Loading...
2001-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 Ir .ajtV of �UJCM, �RaSSNclluse�lWOF SALEM, MA CLERKS OFFICE �onra of �Fpeal Ja 2001 AUG 22 P 2. 58 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARGARET RUBINSTEIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 35 BALCOMB STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held August 15, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 yard setback. Ordinance calls for a 10 foot side setback and a 30 foot rear setback and the proposed addition will be 6 foot on side and 20 foot at rear setback. The property is 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's appeared and represented themselves at the meeting. 2. Plans were submitted showing the proposed addition. 3. There was no opposition to the plans. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARGARET RUBINSTEIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 35 BALCOMB 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 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 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. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing construction. Variance Granted August 15, 2001 j �� 2C7 CSC Richard Dionne Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION MARGARET RUBINSTEIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 35 BALCOMB 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 Of $aleM, cffl2IS5Z1CljMfleR$SAOFA ICE �Roatb of a 2001 SEP 28 A it: 43 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EILEEN GIBNEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 36 BALCOMB STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held September 19, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 side setback and density requirements to construct an addition in the rear of the property located at 36 Balcomb Street 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 is requesting variances for relief from side setback and density requirements. Requested relied is side yard setback of 2 feet and required is 10 feet, lot coverage of 36%, required is 35%. 2. The petitioner's property is an existing nonconforming lot in an R-2 zone and the. proposed addition and deck would exceed the maximum amount of lot coverage allowable according to the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 3. The left side setback of the existing structure is currently 2" plus or minus. The proposed addition will continue the 2 ft. setback for another 4. Allowing the petition would not harm or detrimental to the neighborhood. • 5. The petition had no neighborhood opposition. a DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EILEEN GIBNEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 36 BALCOMB STREET R-2 pagetwo 6. Two letters were submitted in favor of the proposed addition. 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing construction. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Variance Granted September 19, 2001 Stephen Harris Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EILEEN GIBNEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED 36 BALCOMB 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 • Ab2mof �nlem, �iIssarIJusetts CITY OF S OFFCEA Paara of .1001 AUG 23 P S. 18 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EMMA GARDNER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 44 BALCOMB STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held August 15, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 side setback for the property located at 44 Balcomb 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 seeks relief from side setback requirements to upgrade an existing deck by installing a 3-season sunroom on the deck at the property line. 2. Petitioner submitted plans showing that the house currently extends to within 5.6 ft of the property line. The proposed addition will rest atop the existing deck at the outer edge, thereby falling within the required setback line. 3. There was no opposition to the proposed request. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EMMA GARDNER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 44 BALCOMB 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 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 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 construction. Variance Granted August 15, 2001 /, /�tb O„ Q J�-Ckv JJ Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION EMMA GARDNER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 44 BALCOMB 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 • • ¢o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUMQ BOARD OF APPEAWly Cl'SOFFICE $� 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3REWE9N q SALEM, MA 01970 • TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. ZOOI OCT 2U P MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OFJAMES NOBLE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 21 BARCELONA AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held October 17,2001 the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides and Joan Boudreau.. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. At the request of the petitioner's Attorney, Stephen Lovely, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for Variances from density and lot area per dwelling unit to allow a three family for the property located at 21 Barcelona Avenue. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE October 17, 2001 n 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 • (gitu of Salem, ffla99Nr1I11%'TtSLE 1,t A '• °e Ponrb of �"enl 2001 MAY 29 P 2 4.8 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JAMES NOBLE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 BARCELONA AVENUE R=1 A hearing on this petition was held May 116, 2001 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, James Noble the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for Variances from frontage, lot size and side yard setback for the property located at 21 Barcelona Avenue located in a R-1 zone. • GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE MAY 16, 2001 � / Vv 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 6aiem, :Olamgarbugettg • 6oara of appeal CITY OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE Z001 MAY -3 P Z. 4U DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT & ELAINE COOK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 42 BAY VIEW AVENUE R1 A hearing on this petition was held April 25, 2001 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 side yard setback to rebuild existing porch for the property located at 42 Bay View 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. Robert and Elaine Cook are homeowners seeking to construct a new entryway for their Bay View Ave. home. 2. They seek a variance from side setback requirements to allow their front porch to extend to within 7 feet 3 inches of the property line. 3. There was no opposition to this petition. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT & ELAINE COOK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 42 BAY VIEW AVENUE R1 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. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing construction. Variance Granted April 25, 2001 A/,,,,W cscp� Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT & ELAINE COOK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT42 BAY VIEW AVENUE R-1 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL (` 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOZS TY OF SALEM. MA • ( SALEM, MA 01970 LERK'S OFFICE TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740.9846 STANLEYJ. VICZ, JR. O 2001 DEC 21 P 3: 08 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DANIEL SMITH REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 BELLEVIEW AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held December 19 2001 with the following Board Members present: Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Halides, Bonnie Belair and Joan Boudreau. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side yard setback of 8 feet instead of the required 10 feet to construct a front addition and farmers porch for the property located at 21 Belleview 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. Petitioner Daniel Smith appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. Plans were submitted showing the planned addition and farmers porch. 3. There was no opposition to the plans. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DANIEL SMITH REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 BELLEVIEW AVENUE R-1 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 construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted December 19, 2001 Bonnie Belair Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DANIEL SMITH REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED 21 BELLEVIEW AVENUE R-1 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if.any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title: Board of Appeal • . o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETT,*jY OF SALEM. MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE m o 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 2001 NOV 19 P 2: 18 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID SMITH REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 BELLEVIEW AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held November 14, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides and Joan Boudreau. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 side entry for the property located at 21 Belleview 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 owner, Daniel Smith, presented the detail of the side entry to be constructed. 2. Construction of the side entry will eliminate functional obsolescence that presently exists in this residence. 3.' There was no opposition to the proposed variance. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID SMITH REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 BELLEVIEW AVENUE R-1 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal 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 construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. • 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted November 19, 2001 Nicholas Helides Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID SMITH REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED 21 BELLEVIEW AVENUE R-1 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • .aitV O1 ,jajeM, Cffla55NC1ju6ett% CITY OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE e� Ponra of �Fvenl 1001 AUG 22 P Z. 51 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DMC REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 68 BOSTON STREET BPD A hearing on this petition was held August 15, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Halides. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 renovations of existing Dunkin Donuts to include a vestibule at the entrance having a 6 ft. side yard rather than 30 ft. for the property located at 68 Boston Street located in a BPD 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. Attorney John Keilty, 40 Lowell St. Peabody represented the petitioner. 2. The proposed request will allow m ore efficient use of energy to heat and cool the premises. 3. The relief requested was approved for a 10 feet side yard setback as opposed to the 30 feet side yard setback required by the Ordinance. 4. Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor of the proposed request. 5. The premises will continue to be operated within the same hours. 6. There was no opposition to the proposed request. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DCM REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 68 BOSTON STREET BPD 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 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 Inspection shall be obtained. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing construction. 7. Existing hours of operation from 5:00 a.m. to midnight remains the same. Variance Granted August 15, 2001 ' �11�&Ad Nicholas Helides �T Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION DCM REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 68 BOSTON STREET BPD page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • visa CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEM. MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE _1 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • ! o SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 Ile FAX (978) 740-9846 f. STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. ZOOS OCT 2U P r 08 MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL BOGART REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 33 BRIGGS STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on October 17, 2001, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Helides and Joan Boudreau. 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 a Variance to allow a third unit and a Variance from Parking requirements for the property located at 33 Briggs 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. Petitioner is the purchaser of a property at 33 Briggs St., which consists of a three- story house on an undersized lot. Petitioner seeks a variance to allow three dwelling units in the building. A previous request to allow a third unit in the property at 33 Briggs St. was denied by this Board on July 8, 1976, on the grounds that the increased traffic and parking problems would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. 2. Notwithstanding the earlier decision, petitioner's representative, Stephen Lovely, Esq. related to the Board that the property currently has a third unit, and he requested that the Board allow the existing third unit and grant a parking variance. 3. The Board heard in opposition to the petition, Chester Chalupowski of 26-30 Andrew St., Tim Doggett of 9 Lynn St., and Councillor Regina Flynn representing neighbors • in Ward. 2. These neighbors opposed the granting of the variance on the grounds that the increased density and resulting traffic would be detrimental to the neighborhood. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL BOGART REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 33 BRIGGS STREET R-2 pagetwo 4. The Board finds that petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence of hardship on which to base the granting of a Variance. 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 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 OCTOBER 17, 2001 L i Csc , Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL BOGART REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 33 BRIGGS 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 • Citp Of ba[M ;ffla5gaCbU2;dt5 CITY OF SALEM MA CLERK'S OFFICE • ioara of �ppeai .1001 MAY 23 A 1a 53 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHRIS DELORENZO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CALIBRESE STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held May 16, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko and Stephen Harris. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance for relief for from rear yard setback to construct an addition (a bath) on the existing building for the property located at 10 Calibrese Street located in an R-1 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, upon a finding 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 this 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. His contractor, Mr. Don Carter, represented the petitioner. 