Loading...
2000-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �?�i �' � � �}� fJ ��vcal �, � Ca79 - o �- �:i' Citp of baiem, 01agmEbugettg A60arb of ZIpPeai ob, n,X 9 ?S -DECISION OF THE-P-ETITION-OF—FRANCIS-STEWART REQUESTING-A VARIANCE--. --- FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 ABBOTT R-1 A hearing on this petition was held June 21, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Paul Valaskagis and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side setback to construct screened room with relief of 7 feet rather than 10 for the property located at 11 Abbott Street. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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 appeared and represented herself at the hearing. 2. Plans were submitted showing the screened room that would like to be constructed. 3. There was no opposition to the plan. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF FRANCIS STEWART REQUESTING A VARIANCE • FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 ABBOTT STREET R-1 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal 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 Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature ordinances, codes and codes regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and • approved by the Building Inspector. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. Variance Granted June 21, 2000 Paul Valaskagis, Member Board of Appeals o �= o r=- rnu_. c x, L 1` co Ur • nrn n- N D DECISION OF THE PETITION OF FRANCIS STEWART REQUESTING A VARIANCE • FOR THE PROPERTY 11 ABBOTT 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 record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. 5r. o � 2 �N co O y N cP Citp of 6aiem, lRao0arbuzettg AWrb of Oppeal o s y! F DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GARY MARQUES REQUESTING A VARIANCE 0 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 BRADFORD STREET R2 A hearing on this petition was held October 18, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris and James Hacker. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 for side setback relief to construct an addition for the property located at 19 Bradford Street located in an R-2 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and • structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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, Gary Marques, submitted drawings and plot plans showing the proposed addition to his property. 2. The petitioner sought a variance to the left side setback, asking the setback be seven (7) feet instead of the required ten (10) feet. 3. There was no opposition from anyone in the neighborhood. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GARY MARQUES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 BRADFORD STREET R-2 %k n " page two o c^o sy ,a Or On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the . hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows Q 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the o district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. Variance Granted October 18, 2000 Stephen Harris, Member Board of Appeals • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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') rn 0 Mrn N (J)D C)nrnr n,. • � rn3 N D 0 • of baiem, Aammrbuzettg • iCF SALEM. MA OoarD of �Cppea[ CLcRiS'S OFFICE 1000 JUL -3 P 3: 1 b DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PETER COPELAS REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135-139 '/2 BOSTON STREET, 3 RAWLINS STREET AND 7 RAWLINS STREET B-2 A hearing on this petition was held June 21,2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina.Cohen, Ric hardDionne, 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 under Zoning Bylaw Sections 5-3 and 9-4 to expand non-conforming residential use in B-2 zone by combing property into one lot containing the existing two-family dwelling known as 7 Rawlins Street and a second building to be constructed on the lot to contain 8 residential dwellings, with accessory parking and improvements as shown on the Site Plan and the Landscaping Plan submitted to the Board. A Special Permit under the same Sections to allow the non-conforming side set-back of the Peter's Laundry building to 135 Boston Street to be decreased from about 3 feet to zero so that a small strip of land may be traded to the project site and the new structure • may be physically connected to the existing Peter's Laundry building. The application Density Regulations be varied, as shown on the submitted plans, as follow: 1. The two buildings may cover more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the lot 2. The width of the lot may be less than one hundred (100) feet 3. The front set-back on Rawlins Street may be reduced to six (6) inches 4. The side set-back adjacent to the existing Peter's Laundry building may be reduced to zero (0) to allow the new structure to be connected to the Peter's Laundry Building 5. The side set-back from the abutter at 141 Boston Street be varied from the ten (10) foot requirement to six (6) feet for a portion of the fagade and three (3) feet from roof overhangs and features of the new structure. The province the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to the request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 (j), which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extent expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighbor. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PETER COPELAS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135-1391/2 BOSTON STREET, 3 RAWLINS STREET AND 7 RAWLINS STREET B-2 page two 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 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. Peter Copelas is owner of adjacent properties on Boston Street in a B-2 zone. One of the properties, at 135 Boston Street is the locus for his business Peter's Laundry. 2. Mr. Copelas submitted a proposal for development of the property at 139-139 1/2 to enable him to build a multifamily residential unit. This proposal would require the granting of a Special Permit and several Variances, for which he has applied to the Board of Appeals. 3. With respect to 135 Boston Street, Mr. Copelas seeks a variance to expand the existing nonconformity of the structure by decreasing the amount of side setback to zero. The purpose for this application is to allow an alteration of the property line of the adjacent property at 139-139 1/2 Boston St. No changes to the existing structure will take place as a result of this variance, but the variance will allow the lot lines to be redrawn to enable the proposed development to take place on the adjacent property. i 4. As grounds for the proposed variance, Mr. Copelas states that the proposal will permit expansion of an existing nonconforming residential use on an undersized lot, and that the dimensions and configuration of the lot make its development in o T conformity with zoning an impossibility. c � cr • w LrT r*ti T3 m:r _ A o- DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PETER COPELAS REQUESTING A SPECIAL • PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135-139 '/2 BOSTON STREET, 3 RAWLINS STREET AND 7 RAWLINS STREET B-2 page three 5. The proposed variance was opposed by six neighbors who signed a petition giving as their reason the increase in density in the neighborhood. The proposed variance was supported by the Ward Councillor, Mr. Leonard O'Leary. A Special Permit was requested for the property located at 139-139 '/2 Boston St., 3 Rawlins St. and 7 Rawlins Street.- 1. treet.1. -Peter Copelas-is the owner of three adjacent parcels of land at 139-139'/2 Boston - St..3 Rawlins Street and 7 Rawlins Street in a B-2 zone. Four residential buildings are located on these parcels, three of which are unoccupied and are in dilapidated condition. The fourth buildings is a 2 family home at 7 Rawlins St. which will remain unaffected by the proposed development. 2. Mr. Copelas seeks to demolish the unoccupied structures and build a two-story apartment building containing 8 one bedroom residential units on the site. Parking for 15 cars would be provided on two lots. Access to the project form the Boston Street side would be by easement granted by Mr. Copelas across the Peter's Laundry parking lot. 3. Mr. Copelas is represented by William Quinn, Esq. of Tintin, Quinn, Grover& Frey of • 222 Essex Street in Salem. 4. At the Board's request, Mr. Copelas deferred consideration of the zoning implications Of the project until the plans had been reviewed by the Salem Planning Board. The Planning Board's site plan review took place on May 4 and May 18, 2000. At its May 18 meeting, the Planning Board unanimously approved the application, subject to the conditions set forth in its opinion of May 31, 2000. The terms of the Planning Board approval are incorporated by reference herewith. 5. The proposed development received approval for a Special Permit from the City of Salem Board of Health on May 9, 2000. Subject to the conditions set forth in its decision dated May 24, which is hereby incorporated by reference. 6. At the Zoning Board meeting, Mr. Quinn presented the owner's plan to expand the current residential uses of the site. He requests a Special Permit pursuant to Section 5-3 to expand the existing nonconforming residential use, and the following dimensional variances to allow construction of the proposed apartment complex: (a) Variance from front setback requirements to six inches, (b) Variance from side setback requirement on property line with Peter's Lauuoodry to `;' zero, o(c) Variance Variance from side setback from abutter at 141 Boston St. to six feet, c (d) Lot frontage does not meet 100 ft. requirement but remains as is �n (e) Combined lot coverage exceeds 25% ,andNo • (f) Property will contain two principal structures on one lot rn w m3. _ D J DECISION OF PETER COPELAS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND • VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135-1391/2 BOSTON STREET, 3 RAWLINS STREET AND 7 RAWLINS STREET B-2 page four 7.As grounds for the requested variances, Mr. Quinn stated that the existence of the grandfathered uses on a lot that is nonconforming as to size and width together with the economic issues created a hardship condition. - 8. .Mr.. Leonard.O'.Leary,.Ward Councillor-for Ward 5, spoke in support of Mr. Copelas' Petition on the grounds that the proposed multifamily residence would upgrade the property-by-eliminating the-existing.dilapidated.structure. 9. A petition was submitted opposing the proposed expansion of the nonconforming Residential use from 6 to 8 on the grounds that increased density in the neighborhood would result. This petition was signed by Anthony Russo, James Moskovis, Catherine Byrne, Deanna Launsby Turner and Wayne Turner, all neighbors on Rawlins Street. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. • 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance 4. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted ani approved by the Building Inspector. � rn 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. o r- ��m • 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. _22 m:T - D J DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PETER COPELAS REQUESTING A SPECIAL • PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135-139 '/2 BOSTON STREET, 3 RAWLINS STREET AND 7 RAWLINS STREET B-2 page five 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner shall comply with all conditions set forth from the Planning Board and Health Department. 9. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the Assessors Office and shall display said numbers so it is visible from the street. 10. Petitioner is responsible for snow removal greater than six (6) inches. Special Permit & Variance Granted • June 21, 2000 4 /4„„ a ' � Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal Cv l O C- C= W v �3 C7' w m3 J • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PETER COPELAS REQUESTING A VARIANCE • AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135-1391/2 BOSTON STREET, 3 RAWLINS STREET AND 7 RAWLINS STREET B-2 page six A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 rn C X T, r w C:)r' D T rn w � rn3 D J • Citp of 6afem, Ala.5fsarbuatt5 CITY OFSALEM. MA 13oarb of Zfppeal CLERK'S OFFICE '� 1000 NOV 22 A 11: .23 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF TAMSIN M. CAMERON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101 BROADWAY R-2 A hearing on this petition was held November 15, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris and James Hacker. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 on Lot A, relief from lot area, frontage, front setback & side setback, Lot B for relief from minimum lot area, side setback &from the requirement that no accessory structure (pool area) be located closer than five feet from rear lot line, also Variance from Section 5-1 is requested as the petitioner parks a truck used for a landscape business in the garage for Lot B for the property located at 101 Broadway R-2. The Variances, which have been requested, maybe granted upon a finding by this 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 and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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 Robert T. Ford, Esq. of Serafini, Serafini, Darling & Correnti LLC, owns a property at 101 Broadway on which there lies a single family house and a large garage with a second story apartment. Petitioner seeks to divide the property into two lots, each of which will have a single family dwelling with adequate off street parking. 