitioner seeks a variance to allow for front lot width of 46.47 feet for lot 1, an area of 14,450 square feet and a minimum lot width of 22 feet. 3. This same variance was granted on May 29, 1998, however, the applicant was unable to utilize the variance within one year due to conservation issues. 4. This lot will share a common driveway with lots 2 & 7. • 5. No opposition to the requested variance was presented. OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH H. GRENIER REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 129-133 MARLBOROUGH ROAD page two 1999 NOV 22 A II: 30 On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner is to 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 number as to be visible from the street. - 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. • 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. S. The driveway opening shall be shared with lots 2 & 7. Variance Granted November 17, 1999 1 ,&��eti ��Cid Csc .) Stephen Buczko 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the • owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. ofttlem, ttssttt-l2usetts tJ � v? O DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARGARET PRESS REQUESTING A VARIANCE / FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 55 MEMORIAL DRIVE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from rear setback to construct a 6 x 10 garden shed for the property located at 55 Memorial Drive located in an R-1 zone. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or • structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner, Margaret Press, represented herself. 2. The petitioner requested a variance for the rear yard setback in order to construct a 6 x 10 feet garden shed. The Petitioner's property borders the encroachment area for Collins Cove. 3. The petitioner presented a plot plan, prepared by Carter & Towers Engineering Corp. of Swampscott, Massachusetts. 4. Petitioner also presented sketches and a picture of the proposed garden shed. • 5. There was no opposition to the proposal. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARGARET PRESS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 55 MEMORIAL DRIVE R-1 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner is to obtain Building Permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existingy9 Z�'o structure. o � s T��c^ 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having %-PO v • jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. o O S. The proposed garden she lie within the property line of 55 Memorial Drive. Variance Granted October 20, 1999 ` 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is • recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. ��TT Y OF SALEM. MA �`. �tl.ity Df $Rlem, �MUSSUCIJ lSettS�ERK'S OFFICE {' Paurb of �Fpezd 1999 NOV 30 A 10: 25 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BRUCE BORNSTEIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 NICHOLS STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on November 17, 1999 with the following Board 'Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Ronald Harrison, 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 the previously existing non conforming use of a portion of the premises, specifically the attached garage, to continue to be used for the sale of no more than (3) used motor vehicles with no outside storage for sale of said vehicles for the property located at 6 Nichols Street. • The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3 0), 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 reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner sought a Special Permit to allow use of the garage at 6 Nichols Street for the sale of no more than 3 used motor vehicles with no outside storage or sale of said vehicles. In previous years the garage on this property had been used for this purpose by Lloyd Wilson, the operator of a used car business and the owner of a Class 2 license for same. r . DECISION OF THE PETITION OF BRUCE BORNSTEIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 NICHOLS STREET R-2 page two 2. Petitioner stated that the Licensing Board on October 4, 1999 granted the licensee, Mr. Wilson, a Class 2 license with four(4) conditions: that there be no outside signs, that no vehicles be stored outside the garage, that the business be limited to no more than 3 vehicles, and that the loading bay would be used solely by the primary business on the site, an environmental testing laboratory 3. Mr. Leo Jodoin of 8 Hansen Street, objected to the granting of the Special Permit on the grounds that Mr. Wilson in past months had disregarded the conditions imposed for the license. Mr. Jodoin stated that he observed that the used cars frequently were prepared for resale and stored in the driveway and the street. He also stated that deliveries to the site had occurred late at night, and more than 3 cars connected to the business were often parked on the site. He brought photographs showing violation of the Licensing Board conditions. 4. Mr. Jim LeBlanc, owner of 4 Hansen Street, objected to the petition on grounds that Mr. Wilson's conduct of his business on the site created a nuisance condition for the rental properties Mr. LeBlanc owns. 5. Both Jim Maskovitz, of the Gallows Hill neighborhood group, and Lenny O'Leary, Ward 4 Councillor, objected to the petition on the grounds that the neighbors had • difficulty parking on the surrounding street, and had spoken to the owner regarding difficulties with the operation of the used car business on the site. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the Neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience and Welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 0 in favor and 5 in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit is denied. Special Permit Denied J /n' te\ November 17, 1999 �G rJ • Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal ��tTT `ICIERK'S OFFICER 'gitV Of tilPTil, HtISSMtIILISPffB • '', PDttrb of �kppeal 1999 OCT 22 P 3-- 02 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF BRUCE BORNSTEIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 NICHOLS STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 1999 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen, Stephen Harris, 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. At the request of the petitioner's Attomey..Af tzalides, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this. petitio-Bout prejudice for a Special Permit to alter existing non-conforming use to allow a portion of the existing building to be used for the sale of used motor vehicles for the property located at 6 Nichols Street located in a R-1 zone. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE • October 20, 1999 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 • CITY OF SALEM MA Olitg Of �ttfem, �ttSSttrljusefts LERt('S OFFICE ' a • e Paura of �Fveal .1999 FEB 22 A 10 I g DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ERIC HOLLAND & STEPHEN BUCHLER REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 NORTH STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held February 17, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward , Stephen Buczko and Stephen Hams. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters 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 Special Permit to operate a tourist home with 3 units and a Variance as to parking requirements for the property located at 25 North Street. The province the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to the request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 0), 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 rules 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 ERIC HOLLAND & STEPHEN BUCHLER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 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. The petitioner was represented by Attorney David C. McBride. 2. A signed petition with 55 signatures in favor of the appeal was presented. 3. Several abutters also spoke in favor of the petition. - 4. Petitioners would like a 3-unit tourist home and be owner occupied. 5. 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 Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the requested Special Permit to operate a tourist home and Variance as to parking requirements, 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 shall be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Boards or Commissions having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Historic Commission f, M-1 8. Two off site designated parking spaces are to be obtained for the owners vehigTs mo when occupancy dictates. W �-, N ViN N oY Mr Special Permit & Variance Granted D 213 February 17, 1999 / �� � � q rn� co Richard Dionne (Sc�� Board of Appeal DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ERIC HOLLAND & STEPHEN BUCHLER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 NORTH STREET R2 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, rTn �O CM r-n N oD r D n3 3 D OD • Olitu of ttlem, ttssttrljusetfs Poara of ' {Fveal a rrio ;!0 C:) DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL HILL, TRUSTEE REQUESTING / ' �' > VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT46-52� om r- Ti NORTHEY STREET R-2 T3 MM A hearing on this petition was held on March 17, 1999, with the following Board a Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Stephen Buczko, Michael Ward and Paul Valaskagis. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner requesting Variances from use and parking regulations and a Special Permit to allow the use form a four family to a six family for the property located at 46-52 • Northey Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exit which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Robert Kallis presented the petition for the property located at 46-52 Northey Street. The petition is to create 6, 2 bedroom units and rehab the interior completely including new heat, electric and whatever else necessary to convert to the proposed plans. All keeping within the city codes and approved by the building inspector. There is parking for 3 cars off street with the requirement being for 9 spaces. • 2. Michael Connelly of 36 Northey Street spoke in favor of the petition. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL HILL TRUSTEE, REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 46-52 NORTHEY STREET R-2 page two 3. There were several people who spoke in opposition to the petition. The parking issue was a definite problem. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially hardship to the petitioner. • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 in opposition and 0 in favor to grant the requested variances. Having failed to gamer the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED March 17, 1999 Paul Valaskagis, Member Board of Appeal a M 3„ m � �o W �:n o a C)r-- � 'rte n• rn C) I, W • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL HILL TRUSTEE, REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 46-52 NORTHEY 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 MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. • Board of Appeal r C) n � �m - "3 M3 o D LQ • 01ifu1 of "iulem, �ffiIISSarlluaeftSr' I"y O CLERK'S OFFICE SALEM, A i Pnxra of ��ett! 1999 AUG -U P 1: 44 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD NEWBURG REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 55 OCEAN AVENUE R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on July 21, 1999, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris and Richard Dionne. _ Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts_ General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner requesting Variance from curb cut ordinance to allow 2 separate cuts for the property located at 55 Ocean Avenue. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exit which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or • structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner sought a variance from the curb cut ordinance to allow 2 separate cuts for the property. 2. The petitioner, Mr. Newburg represented himself at the hearing. 