2. Plans were submitted showing the addition to the property. 3. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above finding of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHRIS DELORENZO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CALIBRESE STREET R-1 page two 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 petition. 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 construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. Variance Granted May 16, 2001 Richard Dionne, Member Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION CHRIS DELORENZO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT10 CALIBRESE 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. Board of Appeal • • Cltp Of balm, ; a5!9ajrbu!9ett!9 CITY OF SALEM. MA joarb of Rppea[ CLERK'S OFFICE lee 2001 MAY -8 P 102 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF C & G REALTY LLC/CHERRY ST. REALTY ASSOCIATES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 & 10 CHERRY STREET AND 12- 14 CHERRY STREET R2 A hearing on this petition was held April 25, 2001 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 and building per lot to subdivide land and a Variance to allow commercial use for the property located at 8-10 Cherry Street and 12-14 Cherry Street. i 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 owns adjacent properties on Cherry Street. In his petition petitioner seeks to subdivide these properties to create a new lot and to construct a new building on the rear portion of the property, with frontage on Florence St. 2. Existing residential properties on the Cherry St. lots would not be altered. However, the creation of the new lot increases certain nonconforming features of the existing properties. With respect to the 12-14 Cherry St. property, petitioner seeks these variances: total areal 2,347 sf, lot area per unit 1543 sf, frontage 66.37 ft, front setback 6.69 ft., side setback 4.67 and rear yard setback 17.91 ft, height of building 3 • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF C & G REALTY LLC/CHERRY ST. REALTY ASSOC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8-10 CHERRY STREET AND 12-14 CHERRY STREET R-2. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF C & G REALTY LLC/CHERRY ST. REALTY ASSOC. • REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8-10 CHERRY STREET AND 12-14 CHERRY STREET R-2. page two stories. In addition, petitioner seeks a variance to allow two principal buildings on one lot. 3. As to the property at 8-10 Cherry St, petitioner seeks variances from area to 12,171 sf, lot area of 1,520 per unit, frontage 64.88 ft, front 7.59, side 8.08 and rear yard setback 15.50 requirements and from building height to 3 stories. 4. On the proposed new lot petitioner seeks a variance to construct a 3900 sf building in which to house an office and warehouse for a construction company. Petitioner seeks a variance for the proposed use, and also for lot area and rear yard setback requirements. The proposed building would conform to the ordinance's requirements in all other respects. 5. Through his Attorney George Atkins III, petitioner conferred with abutters and neighbors regarding his proposal, which was initially brought before petitioner's request until the April meeting. 6. Several neighbors expressed strongly held concerns about the current condition of the lot, which is wooded and has become trash filled and derelict. In the interest of allowing the proposed improvements to take place, these neighbors offered • conditional support for the petition, provided that the petitioner would undertake to fence off the residential areas from the proposed commercial lot, and provided that a landscaped buffer would be created and maintained, on their properties and on petitioner's, to create a visual and auditory screen between the neighbors and the proposed business. To this end, neighbors created a four-page Plan of Conditions setting forth conditions under which they would grant their approval of the proposed petition, and they drew up a Landscaping Plan, dated 4/23/01, setting forth the type and location of plantings that would form a landscape buffer between the residential and commercial portions of the properties. Petitioner reviewed the Plan of Conditions and the Landscape Plan prior to attending the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeal, and agreed to accept each of the conditions set forth in these documents, which are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein as part of the Board's decision in this case. 7. Among the neighbors who spoke at these meeting were Vincent Higgins of 20 Cedar St. and his daughter Michelle McNaught Higgins, Ann Marie Sobotka of 44 Cedar St., Greg Booth of 15 Porter St., Patrick Higgins, Tish O'Brian of 21 Cedar St., Louise Robinson of 24 Cedar St. and Nestor Grullon of 14 Porter 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. • i • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF C & G REALTY LLC/CHERRY ST. REALTY ASSOC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8-10 CHERRY ST. AND 12-14 CHERRY STREET R-2 page three 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. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing construction. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Boards or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Petitioner shall install landscape buffer area on his own property and that of abutters, as specified in the attached Landscape Plan, dated 4/25/01. 9. Petitioner shall install landscape buffer as specified in the attached Plan of Conditions submitted 4/25/01. Variance Granted April 25, 2001 / CSC Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION C & G REALTY LLC/CHERRY S. REALTY ASSOC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8-10 CHERRY ST. AND 12-14 CHERRY STREET R-2 pagefour A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 • • RE: PETITION OF C & G REALITY LLC/CHERRY STREET REALTY ASSOCIATI :i LLC REQUESTING VARIANCES TO CREATE A THIRD PARCEL ON FLOREN[_ STREET CONDITIONS Conditions During Construction -20 Cedar Street— Existing chain link fence to remain. The 6' high cedar stockade fern, will be placed on #16 Cherry Street (Multi family dwelling) property. -24 and 36 Cedar Street — Existing chain link fence is to be removed and replaced wi' i the 6' high cedar stockade fence. -20, 24 and 36 Cedar Street— The posts of the cedar stockade fence are to be place I facing #16 Cherry Street (the multi family dwelling) and the proposed commerc:i: l building. The architectural side of the fence is to face 20, 24 and 36 Cedar Street. • -24 Cedar Street— Existing hedge to remain. -The 6' cedar stockade fence is to have the following shape on the top of the fence: -Cedar stockade fence is to be placed in stable soil..This will require the hinge of ti„, existing slope to be reworked. -15 Porter Street—The stockade fence needs to be added (if not there already) f[om ti it! comer of the 6 bay garages to the house at 15 Porter Street. -Hydroseed mix to be determined. Mix should be used to attempt to stabilize t► existing and proposed slopes. -All proposed trees are to.be mature, 10' tall trees. • -All shrubs are to be mature shrubs. -Final placement of all trees, shrubs and mulch lines are to be verified with the proper•-' owners of 20, 24 and 36 Cedar Street. 4-09-2001 9:53AM FRUM • 2 -Order of work— 1. 6' cedar stockade fence is to be installed prior to start of work on tie proposed building. 2. Trees, shrubs and mulch are to be installed within the fenced in yards of 2.), 24 and 36 Cedar Street. 3. As soon as the slopes at 24 and 36 Cedar Street have been regraded tt e slope is to be hydroseeded within 7 days. - Clean up— 1. Debris, waste material and scrap shall be removed by the Contractor from :,o, 24 and 36 Cedar Street on a daily basis. 2. Upon completion of the work at 20, 24 and 36 Cedar Street the Contraoor shall remove all equipment, rubbish and waste material in the area that ti:s been worked and shall leave the premises and the work performed all in nc.;It and proper condition. - Hours of operation • 1. Work is restricted at 20, 24 and 36 Cedar Street to the hours of 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday to Friday. 2. No work shall be done on Saturdays, Sundays or Holidays. 3. At the end of each working day (including prior to the weekend),the contract:it shall ensure that the properties have a working fence line even if a temporim y fence needs to be installed. - Dust Control 1. The Contractor shall maintain a systematic method of dust control at all tirn,,s during Construction. - Pre Construction Meeting 1. The Contractor shall set up and attend with the property owners of 20, 24 ai 11 36 Cedar Streets a pre construction meeting. 2. . The meetirig is'to include a site walk and address start dates of construction, schedule layout areas and.all issues regarding construction. 3. The meeting shall be held no less than 1 week prior to start of any construction, delivery or storage of materials or equipment, or any work o i site. - Plantings at 20, 24 and 36 Cedar Street 1. Ail plants provided and installed shall be individually tagged prior to digging. 2. Property owners at 20, 24 and 36 Cedar Street to inspect trees and shnill; • before they are installed on their. property. If the property owner(s) Ca.- dissatisfied dissatisfied with the condition of the planting(s) the Contractor shall replace the tree(s) and shrub(s) in question immediately. 3 • 3. All trees and shrubs shall be planted within 5 days of arrival on site or slcrll not be used. 4. Container grown shrubs stored on site shall be shaded from direct sunlight at all times and shall not be stored on paved surfaces. 5. Plant pits shall be excavated according to industry standards. 6. Planting soil mix shall be provided: 7. Loosen the perimeter roots on the rootball of all container plants prior :o planting. 8. Remove plants from their containers immediately before planting. 9. Handle plants carefully to prevent damaging roots. 10. Place each plant in an individual hole and firm the loam around the roots. 11. Water thoroughly and mulch. • 12. Fertilizer tablets should be added after the plant has been placed in the hole. 13. All plants shall be watered immediately following planting. 14. Contractor to maintain all new plantings for 60 days following the completi;n of all plantings on the individual properties of 20, 24 and 36 Cedar Stne t Maintenance of the new plantings will consist of keeping the plants in a healthy growing condition. This is' to include watering and anything else necessary to keep the plants healthy. 15. The contractor shall remove plants that die during the 60-day maintenance period within one week of receiving notification from the property owi ior during the growing season. 16. All trees and shrubs at 20, 24 and 36 Cedar Street shall be warranted by the Contractor for a period of 1 year. Plants found to be unacceptable by rr e property owners of 20, 24, and 36 Cedar Street shall be promptly remov,d from the site and replaced immediately if during the growing season or duri-g the next normal growing season. Reference and attach plan indicating agreed upon items. Number of planting • - The construction conditions must reference the agreed upon site plan including the date. 4 Permanent Conditions -Tree Damage on Developer's property 1. Any of the trees, that are proposed or am to remain located on the developers properties: a. Which become damaged must have corrective maintenant:e action taken immediately. b. Broken limbs shall be pruned according to industry standards. . c. Trees that are damaged irreparably must be replaced by ",e Contractor with mature trees of the same type or similar which are at least 10' tall: The trees will be replaced within 30 day_ A being notified. d. If the existing willow tree (that is to remain) located at#t16 Cher y Street is damaged irreparably the tree must be replaced with 1 mature. 10' Little Leaf Linden and 1 mature— 10' Canarii:m Hemlock. e. All new trees shall be spaced 12'-15'on center. Stockade Fence on Developer's property 1. Fence is to be maintained in good working condition. Repairs to the • fencing will be made immediately upon notification that repairs a^e necessary. This will include but is not limited to removing gam• 2. If the fence is need of replacement the fence shall be replaced with the same type that was agreed upon in the conditions during construction. - The permanent conditions must reference the .agreed upon site plan includipig the data. ' Ll 5 5'55 4TE _ 'Map 34 Lot 101 TS85'S544" � �L�N/F ( ypical) / 18981' GedLSteven J. Booth 2 4 5 124 X126 15 Porter Street , 6 7 Book 12434 Page 326 rM� _Iy Lot A LP ISL LaNv Existing iConc. 7 Proposed 10 11,386 s ft j�fifAINJfJU 6 BoyParkin 0.94' q" h1� ! .: c9 �% .�DI (�.c�° �� J� Goroge 9.x1_ - -- 4c._-_ Cc�e� 50 E1rE lei (Typical) L 114M IH4 15.50' Existing — 6 Bay w Lot B „ _ G• o NrCrP! Garage n N 12,171 sq.ft. S'1°v kd D .. p� ^ • `- , I � . " r j O ��cv - �P°.��f7.. 0' b O .G to � _l `�_ -LLw ' - ku S85' 44 p7" E 7 i 87:2 —W� — _ d �^t - i »ffr�io�� W :l3tI f�FF- :_xl . 9 8 7 6 5 O L�4NfiNk 7 WII 4�- 4 3 2 — O9'x19' / (Typical _ ) �Cflrrt� i 51 POO J � NP 13.65' O -- -- 13.86' >9 Bit. Cones o _ s �y �S- � 3 Sty. 4� , ---- , 1`., ,; .y=- � -� • - ylDwelling ro 1 7, 9'x22' 7 166 _ . 0' N85' ^� •_.. ,.� � .; ..:� , � °- - i j .. 49'41"W - ' ► Lot 95 Mop 34 Lot 97 Mop 34 Low _ Nrt . op N Lot 94 `r as N/F N/F / g Gu�L/�1 N/F �4 cvl+ SVincent W. Joanne R. Higgins James Perkins Sounders ! Louis W. & Albertine Robinson 4 18 Cherry Street �r ------ George Parish Realty Trustl % 20 Street y _Clinton D. & G'estorine Madden. Trs_ �' , 2 or Street, k )t 3 Page 58 Book 5673 Page 391 i Book 6318 Page 533- 600 o e 3G Cedar Street 'Book ]20.27 Page 4 ' y�'MZaa /< �o)'TfrLI 00 lwl Haul f +.o StocKRVS r(Li�G� T° i-1lN. IIf;'t4 F Nr . CF liC� : uTyrosGe�DC_K 4'1 ---- Q& Iar\ W�n� zoo ��doC �,,°�►; (hitt ofttlem, tttMCEA �3ottrb of �}Tpeal a 2001 SEP 2b P 2: 3b DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CAROL PERRY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 CLEVELAND ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held September 19, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 left yard setback, as well as a Variance from the 30 per cent lot coverage, for the property located at 4 Cleveland Road the property located at 72 Proctor Street 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 ere 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 Scott M. Grover represented the petitioner. 2. Plans were submitted showing the addition to the property. 3. There was no opposition to the proposed addition. 4. Petitioner stated she needed more space for her teenage song • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CAROL PERRY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 CLEVELEND 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 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 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 is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted September 19, 2001 Richard Dionne Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CAROL PERRY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED 4 CLEVELAND 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 i owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • .city of "'14ttlem, ttssttcljusetts CITLERK'S OFFICER e� �ottra of �ppettl 2001 OCT -3 P 27 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PATRICK & MICHELLE CHASSE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 CLEVELAND STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held September 19, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 allowing the property to be divided into two lots, both lots will require frontage and lot size relief, petitioner also requests a Variance for side and rear lot requirements to the property located at 12 Cleveland Street 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. Attorney Stephen Lovely of Salem appeared and represented the petitioners. 