2. The proposed division will not require any change to the existing buildings. On Lot A, where there is an existing nonconforming residence, the variances required are a variance from lot area, frontage, front setback and side setbacks. The existing lot will be altered to allow creation of two off street-parking spaces on the easterly lot • line. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF TAMSIN M. CAMERON REQUESTING A • VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101 BROADWAY R-2 page two 3. Lot B is accessed from Pacific Street. Variances sought for Lot B are as follows: Variances from lot area, side setback and rear setback. Petitioner additionally requests a variance from the provisions of 5-1©to allow overnight parking by the owner of a commercial motor vehicle on the property, that no accessory structure (pool deck) be closer than five feet from rear lot line. 4. There was no opposition to the proposed petition for variances for the property located at 101 Broadway. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire.safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 4. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted November 15, 2000 .mow 06-t � CS���� Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeals • DECISION OF TAMSIN M. CAMERON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101 BROADWAY 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 • Citp of 6afem, Alooarbuatt.5 OF SALEM, MA 35oara of Zippeal :L :RK'S OFFICE MAY 23 A 10: 51 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES & KATHLEEN O'DONNELL REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 BUCHANAN ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman,.Stephen Buczko, Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne 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 the use in a single-family house to the use of three floors to provide room for a growing family. Current zoning allows for 2 '/2 stories in an R-1 district.. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 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 CHARLES & KATHLEEN O'DONNELL REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 BUCHANAN ROAD R-1 page two 1. The petitioner, Charles O'Donnell represented himself. 2. The increased roof height will still be within permissible standards. 3. The petitioner's next door neighbor, Richard H. Burke, of 20 Buchanan Road, appeared at the hearing in support of the O'Donnells' plans. 4. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows; 1. 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 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 as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. N 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. o 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing MC. c. u. structure. w on r T y' d mz • L D J i • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHARLES & KATHLEEN O'DONNELL REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 BUCHANAN ROAD R-1 page three SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED MAY 17, 2000 Ronald Harrison, Member Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17, of MGL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 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. 0 0 M -. • < NT N (nCf)W D O D ,",rI o c)• J D Citp of 6a1em, :ff1aggaEbU2;ett5 13oarb of appeal o r^ Y� P d N G^7 DECISION OF THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF VARIANCE AND p s SPECIAL PERMITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAROL WAY AND 6 rn y WEATHERLY DRIVE N At a hearing held on May 17, 200, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow a six (6) month extension for Variances and Special Permits granted for Vinnin Square LLC for the property located at Carol Way and Weatherly Drive. The six (6) month extension is based on the previous decisions having been recorded at the City Clerk's office on • June 2, 1999. Nina Cohen, Chairman of �$ttlem, �fflttssttcljusett% ` c eR s o cF a • e Puura of �Fveal 'too MAR 22 q ��. b DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN R. ADAMS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 CANAL STREET B-4 A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Michael Ward, Richard Dionne and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from rear yard setback to construct a new building for the property located at 103 Canal Street located in an B-4 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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 R. Adams, is the owner of the property located at 103 Canal Street. Mr. Adams operates "Pre-Owned Auto, Inc.", a used car sales business at the property. 2. The petitioner seeks a Variance from rear yard setback to construct a new building for the property located at 103 Canal Street (B-4). 3. The request is to allow for a rear yard setback of 10 feet. 4. The petitioner plans on constructing a building, which will have an estimated 1821 sq. ft ground floor area and 576 sq. ft. second floor area. The building will have three • garage bays, office space and storage space. The garage bays will be utilized for cleaning and detailing of automobiles and safety inspections. ����N cALFM • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN R. ADMAS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 CANAL STREET B4 page two 1n��NSR 22 q /O 5. The existing garage and office building on the property will be removed. �f 6. A limiting factor in the placement of the building is a Sewer Right of Way for the City of Salem that crosses the property. The proposed building has been positioned on the lot so it will not be located on the Sewer Right of Way. 7. Mr. Adams provided the Board with a drawing showing the placement of vehicles for sale on the lot, customer parking, proposed perimeter fencing and customer access. 8. Customer access to the business will be from St. Paul Street by way of an existing 20' curb cut. 9. No opposition to the requested Variance was presented. 10. Residents speaking in support of the requested Variance included Mr. Will Galien, 3 Gerald Way and Mr. Norman LaPointe, 5 St. Paul Street. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the • hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature ordinances, codes and codes regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN R. ADAMS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 CANAL STREET B-4 page three 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. S. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted March 15, 2000 i Stephen Buczko, Member Board of Appeals • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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. � Nu; N nN • T r o rCl)*+3 .. y o- Cf tp of balm, A.aggarbugettg • IWO of fppeal t:t E,4 S OFFICEIA 1000 OCT -2 P 2: 20 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF FRED MOURAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 105 CANAL STREET B-4 A hearing on this petition was held September 20, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris 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 Variance to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages for the Chamoleon Restaurant for the property located at 105 Canal Street B-4 The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and • structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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 at the hearing. 2. He presented his case stating hardship at conducting this food business without alcohol. 3. There was no opposition to this petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF FRED MOURAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 105 CANAL STREET B-4 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; • 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature ordinances, codes and codes regulations. 2. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. Variance Granted September 20, 2000 Richard Dionne, Member Board of Appeals • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF FRED MOURAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY 105 CANAL STREET B-4 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. • City of 6alem, Iagoarbuattg{_ SALEM. MA ILcav.s OFFICE Ooarb of Repeal Ig AUG 28 P 1: 45 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JAMES G. CROSBY, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 111 AND 119-125 CANAL STREET 64/R2 A hearing on this petition was held August 23, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris and James Hacker. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 two (2) buildings on one lot and an existing rear yard setback violation for the building at 119-125 Canal Street and a Variance from relief for parking for the property located at 111 and 119-125 Canal Street b-4/R-2. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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 George Atkins represented the petitioner. 2. Plans were submitted showing the many improvements and expansions to the property. 3. Letters of support were presented from neighbors. 4. Councillor Joe O'Keefe, Tom Furey, Leonard O'Leary and Kim Driscoll all spoke in support of the petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JAMES G. CROSBY, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A • VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 111 AND 119—125 CANAL STREET page two 5. There was no opposition to the plan and all questions were answered to their satisfaction. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature ordinances, codes and codes • regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 9. Parking spaces for 152 vehicles. Variance Granted L �' • August 23, 2000 Richard Dionne, Member Board of Appeals DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JAMES G. CROSBY, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY 111 AND 119-125 CANAL STREET B-4/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. • Citp of 6afem, ;ffia!9gaCbUgett5 CITYOFCLERK'S OFFICE A �oara of �ppeaC • 1000 Nov - I P Z. 51 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF HERBERT & FLORENCE MACKEY, JR REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 230 CANAL STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held October 18, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris and James Hacker. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 lot area, front & rear yard setback requirements for Lot 76 for the property located at 230 Canal Street R-2. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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 Neil Cohen of 81 Washington Street represented the petitioners. 2. Petitioner seeks to construct anew single family dwelling on lot 78. 3. A petition was submitted with 11 names in favor of the petition. 4. There was no opposition to the proposed petition. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF HERBERT & FLORENCE MACKEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 230 CANAL STREET R-2 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted +�,� October 18, 2000 � CSC r� JJames Hacker, Member Board of Appeals rn 0 c xT I NN CD v n3 N m3 U� D • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the 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 o r-c o rn� NN �y Ar • Citp of 6alem, Ilaggarbugettg 146 Ooarb of 9ppeaf CITY OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE 1000 NOV - I P 2 5.1 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF HERBERT & FLORENCE MACKEY, JR REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CANAL & BROADWAY R-2 A hearing on this petition was held October 18, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris and James Hacker. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 lot area, minimum lot width to construct a single family dwelling home on Lot 78 for the property located at Canal Street & Broadway R-2. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise,.to the petitioners. c. Desirable relief maybe 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 Neil Cohen of 81 Washington Street represented the petitioners. 2. Petitioner seeks to construct anew single family dwelling on lot 78. 3. A petition was submitted with 11 names in favor of the petition. 4. There was no opposition to the proposed petition. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF HERBERT & FLORENCE MACKEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CANAL STREET & BROADWAY R-2 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted \ October 18, 2000 James Hacker, Member Board of Appeals o r-< m 0 c �� i viN oD r -0 �3 N m3 ui D A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the 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 • o n M z m C3 ;0o � N� o D r 3 m3 U9 D • Citp of *alem p Alag2 arbuaft CITY OF SALEM, MA 0oarb of Zlppeal CLERK'S OFFICE `Z000 OCT 23 P Z. 25 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PETER & NANCY SMITH REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 CHARLES STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held October 18, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris and James Hacker. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 requirement to allow the current property to continued to be used as a two (2) family dwelling on an existing 4,000 square foot lot The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and structure involve. • b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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 Jerry A. Perricella represented the petitioners. 2. Nineteen abutters signed a petition in favor of the appeal. 3. There was no opposition 4. The property has been used as a two family. 