3. Mr. Newburg asked for an 11 foot curb cut on one street, and a 13 foot curb on the adjacent street in order to alleviate parking problems for tenants. On the basis of the above findings of fad, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: . 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RICHARD NEWBURG REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 55 OCEAN AVENUE R-2 page two 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially hardship derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3 in favor and 1 in opposition to grant the requested variances. Having failed to gamer the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED ` ` July 21, 1999 / 10- yj CSC-.f'> • 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 MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • GI?Y OF SALEM. MA (9itu of "Salem, A1653adjuB'ellig S OFFiCE _ 9 • _ �nttrD of ��ettl qB AUG -4 P 1: 4U DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SHIELA &ALVIN BILLINGS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 OBER STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held July 21,1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from rear yard setback to construct an addition for the property located at 8 Ober Street. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioners represented themselves at the hearing. 2. The petitioners are requesting a Variance/Special Permit to construct an addition. 3. The petitioners requested to withdraw the request for a Special Permit without prejudice. 4. There was no opposition to the plans submitted. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SHIELA &ALVIN BILLINGS REQUESTING A .. VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 OBER STREET R-1 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to."- 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • Variance Granted July 21, 1999 cso Richard Dionne, Member Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THE SHIELA &ALVIN BILLINGS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 OBER 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • �..,� CI (Y OF SALEM. MA of infem, Aa95aCjjU9J jK S OFFICE a • `, PnarD of AFpezd 1999 NOV -3 P 3: 31 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 AND 11 OUTLOOK AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from dimensional regulations for lot area of Lot 1 & 4 and minimum lot widths of Lots 1 —4 for the proposed four lot subdivision for the property located at 23 and 11 Outlook Avenue located in an R-1 zone. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioners, Mr. Bellows and Ms. Tache, represented by Attorney George W. Atkins, III, sought variances from dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance to create a four lot subdivision on an extension of Scenic Way. 2. The proposed subdivision is located on an unfinished section of Outlook Avenue. The existing lot at 11 Outlook Ave. currently has access to Scenic Way; the lot at 23 Outlook Ave has no access at present. The shape of the two existing parcels and their location on an unfinished portion of Outlook Ave. create a hardship condition for the owner. is • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, INC. REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 AND 11 OUTLOOK AVENUE R-1 page two 3. Petitioner proposed to combine the two lots to create a circular cul-de-sac that would serve as the access road for four new house lots. Of these four new lots, two, designated Lots 1 and 4, do not meet zoning code requirements for total lot area, and all four lots lack sufficient lot frontage to meet code requirements. 4. Several neighbors present at the meeting viewed the proposed plans and offered comments and concerns. Gene Case, of 7 Outlook Ave and Cheryl Terry of 6 Scenic Place voiced concerns about increased use of the wooded lot, and William Gallagher of 3 Scenic Terrace expressed concern about potential water problems on the sloping hillside. Carol Englund of 3 Ugo Rd. expressed concern about the prospect of blasting damage, and Steve Gibney of Ugo Rd. wanted to meet with the developers. 5. Ward Councillor Lenny O'Leary was concerned about the difficulties of safeguarding properties against blasting damage, even where appropriate pre-blast surveys are performed. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, • subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner is to 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 number as to be visible from the street. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Blasting shall be done per Salem Fire Department between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Notifying abutters of what days the blasting takes place. 9. Any neighbor within 400 feet shall be deemed liable regarding the blasting. • Variance Granted October 20, 1999 Nina Cohen, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is _ recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • • OF (Zttg of ,Salem, 2ISSIItljuBetlt FRS S OFFICE R • e '•a Pnttra of �ppettl 1999 MAY 28 P 2: 13 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JASON &YNTHIS MURLEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 PARALLEL STREET R21B A hearing on this petition was held MAY 19, 1999 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen, Ronald Harrison, 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. 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 Variance from relief of side setbacks to construct a second story addition for the property located at 10 Parallel Street. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE May 19, 1999 n a' A • Nina Cohen I 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 • Cttu of ttlem, ussttcljusetts t. 0 m� z 9 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL GRIMES REQUESTING A VARIAN�E ^3 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 '/2 REAR PHELPS STREET R-2 �y y A hearing on this petition was held November 17, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Stephen Harris, 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from relief of rear setback to enclose existing back patio for the property located at 23 '/2 Rear Phelps Street located in an R-2 zone. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner represented himself. 2. Mr. Grimes would like relief for the rear setback to enclose existing patio. The existing patio is 10 feet by 18 feet, 10 inches. Construction is to be 2 x 4 walls and room would consist of 2 x 6 joists. Walls and ceilings would be insulated and lighting and wall receptacles added. 3. The petitioner presented a set of proposed plans. 4. There was no opposition to this petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL GRIMES REQUESTING VARIANCES `= FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 Y: REAR PHELPS STREET R-2 r page twoT , NN 7 On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the Zoning Boafd of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to t �,- following condition; r^ 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and 6 regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall - be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner is to obtain 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 number as to be visible from the street. . 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. • Variance Granted November 17, 1999 _ e �, , Ronald Harrison 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • Titu of' ttlem, 22ssttL� i3ffff •S� Orr"iUc 12 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEBROAH D'ALLESSANDRO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 35 PLEASANT STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on May 19, 1999, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Stephen Buczko, Michael Ward and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner requesting Variance to allow the continuance of the three units as they presently exist for the property located at 35 Pleasant Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exit which especially affect the land, building • or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner sought a variance to allow the continued usage of the three units that presently exist at the property. The property has been used as a three family for over 10 years. 2. Joseph Correnti, of Serafini, Serafini, Darling & Correnti represented the petitioner, Deborah D'Allessandro, at the hearing. 3. The property is located in an R-2 District. 4. The petitioner purchased the property with the understanding that the property had • three approved units. The property had been represented as a three-unit building by the former owner. The bank provided financing to the petitioners based on three units. 5. Ellen Dixey and David Dixey spoke in favor of the petition. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DEBORAH D'ALLESSANDRO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 35 PLEASANT STREET R-2 page two 6. Regina Flynn, Ward Councilor, was opposed to the petition, She voiced concern About allowing a three-unit building in a two-family neighborhood. She stated that The property would not be in harmony with the other properties in the neighborhood. 7. Alicia Hart, of 47 Washington Street, and Majohe Wilkenson, of 33 Pleasant St, sent In opposition of the proposed petition. Opposition centered on the very difficult on street parking conditions around the property and neighborhood density and congestion. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in • unnecessary hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially hardship derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3 in opposition and 2 in favor to ;rant the requested variances. Having failed to gamer the four affirmative votes requires to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED May 19, 1999 Michael Ward, Member Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DEBORAH D'ALLESSANDRO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 35 PLEASANT 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 MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • (91tu of "Sttlem, 'Mttssttcljusetts • e Poura of '�Ppeal r rn �T �N J p� D Ma C)' E5 m� DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN W.P. MCHALE REQUESTING A VARIANCE D FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 RIVERBANK ROAD R-1 t A hearing on this petition was held September 15, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from minimum depth of rear yard and maximum lot coverage for density regulations to construct deck with roof over for the property located at 14 Riverbank Road. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board • that: 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner represented himself. 2. A letter of support was read from Edward Sobienski of 15 Sunset Road. 3. There was no opposition to this petition. 4. Petitioner would like 12 x 23 deck with roof over. • CiCOF SALEM- 'LUK'S Oc' FICEA - 1999 SEP I I A 10: 14 • 1999 Sc0 I l A 10: I4 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF. JOHN W. P. MCHALE .REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 RIVERBANK ROAD R-1 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • 6. Petitioner is to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. Variance Granted September 15, 1999 Ronald Harrison, Member Board of Appeal • pF SALEM. MA JF SALEW. MA CIT { 5 OFFICE L!Ffi�'S nFF;r.F CLERK • A t0� 1 u Cf_P I l DEI' qGG ISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN W. P. MCHALE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 RIVERBANK ROAD R-1 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General-Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • (111tu oftslem, Husstttliusett9aU • e Pours of �Fpeal c24 A 2 �6 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DANIEL & EUGENIA FOUNTAIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 SAVOY ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held August 18,1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side and rear yard setback to expand an existing non-conforming accessory building (garage) for the property located at 24 Savoy Road. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioners, Daniel & Eugenia Fountain, represented themselves at the hearing. 