2. Petitioners own property at 12 Cleveland Street, which they wish to subdivide in . order to build a single-family house. 3. Variances would be required from lot size and frontage requirements for both lots. Lot 1,.petitioner's lot would be 5,005 sf in size, with 67.00 feet of frontage, while Lot 2 would be 1226 in square footage with 104.39 feet in frontage. • 4. There was no opposition to the proposed petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OFPATRICK & MICHELLE CHASSE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 CLEVELEND 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. • 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. 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. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance GrantedahA September 19, 2001 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PATRICK & MICHELLE CHASSE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED 12 CLEVENALD 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. Board of Appeal • co CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL p� 3f 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD'FLOOR CI I Y OF .Ci ALEM PIA e SALEM, MA 01970 CLERK'S OFFICE • TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR 2001 DEC 21 P 3. 08 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN TRACCHIA REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 CLEVELAND ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on December 19, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides, Joan Boudreau and Bonnie Belair. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 nonconforming structure to construct a full shed dormer for the property located at 19 Cleveland Road located in an R-1 zone. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 (2) (8), 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 of 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 STEPHEN TRACCHIA REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 CLEVELAND ROAD R-1 page two 1. The petitioner Stephen Tracchia appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. Plans were submitted showing the proposed addition. Dormer to exceed the 2 'h story limit in an R-1 3. Petitioner stated he needs more living space for his growing family. 4. 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 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. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Special Permit Granted Nichola . • December 19, 2001 Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEPHEN TRACCHIA REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT.19 CLEVELAND 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 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. • • �o CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CITY OF SALEM, MA 3 yj 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OFFICE o SALEM, MA 01970 • t TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. UOSROVICZ, .1R. ..1001 NOV 19MAYP 2: 19 REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ELIZABETH BRADT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 COMMERCIAL STREET R-2 At a hearing held on November 14,2001, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow a six (6) month extension for the Special Permit granted for Elizabeth Bradt for the property located at 20 Commercial Street. The six (6) month extension is based on the previous decision having been recorded at the City Clerk's office on November . 22, 1999. Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • Citp of baiem, 3%a2;.qarbU2;ett.5 CITY OF SALEM. MA �oarb of 01ppeal CLERKS OFFICE 1001 MAR 22 P 2: 33 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ELIZABETH BRADT REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 COMMERCIAL STREET BPD A hearing on this petition was held March 21, 2001 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 the front setback and side setback to construct the proposed entryway and side stair tower for the property located at 20 Commercial Street located in a BPD 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, Dr. Elizabeth Bradt, is the owner of the property located at 20 Commercial Street. Dr. Bradt plans to use a portion of the building on her property for her veterinary practice. 2. The Petitioner has requested Variances from front setback and side setback to construct the proposed entryway and side stair tower. The proposed front setback is 1.3 feet and the proposed side setback is 2.9 feet. 3. Attorney Joseph Correnti of the firm of Serif ini, Serifini, Darling &Correnti, LLP, Represented the petitioner. 4. On November 17, 1999, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted Dr. Bradt's request to change the then existing nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, a veterinary practice. 5. A new redesign for the building has been selected which will enable persons with • disabilities to access the office, and will properly raise the floor elevation to at or above the 100-year flood level so as to avoid potential future flooding damage. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ELIZABETH BRADT REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 COMMERCIAL STREET BPD page two 6 The front portion of the building will be demolished and rebuilt. By raising the building a new entrance from the street has to be created which includes the proposed handicap ramp, as well as the enclosed towers shown on the plans submitted. 7 The proposed rebuild of the front portion of the building will be build according to flood and handicap access standards of the Building Code. 8 In order to construct the proposed improvements, two parking spaces were lost. 9 Ms. Wendy Goldsmith, the owner of a business located at 18 Commercial Street, spoke in support of the requested relief. 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. 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ELIZABETH BRADT REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 COMMERCIAL STREET BPD page three 8. No overnight kennels. 9. Overnight hospitalization allowed, but no boarding of healthy animals. Variance Granted March 21, 2001 Stephen uczko, Member Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of 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 balm 0aggarba eng • CITY OF SALEM. MA jBoarb of fppeal CLERK'S OFFICE :1001 JAN 29 P 2 48 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DANIEL FOX REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110 DERBY STREET Bi A hearing on this petition was held January 17, 2001 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 per dwelling unit and parking variances to allow 3 residential units for the property located at 110 Derby Street B-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. Petitioner represented at this meeting by Scott Grover, Esq. of Tinti, Quinn and Grover, has entered a purchase and sale agreement to purchase a property at 110 Derby Street that is currently owned by The House of Seven Gables Settlement Association 2. The structure at 110 Derby Street had been the site of two dwelling units and a restaurant known as The Grand Turk Tavern. Some years ago, the restaurant cease operating, and at the time it was bought by the Gables Association, the facility was leased to another business owner who used it as a function hall for special functions. 3. Petitioner wishes to change the use of the structure from 2 residential units and a function hall to 3 residential units. It is petitioner's assertion that the proposed DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DANIEL FOX REQUESTING A • VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110 DERBY STREET B-1 page two muliffamily use is a use as of right in the B-1 district, and therefore it seeks variances for parking and for the existing nonconforming condition of the small size of the units relative to the 3500 sf requirement of the ordinance. Total square footage for the three units is 4800 sf. 4. As grounds for its petition, petitioner proffers the changing character of the neighborhood. 5. 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 4-1, 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 jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. Variance Granted January 17, 2001 1� (a -& Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeals • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DANIEL FOX REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110 DERBU STREET B-1 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • Citp of balem, Amoatbuoettz 'CITY-OF SALEM. MA 13oarb of zippeat CLERK'S OFFICE '2001 MAY -3 P 40- DECISION 4DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL G. BISCAIA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 CUSHING STREET R1 A hearing on this petition was held April 25, 2001 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 side yard setback to construct addition for the property located at 21 Cushing Street 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. The petitioner, Paul G. Biscaia, is the owner of the property located at 21 Cushing Street. Mr. Biscaia presented the petition. 2. The petitioner seeks a variance from the side yard setback to allow the construction of a second level over the existing house, a one-story kitchen addition, a 2-car garage with family room over. The proposed garage with family room above will be 5' from the side lot line of the property. 3. Mr. Biscaia indicated that his family is growing and requires more room than the existing cape offers. The proposed construction would change the style of the home to a colonial with an attached 2-car garage with a family room above. • 4. Ms. Sally Hayes, the Ward 6 Councillor, spoke in support of the requested variance. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL G. BISCAIA REQUESTING A • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL G. BISCAIA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 CUSHING STREET R1 page two 5. 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. 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. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing construction. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Boards or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted Gfj v April 25, 2001 CCS Stephen Buczko, Member Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL G. BISCAIA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 CUSHING 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. • Board of Appeal • CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSEC"i SOF BOARD OF APPEAL CLER AOFFICLEM.E MA � - 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR S • , . ��� SALEM, MA O 1970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 1001 NOV STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. L ! I0: 3I MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH CORRENTI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 55 DEARBORN STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held November 14, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides and Joan Boudreau. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side yard setback and front yard setback to construct a farmers porch for the property located at 55 Dearborn Street 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. Petitioner is requesting variances for relief from side setback and front setback requirements. The requested relied is side setback of 6 feet and the required is 10 feet, front setback of 11 feet and the required is 15 feet. 2. The petitioner's property is an existing nonconforming lot in an R-1 zone and the proposed addition would exceed the side and front setbacks allowable according to the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 3. The right side setback of the existing structure is currently 4' plus or minus and the proposed addition will have a right side setback of 6'. The front setback will be 11' to the farmers porch and 8' to the stairs. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH CORRENTI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 55 DEARBORN STREET R-1 page two 4. Allowing the petition would not harm or be more detrimental to the neighbors. 5. The petitioner had no neighborhood opposition and a petition from the direct abutters was submitted in favor of the proposed addition. 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 construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 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 November 14, 2001 Stephen'Harris Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH CORRENTI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED 55 DEARBORN 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. Board of Appeal • • o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUsRTfU SALEM, MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE 41 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • 1 SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 .2001 NOV 19 P 2: 18 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AMERADA HESS CORPORATION REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 295 DERBY STREET B-5 A hearing on this petition was held November 14, 2001, 2001with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides and Joan Boudreau. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 alter a nonconforming structure and Variances from minimum lot width and lot area, also a Variance from parking for the property located at 295 Derby Street in a B-5 zone. 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. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THE AMERADA HESS CORPORATION REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 295 DERBY STREET B-5 page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Amerada Hess Corporation proposes to upgrade an existing gasoline service station located at 295 Derby St. in Salem, adding a new 24-hour convenience store. Hess was represented at the public hearing by Luke DiStefano of Bohler Engineering, 352 Turnpike Rd., Southboro, Ma. and by Attorney Phil Lombardo. 2. According to a blueprint plan submitted by Hess, the lot consists of 17,603 sf with 110 ft of frontage on Derby St. Hess proposes to locate 4 gas pumps under an existing canopy that is 14.5 feet from the front property line, just under the15' gasoline dispenser setback line. An identifying sign is to be located at the front left side of the sited approximately 2.5 feet from the right rear property line. Thus the • proposed plan will require dimensional variances from the Zoning Ordinance as follows: a variance from lot size, lot width, front setback, side setback on right side and side setback on left side. Petitioner also seeks a use variance to permit continuation of the gasoline service station use in the central development district. 3. Hess' plan introduces a 1,660 sf retail store with dimensions of 27 by 59.3', which will be located toward the rear of the lot. Nine front-entering parking spaces, including a handicapped accessible space, will abut the storefront. 