5. There is sufficient parking for at least 3 cars. 6. Premises was constructed in 1910, therefore other dimensional requirements existed prior to enactment of zoning. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PETER & NANCY SMITH REQUESTING A • VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 CHARLES STREET R-2 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. Variance Granted (LI�� October 18, 2000 Richard E. Dionne, Member Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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. Citp of batem, Alaggarbugettg . . .. . s OFFICE Jl3oarb of �peaC [O6D t. Y -S A . 33 AMENDED DECISION DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM PORCELLO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9 CLOVERDALE AVE & 21 VERONA AVENUE A hearing on this petition was held ApriI19, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Harris, Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne , Stephen Buczko and Paul Valakagis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 the creation of a lot at 9 Cloverdale Ave of 6,744 sq. ft and to allow a parcel at 21 Verona Ave of 17,066 with less frontage than required for the property located at 9 Cloverdale Ave and 21 Verona Ave. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this • 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 and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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 by Attorney William DiMento. 2. Plans were presented showing entrance and egress from new lot. 3. Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor of the petition. 4. There was no opposition to the petition. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM PORCELLO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9 CLOVERDALE AVENUE &.21 VERONA AVENUE page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature ordinances, codes and codes regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors Office and display said number so as to be visible from the street. 5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 6. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 7. Access will be off of Spring Side Avenue for lot#2. Variance Granted April 19, 2000 • Richard Dionne, Member Board of Appeals DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM PORCELLO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY 9 CLOVERDALE ANE & 21 VERONA 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. • Citp of &aiem, Ala!55arbuatto, i Y OF SALEM. MA • CLERK'S OFFICE �oarD of appeal 1000 MAY - I P 3: 02 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM PORCELLO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9 CLOVERDALE AVE & 21 VERONA AVENUE A hearing on this petition was held April 19. 2000 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Harris, Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne , Stephen Buczko and Paul Valakagis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 requirements to construct an addition for the property located at 34 West Avenue located in an R-1 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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 by Attorney William Dimento. 2. Plans were presented showing entrance and egress from new lot. 3. Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor of the petition. 4. There was no opposition to the petition. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM PORCELLO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9 CLOVERDALE AVENUE & 21 VERONA AVENUE page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature ordinances, codes and codes regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors Office and display said number so as to be visible from the street. 5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 6. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. r- 7. 7. Access will be off of Spring Side Avenue for lot#2. u,cn � v Variance Granted w D April 19, 2000 ro • Richard Dionne, Member Board of Appeals DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM PORCELLO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY 9 CLOVERDALE ANE & 21 VERONA 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. 5 29 r < rn N N i y or m { Tl V C-),, w (q:T- D O N • Citp of balem, Alwoubuatto 38oarb of 2ppeal o DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SAMUEL PAPALARDO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 DEARBORN LANE R-2 w m n' A hearing on this petition was held on April 19, 2000, with the following Board Members' r^3 present: Richard Harrison, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris, and Richard Dionne. o n 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 side setback to add an addition to the side of the existing building located at 6 Dearborn Lane. 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 was opposed by Ms. DeVoe, who resides at 10 Dearborn Lane. Ms. DeVoe sent a letter stating her objections. 2. Mr. Emanuel Gerontis who resides at 2 Dearborn Lane is a direct abutter and he also had several objections. Mr. Gerontis 's objections were that the addition would be less than six feet form his property line and the loss of privacy could possibly lower his property value. 3. Pat Donahue who resides at 8 Dearborn Lane also voiced her objections. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SAMUEL PAPALARDO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 DEARBORN DANE R-1 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 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 April 19, 2000 • Stephen anis, 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 o 0 M. • w o� �rT, w C-) M3 o � J Citp of i§alem, f aogarbu2;ettq CITY OF SALEM. MA 39oarb of Rppeal CLERK'S OFFICE 2000 NOV 20 A II: 3q DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANGELA HIRALDO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 43 DOW STREET R-3 A hearing on this petition was held November 15, 2000 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Stephen Buczko, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and James Hacker. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, Angela Hiraldo, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for Variances from side, front & rear setback to construct a carport, also from lot coverage for the property located at 43 Dow Street located in an R-3 zone. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE NOVEMBER 15, 2000 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 • Citp of 6afem, Almoatbugetw 6oarD oflea[ CICLERK'S OFFICER ;2U01 JAN -2 P 2 42 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JULIE ANDERSON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 FLINT STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held December 20, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris and James Hacker. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 a mudroom for the property located at 14 Flint Street located in an R-2 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and • structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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 Julie Anderson resides at and owns a single family home at 14 Flint Street, which is at the corner of Flint ad Warren Streets. She proposes to construct a mudroom on the eastern side of her house, alongside her driveway. Because the proposed extension will extend to within 9 ft. of the rear property line, she was required to seek a variance from the 30 ft. rear setback requirement. 2. There was no opposition to the proposed petition. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JULIE ANDERSON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 FLINT STREET R-2 pagetwo On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the .purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 4. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having i jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted December 20, 2000 Nina Cohen, Chairman ;� n Board of Appeals o �+o ti �T y (n N D Or N nrn • N v N • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JULIE ANDERSON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 FLING 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 N • o r r-< �— m o z �T IV •ND or N ,m3 sr D N • _ `Ccrc Citp of 6alem, Aaggatbuoett5 JRoarb of ftpeal 0 9 S DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GARY & BARBARA WUETZ REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 FLINT STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side setback relief to remove a bulkhead to construct a deck rear for the property located at 19 Flint Street located in an R-2 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There was no opposition to the proposed petition. 2. A Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historical Commission, dated September 2, 1999 states that the proposed alterations at 19 Flint Street are appropriate to the preservation of the Historic District. 3. The property is an existing non-conforming use. 4. The allowance of this petition would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GARY & BARBARA WUETZ REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 FLINT STREET R-2 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature ordinances, codes and codes regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted March 15, 2000 t oc r, Stephen Harris, Member Board of Appeals N r� a �^ w pA r �3 D • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GARY & BARBARA WUETZ REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY 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. 3 rnC • cD N N w o r-- � -^3 n- CP m 3 _ D cn • C0 of 6alem, 01a$!gArba5mg; !F SALEM. MA 13oarb of ��¢a[ :LERtS OFFICE 1000 AUG 25 A 10: 52 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF C & B, INC REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15-17 HARBOR STREET R-3 A hearing on this petition was held August 23, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris and James Hacker. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 the non-confonforming use to add four (4) new units and a Variance to the off-street parking for the parking located at 15-17 Harbor Street R-3. 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 neighborhood. 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 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 OF THE PETITION OF C & B INC, REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15-17 HARBOR STREET page two 1. Attorney Robert T. Ford represented the petitioner, C & B Inc., Architect David F. Jaquith presented architectural plans. 2. The subject property is located in an R-3 District. 3. The petitioner request a Special Permit to extend the rooming house nonconforming use and increase the total number of units from 16 to 20. Additionally, the petitioner requests a Variance in the parking requirements. 4. The property is presently being used as a rooming house with a Lodging House License permitting 16 units. Previous owners have used the property as a rooming house. In addition to the rooming house use, the prior owner used half of the first floor of the house as a barbershop, known as The Male Image. The barbershop is moving from the property. 5. The petitioner would like to construct three (3) units in the space previously occupied by the barbershop and construct one (1) additional room on the second floor. The three (3) units planned for the space previously occupied by the barbershop will have • an area of approximately 225-250 square feet each, and will feature kitchenettes and full sized bathrooms. The additional room on the second floor will have an area of approximately 120 square feet. 6. There will be no exterior changes to the house and there will be no changes to the footprint. 7. On average approximately one out of eight of the present tenants owns an automobile. The petitioner stated the parking requirements of the four proposed units will be far less than that of the former barbershop. The petitioner also indicated that there would also be a reduction and traffic with the change. 8. Councilor at Large Thomas Furey spoke in support of the requested Special Permit and Variance. Councilor Furey indicated that there is a need for affordable housing such as this and that he believed the traffic and parking requirements for the proposed four units would be less than that of the former barbershop. Councilor Furey stated the change would enhance the neighborhood. 9. There was no opposition to the requested Special Permit and Variance requested. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF C & B INC., REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15-17 HARBOR STREET page three 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance 4. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and • approved by the Building Inspector. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Licensing Board. Special Permit & Variance Granted August 23, 2000 CSC- . ��-�%�✓_ �i71i Stephen Buczko, Member Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF C & B INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15-17 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 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 • fdt4g of ttiem, A tttastteljlgoEF CE Poarb of �ppeal NN MR, P 3 �$ DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ERIC OLSON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 HIGH AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting Variances from maximum height of building from 2 '/: to 3 stories for addition for the property located at 1 High Avenue R-1. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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. Homeowner Eric Olson sought to enlarge his residence by constructing a dormer on the rear roof, below the roofline, thus extending the height of the house from 2 % to 3 stories. The maximum height of the roof ridge remains unchanged. 2. Neighbors Roger and Marilyn Poitras of 4 Cross Ave. opposed the granting of the variance on the grounds that the extension would deprive them of privacy and sunlight. Mike Fisher and Deb Clay of 14 Cheval Ave. also opposed the plan on the same grounds, and argued that the change would negatively affect the value of their property. • 3. Ward 1 Councillor Scott LaCava, opposed the change because of the impact on the neighbors, several of whom had called him to register their opposition. v SALEM. MA DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ERIC OLSON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FORCLERK", OFFICE • THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 HIGH AVENUE R-1 page two no I}AR 21 P 3 4. Mr. Olson stated that he would cut down a large maple tree on the southeast corner of the lot to allow additional sunlight to reach the neighboring lots. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; • 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature ordinances, codes and codes regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 7. Maple tree on the southeast corner of the lot to be removed. Variance Granted March 15, 2000 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeals CI i Y OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ERIC OLSON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 HIGH AVENUE R-1 page three 2600 MAR 21 P 3: 08 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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. • Citp of *alem, Alam5arbuatto 13oarb of ftpeal o �o DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC. r y REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY o� LOCATED AT 81 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1 '0 ,3 I A hearing on this petition was held May 17,2000 with the following Board Members YJ present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris, , Stephen Buczko and Ronald p 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 under Section 5-3 (b) and (7) to allow the construction, alteration and enlargement of the building and use as proposed; and a Variance from parking requirements under the Ordinance for the property located at 81 Highland Avenue R-1. 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 NORTH SHORE MEDICAL, INC. REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT &VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 81 HIGHLAND 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. The North Shore Medical Center complex is a grandfathered nonconforming use comprising three buildings and 1,800 parking spaces on a campus of several hundred acres. The Medical Center was represented by its Attorney, John R. Serafini, Jr., Donald M. Geraghty, Vice President for Facilities and Real Estate, Edward Gendry, the project architect, and Kenneth Thompson, Director of Facilities, also appeared at the hearing. 2. Petitioner seeks a parking variance for a new 25,000 s.f. one-story Emergency Services addition adjacent to the current North Shore Children's Hospital. 3. To accommodate visitors to the new Emergency Services facility, petitioner plans to utilize an existing parking are previously designated for staff parking use. Additional staff parking at an off-site location at 108 Jefferson Avenue is expected to provide adequately for staff parking needs for the current facilities and for the planned new addition. 4. There was no opposition to the proposed variance. Joan Lovely, City Counillor for • Ward 3, and Laura DeToma, Councillor at Large, supported the proposed variance and stated their appreciation for the planning the North Shore Medical Center has put into the proposed new facility. 5. Petitioner also seeks a Special Permit to construct a new 25,000 s.f., one-story Emergency Services addition adjacent to the current North Shore Children's Hospital. The proposed addition is designed to update the current acute treatment area and allow the consolidation of the emergency facilities of the North Shore Children's Hospital with those of the current use. 6. The proposed Special Permit is sought under Section 5-3(b)(6) and (7) to allow the construction, alteration and enlargement of present buildings and facilities to allow for the modernization of the current use. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings the Zoning 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 substantiaY hardship on the petitioner. o a M. 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the publiq good ^�' • and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or o> the purpose of the ordinance. n -3 w �. m3 o n • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC. REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 81 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1 page three 4. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Special Permit&Variance Granted May 17, 2000 OA, cs,,, Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal 3 MC • ^U) � NJ or- �nT m:J O D DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC.REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 81 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1 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 certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • Board of Appeal 0 c m ' N Cn � 1> o� • 3 W m C:) D Cltp Of *alemp AkoaCf)uattOXITY OF SALEM. MA • J3oarb of OppeaC CLERK'S OFFICE -1000 NOV 21 P 22-,50 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF D & L REALTY LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 209 HIGHLAND AVENUE B-2 A hearing on this petition was held November 15, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris and James Hacker. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 use of premises as a health club, including tennis courts and swimming pools with seasonal air supported covers, and Variances from parking, maximum lot coverage, principal building height, air supported cover heights, minimum side yard setback and boundary wall height for the property at First Street (207 Highland Avenue Rear) The provisions 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 neighborhood. 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 • of the Ordinance. -CITY OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT • FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 209 HIGHLAND AVENUE B-2 page two .1000 NOV 21 P- The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner, represented by George Atkins,Esq. seeks to build a health club facility with clubhouse, tennis courts, swimming pools and parking lot on the property at 209 Highland Avenue. 2. Unusual features of the proposed facility are two temporary air-supported covers to seasonally enclose the six tennis courts and two swimming pools. These covers exceed the building height requirements of the ordinance. 3. The developers and their attorney met with neighbors and the City Councillor Joan Lovely prior to this meeting to present their plans and drawings. They also presented projected traffic figures for the facility, based on traffic studies at a similar facility in another town. Developers will continue to obtain neighborhood input during the Planning Board meetings as a part of the approval process, including suggestions regarding interior lighting of the air supported covers, landscape planting and parking lot lighting. 4. The variances needed are as follows: a parking variance allowing the facility.to be • served by a lot containing 200 spaces, variance from lot coverage to allow the structure to cover 36% of the lot, a side yard setback to 4 feet on the westerly boundary, and variances from height requirement to allow the clubhouse building to be 38 ft, the tennis court to be 40 ft., and the pool cover to be 36 ft. 5. There was no opposition to the proposed variance. Joan Lovely, City Councillor for Ward 3, supported the proposed variances and special permit for use for the proposed new facility. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings the Zoning 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. CICLERK SQOFFICEA DECISION OF THE PETITION OF D & L ERALTLY LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE • AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 209 HIGHLAND AVENUE B-2 page three 2000 NOV 21 P 2 51 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having • jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Licensing Board. 8. Petitioner is to obtain proper street numbering from the Assessors Office and display said numbers to be visible from the street. 9. Pursue amendment to the purchase and sale agreement. 10. Plan with plantings on City land submitted November 15 subject to the approval of the Planning Board. Special Permit& Variance Granted November 15, 2000 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF D & L REALTY LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE • AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 209 HIGHLAND AVENUE B-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 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 • cj :o r-~ c m-< c =o N Ny �D ,D nm M:X Cr't rnD • Citp of balm, Aaaarbuattq Y V SALEM. MA • CLE^n K'S OFFICE 13oarb of fppeal 2000 MAY 18 P 2: Sb DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN POLEMENAKOS, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 235 LAFAYETTE STREET B-1 A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 2000 with,the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Buczko, Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne 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 for a Change of Use from existing commercial use to residential use for the property located at 235 Lafayette Street located in a B-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 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: 0 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN POLEMENAKOS, TRUSTEE, • REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 235 LAFAYETTE STREET B-1 page two 1. Attorney George P. Vallis represented the petitioner. 2. Plans were submitted showing 5 studio units. 3. A signed petition showing the names of 28 abutters in favor of the conversion as well the owner of Christina's Pizza. 4. Board Member, Steve Harris asked that the number of units be scaled down from 5 to 4 residential studio units. 5. There was no opposition to the plan. 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 4-1, 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 as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. Restrict the use of the property to 4 studio units. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEPHEN POLEMENAKOS, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 235 LAFAYETTE STREET B-1 page three 7. Endeavor to rent to single individuals who do not have vehicles. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED ` MAY 17, 2000 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. • Citp of balem, f aoarb4gtt5Al EM. MA • 13oarb of CLERi�'S OFFICE • appeal 2000 JUN 22 P {: 4q DECISION OF THE PETITION OF BENJAMIN & SHIELA KOSOFKY REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 414 LAFAYETTE STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held June 21,2000 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Paul Valaskagis, 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 Benjamin & Shiela Kosofky the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a Special Permit to change one apartment into a tow room bed and breakfast for the property located at 414 Lafayette Street located in an R-1 zone. • GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE June 21, 2000 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 • of $Nlem uSStttljiisQ�t#a M MA i< ' :.LcKK urFICE • `°Q..� Puttra of �}Tpenl 2000 FEB 24 P 2: 2U DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANGELO MEIMETEAS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22 LATHROP STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held February 16, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Michael Ward and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side setback setback requirements to add an addition to the rear of the building for the property located at 22 Lathrop 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. `Attorney Scott Grover of Salem representing the petitioner stated that by allowing the petition, the construction when completed would eliminate an eyesore that has existed for some time. 2. The property is an existing non-conforming use. 3. Two letters in favor of the petition were read into the record. One from Ms. Dorothy Conley and the other from Ms. Donna Cauley, both abutting neighbors. 4. The petitioner's plans would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. 5. There was no opposition to the proposed addition. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANGELO MEIMETEAS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22 LATHROP STREET R-1 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4- 0 to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures ordinances, codes and codes 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. a - 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. �- m_ rn TJ T; 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. C; n .3 Variance Granted N February 16, 2000 N may /Z CSG Stephen Harris, Member Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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. Citp of balem, jRamgarbuattz CIIY OF SALEM. MA �Boarb of Rppea[ CLERK'S OFFICE 7000 .IUN 28 A II: 25 DECISION OF_THE.P_ETI.T.ION_OF_P_ET.ER.JIMENIEZ.AND_DEBRA_J.OYCE.__. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 54 LAWRENCE STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held June 21, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Paul Valaskagis and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side setback to construct a 3-season room for the property located at 54 Lawrence Street. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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 appeared and represented themselves at the hearing. 2. Plans were submitted showing a 12 x 12 three-season screen room to be built on supported existing deck with outside entrance. 3. Letters of support from 5 abutters and neighbors were submitted. 4. There was no opposition to the plan. 40 C1 Y OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE tnI�� DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PETER JIMENIEZ AND DEBRA JMEjLIN 28 A 11: 25 REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 54 LAWRENCE STREET R-2 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning BoardofAppeal 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 Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; • 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature ordinances, codes and codes regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. Variance Granted June 21, 2000 Richard Dionne, Member • Board of Appeals DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PETER JIMENIEZ AND DEBRA JOYCE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY 54 LAWRENCE 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. • r N o �- o r-< Mo co oy co r D n• m� iv D C • .� Up of harem, fRa9;,qarbu!6ettg 39oarb of 2ppeal C CLERK 3 OFFICE A 1000 NOV I b A II: 23 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & BARBARA KELLEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 LORING AVENUE R-2 A hearing on this petition was held November 15, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne,Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris and James Hacker. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 for relief from minimum lot area per dwelling unit to maintain the status of the property as a two family dwelling for the property located a 10 Loring Avenue R-2. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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, William & Barbara Kelley are the owners of the property located at 10 Loring Avenue. The petition was presented by William Kelley, 2. The petitioners seek a Variance from the residential density regulation requirement of a minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 7,500 sq.ft. in the R-2 district. The petitioner's lot has an area of approximately 7,950 sq. ft. 3. The petitioners have requested the Variance to maintain the status of the property as a two family dwelling. The Kelley's purchased the home as a two family in 1973 and have paid taxes on the property as a two family dwelling. • 4. The property has ample on-site parking for three vehicles. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & BARBARA KELLELY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 LORING AVENUE R-2 page two 5. Mr. Leonard O'Leary, Ward 4 City Councillor, presented support for the requested Variance. 6. No opposition to the requested Variance was presented. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, 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 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. Variance Granted Q November 15, 2000 n Stephen Buczko, Member C-)7:.-A Board of Appeals o -o 0 G Ny �+3 Z 9 • DECISION OF WILLIAM & BARBARA KELLEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 LORING AVENUE R-2 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of 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. n c r-� Board of Appeal �o n, Z � Ny • „ � T3 vnv N � J:: UP of 6alem, Aag;garbutettz �Boarb of Zipped � �N N N T DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES & PATRICIA CRAWFORD D REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 484 LORING AVENUE R-1 a A hearing on this petition was held April 19, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Buczko, Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne and Stephen Harris 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 from side and rear setbacks to install a swimming pool for the property located at 484 Loring Avenue. 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 CHARLES & PATRICIA CRAWFORD REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 484 LORING AVENUE R-1 page two 1. The petitioner, Patricia Crawford, represented herself at the hearing. 2. The petitioner offered that the proposed placement of the pool is dictated by the location of a tree in their backyard. 3. The petitioner presented a signed statement of four abutters saying they have no opposition to the petition. 4. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the 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 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 as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. Special Permit Granted GU22 _ o SSC -A April 19, 2000 r N r Ronald Harrison Onm Board of Appeal T 3: c=>- r9 m3 • N v • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHARLES & PATRICIA CRAWFORD REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 484 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 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. ti o r N U;UlD CDr • -) n• r-n D 00 i Ctv of "Salem, ttssticll %se,'ti$F cEA • °, a Poara of Appeal iGD3 FEB 22 P 2` DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL LEBLANC REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MOULTON AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held February 16, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Buczko, Michael Ward, 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 allow a 3`d floor dwelling level in an R-1 district for extra bedrooms for the property located at 7 Moulton Avenue. 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 MICHAEL LEBLANC REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MOULTON AVENUE R-1 page two 1. The petitioner, represented by Michael Terry of 19 Becket Street, requested a Special Permit to raise the rear roof and expand the third-floor living space of his nonconforming single family residence. Petitioner stated that the expanded living space would be used as part of the existing single family home. 2. Petitioner submitted plans showing the expanded roofline at the rear of the dwelling. Due to a miscommunication between the owner and Mr. Terry, the contractor, the work was done before a building permit was received. Thus the Board viewed plans for work that was already completed. 3. Five neighbors of Moulton Street signed a petition in support of the Special Permit requested. 4. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows; 1. 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, 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 r,:-- by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. o m T d 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety U,cn shall be strictly adhered to. N or 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. N y 5. Exterior finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing • construction. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL LEBLANC REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MOULTON AVENUE page three 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. Special Permit Granted February 16, 2000 /J /,j � CSC�Jj 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. T M 0 N C,o N om n• N m3 _ D • 01itu of "itttem, �Httssndjusetts ' a 'vQ �Rottrb of Appeal n o -4 �o a NN N J AMENDED D y DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SANDRA OLIVER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 NICHOLS STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held January 19,2000 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, Sandra Oliver, is requesting Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width, minimum depth of rear yard, and minimum depth of front yard to construct a single family dwelling for the property located at 13 Nichols 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. Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal Street, represented the petitioner. 2. Ed Rennick, 8 Albion Street spoke in favor and also requested a retaining wall be constructed to stop further erosion along his property line. 3. Attorney William Dimento representing Elizabeth Fallon of 6 Albion Street was in favor as long as a fence be constructed along the entire rear property line, and the large trees be removed. Robert McGowan, 2 Albion Street also requested the same • relief. I • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SHARON OLIVER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 OLIVER STREET R-1 page two 4. Nancy Hersey, 12 Nichols Street and Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor of the Variance requested as well a petition with 32 names was submitted in favor of the petition. 5. Debbie Marchand, 3 Butler Street was opposed to the proposed petition. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows; 1. The variance for the property in question 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. 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 or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. c- 8. Removal of existing garage. `- �- 9. Remove trees along rear property line. N u, J o r- 10. Construct a 6' high stockade fence along rear property line. D Tm n• • 11. No additional structures such as shed or garages be constructed. cn M� D J i • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SHARON OLIVER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 NICHOLS STREET page three 12. Construct fence 6' stockade along the right side property line (Butler St. side) and repair if needed the retaining wall along the same property line. Variance Granted January 19, 2000 72/�a Csc� Stephen Harris;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-;-. M z n J O r� D Trn co m 3 D J • Olitu of ttlem, Masondjusetts • oQ Poarra of �"eal N _ D m N N Cr DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SANDRA OLIVER REQUESTING A VARIANCE -C �� FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 NICHOLS STREET R-1 w m. D A hearing on this petition was held January 19,2000 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, Sandra Oliver, is requesting Variances from minimum lot width, minimum depth of rear yard, and minimum depth of front yard to construct a single family dwelling for the property located at 13 Nichols 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. Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal Street, represented the petitioner. 2. Ed Rennick, 8 Albion Street spoke in favor and also requested a retaining wall be constructed to stop further erosion along his property line. 3. Attorney William Dimento representing Elizabeth Fallon of 6 Albion Street was in favor as long as a fence be constructed along the entire rear property line, and the large trees be removed. Robert McGowan, 2 Albion Street also requested the same relief. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SHARON OLIVER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 OLIVER STREET R-1 page two 4. Nancy Hersey, 12 Nichols Street and Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor of the Variance requested as well a petition with 32 names was submitted in favor of the petition. 5. Debbie Marchand, 3 Butler Street was opposed to the proposed petition. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows; 1. The variance for the property in question 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. 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 or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Removal of existing garage. o 9. Remove trees along rear property line. a ^T 10. Construct a 6' high stockade fence along rear property line. C y or T 11. No additional structures such as shed or garages be constructed. ^ � n• • m3 C) D w DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SHARON OLIVER REQUESTING A VARIANCE • FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 NICHOLS STREET page three 12. Construct fence 6' stockade along the right side property line (Butler St. side) and repair if needed the retaining wall along the same property line. Variance Granted January 19, 2000 Stephen Harris, 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. O _ O �^ r n To N Uj Ln a- O> r T3 W n C) D w • �`"�►. (9itV ofttlem, M882ICIj1ISfLft$t S OFFICE A i • 'e Pottrb of (�ppeal 1000 PiitR I b P 3: 01 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARTIN GILBERT REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 NURSERY STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Buczko, Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne 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 convert 2 family dwelling to a 3 family dwelling. Martin Gilbert is under agreement to purchase the property located at 5 Nursery Street . on the condition that I can occupy the third floor. 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: V r;LERK'S OFFICER DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARTIN GILBERT REQUESTING A SPECIAL . • PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 NURSERY STREET R-2. page two 1. The petitioner, Martin Gilbert represented himself at the hearing. 209D MSR I b P 3* 01 2. The petitioner presented professionally prepared plans to assure adequate parking spaces in the event the special permit was permitted. 3. The house has been occupied as a three family unit for 19 years and only ceased being that in November of 1999 when the third floor occupant moved out. 4. The owner, William Murphy, who lives on the first floor, spoke on behalf of the petitioner and indicated that even though the house is technically a two family unit, the third floor unit still must have heat to avoid water pipes from freezing during the winter and this adds to the cost of upkeep. 5. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows; 1. 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 4-1, 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 4. Rear area of parking must be made of loose materials and not paved. Special Permit Granted March 15, 2000E/nG`2 • Ronald Harrison Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARTIN GILBERT REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 NURSERY STREET R-2 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17, of MGL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 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. • 9 �Tj �Lr. 6 Or �7 nm n' O • (Up of *aiem, J%aggarbuqettg ... CIaTY.OF SALEM. MA ABoara of Zippeal CLERK S OFFICE ,1000 NOV 20 A II 39 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SCOTT KING & SHERYL DILISIO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 OBER STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held November 15, 2000 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Stephen Buczko, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and James Hacker. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, Scott King & Sheryl Dilisio the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for Variances Lot A, relief from frontage, lot area & minimum lot area per dwelling, relief from prohibited use (dwelling to be duplex), Lot B, relief from frontage, parking, lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling & side yard of garage for the property located at 12 Ober Street located in an R-1 zone. • GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE NOVEMBER 15, 2000 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 • UP of 6aiem, Aamorbugett5 . i OF SALEM. MA 33oarb of 2ppeaC CLERK'S OFFICE 1000 OCT -2 P 2: 20 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GERALDINE M. AYERS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 31-33 OSGOOD STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held September 20, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris 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 Variances from lot area, lot coverage, parking, front, side and rear setback regulations to allow a division of land for the property located at 31-33 Osgood Street R-2. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and structure involve. • b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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 Henry Lucas Esq. 133 Washington Street represented the petitioner. 2. The petitioner seeks variances to allow the division of the property located at 31-33 Osgood Street. 3. Lot 1 requires Variances for Lot area- 5498 s.f. proposed Lot width— 15 ft. proposed Side setback 9.8 ft. proposed Rear setback—22.ft Parking Variance 4. Lot 2 requires Variances for Lot area—3425 s.f. Lot width —47.97 ft. • Front setback— 5.9 ft. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GERALDINE M. AYERS REQUESTING A • VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 31-33 OSGOOD STREET R-2 page two Side setback 3.6 ft. Rear setback 22.0 ft. Parking requirements 4. There was no opposition to the proposed petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, • subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature ordinances, codes and codes regulations. 2. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. Variance Granted '// "" ��A C,SC J September 20, 2000 Stephen Harris, Member Board of Appeals • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GERALDINE M. AYERS REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY 31-33 OSGOOD 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. • • Citp of bafem, f ftoarbuzettg Gr SALEM. MA �Boarb of appeal i,LUK'S OFFICE 1000 MAY 18 P 2: 51 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MAUREEN CAVANAUGH REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 PHELPS STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on May 17, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Richard Dionne, Ronald Harrison, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris and Paul Valaskagis. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert a 2 family dwelling into a three family for the property located at 5 Phelps Street located in an R-2 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 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. The petitioner, Maureen Cavanaugh, is the owner of the property located at 5 Phelps Street. 2. The petitioner seeks a special permit to convert a two-family dwelling to a three- . family dwelling. 3. The petitioner purchased the property in May 1999, and has since remodeled the top floor. The petitioner seeks to make available a third rental unit, which would be a one-bedroom apartment on the third floor. 4. No additional construction is planned. • • DECSION OF THE PETITION OF MAUREEN CAVANAUGH REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 PHELPS STREET R-2 page two 5. The petitioner presented the board with a parking plan that allowed for on-site parking of five vehicles. 6. Petitioners in support of the requested special permit were signed by Susan O'Leary, 45 Broad Street, Patricia Draganosky, 6 Phelps Street; Deide Wyman, 2 Hathorne Place; Chester M. Whalen, 4 Hathorne Place; Frank Rizzotti, 47 Broad Street; William Scikey, 7 Phelps Street; and George and Josephine Cawley of 4 Phelps Street. 7. Elaine McCormack, 45 R Broad Street, submitted a letter in support of the request. 8. John J.and Mabel E. Latoszek, 8 Phelps Street and Lindsay J. Morsillo, 53 Broad Street presented opposition to the requested special permit. Elements of the Latoszek's opposition included a problem with parking on Phelps Street, the fact that Phelps Street is narrow and congested and additional vehicles associated with an additional rental property wold exacerbate the existing problem, and a concern regarding the ability of Fire Trucks to travel the street. Mr. Morsillo indicated that allowing the conversion from a two family to a three family would set a bad precedent, and that the area is already very densely populated. 9. Gale Flynn, 1 Vale Street, Donna Callahan, 8 Stearns Place and Joan Lovely, Ward 3 Councillor also voiced opposition to the requested special permit. 10. John J. Latoszek presented the Board with a petition of opposition signed by 27 neighbors and residents. • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the Neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience and Welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 2 in favor and 3 in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit is denied. Special Permit Denied May 17, 2000 Stephen Buczko, Member Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MAUREEN CAVANAUGH REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 PHELPS STREET R-2 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the 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 • • Citp of � CM' Aar'qarb"ettg ;; ; �; Gr SA�EM. P1A 43oarb of Rppeaf CLERK'S OFFICE • 1000 tAAY 18 P u` 2l DECISION OF THE PETITION OF TREEHOUSE DESIGN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1-3-5 PLEASANT STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 200 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chariman, Stephen Harris, Ronald Harrison, 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 requesting an extension of a nonconforming structure and a Variance from parking for the property located at 1-3-5 Pleasant Street. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE May 17, 2000 • 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 • Citp of 6alem, fRaggarbugettgLCCCRF.SA 9Boarb of fppeal s FF�FhJA 1440/14Y DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MAUREEN & RICHARD MORRISON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 RIVERBANK ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from front setback for a proposed front entry for the property located at 4 Riverbank Road. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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 appeared and represented themselves at the hearing. 2. Plans were presented showing the proposed new entry. 3. There was no opposition to the petition. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MAUREEN & RICHARD MORRISON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 RIVERBANK ROAD R-1 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal 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 Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature ordinances, codes and codes regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted May 17, 2000 cPirc� Stephen Harris, Member Board of Appeals 0 G a Rl� vim r w m3 o D • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MAUREEN& RICHARD MORRISON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY 4 RIVERBANK ROAD page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the 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. 0 o n-- o r-. >_ m h� ov r w � m� w D 6 • Citp of *aCem, fRamwbuat f OF SALEM. MA CLERWS OFFICE �6oarD of �ppeaC 2000 APR 28 A 10: 3b DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ALAN & LISA DIONNE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 SABLE ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held April19, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Harris, Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne , Stephen Buczko and Paul Valakagis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 and side setback to construct an addition for the property located at 24 Sable Road located in an R-1 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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 petition was presented by Alan & Lisa Dionne. 2. The proposed construction is to modernize the kitchen and enlarge the dining area. Side setback to be reduced to 6' and rear setback reduced to 27' according to the plans submitted. 3. In attendance in favor of the petition were: David LeBlanc, 26 Sable Road, Tim Ready, 22 Sable Road and Councillor O'Leary. 4. There was no opposition to the proposed addition. • Ll I Y OF SALEM. MA CLERIC'S OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ALAN & LISA DIONNE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 SABLE ROAD R-1 page two 1CCC APR 28 A 10: 36 On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the'Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature ordinances, codes and codes regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. Variance Granted April 19, 2000 ac� Paul Valaskagis, Member Board of Appeals • USALEM. MA CLERK OFFICE 1000 APR 28 A 10: 3b DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ALAN & LISA DIONNE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY 24 SABLE 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. • Citp of 6alem, AlazorbugettSi ,i OF SALEM. MA • �Boarb of appeal CLERK'S OFFICE 1000 JUL 21 P 5= 59 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CARLOS ESPINAL REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 32-34 SALEM STREET R-3 A hearing on this petition was held July 19, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Paul Valaskagis, Stephen Harris and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from relief from parking and from density to make a three family for the property located at 32-34 Salem Street located in an R-3 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and • structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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 appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. The property is an existing non-conforming use in a R-3 district 3. Two letters in opposition were presented at the hearing by Mr. J. Martin and Mrs. Jean R. Martin of Park Street in Salem. 4. The petitioner is providing off street parking to the tenants. However the parking plan submitted was found by the Building Inspector not to be in compliance with the City of Salem parking ordinance. 5. The allowance of this petition would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CARLOS ESPINAL REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 32-34 SALEM STREET R-3 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal 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 Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, • subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature ordinances, codes and codes regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. Parking spaces will be marked and painted. Variance Granted July 19, 2000 Stephen Harris, Member Board of Appeals • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CARLOS ESPINAL REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY 32-34 SALEM 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. • • Citp of 6alem, fdaoarb gettg • CITY OF SALEM. MA Jgoarb of appeal CLERK S OFFICE 1100 OCT 25 P 3: OS DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JESSE TREMBLAY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 SCENIC WAY EXTENSION (LOT 4) A hearing on this petition was held October 18, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris 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 for side yard setback to construct a single family dwelling for the property located at 11 Scenic Way Extension. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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 is the owner of a nonconforming residential lot in an area on Scenic Way Extension that is currently being developed into four single family homes. Petitioner seeks a variance to allow him to build his home within five feet of the property line on the right side of the home, which is the side that abuts a paper road known as Outlook Avenue. 2. Petitioner presented a survey plan drawn by Christopher R. Mello, of Eastern Land Survey Assoc, Inc. in Peabody showing a proposed site for the house he and Mrs. Tremblay plan to build on their lot. Initially, the petitioner's proposed site as shown on the assessor's map overlapped an existing easement on the left side of the property, but a subsequent survey plan, dated October 11, 2000, corrects that error. • In the October 11 plan, the proposed home meets setback requirements on the left side but requires a variance of 5 feet on the right side. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JESSE TREMBLAY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 SCENIC WAY EXTENSION (LOT 4) R-1 pagetwo 3. Because the proposed siting would require less blasting than siting the home further back on the property, the variance requested was supported by Mr. Leonard O'Leary, Ward Councillor for Ward 4. Petitioner also had the support of the following neighbors: Maureen Moroney, 6 Scenic Place, David Pierce, 4 Scenic Place and William Bulyer, a neighbor. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the • purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. Variance Granted October 18, 2000 S�- n Nina Cohen, Chairman c rn Board of Appeals C RLnCDT Ln t!>D • nr T T3 YJ rn3 O D rn • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 *;0O n Ny U3 O '^3 • 3 0 • Cttp of 6alem, 1Rae;e;arbuott!5 OF SALEFi, MA Ooarb of Zlppeal C'-EWS OF7=ICE 2000 crap 2b P 3= 18 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LORRAINE ALLISON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 SHORE AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held September 2000, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris 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 to rebuild existing deck and install screen room for the property located at 1 Shore Avenue R-1. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and • structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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. Lorraine Allison is the owner of the property located at 1 Shore Avenue. The petition was filed and presented by Mr. Frank Evans of Frank Evans Company Inc. a contractor representing Lorraine Allison. 2. The subject property is located in an R-1 District. 3. The petitioner requests a variance from the rear setback requirements. The existing 15' x 7' deck is 2"from the property line. The homeowner wishes to rebuild the existing deck to the exact same dimensions as exists. The homeowner wises to add and 11 x 7 screen room on a portion of the deck. No additional square footage will be added. • 4. Mr. Evans agreed to enclose the bottom portion of the deck so as to prevent animal access. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LORRIAN ALLISON REQUESTING A VARIANCE c FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 SHORE AVENUE R-1 page two `�� o P O Nth 5. No opposition to the requested variance was presented. 0 M v? On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, • subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature ordinances, codes and codes regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 7. The petitioner shall enclose the bottom portion of the deck to prevent animal access. Variance Granted • September 20, 2000 Aephen ko, Member Board of Appeals • C-J P � N K1 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LORRIAN ALLISON REQUESTING A VARIANCE o� FOR THE PROPERTY 1 SHORE AVENUE R-1 Cr page three '13 �3 YJ co A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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. • Citp of 6alem, 41a!oarbuatm " e �ALEP1. MA A3oarb of Rppeai wL�—RK'S OFFICE 1000 SEP 2l All: 13 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID BYORS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 70 SUMMER STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held September 20, 2000 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Stephen Buczko, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Paul Valaskigis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, David Byors the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a Variance to add 2 additional units and a Variance from parking for the property located at 70 Summer Street located in an R-2 zone. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE • SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 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 • ofulem, ussiscljuset# MA CLERK'S OFFICE • ', Puara of '�Pvezu ZOOO FEB 22 P 2: 11 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID MACKEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 SUNSET ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held February 16, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Michael Ward and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting Variance for rear setback to construct an addition for the property located at 2 Sunset 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 petitioner, David Mackey seeks a rear setback variance to construct a two-story expansion at the rear of his single-family residence. The residence is nonconforming with respect to the attached garage, which extends within 11 ft. of the rear property line and within 5 ft. of the side setback. 2. The proposed addition will extend within 27 feet of the rear property line for the width of the main house. It will not extend the nonconformity of the side yard setback. 3. Two abutters, Janice Murphy of 2A Sunset Road and Ruth Larivee of 4 Sunset Road, had no objection to the proposed variance. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID MACKEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 SUNSET ROAD R-1 page two 4. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4—0 to grant the variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures ordinances, codes and codes regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing construction. • 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. Variance Granted February 16, 2000 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeals O o (-- rI 0 +i -_; m C C" n 7 N c� N O x. N n• m� • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID MACKEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 2 SUNSET 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. • N O M rn �o N V1D N Or T T�r-n tv m 3 _ D • Citp of 6a(em, f Razzarbuang; U`r SALEM MA �oarb of �peaC • CLERK'S OFFICE 1000 AUG 31 A 10: 28 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NONDAS LAGONAKIS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE B21R12 A hearing on this petition was held on August 23, 2000, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris, James Hacker 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 lot width and area to allow four (4) new house lots and a Variance to allow the residential use in a small portion of the B-2 zone for the property located at 7-17 Thomas Circle. 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 Joseph C. Correnti, Esq. seeks a variance to allow the property at 7-17 Thomas Circle to be developed into four single family homes. The proposed lots lack sufficient frontage on Thomas Circle, and they do not meet the required 15,000 s.f. in area. Additionally, since the property is bisected residential use on lots which contain land in a B-2 zone. 2. At the Zoning Board's request, petitioner sought approval of the subdivision plan from the Planning Board. Following a lengthily series of public meetings, such approval was granted unanimously on June 20, 2000. Planning Board requirements included installation of water and sewer service to the new development and improvements to the roadway to facilitate passage of existing and proposed traffic. The findings and decision of the Salem Planning Board with respect to this property are adopted and incorporated by reference herein. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NONDAS LAGONAKIS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE pagetwo 3. Each of the proposed lots would have an area of greater than 11,500 s.f. None of the proposed units would require dimensional variances, and all would provide adequate off-street parking for the single-family homes proposed. 4. Several neighbors opposed the granting of the requested variances on the grounds that traffic on Thomas Circle would be increased. The proposed development was also criticized because it might lower property values. Letters in opposition were received from John Adamo, 318 Highland Avenue, David Zizza, 310 Highland Avenue, Richard Williams, 3 Thomas Circle, and statements in opposition were given by Susan Howland, 3 Thomas Circle and Mr. Deschamps of Crosby Street. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do 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 favor and 2 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 August 23, 2000 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal 0 rn.�_ z-a T T� Y C7' .. v N co DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NONDAS LAGONAKIS REQUESTING A VARIANCE • FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE B2/R1 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 ti 0 a �-1 GJ � W (:> O� nl o �- rn N D • Citp of 6alem, Alaggacbuq". SAI EM. MA 'S OFFICE 39oarb of 9ppea[ CLERK OF 1000 AUG 28 P I: 4S DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NONDAS LAGONAKIS REEQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE B2/R1 A hearing on this petition was held September 15,1999 and continued until August 23, 2000 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Stephen Buczko, Richard Dionne 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 Joseph Correni, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for Variances to lot width and area to allow four (4) new house lots and a Variance to allow the residential use in a small portion of the B-2 zone for the property located at 7-17 Thomas Circle B2- R-1 GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE • August 23, 2000 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 10 s QCitp of *&Mp jla�gaCbU!5Ctt� r.s �oarD of �pea1 s X1 lF;� • 10O�JFo 141 < �6 q 0-? DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PEDRO L. RAMOS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 80 TREMONT STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held August 23, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris 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 to construct an 11 x 14 bedroom for parking for the property located at 80 Tremont Street R-2. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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. Leo Pereira of Pereira Construction appeared with Pedro Ramos to present petition. 2. Plans were submitted showing the 11 x 14 addition to the property. 3. Petitioner would like an additional bedroom for his family. 4. There was no opposition to this petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PEDRO RAMOS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR • THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 80 TREMONT STREET R-2 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature ordinances, codes and codes regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. Variance Granted J/=y2 ' August 23, 2000 Stephe Harns, Member o r. Board of Appeals r: rn mac. 1 U:U: 6- > C'r-- • W (� rn O D W DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PEDRO RAMOS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR • THE PROPERTY 80 TREMONT 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. • ti N rn i Ncn o- v or —3 w cr .. m 3; O A W • Of *Iem, �JM95MCI11I5etf4 OFLLERSAO FICE A • • >4 „ �ottra of A"eal 1000 JUL 31 P 2: 28 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF UPHAM STREET REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28 UPHAM STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on July 19, 2000, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Buczko, Paul Valaskagis 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 the density and area table to allow 3 family structure on a lot containing 4,566 sq. ft. rather than 22, 500 for the property at 28 Upham Street located in an R-2 zone. 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. Tom Donovan of Blodgett & Donovan of 10 Chestnut Street presented the petition of David Dunton & Rick Fitzgerald the owners of the property. 2. The petitioner's intention is to convert a 2 family to a 3 family with additions inside and outside including a kitchen. There would be access from a stairway on the outside of the building. 3. The property currently has 2 parking places. The intention is to pave the backyard to provide for 6 parking spaces total with access from a driveway, which would run down the right side of the property. 4. The owners of the property presented a signed petition from neighbors in favor of the project. It was also said that others were in favor but were not able to be reached for • this meeting. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF UPHAM STREET REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28 UPHAM STREET R-2 page two 5. Scott Uva of 26 Upham Street spoke in favor, but did have a couple of concerns.One being if a fence could be installed to separate his yard which abutts the property from the parking area and driveway for safety reasons. The other was how the backyard would be leveled to provide proper drainage and blend with his yard. 6. Staley McDermett of 30 Dearborn Street opposed the petition. The reason being congestion and the paving of the backyard. 7. Stephen Harris opposed the petition for reasons of density and traffic. 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 2 in favor and 2 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 July 19, 2000 QULTO-&- ac Paul Valaskagis, Member Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF UPHAM STREET REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28 UPHAM 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 • • City of &aiem, Almoatbuattg Clrr ' CLERK SALEM E A 39oarb of Zipped S OFFf� 1000 NOV p P DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ERIN K. CASHMAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 VISTA AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on November 15, 2000, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris, James Hacker 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 is requesting Variances for subdivision of an existing lot. Newly created Lot A requiring a variance from minimum lot area. Remaining Lot B, which contains an existing dwelling, requires variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width and minimum depth of rear yard. This property is located at 7 Vista Avenue which is in a R-1 district. 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 was represented by Attorney George Atkins. 2. A number of abutters voiced opposition to the plans. 3. Councillor Leonard O'Leary spoke in opposition to the proposed petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ERIN K. CASMAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 VISTA AVENUE R-1 page two 4. A petition was submitted with 4 names in favor of the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions 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 0 in favor and 5 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 November 15, 2000 Richard Dionne, Member Board of Appeal e r-� t �1 N Vj(n J D or- 'n3 N M m3 D • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ERIN K. CASHMAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 VISTA 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 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 • cn m N NUN J Or -nrn in. n� rn:r • Citp of harem, :01amorbuatw MA 38oarb of 2ppeal ' R s Y, SO OFFI E t,«.EFFICE 1goo AUG 29 A II: 38 REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR VANN NESS DEVELOPMENT CORP. FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 155- 189 WASHINGTON STREET At a hearing held on August 23,2000, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow a six (6) month extension for Variances and Special Permits granted for Vann Ness Development for the property located at 155-189 Washington Street. The six (6) month extension is based on the previous decisions having been recorded at the City Clerk's • office on September 23, 1999. �jl/J2z'u l r Nina Cohen, Chairman • of "Salem, �fflttssadlusetts Pattra of ' 1"eal c� �s CP DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EARL R. FLANSBURGH &ASSOCIATES � REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 77 WILLSON STREET RC/R1 A hearing on this petition was held January 19, 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 petitioners are requesting Variances for relief from height requirements and more than one building on a single lot in an RC/R1 district for the property located at 77 Willson 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. Alan Ross and Daniel Tuberty of Earl R. Flansburg & Associate, 77 N. Washington Street, Boston represented the petitioner. The owner of the property is the City of Salem. 2. The petitioner requested Variances for relief from height requirements and more than one building on a single lot in a RC/R1 district for the property located at 77 Willson Street, so a new public K-8 School (Bowditch School) can be constructed at the site. 3. The petitioner asked for clarification as to the need for relief from this Board to • complete the project and referenced a written opinion from Assistant City Solicitor, DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EARL R. FLANSBURGH & ASSOCIATES FOR VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 77 WILLLSON STREET RC/R! • page two. John Keenan. Chairman Nina Cohen presented Attorney Keenan's opinion to the Board. The opinion of Attorney John Keenan dated January 12, 2000, is hereby incorporated by reference. Attorney Keenan advised the Board that as this school project is a protected under Chapter 40A, we must make a determination that as applied to this particular project whether said requirement (s) are unreasonable. 4. The selection of a site for the new school involved a citywide search and an extensive evaluation process by the School Committee. The Salem School Committee approved the 77 Willson Street location for a new K-8 school in January 1999. The new school will have a capacity of about 600 student. 5. The Salem High School site is approximately 62 acres. The new school will be constructed on an 8-9 acre portion of the Salem High School property that abuts Willson Street. The proposed School will be built into the side of a hill and will be three stories at the front and two stories at the rear. 6. An existing parking lot with 140 spaces, which is located between the proposed school and the High School, will be converted to an athletic playing field for the new school. The new parking lot with 75 spaces is planned for the rear of the High School. 7. Due to the size of the property and the availability of the parking at the site, enforcing • the restriction in Article VI, The restriction in Article VI, Section 6-1 (a), that "no more than one (1) dwelling shall be build upon any such lot"does not appreciably advance the municipality's concern about this issue. 8. Residents voicing opposition included: George & Helen Cappuccio, 65 Willson St.; Marlene Lunt, 6 Greenway Road, Roger Fruggiero, 11 Berrywood Lane, John & Pauline Bertini, 5 Willson Road, Lisha & Leo Griffin, 7 Cottage Street, Stan Poirier, 8 Cottage Street and Attorney James Peterson, represent Keith and Lisa Fraser. Concerns expressed included increase in automotive and foot traffic, parking problems, obstruction of view, runoff and flooding, disruption of wetlands, trash and creating a campus with both primary grade and high school students. 9. The petitioner stated that the function of building would be seriously compromised by Not building it, and that in order to build the school, the site selected must be used for the proposed new school. 10. Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Herbert Levine, stated that he had empathy for the Problems expressed, and that the School Department would work through the concerns. Dr. Levine stated that traffic in the area is difficult but only for short periods of time. To help alleviate traffic, arrival and departure times for the two schools would be staggered, and school events would be coordinated to ensure sufficient parking. In regard to the situation of having both primary school and higp'�,�, � school students in close proximity, Dr. Levine stated that this should not be a o r-< problem and that other communities have had success with such arrangements. N OD D Ti 3 •• m3 .n D Ul DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EARL R. FLANSBURGH & ASSOCIATES • REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 77 WILLSON STREET RC/R1 page three Levine also indicated that current research supports a variety of grade configurations. 11. School Committee member Claudia Chuber stated that she interviewed students at The High School about the presence of a 375 student primary school at the High School. She said that the students were positive about the experience and that some current programs could not happen without the mix. 12. Bob Corning, a landscape architect working with Earl R. Flansburgh & Associates, stated that there will be a minimal net gain in the amount of impervious ground area as a result of this project. Also, the quality of water leaving the site should improve due to a decrease in runoff flow rates. 13. Ward 3 Councilor Joan Lovely remarked that concerns voiced by residents were valid. Ms. Lovely indicated that the School Building Committee will work closely with the Police Department and Traffic Engineers to address traffic issues. Ms. Lovely also indicated that drainage issues would be addressed by appropriate city departments. 14. The representatives from Earl R. Flansburgh & Associated stated that the issues • regarding runoff and flooding have been discussed and are being addressed by many groups including the Conservation Commission and the Planning Department. It was also stated that the small area of wetland at the front of the property would be avoided. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the presented at the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to adopt the following: 1. The Salem Zoning Ordinance (Article Vl, Section 6-1(b) specifically exempts municipal buildings from the height limitations; therefore, no specific relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals is necessary for the height issues for the public school project. 2. The restriction in Article VI, Section 6-1 (a), that "no more than one (1) dwelling shall be built upon any such lot" (lot as defined in Article ll, Section 2-2) Is unreasonable as applied to the proposed project because its application would contradict the protection granted by Massachusetts General Law, chapter 40A and the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to an educational use. &,�4 GS'c� Stephen buczko, Member c. Board of Appeals T m m �® • N U D C)r- D �3 00 m� W D U1 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EARL R. FLANSBURGH & ASSOOCIATES REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR 77 WILLSON STREET RC/R1 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 M 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. m =C) CO S. I Uj U7 N �> r- D "� ao In. m� • w D f • `° fQit ofttlem, ttssttcljusetssoFF cEA • '', Pottrb of ' pk"eal 2��0 h1liP, 20 P 27' 48 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL D. GODJIKIAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 117 WEBB STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Michael Ward, Richard Dionne and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting Variances from side and rear setbacks to construct dwelling on the proposed new lot for the property located at 117 Webb Street located in an R-2 The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and structure invole. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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 Robert Ledoux of Salem represented the petitioner Paul D. Godkikian. 2. Plot plans.were presented at the hearing showing placement of the new home. 3. There was no opposition to the plans. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the • district in general. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL D. GODJIKIAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE • FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 117 WEBB STREET page two 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, 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 stature ordinances, codes and codes regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit.prior to beginning any construction. • 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City Assessors Office and display number to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted March 15, 2000 < csc Richard Dionne, Member Board of Appeals N - 0 or- co y co • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL D. GODJIKIAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 117 WEBB 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. • • Citp of 6alem, Alamq uatte; Jr SALEM. MA • 39oarb of appeal CLERKS OFFICE 1000 EfAY - I P 3: 0 I DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KATHLEEN WHOLLEY- TALATIIKITE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 34 WEST AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held Aprill9, 2000 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Harris, Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne , Stephen Buczko and Paul Valakagis. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 requirements to construct an addition for the property located at 34 West Avenue located in an R-1 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. 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 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 herself at the hearing. 2. Plans were presented showing placement of the addition. 3. There was no opposition to the plans. 4. Signed petitions from abutters and neighbors showing support was presented. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KATHLEEN WHOLLEY-TALANTIKITE • REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 34 WEST AVENUE ROAD R-1 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal 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 Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature ordinances, codes and codes regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall to be obtained. Variance Granted April 19, 2000 D Richard Dionne, Member Board of Appeals r- m� o � DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KATHLEEN WHOOLEY-TALANTIKITE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY 34 WEST 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. -- g r� 7"o 7 n x u,0 � D or T� ^ cn. .. q 0 • NW '90NI19VN 090; �n Q Qc��