2. The petitioners requested variances from side and rear setbacks to expand an existing non-conforming accessory building (garage). 3. The lot size and shape prevents the petitioners from parking and garaging their automobiles. The existing garage is located one foot from the rear lot line. The current one car garage would be expanded for two-car use. • 4. The petitioners presented photographs of the property and the garage. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DANIEL & EUGENIA FOUNTAIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 SAVOY ROAD R-1 page two 5. Mark Blair, Ward Councilor, spoke in favor of the petition. 6. Eric Van Sickle, President of the Osgood Park Neighborhood Association, submitted a letter in support of the petition. 7. Neighbors, Elsa Cohn, Edward Ferris, Arnold Jaynes, Lynn Mansfield, and Nancy Jennings, all submitted letters in favor of the petition. 8. There was no opposition to the proposal. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. • 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted c: August 18, 199914"d s r, r-< C-- a Michael Ward, Member N 03> Board of Appeal t oD T(-1 03 N f�3 •• y 6 • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DANEIL & EUGUNIA FOUNTAIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 SAVOY ROAD R-1 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • �a rn G N T J • OF SALEM. MA 01itu Of '$Ufr ' fflass2IdjusPtfS'L`RK'S OFFICE ' a • POttrD of '�FpP211 1999 FEB 23 Ali: 4p DECISION OF THE PETITION OF TIMOTHY & TARA BOUCHER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 31-33 STATION ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held February 17, 1999 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. Petitioners are requesting a Variance from front setback to construct a single family dwelling for the property located at 31-33 Station Road located in an R-1 zone. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. • 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioners, Timothy & Tara Boucher are prospective purchasers of the property located at 31-33 Station Road. Timothy Boucher presented the petition. 2. The parcel of land at 31-33 Station Road is owned by Donald & Delinda Goudreau of 66 Moffatt Road, Salem. 3. The petitioners received approval to apply for a variance regarding the parcel of land at 31-33 Station Road. 4. The petitioners seek a variance for front setback for the property located at 31-33 Station Road to allow the construction of single family dwelling 6'1" from the front property line. • 5. The subject property is located in an R-1 District. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF TIMOTHY & TARA BOUCHER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 31-33 STATION ROAD page two 6. Mr . Boucher presented the Board with a petition in support of the proposed residence at 31-33 Station Road which was signed by Dina Taruz, 35 Station'Road, Donald & Delinda Goudreau, 66 Moffatt Road and Fran & John Nutting, 68'Moffatt Rd. 7. Correspondence from Stephen Dibble, Conservation Administrator, City of Salem, conveyed that there are several existing constraints on the property including wetlands, neighborhood flooding, and a City of Salem easement across the rear of the property. Mr. Dibble also indicated that there exists a private sewer force line from 35 Station Road along the front property line. Mr. Dibble requested that any approval should include a provision for and subject to required Conservation Commission approval. 8. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and • Regulations 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to the Building inspector. 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. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors n Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. m 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having c �� jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. w (A n C:)r- 8. Petitioner shall install a sidewalk if requested by the City Engineer. D Z2:1 n- m3 Variances Granted o February 17, 1999 • Stephen Buczko Board of Appeal, Member DECISION OF THE PETITION OF TIMOTHY & TARA BOUCHER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 31-33 STATION R-1 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the - Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • c: N) cri v w o r- T D -n m3 � D O • (91tv of "ittlem, ttssi><rllusetts • Paura of �"ral M Cn r::; rrn o -VC3 i Cn �m C) rn3 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANA DILISION, TRUSTEE OF D & D O D REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT/VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD BPD A hearing on this petition was held on October 20, 1999 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 additional recreational use and a Variance to allow parking for the property located at 114 Swampscott Road located in a BPD zone. • 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 used, 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 the lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the • purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DANA DILISIO REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMITNARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD BPD page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner was represented by Attorney John R. Keilty of 50 Lowell Street Peabody, Ma 2. Michael Bahtiarian of Noise Control Engineering, made a presentation showing his findings on Swampscott Road. 3. Many abutters voiced opposition to the plans because of increased noise levels and hours of operation. 4. A petition was presented with names opposed to the petition from the residents of Mariner Village. 5. Letters in opposition from Mayor Usocivz and Councillor Harvey were read. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board • Of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The 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. 4. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 0 in favor and 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 and Variance is denied. Variance & Special Permit Denied October 20, 1999 cs�cj • Richard E. Dionne Board of Appeal DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DANA DILISIO EQUESTING A VARIANCE/SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD BPD page four A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, is 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 decisidn, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal have 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. • • CITY OF SALEM. MA of ulPm, II88UrIjUgetti'LERK'S OFFICE - i • `'Q Pourb d AFpral 1999 MAR 18 P 2: 21 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ELLEN DIXEY REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 51-53 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH R-2 A hearing on this petition was held March17, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Stephen Buczko, Michael Ward 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 Special Permit in accordance with Paragraph 5-3©(3) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the use of 51-53 Washington Square North as a three (3) room tourist home in association with the petitioner's residence. Sufficient parking as required by the zoning ordinance is provided on the parcel. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 Q), 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 of 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 stuctures 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: • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ELLEN DIXEY REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 51-53 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH R-2 page two 1. Attorney, George Atkins of Salem, represented the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has successfully operated a bed and breakfast establishment in Lynn and Mr. Atkins provided testimony to that by furnishing positive communications form former guests. He also provided photographs of before and after improvements at the Lynn bed and breakfast. 3. The petitioner provided letters in favor of the project from four residents of the immediate area and one from the director of the Salem Chamber of Commerce. 4. One letter of protest, submitted to the Board of Appeal, was from Ralph and Jeannette Countie of 49 Washington Square North, immediate neighbors. 5. Neighbors appearing in support of the petition were Deborah D'Allesandro„ 35 Pleasant St, Campbell Seaman off 22 Beach St., who owns property at 34 Pleasant St. and Nancy May, of 18 Briggs, who described herself as having recently moved to the city. 6. Appearing in opposition to the petition were: Robert Jellison, 45 Horton St. who described himself as a part-owner of 45 Washington Square North with Gene Curtin of that address, Alicia Hart, of 47 Washington Square North and Ward 2 Councillor Regina Flynn, 62 Washington Square, who spoke of the petition • hurting the neighborhood if granted. She stressed that the historic area was becoming too commercialized with a number of tourist homes, the Hawthorne Hotel, and a funeral home. 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. a �o Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief :�K-n requested, subject to the following conditions: 0 �D or- • 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, codes ordinances and 3 regulations. N D DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ELLEN DIXEY REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT • FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 51-53 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH R-2 page three 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 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 finished 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 or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. • 9. 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. Special Permit Granted March 18, 1999 Ronald Harrison 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 Specjyal C-1 Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing theme C-') certification of the City Clerk that the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has bee] Mo filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied ism " recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of them �'n • owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. nrrn .3 Board of Appeal N b (�itg of *Iem, ttssttcll:usetfsSALEM, MA Poara of cc's 'al CLERK'S OFFICE 1999 SEP 23 P b: I l DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VANN NESS DEVELOPMENT CORP. REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 155-189 WASHINGTON STREET B-5 . A hearing on this petition was held September 15, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, 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. The petitioner is requesting Variances for use of premises as an Assisted Living Residence, and Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, maximum lot coverage, minimum side yard setback, and parking for the property located at 155-189 Washington Street located in a B-5 zone. • The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner, represented by George Atkins, Esq. Seeks dimensional variances and a use variance to construct an 80 unit Assisted Living Center combined with 15,000 sq. ft. of retail store space in downtown Salem. The proposed six—story structure will extend from New Derby to Front Street, utilizing the land under the old Salem Evening New building and printing plant, which is slated for demolition. • 2. The site presents several unusual physical features relating t its location at this intersection. First is the necessity of taking down the existing structure without damaging the adjacent newspaper editorial offices, which will remain. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VAN NESS DEVELOPMENT CORP REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 155-189 WASHINGTON STREET B-5 page two Underlying the former newspaper plant lies a maze of power lines, water lines and other municipal facilities. The underground engineering affects the placement of the structure, which is slated to have an underground parking garage serving a minimum of 40 cars. 3. Because the site is at the center of the downtown business district, it must meet the standards for review set by the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA). Residential developments are favored uses in the downtown under the City of Salem 's Master Plan because of the revitalizing effect they have on downtown businesses. 4. Although the Zoning Ordinance is silent as to whether the proposed use is a permitted use in the B-5 district, the enumerated uses in the district are analogous ones. Both nursing homes and multi-family dwelling are allowed uses, and the proposed assisted living facility is not dissimilar in its function to those, although it is not entirely the same as either one. • 5. Vann Ness Development presented architectural renderings and a verbal summary of the main features of the planned building by the architect who was responsible for the plan. Mike Abend of Abend Associates presented the results of a traffic study reflecting few additional trips to the site resulting from the proposal. The estimated number of employees and visitors to the center each shift was charter, and estimates for the number of cars expected to be parking in the facility's garage were presented. 6. The specific variances requested, in addition to the use variance, were as follows: (a) Side yard setback of no feet (o'); (b) maximum lot coverage greater than 50%; (c) minimum lot area per dwelling unit less than 500s.f. and (d) on site parking of no less than 40 vehicles, to be located in an undergound level of the proposed structure. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VAN NESS DEVELOPMENT CORP. REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 155-189 WASHINGTON STREET B-5 page three On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. • 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. Petitioner is to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. Petitioner is to obtain a Certificate of Inspection. 8. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering for the City Assessors Office and shall display said number so as to visible from the street. 9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having Jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the SRA, Planning Board or Historical Commission. Variance Granted September 15, 1999 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VAN NESS DEVELOPMENT CORP REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 155- 189 WASHINGTON STREET B-5 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 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • Board of Appeal • Tito ofttlem, ttsstttljus�etfO'S OFFICE A a PDttrb of (�kppeal 1999 DEC - I A 10: 52 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SEVEN WINTER STREET LLC, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 WINTER STREET AND 7 WINTER STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held November 17, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Stephen Harris, 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. The petitioner is requesting a dimensional Variances for lot area, lot area per dwelling, lot area per dwelling, lot width, front yard, side yard and height for resubdivided land for the property located at 3 Winter Street and 7 Winter Street. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The.Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner was represented by Attorney George Atkins of 59 Federal Street, Salem, Ma. 2. The petitioner lives in the neighborhood and has maintained both properties in excellent conditions. 3. There were 6 letters in favor of the petitioner's request for the proposed variances. 4. There were no objections to the proposed plans. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WINTER STREET LLC, REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 WINTER STREET AND 7 WINTER STREET R2 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salefi Fire-Department relative to smoke-and fire safety shall.- be hall_be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 4. No construction vehicles or equipment may be stored at either property. Variance Granted November 17, 1999 • C Stephen Harris 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • Ctu of '$2I1em, �2IssndjusettsOLtRK S 0 FMCE A s •, �-e� �13nara of �}rpettl 1989 WR 18 A II: 16 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL & JEANNE CHARNIGO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 WINTER STREET R- 2 A hearing on this petition was held March 17, 1999 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Ronald Harrison, Michael Ward, Stephen Buczko 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. The petitioners have requested a Variance because the proposed 6 x 8.5 addition will increase the non-conformity of the lot coverage of 35% stated in Table 1, Art.V1 6,4. The proposed addition encroaches 28 feet on the rear setback. The R-2 zone requires a 30- foot setback as required in Table I, Art. VI 6,4. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • 1.Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structures involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner seeks to enlarge a very small kitchen by adding addition. 2. Their architect, David F. Jaquith, of Beverly, represented the petitio6ers. 3. Mr. Jacquith presented the plans for the proposed kitchen addition. 4. There was no opposition to the petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL&JEANNE CHARNIGO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 WINTER STREET R-2 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously,.5 in favor, to grant the variances requested, subject to the following condition; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 4. The petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. • 6. Exterior finishes of the of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted March 17, 19990 m Ronald Harrison o Board of Appeal, Member oy nrn n• rn 3 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal