The URL can be used to link to this page

2005-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �Z�r� c� � �p��a� `�eE,�S�o� s a-oo S 0 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CITY OF SALEM. MA 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OFFICE '11N8 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 ZOOS AUG I I P 3: 41 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF FIAMINO LANZILLO, JR REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROERTY LOCATED AT 26 ABORN STREET B2 A hearing on this petition was held on August 9, 2005 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 per Sections 8-3,84 & 8-5 to tear down and rebuild on existing non-conforming structure and to replace it with a single family dwelling for the property located at 26 Aborn Street located in a B-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. r' c DECISION OF THE PETITION OF FIAMINO LANZILLO, JR-REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 26 ABORN STREET B-2 page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of facts: 1. The petition was continued from the meeting of July 20, 2005 during which the following occurred: 2. Attorney Sam Vitali represented the petitioner. 3. The petitioner stated that the existing structure was beyond reconstruction and needed to be town down and replaced with a new structure. 4. The members of the Board of Appeal discussed the need for an engineers report to evidence the need to demolish the structure. 5. The abutting neighbor to the right,Jose Gomes spoke in opposition to moving the location of the building. 6. During the meeting of July 201h the members of the Board of Appeal, suggested that the petitioner meet with the members and architects of Historic Salem Inc. and the neighbors. 7. At the meeting of August 9,2005 the petition was reopened and the following occurred: 8. A letter from Historic Salem, Inc.was read into the minutes. 9. The petitioner again was represented by Attorney Sam Vitali. 10. James Treggiano of Witchcraft Heights spoke in favor of the petition. 11. Many Anne Silva of the Ward 4 Neighborhood Association spoke in favor of the involvement of Historic Salem, Inc 12. Building Inspector, Tom St. Pierre advised the Board that if a new dwelling were constructed in the same location with a zero setback, no windows could be placed in that side wall of the structure that was on the lot line. 13. Pictures were viewed and a discussion of the streetscape,height of the existing and proposed new structure,was discussed. 14. Proposed parking was discussed. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF FIAMINO LANZILLO, JR. REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 26 ABORN STREET B-2 15. Members of the Board discussed the location of the new structure and it was determined that the petitioners proposal for location made sense in light of the zero lot line issue. 16. The Petitioner acknowledged his willingness to work with and incorporate exterior design and materials suggestions from Historic Salem, Inc. 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 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. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in corporation with Historic Salem Inc. 6. All construction shall be done as per the plans submitted and approved by the MBuilding Commissioner. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF FIAMINO LANZILLO, 7R. REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 26 ARORN STREET B2 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Boards or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. S. Petitioner shall request to waive the 6 month demolition delay ordinance with the Salem Historical Commission. Special Permit Granted August 9, 2005 Nicholas Helides C SC 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. Board of Appeal CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS TY OF SALEM, BOARD OF APPEAL ClCLERK's OFFICER • ,p 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ''SMB SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ^ II. �� MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 .2005 AUG -2 A DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICK AND CYNTHIA O'CONNOR REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 100 BAY VIEW AVENUE R-I A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Nicholas Helides, Edward Moriarty, Steven Pinto and Bonnie Belair. 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 a Variance from the number of stories to rebuild after fire damage for the property located at 100 Bay View Avenue Iodated in an R-1 district. 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 and 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; 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 the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after reviewing the plans at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The house was a legal four family, which will now become a two family. The owners want to rebuild and have a family member move into the second unit. 2. Ms. Anna DellaMonica, the owner of 102 Bay View Avenue was represented at the hearing by Attorney Goddard. She is opposed to the granting of the Variance because her view may be restricted or obstructed and this could lower her property value. She also stated that the variance would increase the number of people and cars. Ms. Della Monica is also worried about another fire and the close proximity of her property. She has three condominiums at 102 Bay View Avenue but does not live there. 3. Mr. Plummer who resides at 98 Bay View Avenue stated that he was not for or • against the proposed Variance. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICK & CYNTHIA. O'CONNOR REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 100 BAY VIEW AVENUE R-1 4. Mr. and Mrs. O'Connor presented a Petition signed by several of the neighbors who are in agreement with the plans of the renovation. On the basis of the above findings of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petition. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four in favor of the Variance and one • opposed. Nina Cohen, Nicholas Helides, Steven Pinto and Bonnie Belair voted in favor and Ed Moriarty voted in opposition. The Variance was granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. The Petitioner is required to use fire resistant materials in the construction. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. • 8. The rebuilding of the rear porches will be limited to the existing footings of eight feet by twelve feet. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PATRICK &CYNTHIS O'CONNOR REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 100 BAY VIEW AVENUE R-1 page three 9. The house shall remain a two family. 10. The Petitioner shall apply and comply with any conditions made by the Conservation Commission. r Variance Granted July 20, 2005 Bonnie L. Belau (SC 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 MASSACHUSETTS Ulm BOARD OF APPEAL • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 0 MM9 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 S 0 STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 �-f1 K MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 Up q LP tJ O i Cl) DECISION ON THE PETITION OF URCIN LLC REQUESTING AN �3 l ADMINISTRATIVE RULING AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 33 R BEAVER STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on September 7, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair, Edward Moriarty, Robin Stein 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 an Administrative Appeal of the Building Inspectors refusal to issue a Building Permit to rebuild fire damaged apartment. If denied,Petitioner is seeking Variances from lot area,lot area per dwelling, lot width,minimum side yard,rear yard and number of parking spaces for the property located at 33 R Beaver 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. The Petitioner was,represented by Attorney Rosalyn Stults of 221 Essex Street in Salem. 2. The Building Inspector refused to issue a building permit because he could not find a card showing a permit for the original building. The Building Inspector felt that the building may have been constructed illegally. 3. Council for the Petitioner said the present owners were not responsible for the building being constructed. 4. Many neighbors spoke against the tenants saying that the building smelled, contained rodents and was not being cleaned up. Abutters also spoke about fences being torn down and people cutting through there yards. 5. The property at 33 Beaver Street was purchased by the present tenants on December 3, 2002. They are asking for a third unit to be added above an existing garage. 6. Linda Greenwood of 35 Beaver Street said she could still smell smoke from the fire. She also stated that the property was not being maintained. Ruth Simpson of 33 Beaver Street said a fence had been torn down and that people used that as a cut through. 7. The City was aware of the building since at least 1975 based on the 1975 • assessor's records. Other records show taxes assessed on that property DECISION OF THE PETITION OF URCIN LLC REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRIVE APPEAL AND VARAINCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 33 R BEAVER STREET R-2 page two m A o � x N U,cn 8. The Petitioner cited hardship being economic and financial for needing the third m apartment. The garage as is would not bring in any income. D.. Therefore, base on the fact and on evidence presented,the Board made a motion Y46 5 members in opposition and 0 in favor to deny the Administrative Appeal and another motion with 5 members in opposition and 0 in favor of issuing the Variances requested. ADMINISTRATIVE RULING & VARIANCES DENIED September 7,2005 • Steven Pinto, Member( � l Board of Appeal ` J 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, MASSACHUSETTS, ; SALEM MA BOARD-OF-APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE , • ,p, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ' SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 78- 74 -9595 2005 NOV 11 P 3: 3b MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS MCDONALD REQUESTING REMOVAL OF CLAUSE FROM PREVIOUS DECISION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11- 13 BRYANT STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held November 16 2005 meeting with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Nicholas Helides, Robin Stein, 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 to remove clause from previous decision requiring owner occupancy for 3 family for the property located at 11-13 Bryant Street R-2. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE NOVEMBER 16, 2005 Nina Cohen, Chairman v Ck)�, Board of Appeal i A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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. 0 Board of Appeal CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEM MA a _ BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE • .}� 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 'ON8 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 1005 NA MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 R 29 A IQ 33 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL TERRY REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 BECKET STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on March 16, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair, 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 New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit 8-4 to alter a non-conforming structure and a Variance from density to revert to a two family for the property located at 19 Becket 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 MICHAEL TERRY REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 BECKET 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 Michael Tent' owns the property at 19 Becket Street that is nonconforming as to lot size, frontage requirements and front setback. In 1988 this property came before the Zoning Board of Appeal when Mr. Terry's predecessor in interest sought a special permit to build an addition and convert the house to a two-family use. He also sought a variance to use an easement to access to parking at the rear of the property. • 2. The requested relief was granted on condition that the easement be maintained, and an addition was constructed but it appears the property may not have been used consistently as a two-family during the intervening years. 3. Petitioner now seeks zoning relief to enable him to use the property as a two- family residence, and submits a petition signed by 22 neighbors in support of the use. 4. One neighbor who withheld his support was the abutter at 17 Becket Street, Thomas Hayden,who stated that the easement has not been maintained. Mr. Hayden states that the owners of 19 Becket consistently leave vehicles on the property line where the easement nuns, instead of using the easement for access to the parking area at the rear of 19 Becket Street. 5. In consideration of Mr. Hayden's support for his proposal, Mr. Terry agreed to a. Remove an existing fence that he had built between the properties b. Take responsibility for removing snow from the driveway easement c. Execute a binding Agreement with Mr. Hayden to ensure that neither party will leave any vehicle in the driveway easement or otherwise impede in any way movement within the easement. 6. Whereupon Mr. Hayden withdrew his opposition to the petition. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL TERRY REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 BECKET STREET R-2 page three 7. Mr. Terry also withdrew without prejudice his request for a special permit and just needs the Variance. 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 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. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 4. The relief requested can 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. 5. 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 with the following conditions. I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petition shall submit agreement with abutter of 17 Beckett Street to maintain easement. 7. Petitioner shall maintain 3 parking spaces in lot. 8. Agreement was signed and submitted to Board on March 22, 2005. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL TERRY REQUESTING A SPECAIL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19 BECKET STREET R-2 page four SPECIAL PERMIT&VARIANCE Nina Cohen, Chairman GRANTED Board of Appeal MARCH 16, 2005 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 Sled, 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 • AGREEMENT- 19 Becket Street, Salem, Massachusetts Agreement made this 18th day of March, 2005 by and between Michael Terry, owner of property located at 19 Becket Street Salem,Massachusetts, and Thomas Hayden, owner of property located at 17 Becket Street, Salem, Massachusetts clarifying driveway easement on said property dated February 16, 1989 and recorded with Essex South District Registry of Deeds, Book 9901, Page 005. Whereas Michael Terry has filed a petition with the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Variance from the provision of the Zoning By-Law governing Lot Area per Dwelling Unit in order to convert a one unit building at 19 Becket Street, Salem,Massachusetts to two units. _._. Whereas a public hearing on this petititon was held by the Board on March 16, 2005 in which the Board indicated that approval of this petition was contingent upon Michael Terry and Thomas Hayden reaching an agreement relative to the driveway easement between the two properties referred to above in particular the issue of the fence separating the properties as well as the issue of removing any impediments to the use of the easement. Whereas both Mr. Terry and Mr. Hayden have determined that it is in their best interests to resolve the issues involving the driveway easment, Mr. Terry and Mr. Hayden • hereby agree as follows: 1. Mr. Terry shall remove eight (8)feet of the fence between the property at 17 Becket Street and 19 Becket Street beginning at the front boundary of the property at the sidewalk and running along the boundary line between the properties. Mr. Terry and Mr. Hayden hereby agree to repair/restore the remaining portion of the fence to its original condition. 2. Mr. Terry shall be reponsible for maintaining the driveway easement which primarily consists of snow removal. 