Loading...
2004-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �'�zr;l CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD APPEAL CITY OF SALEM. MA o ® 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OFFICE r - SALEM, MA 01970 -• rl TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. _ '.IOOU MAR-23 P 2: 53 MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PATRICIA CONDON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 ABBOTT STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on March 17, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belair and Joseph Barbeau. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were.properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side and rear setbacks to construct an addition for the property located at 20 Abbott Street located in a 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 Patricia Condon appeared and represented herself at the hearing.. 2. Petitioner submitted plans showing the proposed addition 3. Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor of the petition. 4. There was no opposition to the proposed petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PATRICIA CONDON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 ABBOTT STREET R-1 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the District. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans submitted and approved by the Building • Commissioner. 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. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. Variance Granted March 17, 2004 Nicholas Helides ,I- Nicholas N, Board of Appeal, Mem er • • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIITY 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 day, 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 • .p, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR _O f7 C-):-,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 = � z r STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 CD M MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 N �� � Ncn oD D Trn DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANN SHAW REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT c�,•3 FOR THE PROERTY LOCATED AT 81 BAY VIEW AVENUE R-1 o r"!3 C-n D A hearing on this petition was held on November 17, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne,Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belair and Edward Moriarty. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 request a Special Permit for Home Occupation from the property located at 81 Bay View Avenue in an R-Izone. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3 (2) (8)which provide as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,the Board of • Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion, of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,provided however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms,this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the Wile 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 for the City's inhabitants. A. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. B. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANN SHAW REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 81 BAY VIEW AVENUE R-1 o m� page two 'The Board of A ppeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after o r viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact. Dlr 1. Petitioner, Ann Shaw is seekinga Special Permit, Section 5-3 ^!3 pec' (li)(1)to cond� n the manufacture of baked goods for wholesale distribution in a residential kitchen. 2. There will be no commercial traffic to the above address. 3. The petitioner will deliver the products to her customers. 4. There was no opposition to this petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the-hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. 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. 4. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property, but not the district in general. On the basis of the above findings of fact,the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions. 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, code ordinances and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain approval from the Fire Prevention Office for an inspection. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANN SHAW REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 81 BAY VIEW AVENUE R-1 Special Permit Granted /J November 17, 2004 Bonnie Belair Board of Appeal 6 cn D m :2,:,3 M, O D A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WrM THE PLANNING N 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 or record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • o CPrY OF SA ov CITY OF S LE oM SSALCHUSETTS CLERK'S. L F EMq • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR �QtiNg�' SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 1004OECC _ STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 2 3. 20 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 AMENDED DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SCOTT PATROWICZ REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 104 AND 106 BAY VIEW AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on November 17, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Bonnie Belair, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Helides and Edward Moriarty. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 dimensional Variances to correct building encroachment across a common boundary line for the property located at 104-106 Bay View 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. Petitioners were represented by Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal Street in Salem. 2. The relocation of the boundary line one half foot to the northeast results in a change in area of 60 square feet. 3. Gifford and Ann Scott are the owners of 106 Bay View Avenue. 4. Plans were submitted showing the encroachment. 5. There was no opposition to this petition • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SCOTT PATROWICZ REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 104 AND 106 BAY VIEW 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. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Boards or Commission having Jurisdiction but not limited to the Planning Board. Variance Granted ' November 17, 2004 Richard Dionne Board of Appeal J • • DECISION OF THE PETITIONOF SCOTT PATROW ICZ REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 104 AND 106 BAY VIEW AVENUE R-1 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIITY 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 day 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 SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS �v �! BOARD OF APPEAL CITY OF SALEM, -MA ® 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERKS OFFICE �! 1� SALEM, MA 01970 r� t� .> TEL. (978) 745-9595 Fax (978) 740-984646 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. 2004 JUL 2b P I. 42 MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID BOWMAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 BEACH AVENUE R-1 A hearing of this petition was held on July 14, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Stephen Harris, Joseph Barbeau and Edward Moriarty. Notice of this hearing was sent to 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 petition is requesting a Variance from side yard setback for the construction of stairs for the properly located at 13 Beach Avenue 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 exist which especially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. • b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise,to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Mr. Bowman contends that the stairs did exist in this location prior to the 1940's, and that he has constructed these stairs without the proper permits, and that two diverse means of egress do exist without these stairs. 2. Mr. Arthur Michaud, of 11 Beach Ave, a direct abutter, states that this structure is too close, and therefore encroaches on his property, and thus affects his quality of life. He further states that he has checked and any construction within 100' of the shoreline require permitting from the State, and that the Conservation Commission allow for stairs to be constructed provided that they do not touch the mud flats. He fiuther feels that a better choice for the location exists on the rear of the house negating the need for this Variance. 3. Ms. Lauire Albert claims that a previous staircase existed on the rear of this house. 0 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAVID BOWMAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 BEACH AVENUE R-1 page two 4. Ms. Mary Michaud, of 11 Beach Ave., a life long resident of this address states that in the past this house had an open rear porch with stairs located at the center, a photograph of the rear of this house shows a roof line that suggest 5. The Board finds that there is no credible hardship concerning this petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows. 1. Special conditions 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 �„� ,n� &,4,{_ July 14, 2004 //�```�"" os Barbeau S/tL. Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance of Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been filed,or that, if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner Certificate of Title. • Board of Appeal CITY OF SALE OMASAPPACHUSE�,'L AL �S LEM, ABOARte, v 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MA O 1970 • TEL. (978) 745-9595 .1OOU MAY FAX (978) 740-9846 11 P 1: 31 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BARRY CARNES REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 778 BEAVER STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on April 21, 2004 and continued on May 12, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides, Richard Dionne 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 change an existing non-conforming use to allow a construction warehouse for the property located at 77 Beaver Street R-2. 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 CITY OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE '• DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BARRY CARNES REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 77 BEAVER STREET R-2 page two '.1004 MAY I l P 1: 31 , 1. Petitioner Barry Carnes presented the petition at the first hearing. 2'. The property has always been a nonconforming use. The business will have no employees remaining on site. 3. The property will be used for storage only of the following items; roof shingles, roofing materials, sheet metal, plywood, 3 vehicles and equipment. 4. No construction activity will occur on site. No construction debris will be brought to the site. 5. Irene Froncki of 5 Suford Street spoke in opposition. 6. Joe George of 81 Beaver Street spoke in opposition based on tight neighborhood and addition noise created. 7, Patricia Amey of 68 Beaver Street spoke in opposition. 8. Stan Fronckie of 152 Boston Street Unit 1 spoke in opposition 9. Councillor Michael Bencal spoke in opposition and wanted neighborhoods Involved. 10. At the May 12`" hearing, Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner. 11. Attorney Grover presented the results of the neighborhood meeting with Councillor Bencal and the petitioner in letter form dated May 6, 2004 as follows; a) No exterior signs b) No hazardous materials stored on site c) No dumpsters or containers be stored outside the building • d) All deliveries are restricted to times as set by ordinance except Saturday deliveries be restricted to no earlier than 9:00 a.m. 12. Petitioner agreed to construct 8-foot fence abutting 148 Boston Street. 13. Stanley Froncki spoke in favor based on agreement with 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. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 in favor and 0 in opposition, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, codes ordinances and regulations. • 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relate to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. CITY FFOF SALEM, MA • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF BARRY CARNES REQUESTING A-SPk4kb S OFFICE �- PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY AT 77 BEAVER STREET R-2 page three )) MM 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimension submiRM P 1; 3 approved by the 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing construction, 8. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall construct an 8-foot height stockade fence abutting 148 Boston Street. 8. No exterior signs other than sign on pedestrian entrance door identifying company & telephone number. 9. No dumpster or container be stored outside the building. 10.No hazardous materials stored on site. 11. All deliveries be restricted to times as set by ordinance except Saturday deliveries be restricted to no earlier than 9:00 a.m. Special Permit Granted % May 12, 2004 Nicholas Helidesl Board of Appeal l • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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. • 1 v�:ca CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CITY OF SALF.-M MA - 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OFFla - ,� SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. 15 P I� !,1004. JUL - 4( MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT MICHAUD JR.REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 138 BOSTON STREET B-2 A hearing on this petition was held July 14, 2004 meeting with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Stephen Harris, Bonnie Belair, Edward Moriarty and Joseph Barbeau. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. At the request of the Petitioner's Attorney, George Atkins the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice requesting a Special Permit to allow an existing tow family structure to be used as a three family for the property located at 138 Boston Street located in an B-2 zone. • GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE July 14, 2004 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • Board of Appeal CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS C-, BOARD OF APPEAL < �� • m 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR t/N T SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . 0 Cn STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745.9595 0 Ty MAYOR FAX: 978.740-9846 Tm '03 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAWRENCE OLCOTT REQUESTING A VARIANT m FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 BOW STREET R-1 v N A hearing on this petition was held on September 15, 2004, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Edward Moriarty, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Hellides and Bonnie Behar. 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 in order to permit the subdivision of the property into 2 separate lots and to allow construction of a new single family dwelling on a newly created lot for the property located at 16 Bow 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. Attorney Scott Grover, 222 Essex Street, represented the Petitioner. 2. Petitioner Lawrence Olcott is requesting a Variance from dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow the subdivision of the property into two separate lots to allow the construction of a new single family dwelling on the newly created lot. 3. The Variances needed for the subdivision of the property for lot area, lot width, lot coverage, front setback, side and rear setbacks. 4. Petitioner states that the size and shape of the lot constitutes hardship as grounds for his petition. Petitioner further states that the size of the two lots is in keeping with the existing lots in the neighborhood. Petitioner also • states that he will bring the property level to a higher grade which would resolve water and drainage issues that currently exist on his property and the neighbors. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LAWRENCE OLCOTT REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 BOW STREET R-1 page two 5. The petitioner supplied a letter in support of his proposal to subdivide lot by the following abutters Russell Vernot, A. Konstantilakis, Peter Magliaro, Patricia Rahn, and Tanya Martinas. 6. Neighbors speaking in opposition were Edith Hazeltine Ed Ronan, Ed Froncki, and Deb Stewart. The issues were density, narrow streets, parking and water and drainage. Also mentioned was that the new plans for the house to be built relative to its size and would have a two care garage that would be out of character for 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 SEPTEMBER 152004 ��,�,�_/ Bonnie Belair Board of Appeal • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTgTY OF SALEM; MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE, • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 1004 DEC 29 A 10: 50, MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RAYMOND& CYNTHIA JERZLO REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 102 BRIDGE STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on December 15, 2004 with the following Board Members present:Nina Cohen Chairman, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair,, Edward Moriarty 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 relief to allow continuance of use of existing third dwelling unit for the property located at 102 Bridge Street located in an R-2 zone. The Board of Appeal,after careful consideration of the evidence and after reviewing the plans at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: • 1. Petitioners Raymond and Cynthia Jerzlo of Salem appeared before the Board accompanied by their legal council, Attorney William F. Quinn. 2. Petitioners purchased the property from Cynthia's parents about ten years ago; her parents had previously owned the property continuously since 1964 and for years before that. 3. Cynthia lived with her parents at the property in her early years, and has been at the property thereafter throughout her life. 4. Cynthia testified of her personal knowledge that the property has always contained three dwelling units, including the dwelling unit on the third floor. 5. City Councillor Joseph O'Keefe appeared at the hearing in support of the application, and upon inquiry from petitioners' council, testified that he lived in the Bridge Street area prior to 1965. He further testified that he was elected as the Ward 2 City Councilor in 1970,that he visited with Cynthia's parents in their apartment in the property at that time, and the building did contain a third floor unit at that time. Councillor O'Keefe further testified that he lived in the neighborhood in and before 1964, and based upon his knowledge of the neighborhood and the property, he believed that the building contained the • third floor dwelling unit before 1965. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RAYMOND I CYNTHIA JERZLO REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 102 BRIDGE STREET R-2 page two 6. Cynthia testified that the building had continued to contain the third floor r dwelling unit continuously since before 1964;that the City of Salem had always assessed the property as a three-family, and that her parents and she had always paid the taxes on it as a three family. 7. Petitioners submitted evidence from the City of Salem List of Polls and the Polk's Directories that the building had continued to be occupied by three families continuously since 1972. 8. Petitioners submitted a tag affixed to the fumace serving only the third floor unit evidencing that it was installed in 1968. 9. Petitioners submitted a site plan prepared by North Shore Survey dated December 2, 2004 as evidence that the site provides seven on-site outdoor parking spaces for tenants of the property,plus a two-car garage on the site. 10. Petitioners also submitted a petition signed by several neighbors to the . property in support of the petition. 11.No one communicated with the Board or appeared at the hearing to oppose the application. 12. The Board takes notice of the fact that the Zoning Bylaw as enacted in Salem in 1965 Therefore,based upon the evidence presented, including much evidence that was not presented to the Building Commissioner at the time of his consideration of the issue, the Board voted,with four in favor and one opposed,to ,make a finding that the existing 3 family use of the property, including the dwelling unit on the third floor, is legal as a pre-existing non-conforming use that existed at the time of the enactment of the City of Salem Zoning Bylaw in 1965 and has been used continuously as a 3 family since 1965, and that use is entitled to be continued unless the property loses such legal nonconforming status in accordance with applicable law and the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Bylaw. ADMINISTRATIVE RULING � � lsCr, GRANTED Nina Cohen, Chairman • DECEMBER 15, 2004 Board of Appeal • DECISION OF RAYMOND& CYNTHIA JERZLO REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRITAVE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 102 BRIDGE 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 unit a copy of the decision bearing the Certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed an no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • Board of Appeal • .¢o CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CITY OF SALEM. MA 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLO&iERK'S OFFICE • � SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR 100U MAY 21 P b• 03' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BROOKS WILLILAMS REVESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8-10 BROADWAY I A hearing on this petition was held on May 19, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne , Stephen Harris, Joseph Barbeau 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 operate a Dog Day Care Business in a portion of the building for the property located at 8-10 Broadway located in an Industrial 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 • CIR CLERK'S OFFICE • DECISION ON THE PETITION OFBROOKS WILLIAMS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8-10 BROADWAY I page two 11004 MAY 21 P b: 03 1. Attorney George Atkins appeared and represented the petitioner. 2. Petitioner requests a Special Permit to run a Dog Day Care Business in a portion of the building. 3. The Petitioner currently runs a business in Marblehead and submitted a letter in support from the people in Marblehead who are familiar with there existing business. 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. 4. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property, but not the district in general. On the basis of the above findings of fact, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, codes ordinances and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relate to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to 3. Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained 4. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem and shall display number so as to be visible from the street. 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including but not limited to, the Health Department. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM BROOKS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8-10 BROADWAY I page three Stephen Harris Board of Appeal Special Permit Granted May.19 2004 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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. C-)=. t r� M 0 N) cn. J o D �r -n rn 3 O D W i CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS C`F�S��F . g BOARD OF APPEAL `a 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR J004F 7�+� 1J,q SALEM, MA O 1970 FB TEL. (978) 745-9595 �6 Fax (978) 740-9846 A� STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. 38 MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL GINLEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 CEDAR AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on February 18, 2004, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Hellides and Joseph Barbeau. 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 from side yard setback of 0 feet instead of the 10 foot requirement, to allow a 5 1/2 x 16 addition for the property located at 7 Cedar Avenue 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. The Petitioner appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. The Petitioner had not obtained a building permit prior to commencing construction. 3. The direct abutter, Linda Ackerman, strongly opposed the addition stating that it was infringing on her property and that damage had been done to her property. 4. Councillor Joseph O'Keefe also opposed to this petition. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL GINLEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 CEDAR AVENUE R-1 page two 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 FEBRUARY 18, 2004 (�)c C�aro Dionne SCrK� Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is • recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. v�•c0 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETT114y OF S BOARD OF APPEAL CLERKS OFFICE A a �t 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • SALEM, 9595 TEL. (978)) 745-9595 7455-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 x.1004 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. JUN -2 p 2 SU MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RUDY NAZAIRE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7-9 CHERRY STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on May 19, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair and Joseph Barbeau.. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 extend a non-conforming structure for the property located at 7-9 Cherry Street located in an R-2 Zone. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3 0), which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner was granted a Special Permit in September of 1999 but was never acted on. 2. Attorney John Keilty represented the petitioner at the hearing. 3. The petitioner would like to extend his living space. 4. Councillor Matt Veno appeared and spoke in opposition to the petition with concerns of parking. changes to the structure and the current state of owner neglect evident from the street. • 5. A number of neighbors appeared and spoke in opposition to the petition. CITY OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE DECSION OF THE PETITION OF RUDY NAZAIRE REQUESTINGZAISWI�- FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7-9 CHERRY STREET R-2 L J page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the Neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience and Welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 2 in favor and 2 in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit is denied. Special Permit Denied ff /� rK-v`tc c�(1 May 19, 2004 ..�A``„✓� tk os Jph Barbeau. MemberCv oard 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 the City Clerk that 20 days have elapses and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • �o CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETI(gTY OF BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK S QF CE Q 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • 9 l ! a SALEM, MA 01970 y�nMg TEL. (978) 745-9595 STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. FAX (978) 740-9846 .1004 MAR -3 P 2, 31 MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS DORAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 COLLINS STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held February 18, 2004 with the following Board Members present:.Nina Cohen, Stephen Harris, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Helides and Joseph Barbeau. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 density regulations to allow a 3`d floor addition for the property located at 13 Collins Street located in a 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 Thomas Doran seeks density regulations to allow a 3rd floor addition. 2. Petitioner submitted plans showing the proposed addition 3. There was no opposition to the proposed petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS DORAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 COLLINS 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. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. • 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. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. Variance Granted February 18, 2004 loard ph Barbeau SMc)=i of Appeal, MeLee r = r-< rn 0 9 7C I U;N W CD Trn r N 'nom m3 • W D J • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIITY 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 day 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 rri a 70� 7Ky r ND • w or- -n rn W � J • �o+ CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MA 01970 • v TEL. (978) 745-9595 0, FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. `F. MAYOR p j�Poo ✓G Z,S DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARK & PAULA KEENE REQUESTING A lc5 VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 COLUMBUS SQUARE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held July 14, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Bonnie Belair, Joseph Barbeau, Stephen Harris and Edward Moriarty.. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 an existing nonconforming structure and a Variance from side yard setback to construct a two story addition for the property located at 5 Columbus Square 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 (j), which provides as follows: • Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits. for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extent expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests 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 MARK & PAULA KEENE REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 COLUMBUS SQUARE R-1 page two _ c) The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and aft m reviewing the plans makes the following findings of fact:, 1. Petitioner's Mark and Paula Keene appeared and presented their plans to t1w cP Board. T� y 2. Their Architect, Walter Jacobs of Washington Street in Salem explained the q rn plans for the two -story addition. wo D 3. An abutter Peter Haywood of 4 Columbus Square appeared and spoke in favor of the petition. 4. There was no opposition to the proposed plans. 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, 5 in favor and 0 in opposition 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. Petition shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. Exterior finishes of the construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any Board or Commission having jurisdiction, Including, but not limited to the Planning Board. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARK & PAULA KEENE REQUESTING A • VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 COLUMBUS SQUARE R-1 page three Special Permit & Variance Granted July 14, 2004 �C✓h/f'LIiC lk.��ic.�.tu'�' Bonnie Belair �Ser> 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 C-) .� n c rn� r- z o N -3z-n O D D .,r- > 'rD • �iQ CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEM, MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE " 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • a` SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. ,IOOU MAR 24 P 2. 34 MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SALEM POINT RENTAL REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 100 CONGRESS STREET A hearing on this petition was held March 17, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Stephen Harris, Bonnie Belair, Nicholas Helides and Joseph Barbeau. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 the use and Variance from parking to alter existing business unit to two residential units for the property located at 100 Congress Street located in a R-3 zone. The provisions the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to the request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 Q), which provides as follows: • Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may,in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits. for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extent expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests 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 SALEM POINT RENTAL PROPERTIES REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 100 CONGRESS STREET R-3 page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after reviewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Salem Point Rental Properties Corp. is a subsidiary of Salem Harbor CDC, a nonprofit community development corporation located at 102 Lafayette Street in Salem that is engaged in a federally-subsidized redevelopment program involving 61 properties in the Salem Point neighborhood, among other projects. The present project is one of a number of residential renovations undertaken in recent years. 