4. As grounds for the variances, Hess states; Due to the unique size, topography, soil characteristics and shape of the lot, the proposed structure cannot be constructed in complete compliance with dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and these conditions do not affect other land, buildings and structures in the same district. 5. Specifically, the proposed improvements, which met no opposition at the public hearing, will improve the services offered by enabling faster, more efficient access to the gasoline pumps, creating better drainage facilities, expanding the range of retail services available to the public, and improving the architectural look of the station. 6. The Hess site allows access to the South River. Hess acknowledges that it has a unique opportunity to advance the City of Salem's master plan by enabling pedestrian and bicycle access to the site at the riverfront. In light of the City's granting of the requested variances, Hess agrees to enter in good faith into discussions with City officials planning the riverfront walk/bike path to enable public 40 access to that portion of the proposed path. DECISION OF THE PETITION OFAMERADA HESS CORPORATION REQUESTING A • SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 295 DERBY STREET B-5 page three 7. It is a condition of this variance that Hess obtain a state-mandated Ch. 91 waterways license prior to completion of this project. 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, 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 Inspection is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 7. Petitioner agrees to enter in good faith into discussions with City on Master Plan of the waterfront. 8. There shall be no A frame signs. • . DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AMERADA HESS CORPORATION REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 295 DERBY STREET B-5 page four Special Permit& Variance Granted November 14, 2001 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal ACO PY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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, Aa5zarbutetw CITY OF SALEM. MA �3oarb of Rppeal CLERK'S OFFICE ;1001 MAY -3 P 2 44 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANGELA HIRALDO REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 43 DOW STREET R-3 A hearing on this petition was held April 25, 2001 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 nonconforming building and a Variance from off street parking setback for the property located at 43 Dow Street located in a R- 3. 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. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THE ANGELA HIRALDO REQUESTING A • VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 43 DOW STREET R-3 page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Attorney George Atkins, from the firm of Ronan, Segal & Harrington represented the petition. 2. Petitioner is the owner of a two-story house that is nonconforming as to dimensional requirements. 3. At issue in the petition is a narrow paved area at the rear of the structure that is partially covered by a wooden porch. Petitioner wishes to remove the porch to construct a carport to enable her to obtain off street parking for her vehicle on the site. To do this she will require a special permit to expand the existing nonconforming structure, and a variance to extend the paved driveway to within 1.7 ft. of the lot line. 4. Speaking in support of the petition, on the grounds that it would help alleviate difficult parking conditions in the neighborhood were Nestor Grullon of 14 Porter Street and Don Michaud of 224 Derby Street. • 5. In opposition was Jeannette Gagnon, 23 Park Street, who stated that the proposed driveway would create a nuisance because it was too close to her building. 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, 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. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANGELA HIRALDO REQUESTING A SPECIAL • PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 43 DOW STREET R-3 page three 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 construct and maintain fence. Special Permit & Variance Granted April 25, 2001 �1 /� L rrYta, BSc • 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 • �o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ��6 a BOARD OF APPEAL CITY OF SALEM MA 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR-ERK'S OFFICE SALEM, MA 01970 • TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR 2001 DEC 21 P 3 OB DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT & PAMELA LEVESQUE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 373 ESSEX STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held December 19 2001 with the following Board Members present: Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Halides, Bonnie Belair and Joan Boudreau. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side yard setback to construct a two story garage for the property located at 373 Essex 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's Robert & Pamela Levesque appeared and represented themselves at the hearing. 2. Plans were submitted showing the proposed 2 story structure. 3. Mrs. Pamela Hartford of 38 Chestnut Street appeared with concerns about the use of the 2-story structure. She does not want to see people living there. Mr. Levesque stated he wants a workshop and extra storage for his yard equipment. 4. Another abutter Mr. Paul Sweaker of 380 Essex Street had concerns with the property being used as a business. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT & PAMELA LEVESQUE REUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 373 ESSEX 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 construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 7. No business or residence shall be allowed. Variance Granted �G4ccP�LeGL December 19, 2001 Jain= dau Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT & PAMELA LEVESQUE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED 373 ESSEX 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 • C[tp. of &alem, AmoaOuatto :CITY OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE • j6oarb of �ppeai .1001 MAY -8 A 10: 13 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF H. VICTORIA BURKE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 FEDERAL COURT R-2 A hearing on this petition was held April 25, 2001 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 New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance for relief from rear yard setback to enclosed existing porch for the property located at 4 Federal Court located in an R-1 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, upon a finding 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 this 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 H. Victoria Burke is requesting a Variance for relief from rear yard setback to enclose an existing porch. 2. The existing porch is only 1'(plus or minus) from the rear setback and the required 30 ft. setback cannot be met. 3. There was no opposition to the petition. 4. One letter from an abutter was introduced at the March 15, meeting in favor of the petition. On the basis of the above finding of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the • Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF H.VICTORIA BURKE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 FEDERAL COURT R-2 page two 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 petition. 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 construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. • 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing Structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted /�� Ccc April 25, 2001 Stephen Hams, Member Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION H VICTORIA BURKE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 FEDERAL COURT 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 • c�TY CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ,4 Fyp BOARD OF APPEAL C RAS 44e 120 WASHINGTONSALEM, MA 0197DRD FLOOR IOol FF40F 4 • TEL. (978) 745-9595 ✓.4j1/ Fax (978) 740-9846 `2 q STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR 9.O? DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PUBLIC STORAGE INC.REOUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2-12 GOODHUE STREET BPD A hearing on this petition was held December 19, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belair and Joan Boudreau. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 the minimum depth of the front yard on Bridge Street to construct a public storage facility for the property located at 2-12 Goodhue Street located in a BPD 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. Attorney George Atkins of 59 Federal Street appeared and represented the petitioner. 2. Plans were submitted showing the proposed location of the building and the reasoning of developing a more urban setting: These plans having been worked out with all surrounding neighboring groups. 3. David Hart, of 104 Federal Street spoke in favor of the petition. 4. Councillor Thomas Furey also spoke in favor and praised the work of the developer and the various civic groups. • 5. Staley McDermot of Historic Salem Inc. also spoke in favor. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PUBLIC STORAGE INC. REVESTING A VARIANCE c�T FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2-12 GOODHUE STREET BPD y clF page two 9 o Ip�1 �s FCF^r 6. Dick Lubeke of 2 River St. and Martin Imm of 174 Federal Street also spoke in favor. i94, F 7. One person, Mr. Rymer Adams, of 11 Goodhue Street was opposed. '9 8. A letter in support was sent from Councillor Regina Flynn and Councilor Elect Mike Bencal. �� 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 construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having . jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 8. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors Office and shall display said numbering as to be visible from the street • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PUBLIC STORAGE INC. REQUESTING A C�FRh� cq( • VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2-12 GOODHUE STREET BPD S�FF �plq page three IOD? eA, 9. Construction to be substantially in accordance with side plan dated 11/21/01 antl/ elevation plans dated 12/19/01 subject to revisions in plans approved by the Salem q Planning Board and incorporated into it Site Plan Review Special Permit. Final plans �4 approved by the Planning Board shall be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals for inclusion in its file. r C� Variance Granted Richard Dionne CS J December 19, 2001 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. Board of Appeal • Citp of *alem, Alas%atbuatm CITY OF SALEM. MA Ooarb of Oppea[ CLERK'S OFFICE :1001 MAY -8 P 3: 02 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN &GLADS BROUGHTON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 HOME STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held April 25, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Hams 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 New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance for relief from front yard setback to construct a screened porch for the property located at 5 Home Street located in an R-1 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, upon a finding 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 this district of the purpose of the Ordinance The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioners John & Gladys Broughton represented themselves at the hearing. 2. Plans were submitted showing the enclosed-screened porch. 3. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above finding of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN &GLADYS BROUGHTON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 HOME STREET R- page two 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 petition. 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 construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. • 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. �. /✓. GG�A/'�1� CSCV� Variance Granted April 25, 2001 Richard Dionne,Member Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION JOHN & GLADYS BROUGHTON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 HOME STREET page three. A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • co CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CITY OF SALEM. MA 3 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OFFICE SALEM, MA 01970 • TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. -..2001 DEC 20 P 3 51 MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 81 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held December 19, 2001, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides, Joan Boudreau. and Bonnie Belair. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow an approximately 10,728 square foot addition and a Variance to the parking requirements for the property located at 81 Highland Avenue R-1 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 Or 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. 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 two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Attorney Joseph C Correnti of the firm of Serafini, Serafini, Darling & Correnti LLP Represented the Petitioner, North Shore Medical Center, Inc. 2. The subject property is located in an R-1 district. North Shore Medical Center is presently a specially permitted use and non-conforming structure in this R-1 zone. 3. The petitioner appeared before us on February 21, 2001 and was.granted a Variance and Special Permit. At that time a Special Permit was granted to allow an addition of 7,099 square feet. 4. At the present request the petitioner submitted a revised site plan, which adds approximately 3,660 square feet of additional space making the new total • approximately 10,728 square feet. 5. Any additional traffic to the hospital resulting from the cardiac program will be minimal. No new parking spaces are proposed. The hospital addressed its parking needs on site using means such as having a shuttle bus to employee parking areas. 6. There was no opposition to the proposed petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings the 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, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions; DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER INC • REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERY LOCATED AT 81 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1 page three 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 Inspection is to be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing Structure. • 9. Old Road shall be utilized for emergency access only. Special Permit & Variance Granted December 19, 2001 co 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 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. • Citp of balem, Anoarbuzettz CCLERF SALEM, M • JBoarb of SpedK S OFFICE A "• ' 1001 FEB . 22 P 40 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 81 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held February 21, 2001 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 allow the proposed 7,099 square foot addition and a Variance to the parking requirements for the property located at 81 Highland Avenue located in an R-1 zone. 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. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THE NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, • INC.REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT 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. Attorney Joseph C. Correnti of the firm of Serafini, Serafini, Darling & Correnti LLC represented the Petitioner, North Shore Medical Center, Inc. 2. The subject property is located in an R-1 District. Salem Hospital is presently a specially permitted use and structure in this R-1 zone. 3. The petitioner requests a Special Permit to allow a 7,068 square foot addition to be utilized as a Cardiac Center. The Cardiac Center will be dedicated to open-heart surgery patients and practice. Additionally, the petitioner requests a Variance to the parking requirements. 4. The North Shore Medical Center, in collaboration with the Massachusetts General Hospital is planning for providing high quality open-heart services for residents of Salem and the North Shore. The state is in the process of licensing a few, select community hospitals for such services. The selection is based, in part, on the adequacy of hospital staffing and facilities. The need for dedicated operating rooms • set up specifically with the necessary equipment and space for open-heart surgery is paramount. 5. The proposed Cardiac Center will extend from the rear of the Phippen and Davenport buildings. while connecting to the existing fifth floor operating suite. The addition will rest on a series of concrete pilings and be located over the existing loading dock and delivery area. 6. The proposed Cardiac Center will have two surgical suites, eight critical care beds and supporting infrastructure. 7. The petitioner presented that the North Shore Medical Center's land is peculiar in shape and size, and that this is a condition which effects this land but not the other land in the zoning district in general. A literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause the Petitioner hardship and the requested Variance can be granted without derogating from the intent of the Ordinance or the public good. 8. Any additional traffic to the hospital resulting from the cardiac program will be minimal. No new parking spaces are proposed. The hospital addressed its parking needs on sit using means such as having a shuttle bus to employee parking areas. 9. Ward Four Councillor Leonard O'Leary and Ward Three Councillor Joan Lovely spoke in support of the requested relief. Both Councillors expressed a concern regarding the usage of Old Road for access to the hospital property. The Councillors • requested that a condition regarding usage of Old Road for emergency access only be placed in the decision. • 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 three 10. Norman Labreque of Old Road expressed concerns regarding the usage of Old Road as an access route to the hospital and questioned the impact the proposal would have on paring needs. 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, 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 Planning Board. 8. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • 9. Old Road shall be utilized for emergency access only. 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 pagefour Special Permit & Variance Granted February 21, 2001 Or Stephen Buczko Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the • date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal OF SALEM. Of '$Z1jem, Aissadj118HARK S AFFICE A �anttra of �ppeal • '`""` ,2001 OCT =3 'P .2: 01 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RIDGESIDE APARTMENTS LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201-205 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-2 A hearing on this petition was held September 19, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance to the four-foot height limitation for fences in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District for the property located at 201-205 Highland Avenue 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 previously obtained a variance to build a residential apartment complex of 120 units on a site zoned for industrial use. 2. Petitioner's construction plans call for a 24" metal fence to be erected on a concrete wall along the perimeter of the property on First Street. At present petitioner is seeking to increase the height of the metal fence to four feet, in order to promote pedestrian safety along that side of the property. Because a portion of the property falls within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, fence heights greater than four feet require a variance. 3. The petitioner was represented by Attorney Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal Street in • Salem, • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RIDGESIDE APARTMENTS LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201-205 HIGLAND AVENUE R-2 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 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. Variance Granted1 September 19, 2001 !/V'4�� � �C�` Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RIDGESIDE APARTMENTS LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED 201-205 HIGHLAND 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. Board of Appeal • CST OF c (1�it ofttlem, ttssutljusetts CLERK s OLEFN �E A • ',� PnttrD of '.1001 MAY 29 P DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WAYNE &LIZ MALIONEK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 JACKSON STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held May 16, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko and Stephen Harris. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from rear yard setback to construct an addition that will be 17' from rear yard of the property located at 23 Jackson Street located in an R-2 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, upon a finding 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 this 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 is requesting a variance from rear setback requirement. The required setback is 30 ft. and the petitioner after building the proposed addition would have only 17 ft. to the rear yard setback. 2. Petitioners represented themselves at the hearing and presented plans showing the addition. 3. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above finding of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • C/rY OF C(f RK S 0 FICE A 1091 #029 A 2149 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WAYNE &LIZ MALIONEK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 JACKSON STREET R-2 page two 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 petition. 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. .. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. Variance Granted May 16, 2001 CSC r l Stephen Harris J Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION WAYNE & LIZ MALIONEK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 23 JACKSON STREET R-2 pagefthzee A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 • _ M N NN Or nrn o• iy m3 � D • of �ajem, ffin1S5ZjrjjU6dtWF SALEM. MA CLERKS OFFICE �Roara of A"eal 2001 AUG - I A & 2 U DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BOUCHARD REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110 JEFFERSON AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on July 18, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 and enlarge its nonconforming use of 110 Jefferson Avenue as an automobile service station. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 (2) (8), 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 of 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 BOUCHARD REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110 JEFFERSON AVE R-1 pagetwo 1. Attorney George Atkins, 111, of 59 Federal Street, Salem appeared and represented the petitioner. 2. Plans were submitted showing the proposed addition. 3. There was no opposition to the plans. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the 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 4-0, 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. 5. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. • Special Permit Granted Richard Dionne July 18, 2001 Board of Appeal (Sc \ • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF BOUCHARD REALTY TRUCT REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110 JEFFERSON AVENUE R- 1 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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. • • (fltp of baiem, Mai,qarbU!5ett8TYI OF SALEM. MA • CLERKS OFFICE • 33oarD of Zippeal 2001 MAY 214 P 2- OS DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NIKOLANOS KARAMELOS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 271 JEFFERSON AVENUE A hearing on this petition was held May 16, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko and Stephen Harris. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting Variances from density regulations to create additional living units for the property located at 271 Jefferson Avenue in a B-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. Petitioner, represented by Stephen P. Lovely, Esq., seeks a variance to convert into two residential apartments a former storefront on the first floor.of is building at 271 Jefferson Avenue. Adequate off street parking for the proposed units exists at the rear of the property, accessed from Lawrence Ave. Petitioner indicated that he is in the process of installing an automatic sprinkler system in the building as required by local fire regulations. 2. These apartment units are presently occupied in the 3-story building, which is located in the B-1 district. In this district, specified commercial uses are allowed by special permit. In 1996 thia building was granted a variance allowing mixed use of the premises, permitting a pet supply retailer to occupy the street level premises. This retailer has since gone out of business. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NIKOLANOS KARAMELOS KARAMELOS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 271 JEFFERSON AVENUE page two 3. At all the public hearing, petitioner presented a petition signed by 43 neighbors, requesting that the Zoning Board grant the petition for additional living units. Three neighbors wrote letters expressing support for the residential use of the former commercial space. 4. There was also considerable opposition to the proposed additional units.–Opponents— argued nits.–Opponentsargued that allowing 3 more units would greatly increase the building occupancy because of the likelihood that the units would be rented to Salem State students who have a tendency to invite others to share their living space. Opponents stressed the difficulties created by increased density, noting that residents of the surrounding multifamily houses frequently have difficulty parking vehicles on the street. 5. Paul Biscaya of 267 Jefferson Ave stated that while Mr. Karamelos has been responsible for some improvements to the building, it does not present the appearance of a well-kept residential property. He pointed out boarded and broken windows on the sides, and requested that the commercial signage and overhanging roof be removed from the Jefferson Ave. facade. • 6. Several neighbors objected to allowing increased density at the side in light of the existing congestion in the neighborhood. These were Yvonne and Tony Lysak of 258 Jefferson Ave., Lorraine Malionek of 259 Jefferson, Carol Hunt of 751h Lawrence St., and Steven Levaro of 46 Lawrence Street. 7. Mr. Tom Furey, City Councillor, of 21 Barstow Street opposed allowing more than 4 or 5 units, basing his view of the difficulties of upkeep and management presented by larger multifamily dwellings in congested neighborhoods. He stated that overuse of a property can have a ripple effect, causing difficulties throughout the section. He stated that he spoke also for his colleague Laura DeToma, who was unable to attend the meeting but who opposed the granting of a variance for 6 units. 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; • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NIKOLANOS KARAMELOS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 271 JEFFERSON AVENUE page three 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. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing construction. 7. Remove commercial signs and remove overhang. 8. Petitioner shall install new residential windows. • 9. Apartments shall be no more than 5 bedrooms in total. 10. Sprinkler system shall be installed. Variance Granted /� 1 May 16, 2001 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION NIKOLANOS KARAMELOS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 271 JEFFERSON AVENUE pagefour A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 • • Cite of balem, 1Ia55arbU5ett5 CITY OF SALEM. MA • CLERK'S OFFICE �uarb of �p>peal .3001 JAN 2b A ID 38 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARIE PLAMONDON REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 278 LAFAYETTE STREET R-3 A hearing on this petition was held on November 15, 2000 and continued to January 17, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Buczko, James Hacker, 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 change the existing non-conforming carriage house structure, namely a Bridal Shop business to a single family dwelling. The petitioner also requests the Board to amend an existing variance to grant variances to accomplish the same purpose for the property located at 278 Lafayette Street. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 (2) (8), which provides as follows: • A historic carriage house for use as a single family dwelling as an accessory use to a principal dwelling on the same lot, provided that parking requirements are met and upon the condition that there shall be no change to the exterior of the historic carriage house unless approved by the historical commission. 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 MARIE PLAMONDON REQUESTING A SPECIAL • PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 278 LAFAYETTE STREET R-3 page two • 1. The Petitioner was represented by Attorney Scott Houseman 2. The petitioner's proposed use of the carriage house at 278 Lafayette Street, as a single family dwelling will have little or no impact on parking or traffic in the neighborhood. 3. After neighborhood meeting on January 6 with abutters present the petitioner amended its application to address their concerns and submitted a petition with 13 neighbors signature supporting the request. 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. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARIE PLAMONDON REQUESTING A SPECIAL . PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 278 LAFAYETTE STREET R-3 page three 7. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors Office and shall display said numbers so as to be visible from the street. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 9. There will be no business use allowed at the property 278 or 278R Lafayette Street. Stephen arris, 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. �'°'► fIIit of nlem { {ttsszzcl usetts CITY OF SALEM. MA �uttra of � ettl CLERK'S OFFICE .1001 AUG -i A 8: 2U . DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANGELO PIERRE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 43 LEACH STREET R-2 A hearing on thiss petiiion was held July 18, 2001 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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, Angelo Pierre , the Salem Board of Appeal voted 4-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for Variances to convert a two family dwelling to a three family for the property located at 43 Leach Street R-2. • GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE July 18, 2001 ex ��`� 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 • i °`• �itl Of 'ffl2IlPI1t, iISS2ItIjUSPfiYER�( SAOFFICE A Ponra of E Pvenl 1001 AUG - I A & 24 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JEAN CLAUDE MARTINEAU REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 97 LEACH STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held July 18, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Hams and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properlyTublished-in-the-Salem-Evening-New-in-accordance-with-Massachusetts-General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from relief from density and dimensional requirements from Section 7-10 Article 6, Sub Section D (Swimming Pool Ordinance) to install a swimming pool for the property located at 97 Leach Street located in an R-2 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, upon a finding 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 this district of the purpose of the Ordinance The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner seeks relief from Art. VII, Section 7-10, which prohibits inground pools from being located less than 10 feet from any building foundation. Petitioner seeks to build an inground pool on his property to provide needed therapeutic exercise for his son, who suffers from the condition spina bifida. 2. Petitioner submitted a summary report from the Hobbs Endeavour Corp. engineering consultants, stating that in their opinion based on visual inspection,the construction of the proposed pool will have no structural impact on the adjacent structure. • 3. There was no opposition to the petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JEAN CLAUDE MARTINEAU REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 97 LEACH STREET R-2 page two On the basis of the above finding of fact, 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 su stanti-n-5r-Tship to ttiC petition. 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. Variance Granted n July 18, 2001 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JEAN CLAUDE MARTINEAU REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 97 LEACH STREET R-2 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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. • • -U CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • ��a SALEM, MA 01970 gftLy�g TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740.9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. n MAYOR zc =o G ;T N U; DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JEFFREY TANZER REQUESTING A c or VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 LEVEL ROAD R-1 D �3 c)- A hearing on this petition was held November 14, 2001 with the following Board w m v Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris, NicholaNe Helides and Joan Boudreau. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side yard setback of 6 feet instead of the required 10 feet to construct a 14 x 15 addition for the property located at 12 Level 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. Attorney Laskaris of 70 Washington St, Suite 210, Salem, Ma. represented Mr. Tenzer. 2. Plans were submitted showing the planned 14 x 15 — 1 story addition with basement. 3. There was no opposition to the plans. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JEFFREY TANZER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 LEVEL 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 statures, ordinances,codes and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted �^ November 14, 2001 Richard Dionne Board of Appeal g c» z c �o N Vi> D • or �. w C-)' m3 N D W i DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JEFFREY TANZER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED 12 LEVEL ROAD R-1 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall.be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal r o m c Z70 F N Uj> D CD r- -n N y w • 4DCITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSET� BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CITY OF SALEM. MA SALEM, MA 01970 CLERK'S OFFICE TEL.(978) 7489598 FAX (978) 740.9846 GANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR 2001 NOV -1 P 12:-Ob ARMED DECISION ` DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT POLANSKY REQUESTING A VAmruv. FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 LYNN STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held October 17,2001 with the following Board Members present Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris, Bonnie Belair and Joan Boudreau. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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(2788s,f,), lot width (47),front setback(0;), side setback, right side (0'), rear setback(13. 8')and maximum fence height(87)to construct a single family dwelling for the property located et 13 Lynn 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 especlaily 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 of 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. Plans were submitted showing the structure and plot plan. 3: The Historic Commission approved petitioner the same night. 4. Many abutters and neighbors spoke in favor of the petitioner and his plans, including: Tim Doggett, Steve Palmer, Steve Whittier, Richard Luedtke, Charles Von Bruns and John Carr. 5. There was no opposition to the plans. • AHMED DECISION DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT POLANSKY REQUESTING A VARIANCE • FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 LYNN 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 construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. • 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. _ 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 7. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors Office and display said numbers so as to be visible from the street. 8. It is a condition of the variance that the property shall be maintained as a single family residence. 9. All demolition to be completed by January 15, 2002. Variance Granted ` October 17, 2001 Richard Dionne Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT POLANSKY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED 13 LYNN 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 Tide. • Board of Appeal • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEM, MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE ® _ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR f SALEM, MA01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 • �+nnB�' FAX (978) 740-9846 2001 ocr 19 P 2: 11-1 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT POLANSKY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 LYNN STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held October 17, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris, Bonnie Belair and Joan Boudreau. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 (2788s,f,), lot width (47'), front setback (0;), side setback, right side (0'), rear setback (13'. 6') and maximum fence height (8'3") to construct a single family dwelling for the property located at 13 Lynn 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 represented himself at the hearing. 2. Plans were submitted showing the structure and plot plan. 3. The Historic Commission approved petitioner the same night. 4. Many abutters and neighbors spoke in favor of the petitioner and his plans, including: Tim Doggett, Steve Palmer, Steve Whittier, Richard Luedtke, Charles Von Bruns and John Carr. • 5. There was no opposition to the plans. i • DECISION OF THE PETITION OFROBERT POLANSKY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 LYNN STREET R-2 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal 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 construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. • 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. 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. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Petitioner is to construct a single-family dwelling. 9. All demolition to be completed by January 15, 2002. Variance Granted October 17, 2001 Richard Dionne • Board of Appeal DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT POLANSKY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED 13 LYNN 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 • of nlem, AuseadjusettsY OF SALEM, MA �3oara of CLERK'S OFFICE 2001 AUG 28 P 2-- 30 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT POLANSKY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 13 LYNN STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held August 28, 2001 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. At the request of the petitioner, Robert Polansky, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 4-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for Variances from lot size, frontage, lot coverage, front setback, side setback, rear setback, boundary wall height and distance between buildings to construct a single family dwelling for the property located at 13 Lynn Street. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE August 15, 2001 4/,m2f,-, �oti�VL 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 LEM Of p tIlfltl, ZISSZICIJUS ERK SAOFFICE A Poara of A"eal ;2001 AUG - I A & 2U° DECISION ON THE PETITION OFJOHN KEENAN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 MANNING STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on July 18, 2001 with the following Board Members present:_Nina Cohen. Chairman Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 enlargement of non-conforming residential structure for the property located at 6 Manning 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 (2) (8), 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 of 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 JOHN KEENAN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 MANNING STREET R-2 pagetwo 1. Petitioner's property is an existing nonconforming residential structure. 2. Petitioner represented himself at the hearing. 3. The expansion of the structure will maintain a side setback of 4 1/2 feet the entire length of the new addition and the extension of the front porch will leave an 8 ft. setback. 4. The petitioner had the direct abutter's sign in favor of aproposed-additions. 5. The proposed expansions will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows; 1. 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. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GERARD ARCARI REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3-5 PLEASANT STREET R-2. page three Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 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 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. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN KEENAN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 MANNING STREET R-2. 6. Existing finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Special Permit Granted n^ July 18, 2001 Stephen Harris Board of Appeal • • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN KEENAN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 MANNING STREET R-2 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17, of MGL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • • Of '�$tllem, tt$$ttE��uSett$ CITY OF S OFFICE A CLERe �Boara of �}rpeal 1001 OCT -3 .P 2: 01 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KEVIN O'DONNELL REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 150-152 MARLBOROUGH ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held September 19, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 subdivide lot. Lot 1 requires Variance from lot area and frontage. Lot 2 requires Variance from lot area, frontage, front setback and side setback for the property located at 150-152 Marlborough 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. Petitioner entered into an agreement with the owner to purchase the property at 150- 152 Marlborough Road, consisting of a single-family house on a lot of 11,149 s.f. Petitioner seeks to divide the existing lot to-allow a second single family home to be built on the same property. 2. Petitioner submitted a plan drawn by David P Terenzoni's, PLS, showing a proposed layout for the two lots. Lot 1 on the plan consisted of 10,987 sf, with frontage on Marlborough Road of 50.09 ft. and adequate side yard and front setbacks. Lot 2 on the plan consisted of 12,453 sf, the existing single family house, and 57,057 sf. of frontage. The existing home on Lot 2 is slightly nonconforming as to front and side • setbacks, and a Variance is requested for front setbacks and both side setbacks for that lot. • 3. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KEVIN O'DONNELL REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 150-152 MARLBOROUGH ROAD R-1 page two 4. Jeff Sano and Frank Gagnon of Buena Vista Avenue spoke at the meeting. Neither Homeowner opposed the granting of the requested variance, but both were concerned about the effect upon their homes of any blasting that might be done at the site. The builder stated that he did not intend to blast as the property, but planned to excavate using earth-moving machinery. He agreed that, should blasting become needed, he would notify the neighbors and abutters prior to beginning any blasting operations. 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. 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. 7. Petitioner shall notify abutters of blasting and comply with City regulations. 8. Hours of construction shall be within the City of Salem regulations. Variance Granted /J // September 19, 2001 1 r tY/,t✓�/ (/ C Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal 1> • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KEVIN O'DONNELL REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED 150-152 MARLBOROUGH ROAD R-1 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • A Citp Of balem, Almoarbuatt,5CITY OF SALEM MA • Ooarb of appeal CLERK'S OFFICE 1001 MAY 23 AIa53 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DOREEN NELSON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 60 MOFFATT ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held May 16, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko and Stephen Hams. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from lot coverage and side setback for the property located at 60 Moffatt Road located in an R-1 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, upon a finding 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 this district of the purpose of the Ordinance The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner seeks a variance to allow her to build a deck and staircase on the left side of her two-family house at 60 Moffatt Road. In dimension, the proposed construction would be 5' wide and approximately 17' long, including 6 stairs. 2. Petitioner seeks this variance to enable her to install a door to allow access to the house from that side. 3. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above finding of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DOREEN NELSON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 60 MOFFATT ROAD R-1 page two 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 petition. 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 construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. Variance Granted May 16, 2001 A / �t A41W 1.�% ,yLCSCn�, Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION DOREEN NELSON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 60 MOFFATT ROAD R-1 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal M • Of2Ilellt� tISSMC��TiB> eRK S OFFICE A 9 Pourb of '�Fpeal 401 AUG -'I .A 8:.24 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEVEN MORAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 NICHOLS STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held July 18, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Hams and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from relief of side yard setback and density to construct a three season room for the property located at 25 Nichols Street located in an R-1 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, upon a finding 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 this 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 himself at the hearing. 2. Plans were submitted showing the addition. 3. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above finding of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEVEN MORAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 25 NICHOLS STREET R-1. page two 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 petition. 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted July 18, 2001 /Richard Dionne Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEVEN MORAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR . THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 NICHOLS STREET R-2 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 ofihe City Clerk�ursuant 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. • • Cftp of harem, Aagzarbuatto CITY OF SALEM. MA . CLERK'S OFFICE �oarD of peal •Y 1001 MAR -8 P 4� 53 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEVEN MORAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 NICHOLS STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held January 17, 2001 and continued to February 21,2001 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 of 0 rear lot and 0 side lot setbacks to rebuild existing structure for the property located at 25 Nichols Street 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 Steven Moran appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. Petitioner wishes to rebuild his existing garage. 3. A letter was submitted from Katherine Creane of 20 Nichols Street and Marianne Duhaime of 28 Nichols Street in favor of the petition. 4. After a survey or the property, a portion of the Petitioner's garage is located on the abutters property located at 16 Albion Street. 5. Christopher and Mary Tice of 16 Albion Street agreed to sell approximately 150 ' square feet of their property to Seven Moran. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEVEN MORAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 NICHOLS STREET R-2 page two 6. 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 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 signed agreement of the sale of the property shall be submitted. Variance Granted February 21, 2001 /! C✓rcp!J �G� Csc�, aures Hacker, Chairman Board of Appeals • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEVEN MORAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 NICHOLS 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 • • Citp of baiem, 1f1a2;2;achuatt! 13oarb of Zlppeal CITY OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE 'amus .1001 MAR 30 A ICr I b DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH & ELISA DEMELO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 32 NORTHEND AVENUE R-2 A hearing on this petition was held March 21, 2001 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 front setback to construct an addition for the property located at 32 Northend 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 property is an existing non-conforming lot with current front setback of 3 feet. 2. The proposed addition would continue the 3 foot setback for another 12 feet. 3. The addition would allow extra living space for their growing family. 4. There was no opposition to this petition.. • CITY OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH & ELISA DEMELO REQUESTING2P1 MAR 30 A IQ 1 b VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 32 NORTHEND AVENUE R- 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. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 7. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • CITY SALEM. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH & ELISA DEMELO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 32 NORTHEND AVENUE R-2 page three 2001 MAA 30 A 0 Ib Variance Granted March 21, 2001 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. Board of Appeal • of *'CMI 4RUS"ClIUSetttfTy of (zALEM, MA �Baara of �ppezJ CLERK'g OF CE A .2001 AUG 23 P , S. 18. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DONALD KING REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 OBER STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held August 15, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 frontage, parking, lot area and dimensional requirements to construct a single family for the property located at 12 Ober Street located in and 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. Petitioner's property on Ober Street consists of two lots. On one (Lot B) sits petitioner's three-family house and garage. Petitioner seeks a variance to enable him to build a single family residence on the adjacent lot, Lot A. 2. Petitioner submitted a plot plan showing Lots A and B, with a footprint of the proposed house on Lot A. For Lot A, consisting of 5„472 sf, petitioner seeks relief from frontage and lot area requirements. 3. Lot B consists of 4,870 sf. For Lot B, petitioner seeks relief from frontage and lot area requirements. Because there is an existing garage within 5 ft. of the lot line and parking for only 3 vehicles instead of the required 5, petitioner also seeks relief from parking and side setback requirements for Lot B. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DONALD KING REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR • THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 OBER STREET page two 4. Several neighbors and a relative spoke at the public meeting regarding the proposed plan. Fred Lavorati, 23 Summit Street, Erin Kelly of 26 Summit St, and Dan Pierce of Andrew Street spoke about their concerns with increasing density in this settled residential neighborhood. Ward 4 City Councillor, Leonard O'Leary and Armand Blanchette of 6 Summit St said that the proposed house would blend in and would allow a local family to build a home and remain in the neighborhood. Arthur King of 7 Wall St. supported his nephew's 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. 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 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 shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors Office and shall display said number as to be visible from the street. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted n August 15, 2001 • Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION DONALD KING REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 12 OBER STREET page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • CITY Of ,iUIPM, CM188adjUBMS CLEK,S '6,A • e Poarb of '�.ppeal 1001 MAY 29 p DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SHARON GARDNER REQUESTING A ? 4 9 VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 36-38 ORNE STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held May 16, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Buczko and Stephen Hams. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side yard setback and front yard setback to construct a two level front porch for the property located at 36-38 Ome Street located in an R-2 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, upon a finding 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 this 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 is requesting a variance from side and front setbacks to rebuild a front two level porch. The proposed side setback is 2 ft and the required setback is 10 ft. The proposed front setback is 6 ft. and the required front setback is 15 ft. 2. Petitioners represented themselves at the hearing and presented plans showing the addition. c. 3. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above finding of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • • CITY OF CtFRK S6Fe�� DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SHARON GARDNER REQUESTING A 1p81 A0 2 VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 36-38 ORNE STREET R-2 9 p page two 2 49 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 petition. 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 statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. Variance Granted May 16, 2001 Stephen ams Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION SHARON GARDNER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 36-38 ORNE STREET page three: A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal n v �o N NN O r n rl N m3 D • Cltp of balem, fdaaarbuatt.4 CITY OF SALEM. MA • 13oarb of appeal CLERK'S OFFICE "2001 FEB 28 A Ia. 50 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GERARD ARCARI REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3-5 PLEASANT STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on February 21, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Buczko, James Hacker, 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 enlargement of non-conforming structure and non-conforming use for the property located at 3-5 Pleasant Street located in an R-2 District. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 (2) (8), 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 of 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 GERARD ARCARI REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3-5 PLEASANT STREET R-2 page two 1. Gerard Arcari appeared on behalf of the petitioner Constance M. Russo, Trustee of the 3-5 Pleasant Street Realty Trust, which owns the property by Landry and Arcari, a retail seller of oriental rug and carpeting in Salem since 1938. Petitioner was represented by William Quinn, Esq., of Tinti,Quinn and Grover L.L.C. 2. Petitioner seeks a special permit to allow enlargement of two existing nonconforming structures that are used for the storage, display and sale of oriental, fine rugs and carpeting. Petitioner's planned expansion would add approximately 266 s.f. of floor space to a one-story building at the north side of the property, and would enclose the front porch of the two and one half store Italianate house at the south side of the property. 3. The purpose of the planned expansion is to enable the business to install up to date display racks to allow vertical storage and display of the rugs. This will enhance Landry & Arcari 's competitive positioning with respect to other businesses in the same market. 4. The Board heard comments from two abutters, Michael LaPlante of 123 Webb Street and Rosemary Hart of 7 1/z Pleasant St. and from Regina Flynn Ward 2 City Councillor, and Staley McDermot, an architect who is a Vice President of Historic • Salem, Inc. Both neighbors and the HIS representative spoke in support of the plan. 5. The neighbors had quality of life issues for the business to address. In light of difficult parking conditions at the side, the requested that employees parking for the 30 —odd employees be strictly limited to offsite lots, and that the street sign restricting parking.to 15 minutes be replaced with a sign allowing 30 minutes or removed. They also requested building modifications to enable water runoff to City storm drains on Pleasant St, from the lower roof of the larger building, subject to the approval of the Building Commissioner. Finally, they requested that store I lights be consistently turned off when the store is not in operation. Mr. Arcari agreed to these matters. 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. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GERARD ARCARI REQUESTING A SPECIAL • PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3-5 PLEASANT STREET R-2. page three 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. 5. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 7. Petitioner is to resolve water run-off problems as per Building Inspectors approval. • 8. All employees shall park off-site. 9. Minimal lighting shall be left on. 10. No overnight van parking. Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GERARD ARCARI REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3-5 PLEASANT STREET R-2 page four A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17, of MGL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special . Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • • TY OF of "Salem' �Ralzs djugettsCICLERK SAOFFICEA �Raara of '�ppeal 2001 SEP 2b P 2: 3b DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN J. GILLOOLY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 72 PROCTOR STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held September 19, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 of 3"from side yard setback and a Variance of 4 feet 3 inches on rear yard setback for the property located at 72 Proctor 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 appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. Plans were submitted showing the addition to the property. 3. There was no opposition to the proposed addition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN J. GILLOOLY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 72 PROCTOR 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 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 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 is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted September 19, 2001 C5 Ch� Richard Dionne Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN J. GILLOOLY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED 72 PROCTOR 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 • • Of OSUI 1, 4R"SUC'IUSettFY OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE '�oara of �ypeal _2001 AUG 24 A IIx 01 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL FLORES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 SILVER STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held August 15, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 side setback, front setback and rear setback to construct a two-story garage for the property located at 6 Silver 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 seeks relief to construct a two story attached garage. The requested relief is front setback— 1 foot, the required being 15 feet, side setback of 6 feet, required being 10 feet and rear setback of 3 feet and the required being 30 feet. 2. The petitioner's property is an existing nonconforming lot in an R-2 zone. 3. Allowing the petition would not harm or be detrimental to the neighborhood. 4. There was no opposition to this petition. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL FLORES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 SILVER 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 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 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 is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted August 15, 2001 �e 46 A/L'09 CSc� Stephen arris Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION PAUL FLORES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED 6 SILVER 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 • • Citp of 9palem, fla.Mgarbuattg CITY OF SALEM. MA 39oara of Swat CLERK'S OFFICE 2001 MAR 21 P 2 52 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL DIBIASE, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24-28 SOUTH STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on March 21, 2001, 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 dimensional Variances for lot area and front yard setbacks to create 2 lot for the property located at 24-28 South Street located in an R-1 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. Ledgewood Hill Realty Trust, Paul DiBiase, Trustee is the owner of a lot on South Street of approximately 23, 400 s.f. Thomas Beatrice, Esq. of 286 Humphrey Street, Swampscott, represented Mr. DiBiase at the hearing. 2. In 1996, a previous owner of this lot applies for variances in lot size and frontage to build three single-family homes. This Board denied the earlier petition on November 13, 1996. 3. In his petition, Mr. DiBiase requested variances in lot size and front setback requirements to build two single-family homes. He resented the Board a "Drainage Report" prepared by Parsons and FAIA, Inc. of Lynn, Ma. In support of the petition, • purporting to show that the construction of two homes could be done in a manner that would decrease rainwater runoff to the rear of the property by increasing flow to a South Street storm drain. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL DIBIASE, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24-28 SOUTH STREET R-1 page two 4. Five neighbors opposed the petition. These were: Mr. Rob Dennehy of 29 Crescent Dr., Mr. Robert Vacirca of 27 Crescent Dr., Mr. John Connors of 40 Nichols St, Mr. Paul Butler Jr., of 32 Albion St and Mr. Bill Muse of 31 Crescent Dr. The neighbors argued that the development would necessitate building an unsightly retaining wall at the foot of the slope, that the drainage could create water runoff issues for those down hill of the development, and that the petitioner had failed to show the elements of hardship related to the land that are needed to grant a variance from the ordinance's requirements. 5. Mr. Beatrice argued that the proposed development was consistent with the surrounding lots in size and setback configuration, and that the new homes would be an asset to the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. • 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not 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 March 21, 2001 ac� Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL DIBIASE, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24-28 SOUTH 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 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 • +'' '`• CtV Of t1jeTTi, cffla6!5ZIC'1Ul3et'ATY OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE �3oara of ��eal ,.2001 AUG 22 P Z. 58 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE COELHO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 SUMMIT STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held August 15, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Halides. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 yard setback. Ordinance calls for a 10 foot setback and the proposed addition will be four feet, six inches form side lot line. The property is 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 appeared and represented himself at the meeting. 2. Plans were submitted showing the proposed addition. 3. There was no opposition to the plans. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE COELHO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 SUMMIT 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 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. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing construction. Variance Granted August 15, 2001 C/ J Richard Dionne Board of Appeal DECISION OF THE PETITION GEORGE COELHO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 15 SUMMIT 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. Board of Appeal • CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSLiffs9F SALEM. MA BOARD OF APPEAL ERN'S OFFICE • m, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • SALEM, MA O 1970 TEL. (978) 745.9595 FAX (978) 740.9846 ' .1001 OCT 24 P 2: 01 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF D.L. COTE REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 53-55 TURNER STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held October 17, 2001, 2001with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides and Joan Boudreau. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner requests a Variance from side yard setback to allow 2nd story suspended deck and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure to allow larger floor space at third level for the property located at 53-55 Turner Street located in a R-2. 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. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THE D.L. COTE REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 53—55 TURNER STREET page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Attorney George Atkins, from the firm of Ronan, Segal & Harrington represented the petition. 2. An "as built' plot plan was submitted and reviewed. 3. The petitioner's counsel represented that the expansions of the third floor space was approximately an additional 30%. 4. The proposed work has already been completed. 5. There was no basis for the finding of a hardship. 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, 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. is 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. . DECISION OF THE PETITION OF D.L. COTE REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 53-55 TURNER STREET page three 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Special Permit & Variance Granted October 17, 2001 GSA�. Nicholas Helides 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 • .¢o CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEM. MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE f 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • ��� ., SALEM, 01970 TEL. (978)) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 2001 OCT 20 P STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. 2' o8 MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DAVID DUNTON, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28 UPHAM STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on October 17, 2001, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Helides and Joan Boudreau. 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 from density and lot area per dwelling unit to allow a three family to for the property located 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. Petitioner David Dunton owns the property at 28 Upham Street, which consists of a 3 story house on an undersized lot with a condominium unit on the first floor. The condominium is currently occupied by Dyanne Olson: the upper floors by Mr. Dunton, who seeks to a variance to, create a second condominium unit on the third floor. 2. Petitioner presented letters in support of his proposal from Byron Locke of 34 Upham St., Dean Larrabee of 9 Dearborn St., and Patrick Foley of 30 Upham St., In addition, a paper with the signatures of 13 neighbors was presented, purportedly in support of, or having no opposition to the proposed variances. 3. Speaking in opposition to the proposed petition were Staley McDermet, of 30 Dearborn St and Stephen Harris of 160 North St. Mr. Harris, who is also a member of the Zoning Board, did not participated in the decision of this petition. Both Mr. • McDermet and Mr. Harris stated that the increased density would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. McDermet further stated that if the Board were to allow the third unit, the total square footage per dwelling unit would drop to 1,500 sf., which • DECISION OF THE PETITION OD DAVID DUNTON, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28 UPHAM TREET R-2 pagetwo is considerably lower than the 4,500 sf per dwelling unit required in the multifamily districts. 4. Mr. Dunton was represented by John R. Keilty, Esq., who argued that the petitioner improved the property during his 4 years of ownership by installing a fence around the garden, hot topping the back yard for additional parking and installing a patio. Mr. Dunton argued that economic need forced him to request this variance, and that he could not afford to live in the property unless the variances were granted. 5. The Board finds that petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence of hardship on which to base the granting of a Variance. 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 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 OCTOBER 17, 2001 Nina Cohen, Chairman J Board of Appeal • i • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID DUNTON, TRUSTEE 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 • -TitV Of ,inIPM, fflaSSZ1C11Mgt9P SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE • Paura of Meal 71001 AUG -•I A & 2U DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LLYOD TERNES REQUESTING AN ADIMISTRATIVE RULING FOR TAE PROPERTY_LOCATED AT 81-WEBB-STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on July 18, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chariman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting to Amend Conditions of a Special Permit granted on April 30, 1985 for the property located at 81 Webb Street. • After hearing the evidence the Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner, Lloyd Ternes appeared before the Board to request to amend condition number 3 of the decision of 1985 which states, Driveway in rear be crushed stone. 2. Petitioner would like to be allowed to hot top driveway. 3. There was no opposition to this proposal. Therefore, based on the fact and on evidence presented, Nina Cohen made a motion and was seconded that the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0 to grant the petitioners request to amend condition of 1985 with the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. CCC • Nicholas Helides Board of Appeal • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • • CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUS BOARD OF APPEAL FIITTSY OF SALEM, MA 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OFFICE I SALEM, MA 01970 • �� TEL. (978) 745-9595 Fax (978) 740-9846 9 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. .2001 OCT 25 P 2: 5q MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GARY SCOTT REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 WOODBURY COURT R-2 A hearing on this petition was held October 17, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides and Joan Boudreau. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 lot area per dwelling unit and relief from minimum frontage to construct a duplex for the property located at 12 Woodbury Court 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. Mr. McIntosh, the petitioner spoke in support of his request. 2. Bela Mosszi, the builder spoke on the details of construction. 3. Mr. & Mrs. Butler of 4-6 Woodbury Court spoke of the following concerns: existing on the street parking 12 14 cars, additional unit would impact an already crowded situation; impact on plowing of snow, the city does not presently plow the street due to the narrowness and on street parking, an additional unit would further crown the street, City collection of rubbish is presently difficult due to on street parking, an additional unit will create more congestion. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GARY SCOTT REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 WOODBURY COURT R-2 page two 4. Regina Flynn, City Council member, spoke on existing density being high with the petition seeking to expand an already dense condition, and parking presently being overcrowded with the petitioner seeking to expand the over crowded condition. 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 construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 7. Plans of the driveway as approved on October 17, 2001. 8. A minimum 18 foot wide driveway from the property line at Woodbury Court to the new structure. 9. A 20-25 foot turnaround apron at the garage entrance. Variance Granted October 17, 2001 • Nicholas Helides Board of Appeal Of *1erit, tt$$ttCl�u8eft8 CITY OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE �uttrD of ��ettl .2001 AUG 20 A 10; 01 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID READON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 VICTORY ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held August 15, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 and relief on front setback to extend a non-conforming structure to construct a farmer's porch for the property located at 5 Victory Road 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. Petitioner seeks relief to extend a nonconforming structure to construct a farmer's porch. Relief requested, front setback of 10.9' foot, required being 15 feet. Side setback requested relief, 4.9 foot, required being 10 feet. 2. The petitioner's property is an existing nonconforming lot in an R-1 zone. 3. Allowing the petition would not harm or be detrimental to the neighborhood. 4. There was no opposition to this petition. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID READON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 VICTORY 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 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 regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. • 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing construction. Variance Granted August 15, 2001 g Stephen arris Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION DAVID READON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 5 VICTORY ROAD R-1 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • `� �it Of SaIC t, MU65aC1jU6etWTY OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE �ottra of � a .2001 AUG 22 P 2- 58 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PETER GRENIER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 WOODBURY COURT R-2 A hearing on this petition was held August 15, 2001 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 extend a nonconforming structure to construct a single-family dwelling. The property is 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 appeared and represented himself at the meeting. 2. Plans were submitted showing the proposed single family. 3. Councillor O'Leary, Pauline Dionne, Barbara Annis, and Jim McIntosh neighbors to the petitioner appeared and spoke in favor. 4. Petitioner is requesting relief from the rear yard setback to construct a single family dwelling. 5. There was no opposition to the proposed request. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PETER GRENIER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 WOODBURY COURT 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 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. 6. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. Variance Granted August 15, 2001 �, J� /� cs-cv�) Nicholas Helides Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION PETER GRENIER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 5 WOODBURY COURT page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the 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 •