3. Neither Mr. Terry or Mr. Hayden or any occupants of their respective properties at 19 Becket Street, Salem, Massachusetts and 17 Becket Street, Salem, Massachusetts shall impede in any way the driveway easement between the two properties. In particular, Mr. Terry and Mr. Hayden agree not to park motor vehicles on or across said driveway easement or restrict the easement in any other way. • This agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their heirs, executors, assigns and any other successor in interest. Witness our hands and seals this 22nd day of March, 2005. /T Thomas Hayde Michael Terry • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS OF SALEM, BOARD OF APPEAL CITY CLERKS OFFICER • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 9 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 �OQC JUN �r)� p 2: 33 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 J L DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NICK NIKOLOPOULOS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 BELLEAU ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on May 18, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty, Nicholas Helides, Robin Stein 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 side yard setback to construct a 12 x 16 addition for the property located at 10 Belleau 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, Nick Nikolopoulos appeared and presented his plans before the Board. 2. The petitioner is seeking relief from a side yard setback to construct a one story- one room addition to his property. 3. Lee Callahan of 5 Savoy Road, and abutter from 353 Lafayette Street appeared in support of the petition. 4. There was no opposition to this petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the 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 NICK NIKOLOPOULOS REQUESTING A VARIANCE/SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 BELLEAU ROAD R-1 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. • 5 A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall keep existing red cedar shingles Variance Granted May 18, 2005 (Sc Steven Pinto, Member Board of Appeals 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. e CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY 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 1005 AUG 22 P MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 2• �'� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICIA PITREAU REQUESTING AN ADIMISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 BARCELONA AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on August 9 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chariman, 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 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 on July 6, 2005 not to issue a cease and desist order on permit#558-05 for the property located at 21 Barcelona Avenue in an R-1 zone. After hearing the evidence the Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Patricia Pitreau resides at 18 Barcelona Avenue in Salem. • 2. On June 22, 2005, Ms. Pitreau requested that the City of Salem Building Inspector Thomas St. Pierre issue a cease & desist order under MGL.c 40A, Sections 7 & 8 to stop construction of a new home on the property at 21 Barcelona Ave. As grounds for her request, she contends that the lot at 21 Barcelona Ave, having an area of 7,493 square feet is nonconforming in size. It is uncontested that the lot is located in an R-1 zoning district where the minimum lot size requirement is 15,000 square feet. 3. On July 6, 2005, Mr. St. Pierre notified Ms. Pitreau that he would not issue a cease & desist order on building permit #558-05, which authorized the owner of 21 Barcelona Avenue to commence work on building a single-family home on the lot. 4. Ms. Pitreau subsequently appealed Mr. St. Pierre's decision to the Zoning Board of Appeal and a hearing was held on August 9, 2005 at which Ms. Pitreau was represented by Leonard Femino, Esq. of Alexander & Femino, One School St. Beverly, Ma. and Blanche Francullo, the owner of 21 Barcelona Avenue was represented by John Keilty, Esq. of 40 Lowell Street, Peabody, Ma. 5. Blanche Francullo through her attorney confirmed that she and her late husband acquired the properties at 19 and 21 Barcelona Ave. in the late 1950's. The two properties were held in common ownership by the Francullo family from their acquisition to the present day. At the present time, a developer, Patrick Chasse, has acquired an option to purchase the property at 21 Barcelona Avenue. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PATRICIA PITREAU REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 BARCELONA AVENUE R-1 page two 6. Ms. Francullo contends that the doctrine of merger under which adjoining lots held in common ownership are considered one lot for zoning purposes, does not apply to her property. In support of her argument, Ms. Francullo argues that merger only applies to adjoining lots when they are both nonconforming in area. Her property at 19 Barcelona Ave. which comprises of 17,226 square feet could not, she contends have merged with the adjoining property at 21 Barcelona Ave, which contains 7,493 square feet and is admittedly nonconforming in area. Therefore, based on the fact and on evidence presented, the Board of Appeals voted 3 in favor to 2 in opposition to uphold the Building Inspector decision with regards to 1 he property located at 21 Barcelona Avenue. \ /v vyia( o eft CScrx - Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal . o CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CITY OF SALEM MA • q_MIN80 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OFFICE 00��77 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 1005 AUG 26 A 8: 44 DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR REFUSING TO ISSUE A STOP-WORK ORDER AND REVOKE A BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 BARCELONA AVENUE R-1. A hearing on this petition was held on August 9, 2005 with the following Board Members present : Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belaire, Edward Moriarty and Nicholas Helides . Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices were published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, Patricia A. Pitreau, is requesting that this Board overturn a Decision of the Building Inspector denying her request for issuance of a stop-work order and for revocation of a • building permit issued for the property located at 21 Barcelona Avenue, in an R-1 Zoning District, and for enforcement of the zoning ordinance. The basis for Petitioner' s request is her contention that 21 Barcelona Avenue cannot be a legally buildable lot for the reason that is undersized and that it merged by operation of law either with the adjacent lot at 19 Barcelona Avenue or with the other adjacent lot at 42 Ravena Avenue. The Petitioner filed her request for issuance of a stop-work order and for revocation of the building permit on June 22 , 2005 . The Building Inspector responded in writing on July 6, 2005, denying Petitioner' s request . The Petitioner filed her appeal to this Board on July 12 , 2005 . Therefore, this appeal was timely filed. I• • The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence, makes the following findings of fact : 1. In the 1950s Blanche E. Francullo and her late husband, Michael A. Francullo, purchased six (6) small but (then) buildable lots . These were Lots 325, 326, 327, 328, 329 and 330 as shown on plan no. 11802-E, drawn by Thomas A. Appleton, Civil Engineer, dated December 6, 1928, as modified and approved by the Land Court, filed in the Land Court Registration Office, a copy of a portion of which is filed with Certificate of Title 7179 in said Registry. These six (6) lots are recognizable today as follows : 2 . Lots 325, 326 and 327 comprise the parcel now known and numbered as 19 Barcelona Avenue, containing 17 , 226 square feet of land, also appearing as Lot 03 on Assessor' s Map 4 . • 3 . Lots 329 and 330 comprise the parcel now known and numbered as 42 Aavena Avenue, containing 13 , 200 square feet of land, also appearing as Lot 17 on Assessor' s Map 4 . 4 . Lot 328 is now known and numbered as 21 Barcelona Avenue, containing 7, 493 square feet, also appearing as Lot 29 on Assessor' s Map 4 . S. All three of these parcels are zoned R-1 Residence. The history of zoning in this district is as follows : (i) From 1965 through mid-1969 , the minimum required area for a buildable lot was 5, 000 square feet . Thus, all three of the Francullo parcels were legally buildable lots. (ii) In July of 1969 the minimum required area for a buildable lot was increased to 7, 000 square feet, where it remained until April of 1977 . Thus, all three of the Francullo parcels remained • legally buildable lots . (iii) In April of 1977 the minimum required area for a buildable lot was increased to 15, 000 square feet, where it remains to date. Under this standard, only 19 Barcelona Avenue would be considered a legally buildable lot . 6. The house that presently occupies 19 Barcelona Avenue was completed in or prior to 1959 . Thus, 19 Barcelona Avenue always was a legally buildable lot, and is today a developed, conforming lot . 7 . In or prior to 1974, the parcel known and numbered as 42 Ravena Avenue was conveyed out to the Francullos ' son. It is presently owned by a neighbor who has built a single-family home on the property. Thus, 42 Ravena Avenue is today a legally developed nonconforming lot. • 8. The lot which is the subject of these proceedings, 21 Barcelona Avenue, remains undeveloped. Since it contains only 7 , 493 square feet of land, it is nonconforming under the present zoning which took effect in April, 1977 . 9. Inasmuch as 42 Ravena Avenue was already developed and also was not held in common ownership with 21 Barcelona Avenue in April of 1977 when the minimum zoning required for a buildable lot was increased from 7 , 000 square feet to 15, 000 square feet, it could not and did not merge with the subject lot . 10. 19 Barcelona Avenue was held in common ownership with 21 Barcelona Avenue for more than five years as of April of 1977 when the minimum zoning required for a buildable lot was increased from 7 , 000 square feet to 15, 000 square feet . For this reason, the petitioner argues, 21 Barcelona Avenue merged into 19 Barcelona Avenue in April of 1977, by operation of Mass .Gen.L. c. 40A, sec . 6 (fourth paragraph, first sentence) provides that : • • Any increase in area, frontage, width, yard, or depth requirements of a zoning ordinance or by-law shall not apply to a lot for single and two-family residential use which at the time of recording or endorsement, whichever occurs sooner was not held in common ownership with any adjoining land, conformed to then existing requirements and had less than the proposed requirement but at least five thousand square feet of area and fifty feet of frontage. 11. Also see, to the same effect, Salem Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 8-2 , which provides that (I) f two (2) or more lots, or combinations of lots and portions of lots, with continuous frontage in single ownership are of record for more than five (5) years at the time of adoption of this ordinance, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the requirements for lot width and area as established by this ordinance, the lands involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purpose of this ordinance, and no portion of said parcel shall be used or sold which does not meet lot width and area requirements established by this ordinance, (n) or shall any division of the parcel be made which leaves remaining any lot with width or • area below the requirements stated in this ordinance. 12 . On or about December 22 , 2004 the Building Inspector issued a Building Permit for 21 Barcelona Avenue. • • 13 . The Building Inspector has taken the position that 21 Barcelona Avenue is a grandfathered, legally buildable, nonconforming lot, notwithstanding the above-quoted provisions of law, because: (i) at the time of the alleged merger, April 1977 , 42 Ravena Avenue was already a legally developed, nonconforming lot, and it continues to exist as such today; and (ii) at the time of the alleged merger, 19 Barcelona Avenue was already a legally developed, conforming lot, and it continues to exist as such today; wherefore (iii) 21 Barcelona Avenue did not merge with either 19 Barcelona Avenue or 42 Ravena Avenue. 14. Blanche E. Francullo, the owner of both 19 and 21 Barcelona Avenue, agrees with the Building Inspector, and contends that there is no legal precedent whereby a lot that was already legally developed at the time of the relevant zoning change would absorb, through merger, an abutting, undersized, undeveloped lot . • Therefore, argues Ms . Francullo, the Building Permit for 21 Barcelona Avenue was lawfully issued, and the Building Inspector' s Decision should be upheld. 15. The Petitioner, Patricia A. Pitreau, contends that nothing in the state statute or in the local zoning ordinance provides that the question of merger depends upon the condition of the lots as developed or undeveloped. The Petitioner contends that the above- quoted provisions of law should be read and applied literally and that, under a literal application of the law, 21 Barcelona Avenue merged into 19 Barcelona Avenue in April of 1977 , wherefore the Building Permit for 21 Barcelona Avenue was unlawfully issued, and the Building Inspector' s Decision should be overturned. WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing facts and law, the Board voted as follows on the Petition to Reverse the Building Inspector' s Decision: Richard Dionne: Yes; Edward Moriarty: Yes; Nina Cohen: Yes; Nicholas Helides : No; Bonnie Belaire: No. Since • four (4) affirmative votes are required to reverse the Building • Inspector' s Decision, the Petition fails . PETITION DENIED August 2005 Nina Cohen, Chai n Board of Appeal 1 C:\FRANCULLO, BLANCHE\FranculloDecision.rtf • CITY OF SALEM, MA Tau� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CLERK'S OFFICE • . BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ' SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 1005 MAR _2 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 lo• �� MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PATRICIA PITREAU REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 BARCELONA AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on February 16, 2005 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 abutter;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 ruling that lot 328 is a buildable lot for the property located at 21 Barcelona Avenue located in an R- I 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. Petitioner Patricia Pitreau of 18 Barcelona Ave., Salem filed a petition on February 4, 2005 seeking an administrative appeal of a decision of the Building Commissioner regarding the lot at 21 Barcelona Ave. The Property owner, Blanche Francullo,appeared at the hearing represented by John Keilty, Esq. of 40 Lowell Street in Peabody. 2. According to the petition, the decision from which she sought appeal was the ruling by the Building Commissioner for the City of Salem that the property is a buidable lot although it is not sufficient in size to meet the current requirement relating to required square footage. Petitioner further states that the property meets no exceptions to the requirement under the zoning ordinance or by state statute. 3. Petitioner was joined in her petition by eleven resident property owners on Barcelona Avenue and Ravenna Street, and by Ward Councillor Leonard O'Leary,who is also a resident of Barcelona Street. 4. The followings facts are found by the Zoning Board. In May 2001 James Noble, a predecessor in interest, sought a variance to subdivide the property and variances from frontage and dimensional setbacks to construct a single family residence on the property. This petition was withdrawn without prejudice in October 2001. In June 2004, Mr. O'Leary sought a written opinion from the Building Inspector whether the property had merged for purposes of zoning law with an adjoining lot also owned by the Francullo family. Mr. St. Pierre,the .• Building Commissioner, stated that he determined that no merger had occurred, applying standard policy regarding merger doctrine as he understood such policy DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PATRICIA PITREAU REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATICE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 BARCELONA AVENUE R-I page two to be applied by the Building Department. On February 27, 2004, Mr. St. Pierre issued a letter stating the he had determined that the property was a buildable lot. On December 22,2005,the Building Commissioner issued a building permit to Mrs. Francullo based on a permit application and a set of plans, although the lot size was incorrectly given.as 22,.400 square.feet on.the.permit application.Work commenced on lot clearing in January 2005. 5. At the hearing before the Zoning Board, Mrs. Fancullo argued that the neighbor's appeal should be denied on the ground that they had an opportunity to appeal the granting of the building permit and failed to make a timely appeal pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 7. 6. The neighbors said they believe that a building permit would not issue until the Board of Appeal held a hearing on the issue of whether the lot was buildable. This belied was based on the prior history of the property. They also argued that they did not have notice of the issuance of the building permit,although they were • aware that the land was being cleared,and they did not know of the Building Commissioner's determination in February 2004 that the property was buildable. 