2. The 3-story structure at 100 Congress Street is a nonconforming building. It has two apartment units on the second and third floors, and a commercial/retail space on the first floor. Petitioner proposes to renovate the building, restoring the two upper floor apartment units and replacing the first floor commercial space. with two one-bedroom handicapped-accessible units. Petitioner requires a special permit because the proposed alteration increases the nonconformity with respect to minimum lot area per dwelling. 3. One off-street parking space is provided for each first floor unit. Because no off- street parking is available for the other units, a parking variance is also required. 4. Petitioner stated that under the terms of the federal financing, five percent of the 61 housing units must meet handicapped accessibility requirements. The design • of the first floor units at 100 Congress St. are intended to meet federal requirements for handicap accessible housing, and to add to housing available for Salem's handicapped residents. 5. William Quinn Esq., representing petitioner, argued that the petition reduces the intensity of use at the sit by eliminating the commercial use, ant that conversion to residential use is in keeping with the character of the R-3 district. In support of the parking variances, he states the removal of an existing garage and reconfiguration of this site will increase the number of parking spaces on the already small site. 6. There was no opposition to the petition. Speaking is support of the project were Councillors Kevin Harvey and Arthur Sargent.. 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 • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SALEM POINT RENTAL PROPERTIES REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 100 CONGRESS STREET page three 4. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted, 5 in favor and 0 in opposition 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. Petition shall obtain 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. Special Permit & Variance Granted March 17, 2004 Nina Cohen, Chairman S ` J Board of Appeal • • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK .Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed .within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk . that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • co CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 3v ^� BOARD OF APPEAL CITY OF SALEM. •MA 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OFfI�'f SALEM, MA 01970 J, • TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR '1004 JUN 21 . A 0 58 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL O'BRIEN MANAGER COUSINS LLC REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1-11 COUSINS STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held June 16, 2004 meeting with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Bonnie Belair,Nicholas Helides, Stephen Harris and Richard Dionne. Notices of the hearing were sent to 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 John Keilty, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice requesting Variances from lot size, width, front and side setbacks to subdivide existing parcel into 4 nonconforming for the property located at 1-11 Cousins Street located in an R-2 zone. . GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREDUDICE JUNE 16, 2004 0�� 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 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 • 0 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL • ,q 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR NINE SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 C1 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 rr1 cn G �T 1 Ncn DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL O'BRIEN, MANAGER REQESTfKG A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 COUSINS STREET R-mss cr A hearing on this petition was held on October 20m 2004 with the following Board c a Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Edward Moriarty, Richard, cD Dionne 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. The petitioner is requesting Variances to divide non-conforming parcels into 3 parcels to construct 4 duplex lots. Variances requested are lot width, front and side yard setbacks, lot coverage and building height for the property located at 11 Cousins Street R-2 The Variances which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, • building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structure involve. b. Literial 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 substantially derogating from the intent of the district of of 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 Michael O'Brien, Manager of I 1 Cousins St. Realty Trust, petitioned this Board in August, 2004 seeking to subdivide and for dimensional variances to allow development of 11 Cousins St. After opening the petition, the Board asked petitioner to make changes in the design in response to neighborhood concerns. This they did, and the revised petition was reopened at the Board's October hearing. 2. Presented by Attorney Jack Keilty and surveyor Christopher Mello, petitioners plan calls for residences to be built at the former site of a manufacturing facility. The factory, which was in tax arrears, was demolished by the City of Salem • several years ago and the site, at the center of a residential neighborhood, has since been vacant. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL 0; BRIEN MANAGER, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 COUSINS STREET R-2 page two z rn 3. Petitioner's plan calls for 3 two-and-a-half story duplex townhouses to be M-n constructed, each on a separate lot with less than the required amount of fronl1ge crib and insufficient front and side yard setback space to meet the dimensional ©,m requirement of the Ordinance. Access to and egress from the lot would be fra c� .. Webb St. The development would be marketed and sold as a condominium cu�g association consisting of six two-bedroom units. d y 4. Property owners who have moved into a new condominium development made from the adjacent Polish Falcons Social Club building sought to maintain access to their rear parking lot via a driveway between the two properties, and petitioner agreed to grant an easement for the perpetual use of such driveway by succeeding owners of those condominiums. 5. In addition, petitioner agreed to install sidewalks and four-foot metal fencing similar to that of the adjacent condominium along the Cousins St. side of the property, and to install landscaping at the rear property line to lessen impact on the Allen St. abutters. 6. As grounds for his variance request, Petitioner states that the property is subject to • a state-mandated 21E abatement plan not caused by his actions that will require a significant investment in clearing contaminated soil from the site prior to any development. Further, he argues that as a former manufacturing property, the size of the lot is a factor that makes it unique. Most of the surrounding homes are on lots much smaller than is required by the ordinance. Given the disparity, it would be anomalous to enforce lot size and frontage with respect to one site in an area where lots are uniformly undersized. 7. Petitioner met with neighbors in August to discuss the impact that the development would have, and submitted a petition in support of the proposed development signed by 7 neighbors. Also speaking in support of the petition were David Winter of 17 Cousins St., and Lucy Corchado, Ward 1 City Councillor. 8. Aletha Hill of 12 Allen St was concerned about dust during soil removal. 9. Paul Lessard approved of the revised design, finding it appealing, and he requested that the record show the first floor should be no more than 3 ft above street level. 10. Speaking in opposition were Paul and Lou Grocki of 8 Cousins St. and Mark Calchowski of 12 Cousins St., on the grounds that the proposed duplex townhouses would be overly large for the small street and homes. 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. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL O'BRIEN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 COUSINS STREET R-2 page three o ca er=a a ' 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve a m�o Substantial hardship to the petitioner. ` 7 UJ �D 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. 0 Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and Regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety • shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having Jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Finish floor no higher than grade. 9. Condo association shall include snow removal. 10. Petitioner shall have sidewalk installed on Cousins Street. Variance Granted October 20, 2004 Nina Cohen, Chaitmat S • Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIITY CLERKM, o mo C X Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the wD Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 dayr date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to D " Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or SpeciaE Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing th® D certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been find, 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 SALEMt MASSACHUSETTS B 9 BOARD OF APPEAL -• T 1ZO WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 'L j STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 LP T A 7 9 DECISION OF THE PETITION OFPAUL KOLOSEUSI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 CROSS AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on September 15, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Bonnie Belair, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Helides and Edward Moriarty. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 and number of stories to construct an addition for the property located at 2 Cross Avenue located in an R-1 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building • or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner is seeking a Variance from rear yard setback and number of stories to construct an addition. 2. Plans were submitted showing the proposed addition. 3. There was no opposition to this petition. • —• DECISION-OF—TH€P-€TIT-ION-OFRAUL-KOL-OUEUS-REQUESTING-A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 CROSS 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. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans submitted. • 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit before beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Inspection. Variance Granted September 15, 2004 i/ Nina/Cohen Board of Appeal o c) c C7 y r- m m� v vo cii cn n D m • _ �3 C-) 3 C'n D • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIITY 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 day 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� = r t m m �o N N� � or Tm m 3 • L D C!1 • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 3v BOARD OF APPEAL CITY C-OFSAL�1::'MA 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OFFICE+ SALEM, MA 01970 - - • TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740.9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. - .1004:FEB -3 P 2 S3 MAYOR ' DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SPIROS KOUNSALISH REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 152-156 DERBY STREET B-1 A hearing on this petition was held January 21,2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Stephen Harris, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Helides 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 enlarge a nonconforming structure and a Variance from front, side and rear. setbacks and lot coverage to construct a single story addition for the property located at 152-156 Derby Street located in a B-1 zone. The provisions the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to the request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 Q), which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of • Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits. for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extent expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests 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 • 1 • DECISION OF THE PETITION SPIROS KOUNSALISH REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 152-156 DERBY STREET B-1 page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after reviewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: 1. Attorney Bill Quinn presented the petition. Attorney Quinn noted that the size of the addition is 26 x 28, existing seating capacity is 33 and the petition is to increase the seating by 35 seats, bring the total seating capacity to 68. The proposal will eliminate four parking spaces while retaining one handicapped parking space. 2. Attorney Quinn noted that the existing building is presently non-conforming and the site/lot space limitations create a hardship. Attorney Quinn presented printed material or comparable court cases. 3. The petition is a request to expand an existing non-conforming building. 4. The second floor of the building is presently used as two apartment units that will remain. 5. Existing zoning is B-1 6. Attorney Quinn noted the parking issue for all businesses and residents in the area, and offered that the petitioner will offer valet parking for the busiest evening hours of operation. 7. Nina Cohen, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeal noted that there is a • density issue which is being created and asked for the petitioner to address it. 8. The density issue was responded to by the petitioner's project architect who responded that the existing site open space was utilized for parking and therefore there was no additional density being created by the petitioner. 9. Ms. Readon owner of the Pig's Eye restaurant spoke in opposition of the petition based on the loss of the existing on site parking, while complimenting the petitioner on the operation if his business. 10. The owner of 156 Derby Street spoke in favor of the petition. 11. George Osgood, owner of the property on Derby Street which houses the Salem Beer Works and, Dunkin Donuts spoke in favor of the petition. 12. Mark Wookcock form Clark Properties spoke in favor of the petition. 13. City Councilor Joseph O'Keefe spoke in favor of the 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 • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SPIROS KOUNSALISH REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 152-156 DERBY STREET B-1. 4. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted, 4 in favor and 1 in opposition to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing • Structure. 6. Petition shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having Jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 8. Petitioner will provide valet parking during the evening hours of Thursdays, Friday And Saturday, which will be subject to further review by the Zoning Board of Appeal. Special Permit & Variance Granted . January 21, 2004 Nicholas Helides CsCM� Board of Appeal • • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL �c^G • r2O-WKSFrl-ITOfON STREET, 9RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 � Fy DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CONG NGUYEN REQUESTING A VARIANCE AN8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 DUNDEE STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held September 15, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Bonnie Belair, 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 is requesting a Special Permit and Variance from rear yard setback to construct an 11 x 14 sunroom on existing deck for the property located at 5 Dundee Street 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 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—TH€-P€TI-TION-OF—CONG-NGUY-EN-REOUE-STJNG-A UARIANCEa4ND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 DUNDEE STREET R-1 page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after reviewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. The Petitioner is seeking a Variance from rear yard setback to construct an 11 x 14 sunroom on existing deck. 3. Plans were submitted showing the proposed sunroom. 4. There was no opposition to the proposed plans. 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, 5 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations o e) 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and m m approved by the Building Inspector. N T t Nw 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire o n safety shall be strictly adhered to. D n3 C* m3 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. �7; n 5. Exterior finishes of the construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure • 6. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Inspection. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DONG NYUGEN REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 DUNDEE STREET R-1 page three Special Permit & Variance Granted September 15, 2004 Nina Cohen (A'YC 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. Z9 C-) Board of Appeal y ti ;:0 CD N ::,z t uj cr, on =Drn r T3 _ m3 D • CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL • g,_ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ^W SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 c r N m m :;Op 1 NN DECISION OF THE PETITION OF BRENDA SHANLEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE orr-- AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 39 ENGLISH STREET �+3 R-2 IV D A hearing on this petition was held August 18, 2004 with the following Board Member§3 present: Nina Cohen, Bonnie Belair, 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. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to alter a nonconforming structure and a Variance from lot coverage, side yard setback and rear yard setback to construct a 14'6" x 30/ two-story addition for the property located at 39 English Street in an R-2zone. The provisions the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to the request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 (j), which provides as follows: • Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits. for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extent expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests 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 BRENDA SHANLEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 39 ENGLISH STREET R-2 page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after reviewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner was seeking a Special Permit to alter a non-conforming structure and a Variance from lot coverage, side setback and rear setback to construct a two- story addition. 2. Plans were submitted showing the proposed addition. 3. A petition with six names of abutters and letters of support were presented at the hearing. 4. There was no opposition to the proposed plans. 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, 5 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure DECISION OF THE PETITION OF BRENDA SHANLEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 39 ENGLISH STREET R-2 page three Special Permit & Variance Granted August 18, 2004 Stephen Harris �SC/� Board of Appeal J A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts . General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS vim BOARD OF APPEAL • ,y 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR _ n SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 n� STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 N �O rn MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 -O 'T T' N N� O OD DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RICHARD BLAIS REQUESTING A SPECIAL- '�*3 PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 59 ESSEX r v STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on September 15, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne,Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belair and Edward Moriarty. 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. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to alter a nonconforming structure to construct a third floor addition and a Variance from number of stories to construct a roof top deck for the property located at 59 Essex Street R-2. The provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to the request for a • Special Permit is Section 5-3 6), which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permit 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 request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: A. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. B. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise,to the petitioner. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RICHARD BLAIS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 59 ESSEX STREET R-2 page two C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after reviewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner is renovation a house at 59 Essex Street owned by his mother, Mary Jane Blais, that is an existing nonconforming three-family in a two-family zoning district. 2. Petitioner's plan is to expand the living area on the third floor to add a master bedroom and bath to the existing one-bedroom unit. A special permit is needed to extend the living area of the third-floor unit. Petitioner also plans to renovate the first and second floor units to make them ready for sale as condominium units. • 3. Petitioner stated that his project meets the approval of his abutters the Richiuts, who own the property at 65 Essex St. which is rented out. Petitioner stated that the existing driveway can accommodate 4 cars. During snow emergencies up to six cars can be stored on the property. 4. Marie Brescia of 48 Essex St. commented that there is no on-street parking on one side of Essex Street; consequently any additional units will add to the existing parking problem. She has been negatively affected by the ongoing construction at 59 Essex St. for many months, and is bothered by the metal storage locker that has been in the driveway for more than a few weeks. 5. The Petitioner is also asking for a variance from the umber of stories to construct a roof top deck. 6. The Special Permit to alter a nonconforming structure was granted and the Variance for the roof top deck was denied. 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 Ordinance would involve substantial substantial hardship on the petitioner. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RICHARD BLAIS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 59 ESSEX STREET R-2 page three 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 4. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore,the Zoning Board of Appeal voted, 5 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances,codes and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 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. Special Permit for construction shall be completed in 1 year. 7. Variance for number of stories to construct a roof top deck was denied. 8. The Special Permit to alter nonconforming structure was granted. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED SEPTEMBER 15, 2004 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 or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSE-0b( OF'S'NI-EM.,MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE • ,p, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR MIAIX SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 1004 AUG 24 P 3: 08 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MANNETTA-HERRICK LLC. REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROERTY LOCATED AT 324-328 ESSEX STREET R2 A hearing on this petition was held on August 18, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman,Joseph Barbeau, Stephen Harris, Bonnie Belair and Edward Moriarty. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 request a Special Permit for use of a Historic Carriage House as a single family dwelling in conjunction with existing non-conforming six unit residential structure for the property located at 324-328 Essex Street 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 provide as follows: • Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion, of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms,this Board is,when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare for the City's inhabitants. A. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. B. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise,to the petitioner. C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MANNETTA-HERICK LLC REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 324-328 ESSEX STREET R2 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 is the prospective buyer of an historic property at 324-328 Essex Street, consisting of a three-story brick home formerly occupied by Caroline Emmerton, founder of the House of the Seven Gables... The house,which is in poor condition, has almost 10,000 square feet of interior space on a half-acre lot with a two-story carriage house. 2. Petitioner initiated this application at a meeting last month at which the neighborhood questioned how many dwelling units were allowed in the main building. Following some discussion,the Board asked the Building Commissioner to make a determination on the question of allowed dwelling units. The Building Commissioner's investigation resulted in a determination that the building is an existing non-conforming legal six-unit dwelling,having legally housed six units prior to the passage of the Zoning Ordinance. (See letter to Paul Herrick 7/21/04). • 3. Following the initial mating, petitioner met with neighbors and discussed concerns surrounding the proposed redevelopment. In accordance with the expressed wishes of the neighborhood for decreased density, petitioner agreed to limit the number of planned condominium units to 5, with four units inside the main building and one in the carriage house. Petitioner will provide 2 off-street parking spaces for each unit,with a turnaround area on site. Income from the sale of the 5 units will fund the planned renovation to the property, including exterior and interior renovations to the main house and carriage house, restoration of the Colonial Revival garden behind the main house, and restoration of the iron fence at the front of the main house. Condo fees will provide an income stream sufficient for the upkeep of the building and grounds. 4. A lively discussion ensued, at which some neighbors expressed approval of the Development with others opposed it, arguing that the density was still too great. The supporters included fourteen neighbors who signed a petition submitted by Pam McKee, the real estate broker, and John and Claire Casella of 8 Beckford St. Richard & Diane Pabich, owners of the Salem Inn at 331 Essex St., Charles Claar of Allen Street and Maura McGrane of 31 Chestnut St. Opposed to the added density were David and Sharon Williams of 342 Essex St., Rob Maier of 335 Essex St., Maggie Lundon of 100 Federal St., Mrs. William Bums of 22 Beckford Street and John Can, Esq. of River Street. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MANNETTA-HERRICK LLC REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 324-328 ESSEX STREET R-2 page three 5. Immediate abutters William LeMoss and Robert Harvey, condominium owners of a duplex property at 330 Essex St.,testified that a right of way exists allowing emergency egress from the rear unit at 330 Essex through and over the 328 Essex Street property,and they requested that the right of way be continued for the benefit of their ownership and that of succeeding owners for emergency use. This request was agreed to by the petitioner and his attorney. 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. 4. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property,but not the district in general. On the basis of the above findings of fact,the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions. 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, code ordinances and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner, 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit before starting any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing • structure. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MANNETTA-HERRICK LLC REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 324-328 ESSEX STREET R-2 6. Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained for all units. 7. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors Office and shall display said numbers as to be visible from the street. 8. Property shall be limited to 4 units inside the main building and one in the carriage house, all with condo documents. 9. Access to rear of 330 Essex Street shall not be blocked by structure or parking. 10. Parking plan shall be done as per plans submitted on August 18,2004. Special Permit Granted �✓!/�l�"�V �" August 18, 2004 Nina Cohen, Chairman • Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17, of MGL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that, if such appeal has been filed,that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner or record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CI'T'Y OF SALEM MA �• 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR t LMK'S OF'Fttt; SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 . 1004 NOV 23 P 2: 50' DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ELEANOR MEADOWCROFT REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 391-3911/2 ESSEX STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held November 15, 2004 meeting with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Edward Moriarty, Nicholas Helides and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. At the request of the Petitioner, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice requesting an Administrative Appeal of the Zoning Officers determination regarding the legal use of the building for the property located at 391-391 1/2 Essex Street R-2. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW . WITHOUT PREJUDICE November 15, 2004 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 SALEM9 MASSACHffffVfALEM.MA BOARD OF APPEAL (CLERK'S OFFICE . 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MA 01970 • ��� TEL. (978) 745-9595 Fax (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. ,:1004"JW..22 •`-A-cob MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN INC. REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROERTY LOCATED AT426 ESSEX STREET B-1 A hearing on this petition was held on Julyl4, 2004 with the following Board Members present:Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Hams, Bonnie Belair and Edward Moriarty. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 request a Special permit to allow a drive thru window as part of the redevelopment for the property located at 426 Essex Street B-1. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3 (2) (80 which provide as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, • and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion, of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,provided however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is,when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the Wile 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 for the City's inhabitants. A. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. B. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 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. CI I Y OF SALEM.:MA CLERKS OFFICE 15 • DECISIONOF THE PETITION OF THE VANESSE HANGER BRUSTLIN INC. REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCA'H'04AZ'42%2 A c� 3b ESSEX STREET B-I . page two 1. Petitioner Vanesse Hangen Brustlin(VHB), a development company, on behalf of CVS Pharmacy seeks a Special Permit to redevelop an existing building and install a double prescription Pick-Up/Drop-Off window at its location in a B-1 zoning district along the Entrance Corridor at 426 Essex Street. The CVS redevelopment plans for the mall have the full support of the landowner Salem Realty Trust of Belmont. The plans call for CVS to relocate and lease a 14,130 sf retail space that was formerly Crosby's supermarket,and operate a double prescription drop-off/pick-up window at the north end of the property. An existing tenant, Salem Five Cents Savings Bank, will be unaffected by the proposed redevelopment and did not send a representative to the meetings. 2 As grounds for the proposed plan, VHB and Zachary Darrow, Esq. of Hinckley, Allen and Snyder state that the drive-through prescription window benefits elderly customers, mothers with young children and those who need to obtain medicine easily in inclement weather. 3. Current hours of operation for the CVS are 8 am to 10 pm. Following the site • redevelopment, CVS may seek to extend their operating hours so they will be open from lam to 11 p.m. All deliveries will take place during off-peak hours. 4. CVS proposes to improve the site by re-orienting the parking spaces so they are parallel to Essex Street improving traffic circulation and adding landscape islands and pedestrian walkways within the parking lot, installing a new closed drainage system to the rear and sides of the site, installing period street lights and landscaping, an enclosed bus stop and a metal fence at the north edge of the property where it borders a City of Salem park and baseball field. VHB will also install a new backstop at the park of the baseball field. 5. In accordance with the wishes of neighborhood leaders, VHB submitted the building plans to the Salem Historic Commission for design review, and incorporated the committee's design suggestions into a revised plan for the building fagade and roof. 6. The proposed redevelopment plan received public review during two meetings of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal held on May 19 and June 21, 2004. At these meetings,neighbors voiced concerns with a variety of issued including late-night and early morning truck deliveries to CVS, fagade improvements, noise and light emanating from the commercial uses, perimeter fencing on the northern side of the plot, street traffic immediately outside the site,and accessibility of public is safety apparatus. There was substantial concern over the elimination of existing • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN INC REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 426 ESSEX STREET B-1 page three liquor store, a business that has operated in Salem for decades, since the business owners will be forced out of business by the elimination of their storefront and have been unable to find a location to move their operation. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: I. 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. • 4. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property, but not the district in general. On the basis of the above findings of fact,the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 in favor and 1 in opposition to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions. 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, code ordinances and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 4. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit before starting any construction. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to,the Planning Board. Special Permit Granted //� U ( mzl� July 14, 2004 Nina Cohen CsC�,� 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 or record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • 9 CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS a BOARD OF APPEAL CII'Y OF SALEM..MA 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLO_O.R CLERK'S OFFICE SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 •STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 ,1004 SEP 21 P I: 58 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARK STEVENS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 FAIRVIEW ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on September 15, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Bonnie Belair, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Helides and Edward Moriarty. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from front yard setbacks to a farmers porch for the property located at 4 Fairview Road located in an R-1 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and • structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner is seeking a Variance from front yard setback to construct a farmer's porch. 2. Plans were submitted showing the proposed porch to be constructed. 3. Councillor O'Keefe and Kevin Harvey spoke in favor of this petition. 4. There was no opposition to this petition. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARK STEVENS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 FAIRVIEW ROAD-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. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit before beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Inspection. Variance Granted September 15, 2004 ward oriarty Board of Appeal • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIITY 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 day 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 • • v�.co CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEM, ge BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK S OFFICE '4 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MA 01970 • gMlRer TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 �I00U MAR STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. 24 P 2-- 34 MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 FORT AVENUE A hearing on this petition was held on March 17, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides, Joseph Barbeau 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 replace existing underground cables, construct a single story control building and add ancillary equipment at the existing substation located at the Salem Harbor Generating Plant, the substation and plant are located industrial zone and all work will be inside the existing substation fence for the property located at 24 Fort Avenue I. 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 NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 FORT AVENUEI page two 1. Petitioner New England Power Company (NEP) is the operator of the electric substation on property owned by US Generating New England at 24 Fort Ave. To improve overall operation of the substations within the switchyard, New England Power seeks permission to replace existing protection and supervisory control systems within the substations and to upgrade some electrical devices and cables associated with the substations. 2. In order to house these P & C systems a new 38 ft. x 60 ft. control Ihouses will be built and a 100 kw emergency generator will be installed in and enclosure within the switchyard. All work will be done inside the existing substation fence. 3. As grounds for its petition, New England Power states that the proposed work is intended to improve operations of the existing substation, which will have a positive impact on the reliability of the electric grid serving the community of Salem and surrounding communities. The proposed building will be located between the existing substation building and the generating plant, and cannot be viewed from either Fort Ave or the harbor. .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 in favor and 0 in opposition, 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 shell be done per the.plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and safety shall be Strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction Special Permit Granted March 17 2004 Nina Cohen, Chairman • Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17, of MGL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this.decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL c • �' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR �4,ylryg<3 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 n c n� rn r < DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM HENEY REQUESTING A VARIANR- �cn FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 GARDNERSTREET R-2N N cn Cr or Tm A hearing of this petition was held on October 20, 2004 with the following Board D 3 Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Edward Moriarty, Richard o m3 Dionne acid Stephen Pinto. Notice of this hearing was sent to abutters and others and w notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordancP with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petition is requesting a Variance to allow an existing curb cut to be used for a second driveway for the property located at 14 Gardner Street 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 exist which especially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, • buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise,to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner, William Heney representing the homeowners, David and Victoria Cote is requesting a Variance to allow for a second driveway that has an existing curb cutin place. 2. Petitioner states that Mrs. Cote has a disability which necessitates the need for a second driveway. Mrs. Cote is sight impaired and requires the location of the second driveway because she is unable to negotiate the original driveway with her condition. Mrs. Cote is blind in one eye and therefore has no peripheral vision. The original driveway is narrow and against the side of the house. Petitioner further states that the second driveway is a necessity and the original driveway creates a hardship for her to utilize. • • DECISIONOF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM HENEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 GARDNER STREET . _ R-2 page two ~< o m n �O 3 The petitioner supplied a letter in support of his proposal for a Variance that wa3 N signed by thirteen neighbors. cro> T'n D -"a 4. The direct abutter, the Scialdoni family were opposed to this second driveway.o m 3 The car would be parked very close to their house and would be right under th(W v Bedrooms subjecting them to fumes and exhaust from the car. o 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 I 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 20, 2004 ;� �✓1vN(( �; Bonnie Belair �' Board of Appea `sw' • • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 of Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal o C) 0 • o r- C:) NJ N cr o� D Tr„ w o D • �a CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTSC" Y 01= SAL[11, MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE p 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MA 01970 • ��"t'- rTEL. (978) 745-9595 9�mr+aWL 9846 FAX (978) 740- 1004 . MAR 23 P 2� 53 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH CAMILO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 GLENDALE STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on March 17, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belair and Joseph Barbeau. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 number of stories to add a bathroom for the property located at 10 Glendale Street located in a 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 Joseph Camilo presented the petition, which is based on his desire to construct a third floor bathroom. 2. The property is an existing 2 family. 3. In response to a question on the amount of on site parking the petitioner responded that up to 6 cars could park on site. 4. Roger Beaulieu of 14 Glendale Street wanted to see the plans, as did other neighbors in attendance. After viewing the plans, Beauliew stated that he has no objection. 5. Judy Beauliew inquired if the property would remain as apartments or would Convert to condominium ownership. The petitioner responded that it would • remain as apartments at the present time. I I I I • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH CAMILO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 GLENDALE STREET R-1 page two 6. Joseph Kervin of 21 Glendale St asked why this was needed? The petitioner said that it is part of a general renovation of the property. 7. Tim Van Wey of 30 Ocean Ave expressed concern over the number of stories and bedrooms, and the narrow dead end street, which cannot handle a lot of on street parking. 8. Plans were shown of the proposed project. 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. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 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. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. Variance Granted March 17, 2004 • Nicholas Helides Board of Appeal, Member • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIITY 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 day date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ® BOARD OF APPEAL (;IT-Y• OF SAL H., MA 120 WAS STREET, 3RDFLOOR GLERIt-S OF IEE- SALEM, MA 0 1 • TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. 1 MAYOR 2004 JUN 22 A 10: 02' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SOPHIACO SIGN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 GOODHUE STREET A hearing on this petition was held on June 16, 2004 with the following Board Members present;Nina Cohen Chairman, Bonnie Belair,Nicholas Helides, Stephen Harris and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from Salem Sign Ordinance to install 2 signs for the property located at 12 Goodhue Street. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures 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 plane,makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner Sophiaco Signs represented by Fred Savoaro was requesting a Variance from the height restriction pertaining to the installation of a sign to be attached to the newly constructed building at 12 Goodhue Street. 2. There was no opposition to the Variance however, a representative of the Federal St. Neighborhood Association and the Ward 2 Councillor Mike Sosnowski, recommended the Zoning Board's decision include a condition that a letter from Denise McClure approving the sign as the plans that were submitted. • 3. The sign will be placed on the building at 35 feet instead of the required 25 foot height allowed by the Salem Sign Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SOPHIACO SIGN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 GOODHUE STREET page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist when especially affect the subject property but not he District. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: • 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature, ordinance, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including but not limited, to the Planning Board. 4. A letter to be received from Denise McClure stating that the sign is the one that was approved as per the plans that were submitted. 5. There shall be no illumination to the sign beyond 11:00 p.m Variance Granted June 16, 2004 Stephen arris PA)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 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 • • v�:co CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTSCIT.Y OF .SqL _ g ® BOARD OF APPEAL CL'ER-F( ,MA 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR s SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 )p�� FAX (978) 740.9846 1 ;2bP STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. 39 , MAYOR. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAMELA & RHETT ROCHNA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 31-35/35-37 HANCOCK STREET R2 A hearing on this petition was held on February 18, 2004, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Hellides and Joseph Barbeau. 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 from Section 7-3, off —street parking to allow a one=entrahce driJeway t6­91/2 feet wide for the property located at 31-35135-37 Hancock 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. The Petitioner's appeared and represented themselves at the hearing. 2. Plans were submitted showing the proposed driveway. 3. Councillor Kevin Harvey and Joan Lovely spoke in favor of the petition. 4. A petition was submitted with 20 names in favor of the petition. 5. A number of abutters opposed the petition citing fire hazards and noise as well as pollution concerns. • • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAMELA & RHETT ROCHNA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 31-35/35-37 HANCOCK STREET R3 page two 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 FEBRUARY 18, 2004 Richard Dionne SCr`�� Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have-passed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. • Board of Appeal (o CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MA O 1970 , ,�. C") e' .TEL (978) 745-9595 a �W' FAx (978) 740-9846 r� arri STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. Z X-n MAYOR yi(n w— D 7k3 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JACOB AKERS REQUESTING A VARIANCE ANDS m:3 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 38 HARBOR STREET R-3 N D A hearing on this petition was held January 21,2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Stephen Harris, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Helides 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 extend existing 2 family to a 3 unit building and a Variance from parking requirements for the property located at 38 Harbor Street located in a R-3 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 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 JACOB AKERS REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 38 HARBOR STREET R-3 • page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after reviewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Petitioner Jacob Akers appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. A petition was submitted with 20 names in favor of this petition. 3. Mr. Akers would like to expand his 2 family unit to a 3 family. Petitioner also seeks Variance from the parking requirements. 4. There was no opposition. 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. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing Structure. • 6. Petition shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JABOC AKERS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT ,NAD VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 38 HARBOR STREET R-3 page three Special Permit & Variance Granted January 21 , 2004 Stephen Harris Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the 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 MASSACHUSETT5Lf BOARD OF APPEAL CLERKSE •E MA 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM OFF'C SALEM, MA 01970 • '" TEL. (978) 745-9595 �phma FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USSOVICZ, JR. 1004 MAR -3 MAYOR p 2` 7 ' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM POINT RENTAL PROPERTIES REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT ONE HARRISON AVENUE R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on February 18, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides 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 change existing non-conforming use to allow the construction of a Community Center for the property located at 1 Harrison Avenue located in a 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 Cl1yOFc DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM POINT RENTAL PROPERTIES CLEC 5 F CE A • REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 HARRISON AVENUE R-2 page two 1.1894 MAR - 3 p 2 31 1. Petitioner Salem Point Rental Properties seeks a Special Permit to convert an existing nonconforming one story building at One Harrison Avenue from a factory to a Community Center for the Salem Community. Petitioner, a subsidiary of the non-profit Salem Harbor Community Development Corporation, Salem Harbor CDC, plans to renovate the facility to create a locust for social service programming, meeting of community organizations and,youth services such as arts and cultural activities, education and jot training. Petitioner's presentation was made by Attorney William Quinn, James Haskell, Executive Director of Salem Harbor CDC and Mark Meche, principal of Winter Street Architects, which designed 2 Petitioner states that the proposed community center will be owned and operated by Salem Harbor CDC, which will maintain a full-time director onsite during operating hours. No off street parking is currently available at the site, nor was any provided during the 25 years that it was used as a manufacturing facility with 25-30 employees. The community center projects daily use to be about 30 adults and 30 children. 3. Many members spoke in support of the proposed community center. Among proponents were Leoncido Sobiel Taino, President of the Point Neighborhood Association, Georgiane Callen, representing St. Andrew's Church which provided a grant-loan package of $20,000.00 toward the acquisition of the property. Lucy • Corchado, Ward 1 Councillor, Heather Picard, a Director of North Shore Community Action Program which seeks to run programs for Salem residents at the community center, Domingo Dominguez, a business owner, Nestor Grullo, President of VOCES job training organization, Victoria Gonzales, a NSCAP Board Member, David Ramsay, a neighborhood landlord, Ivan Penn, a Salem State College student, Rocco Canitillo, a parent, Marcus Ortiz, an employee of Salem Harbor CDC and Point resident Juan Carlor Hernandez Vega, Director of Salem Cyberspace which officers computer instruction for teens at a site on Congress Street, Tano Rosario, a teen coordinator from the Beverly YMCA, and residents Alcie Maria, Miichelle Meyer, Yoleny Inoa, Jose Rodrigues, Alex Baptista, Yiscleim Santos and Linda Locke. At a prior meeting held in January, the project was supported by longtime resident and volunteer Jean Gastrnguary and by Art McDonald of 193 Lafayette Street. A petition signed by 550 residents in support of the proposal was submitted to the Board. 4. Speaking in opposition to the proposed use were Lola Eanes, owner of the abutting property at 3-5 Harrison Ave., John Martin, 28 Leavitt St. and Raymond St. Pierre of 58 Salem Street. Opponents supported the notion of a community center but not the proposed location. Concerns of opponents centered around three issues: lack of parking facilities, traffic difficulties caused by increased use of the building and noise. Jean Martin of 28 Leavitt St provided the Board with an impact study estimating the number of off-street parking spaces needed in the area around the property. 5. Proponents secured verbal permission for the use of a parking lot at St. Joseph's Church during afternoon and evening hours • when the lot is not needed for services, church functions or bingo, and they agreed to post a police notice on CITY OFSALE . DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SALEM POINT RENTALS REQUESTING A' ; CLERK'S OF tj CE A • SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 HARRISON AVENUE page three Palmer Street, to inform visitors of the availability of off-street parking aYtri Joseph's lot. 3 P'2' 31 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 in favor and 1 in opposition, 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 shell be done per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and safety shall be Strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction 5. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 7. Hours of operations are between 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday 8. Petitioner is to create a sign showing parking in St. Joseph's lot. 9. A letter is required from the Archdioceses indicating their permission to let them use the parking lot. 10. The Board of Appeal will review the petition in 2 years. Special Permit Granted /!/�✓� l G� �l C�2 �`�C' �� February 18, 2004 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • a A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17, of 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 Cr—) t r. -< M s ;0o 9 :T o r Trn • N m3 J • 0 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEM.'MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR '7IN9 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 :1004 DEC -3 A q: 45. MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL FERREGAMO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 407-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1 A hearing of this petition was held on November 22, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Edward Moriarty, Richard Dionne and Steven Pinto. Notice of this hearing was sent to 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 use of a lot containing 109,344 sq ft for 27 townhouse dwelling in 7 buildings, and Variances for more than one dwelling on lot, minimum lot area per dwelling, minimum distance between buildings on lot and Variances from parking regulations to allow exterior parking for the property located at 407-419 Highland Avenue 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 exist which especially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Paul Ferragamo through this attorney, George Atkins, Jr. Esq, seeks permission to build a 27 unit condominium development at 407-419 Highland Ave, in a single-family residential zoning district. Petitioner presented a site plan showing the location of the townhouses in seven 2 '/2 story buildings with attached garages along a new roadway. 2. Access to the development will be exclusively from Highland Ave. The proposed plan, which will be reviewed by the Planning Board, calls for petitioner to install a left-turning lane at the existing traffic signal on Highland Ave. at Old Village • Road, allowing access from both northbound and southbound lanes on Highland Avenue. • DECISIONOF THE PETITION OF PAUL FERRAGAMO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 407-419 HIGHLAND _ AVENUE R-1 page two 3. Under the proposed plan, a second access road to the development will be created leading to Clark St. This new road will be for emergency use only. 4. In support of his petition, Attorney Atkins presented a memorandum of law arguing that the Zoning Board of Appeal might find in favor of the issuance of a variance for the particular use sought, pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, when the petitioner met the burden of demonstrating that: a. Special Conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant, and 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 this ordinance. 5. Land Engineer Scott Patrowicz of Salem presented drawings showing the topography of the site, which is sloped and sharply hilly. Rock ledge that is presented on the Highland Ave portion of the site will be blasted and removed • where necessary to allow construction on a grade of no more than 4%. 6. Traffic Engineer Kim Azavardian of TEEP, LLC, presented traffic assessment in which he estimated the proposed 27 condominium units would generate 18 additional trips during the morning peak hour and 21 additional trips during the evening peak hour. 7. Architect Harry Gunderson of 20 Central St., Salem presented elevation drawings showing the appearance of the proposed townhouse buildings as viewed from adjacent homes on Barnes Circle, Clark St. and Highland Ave. the sloping topography will require adjacent townhouses to be higher than their neighbors, but according to Mr. Gunderson the proposed plan represents the best use of the existing topography to create a workable layout for site development. 8. Five variances are needed. These are: a variance to allow 27 dwelling units in a single family residential district, a variance from minimum lot area per dwelling unit to allow approximately 4000 sf per unit, a variance for more than one dwelling on a lot, a variance from the minimum distance between buildings on a lot, and a variance from parking regulations to allow exterior parking spaces for each unit to be located behind the interior garage space. 9. As grounds for the requested variances, petitioner represents that the special conditions especially affecting this parcel are threefold. First, the parcel is on Highland Ave., a state highway on which limited access is encouraged. Second, the parcel has an uneven slope and third, the requirement to blast and remove • the naturally occurring ledge makes development for residential purposes costly, risky and expensive. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL FERRAGAMO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 407-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1 page three 10. The proposed development was universally opposed by its neighbors, many of whom attended this meeting and also had met previously with the developer. 11. Many neighbors argued that petitioner did not demonstrate that he was unable to develop the land for single-family use. According to Ed Niskowski of 7 Clark St., each of the difficulties described by the developer also affects other properties on Clark St, but the difficulties were not insurmountable as those properties were successfully developed. 12. Paulina Alexander of 12 Clark St. stated that water pressure at this neighborhood was very poor due to an outdated pumping station that the City of Salem had failed to update, and current capacity could not sustain the additional density of the proposed development. City Councillors Joan Lovely, Jean Pelletier and Joseph O'Keefe confirmed that the observations about water pressure conditions were widely shared by residents of the neighborhood. 13. Pat Ritkowski of 3 Clark St. stated that the rush hour traffic on Highland Ave was frequently very slow, and she observed that the traffic study significantly understated the likely impact of the proposed development. She was seconded by many of those attending, including Councillor at Large Kevin Harvey, who • stated that the proposed density was far greater than would generally be allowed in a single family district without rezoning. 14. Richard Bingham of 22 Barnes Circle stated that the site is currently surrounded by single-family homes built on topography very similar to that of the petitioner and that without objection seven single-family homes could be built on the parcel. An increased density would diminish housing values, he feared. 15. Chris Lane of 403 Highland Ave. stated that he has observed a great many traffic accidents on Highland Ave. due to the high speed at which traffic may pass on this part of the road. He expressed concern that the increase in traffic flow may increase the number of traffic accidents on this part of the road. 16. Two members of the Zoning Board, Attorney Ed Moriarty and Attorney Nina Cohen, stated that they felt the petitioner had failed to demonstrate hardship necessary for a variance to issue in this single—family residential district. 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. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL FERRAGAMO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 407-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1 page four 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially hardship derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 0 in favor and 5 in opposition to grant the requested variances. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. Variance Denied November 22, 2004 ) Nina Cohen, Chairman(SUv_� Board of Appeal • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance of Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • 4. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY 0 SALEM.,MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 , 2001, AUG ^ MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9848 9 AUG LQ P 3: 08 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL LUTRZYKOWSKI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 HILLSIDE AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on August 18, 2004 with the following Board Members present;Nina Cohen Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Stephen Harris,Nicholas Helides and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from Section 7-19 Off-Street Parking to install a second driveway for the property at 5 Hillside 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 structures 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 plane, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Michael Lutrzykowski appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. Petitioner requests a Variance to install a second driveway to accommodate parking for a second vehicle as is necessary for handicapped usage. 3. A petition was submitted with 7 names in support for this petition. 4. There was no opposition to this petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION MICHAEL LUTRZYSOWSKI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 HILLSIDE AVENUE R-1 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented the Board of Appeals finds as follows; 1. Special conditions exist when especially affect the subject property but not he District. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature, ordinance,codes and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. Variance Granted August 18, 2004 Bonnie Belair ak8 uhf Board of Appe • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL LUTRZYKOWSKI REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 HILLSIDE 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 date of Sling 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 SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CITY OF SALEM. PSA CLERKS OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • �� - <<a` SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAx (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. 2004 MAY -U P 2: 5l MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHELLE BARLING REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 HORTON STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on April 21, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belair and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from the number of stories allowed to construct a third dormer for the property located at 16 Horton Street located in a 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 Michelle Barling is the owner of a two family home at 16 Horton Street in a R-2 district. She seeks zoning relief to raise the roofline by adding a dormer to increase living space on the third floor of the residence. 2. Total building height will not be altered. No additional living units will be created by the alteration after remodeling the building will have two units. 3. Two neighbors commented on the petition. Ms. Alice Dechene of 19 Horton Street said that she opposed allowing the building to become a three-family dwelling. Ms. Terri Jellison of 17 Horton Street opposed creating an in-law apartment and also favored keeping the height restrictions on the building. • CITY R CLERK'S OFFICE 16 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHELLE BARLING REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 HORTON STREET R-2 page two x .20011 MAI -4 P 2. 59 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. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans submitted and approved by the Building • Commissioner. 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 or site work. 5. Exterior finishes shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted April 21, 2004 Nina Cohen, L/ (x J��lc r`\ Board of Appeal, Member J • CITY OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of.tM4 MAY -q P 2: 59 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A; and shall be filed within 20 day 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 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 3 t. ,� 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • 1_, , SALEM, MA 01970 -fj% TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740.9846 STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. CZ MAYOR o C-» z mo o � DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AMANDO LEZANNA REQUESTING A VARIACE am FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 HOWARD STREET R-2 D M-3 rn.3 A hearing on this petition was held on October 20 2004 with the following Board o v Members present: Nina Cohen, Bonnie Belair, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto and o Edward Moriarty. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 number of stories to allow a third floor addition for the property located at 24 Howard 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 is seeking a Variance from the number of stories to allow a third floor addition. 2. Plans were submitted showing the proposed addition to be constructed. 3. A letter in support of the petition was submitted by Steve Harris. 4. There was no opposition to this petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AMANDO LEZANNE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 HOWARD 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. o 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve CIS, �o substantial hardship to the petitioner. ,. >-0�N w 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public goo �'M and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or =:Z the purpose of the Ordinance. 3 O D Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant tie Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit before beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Inspection. 7. Property not to be used as a three units. Variance Granted October 20, 2004 Richard Dionne C SC' '`� Board of Appeal J • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIITY CLERK CP Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the o Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 day z m 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 Spepi�I 0%,tn Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing a or- certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has beer>iled, 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 @the ,y owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. o Board of Appeal • • c,.ry OP �o! CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS ��F4/(5, 4<,E BOARD OF APPEAL LIP)&Zct , 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR E. SALEM, MA 01970TEL. (978) 745-9595 .I�44�. • �Q'Nn�"'" 26 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. 38: MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL RIORDEN REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 199 JEFFERSON AVENUE R3 A hearing on this petition was held February 18, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Stephen Harris, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Helides and Joseph Barbeau. Notice of the hearing was.sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Variance and Special Permit from lot area per dwelling, front, side and rear setbacks to construct a second unit for the property located at 199 Jefferson Avenue located in a R-3 zone. The provisions the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to the request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 (j), which provides as follows: • Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits. for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extent expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests 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 MICHAEL RIORDEN REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 199 JEFERSON AVENUE R-3 page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after reviewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Michael Riorden seeks dimensional Variances and a Special Permit for a change in use to allow construction of two residential units at 199 Jefferson Ave, where for many years a hair salon operated. The site owner, John Fegone, agreed to support development of two residential units, which is in an R-3 zone. 2. Petitioner submitted a plot plan, architectural drawings showing the proposed addition and renovation, and a chart indicating the zoning relief needed. The proposed construction requires a Variance of 1250 square feet from the requirement of 3,500 square feet of area per unit, and Variance to allow lot coverage of 53% and a Variance of 4.0 feet from rear yard setback requirement of 30" The existing building would be altered internally, but not as to footprint, does not meet side yard or rear yard setback requirements. 3. The proposed addition and renovations was supported by abutter Richard Boucher of 190 Ocean Avenue and City Councillors Joan Lovely, Joseph O'Keefe, and Kevin Harvey. 4. There was no opposition to this petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the • hearings the 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, 5 in favor and 0 in opposition 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: DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL RIORDEN REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 199 JEFFERSON AVENUE R-3 page three 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. Petition shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having Jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. Special Permit & Variance Granted February 18, 2004 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed; that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • Board of Appeal % CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS CffY OF SALEM; MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR �OXB SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 100q"DEC,28- P 1.- 22� DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE PAPAGIANNES REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROERTY LOCATED AT 293 JEFFERSON AVENUE B-1 A hearing on this petition was held on December 15, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne,Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belair and Edward Moriarty. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 request a Special Permit for a Change of Use to go from a Consignment Shop to a Coffee Shop for the property located at 293 Jefferson Avenue located in a B-1 zone. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3 (2) (8)which provide as follows: • Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion, of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,provided however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare for the City's inhabitants. A. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. B. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 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 61 the purpose of the ordinance... • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE PAPAGIANNE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 293 JEFFERSON AVENUE B-1 page two The Board of Appeal, after carefid.consideration.of the evidence-presented, and after --�- viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact. 1. Petitioners' George Papagiannes & Michael Papagiannes, occupants of the premises and property located at 293 Jefferson Ave in a B-1, said property and premises owned by Steven Aggannis, seeks a Special Permit from the Board of Appeals for a change in use of said property and premises to go from a Consignment to a Coffee Shop, pursuant to Section 94 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 2. The existing premises contain a consignment shop with off-street parking spaces. 3. Petitioner's purpose to convert the existing structure designed for said consignment shop into an upscale coffee shop, providing flavored coffees,juices, cappuccino and sandwich wraps on a sit-down, as well as a take-out basis. 4. The Petitioners represented that they have a business background running similar upscale or specialty-type coffee shops in the Boston area, and would bring this experience and expertise to bear on the proposed change in use. • 5. The building would have off-street parking for sit-down and take-out business. 6. Testimony was provided by Ward Councillor,John Pelletier, indicating that the building was constructed in the early to mid-60's by his father, and had been used in the past as an insurance agency, barber shop and a sub shop. 7. Petitioners presented a plan indicating seating for up to approximately 16 patrons, together with equipment and facilities to provide the type of food and beverage referenced in the testimony. 8. The Petitioners represented that no frying or fryolators would be on the premises, and that all equipment would be electric, including electric ovens, electric grills and an electric convection oven, for preparation of food on premises, including muffins. 9. The coffee shop would not provide a broad menu of food fare,would not be a restaurant, and would likely have hours of operation limited to 6 or perhaps 7 days a week, between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 10. The Petitioners represented that the operation would be done in a good and clean manner, ant that all trash would be appropriately stored on premises in a dumpster at the rear of the premises. 11. The current owner of the premises, Mr. Steven Aggannis, represented that he would be actively involved in the development of the proposed coffee shop, and would assist the Petitioners in clearly marking parking spaces, clearly making and/or creating appropriate berms between the off-street parking and Jefferson Ave., and otherwise attempt to make entry into and exist from the premises as • safe and sound as possible, given the proximity of the premises to a busy Jefferson Ave • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE PAPAGIANNES REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 293 JEFFERSON AVENUE B-I page three 12. Councillor Pelletier was not opposed to the change in use from a consignment shop to a coffee shop, but did express concerns,which Petitioners promised to take into consideration and address and resolve, about the need for care in terms of entry to and exit from the premises abutting a very busy portion of Jefferson Avenue. 13. Councillor O'Keefe,an abutting Ward Councillor, did express concerns about additional traffic from the premises onto a busy Jefferson Ave., which concern again was acknowledged by the property owner, Mr. Aggannis, and the Petitioners, who acknowledged that the location was a good one for a coffee shop as planned, but that care would be taken in the design of the entrance/exit way to minimize adverse traffic associated with the use of the premises, and entry to and egress from the premises onto Jefferson Avenue. 14. Under the circumstances, the Board determined that the change in use from a consignment shop to a coffee shop was permissible under the Salem Zoning Ordinance in general, and in particular, was in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, as required under Section 9-4, Subsection A. 15. Under the circumstances, the Board further found that the use of the property and • premises as changed, namely from a consignment shop to a coffee shop as described in testimony and in plans submitted with said Petition, will not depart from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and the property and premises prior use or degree of use, and that such building or use is neither increased in volume nor area unreasonably within the purpose and intent of the Ordinance. 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. 4. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property, but not the district in general. • . DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE PAPAGINNES REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 293 JEFFERSON AVENUE B-1 page four On the basis of the above findings of fact, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions. I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, code ordinances and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. All construction shall be done as per the plans submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 5. Petitioner shall secure a dumpster on the premises. • 6. Petitioner shall meet with City Councillors and Salem Police Traffic with regards in the care of entry and exit from the premises. 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction, including but not limited to the Health Department. 8. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. Special Permit Granted December 15, 2004 _ &rcij �(,� Edward Moriarty SC Board of Appeal 0 • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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.oLthe.City Clerk..Eursuant,to-MGL Chapter 40A-Section-141;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 or record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTSCITY OF SALEM,-MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFf10E • r 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 404 OCT 28 P 3: 00 , MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEPHEN LIVERMORE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16-18 JUNIPER AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on October 20, 2004 with the following Board Members present;Nina Cohen Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Richard Dionne. Edward Moriarty and Steven Pinto. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 number of stories to allow a third floor addition for the property at 16-18 Juniper 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 structures 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 plane, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner, Stephen Livermore, owner and occupant of the two-family premises and property located at 16-18 Juniper Avenue in an R-1 zone seeks permission to construct a third floor addition on said premises,which proposed construction would require a Variance from the Salem Zoning Ordinance for the number of stories allowed in said district, specifically, to allow a third floor addition. 2. The specific dimensional zoning request Variance would permit a new 13 foot shed dormer to be constructed on the premises, as indicated in the plans filed • herewith, in excess of the Ordinance definition limiting residences to 2 % stories. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEPHEN LIVERMORE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16-18 JUNIPER AVENUE R-1 page two 3. The new proposed shed dormer/Mansard Dormer will not increase the existing building height,will not affect ocean views from any abutting premises, and is expressly within the maximum zoning height allowed in said district. Said maximum height being 35 feet and 2 % stories. Said proposed addition being 33 feet, 8 inches, but 3 stories. 4. Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that there are Special circumstances that especially affect this property, but do not affect the property within said zoning district in general. 5. Said special circumstances include the enlargement of the attic space at 16-I8 Juniper Ave for a new bedroom,pursuant to the plans attached herewith,which impacts on one aspect of the Zoning Ordinance, Height Restriction of not more • than 2 '/2 stories,but without affecting the overall Zoning District Height Restriction of 35 feet. 6. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would cause substantial Hardship, insofar as the request to enlarge the premises at existing unit at 16-18 Juniper Ave is necessary to meet the needs of the growing Livermore family. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance does not allow for this type of necessary social and familial expansion. 7. Desirable Zoning Relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, insofar as the new dormer will not extend beyond the footprint and/or the ridge of the existing residence pursuant to the plans attached herewith, and said new dormer will not affect the ocean and/or other views from any of the abutting properties. 8. No neighbors spoke in opposition to, or were on written record as in opposition to this project. 9. Under the circumstances, literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to number of stories would deny the Petitioner reasonable use of the premises and create a substantial hardship-financial and/or otherwise. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEPHEN LIVERMORE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16-18 JUNIPER AVENUE R-1 page three 10. Furthermore, desirable relief may further be granted without substantial detriment to the neighborhood and public good and without derogating from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented the Board of Appeals finds as follows; 1. Special conditions exist when especially affect the subject property but not he District. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the • Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature, ordinance,codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. Variance Granted October 20,2004 ��� Edward Moriarty Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF STEPHEN LIVERMORE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16-18 JUNIPER AVENUE R-1 page four A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days 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 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSE.TIT's3F SALEM. MA 3� BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. FAX (978) 740-9846 .2004 MAY -5 P 1: 55 MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SOLANCE MARCHAND REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 159 LAFAYETTE STREET R-3 A hearing on this petition was held on April 21, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belair and Stephen Harris. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to alter the condition of existing Special Permit granted in June of 1985 to eliminate the owner occupied restriction on the fifth unit for the property located at 159 Lafayette Street R-3. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3 0), which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land;structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner was granted a Special Permit in June of 1985 with one of the conditions being the premises be owner occupied. 2. The petitioner now would like to alter the condition to eliminate the owner occupied restriction if she would ever like to sell the property. • CITY OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE Ve DECSION OF THE PETITION OF SOLANCE MARCHAND REQUESTING AOSPEA�IA[ P 155 PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 159 LAFAYETTE STREET R-3 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the Neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience and Welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3 in favor and 2 in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit is denied. Special Permit Denied April 21, 2004 Richard Dionne, Member Board of Appeal J A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the the City Clerk that 20 days have elapses and no appeal has been filed, or that, it 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 i a BOARD OF APPEAL • .p 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 N CD STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 Z fr*1� CD ;:0p W Tj O!' DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JACKIE CL LEE REQUESTING A SPECIAL D PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 321-333 - m,3 LAFAYETTE STREET B-1 CD n A hearing on this petition was held on October 20, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto, Bonnie Belair and Edward Moriarty. 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. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from front and side setbacks, building height and parking requirement and a Special Permit to expand a non-conforming structure to construct 6 dwelling units for the property located at 321-333 Lafayette Street B-1. The provisions of 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 94, grant Special Permit 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 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. • N C-) p DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JACKIE CL LEE REQUESTING A SPECIAL 1 PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 321-333 0 M o LAFAYETTE STREET B-1 6 x„ � Ncn page two w o,D r- D Vim, C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the districirgr Ma D of the Ordinance. — The Board of Appeal,after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after reviewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner through his attorney William Quinn,Esq., requests dimensional variances,a parking variance and a special permit to add two stories and 6 residential units to an existing nonconforming one-story building and lot located at 321-333 Lafayette Street. 2. Petititioner's property is located in a B-1 District in an Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The B-1 District or Neighborhood Business Districts are defined in the Zoning Ordinance as follows: • Neighborhood business districts are intended to be those areas containing use meeting daily shopping needs for the convenience of adjacent residential areas. Zoning Ordinance Article III Section 3-1 (5) A multifamily dwelling is a permitted use in the B-1 District. Section 5-2 (d)(1). 3. Petitioner's one-story building currently houses a restaurant, a convenience mart and a pizza shop. It is bordered on three sided by one-and two-family residences. Adjacent to petitioner's property is a three-story building with a hair salon on the first floor and one or more dwelling units above. Across the street lies the campus of Salem State College. 4. Petitioner seeks to add two additional stories to create a six-unit residential condominium above the existing building. Because the proposed development would exceed the district height limitation by 3 feet,petitioner seeds a variance for height. Front and side setbacks would not change; these are currently nonconforming due to the grandfathered status of the property, but the expansion of the existing nonconforming structure is by special permit. 5. There are 34 parking spaces in the lot encompassing the property. Since the total available spaces still lags the number required by 5 spaces,petitioner seeks a parking variance for the mixed-use development. Petitioner intends to set aside 9 spaces for the use of the condominium residents and dedicate the remaining places for the three existing businesses. Two spaces are currently used for dumpsters; one of these would be removed to make additional parking in the lot. Petitioner would obtain the approval of the City of Salem Planning Board with respect to issues arising from parking, traffic and site layout. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JACKIE CL LEE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 321-333 LAFAYETTE STREET B-1 o cn page three =i z rn 6. Petitioner would operate the commercial businesses on the fust floor, adding`, -� residential uses for the two upper stories. He met with abutting business oars q D and homeowners and received input from his Ward Councilor and other D 7 Councilor's,and sought review from the City of Salem Planning DepartmetkL-on the scale and appearance of the proposed addition. on 7. To reduce the likelihood that the dwelling units would be occupied by groups of college students,petitioner agreed to limit the size of the units to 2 bedrooms. He also agreed to insert a private restriction into the condominium documents to prohibit the use and occupation of the units by more than 2 unrelated adults. 8. Architect Ray Guertin presented plans for the proposed addition, showing a street scape that follows the design of the surrounding buildings and uses design elements from the neighborhood. The plan provides for HVAC and exhaust on the rear of the building,to lessen the impact of noise and cooking smells on the neighborhood. 9. The proposed development was strongly opposed by neighbors. Parking was a . major issue in the university neighborhood,as were storage of rubbish and overuse of the property. Neighbors worried that the dense nature of the development and lack of amenities such as laundry facilities, landscape space and views would attract transient owners and lower the value of their homes by creating an unpleasant development. Among the neighbors who spoke in In opposition were Diane Rafferty, 7 Bristol St., Caroline Berth, 26 Wisteria St. Kathleen Bartlett, 335 Lafayette St, David Goggin, 300 Lafayette St., Katrina Webster, 6 Plymouth St.,Angie Cniz, 12 Clifton Ave., Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar St. Donna Woods,David Buckoff, 4 Bristol St. and Rich Ostergerg, 17 West Ave. 10. City Councilors Matt Veno of Ward 5,Arthur Sargent(Councilor at Large), and Joseph O'Keef of Ward 7 opposed the development. Mr. O'Keefe voiced concern Not just about overcrowding, but also about fire vehicles' access to the new units. 11. Michael Numerovsky of 327 Lafayette St. supported the proposal for new units on the grounds that improvements to be building are badly needed, but hard to justify financially. Saying the status quo is a poor option, he noted the parking lot at this address is used for drinking parties at night when the businesses have close. 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 do not exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JACKIE CL LEE REQUESTING SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 321-333 LAFAYETTE STREET B-1 page four c ca 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not involve z r < substantial hardship on the petitioner. ::a o w rncn 3. The relief requested cannot granted without substantial detriment to the pt lic good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent ole district or the purpose of the ordinance. 77 4. The Special Permit granted cannot 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, 0 in favor and 5 in opposition to grant the relief requested. SPECIAL PERMIT&VARIANCE DENIED OCTOBER 20, 2004 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 or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • .�o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 0I1 Y OF SALEM. MA ry 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S ®FIDE SALEM, MA 01970 • MILfD�'- TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. VICZ, JR. ;1004 JUN 21 A ID 58 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JAMES D'AMICO REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 332 LAFAYETTE STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on June 16, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Richard Dionne,Nicholas Helides 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 New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit for a change of use from a photographer's studio to a Real Estate Office and a Variance from off street parking regulations to allow six parking spaces for the property located at 332 Lafayette Street R-2. The provisions of 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 Permit 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 request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: A. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. B. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise,to the petitioner.. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JAMES D'AMICO REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 332 LAFAYETTE STREET R-2 page two C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after reviewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner is the prospective purchaser of a Victorian era home at 332 Lafayette St. The site owner, Louis Goutzos,has operated a photography studio on the first floor since being granted a Special Permit some years ago by the Zoning Board of Appeal. The second floor houses a residential apartment, and there is off-street parking for six cars on site. 2. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit for a change in use to convert the entire building to a residential real estate brokerage office for the company he owns, Century 21 Realty. He proposes to install offices for 10 independent brokers; who will do • much of their business off-site,either at home or viewing listings. Onsite there will be I fulltime and 1 part-time employee. Office hours will be 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday—Friday, and 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. 3. Very little activity will take place at the Century 21 offices. Clients typically use the office to drop off papers or meet briefly with their broker, and training sessions that involve the entire staff take place at the company's Lynnfield or Peabody offices. 4. Petitioner's request was supported by Matthew Veno, Ward 5 City Councillor, who stated that the proposed use was very low impact and would benefit the City. Petitioner's proposal was not opposed by a neighbor in attendance, Georgann Hallett of 326 Lafayette Street. Signage for the new business would be approved by the Signage Committee of the Salem Planning Department. 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 Ordinance would involve substantial substantial hardship on the petitioner. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JAMES D'AMICO REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 332 LAFAYETTE STREET R-2 page three 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 4. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted, 5 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Salem Sign Committee. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. SPECIAL PERMIT& VARIANCE GRANTED JUNE 16, 2004 ✓� � /yG�„�Q" NinaCochairman Board of Appeal • .�o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS - BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MA 01970 • TEL. (978) 745.9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR G Otn DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SCOTT ENGLEHARDT REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 LEACH STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held July 14, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Bonnie Belair, Joseph Barbeau, Stephen Harris and Edward Moriarty.. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 a Variance from front yard setback to construct a 2nrd floor addition for the property located at 17 Leach Street in an R-2 zone. The provisions the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to the request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 (j), which provides as follows: • Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits. for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extent expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests 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 SCOTT ENGLEHARDT REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 LEACH STREET R-2 page two c-, The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after M. reviewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: C � 1. Petitioner Scott Englehardt is requesting a Special Permit to alter a noconfo ming CD to construct a and a Variance from the front yard setback to construct a 2ntl fVr n-it' addition. o r y 2. Plans were submitted showing the proposed construction. W_ Q 3. There was no opposition to the proposed plans. 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, 5 in favor and 0 in opposition 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. Petition shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. • 6. Exterior finishes of the construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.. . DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SCOTT ENGLEHARDT REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 LEACH STREET R-2 page three Special Permit & Variance Granted July 14, 2004 Stephen Harris Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts • General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the 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 r� c r?fl R. IN co J D ar- D ,,3 9 M. W D • CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHU6jP1?T$ SALEM: MA • a BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE Ae_ 120 WASHINGTON STREETS 3RD FLOOR NfNB SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 I1 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 .lOOU MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9848 DEC 20 P 12. 