7. The Zoning Board found that the appeal from the granting of the building permit was not timely,or in the alternative,that the determination by the Building Commissioner that the lot was not merged should stand. Therefore, base on the fact and on evidence presented,the Board make a motion to uphold Building Commissioners' Thomas St. Pierre decision for the property located at 21 Barcelona Avenue with a vote of 0 in favor and 5 to deny the petitioners appeal. ADMINISTRATIVE RULING DENIED February 16, 2005 Nina Cohen,,Chairman Board of Appeal Is 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 SALEMt MASSACHUSETTIS' OF SALEM. MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE v 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR y� g SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970• 7 ((�� /�STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 1605 DEC I -1 ^ II: 22 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LEONARD ILY REQUESTING AN ADIMISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 BARNES ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on December 1, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chariman, Richard Dionne, Robin Stein, Bonnie Belair and Edward Moriarty. 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 or interpretation of the Board of Appeal decision dated October of 2003 for the property located at 5 Barnes Road in an R-1 zone. After hearing the evidence the Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Petitioner owns the property located at 5 Barnes Road, which is located in an R- 1 zone. • 2. On October 16, 2002, the Petitioner applied for and received a Variance relative to the side yard setback requirements of the R-1 Zone thus permitting the petitioner to construct an accessory structure on said property. 3. During his 2002 hearing before the Board, the Petitioner represented that he intended to build a garage to store trailers and valuable racecars, which he used for his hobby of car racing. 4. The variance granted to the Petitioner authorized to construct a 40 x 40 single story garage pursuant to the plans submitted with his them application. 5. The petitioner received a building permit based on plans that differed from the plans submitted with the variances application and his now constructed substantial portion of the garage. 6. The garage as constructed is different from the submitted plans in that it contains a second floor and is oriented 90 degrees differently than initially above causing the doors to be in a different location. 7. In appealing the Violation Notice issued by Mr. St. Pierre, the Petitioner sought either an amendment of this earlier variance approval or a ruling that he was in compliance with the October 16, 2002 variance as granted. • CITY OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LEONARD ILY REQUESTING AN • ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 BARNES ROAD R-1 page two INS DEC 19 A II: 22 Therefore, based on the fact and on evidence presented, the Board of Appeals voted 3 in favor to 2 in opposition to uphold the Building Inspector decision with regards to 1 he property located at 5 Barnes Road.. Robin Stein Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • M CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS" OF SALEM. NA o a < BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICEC. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR M1N8 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICz, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 1UU5 DEC - I A 10: 04 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH GAGNON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 39 BARR STREET R--2 A hearing on this petition was held on November 16,2005, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Hellides, Robin Stein and Edward Moriarty. 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 parking for one automobile in the front yard, setback parking space to be located on left side of front yard for the property located at 39 Barr Street located in an R-2 zone. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exit which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. • b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Joseph Gagnon appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. Petitioner indicated a desire to add a proposed parking space on the front lawn of the premises at 39 Barr St, 9'wide by 18'long. 3. Petitioner suggested that this parking space would allow one motor vehicle off- street parking in connection with the use of said 39 Barr St. as a residential dwelling. 4. Petitioner conceded that the issue of parking, off-street vs. on-street, was a matter of convenience for the residents of said premises at 39 Barr Street. 5. Petitioner indicated that the property in question was a small lot, that the lot was • narrow, and that the premises in question were set back some 26'from the sidewalk. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSPEH GAGNON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 39 BARR STREET R-2 page two 6. The Petitioner indicated that a curb cut would be required for access to the parking spaces. 7. In response to concerns of the Board, Petitioner conceded that one on-street parking space would be lost in return for one off-street spaces. S. Petitioner acknowledged in response to concerns of the Board that the parking space would decrease the amount of green space and open space on the small lot in question. 9. The Board also expressed concerns about the location of the parking immediately abutting lot 1, on Petitioner's plans for the 39 Barr Street premises submitted herewith. 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 NOVEMBER 16, 2005 n n� dward Moriarty �s�\ Board of Appeal J 0 o n� C=; M C-) 7r'-i • vicn }1 D o M, TT .. m3 O D � �i • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 MASSACHUSETTS CITY. OF SALEK"MA CLERK'S BOARD OF APPEAL OFF • ,y_ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR, NINE SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 .2005 MAY 19 P 3: Ob STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MARIA VASLASIS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 45 BARR STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held May 18, 2005 meeting with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Edward Moriarty, Nicholas Helides, Steven Pinto 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 allow a professional home office occupation for the property located at 45 Barr Street located in an R-2 zone. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE • May 18, 2005 4m�aACohen, Chairm , 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 the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal 0 .co CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSE'I'TtSQF SALEM MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE + r 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • � _ SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. FAX (978) 740-9846 '200' MAR 22 P 3. 41 MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NOREEN ROONEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27 BELLEAU ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on March 16, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty, 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from dimensional regulations for minimum depth of rear yard to allow existing carport to extend to and across the rear lot line for the property located at 27 Belleau Road located in an R-1 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and • structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Attorney George Atkins representing Noreen Rooney stated the following: a. Construction over the easement was completed by the previous owner b. The encroachment was discovered at sale from Laura and Werner Rem to Noreen Rooney when a mortgage plot plan was prepared. c. There was a prior zoning board decision on 3.18.98. d. The draft easement received unanimous City Council approval e. The existing building crosses the lot boundary 2. Two letters of support for the petition were received from residents at 11 West Circle and 10 West Circle. 3. There is no as build plan available at this time. • 4. Denise Turcotte representing her father who resides at 13 West Circle, spoke concerning the following: CITY OF SALEM MA CLERK S OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NOREEN ROONEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27 BELLEAU ROAD R-1 page two 1005 MAR 22 P 3: 41 a. Because the design and access, the City of Salem does not plow West Circle. b. Because of design and access, the fire apparatus is not able to access West Circle. c. Any outside parking by the petition on the West Circle side of the property will block access to 13 West Circle garage. d. Rocks and a new shed and bushes along West Circle are limiting parking and access. 5. Cindy Bourgault of 19 Belleau commented on speeding and parking on Belleau by friends and family of the petitioner. She requested that the petitioner speak with her visitors to request their reducing of vehicle speed. 6. Attorney Atkins summarized the petition as correcting an encroachment. 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. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. 4. No parking on West Circle Extension by the petitioner or any vehicles that are I licensed or registered or insured at the address of 27 Belleau Road Variance Granted March 16, 2005 • Nicholas Helides C� Board of Appeals • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NOREEN ROONEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27 BELLEAU ROAD 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 • C-) 1 , r- ro N� N�cn N m3 3 • ,r ' AMENDMENT TO DECISION ON PETITION OF GEORGE VAN COTT, TRUSTEE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 69 BOSTON ST. • The decision of the Zoning Board of Appeal for the City of Salem on spechd permits and variances sought for the property at 69 Boston St. is hereby AMENDED with the following changes: Paragraph 3. Add last sentence: Petitioner seeks a three-foot variance from rear setback requirements for the lot on the Boston Street side of the property, to reflect the present location of the Pope House on the lot. Paragraph 6. Substitute second sentence: A parking easement for two dedicated parking spaces in the upper lot will be conveyed to HSI when the property is conveyed from the petitioner to HSI. For its part, Historic Salem Inc. will obtain a Historic Preservation Restriction pursuant to M.G.L. c. 184 Sect. 31-33 in its favor when it conveys the parcel to another owner. Paragraph 8. Substitute second sentence: In consideration of the neighbor's wishes, petitioner agreed to impose an owner-occupancy residential requirement upon the owners of the four condominium units, which will be memorialized in the condominium operating agreement and communicated to every prospective buyer. o r, C-)� a r� M O Ncn C) —3 tb mZr i • g00in SOB Gana ca/ aia V,,., _ .-- .-- r' ' CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. U$OVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ' MAYOR 9.0 FAX: 978-740-9846 9 ��'• 6 7 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE VANCOTT, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 69 BOSTON STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on April 20, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair,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 New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from lot width, lot size,number of stories, side yard setback, front yard setback and use restrictions to subdivide the lot and construct a four- family residential building for the property located at 69 Boston Street R-2 The provisions of 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 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. I • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE VAN COTT, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 69 BOSTON 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, through his attorney John Keilty Esq. of 40 Lowell Street, Peabody seeks variances to subdivide a 12,000 sq. ft. residential property at 69 Boston Street. The purpose of the subdivision is to develop a four-unit condominium on a portion of the lot and convey the remainder to a local preservation group, Historic Salem Inc. to allow the group to undertake restoration of an existing histories house at its own expense. 2. Historic Salem Inc. (HSI) identified the residence at 69 Boston Street, known as the Pope house, as an endangered property in 2003. It was build around 1740 and occupied by members of Salem's Quaker community. In recent years the • structure was neglected. A report on the present condition of the Pope house prepared for HSI by John Wathne of Structures North Consulting Engineers concludes that the house is salvageable and is a contextually significant structure that could continue to serve as a residence with proper repairs and weather protection. 3. Dimensional variances are requested for both lots. The proposed four-unit residential condominium requires a five-foot variance from front setback on the Putnam Street property line and a three feet variance from side setback on the eastern property line. The proposed subdivision also requires lot size and lot width variances for both lots. The Putnam St. parcel, Parcel 2, would be 7804 sq. ft in area with a lot width of 64 ft, and the Boston St. parcel, Parcel 1, would be 4205 sq. to. In area with a lot width of 70 feet. 4. Petitioner also seeks a variance to allow the condominium to be three stories tall. Because there is no vehicular access from Boston Street both properties will be entered from Putnam Street. 5. Finally, petitioner needs a variance pursuant to Art. IX, Section 9-5 (a) to enable him to develop 4 residential units in an R-2 district. As grounds for the variance, petitioner contends that the preservation of the historic structure requires development of the adjacent lot. • t DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE VAN COTT,TRUSTEE REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 69 BOSTON STREET R-2 page three 6. Petitioner submitted a parking plan for the residential units on both lots. Under Petitioner's plan, six spaces belong to the condominium residents and two are deeded to the Pope House residents. A parking easement and a historic preservation restriction pursuant to M.G.L. c 184 will be conveyed to HIS along Parcel 1. Petitioner further agreed to make a donation to HSI of$15,000 towards the restoration project, to be delivered at the closing and prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. In order to develop the property, petitioner will reconstruct a concrete masonry retaining wall along the dividing line between Parcels 1 & 2, not exceeding four feet in height, which will have a visible course of brick for its entire length and height. Petitioner agreed to build a staircase to allow access from Parcel 1 to Parcel 2, so the Pope House residents can access the parking area. 8. The project has the support of the Ward 4 neighborhood association and of several neighbors, who signed a petition. In consideration of the neighbor's wishes, petitioner agreed to impose a residential requirement upon the owners of • the four condominium units, which will be memorialized in the condominium operating agreement and communicated to every prospective buyer. 9. Petitioner also agreed to review drainage conditions on the site with the Planning Board and the City Engineer and to install storm water runoff measures to ensure that water runoff from the condominium on Parcel 2 flows towards Putman St. and is collected in a City catch basin, or whatever other arrangement may be required by the City Board or official with jurisdiction over such matters. 10. On or about April 21, 2005, petitioner executed an agreement with the representatives of HSI, which is incorporated by reference herein. In furtherance of the goal of preserving the Pope house on Parcel 1 and in accordance with the terms of the agreement, petitioner aggress immediately to secure the Pope house against further weather damage by installing a temporary roof. The Petitioner's failure to install a sufficient temporary roof or to complete any one of the conditions set forth above or any conditions set out in the agreement with HSI will constitute failure to fulfill the conditions under which this variance is granted. 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 exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. r r• DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE VAN COTT,TRUSTEE REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PORPERTY LOCATED AT 69 BOSTON STREET R-2 page four 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 3. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 4. The relief requested can 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. 5. 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 with the following conditions. 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 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's Assessor's Office and display said numbers as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board's or Commission having Jurisdiction, but not limited to the Planning Board. 8. Petitioner shall comply with the Purchase and Sales Agreement. 9. Petitioner shall convey $15,000 to Historic Salem Inc. at the point of sale. 10. Condominium on Parcel 2 shall be owner occupied and written into the condo Documents. I l Petitioner shall prepare storm water runoff plan with the City's Engineering Department and Planning Board. 12 Petitioner shall install rolled roofing to replace blue plastic tarp subject to approval from John Watne, Structural Engineer ` 13. Petitioner shall create a solid retaining wall faced in;ohen, ck. • VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT NinaeChairman CS'COA , GRANTED APRIL 20, 2005 Board of Appea i • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR t!F� • �� SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ' n STANLEY J. ll$OVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 '9q 1'-77 MAYOR r FAX: 978-740-9846 ^' rD T J y � v ,5 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE VANCOTT, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 69 BOSTON STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on April 20, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair,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 New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from lot width, lot size,number of stories, side yard setback, front yard setback and use restrictions to subdivide the lot and construct a four- family residential building for the property located at 69 Boston 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 GEORGE VAN COTT, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 69 BOSTON 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, through his attorney John Keilty Esq. of 40 Lowell Street, Peabody seeks variances to subdivide a 12,000 sq. ft. residential property at 69 Boston Street. The purpose of the subdivision is to develop a four-unit condominium on a portion of the lot and convey the remainder to a local preservation group, Historic Salem Inc. to allow the group to undertake restoration of an existing histories house at its own expense. 2. Historic Salem Inc. (HSI) identified the residence at 69 Boston Street, known as the Pope house, as an endangered property in 2003. It was build around 1740 and occupied by members of Salem's Quaker community. In recent years the • structure was neglected. A report on the present condition of the Pope house prepared for HSI by John Wathne of Structures North Consulting Engineers concludes that the house is salvageable and is a contextually significant structure that could continue to serve as a residence with proper repairs and weather protection. 3. Dimensional variances are requested for both lots. The proposed four-unit residential condominium requires a five-foot variance from front setback on the Putnam Street property line and a three feet variance from side setback on the eastern property line. The proposed subdivision also requires lot size and lot width variances for both lots. The Putnam St. parcel, Parcel 2, would be 7804 sq. ft in area with a lot width of 64 ft, and the Boston St. parcel, Parcel 1, would be 4205 sq. to. In area with a lot width of 70 feet. 4. Petitioner also seeks a variance to allow the condominium to be three stories tall. Because there is no vehicular access from Boston Street both properties will be entered from Putnam Street. 5. Finally, petitioner needs a variance pursuant to Art. K Section 9-5 (a) to enable him to develop 4 residential units in an R-2 district. As grounds for the variance, petitioner contends that the preservation of the historic structure requires development of the adjacent lot. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE VAN COTT, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 69 BOSTON STREET R-2 page three 6. Petitioner submitted a parking plan for the residential units on both lots. Under Petitioner's plan, six spaces belong to the condominium residents and two are deeded to the Pope House residents. A parking easement and a historic preservation restriction pursuant to M.G.L. c 184 will be conveyed to HIS along Parcel 1. Petitioner further agreed to make a donation to HSI of$15,000 towards the restoration project, to be delivered at the closing and prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. In order to develop the property, petitioner will reconstruct a concrete masonry retaining wall along the dividing line between Parcels 1 & 2, not exceeding four feet in height, which will have a visible course of brick for its entire length and height. Petitioner agreed to build a staircase to allow access from Parcel 1 to Parcel 2, so the Pope House residents can access the parking area. 8. The project has the support of the Ward 4 neighborhood association and of several neighbors, who signed a petition. In consideration of the neighbor's wishes, petitioner agreed to impose a residential requirement upon the owners of • the four condominium units, which will be memorialized in the condominium operating agreement and communicated to every prospective buyer. 9. Petitioner also agreed to review drainage conditions on the site with the Planning Board and the City Engineer and to install storm water runoff measures to ensure that water runoff from the condominium on Parcel 2 flows towards Putman St. and is collected in a City catch basin, or whatever other arrangement may be required by the City Board or official with jurisdiction over such matters. 10. On or about April 21, 2005, petitioner executed an agreement with the representatives of HSI, which is incorporated by reference herein. In furtherance of the goal of preserving the Pope house on Parcel 1 and in accordance with the terms of the agreement, petitioner aggress immediately to secure the Pope house against further weather damage by installing a temporary roof. The Petitioner's failure to install a sufficient temporary roof or to complete any one of the conditions set forth above or any conditions set out in the agreement with HSI will constitute failure to fulfill the conditions under which this variance is granted. 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 exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE VAN COTT, TRUSTEE REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PORPERTY LOCATED AT 69 BOSTON STREET R-2 page four 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 3. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 4. The relief requested can 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. 5. 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 with the following conditions. • I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and 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's Assessor's Office and display said numbers as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board's or Commission having Jurisdiction, but not limited to the Planning Board. 8. Petitioner shall comply with the Purchase and Sales Agreement. 9. Petitioner shall convey $15,000 to Historic Salem Inc. at the point of sale. 10. Condominium on Parcel 2 shall be owner occupied and written into the condo Documents. 1 I Petitioner shall prepare storm water runoff plan with the City's Engineering Department and Planning Board. 12 Petitioner shall install rolled roofing to replace blue plastic tarp subject to approval from John Watne, Structural Engineer 13. Petitioner shall create a solid retaining wall faced in brick. U� • VARIANCE & SPECIAL PERMIT Nina ohen, Chairman GRANTED APRIL 20, 2005 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 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 • • AMENDMENT TO DECISION ON PETITION OF GEORGE VAN COTT, TRUSTEE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 69 BOSTON ST. r� The decision of the Zoning Board of Appeal for the City of Salem on special permits and variances sought for the property at 69 Boston St. is hereby AMENDED with the following changes: Paragraph 3. Add last sentence: Petitioner seeks a three-foot variance from rear setback requirements for the lot on the Boston Street side of the property, to reflect the present location of the Pope House on the lot. i Paragraph 6. Substitute second sentence: A parking easement for two dedicated parking spaces in the upper lot will be conveyed to HSI when the property is conveyed from the petitioner to HSI. For its part, Historic Salem Inc. will obtain a Historic Preservation Restriction pursuant to M.G.L. c. 184 Sect. 31-33 in its favor when it conveys the parcel to another owner. i Paragraph 8. Substitute second sentence: In consideration of the neighbor's wishes, petitioner.agreed to impose an owner-occupancy residential requirement upon the owners of the four condominium units, which will be memorialized in the condominium operating agreement and communicated to every prospective buyer. ti cn 0 m Cl U) r I �r �3 C=) M.2 OD D I I • I i I Z00 �OaHS 5YE6 SV: 8L6 Wd ESOT 5009/0T/30 1 CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CITY OF SALEM, MA .p 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OFFICE • �w'yfNB SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 ,1005 JUN 22 P 2: 4b DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EDWARD DOHERTY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 134 BOSTON STREET B-2 A hearing on this petition was held on June 15, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Edward Moriarty, Nicholas Halides, Bonnie Belair 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 Section 5-3©and Section 7-3 to allow an existing commercial unit to be converted into a residential unit & a Variance from parking requirements for the property located at 134 Boston Street located in a B-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. Attorney Stephen Lovely represented the petition. 2. A letter of support from Councillor O'Leary dated June 15, 2005 was read into the minutes. 3. At the present time the building consists of 3 residential units and one commercial unit. 4. The commercial unit's last tenant was a political candidate. 5. Attorney Lovely stated that the owner has not been able to find a viable commercial tenant for the space. 6. The owner feels that there is no market demand for commercial space in that • location. 7. There is a loading zone in the street in front of the subject property. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EDWARD DOHERTY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LCOATED AT 134 BOSTON STREET B-2 Pagetwo 8. There is access to the structure from Boston Street and Watson Street. 9. The 4 parking spaces that exist are in tandem therefore there are only 2 existing legal parking spaces. 6 spaces are required for the proposed 4 residential unit use. 10. The commercial unit is proposed to be a one bedroom residential unit. 11. The owner plans to convert to condominiums and sell. 12. The proposed unit configuration will be two, two bedroom units and two one- bedroom unit. 13. Jose Silva spoke for his father who owns 136 Boston Street and is in favor of the petition. 14. The owner of 138 Boston Street spoke in favor of the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows • 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the District. 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 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. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EDWARD DOHERTY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 134 BOSTON STREET B-2 Page three 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City's Assessors office And display said numbers as to be visible from the street. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having Jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted June 15, 2005 roe BoardNicholas Halides, Memboe Board of Appeals 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 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEM.-MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE • ,�y- 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR Mlrye SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ,PUUS SEP 22 P 2' OO MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 - DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EDWARD CASWELL & ANTHONY MIRABITO REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 126,128 & 130 BOSTON STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held September 21, 2005 meeting with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Robin Stein 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. At the request of the Petitioner, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice to allow existing non-conforming four family dwelling to be used as a five family dwelling & a Variance to allow for 6 foot high fence in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District for the property located at 126,128 & 130 Boston Street located in an R-2 zone. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE September 21 , 2005 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 0 CITY OF SALEMp MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL • q� 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR "�MlN6 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 0 �_ STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 r� m MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 C=) �Cri 1�3 Uj> r �' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RONALD MICHAUD REQUESTING A SPECI� 0 3 PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 138 BOSTON STREET B-2 : N F.?-:K A hearing on this petition was held on October 19,2005 with the following Board p Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Robin Stein, Bonnie Bedir 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 per Section 8-4 to allow a third unit for the property located at 138 Boston Street located in an B-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 OF THE PETITION OF RONALD MICHAUD REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 138 BOSTON STREET B-2 pagetwo 1. Petitioner, Ronald Michaud would like to increase his two family home to be used as a three family. This expansion would not increase the structure as there are already rooms completed on the third floor. 2. Mr. Michaud has provided for five parking spaces as required for a three family residence. 3. Abutters at 140 Boston Street, Mr. Raymond Lavoie and Jose Silva at 136 Boston Street spoke in favor of the additional unit. 4. Attorney Stephen Lovely spoke in favor for his client at 132 Boston Street. 5. 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 4 in favor and 1 in opposition to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions; 0 1. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relate to smoke and fire safety sha)� ^y be strictly adhered to n7-c 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and . ci c., approved by the Building Commissioner. y \� 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit before beginning any construction -3 4. Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statures, ordinances, codes and • regulations 5. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RONALD MICHAUD REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 138 BOSTON STREET B-2 Special Permit Granted October 19, 2005 Aad&� Bonnie BelairS Board Of Appei A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17, of MGL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. ti :� n r-. ~ --�DQ) r r n� rn I> • n CITY OF SALEM MA CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTSCLERK'S OFFICE i q BOARD OF APPEAL • ,p 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 1005 JUN STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 29 A 10.' 24 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL &MAUREEN KAPNIS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 BROOKS STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on June 15,2005 with the following Board Members present; Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty,Nicholas Helides,Nina Cohen 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 Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling& depth of front yard to construct a single family dwelling for the property located at 12 Brooks Street 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. Attorney Stephen Lovely of 14 Story Road appeared and represented the petitioners. 2. Mr. &Mrs. Kapnis had previously received a Variance for the lot sometime around 1989 but did not pursue building because of family circumstances. 3. A majority of the house lots were all 4500square feet or less which is the size of • the lot at 12 Books Street. 