14 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARY DEVLIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 71 LEACH STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on December 15, 2004 with the following Board Members present; Nina Cohen Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty 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 yard setback and to alter a non- conforming structure to construct an open deck for the property at 71 Leach 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 structures 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 plane, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Mary Devlin, petitioner presented her petition. 2. The request is for construction of an open deck. 3. Request is functional as well as recreational. Deck will allow emergency exist from a window. 4. The requested setback is for 0.1" from side line. 5. There are 4 units in the Condominium. 6. Mary Levesque of 77 Leach Street spoke in favor of the petition. • CITY OF SALEMti:MA 6LERK'S-OF_FI E • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARY DEVLIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 71 LEACH SIQ 'P 12`. I U page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented the Board of Appeals finds as follows; 1. Special conditions exist when especially affect the subject property but not he District. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature, ordinance, codes and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 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. S. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with existing structure. 6. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Inspection. Variance Granted December 15, 2004 Nicholas Helides (SC vx� Board of Appeal • CP-Y OF SALEM MA CLERK'S°6FFIGE • - I'u tA9U DEC 20 P 12 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARY DEVLIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 71 LEACH STREET page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days 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, MASSACHUSE-tTSOF SALEM MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR lea SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 .1004 MAY 21 P b: 03 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEWIS LEGON REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT. FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 71 LEACH STREET B-2 A hearing on this petition was held on May 19, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne Joseph Barbeau 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 per Section 8-6 of the Zoning Ordinance to alter the . property from 3 residential and 1 commercial to 4 residential for the property located at 71 Leach Street B-2.. 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 • CI i Y OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEWIS LEGON REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 71 LEACH STREET B-2 page two 1004 MAY 21 P b: 03 1. Attorney Scott Grover represented the Petitioner. 2. Plans were submitted showing the 4 units and internal parking. 3. The plans are in harmony with the residential neighborhood. 4. A petition was submitted with 10 names in support of the petition. 5. Councillor Matt Veno spoke in favor of the petition. 6. 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. 4. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property, but not the district in general. On the basis of the above findings of fact, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, codes ordinances and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relate to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimension submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner and dated May 12, 2004. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing • construction, 6 Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LEWIS LEGON REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 71 LEACH STREET B-2 page three Richard Dionne CO, Board of Appeal Special Permit Granted May 19 2004 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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. C v 7O N Uj Cn ov Tr �3 m3 O D W CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETi- Y OF SA..LEM.:MA a BOARD OF APPEAL LERK'S OFrI:GE' • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 _ STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 3004.AUG"24 P -3: MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHARLES O'CONNELL REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 116-118 LEACH STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held August 18, 2004 meeting with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Stephen Harris, Bonnie Belair, Edward Moriarty and Joseph Barbeau. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. At the request of the Petitioner's Attorney, George Atkins the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice requesting a Variance from lot size and lot frontage to subdivide parcel into two (2) separate lots for the property located at 116-118 Leach Street located in an R-2 zone. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE August 18, 2004 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 • C� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS _ PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT m� 3 00 • n 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR (n RNS SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 N'y CID or- STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 380 {'� nrn MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846) �J 0- DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARK & JULIE COUGHLIN REQUESTING A r9 my VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 LEE STREET R-1 Ln A hearing on this petition was held on April 21, 2004 and continued to May 12, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belair and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from lot coverage to allow an addition to the main house and garage and a Variance from side and rear setback relief for addition and garage for the property located at 19 Lee Street located in a 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's would like to remove an existing deck to build a single-story addition at the rear of their home. They also would like to take down an existing garage and rebuild a larger 24'x75' x 41' garage that will connect directly to the house via a rear door. 2. The proposed garage will be 2.4' from the left property. It requires a variance from the Ordinance's side setback requirement. The addition will be 6' from the right property line at the furthest point and also requires a variance. The new garage extends to within 2' of the rear lot line, thus increasing an existing non- conforming as to rear yard setback. 3. The proposed building scheme exceeds the square footage allowed for coverage by about 5% or 223.25sf and petitioners also seek a variance from lot coverage. • 4. A neighbor Brian Curr of 17 Lee Street appeared to support the petition. Councillor Mike Bencal of Ward 6 also supported the petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARK& JULIE COUGHLIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 LEE STREET R-1 page two 0 On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the a Mo hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows vi> r- 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not th� nm District. „3 N C) m� 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve (: v 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per plans submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 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 or site work. 5. Exterior finishes shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Boards or Commissions having Jurisdiction including but not limited to the Planning Board. Variance Granted May 12, 2004 Nina Cohen, Board of Appeal, Member • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIITY 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 day 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 ti o cT=a v 70 Cn r9 r+t� U1 D • 0 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL L'I I y• OF( SALU4, MA 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OFFICE SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 1004 NOV 30' A 10: 23 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LAWRENCE DEVAUX REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 LINDEN STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on November 17, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Bonnie Belair, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Helides and Edward Moriarty. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from rear yard setback to construct a 12 x 13 sunroom for the property located at 15 Linden 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 to construct a one-story addition to his house at 15 Linden Street. Petitioner's house is an existing nonconforming structure that sits 28 feet from the rear property line in a district where 30' rear setbacks are required. 2. The proposed 12 x 13 addition will be flush with the rear of the present structure, thus increasing the existing nonconforming. It will extend along the right hand side of the house and connect to a new open porch that will be built of the existing side door. 3. Petitioner submitted a survey done by registered surveyor Gail L. Smith showing the proposed structural addition. 4. Petitioner stated the abutter most affected by the proposed plan, William N. Coombes of 17 Linden St. has given his approval. Mr. Coombes attended the hearing and spoke in favor of the petition. • 5. There was no opposition to this petition DECISION OF THE PETITION OFLAWRENCE DEVAUX REQUESTING A VARIANCE • FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 LINDEN 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. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans submitted. • 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit before beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Inspection. Variance Granted November 17, 2004 / /� akn, Nina Cohen Cs o -< Board of Appeal Z m� C:> =, C � O > C:)r o rn; N D W • • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIITY 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 day 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 c^1— m o �c G W �D O Or T,rn Y �1 Q r--.J N W • CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS 1 Y GF SALEMMA CLERK'S OFFI:G€' BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 1004 TANLEY J. UOCTOSOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-959$ 25 q MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DAN MADRU-MARGULIES & ASSOCIATES REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 600 LORING AVENUE B-2 A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 2004 meeting with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Stephen Harris, Bonnie Belair, Edward Moriarty and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. At the request of the Petitioner, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice requesting a Special Permit to change existing ATM drive-thru into a drive-thru teller window for the property located at 600 Loring Avenue located in an B-2 zone. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE October 20, 2004 A4 a- Sunk-) Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • Board of Appeal CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY Of SALEM. MA �v -.k BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE ✓�, • E 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MA 01970 Mqy" TEL. (978) 745.9595 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. FAX (978) 740-9846 -,,2004 JUN 2.2 A 10*.0.2 MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & KATHLEEN THERIAULT REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 88 MARLBOROUGH ROAD R-C A hearing on this petition was held on June 16, 2004 with the following Board Members present;Nina Cohen Chairman, Bonnie Belair,Nicholas Helides, Stephen Hams and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from lot size, lot width, front, side and rear setbacks to subdivide property to create a separate lot for the property located at 88 Marlborough Road located in an R-C 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 structures 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 plane, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Petitioner's were represented at the hearing by Attorney Scott Grover. 2. The petitioners would like to subdivide the lot to create a separate lot which requires the Variances for lot size, lot width, front, side and rear setback. 3. A letter was submitted in support from Councillor Leonard O'Leary and a petition with neighborhood support. 4. There was no opposition to the proposed petition. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD & KATHLEEN THERIAULT REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 88 MARLBOROUGH ROAD R-C 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: I. Special conditions exist when especially affect the subject property but not he District. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature, ordinance, codes and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 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 shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including but not limited,to the Planning Board. 8. Petitioner shall obtain pre-blast survey. Variance Granted / G� 6_� June 16, 2004 Bonnie Belair • Board of Appeal C A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 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, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF'APPEAL f 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MA 01970 - • TEL. (978).745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 C�jf STANLEY J. Y MAYOR JR. OR S DECISION OF THE PETITION OF.KELLIE & THOMAS BOGUCKI REQUESTING VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 156 MARLBOROUGH ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on March 17, 2004 with the following Board Members �S present: Nina Cohen, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belair and Joseph Barbeau. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of they hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with 9 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from minimum lot area, lot width for lot 2 to allow construction of a single family dwelling & Variance from minimum from width for lot 1 which contains an existing single family dwelling for the property located at 156 Marlborough Road located in a 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 George Atkins of 59 Federal Street appeared and represented the petitioner. 2. The petitioners.would like to subdivide the property into 2 lots. The variances required are minimum lot are, lot width for lot 2 to allow construction of a single family. Lot 1, which contains an existing single family needs variances from minimum lot width 3. An abutter Francis Gagnon of 6 Buena Vista had concerns regarding the blasting. He had sustained prior damage to his property when blasting was previously done at another location. • 4. Arrangements were made to have the abutters notified when blasting is going to occur. C/TY CC FRS S oFF� Mq ac- • M DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KELLIE & THOMAS BOGUCKI REQUESTIIpp4N09A2S, VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 156 MARLBOROUGH ROAD R1 A page two �?S0 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. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per plans submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 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 or site work. 5. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Boards or Commissions having jurisdiction including but not limited to the Planning Board. 6. Prior to applying for permits, the owner of the property will notify all abutters in writing of any method of stone excavation to be commenced on the property and have specific insurance to cover any damage that may be caused by such excavation. Variance Granted March 17, 2004 Bonnie Belair /��, \ Board of Appeal, Member IC • CITY OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE . • ;1004 MAR 25 P 3: 50 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIITY 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 day date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is.recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of.Title. Board of Appeal • • -� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEM.'MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE • 'pBQjK 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 II11 p STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 '2))004• NOV 29 A IO' 5 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL MORIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 44 MEMORIAL DRIVE R-I A hearing of this petition was held on November 17, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Edward Moriarty, Richard Dionne and Nicholas Helides. Notice of this hearing was sent to 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 petition is requesting a Variance to construct a second story on a non-conforming accessory structure for the property located at 44 Memorial Drive located in an R-I zone. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. • 'b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans,makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner, Paul Morin and his wife appeared and represented themselves at the hearing. 2. Petitioner would like to construct a second story addition on the garage. 3. Plans were presented showing the proposed addition. 4. Several neighbors appeared and stated opposition to this petition saying a second story would be large on the property and did not see a hardship for this petition. • • DECISIONOF THE PETITION OF PAUL MORIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 44 MEMORIAL DRIVE R-1 R-2 page two 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 i opposition to grant the requested variances. Having failed to gamer the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. Variance Denied • November 17, 2004 &*chudlDlionne �C�> Board of Appea A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 of Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • �o CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSE-ETSF SALEM, MA LLRK'S OFFICE BOARD OF APPEAL ® 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MA 01970 • �'°" TEL. (978) 745-9596 1004 MAY 26 P FAX (978) 740-9846 3: 03 , STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BRUCE BORNSTEIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 NICHOLS STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on February 18, 2004 where a continuance was granted to March 17, 2004. The matter was further continued to April 21, 2004 where due to the unavailability of all the specific set of members hearing this petition, it was again continued to a Special Meeting on May 12, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Halides, Joseph Barbeau 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 change a non-conforming building located in an R-2 neighborhood by continuing the current use of the first floor level for the Environmental Testing Lab (Massachusetts State Certified Lab #072) and use of the second and third levels to house three residential units. The property is 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 CITY OF c , CLERK'S OFFICE A • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BRUCE BORNSTEIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL pPEgRMITcFOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 NICHOLS STREETSTRE�URfy 26 P 3 03 1. The existing Environmental Lab is State Certified #072 and previously allowed by a Special Permit granted September 30. 1992. 2. The currently operating Environmental Lab has no plans for expansion. 3. Abutters raised concerns about difficultly parking in the neighborhood, failure of the Petitioner to maintain his property, and misuse of the property in the past. 4. Attorney George Atkins representing Petitioner states that the Petitioner as a commercial taxpayer must find a way of maximizing the use of his property so as to offset his tax burden and overhead, that the rental of the third floor unit was mistakenly done by his client's misunderstanding of the R-2 zoning that there are sufficient parking spaces on the site foe the uses requested and that the allowance of this Special Permit will bring this property closer to the residential nature of this neighborhood than other uses. 5. Attorney Atkins submitted a suggested list of conditions that could be added to this agreement to help instigate issued raised by abutters. 6. Petitioner submitted a detailed parking plan for the property, including 13 • parking spaces allowing for 2 spaces per unit with additional spaces for the use of business and other visitors. 7. Steve Livermore, Architect, introduced floor plans for the second and third floor Residential units, which would be 2 two-bedroom units on the second floor and 1 three bedroom unit on the third floor. A new egress staircase will be constructed that would improve tenant access to the parking area, and additional windows for better light and ventilation, as well as emergency egress as per code. 8. An appropriate snow removal plan including on site snow storage plan be Implemented and used. 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. CITY OF SALEM MA CLERK'S OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION ON BRUCE BORNSTEIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 NICHOLS STREET R-2 page three "ZU04 Mqy 2b P 3 03 4. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property, but not the district in general. On the basis of the above findings of fact, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, codes ordinances and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relate to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimension submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner and dated May 12, 2004. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction and permit Must be obtained no later than June 18, 2004. 5. Exterior finished of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing • construction, 6 Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained 7. All Rental and/or Lease Agreements shall include working that precludes the use of these residential units for any business purpose, and that any pet waste must be I Immediately attended to in the appropriate manner. 8. All Rental and/or Lease Agreements shall include working that makes it binding or these tenants to park only to the provided off-street spaces. 9 That no trailers shall be stored on these premises 10 The owner shall paint and maintain painted parking lines. 11. The owner shall landscape per submitted plan, and maintain same landscaping. 12. The owner shall first complete exterior repairs and exterior painting. 13. All Rental and/or Lease Agreements shall contain working that precludes the Cohabitation of more than 6 persons per dwelling unit. 14. The above-mentioned exterior painting must be completed before the end of this year. • Special Permit Granted Joseph Barbeau May 12, 2004 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. N r� 3 m O N on Co q w M`3 p� D LJ . • v�:co CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSE71 / OF SALEM, MA tFERK'S OFFICE BOARD OF APPEAL !r. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, 970 TEL. (978)) 7 7455-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 .2004 MAY-=5 -P 1: 5b ' STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OFMOHAMED SHELAB REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101-105 NORTH STREET B-1 A hearing on this petition was held on April 21, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides, Joseph Barbeau 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 t0 modify the Board's decision of 1990 so as to allow the Gas Station and Food Mart to operate until midnight for the property located at 101-105 North Street B-1. 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 • CITY OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MOHAMED SHELAB REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101-105 NORTH STREET B-2 page two .1004 MAY =5 . P I: 5b � 1. Attorney Jacob Segal made the presentation for the petitioner. 2. Attorney Segal stated that the petitioner had previously met with the City Council and obtained their approval. 3. A letter was submitted dated January 22, 2004 that stipulated a number of conditions for their approval. 4. Attorney Segal stated that the decision and letter had been reviewed and approved by the Mayor on January 27, 2004. 5. Attorney Segal stated that the petitioner was currently operating until 12:00 midnight based on these decisions and approvals and the matter was to be reviewed by the City Council at the last meeting in June of 2004. 6. A letter from Staley McDermot requested that any decision include the requirement of the removal of existing illegal/non-conforming signage. 7. Councillor Joseph O'Keefe spoke in opposition of the petition. • 8. Councilor at Large, Arthur Sargent spoke in opposition to the petition, citing complaints by neighbors. 9. Councilor Mike Bencal spoke in support of the petition citing no complaints. 10. Neighbor, Paul Twiss of 2 Mason Street, spoke in opposition, citing noise, gasoline deliveries that were not in compliance with City ordinance, and light pollution. 11. Chairman Nina Cohen inquired as to the hardship basis for the request. 12. Attorney Segal responded to the hardship issue citing an economic basis. 13. After discussion about the location and noise created by the existing pay telephone, the petitioner stated that he would remove the phone. 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. CITY OF SALEM. MA CLERKS OFF►GE . DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MOHAMED SHELAB REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101-105 NORTH STREET B-2 page three JQB4 MAY 5 P I:VSb ' 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 in favor and 1 in opposition, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, codes ordinances and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relate to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. City Council approval is required. 4. Affirmation that all other condition in the prior Zoning Board of Appeals decision were still in effect. 5. Pay telephone is to be removed. 6. Removal of illegal signs. 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 *,64" //6 q ` nApril 21, 2004 /7 Nicholas HelAppeal scj ) 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. • CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETT$I.1-Y OF SALEM.,;f9A o BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFPI;r • ,p, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 'QNe SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 1 .2004 AUG,24 P. 3:.08 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 -� — - DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHIL WYMAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 127 NORTH STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on August 18, 2004, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Hellides and Bonnie Beliar. 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 from off —street parking regulations to allow 2 units to be created for the property located at 127 North 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. The Petitioner, Phil Wyman presented information regarding the history of the property and background on the decision to apply for the variance. Parking is on street in front of the property. No parking is available on the adjacent side street. 2. The neighbors spoke both in favor and in opposition to this petition.. 3. Ms. Cohen, Chairman of the Board sited a previous petition that was denied based on the lack of off-street parking. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PHIL WYMAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 127 NORTH STREET R-2 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially hardship derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 2 in favor and 3 in opposition to grant the requested variances. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED • August 18, 2004 Nicholas Helides �C�� n, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. • Board of Appeal CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CII Y OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MA 01970 • \ TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. ;2004 MAY -4 P 2: 51 MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MIMI GALLANT REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9 NORTHEY STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on April 21, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belair and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side to rebuild one story addition with rood deck. Side yard setback will be 0 instead of the required 10 feet for the property located at 9 Northey Street located in a 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 is requesting a Variance from side setback to rebuild a one-story addition with a roof deck. The setback will be 0 feet instead of the required 10 feet. 2. The abutters at 11 Northey Street had concerns that while during construction that her pet might get loose through any openings that might be caused from the contractors, but did support the petition. 3. Also, concerns regarding sound transfer were alleviated by the contractor's explanation of the type of soundproofing that will be incorporated into the construction. • CITY OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MIMI GALLANT REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9 NORTHEY STREET R-2 -2004.MAY•_4 ,P .2:.5$ 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. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per plans submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 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 or site work. 5. Exterior finishes shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. The contractor will construct a temporary fence to restrain the abutter's pets from leaving the area. 7. The contractor will use the sound proofing system that was discussed at the hearing. 2 x 6 framing, with 3/d inch plywood on the interior covered with gym nuts to help prevent sound transfer. Variance Granted April 21, 2004 r� Stephen Harris cv�\ • Board of Appeal, Member CITY OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE • 2U04-MAY- 4 <P 2' 8 ' A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIITY 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 day date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MA 01 970 TEL. (978) 745.9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 �, n STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR �O IV uicn D DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM POINT RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC D �� REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 50 PALMER m3 STREET B-1 N ,:D A hearing on this petition was held on July 14, 2004 with the following Board Members present;Nina Cohen Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Stephen Harris,Joseph Barbeau and Edward Moriarty. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 coverage, side, rear and front setbacks, building height and parking for 15 cars to construct 15 units for the property at 50 Palmer Street located 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 structures 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 carefiil consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plane, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Salem Point Rental Properties Corporation, a non-profit Massachusetts Corporation, seeks variances to allow construction upon a lot of vacant land at 50 Palmer Street containing about 15, 228 square feet, said construction to consist of a three-story townhouse style structure which will contain fifteen units of affordable housing, consisting of six three-story units each of which will contain both an affordable owner-occupied dwelling on the second and third floors and an affordable rental apartment on the first floor, and three affordable owner occupied flats with one of each of the first, second and third floors, and the associated landscaping and on-site parking spaces for fifteen cars as depicted in the plans. These improvements are more specifically laid out as shown on the 3 page of • • DECISION OF THE PETITION SALEM POINT RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 50 PALMER STREET B-1 page two building and site plans for"50 Palmer Street'prepared by Luna Design Group for Salem Harbor Community Development Group, dated May, 2004, as filed with The_ Board of Appeals, Petitioners presentation was made by Attorney William Quinn, 'o Executive Director of Salem Harbor CDC James Haskell and project Architect, Joh N cn Luna of Luna Design Group. 