4. Mrs. Doherty of 17 Lawrence Street appeared at the hearing in opposition to this Petition because it would restrict her view looking out the back of her house. � DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL&MAUREEN KAPNIS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 BROOKS STREET R-2 page two S. It was suggested through Mr. Moriarty,a member of the Board that Mr. & Mrs. Kapnis plant trees and shrubs along the back of the property and it would improve the view of the back of their property and help Mrs. Doherty's view. 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. Tberefore,the Zoning Board of Appeal voted S in favor and 0 in opposition to Scant 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. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structures. 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Boards or Commissions having jurisdiction, but not limited to the Conservation Commission. g. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City's Assessors • Office and shall display numbers as to be visible from the street 9. Petitioner shall provide screening along rear lot with shrubs/trees. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL&MAUREEN KAPNIS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 BROOKS STREET R-2 VARIANCE GRANTED NNE 15,2005 %Ifif'!J Steven Pinto, 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 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 Massachuisetts 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 dapsal 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 roomd or is recorded and noted on the ounce's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • ,o CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL c �• 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR hI,YB SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 ZJ N Tp DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BRIAN DOWER REQUESTING A VARIANC9 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 CARLTON STREET R-2 a m3 .. y A hearing on this petition was held on April 20,2005 with the following Board MemberV present;Nina Cohen Chairman, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty,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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance per Section 7-190(2)to allow a curb cut to create a driveway between residence and fence for property at 17 Carlton Street located in an R- 2 zone. The Variances,which have been requested, may he 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, Brian Dower presented his petition to allow a curb cut to create a driveway between the residence and the fence on the right side of the dwelling and for the use of two parking spaces at the rear of the lot. 2. A petition signed by many of the neighbors was presented and read into the minutes. 3. Zoning Board Member Edward Moriarty expressed concern over the loss of green space in the rear yard. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF BRIAN DOWER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 CARLTON STREET R-2 page two 4. Chairman Nina Cohen inquired if the petitioner was in favor of a restriction in the decision to restrict the dwelling to single family use. Petitioner affirmed they were in favor of such restriction. 5. Chris Loring of 19 Carlton Street spoke in favor of the petition. 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 4 in favor and 1 in opposition to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state 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. Property shall remain a single family use. Variance Granted April 20, 2005 A/P� Nicholas Helides Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETTrION OF BRIAN DOWER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17 CARLTON 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 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 • • 0 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS c I Y 0 F SAL Eii, MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERKS OFFICE � • a 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 7005 OCT I I P 2: 23 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SEAN O'CONNOR REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 26 CHESTNUT STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on September 21, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair, Edward Moriarty, Robin Stein 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 allow use of historic carriage house to be used as a single family dwelling for the property located at 26 Chestnut Street 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 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, 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. Within the matrix of relevant Salem Zoning Ordinance Citations above=referenced, the Petitioner alleges the existence of a historic-carriage house in a single-family zoning district, which will allegedly promote the public health, safety, convenience, morals and welfare of the city's inhabitants in general, and is otherwise in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Zoning Ordinance. 2. Petitioner, Mr. Sean P. O'Connor of 26 Chestnut Street, Salem is in an R-1 Zoning District, was represented by counsel at this proceeding, Mr. Scott Grover. • 3. Attorney Grover presented plans and documents and legal arguments in support of the petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SEAN O'CONNOR REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 26 CHESTNUT STREET R-1 4. According to Attorney Grover, the relevant provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for the requested Special Permit Use in question, relate to Section 5-3(c)(5), which allows as a special permitted use a historic carriage house in a single-family district. 5. According to Attorney Grover, said carriage house may be used, "as a single-family dwelling at the property located at 26 Chestnut Street, pursuant to said Special Permit." 6. Attorney Grover presented plans indicating an intent to renovate said carriage house for use as a single-family dwelling. • 7. According to Attorney Grover, the renovation would involve minimal change to the exterior of the structure, and that any and all changes will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Historic Commission pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance Special Permit Use Provisions. 8. Attorney Grover alleged that parking was also adequate under the terms of the Ordinance and would be provided for the new dwelling, as well as the existing dwelling, pursuant to the plans submitted. 9. According to Attorney Grover, since multi-family uses are common in this neighborhood, and since there are further, allegedly several, historic carriage houses that are being used as accessory multi-family dwelling units, the Permit requested should be granted. 3 • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SEAN O'CONNOR REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 26 CHESTNUT STREET R-1 10.According to Attorney Grover, the facts, circumstances, and plans submitted would provide for a lawful use of the historic carriage house as a single-family dwelling as an accessory use to the principal dwelling at the address, and would not be a substantial detriment to the neighborhood and would not be in substantial derogation from the intent or purpose of this Zoning Ordinance. 11.Attorney Grover further presented documentary evidence in support of the proposal, the intent of which was to create by restrictive land covenant with adjoining premises, at 28 Chestnut Street, and by way of a special condition to the proposed request for relief, that the Petitioner would take no action that would have the effect of creating separate ownership of the • dwelling units located in the principal dwelling and the historic carriage house. 12.The language of the proposed condition and the restrictive covenant, (Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached) according to Attorney Grover, would mean that the condition and covenant would not be limited to a special permit prohibition against sub-division of the lot, but would also prohibit creation of a condominium or a co-op, and would prohibit any alienation of common ownership in any way of the carriage house from the principal dwelling. 13.In effect, according to Attorney Grover, the relief requested would not result in a condominium or a co-op, which might be deemed inconsistent with the new R-1 Zoning District for Chestnut Street and its immediate • environs. a • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SEAN O'CONNOR REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 26 CHESTNUT STREET R-1 14.Several neighbors and/or abutters spoke in favor of the Special Permitted Use request of the historic carriage house as a single-family dwelling, including, but not limited to, the immediate abutters of Sean O'Connor, at 28 Chestnut Street, Annie Clay Harris, and her husband, Andrew P. Lippman, beneficiaries of the proposed restrictive covenant above- described. 15.One neighbor specifically did address the general concern of the neighborhood that, although the plans as proposed were acceptable to the neighborhood, and although Mr. Sean O'Connor's present intentions to utilize the carriage house as a single-family dwelling for family members was entirely laudable, that there was nonetheless an abiding concern • about what might happen to the main house and/or the carriage house if Sean O'Connor sold the property to someone else. 16.This neighbor was particularly concerned about what might happen not just 5 or 10 years down the road, but 30 years down the road, and whether or not, despite the best intentions of all present, that somehow or another, separate ownership, separate deeds and the like, might inevitably emerge from this Special Permit scenario, resulting in condominiums, co-ops, and the like. 17.Members of the Board expressed grave concern about use of the premises as a two-family or multi-family use, notwithstanding the Petitioner's representation that the main house would be used by the Petitioner and the carriage house would be used by his family members/parents/in-laws • only. 5 • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SEAN O'CONNOR REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 26 CHESTNUT STREET R-1 18.The Board members noted the very recent change in Chestnut Street Zoning and its immediate environs from an R-2 to an R-1 District, (on or about 1/27/05), establishing an immediate, clear, present and inalterable legislative determination that Chestnut Street is, and will forever hereinafter be, a single-family district where no two-family nor multi- family uses shall ever occur as of right in this unique, historic Salem neighborhood. 19.In deference to said legislative action, the Board required that Petitioner show evidence that the alleged carriage house was of the historic carriage house nature required by the Ordinance, namely that it was used as a carriage house or barn, and that it had been in existence since 1900 at its present location. 20.The Petitioner did establish that this, in fact was the case, and that the premises, were constructed circa 1840, as a main house with carriage house/barn detached. 21.Next, one Board member suggested that, if there was any evidence that the carriage house had been utilized since 1900 as other than a carriage house, (namely a structure to house carriages, horses, or for similar barn uses), that this particular carriage house's use/history did not fall within the definition of historic carriage house noted in the Salem Zoning Ordinance at Article II, Section 2-2. 22.Evidence was further presented by Ms. Annie Harris indicating that the • carriage house, to her knowledge as a direct abutter, was used as a residence and had and has elements of residential structural character, 6 • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SEAN O'CONNOR REQUESTING A SEPCIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 26 CHESTNUT STREET R-1 including a kitchen and a bathroom, but has not been so used for 20 years. 23.Finally, the Board specifically inquired of the Petitioner, through his counsel, whether or not the Petitioner would be willing to place a further restriction on the Special Permit with express conditions that the carriage house would be utilized as a single-family accessory use only, and that the use would be further limited to family members only, including children of the owners, or parents of the owners, or in-laws of the owners of the principal dwelling only. 24.After consultation with counsel, the Petitioner indicated he was not agreeable to such a condition. On the basis of the above Findings of Fact, and all the evidence presented at Hearing, testimonial, documentary, and plans, the Board of Appeals, pursuant to the applicable Zoning Provisions above-noted, concludes as follows: 1. Petitioner's proposal will not promote the public health, safety, convenience, morals and welfare of the City's inhabitants. 2. The Special Permit requested, especially without a further condition that the use of said carriage house as a single-family home be limited to family members, to include children, parents, and in-laws, only, is further not in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Zoning Ordinance, in general, and the recent Zoning change of Chestnut Street from R-2 to R-1, on or about January 27, 2005, in particular. 7 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SEAN O'CONNOR REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 26 CHESTNUT STREET R-1 3. The Board of Appeals has further determined that since the carriage house in question had been used, albeit not in 20 years, but had been used as a residence, and had and has residential characteristics and facilities, including, but not limited to, a bathroom and a kitchen area, that said carriage house is not a historic carriage house within the meaning and intent of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, which requires that said structure be used as a carriage house, and in existence since 1900, at its present location. 4. In the event that the Board's carriage house determination is deemed unlawful, hereinafter, in any subsequent legal proceeding, in any court • of competent jurisdiction, the Board of Appeals relies, in the alternative, on the legal conclusions noted in paragraphs 1 and 2 above only, and the Findings of Fact above-referenced. WHEREFORE, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals votes three (3) in opposition and two (2) in favor to Deny the Special Permit request. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit is denied. Special Permit Denied September 21, 2005 Edward Moriarty Board of Appeal 8 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 • • C 11 11 Or SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT • .ZOOS OCT I I P 2: 23 SEAN P . O' CONNOR, of 24 Chestnut Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts 01970, owner of land at 26 Chestnut Street in Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts, as more particularly described shown on "Plot Plan of Land, 26 Chestnut Street, Salem, Property of Sean P. O' Connor" , dated February 14, 2005, prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation, which plan is to be recorded herewith, hereby creates the restrictions recited below for the benefit of the abutting property, 28 Chestnut Street, owned by Andrew B. Lippman and Annie Clay Harris, Trustees of 28 Chestnut Street Nominee Trust, their successors and assigns, as well as abutting properties on Chestnut Street, in order to preserve the character of the single-family lots on the street: • 1 . The renovation of the historical carriage house as an accessory use to the principal dwelling on the same lot shall be done in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Section 5-3 (b) (11) . 2 . No actions shall be undertaken by the owner which would have the effect of creating separate ownership of the dwelling units located in the principal dwelling and the historic carriage house . This includes, but is not limited to, subdividing of the lot, creation of a condominium or cooperative, or the alienation of common ownership in any way of the historic carriage house from the principal dwelling. This covenant is not intended to prevent an otherwise lawful rental of the carriage house dwelling unit . These restrictions are intended to take effect as restrictions governed by M.G.L. c . 184, §27-30 , shall run with the land, and shall be binding on our successors and assigns . It is the intent of these restrictions to assure the continuance of single ownership of the principal dwelling and historic carriage house as an accessory use thereto, and that the • property remain as one lot with single ownership. 