2. To construct the development, the petitioner has requested variances from the provisions of the zoning ordinance applicable in the B-1 Zone, as follows: lot NO n coverage to exceed 40%, front yard setback less than 15 feet, side yard width less than 10 feet, rear yard width less than 30 feet, building height over 30 feet and parking for 15 cars shown on the plans rather than the larger number and space sizes required by the Zoning Ordinance, all as shown and specified on the plans submitted. Petitioner argues that the ground justifying the variances are a combination of factors unique to the land, as well as economic, as follows: the small size of the lot and the fact that it is surrounded on three sides by public streets constitutes physical impediments that prevent the lot from being developed in any meaningful and economically feasible way in conformity with the setback • requirements of the Zoning Bylaw: further,the size and density of residential uses in the buildings in the immediate area, combined with the modest economic means of area residents, are physical and economic factors that make it unfeasible to build a conforming structure on the land, and constitute a hardship to the owner that justifies the granting of the variances for this development. 3. Petitioner advocated the project as providing 15 units of affordable housing, including nine units for owner-occupancy,which is badly needed in the neighborhood and the City. Petitioner will conduct a lottery under the supervision of the Salem Planning Department, and/or other governmental officials as program regulation or financing may require, to designate the purchases of the owner-occupied units,with the intent of providing preference to Salem residents for at least 70%of the units to be sold. The affordability of all 15 units is to be assured for a period of fifty (50) years from the date of this decision by the incorporation of Affordable Housing Restrictions approved by the City of Salem Planning Department. 4. Several residents and municipal officials, including Ward 1 Councilor Lucy Corchado and Councilor At- Large Joan Lovely, spoke in favor of the proposal. Letters of support by neighbors, including one by the immediate abutter,were filed with the Board. Two neighborhood owners stated concerns about the adequacy of the on-site parking, and the applicant provided additional information in response to the concern that was satisfactory to the Board. No one spoke or • communicated to the Board in opposition to the petition. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM POINT RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC r REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 50 PALMER R 6 STREET B-1 N OD c%i cn page three o; D moi , _ T3 5. The Board found that the proposal as designed was the product more than a year'? �3 work by the applicant to identify and obtain feedback on affordable housing needs 4n from community advocates and residents,plan development with the City of Salem Planning Department, and review by the City of Salem Design Review Board. The applicant will also go through the site plan approval process with the City of Salem Planning Board, and will be subject to affordable housing requirements imposed with governmental grants and/or financing for the development. 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 when especially affect the subject property but not he District. • 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature, ordinance, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SALEM HARBOR RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPETY LOCATED AT 50 PALMER STREET B-1 page fourC-)r < M 5. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having P jurisdiction, including,but not limited to the Planning Board. m 6 cn o•'> 6. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. D ' 3 7. The Petitioner shall adopt and incorporate into the ownership documents for alliv D dwelling units of the project such as Affordable Housing Restrictions as are approved by the City of Salem Planning Department, whether acting for itself, or as the designee of any other governmental agency or department, including the United States Department of Urban Housing and Development and/or the North Shore Home Consortium, as will assure that all fifteen(15)dwelling units of the project will be retained as affordable housing by low and very low income individuals and families for a period of fifty (50) years from the date of this decision. Variance Granted _ • July 14, 2004 Nina Cohen J Board of Appeal C� A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 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 M 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR C1) SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 cn c r� STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 (n M MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 mp RO I N Cn CM)r DECISION OF THE PETITION OFANTHONY CARNEVALE REQUESTING A T'3 VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 PATTON ROAD R-1 N mD 0 A hearing on this petition was held on August 18, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Bonnie Belair, Richard Dionne , Stephen Harris and Edward Moriarty. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 to seek to vary the terms of the Zoning Ordinance from the requirement of maintaining a conforming 15,00 sq ft parcel after conveyance of a 24 x 60 portion, more or less of sail parcel located at 17 Patton Road adjacent to 37 Moffatt Road. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner was seeking a Variance to convey a 24 x 60 portion of 17 Patton Road to 37 Moffatt Road. 2. The land is considered by the Petitioner to be unusable to him and that the abutter was already using the land. So to him it makes more sense to convey the land. 3. There was no opposition to this petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OFANTHONY CARNEVALE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 PATTON 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. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Boards or Commissions having Jurisdiction including but not limited to the Planning Board. Variance Granted August 18, 2004 Stephen Harris Sem, Board of Appeal, Mem er A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIITY 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 day 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 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF BOARD OF APPEAL �AEEM•;, A CLERK'S OFFICE 3 9' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR - ` 1\ �jt SALEM, MA 01970 • ,�� TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. ` 1004 NOV - I P 2: ,58 MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDREW GOI-DMAN REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14-16 PEARL STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on October 20, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair ,, Edward Moriarty and Steven Pinto 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 and Administrative Appeal seeking to appeal the issuance of a building permit for the property located at 14-16 Pearl Street R-2. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence and after reviewing the plans at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: • 1. Petitioner is Andrew Goldman, a neighbor and abutter of the parcel of land located at 14-16 Pearl Street in an R-2 zone. 2. Mr. Goldman is aggrieved by the issuance of a building permit issued by the Building Commissioner, Mr. Thomas St. Pierre, for the construction of a two family dwelling, at said locus. 3. Said building permit was issued on March 14, 2004 and is attached hereto Exhibit 1. 4. Said appeal of the issuance of said permit was timely filed with the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals, on or about August 12, 2004, by Mr. Goldman, with other neighbors listed as neighbors, and/or abutters, and/or parties in interest. 5. Mr. Goldman presented a lengthy, detailed and documented presentation requesting, by way of Appeal, that the building permit issued by the Building Commissioner be reversed. 6. Mr. Goldman. identified the controlling provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance governing the issuance of said, permit, as Article V, Section 5-2, Subsection (b), wherein the following are permitted uses in said tow-family residential district: Subparagraph 2; "Two-family dwellings, detached or attached". 7. According to Mr. Goldman and several other neighbors and abutters in opposition to the issuance of said building permit, the only issue before the Building Commissioner, and therefore, before the Board of Appeals, was whether or not the proposed two-family dwelling, as constructed, was consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for two-family dwellings to • be constructed in R-2 zoning districts. C6FY OF SAL N' M CLERK'S 6MC.E DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANDREW GOLDMAN REQUESTING A44 NOV I P 2 59 ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14-16 PEARL STREET R-2 page two 8. Mr. Goldman and others argued that the two houses, on the ground currently, with two separate foundations, connected by the deck required by the Building Commissioner, was not the equivalent of the two-family unit provided for, as of right, in the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Use Regulations, relative to R-2 Districts. 9. Mr. Goldman suggested by way of colorful metaphor, that two separate structures with two separate foundations was no more a two-family house than a pair of pair of shoes connected by a shoelace was one shoe. 10. Mr. Goldman, and several other neighbors speaking in opposition to the issuance of the building permit and in favor or revocation of the Permit by action of the Board, noted that at all times their zoning/use concerns had been made known to and were noted by the developers. Therefore, the developers were certainly on notice that they were building "at risk" in the summer and fall of 2004, and that he direct abutters and neighbors intended to pursue their legal rights at the Board of Appeals, if not thereafter, to overturn the issuance of said building permit • by the Building Commissioner, Thomas St. Pierre. 11. In particular, Andrew Goldman, and Mr. and Mrs. Paul & Gloria Ward, testified that they were directly impacted by these structures, which they perceived as not in non-compliance with Salem Use Regulations for R-2 Districts. 12. According to Mr. Goldman, Mr. & Mrs. Ward, and others, the developers in question took down trees, broke water mains, obstructed abutters' views and damaged abutting neighbors' retaining walls in pursuit of this so-called two family dwelling unit (s). 13. Mr. Goldman also suggested that to uphold the issuance of the building permit by the Building Commissioner in this instance, would violate the intent and purpose of the R-2 Salem Zoning District, which is to control density. 14. According to Mr. Goldman, density would not be controlled, but in fact, would go unchecked in this and in similar circumstances in other R-2 lots, if developments such as this were proceed, as of right, and unchecked, leaking to the possibility of increased development on undersized lots, with the further possibility of subsequent variances allowing further alterations to the use of said premises of smaller apartments or smaller condominium units. 15. The developers/owners of the premises are Mr. Robert Hamel and Mr. Keith Nadeau of Salem. They were represented by Attorney William Quinn of 222 Essex Street in Salem Massachusetts. 16. Attorney Quinn urged the Board of Appeals to uphold it Building Commissioner and the issuance of said building permit, under the facts, circumstances and • relevant Zoning Ordinance Provisions in question. CITY OF.SA�EH,-d CLERK'S OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANDREW GOLDMAN REQUESTING AN 2000 NOV - I P 2: ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14-16 PEARL STREET R-2 page three 17. According to Attorney Quinn, no Zoning Ordinance is perfect. Certainly the Salem Zoning Ordinance is an example of imperfection as it relates to all matters zoning, including Use Regulations. 18. Attorney Quinn acknowledged that the appeal of the building permit by Mr. Goldman, et al, was timely, and that Mr. Goldman had standing to challenge the issuance of the building permit in question, and that this clients did build at their own risk, under the circumstances. 19. Attorney Quinn further represented that his clients were going to complete construction, sell the project as condominiums with a common driveway, with a common deck, with a foundation and a roof, meeting all of the requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in general, and in particular, Article V, Section 5-2, Subsection (b), indicating that the following uses, as of right, in two-family Residential districts, include two-family dwellings detached or attached. CONCLUDSIONS OF LAW 20. The two-family buildings in question are attached by the deck, roof and foundation, required by the building permit, and if not attached, are certainly, • "detached or attached", within the meaning of the Ordinance. 21. The developers' project should be allowed to proceed to completion. 22. Attorney Quinn, in his presentation, emphasized that no relief from any of the Articles of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in terms of use or dimension, were required. No special permit was required under the Salem Zoning Ordinance. No site plan review was required, given the limited scope of the project. 23. The only permit required related to the Conservation Commission Certificate of Conditions, which was complied with and which approval was obtained from the Conservation Commission. 24. Any problems with the project's construction were the responsibility of the developers' general contractor, and/or subcontractors, and the problems relating to water pressure, water pipes, and/or retaining wall damage were timely cured, according to Attorney Quinn, at contractor's sole cost and responsibility. 25. Attorney Quinn pointed out that upon completion, the premises will be sold as two (2) condominiums, with a common driveway, and a common deck; a form of conveyance consistent with two-family dwellings, detached or attached. 26. The revocation of the permit at this time would clearly create economic hardship on the developers, and would also cast an unnecessary shadow of doubt on the professionalism and credibility of the Building Commissioner. 27. City Councilor Sosnowski spoke in favor of overturning the Building Commissioner's issuance of a permit, noting that this project was consistent with the bill of goods that this neighborhood had been sold in conjunction with the • Bridge Street Bypass Road, and should not stand. Said circumstances, if true and accurate, are unfortunate, but not grounds to reverse the permit in issue herein. CI:LY OF SALEM..MA CLERK'S 6FFiG IBU4 NOV - I P 2: 59 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANDREW GOLDMAN REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14-16 PEARL STREET R-2 page four 28. Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre defended succinctly, accurately and lawfully his issuance of the building permit, noting that, pursuant to Salem Use Regulation Article V, Subsection 5-2 (b), the premises in question were buildable, as of right, as a two-family dwelling, detached or attached. 29. Mr. St. Pierre indicated that he thought long and hard about the issuance of the permit, met will all interested parties, including developers, abutters and neighbors, and the Planning Department, and issued the permit carefully, reluctantly, but with legal certainty that the developers had a right to construct a two-family home exactly in the manner requested, and in the only manner permitted by the building plans and the building permit in issue, involving a two family dwelling with an attached deck, including a roof and a foundation for said deck. 30. Zoning Board of Appeals Chairperson and Attorney, Nina Cohen, stated that the photographs of the site development showed that the owners designed and built • two single family homes on two separate foundations, with separate entrances, separate dwelling spaces, separate heating and electric systems. The abutters' testimony that the modular houses as built contained no common structural features (such as a common wall, floor or roof) was believable and germane to the issue of whether the structures that were built conformed to the Ordinance definition of"two-family dwellings, attached or detached". The developers' representation that these two properties,joined by a covered deck that would be built at a later time to connect the homes, would be marketed as a condominium did not, in her opinion, allow the project to be deemed as a"two-family home, attached or detached" for zoning purposes. Where the Building Commissioner erred in interpreting the terms of the Ordinance, the Board of Appeals may vote to overturn the issuance of the building permit. 31. Zoning Board of Appeals Member and Attorney Bonnie Belair, referenced the terms of the Zoning Ordinance allowing two-family dwellings as of right in R-2 Districts, whether detached or attached, and spoke of the grave concern that any action of the Board in reversing the issuance of the building permit would have on the developers who had proceeded in good faith with due diligence to construction of the property in question, pursuant to the building permit and the Zoning' Ordinance, as interpreted lawfully and in good faith by the Building Commissioner. 32. Zoning Board of Appeals Member, Edward Moriarty, Jr. also spoke in favor of Upholding the issuance of the building permit and in rejecting the Petitioner's • Request to reverse same. Mr. Moriarty suggested that, although the Board of Appeals had the authority to overturn the issuance of a building permit, said CITY OF-SALEM :MA CLERIC'S OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANDREW GOLDMAN REQUESTING A44 NOY — I p 2. 59 ADMINSITRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14-16 PEARL STREET R-2 page five authority should be exercised most sparingly and judiciously, and only in circumstances where the Building Commissioner's actions were arbitrary and capricious, beyond the scope of his authority, clearly contrary to law, and/or where there was credible evidence the Commissioner acted dishonestly, rendered an opinion under undue influence, or otherwise acted in bad faith. 33. In these circumstances, given the relevant provisions of the Ordinance, the Board finds that the Building Commissioner acted neither arbitrarily nor capriciously, nor beyond the scope of his authority in lawfully issuing the building permit in question. 34. The Zoning Board of Appeals further specifically finds, as a matter of law, that the Building Commissioner's interpretation of Article V, Section 5-2, Subsection (b), does lawfully permit the issuance of a building permit for a two-family dwelling, detached or attached, is otherwise not contrary to law, and that said permit was issued by the Commissioner honestly, after due deliberation, in good faith, pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance terms and • conditions. Therefore, base on the fact and on evidence presented, the Board make a motion to uphold Building Commissioners' Thomas St. Pierre issuing of a building permit for the premises at 14-16 Pearl Street with a vote of 1 in favor and 4 to deny the petitioners appeal. ADMINISTRATIVE RULING DENIED October 20, 2004 Edward Moriarty, Mem 'e Y # Board of Appeal • CI'I'Y OF 5AL�11..MA CLERK'S 6F,PljDf • 1864. NO➢, -.U IP: A COPYOF THIS DECISION HAS 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 unit a copy of the decision bearing the Certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed an no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETT IIY OF .SI;,� A A ,� M` BOARD OF APPEAL CL. RK,,S-,,QF1".I:�E 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR . . �. ( SALEM, MA 01970 • .) TEL. (978) 745-9595 ' FAx (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. L 4lor7jw tib: P ,.39 , MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RENE PHILLIPS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 PHILLIPS STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held February 18, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Stephen Harris, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Helides and Bonnie Belier. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 off street parking requirements to allow a second curb cut and driveway for the property located at 5 Phillips Street located in a 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. Linda Thompson, Manager appeared and represented the petitioner. Petitioner is requesting a Variance form off-street parking to allow a second curb cut. 2. Plans were submitted showing the proposed curb cut.. 3. There was no opposition to the proposed petition. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RENE PHILLIPS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 PHILLIPS 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. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per plans submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. • 3. .Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted February 18, 2004 / 4�4 � Stephe Harris Board of Appeal, Member A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIITY 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 day date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • 0 CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTt[TY OF SALEM MA PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT CLERKS OFFICE, p • 'r 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR AB��HINB SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. OVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 380 MAYORFAX: 978-740-9846 1 ,1004 JUL 2 A 0 29 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DONALD ANGLE&PRISCILLA PERRY FITCH. REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROERTY LOCATED AT 21 PICKMAN ROAD R-I A hearing on this petition was held on July 14, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman,Joseph Barbeau, Stephen Hams, Bonnie Belau and Edward Moriarty. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 request a Special permit to allow renovations of existing single family to allow the construction of an addition and a deck for the property located at 21 Pickman Road R- 1. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3 (2) (80 which provide as follows: • Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion,of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,provided however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare for the City's inhabitants. A. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. B. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 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. CI F,y Cr CCERK'-S OFF CE A DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DONALD ANGLE&PRISCILLA PERRY FITCH • REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 PIICKMAN ROAD R-1 ' 1004 JUL 21 A �� 29 page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact. 1. The Petitioner's were represented by their Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal Street in Salem. 2 Plans were submitted showing the proposed addition. Petitioners would like to renovate the existing single family to allow the construction of an addition and a deck further reducing the rear setback for the property from 27.4 to 16.9 feet. 3. A petition was submitted with 6 names of their abutters in favor of this petition. 4. There was no opposition to the proposed plans submitted. 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. 4. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property, but not the district in general. On the basis of the above findings of fact,the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions. 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, code ordinances and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety • shall be strictly adhered to. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DONALD ANGLE & PRISCILLA PERRY FITCH REQUESTING A SPECAIL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 PICKMAN ROAD R-1 page three 3. All construction shall be done as per plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit before starting any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Special Permit Granted July 14,2004 Bonnie Belair 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 or record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. o — rn � �o J N D O:r- T' D T'3 i�?- m3 N D -O o CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS �v BOARD OF APPEAL .CIT'Y`OF'S�+U:EKt HA 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR . CLERWS OFI:.tMt ✓� SALEM, MA 01970 • TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. , IM JUN 2 p, ID 58 MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS KIMBER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 PLEASANT STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held June 16, 2004 meeting with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Nicholas Helides, Stephen Harris and Richard Dionne. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. At the request of the petitioner's Attorney William Quinn, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice requesting a Special Permit per Section 5-2 to allow construction of a third unit for the property located at 17 Pleasant Street located in an R-2 zone. • GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREDUDICE JUNE 16, 2004 A� Nina Cohen, ChairmanC3 C/1—) Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL a' • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR T p ,g SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 N C7 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 o - MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 C= a7 O r x IV Cn DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SCOT STERNBERG REQUESTING A or- VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 PICKMAN ROAD R-1 D m3 A hearing on this petition was held on July 14, 2004 with the following Board Membkj > present;Nina Cohen Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Stephen Harris,Joseph Barbeau and ' 0 Edward Moriarty. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 enclose the existing deck for the property located at 25 Pickman Road located in an R-I 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 structures 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 carefid consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plane,makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Petitioner appeared and represented himself at the hearing along with his contractor. 2. The petitioner requests a side yard setback to enclose his existing deck and create a three season porch. 3. Petitioner submitted a petition with names of his abutters in favor of the petition. 4. James Shea of 23 Pickman Road appeared in opposition of the petition. He was concerned the structure would be too close for his privacy and was suggested the petitioner add a privacy screen with greenery and shrubs. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SCOT STEINBERG REQUESTING A C— m VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 PICKMAN ROAD R-1 C= o xT page two N vi O D o r- On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on,the evidence presented at the hear*, -3 the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 4 M3 N y 1. Special conditions exist when especially affect the subject property but not heN District. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: • 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature, ordinance, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 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 shall add a privacy screen with greenery and shrubs. Variance Granted 9/►X— Nina July 14, 2004 Cohen • Board of Appeal 0 L r r.*t r �-T N x o D :D T}r9 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARIQ M-2 AND THE CITY CLERK N- .- 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 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 hearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed,that 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 • 0 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL Cl) o C-') • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR L r—c 4N8 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 =C3 G STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595NN MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 N L r- O- � T3 cn• rn1.3 D DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHRISTOPHER CRUCIANI REQUESTING Aun VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 PURCHASE STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on November 17, 2004 with the following Board Members present; Nina Cohen Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty 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 and rear setbacks to construct a 14 x 18 single story addition for the property at 8 Purchase Street located in an R-I 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 structures 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 plane, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner, owner of the property is requesting relief in the form of a Variance from side and rear setbacks to construct an addition. 2. The Variance for the side line would be 8 feet instead of the required 10 feet and the rear yard setback would be I1 feet instead of the required 30 feet. 3. Plans were submitted showing the proposed addition. • 4. There was no opposition to this petition. a S1 t 'S11 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHRISTOPHER CRUCIANI REQUESTIIQ A x T VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 PURCHASE STREET R7! o.r page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented the Board !"3 =' of Appeals finds as follows; CD(.n 1. Special conditions exist when especially affect the subject property but not he District. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature, ordinance, codes and • regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted ' November 17, 2004 Bonnie Belair cscrxl� Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHRISTOPHER CRUCIANI REQUESTING VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 PURCHASE STREET R-Jta page threer 4> q D "- A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOA$ r*�3D AND THE CITY CLERK rr 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 date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS C� Ors F BOARD OF APPEAL FRS yQFF . q 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR �ONB SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 �J MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 ry Ix DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RENE AUBERTIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 SALTONSTALL PARKWAY R-2 A hearing on this petition was held October 20, 2004 meeting with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Stephen Harris, Bonnie Belair, Edward Moriarty and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. At the request of the Petitioner, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice requesting a Variance from the number of stories to allow the expansion of the existing third floor for the property located at 21 Saltonstall Parkway located in an R-2 zone. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE October 20, 2004 /44, �� �SCA� Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CITY OpFy SALEM,,MA ,p 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK 'S` OFFICE o� g SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 I&TANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 ;1004 DEC.- I P 2 33 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AAA ENTRIPRISES REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 ROBINSON ROAD BPD A hearing on this petition was held on November 17, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair ,, Edward Moriarty 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 an Administrative Appeal of the Building Commissioners determination that a Special Permit is required for the increase of use for the property located at 15 Robinson Road located in a BPD zone. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence and after reviewing the plans at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: • 1. Attorney James Rogal of 32 Church Street, Salem presented the petition asserted the following: a. The Petitioner and his business is an asset to the community providing services that the City uses and providing plowing services to the City. b. The same business has been operation on the site for 30 years now using new methods. c. City must prove that there has been a change in use. 2. Nina Cohen, Chairman of the Zoning Board, asked whether there were containers on site-the answer from the petitioner was yes; and whether there was a junk business on site-the answer was yes. 3. Mike Ferris-Petitioner stated the business is now AAA Enterprises. 