1 r • For my title, reference is made to deed of Theresa W. Kavanagh to Sean P . O' Connor dated November 9, 2004 and recorded with. the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 23624 , Page 161 . WITNESS my hand and seal this Z 7- day of September, 2005 . I SEAN P. O' CONNOR COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss . September 2?1, 2005 On this day of September, 2005, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared SEAN P. O' CONNOR, proved to me trough satisfactory evidence of identification, which were f��yLLa NCP �e� to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me that • he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose . (SEAL) Public y commission expires : .n, XP, zz- RQ • 2 • No action shall be undertaken by the owner which would have the effect of creating separate ownership of the dwelling units located in the principal dwelling and the historic carnage house. This includes, but is not limited to, subdividing of the lot, creation of a condominium or cooperative, or the alienation of common ownership in any way of the historic carnage house from the principal dwelling. • • LEM MA CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OFCLERK'S O'S OFFFFII, E CE s BOARD OF APPEAL • g_M 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ^WW SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ZOUS JUN 30 A 11 . 22 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF BAD NGO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 CLARK AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on June 15, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Edward Moriarty, Nicholas Helides, Richard Dionne 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 side yard setback to construct a 16 x 21 garage for the property located at 1 Clark Avenue 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 reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner is seeking limited relief from the side yard setback requirements to construct a 16' x 21' garage. 2. The Petitioner indicated that the proposed garage would consist of two levels 3. The side yard setback requirement of the proposed structure/garage will be 3 feet, plus or minus, instead of the required 10 feet under the Zoning Ordinance 4. The Petitioner indicated that the proposed garage would consist of 2 levels. The first level would be the garage and the second would be for a recreation room. 5. The Petitioner indicated that the proposed garage fits in with the neighborhood. In particular, the Petitioner pointed out that many neighbors have similar attached • garages. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF BAO NGO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LCOATED AT 1 CLARK AVENUE R-1 • 6. The Petitioner indicated that the garage would be accessible from the 1"floor. 7. The Petitioner envisioned a cathedral-like ceiling on the second floor of the garage. With the room to be used for recreational purposes. 8. There was no opposition to this petition. 9. The Petitioner envisioned the first floor of the garage as adequate and sufficient for garaging one car. 10. The proposed unit configuration will be two, two bedroom units and two one- bedroom unit. 11. City Councillor Pelletier appeared and spoke in favor of the Petition, indicating that the proposal was, obviously, appropriate for this tight knit neighborhood. 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 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 obtain a Certificate of Inspection. • June 15, 2005 dwar�riarty' Board of Appeal �C � DECISION OF THE PETITION OF BAO NGO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE • PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 CLARK 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. • • 0 CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CI I Y CF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR �6�flflX SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 7 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 .COOS NOV 23 A 9: 35 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GREGORY SALAMIDA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 CLIFTON AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on November 16, 2005 with the following Board Members present; Richard Dionne,Nicholas Helides,Nina Cohen, Edward Moriarty and Robin Stein. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting Variances from density regulations 6-4 to allow a 3`d floor shed dormer for the property located at 7 Clifton Avenue 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. Gregory Salamida,the petitioner, presented the petition. 2. The dormer will be setback 5 feet from the front and rear edge of the roof. 3. The subject property is a pre-existing nonconforming 2 family dwelling that is presently used as a single family by the petitioner. 4. Use of the new dormer area will be for storage and a walk up closet. • 5. Mr. Salamida stated that he has spoken with his neighbors and there was no opposition. 6. The subject structure is 11 feet from the neighboring structures. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GREGORY SALAMIDA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 CLIFTON AVENUE R-1 page two 7. The petitioner stated that he is willing to relinquish the 2 family status and be recognized as a single family use. 8. There was no opposition for the petition. 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. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction, including but not limited to the Planning Board. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 7. Property shall remain as a single family. 8. Unless this decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not authorize Petitioner to demolish or deconstruct any structure (s) on the property to an extent greater than 50% of the structure as measured by floor area or replacement costs. If a structure on the property is demolished by any means to an extent of more than 50% of its replacement cost or more than 50% of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with this Ordinance. VARIANCE GRANTED • NOVEMBER 16, 2005 Nicholas Helides Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days 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 MASSACHUSET ' y c BOARD OF APPEAL CLCRK$ OFFICE A t• ,y 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR d1NB SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY MAYOR. 0VICZr JR. TEL FA%0978-740-9846595 ,1095 StP'30 A DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD PLECINOGA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 107 COLUMBUS AVENUE R--1 A hearing on this petition was held on September 21,2005, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Hellides, Robin Stein 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 use to allow a second unit with new staircase to be allowed for the property located at 107 Columbus 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. Petitioner Edward Plecingia of 166A Ocean Avenue sought a use variance to allow a second dwelling to be created in the house he grew up in on Columbus Ave in Salem. As grounds for this request, Mr. Plecinoga states that real estate taxes and other expenses have gone up and he and his wife would like to move in with his sister to share expenses. 2. With his application, Mr. Plecingia submitted a computerized image showing how alteration to the rear of the dwelling would enable his to install a second interior staircase without substantially changing the existing roofline. CITY Vi" SALEFI, NA DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD PLECINOGA REQUESTING ACLERIT'S OFFICE iVARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 107 COLUMBUS AVE NUE R-1 page two 2005 SFP On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the Tiea�Ag A 9: 18 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 SEPTEMBER 21, 2005 Nina CChairm � 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 0 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF'SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE BOARD OF APPEAL q, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR `WYINB SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 7 [ STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ,2005 DEC 28 A 9: 15 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JORGE BARZOLA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 COUSINS STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on December 14, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Robin Stein 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 rear yard setback to construct a covered entrance for the property located at 16 Cousins 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 reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Jorge Barzola appeared and presented his petition to the Board. 2. Plans were submitted showing the new construction. The rear setback will be 23'5 feet instead of the required 30 feet. 3. A number of abutters appeared and spoke in support of this petition stating what a good neighbor Mr. Barzola was and how he always maintained his property. 4. There was no opposition. 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 JORGE BARZOLA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 COUSINS STREET R-2 page two 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 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 obtain a Certificate of Inspection. 7. Unless this decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does Not authorize Petitioner to demolish or deconstruct any structure (s) on the property to an extent greater than 50% of the structure as measured by floor area or replacement cost. If a structure on the property is demolished by any means to an extent of more than 50% of the replacement cost or more than 50% of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with this Ordinance. Variance Granted December 14, 2005 Edward Moriarty C�cJ 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. • CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTSSALEM.'MA • BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE • ,p,_AIN6 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 1005 AUG I b A 10: S4 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9848 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL KOLOSEUS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROERTY LOCATED AT 2 CROSS AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on August 9, 2005 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 to remove existing structure and rebuild per plans submitted for the property located at 2 Cross Avenue located in an R-I 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 94, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion, of nonconforming lots, land, structures,and uses,provided however,that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is,when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the 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. 40 • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL KOLOSEAU REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 CROSS AVENUE R-1 page two The Board of Appeal,after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of facts: 1. Petitioner Paul Koloseus sought zoning relief in September of 2004 to construct an addition to his home at 2 Cross Ave, in the Willows section of Salem. At that time he submitted architectural renderings showing a proposed tow-story addition to an existing 2 %: story structure. His request was granted,and the addition approved at that time. 2. Following the issuance of a building permit, Mr. Koloseau authorized the demolition of the home on this property. Petitioner contends that upon information and belief the existing foundation could not support new building. In support of his contention, Mr. Koloseus submitted no data, no structural findings by engineering professionals, and no opinion letter. A single digital photograph showing the area of the foundation subsequent to the demolition was provided to the Board of Appeal. 3. In May 2005 Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre issued a cease & desist • order to terminate work on the 2 Cross Ave. property, and referred the case to the Board of Appeal for a hearing. 4. In support of his petition,Mr. Koloseus states that the demolition was necessary to enable the builder to construct new footings for the addition. Structural and site work could not take place, according to this view, unless the entire lot was cleared. The Board finds this contention is without merit. 5. Mr. Koloseus contends that without a Special Permit his property would have no value since he is unable to rebuild on a nonconforming lot. The Board finds this contention is flawed, since the diminution in value occurred when his house was demolished. Finally, Mr. Koloseus contends he should be granted a Special Permit to rebuild his home if the Board finds the proposed structure is not substantially more detrimental to the public good and does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent of the ordinance. This contention is not challenged, but was supported by the comments of Richard LeBel,of 1 Chestnut St., and James Treggiano, of Witchcraft Heights in Salem 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. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL KOLOSEUS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 CROSS AVENUE R-1 page three 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 4in favor and I present 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. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. All construction shall be done as per the plans submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Boards or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. �/ Special Permit Granted ,4/"'L- ` v Au 9 2005 Nina Cohen, Chairmen 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. Board of Appeal CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS _ CIA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S 0 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR v �IIrygV SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 2005 DEC -2 A 10: 35 AMENDED DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN LOCKE of 144R NORTH STREET REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 DEARBORN STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on November 16 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriaty, Robin Stein and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from rear yard setback and lot area to subdivide the lot at 5 Dearborn Street located in a R-2 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, upon a finding Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building • Or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings, and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners.. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of this district of the purpose of the Ordinance The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Petitioner, John Locke appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. The rear setback will be 0 instead of the required 30 feet and the lot area will be 4,496 square feet instead of the 15,000 square feet. 3. Petitioner is seeking the variance to show the actual use of the land. 4. There was no opposition to this petition. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN LOCKE OF 144R NORTH STREET REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 DEARBORN STREET R-2 page two On the basis of the above finding of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petition. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; • 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 3. No merger has occurred. G � Variance Granted Robin Stein November 16 2005 Board of Appeal' • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CCTV L, J , , BOARD OF APPEAL 68 �S OFFIC�Jq • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 1006 JqN STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 �/ A MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 �• /C DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LEWIS LEGION REQUESTING A SPECIAL J PERMIT FOR THE PROERTY LOCATED AT 131 DERBY STREET R2/BI A hearing on this petition was held on January 19, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto 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 extend an existing nonconforming building for the property located at 131 Derby Street located in an R-2/B-I 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 fording 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. • ciTr . C(E I�-SOF,- 1, Fl • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LEWIS LEGON REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 131 DERBY STREET Rrtl, page two 3 j A The Board p ted, and afterd of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence 2 1S viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact. 1. Petitioners' property at 131 Derby Street lies at the intersection of the B-1 and R- 2 zoning districts. Under Section 7-9 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, the dimensional limitation of the less restrictive zoning district may be extended thirty feet into the more restrictive zone. In this case, the requirements of the B-1 zone will apply to the entire lot. ---— - - -- 2. -On-the-site-are-two-buiIdings-Both are dimensionally nonconforming for eiiher ---- - -- district and together they constitute a mixed-use site. A six-unit multifamily residential dwelling lies at the front lot line,with a two-story brick garage at the rear of the lot. The garage has most recently been used for a carpentry business and a clean-out business while the units in the front building were rented out until recently. 3. Petitioner proposes to convert the rear building to residential use by renovating the garage into two loft type apartments. He seeks a special permit to build a stairwell exit on the roof to enable the tenant to utilize the roof area for a deck. • Under petitioner's proposal four vehicles will be parked inside the existing garage, and two additional off-street spaces will be provided for tenants in the courtyard. 4. Petitioner has spoken to many residents of the area, and he submitted a petition in support signed by 20 neighbor;. Additionally, Dave Eng of Eng's Florist, a neighborhood business, came to the meeting to speak in support of Mr. Legon's petition. There was no opposition to the proposed plan. On the basis of the above findings of fact,and on the evidence_ presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 2. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 3. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's • inhabitants. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LEWIS LEGON REQUESTING A SPECIAL PPEERNI TT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 131 DERBY STREET R2/B1 �n�f j4413/ p page three 2 �S 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 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. 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 obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. All snow removal shall be offsite. 7. Petitioner shall comply with requirements of the historic district with respect to the exterior of the renovated properties. Special Permit Granted f January 19, 2005 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. 0 a �c o� r T Y� ff�'1 • - D cn • o L'/ " < � CITY OF 5 BOARD oM PPEa �CHUSETTSIs �hf/CEq 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • MINB SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 1005 08 28 q STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 �1L DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EDWARD GAGNON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 ELEANOR ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on April 20, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty, 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from density requirements to add a sunroom to existing single -family dwelling for the property located at 2 Eleanor 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 along with Architect David Jaquith, of Beverly appeared before the Board at the hearing. 2. The Petitioner needs a Variance from density regulations and side yard setback to add a sunroom to their property. 3. Plans were submitted showing the proposed sunroom.. 4. There was no opposition to the petition. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EDWARD GAGNON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 ELEANOR 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 comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. • 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5 Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. Variance Granted 6A4�L April 20, 2005 i� � NinaCo� Board of Appeals • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF EDWARD GAGNON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 ELEANOR ROAD 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 • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CICLERK'S� A OFFICE • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 2005 NOV 23 A 9: 35 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JAMES WERSACKAS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27-29 ENDICOTT STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on November 16, 2005 with the following Board Members present; Richard Dionne,Nicholas Helides,Nina Cohen, Edward Moriarty and Robin Stein. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 size, lot coverage, front& rear setbacks and number of stories to demolish existing garage and construct a 2 family duplex for the property located at 27-29 Endicott Street in an R-2 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and 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 James Wersackas presented the petition. 2. Petition is for the removal of the existing garage structure and construction of 2 attached dwelling units as per plans submitted. 3. Discussion was held concerning parking. The plans submitted identified only two garage parking spaces. Additional open space is available on both side yards. The petitioner stated that he intended to landscape so that the side yards could be used • for additional parking during snow bans. 4. Neighbor Robert Femino who lives across the street on Endicott Street spoke of traffic and parking issued and stated that he is in favor of the petition. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JAMES WERSACKES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27-29 ENDICOTT STREET page two 5. John Femino of 9 Margin Street, spoke in favor of the petition,however he suggested that the design be changed so that the garages were together in the center of the structure so as to create a larger driveway for easier access. 6. The petitioner agreed that the design change would be beneficial. 7. Discussion was held regarding the need fro relief from parking requirements of 1.5 spaces per unit. Petitioner agreed that 4 spaces would be beneficial. 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. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction, including but not limited to the Planning Board. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 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 and display said number as to be visible from the street. 7. Petition shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction, including but not limited to the Planning Board. 8. Petitioner shall apply for curb cuts and shall design site in order to provide and maintain at least 4 off street parking spaces. VARIANCE GRANTED I • NOVEMBER 16, 2005 Nicholas Helides Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days 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 • I a CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETCTP(; OF SALEM.;;MA 54 BOARD OF APPEAL CL'ERK'SA'FFIEE . • ,q 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (� STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ,ZOOS MAY I q P 3• Ob MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WAYNE GAUDREAU REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27-29 ENDICOTT STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held May 18, 2005 meeting with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Edward Moriarty, Nicholas Helides, Steven Pinto 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 lot size, lot coverage, front & rear setbacks to allow demolition of existing garage to construct a 2 family dwelling for the property located at 27-29 Endicott Street located in an R-2 zone. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE • May 18, 2005 _ Nina Cohen, Chairmar(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 • 1 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS C//,y0 BOARD OF APPEALCIL FRS�S ofl - Ma C • .{y 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR FC SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ` STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 Ipps MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 AUG 23 q ,/• 3g DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KAREN SHEPARD REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 ESSEX STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on August 17, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Edward Moriarty, Nicholas Helides and Robin Stein. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit for a Change of Use from a Sub Shop and apartment to a Professional Law Office and a Variance from parking for the property located at 8 Essex 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 THE PETITION OF KAREN SHEPARD REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 ESSEX 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. The current use of the property is an existing non-conforming sub-shop on the first floor and residential apartment on the second floor. 2. The Petitioner plans to use the entire building as a law office, a use that is also nonconforming to current zoning. 3. Due to the nature of the petitioners practice which, requires the petitioner to frequently travel off-site for appointment, the parking demand does not appear significant. 4. The petitioner will repair the exterior condition of the building to the benefit of the neighborhood and has received community support for the change in use. 5. 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, 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. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KAREN SHEPARD REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 ESSEX STREET R-1 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 a Certificate of Inspection. 8. All utilities shall be separated. 9.Unless this decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not authorize petitioner to demolish or deconstruct any structure (s) on the property to an extent greater than 50% of the structure as measured by floor area or replacement cost. If a structure on the property is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent of the replacement const or more than fifty percent of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance. Special Permit & Variance Granted • August 17, 2005 Robin Stein (5� � 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 CI'T'Y OF SALEM; E CL.€RK=S,@ OFFICE ,9 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 6� g SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 .7605'MAY 19 P 3:'0b ' DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MEG & MARK DUFOUR REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 FEDERAL COURT R-2 A hearing on this petition was held May 18, 2005 meeting with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Edward Moriarty, Nicholas Helides, Steven Pinto 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 side yard setback to construct a 2-story addition for the property located at 4 Federal Court located in an R-2 zone. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE • May 18, 2005 Nina Cohen, Chairman IS V Board of Appeal `-Y A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 • 1 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEM, MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE • � 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 'MlNB SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 7 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 LAOS AUG -2 A 11• 22 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAXTON SILVA REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 317 ESSEX STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Nicholas Helides, Steven Pinto, Ed Moriarty 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 an existing non-conforming use to be converted to a Hair Salon for the property located at 317 Essex Street in an R-2 zone. When reviewing Special Permit requests the Board is guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing • and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Petitioner, Paxton Silva requests this Board to allow an existing non- conforming use to be converted into a hair salon. 2. There will be no change to the footprint of the structure, only interior renovations. 3. The Petitioner has satisfied the requirements relative to parking. There are two spaces required for the size of the business and his lease arrangement provides him with the required two spaces. 4. Mr. Chris Silva, brother of the Petitioner and Salem business owner spoke in favor of allowing the Special Permit. 5. Mr. Kearney, 1 Cambridge Street an abutter spoke against the allowance of the petition primarily due to parking concerns in 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. 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 PAXTON SILVER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 315-317 ESSEX STREET R-2 page two 2. The Special Permit can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 with the following Board Members voting in favor: Nina Cohen, Nicholas Helides, Steven Pinto, and Ed Moriarty. Bonnie Belair voted in opposition to the Special Permit request. The Special Permit was granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. • 5. All conditions imposed upon this property by the Licensing Board or any other Board shall be brought into compliance prior to the issuance of the Special Permit. 6. The Special Permit is granted to this applicant is for this business only; any future use would be subject to another Special Permit. Special Permit Granted July 20, 2005 Bonnie Belair Board of Appeal • i A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILM 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 • • TYOF CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CICLERK SSALEM, OFFICE A • BOARD OF APPEAL • ,q� 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ''lfryg SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 .,2005 FEB 23 A 10: 49 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SHARON MARQUIRE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROERTY LOCATED AT 123 FEDERAL STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on February 16, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne,Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belier 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 pursuant to Section 5-3 to allow the use of an historic carriage house as a single family dwelling for the property located at 123 Federal 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 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 Penmit 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 SHARON MARQUIRE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 123 FEDERAL 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. Attorney Scott Grover representing the petitioner, presented the following a. Site plan b. Petition is for converting the existing carriage house/garage into an additional living unit. c. Petitioner will continue to use the existing single family front structure as a single family use. In addition they offer to make this a condition of the special permit. d. The site plan detailed parking of 4 spaces sufficient for the proposed additional unit. e. Changes to the exterior of the existing garage/carriage house will be as follows: 1. Garage doors will be converted to atrium doors. 2. New windows • 3. Exterior changes will be subject to Historical District requirements and review £ Attorney Grover suggested that the board find that the proposed change conforms to the existing zoning regulation. g. The proposed change conforms to the neighborhood,half of the existing uses are 2 family. 2. Zoning Board Member, Edward Moriarty inquired of the basis for requesting a special permit referring to zoning ordinance defining structures and accessory uses. 3. Attorney Grover responded that the special permit application allows for a petition for an additional living unit. 4. Attorney John Carr who was in attendance,and involved in the origination of the existing zoning ordinance, spoke on the drafting of the ordinance, and the intent of the sections referred to by Mr. Moriarty. Carr indicated that the intent was to allow greater discretion, create better standing, and allow for ancillary residential use. 5. Building Inspector Tom St. Pierre addressed the issue of conveyance out. 6. Chairman,Nina Cohen discussed a limitation of separate ownership and inquired of the intent regarding creation of condominium ownership. 7. Attorney Grover indicated the intent was for creation of a condominium with common ownership of the land and individual ownership of the living units. 8. Neighbor Mr. Maguire, stated that the area is zoned R-2,which would allow for • two units in total and preserve the main house as a single family use. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SHARON MARQUIRE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 123 FEDERAL STREET R-2 page three 9. Neighbor Meg Tuohy of 122 Federal Street stated that she is in favor of his petition; however she questions the designation of the conversion structure as historical carriage house. 10. Attorney Grover and the petitioner responded that they had researched the history of the structure and consulted the historical commission. The main house was constructed in 1843 with no records on the ancillary structure, however it does appeal on a Sanborn Map in 1925. The owners/petitioners stated that they believed it was constructed in the 1890's. 11.Attorney John Carr stated that he believes the petition meets the ordinance and requested a limitation of no more than two living units for the total site. 12.Neighbor Meg Tuohy agreed with Mr. Carr and inquired about parking and setbacks which were determined to be sufficient, and also requested a limitation of no more than two units. 