4. Discussion about dispute over the road and who owns the road, Robinson Road. 5. City Building Inspector, Tom St. Pierre, stated that there was a complaint and there is a new business renting space on the premises. 6. Attorney Patrick DeIulis presented the following: a. His client has no objection to the junkyard business. b. 5 single family homes on his client's property are rented to families. There are very bad odors emanation from trucks and containers that affect the tenant's quality of life. c. Run off of materials into a brook. d. Incinerator debris is damming the brook causing overflows. e. The parking of trucks and containers is next to houses with no setbacks, why not elsewhere on the premises. • CITY OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE • 'DECISION OF THE PE'ITTION OF AAA ENTRIPRISES REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCA AAT 15 ROBINSON ROAD BPD :UtC — I P 2. 33 page two f. The land was altered to change the drainage. g. A letter dated 2/7/2000 from the Board of Health stated that there are high levels on MBTE/gasoline in the well water and he(Mr. DeIulis)alleges that the likely source is the junkyard. h. The operation of the business has changed and they are now handling r restaurant garbage. L He request an order from the Zoning Board to remove the trucks and -Containers and keep them no less than 200 feet away from the dwelling. 7. E. Cologn of 10 Robinson Road stated that she rents one of the abutting dwellings and has problems with roaming dogs from the site and people unable to find Robinson Road. 8. Ms. Ruiz of 14 Robinson Road stated that she has a baby and she cannot open her windows because of the smell and is fearful of the roaming dogs. 9. City Councillor Joseph O'Keefe, states he support for the petitioner and stated that he is not currently a Fire Marshall and inquired if it was an abutter that made the complaint of the change in use?He also inquired if the City had a definition of • a junkyard in its Zoning Ordinance. The response for the Board's Chairman Nina Cohen was there is no definition. He further states that the business has been in operation for 30 years and the courts should decide this not the Zoning Board. He -inquired if there was any evidence or notification from the DEP on the alleged pollution. No evidence or notice was produced. 10. Mr.Hill of 10 Robinson Road stated that Rubbish Removal Trucks are parked behind his house,where he has lived for 3 years and the trucks have always been there. 11. Daniel Hibbard of AAA Climbers (abutter) stated the following; a. He wants to use Robinson-Road. b. State owns the road c. The operation of the junkyard business is fine with him. d. Inquired about the difference between a junkyard and scrap yard? 12. Attorney Rogal presented the following response; a. His client does not receive any rent for the parking of the rubbish trucks b. There is no trash stored or brought to the site c. The containers and rubbish trucks do not have trash in them. d. Odor issues should be addressed by the Board of Health e. There has been no action by the Conservation Commission relative to any of the assertions. f. Regarding the contaminated wells, the DEP tested his site and found no contamination 4-5 years ago. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AAA ENTRIPRISES REQUESTING AN . ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 ROBINSON ROAD BPD page three g. His client has both a junk dealers license and a Class 3 license h. His client has 42 years in the business. i. The residential tenants knew there was a junkyard there when they rented 13. City Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre stated that the.parking of the trash trucks and dumpsters was a more detrimental use. 14. Zoning Board Chairman,Nina Cohen stated that the trucks should be removed and the owner should obtain a permit for the increased use. Therefore, base on the fact and on evidence presented, the Board make a motion to uphold Building Commissioners' Thomas St. Pierre determination that a Special Permit is required for the increase in use for the property located at 15 Robinson Road. With a vote of 0 in favor and 5 to deny the.petitioners appeal. Additionally, Petitioner sought and received a Special Permit to allow an increase in use with a vote of 5 in favor and 0 in opposition with the following conditions; I. -Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, codes,ordinances and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety • shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Conservation Commission. 4. Storage of trailer shall be 50 feet from lot line. 5. Petitioner shall keep dogs on his own property. 6. Parking of garbage trucks/containers shall be 100 feet from residents. 7. No storage of any material other than intended use ADMINISTRATIVE RULING DENIED & SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED November 17,2004 Nicholas Helides, Member Board of Appeal J m 0 rn 7T -CP - oD Tr —3 N n' lJ D t.:1 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR a SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 C) STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 p �� MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 !�p � �T AMENDED Nor DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AAA ENTRIPRISES REQUESTING AN 6 T 3 ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 ROBINSOIV ROAD BPD r^3y N A hearing on this petition was held on November 17, 2004 with the following Board CID Members present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair,, Edward Moriarty 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 an Administrative Appeal of the Building Commissioners determination that a Special Permit is required for the increase of use for the property located at 15 Robinson Road located in a BPD zone. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence and after reviewing the plans at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: • 1. Attorney James Rogal of 32 Church Street, Salem presented the petition asserted the following: a. The Petitioner and his business is an asset to the community providing services that the City uses and providing plowing services to the City. b. The same business has been operation on the site for 30 years now using new methods. c. City must prove that there has been a change in use. 2. Nina Cohen, Chairman of the Zoning Board,asked whether there were containers on site-the answer from the petitioner was yes; and whether there was a junk business on site- the answer was yes. 3. Mike Ferris-Petitioner stated the business is now AAA Enterprises. 4. Discussion about dispute over the road and who owns the road, Robinson Road. 5. City Building Inspector, Tom St. Pierre, stated that there was a complaint and there is a new business renting space on the premises. 6. Attorney Patrick DeIulis presented the following: a. His client has no objection to the junkyard business. b. 5 single family homes on his client's property are rented to families. There are very bad odors emanation from trucks and containers that affect the tenant's quality of life. c. Run off of materials into a brook. d. Incinerator debris is damming the brook causing overflows. • e. The parking of trucks and containers is next to houses with no setbacks, why not elsewhere on the premises. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AAA ENTRIPRISES REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 ROBINSON ROAD BPD page two f. The land was altered to change the drainage. g. A letter dated 2/7/2000 from the Board of Health stated that there are high levels on MBTE/gasoline in the well water and he (Mr. DeIulis)alleges that the likely source is the junkyard. h. The operation of the business has changed and they are now handling r restaurant garbage. i. He request an order from the Zoning Board to remove the trucks and Containers and keep them no less than 200 feet away from the dwelling. 7. E. Cologn of 10 Robinson Road stated that she rents one of the abutting dwellings and has problems with roaming dogs from the site and people unable to find Robinson Road. 8. Ms. Ruiz of 14 Robinson Road stated that she has a baby and she cannot open her windows because of the smell and is fearfiil of the roaming dogs. 9. City Councillor Joseph O'Keefe, states he support for the petitioner and stated that he is not currently a Fire Marshall and inquired if it was an abutter that made • the complaint of the change in use?He also inquired if the City had a definition of a junkyard in its Zoning Ordinance. The response for the Board's Chairman Nina Cohen was there is no definition. He further states that the business has been in operation for 30 years and the courts should decide this not the Zoning Board. He inquired if there was any evidence or notification from the DEP on the alleged pollution. No evidence or notice was produced. 10. Mr. Hill of 10 Robinson Road stated that Rubbish Removal Trucks are parked behind his house, where he has lived for 3 years and the trucks have always been there. 11. Daniel Hibbard of AAA Climbers(abutter)stated the following; a. He wants to use Robinson Road. b. State owns the road c. The operation of the junkyard business is fine with him. d. Inquired about the difference between a junkyard and scrap yard? 12. Attorney Rogal presented the following response; a. His client does not receive any rent for the parking of the rubbish trucks b. There is no trash stored or brought to the site c. The containers and rubbish trucks do not have trash in them. d. Odor issues should be addressed by the Board of Health e. There has been no action by the Conservation Commission relative to any of the assertions. f. Regarding the contaminated wells, the DEP tested his site and found no • contamination 4-5 years ago. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AAA ENTRIPRISES REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 ROBINSON ROAD BPD page three g. His client has both a junk dealers license and a Class 3 license h. His client has 42 years in the business. i. The residential tenants knew there was a junkyard there when they rented 13. City Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre stated that the parking of the trash trucks and dumpsters was a more detrimental use. 14. Zoning Board Chairman,Nina Cohen stated that the trucks should be removed and the owner should obtain a permit for the increased use. Therefore, base on the fact and on evidence presented, the Board make a motion to uphold Building Commissioners' Thomas St.Pierre determination that a Special Permit is required for the increase in use for the property located at 15 Robinson Road. With a vote of 0 in favor and 5 to deny the petitioners appeal. Additionally, Petitioner sought and received a Special Permit to allow an increase in use with a vote of 5 in favor and 0 in opposition with the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, codes,ordinances and • regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Conservation Commission. 4. Storage of trailer shall be 50 feet from lot line. 5. Petitioner shall keep dogs on his own property. 6. Parking of garbage trucks/containers shall be 100 feet from residents. 7. No storage of any material other than intended use. 8. No more than 2 garbage trucks are to be kept on site. ADMINISTRATIVE RULING DENIED& SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED November 17, 2004 Nicholas Helides, Member Board of Appeal Se • A COPYOF THIS DECISION HAS 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 unit a copy of the decision bearing the Certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed an no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS o• BOARD OF APPEAL C11" OF -S FFI 'h1Q CLERf(' OFFICE AqG 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR mIV6 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 1004 NOV 2lp MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 - A IO SS DECISION ON THE PETITION OF AAA ENTRIPRISES REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATTVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 ROBINSON ROAD BPD A hearing on this petition was held on November 17, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair,, Edward Moriarty 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 an Administrative Appeal for the denial of a building permit for a sign for the property located at 15 Robinson Road located in a BPD zone. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence and after reviewing the plans at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Attorney James Rogal of 32 Church Street,Salem presented the petition an asserted the following: a. The Petitioner owns the land upon which the sign is located. b. The existing sign has been it its present location for more than 20 years. c. Attorney Rogal asserted that'itis the City's responsibility to prove that the sign is not on his clients land. 2. Nina Cohen, Chairman of the Zoning Board, inquired if there is any evidence of a permit or approval by the City for the sign. 3. There was discussion about a 10 year stature of limitation on enforcement action. 4. Discussion about the sign having been removed for new wording and the pole remained in place. 5. Discussion about the requirements of the State and the City and the Planning Board approval and appeal to the Zoning Board. 6. Discussion about the sign having been there for 20 years. 7. Zoning Board Member, Edward Moriarty inquired if there was any evidence of an original permit. Response from petitioner was there was none required. S. Discussion about time frame of original sign and the permit process being in place at the time. 9. Attorney Patrick Delulis representing an abutter presented the following: a. The petitioner has not proven in court that he owns the land upon which the signis locate. b. The petitioner does not own any frontage on Swampscott Road. • c. -The location of the sign on Parcel A is disputed, his clients believe it is on their land. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AAA ENTRIPRISES REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 ROBINSON ROAD BPD page two 10. City Councilor Joseph O'Keefe presented the following: a. His support for the petitioner who has been supportive of the city in the past having provided snowplowing in recent bad storms. b. The legal issues are not for Zoning Board of Appeals consideration. c. Sign has been there for 20 years. 11. City Councilor Jean Pelletier presented the following: a. There is evidence that the City accepted State Chapter 90 funds for Robinson Road and its infrastructure. b. City does not plowRobinsonRoad. c. Robinson Road is an accepted City street. 12. Chairman Nina Cohen stated that to her knowledge the street is not fully paved. 13. Councilor O'Keefe stated that the sign is needed because the business has no visibility and the petitioner has helped the City in the past. 14. Attorney DeIulis stated that the sign is on his clients land and should be moved. 15. Abutter Dana DiLisio owner of the abutting Miniature Golf Course presented the following: a. He does not want the sign moved onto his property. b. Sign should be on petitioner's property. c. If Robinson Road is a public way the existing gate should be removed. d. The court ill rule on the public way issue. 16. Daniel Hibbard of AAA Crumbing presented the following: a. He is in the process of purchasing the abutting property. b. He would consider renting space for the sign on his property. 17. Zoning Board Member, Edward Moriarty stated the following: a. The sigh needs a periit. b. There is no evidence of a permit. c. The sign was never grandfathered because it was never issued a permit. 18. Councilor O'Keefe asserted that there are many city records that are in storage disorganized and therefore the permit may exist,but cannot be found. 19. The petitioner asserted the following: a. He has a deed from the estate of the prior owner, which he has not recorded. b. Robinson Road is not a public way; it was added to a list submitted to the state in order to increase the total amount of public roadways for the funding program. c. Robinson Road was never accepted by the City as a public way. • d. Robinson Road has never been used as a public way. e. He maintains and has exclusive access to Robinson Road. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AAA ENTRIPRISES REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 ROBINSON ROAD BPD page three 20. Attorney Patrick DeIulis presented the following: a. The sign is on his clients land. b. The petitioner needs to prove ownership of the signs present location. c. The existing land plans need to be updated and the location of the sign plotted on accurate maps with engineering certification. d. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to prove his ownership. e. The burden of proof is on the petitioner,not the City. f. Ownership and access to Robinson Road is in dispute. Therefore, base on the fact and on evidence presented, the Board make a motion to uphold Building Commissioners' Thomas St. Pierre for the denial of the building permit for a sign for the premises at 15 Robinson Road with a vote of 0 in favor and 5 to deny the.petitioners appeal. ADMINISTRATIVE RULING DENIED November 17,2004 Nicholas Helides,Member Board of Appeal • A COPYOF THIS DECISION HAS 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 unit a copy of the decision bearing the Certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed an no appeal has been filed,or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. 0 CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETT& e BOARD OF APPEAL CI CLERK'S OFFICER • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR IVB SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 1004.DEC 28 P I* 2 f' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM AND CAROL KENNEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 ROCKDALE AVENUE R-I A hearing on this petition was held on December 15, 2004 with the following Board Members present;Nina Cohen Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty 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 lot size and rear yard setback of a dwelling less than 30 feet to construct a single family dwelling for the property at 17 Rockdale Avenue located in an R-I 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 structures 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 plane, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioners were represented by Attorney William Quinn of 222 Essex Street. 2. The request is from lot size and rear yard setback to create a new lot. 3. The unusual hour-glass shape lot leaves proposed home site remote and virtually unusable in conjunction with existing dwelling and is difficult to maintain. 4. A petition was submitted with 12 names of abutters in favor of this petition. 5. A letter was sent from City Councillor Leonard O'Leary supporting this petition. • 6. There was no opposition to this petition. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & CAROL KENNEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 ROCKDALE AVENUE R-I page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on,the evidence presented the Board of Appeals finds as follows; 1. Special conditions exist when especially affect the subject property but not he District. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature, ordinance, codes and • regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors Office and shall display numbers as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner shall observe all blasting and take into consideration the ease on their neighbors. Variance Granted n� December 15, 2004 Richard Dionne r<?C yam` • Board of Appeal l J DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & CAROL KENNEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 ROCKDALE 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 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 CITY OF SALEM, MA BOARD OF APPEAL m CLERK'S. OFFICE • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 1004- Q STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 � `� ���` ^ �O�SO MAYOR FAX: 976-740-9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KIM FRANKLIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 SAVOY ROAD R--1 A hearing on this petition was held on December 15, 2004, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Edward Moriarty, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Hellides and Bonnie Beliar. 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 to construct an addition. Variances needed from lot coverage and side yard setback for the property located at 20 Savoy Road 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. Petitioners Kim & Shane Franklin appeared with their Architect Walter Jacob and presented their plans. 2. Petitioners need Variances from lot coverage and side yard setbacks to construct an addition on the rear of their property. 3. Phil Pelletier of 22 Savoy Road appeared and spoke in favor of the addition. 4. Peter Dowdell appeared for his father who lives at 18 Savoy Road spoke in opposition to the petition. Mr. Dowdell stated his father thought the addition was too large and he would lose his ocean views, which he has enjoyed for many years. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KIM FRANKLIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 SAVOY ROAD R-1 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially hardship derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3 in favor and 2 in opposition to grant the requested variances. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED DECEMBER 152004 • (J&Clba ard Dionne ( S' CEJ Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • o CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS CIPY OF SALEM.',MA /l BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • ;� �� SALEM, MA O 1970 TEL. (978) 745-95952004 JUN 2.3, -A 11(j;. 52 Fax (978) 740-984466 �.-�' STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN JERMYN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 SCENIC AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on June 16, 2004 with the following Board Members present; Nina Cohen Chairman, Bonnie Belair,Nicholas Helides, Stephen Hams and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from front yard setback to construct an 8 x 8 covered entry for the property located at 4 Scenic 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 structures 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 plane, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Petitioner appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. The petitioner requests a front yard setback to construct an 8 x 8 covered entry. 3. The hardship is based on slope and contour of land parcel. 4. The requested setback will be 7'6" from the front yard setback. 5. There was no opposition to the proposed petition. • • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOHN JERMYN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 SCENIC 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 when especially affect the subject property but not he District. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature, ordinance, codes and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. S. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. Variance Granted June 16, 2004 Nicholas Helides Board of Appeal J • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTRTY OF SALEM.-MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE • .0_ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR oW SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 7QQ� AUG STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 UG 2� P O0 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 ,[ DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE QUEENAN.REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 68=70 SCHOOL STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held August 18, 2004 meeting with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Stephen Harris, Bonnie Belair, Edward Moriarty and Joseph Barbeau. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. At the request of the Petitioner's Attorney, George Atkins the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice requesting a Special Permit to expand an existing nonconforming use of a 4 unit residential structure by allowing a detached single family to be built on the lot and a Variance to allow two principal uses for one lot for the property located at 68-70 School Street located in an R- 2 zone. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE August 18, 2004 ` L Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • Board of Appeal o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MA 01970 • ��� TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. o �� MAYOR z 7C DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARK PETIT REQUESTING ANC; ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 SKERRY �rn STREET COURT R-2 D „3 o C-71 ra-13 . A hearing on this petition was held on June 16, 2004 with the following Board Memigrs v present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Richard Dionne,Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belair and Stephen Harris. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting and Administrative Appeal of the Salem Zoning Officers opinion for the property located at 5 Skerry Street Court R-2.. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence and after reviewing the plans at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner was represented by Attorney John Keilty of 40 Lowell Street in • Peabody. 2. Neighbors and abutters spoke of building materials and debris left on the lot. The abutters were all in opposition to this petition. 3. The Board concurs with Acting Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre that this is not a Special Permit use listed in Section 5-3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, base on the fact and on evidence presented, the Board make a motion to uphold the Building Commissioners opinion with regards to 5 Skerry Street Court with a vote of 5-0 to deny the petitioners appeal. ADMINISTRATIVE RULING DENIED JUNE 16, 2004 'chard Dionne CSS Board of Appeal • A COPYOF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK e 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 unit a copy of the decision bearing the Certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed an no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Lr;- c m N cn.v) r3 cv eil` CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETT&ITY OF SALEM. MA ` BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'SOFFICE • �, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 1004 DEC 2q A IQ: 49 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOAN LOVELY REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND v SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 STORY STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held December 15, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Bonnie Belair, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty 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 is requesting a Special Permit to alter a non-conforming structure and a Variance from side yard setback for the property located at 14 Story Street in an R-2 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 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 JOAN LOVELY REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 STORY STREET R-2 page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after reviewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: 1. Attorney John Kelity, of 40 Lowell Street in Peabody, represented the petitioner. 2. The Petitioner is seeking a Variance from side yard setback to construct an addition. to construct. 3. Plans were submitted showing the proposed addition. 4. A petition in support was submitted with 6 names of abutters in favor of this addition. 5. City Councilor's Joseph O'Keefe and John Pelletier spoke in favor of this petition. 6. There was no opposition to the proposed plans. 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, 5 in favor and 0 in opposition 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. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOAN LOVELY REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 STORY STREET R-2 page three 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure 6. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction, but not limited to the Planning Board Special Permit & Variance Granted December 15, 2004 <=aoheno(!S� 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 IL BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE ® 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • �` �� SALEM, MA O 1970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740.9846 I.1004 JUN — STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. 2 P 2: 54 MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MARGARET CAMARADA REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 47 SUMMER STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on May 19, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne , Stephen Harris, Joseph Barbeau 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, 5-3©(III) Tourist Homes to allow the creation of a tourist home for the property located at 47 Summer 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 MARGARET CAMARDA REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 47 SUMMER STREET R-2 page two 1. The Petitioner's appeared and represented themselves at the hearing. 2. Petitioner requests a Special Permit to operate a 3-room bed and breakfast. v C"J 3. Sarah Smith an abutter spoke in support of the petition. �— M Mo 4. There was no opposition to the petition. z �-n 1 N TN> i �r- '�m On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the -n3 hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows; ry c-)I m 3 Cn D 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantiaF 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. 4. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property, but not the district in general. On the basis of the above findings of fact, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, codes ordinances and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relate to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to 3. A Certificate of inspection shall be obtained 4. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including but not limited to, the Planning Department. Special Permit Granted May 19, 2004 �;�,t onnie Belair C� • Board Of Appea� S DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARGARET CAMARDA REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 47 SUMMER STREET R-2 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17, of MGL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. c r Mo z �-^ r Ncn IV C) r C') N rn:x Ln • C/TY .� CITY OF SB ARD pMAASSACHUSETTS L4 PPEAL 0/c-�FF� <v 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR a SALEM, MA O 1970 _ TEL. (978) 745-9595 Y*4q FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR. 49 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT WILDEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 SUMMIT STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held March 17, 2004 meeting with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Stephen Harris, Bonnie Belair, Nicholas Helides and Joseph Barbeau. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 W ildey the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice requesting a Variance from lot area, front yard setback and rear yard setback to subdivide a lot for the property located at 20 Summit Street located in an R-1 zone. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE MARCH 17, 2004 Nina Coh/ airma s ltl_� Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEM 'MA MA ' BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFIC • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 .2004 . DEC 22 A II: Ot MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W DONALD &JULIE JEFFREY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 SUNSET ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on December 15, 2004 with the following Board Members present; Nina Cohen Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty 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 yard setback to allow a garage and addition to be constructed for the property at 16 Sunset 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 structures 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 plane, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioners' Donald&Julie Jeffrey appeared and represented themselves at the hearing. 2. The request is from a side yard setback to allow construction of a garage and addition. 3. The side setback will be 5.2' instead of the required 10'. 4. A petition was submitted with 5 names of abutters in favor of this petition. 5. A determination of applicability was submitted for the Salem Conservation Commission listing the special conditions. 6. Plans were submitted showing the proposed addition. • 7. There was no opposition to this petition. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF W DONALD a JULIE JEFFREY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 SUNSET ROAD R-I page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented the Board of Appeals finds as follows; 1. Special conditions exist when especially affect the subject property but not he District. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature, ordinance, codes and • regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 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 existing structure. 6. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Boards or Commission having jurisdiction, including the Conservation Commission. Variance Granted December 15, 2004 Bonnie Belau • Board of Appeal DECISION OF THE PETITION OF W DONALD &JULIE JEFFREY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 SUNSET ROAD R-1 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days 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 APPEALs o r r • � m 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR (/1 X1� ' 9 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 �'O 7K N STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 cn p Or MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 'Yl n' DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS INC. - r y REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 THORNDIKE STREET R-2 A hearing of this petition was held on September 15, 2004 with the following Board Members present:Nina Cohen, Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Edward Moriarty, Richard Dionne and Nicholas Helides.Notice of this hearing was sent to 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 petition is requesting a Variance from lot size, lot coverage and setback requirements to allow construction of six units for the property located at 18 Thorndike Street 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 exist which especially affect the land, • building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise,to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Pasquanna Developers is a real estate development company retained by property owner Carly N. Welch to develop housing on a parcel of approximately 36, 000 square feet located between Huborn and Throndike Streets in an older residential section of the City. The property was formerly a contractor's yard used in connection with the owner's family business for many years. This use was abandoned and the property neglected until recently, when it was used for the storage of construction trailers and equipment, a use that is neither allowed nor grandfathered. Complaints by the surrounding residential neighborhood resulted in the effort at redevelopment. 2. Petitioner proposes to clean up the site, install utilities including connections to • City of Salem water and sewer lines,put a sidewalk on Hubom Street, and install • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 THORNDIKE STREET R-2 page two appropriate landscaping. The proposed housing units would be contained in three buildings , each of which would consist of two attached dwelling units. Each two-bedroom home would also have a one-car garage with an extra half bay. 3. A great deal of thought was into sitting these dwelling units. With 144ft of frontage on Hubom St. leading to a cluster of four units. This condominium association from Thomdike St. via a 20ft wide driveway. The condominium association will be responsible for snow removal from the driveways and will be liable for any drainage problems that result on the property. 4. The petitioner seeks variances for additional dwelling units on a lot, minimum distance between buildings, maximum lot coverage, front setbacks, side setbacks and rear yard setbacks for each of the six units. 5. As ground for his petition,petitioner states that the cost of development, and the size and shape of the property constitute hardship. Petitioner further states that the size of the proposed lots in keeping with the existing structures in this neighborhood,which will be enhanced by the new properties. 6. Opposition to this petition was widespread, both within the neighborhood and • outside it. City Councillors Mike Sosnowski, Kevin Harvey and Joseph O'Keefe opposed the density and layout of the proposed development, and abutter Joe Bennett submitted a lengthy letter signed by twenty neighbors in opposition to the proposed six-unit development. Walter Power, Chairman of the Planning Board for the City of Salem, argued that creating access via a long narrow driveway would greatly impact the surrounding neighbors. He stated that changes in density should be made by rezoning, a function of the City Council. Among the residents present who spoke in opposition were Peter Plecinoga, Melissa Cochran, Tracy Osterstuf,Joe Patringer, Kevin Kelker, Marcus Swazey and Bill Semons. 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. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 THORNDIKE STREET R-2 page four Therefore,the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 0 in favor and 5 in opposition to grant the requested variances. Having failed to gamer the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. Variance Denied September 15, 2004 r (/ 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 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 of Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been filed,or that, if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • v�;co CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETT$;/Ty OF BOARD OF APPEAL CLERKSALEM MA 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR S �FFIGc fa SALEM, MA 01970 • 'q� TEL. (978) 745-9595 Fax (978) 740-9846 1004 STANLEYJ.MAYOR VICZ, .1R. MAR '3 p 2. 3b , . DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT MUNROE REQUESTING AN ADIMISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 THORNDIKE STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on February 1 B, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chariman, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Helides, Stephen Harris and Joseph Barbeau. 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 an Administrative Appeal of the Salem Zoning Officers decision to cease and desist order of December 2, 2003 for the property located at 18 Thorndike Street. After hearing the evidence the Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner appeals an order of the City of Salem Building Commissioner, issued on or about December 2, 2003, ordering petitioner to cease and desist all nonresidential activities upon the property at 18 Thorndike Street ("the property"). Petitioner's client, Carol Welch, is a trustee of the property owner, Welch Family Trust. 2. Mr. St Pierre testified that he was asked by neighbors to determine whether the owners have operated a construction yard at the site,.and he did so. Following his investigation Mr. St. Pierre determined that the use of the property as a construction yard had been abandoned for at least 24 months on two occasions since 1998. 3. On behalf of his client Mr. Munroe presented the Board with evidence in the form of testimony by Welch employee Bill McHugh supporting petitioner's assertion that. petitioner had continuously operated a construction yard on the property during the period from 1989 to the present. Mr. McHugh stated that within a building on the site petitioner had stored a forklift, two excavators, a compressor, a trailer, a front- end loader apparently there are also some sections of concrete pipe partially buried on the property. Mr.McHugh stated that he entered onto the property more frequently Than every two years to operate the equipment stored in the building there. 4. Mr. McHugh also stated that for the past two yeas he has resided in Jersey City, New Jersey. 5. Neighbors' testimony was presented to the Board both supporting and opposing petitioner's assertion. Testimony of Michael Cocozella of 15 Hubon St. stated that he has lived at his present address since 1987 and had observed that the property • was not used for any purpose from 1991 to 1994, and that it was also used for any purpose from 1997 until spring, 2002. CITY OF SALEfN,,M,� CLERK s OFFLGE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT MUNROE REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 THORNtjaR -3 Pb STREET R-1 2 3 i page two 6. Testimony of Lori Swezey of 10 Hubon St. stated that she observed no use of the property by anyone from February 2001 until Spring 2002 when the property began to be used by an electrician to store equipment for his electric company. After that, according to her testimony, the property was used to store vehicles. 7. Michael Swezey also testified that since he moved into the house at 10 Hubon St He had never seen any construction work at the property, and had never observed anyone working in the shed. 8. Also testifying that the property has not been used as a contractor's yard were Mr. Kevin Harvey Councilor at Large for the City of Salem and Bill Simmons of 19 Hubon Street. 9. Patrick Murtagh of 17 Hubon St., stated the he move into the neighborhood in 1997, And that he saw pickup trucks being worked on at the property about 3 years ago. Additionally he stated he saw someone using a bobcat to clear the yard. Therefore, based on the fact and on evidence presented, Ms. Cohen made a motion for the Board to support John Keenan's opinion and stand behind the Building Inspector with regards to 18 Thorndike Street with a vote of 4-1 to deny the petitioners appeal. Nina Cohen Board of Appeal r A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 MASSACHUSETTS Cil BOARD OF APPEAL � G -.-- ---- 1.20-WASHINGTON-STREE-T-3RD-FLOOR �� r SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 '_0-V, STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9848 F` 9 DECISION OF THE PETITION OFMARK & CYNDI NAPIERKOWSKI REQUESTING A iS VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 VALLEY STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on September 15, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Bonnie Belair, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Helides and Edward Moriarty. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 Section 7-3, Off-Street Parking regulations to allow a second curb cut for the property located at 19 Valley 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. The petitioner is seeking a Variance from off-street parking regulations to allow a second curb cut. 2. A petition was submitted with two names of the abutters in favor of this petition. 3. There was no opposition to this petition. • DECIStON-OF THE PETITION-OFMARK&-C-YNDI-NAPIERKOWSKI-REQUESTING-A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 VALLEY 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. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. rn 0 X-n Variance Granted ^ 1�- C'D September 15, 2004 / / n (' •• or nm rn, Nina Cohen — v Board of Appeal r-n A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIITY 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 day date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, • or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEM: MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ^ 1' STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 -1094 ,DEC OEC 20 12' 1 U ' MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 s DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DENNIS & GAIL FLYNN REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 VICTORY ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on December 15, 2004 with the following Board Members present:Nina Cohen Chairman, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair ,, Edward Moriarty 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 an Administrative Appeal of the Building Inspectors decision for the property located at 7 Victory Road. The Board of Appeal,after careful consideration of the evidence and after reviewing the plans at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: • 1. Attorney James Flemming presented the appeal. 2. Reference was made to the petition that was granted in June of 2004 for increase in the size of the dwelling from 4.5 to 7.5 rooms. 3. Attorney Flemming stated that the home continues to be a single family use with one doorbell and 1 mail box meeting the definitions under the code for single family. 4. Attorney Flemming made reference to plans submitted in June of 2004 being sketchy with little interior detail and being unrepresentative of the work that was actually performed. 5. Attorney Flemming stated that the Building Inspector had made the rough inspection and observed the counter level electrical outlets, and did not stop the work or note an issue. 6. Board member Attorney Moriarty reviewed definitions of both single and multi family dwellings and noted that the zoning code must be viewed in the entirety and therefore the subject is defined as a multi-family based on that definition. 7. Board member Bonnie Belair inquired if the work was completed as per the plane. Discussion requiring the labeling of the room that has been completed as a kitchen labeled in the plans as a "great room". Additional discussion concerning the verbal exchange at the June of 2004 meeting when it as alleged that the petitioner represented that there would only be one kitchen in the dwelling. The allegation was disputed. The June meeting was recorded. 8. Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre presented his findings as follows: a. He has viewed the situation in its totality. • b. The plans submitted at the June of 2004 petition did not show a kitchen. CITY OF SALEM.,MA CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DENNIS & GAIL FLYNN REQUA%.N P 12: 14 ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 VICTORY ROAD R-I page two Submission of plans without identifying kitchen areas is in violation of state building code. C. Newly created separate egresses exist. . d. Two separate housekeeping units have been created through the additional kitchen and separate egresses. 9. Albert and Ruby Hill of 4 Larkin Lane spoke in opposition to the creation of a two-family property in an R-1 zone and did not want a precedent set by allowing it to remain in place. 10. Property owner Dennis Flynn presented the following: a. Original plans showed a"great room" because they did not know at the time how they wished to use the space. b. The exterior appearance remains the same as a single family. c. Building Inspector did not mention the issue at the rough inspection. d. Building Inspector saw the counter level electrical outlets. • 11. Building Inspector St. Pierre stated that his notes from the rough inspection noted the issued and he in fact did bring the issue up at the time advising the owner that a second kitchen would be an issue. 12. Abutter David Reardon of 5 Victory Road stated his support for the owner. 13.Neighbor Mr. Willets of 3 Victory Road stated his support for the owner. 14. City Councillor Joseph O'Keefe stated his support for the owners and further identified the need to clarify the ordinance. IS. Owners of 5,6,12 & 11 Victory Road stated their support for their neighbor. 16. City Councillor Corchado noted that the only opposition that has reached his is from Mr. & Mrs. Hill. She state her belief that we should abide by the Zoning Ordinance as it stands now. 17. Attorney Quinn suggested that conditions be considered to accommodate the situation given all the support from the neighbors. 18. Owner of the subject property, Robert Pelletier stated that his is in favor of a lien or other conditions that would accommodate the situation. 19. Board Member Moriarty stated that the definitions in the code clearly identify the subject in its present condition to be a multi-family dwelling. • M. CI CLERKS OFF CEA • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DENNIS & GAIL FLYNN REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 VI TO�tjY12; u ROAD R-1 189!t OECD page three Therefore, base on the fact and on evidence presented, the Board make a motion to uphold Building Commissioners' Thomas St. Pierre decision for the premises at 7 Victory Road with a vote of 1 in favor and 4 to deny the petitioners appeal. ADMINISTRATIVE RULING DENIED December 15, 2004 Nicholas Helides, Member CS'C Yx� Board of Appeal J i A COPYOF THIS DECISION HAS 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 unit a copy of the decision bearing the Certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed an no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • .¢o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ® BOARD OF APPEAL CITY OF_ SALEM. RSA - 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OFFICE } SALEM, MA 01 970 • '��� TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740.9846 STANLEYJ.MAYOR VICZ, JR. 2004 JUN 21 A ID S$ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DENNIS FLYNN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROERTY LOCATED AT 7 VICTORY ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on June 16, 2004 with the following Board Members present;Nina Cohen Chairman, Bonnie Belair,Nicholas Helides, Stephen Hams and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side yard setback to construct a two-story addition for the property located at 7 Victory Road located in an R-1 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: aa. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures 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 plane, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Dennis Flynn, the petitioner was requesting a Variance form the side setback requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which requires 10 feet on a side setback. The petitioner was requesting that he be allowed to build an addition to within 5 %: feet from his abutters property line 2. There was neighborhood support for the petition stating that the Flynn's were excellent neighbors and took great care with regards to the upkeep of there property. 3. There was no opposition to this petition. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DENNIS FLYNN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 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 when especially affect the subject property but not he District. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature, ordinance, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Variance Granted June 16, 2004 Stephen ams Board of Appeal • FA To CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETITS OF SALEM, MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR`' • -MotIt I SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 .2004 JUN STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. 2' P 2. 55 MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NORTH RIVER REDEVELOPMENT TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2-5 WATER STREET I/B-1 A hearing on this petition was held May 19, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair, and Joseph Barbeau. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 and Variance from parking regulations and density to allow construction of 12 residential units at 2 Water Street in an Industrial Zone and for density and parking variances to allow construction of 5 residential units for the property located at 2-5 Water Street located in an Industrial and B-1 zone. The provisions the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to the request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 (j), which provides as follows: • Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits. for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extent expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests 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 Y SOF��i DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NORTH RIVER REDEVELOPMENT TjHl7 /CF�q • REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2-5 WATER STREET B-1/1 A page two 2• SS The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after reviewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Charles Blaisdell trustee of North River Redevelopment Trust, seeks variances affecting two Water Street parcels lying in different zoning district, In furtherance of a plan to create a seventeen unit condominium complex straddling both districts. 2. Under petitioner's plan presented by Attorney George.Atkins III and Architect Brent Mogel, development of the property at 2 Water Street is the industrial zone will require demolition of the existing hundred year old factory building. In its place petitioner seeks to erect three clusters of five new houses and one duplex, all with historical architectural features. 3. Each new house will have a one-care garage with a driveway long enough to fit a single car, thus each unit provides off-street parking for two cars, but only if the cars are stacked one behind the other. For this reason, petitioner seeks a variance to allow the exterior parking spaces to be located on the entrance to the interior space for each unit. 4. Brent Mogel project architect stated that the development features historic windows, appearance doorways, clapboard siding, brick end walls slate-like • roofing and cobblestone centers courtyard. Each two-bedroom unit offers approximately 1,250 square feet of living space in addition to the garage. Each would be priced at about $280,000. . 5. Petitioner's plan for 5 Water Street calls for five units to be located in the B-1 zone requiring variances from maximum height. At 37'5', the roof peaks of each row house would be taller than the existing factory-building roof. In addition, petitioner requests variances from the parking requirements in order to utilize a stacking parking arrangement like that described above for these units. 6. The configuration of the units on the lot at 2 Waters Street in the I zone requires variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, frontage, depth of front yard, width of side yard and depth of rear yard. Overall, the proposed use will result in lot coverage of 42% for both lots, while the existing factory building has lot coverage of 56%. 7. Petitioner states that the proposed improvement will create a new moderately Priced residential neighborhood in an existing mixed-use area. The plan is Supported by Michael Bencal, Ward Councillor for Ward 6, neighbors Laura Perrin of 2A Buffum St., Joan O'Connor of 15 Mason Street and Liz Bradt D.V.M. of 22 Larchmont Rd., who owner and operates a veterinary hospital at 15 Commercial Street. 8. Several neighbors were concerned that overflow parking needed by the Condominium residents would be unavailable given the improvements of Waters and South Mason Streets, and they urged the developers to make provisions for overflow parking. Luis Rosano of 11 Mason St. and Mark Boren of 9 South Mason St. expressed reservations about overflow parking and concerns about • protection of existing properties during demolition. Mr. Rosano also objected to the height of the proposed development, which would block views of the river CIT`( OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NORTH RIVER REDEVELOPMENT TRUST REQUESTING A SPECAIL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPEL{ Y LOCATED AT 2-5 WATERS STREET I/B1 `uu� JUN =2 P 2: .55 ' page three and he asked about the landscaping and fencing of the development. 9. David Hart of Historic Salem Inc. and Morris Schopf, of 1 Cambridge St strongly objected to the proposed demolition, stating that older industrial building form a part of the fabric of the community, which developers have a duty to improve rather than destroy. Mr. Schopf stated that no substantial investigation had yet been made as to whether the existing building could be profitably redeveloped for residential or commercial use or for mixed use. On this point he was contested by Developer Steve DeFonsa who stated that they had investigated such a restoration and did not fined it feasible. 10. Jim Treadwell of 36 Phelps St. spoke on behalf of the North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Implementation Committee which also submitted a letter in opposition to the project signed by thirteen members. This group has met consistently over two years to develop a vision for the redevelopment of a section of North Salem in which this property lies and to create support for the re-zoning of this district in line with a Neighborhood Master Plan. According to Mr. Treadwell, the developer's plan fails to meet the Neighborhood Master Plan developed by this group because it is overly dense is not pedestrian or street friendly, and is too tall. In support he stated that the proposed density of 17 units for the half-acre site amounted to roughly 32 units per acre, while the Master • Plan calls for no more than 12 units/acre. This density, according to the Committee, is not in keeping with the character of the existing neighborhood and is not the type that is envisioned in the Neighborhood Master Plan. 11. Mr. Treadwell, Mr. Mark Dunn of the North River Canal corridor Council, and Councillor Mike Sosnowski, Ward Councillor for Ward 2 also objected to the timing of the petition, stating that they hoped that the Zoning Board would deny Petitioner's variances requests pending the outcome of the deliberations of the Committee. 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. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NORTH RIVER REDEVELOPMENT TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2-5 WATER STREET 131/1 page four Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted, 4 in favor and 0 in opposition 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. o �� 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. z Mo 5. Petition shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. Nn 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having Jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. Cn m3 • Ln D 7. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Units shall be owner occupied. 9. Petitioner shall look into possibility of an easement to Commercial Street. Special Permit & Variance Granted May 19, 2004 Nina Cohen, Chairtman4,3Car —\ Board of Appeal JJ • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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. o � Board of Appeal L � c r� • > 7N� Vern 2!:1 N n• .. m3 n D • �o CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CI I Y OF SALEM MA ' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OFFICE • 1 �� SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. ,1004 MAY -u P 2:: 51 MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KRISTI HANSON REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 48 WEBB STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on April 21, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Nicholas Helides, Joseph Barbeau 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 allow the sale of chocolates from the property located at 48 Webb Street R-2. 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 • C11-y OF SALEM, R CLERKS OFFICE . • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KRISTI HANSON REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 48 WEBB STREET R-2 page two _1UU� MAY. -U P 2: 58 1. Petitioner Kristi Hanson appeared and represented herself at the hearing. 2. The Petitioner would like to sell chocolates from her property at 48 Webb Street. 3. There will be no other employees. 4. Most of the sales will be through the Internet and there will be no walk in traffic. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows; 1. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition, 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. Petitioner shall obtain permission from the Health Department. 3. There will be no walk in retail sales allowed. &V��Special Permit Granted April 21, 2004 Bonnie Belair Board of Appeal • 1 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND r 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. _ N n_ O C--) M. -< m C) C)x � stn n oM N n m3 � D m CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • BOARD OF APPEAL GITY OF SALEM, MA a CLERK'S OFFICE • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 1004 AUG 2Q P 3: Og DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROLAND AND CELIA ERWIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 WEBSTER STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on August 18, 2004 with the following Board Members present;Nina Cohen Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Stephen Harris,Nicholas Helides and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioners are requesting relief in the form of a Variance from a front yard setback to construct a covered porch and a Variance from a side yard setback to re-construct a rear 3 season porch for the property at 4 Webster Street located in an R-2 zone. The Variances,which have been requested, may be granted upon a fording 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 structures 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 plane, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioners appeared and represented themselves at the hearing. 2. Petitioner requests a Variance from front yard setback to construct a covered porch and a side yard setback to re-construct a rear 3 season porch. 3. Paul Guido who resides at 15 Pleasant Street spoke in favor of this petition. 4. There was no opposition to this petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION ROLAND AND CELIA ERWIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED A 4 WEBSTER STREET R-2 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented the Board of Appeals finds as follows; 1. Special conditions exist when especially affect the subject property but not he District. 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 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state stature, ordinance, codes and • regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 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 August 18, 2004 Bonnie Be Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROLAND AND CELIA ERWIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 WEBSTER STREET R-2 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERIC 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 date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that, if such appeal has been filed,that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • • CITY OF SALEM. MA � CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CLERK'S OFFICE BOARD OF APPEAL '1 • gyp,_ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR _27 004 DEC 23 A IO' 41 ' ^44 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740.9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DOUGLAS & JEAN OLSSON KARAM REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 WINTER ISLAND ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on December 15, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne Bonnie Belair, Nicholas Helides and Steven Pinto. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 reconstruction and expansion of existing nonconforming structure for the property located at 25 Winter Island 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 DOUGLAS & JEAN OLSSON KARAM REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 WINTER ISLAND ROAD R-1 page two 1. The Petitioner's Douglas & Jean Olsson Karam own a nonconforming house and adjacent lot at 25 Winter Island Road. They wish to reconstruct the house for use as their family residence. 2. According to elevations and plans drawn by Peter Pickman Architects, their planned reconstruction will vary the terms of the Ordinance by expanding the side to within 7 feet of the lot line, and the front of the house to within 6 feet of the front lot line. 3. The planned reconstruction will not expand will not expand the overall height of the house, which is 32 feet, but by creating dormers will extend the roof to create a third floor where previously the house had 2 Y2 . 4. The plans have been explained to the neighbors, all of whom support the Karam's plan. One neighbor, Jane Dionne attended the meeting in order to voice her support for the Karams. They also had the support of Joseph O'Keefe, Ward 7 City Councillor and Lucy Corchardo, Ward 1 City Councillor. 5. There was no opposition to the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows; 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 2. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 3. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. 4. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property, but not the district in general. On the basis of the above findings of fact, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, codes ordinances and 0 • regulations. r r't �o Ln vW �to 4. `f • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DOUGLAS AND JEAN OLSSON KARAM REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 WINTER ISLAND ROAD R-1 page two 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relate to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including but not limited to, the Planning Department. Special Permit Granted //// l (�-C�\ December 15, 2004 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board Of Appeal • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17, of MGL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. 0 G Gn �T n .0 • ^3 rC1T+3 44 � J