13. Neighbor Betsy Burns of 22 Beckford Street requested a limitation of no more than 2 units for the total site and inquired about the designation of the structure as a historic carriage house verses an old garage making difference in the petition • and application of zoning ordinance. She also requested the unit be maintained as a rental unit verses a condominium. 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. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SHARON MARQUIRE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 123 FEDERAL STREET R-2 page four 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. 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 obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • 7. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to,the Historic Commission. 9. No change to existing Carriage House/Garage unless approved by Historical Commission. 10. The following to be included in any condominium ever to be made of the subject premises and also to be a condition of this special permit; a. Maximum of 2 residential dwelling units for total parcel b. Subject land parcel shall never be subdivided or otherwise divided. Special Permit Granted February 16,2005 Nicholas Helides --Glx/ Board of tral • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 40 A, 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. • • 0 g" CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSET1TS o � L1v JF SALEM. MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE .9_MIN9 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR �vWW SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 1005 APR 29 A MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 IO: I0 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE KEEKI REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROERTY LOCATED AT 185-187 FEDERAL STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on April 20, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belier 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 per Section 8-4 to convert a non-conforming Dentist Office to a residential use for the property located at 185-187 Federal Street located in an R- 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 40 the purpose of the ordinance. CITY I CLERKS OFFICER DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE KEEKI REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 185-187 FEDERAL STREET R-2 page two 10U5 APR 29 ,A 10- I I The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of facts: 1. Petitioner appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. Petitioner would like to convert Dentist Office side of the building to a residential unit. 3. A petition was submitted with nine (9) names in favor of the petition. 4. There is sufficient parking spaces for the additional unit. 5. 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 10 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. CICLERR K S OFFICE i DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE KEEKIE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 185-187 FEDERAL STREET R-2 jffi APR 29 A 10: I I 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having Jurisdiction, but not limited to the Planning Board. 6. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. d G Special Permit Granted ./ V�" ' "� P !, April 20, 2005 Nina Cohen, Chairman W� 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 40 A, 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. • 0 �v CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEM, MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE • cls" 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 :3005 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 JUN 2l A 10� 18 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LANDRY&ACARI RUGS &CARPETING REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROERTY LOCATED AT 63 FLINT STREET BPD A hearing on this petition was held on June 21, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen,Chairman, Richard Dionne,Nicholas Helides, Steven Pinto 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 convert existing non-conforming use to allow retail, wholesale, office and storage use for the property located at 63 Flint Street located in a BPD 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 fording 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 LANDRY&ACARI RUGS &CARPETING • REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 63 FLINT STREET BPD page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans,makes the following findings of facts: 1. Petitioner Landry& Arcari appeared through their Attorney William Quinn,Esq. of Tinti,Quinn, Grover&Frey LLC. Since the 1930's, Landry&Arcari has operated a retail and wholesale rug and carpet sales business in Salem. Presently occupying a converted residential building on Pleasant St, Landry &Acari wishes to relocate to larger quarters at 63 Flint St in the Business Park Development district Because the ordinance does not allow retail uses in the BPD district,petitioner seeks a special permit to allow them to enter into a lease agreement with the property owner, Colaris III, LLC and to relocate their existing business to the proposed site. 2. The property owner submitted an affidavit to Deborah Collier-Comins stating their support for the petition. 3. The proposed site consists of two large warehouse style metal buildings. Landry &Acari's proposed use will occupy one building while the other will be used for • storage for this business and others. Landry&Arcari will use the 9800 sf space for the storage,display and sale of rugs and carpeting,and for the business offices of the company. 4. Parking is ample for this use and is sufficient for the mixed use proposed for the site. 5. Attending the public meeting and speaking in support of the petition were Meg Twohey, Betsy Burns and Maggie Lemeulin,who are Federal Street Residents and members of the Federal St.Neighborhood Association. They testified that the Landry &Arcari plan has the support of many neighbors that is an appropriate use and not excessive,that it will improve the location. Ms. Lemeulin stated her opinion that,based on the comments of the committee that developed the North River Canal Corridor Zoning District, the Landry& Acari business would be an excellent match for the mixed use goals of the proposed district. 6. Landry&Arcari undertook to submit plans for signage at the site to the appropriate City committee,and to create signs in accordance with the with the directives of that committee. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the • hearing,the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LANDRY&ARCARI RUGS & CARPETING • REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 63 FLINT STREET BPD page three 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 2. The relief requested can be granted without 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. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Inspection. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. All construction shall be done as per the plans submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Boards or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to the Sign Committee. 8. Special Permit for Landry &Acari only. Special Permit Granted ,(�� ilP/1 • June 21, 2005 Nina Cohen, Cnaumaµ 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 40 A,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. Board of Appeal • • 0 .� CITY OF SALEII MASSACHUSETTS,; -. - ,.A t,i 1 , 6F "ALEM, MA < BOARD OF APPEALCLci'K'S OF-ICE • g� 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR INX SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 -( MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 ZOOS APR 21 P 12: Oj DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHRISTOPHER COSTA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 85 FLINT STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on APRIL 20, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty, Nicholas Halides 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 a Variance from side setback to allow a 7' x 12' addition and rebuilding of existing 5' x 12' porch for the property located at 85 Flint Street located in an R-2 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building • or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Petitioner appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. Plans were submitted showing the proposed addition. 3. George Bates, an abutter, spoke in favor saying it would be a good improvement. 4. There was no opposition to the petition. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHRISTOPHER COSTA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 85 FLINT STREET R-2 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the District. 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5 Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. Variance Granted April 20, 2005 ichard Dionne C'S'C/h� Board of Appeals • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHRISTOPHER COSTA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 85 FLINT STREET R-2 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 • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEII, MA CLERK'S OFFICE s BOARD OF APPEAL • ,p,, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR �p SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 _ LOOS JUN -.l P 2= 33 ' MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DIANE& MICHAEL RHATIGAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 32 FOREST AVENUE R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on May 18, 2005 with the following Board Members present; Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty,Nicholas Helides, Robin Stein 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 lot size; lot area& lot are per dwelling to construct a two-family dwelling for property at 32 Forest Avenue 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. The Petitioner's, Diane& Michael Rhatigan purchased 30-32 Forest Avenue in 1985. 2. The petitioner's property consists of what was, at the time of initial subdivision, two lots of land. 3. In 1988 the petitioner; secured a Form A Plan from the Planning Board to divide to divide the lots and planned to construct a single family on 32 Forest Ave and a • two family on 30 Forest Avenue. 4. The Form A Plan was not recorded and leaving the property as one lot. • DECISION OF TETE PETITION OF DIANE&MICHAEL RHATIGAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 32 FOREST AVENUE R-2 page two 5. The Petitioners,who did not build as they planned in 1988,now reside in a single family home located at 30 Forest Avenue and are seeking to construct a two- family home on the lot known as 32 Forest Avenue. 6. The Petitioners are seeking the following Variances for 32 Forest Avenue. REQUIRED PROVIDED Front Yard Setback 15 12 Lot Width 100 50 Lot Area 15,000 4,900 Lot Area Per Dwelling 7,500 2,450 Parking Requirements 3 2 Rear Yard Setback 30 25 7. Where 32 Forest Avenue was originally laid out as a separate lot,the Board found that substantial hardship would result if the petition was denied. 8. Based on the community support for the project the Board also found that granting the requested relief would not cause detriment to the neighborhood and in fact • would be beneficial to the neighborhood by allowing longtime residents to remain. 9. This petition was presented by Attorney Scott Grover of 222 Essex Street in Salem. 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. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DIANE 8c MICHAEL RHATIGAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 32 FOREST AVENUE R-2 page three 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 approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction, but not limited to the Planning Board. 7. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City's Assessors Office and shall display said numbers as to be visible from the street 8. 30 Forest Avenue shall remain a single family dowelling. VARIANCE GRANTED U�f MAY 18, 2005 l • Robin Stein,Member sc Nr '' 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 CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALE" MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK S OFFICE • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9848 lQUJ MAR _3 AMENDED DECISION DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RENE AUBERTIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMITNARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 FRIEND STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on February 16, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty, Bonnie Belair 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 lot are per dwelling to allow a second unit for the property located at 5 Friend Street located in an R-2 zone. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6 • and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land structures, and used, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting the lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. • • PETITION OF RENE AUBERTIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5-3Q) TO EXPAND USE OF THE NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE TO TWO-FAMILY USE WHICH IS A PERMITTED USE UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE BUT THE LOT DOES NOT CONFORM WITH TABLE I REQUIREMENT FOR MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Petitioner, Rene Aubertin, seeks a Special Permit from the Salem Board of Appeals, in accordance with Section 5-30), to expand use of the existing non- conforming structure on said premises to a two-family use, which is a permitted use under the Zoning Ordinance except that said lot does not conform with Table I requirements for Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit. 2. Petitioner was represented by Attorney George W. Atkins, 59 Federal Street, Salem, MA 01970. • 3. According to Attorney Atkins, the requested relief was otherwise in harmony and consistent with all provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for use of the premises as constructed, as a two-family premises, with three designated parking spaces. 4. Attorney Atkins suggested that any other zoning violations associated with said two-family premises were otherwise in compliance with the Board of Appeals Decision issued for said premises to the prior owner of said premises, Paul Caisse, on or about December 18, 2002, which Decision expressly authorized a Variance from side setback, rear setback and lot coverage to construct a 24' x 24' addition for the property located at 5 Friend Street, located in an R-2 Zoning District. 5. Attorney Atkins noted that the original Variance for said premises did not require that said 24' x 24' addition be utilized solely for purposes of a single-family residence, as expanded and permitted use of said premises as a two-family home. 6. Attorney Atkins also noted that adequate parking for a two-family home by the three proposed parking spaces, noted on the plans filed with the Petition, met the Salem Zoning Ordinance for Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit. 7. Petitioner further contended that a Special Permit would not be required if the Board were to agree that use of the Premises as a two-family home was lawful • under the statute and/or the Variance previously granted without reference to the Table I requirement for Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit in an R-2 Zoning District. I • 8. The Petitioner's request for relief by Special Permit was opposed by two city councillors and many abutting neighbors. 9. City Councillor Tom Furey, in his correspondence to the Board of January 18, 2005, noted that the Special Permit would allow a two-family home in a otherwise very congested neighborhood, which includes Friend, Flint and Oak Streets. Councillor Furey noted that the limited parking on Friend Street, as well as the narrow width of the street, made parking even more daunting and that the width was even narrower during snow emergencies like that experienced by this neighborhood this winter. 10. Councillor Furey also noted that the addition of a two-family home to this otherwise close-knit neighborhood of predominant 14 single-family structures would impermissibly and imprudently alter the signature statement of this close- knit neighborhood. 11. Ward 6 Councillor Mike Bencal appeared and expressed inalterable opposition to the Petition to create a two-family home by Special Permit at 5 Friend Street. 12. Councillor Bencal noted the extreme congestion in this neighborhood, significant problems of parking, on-street and off-street, and the very narrow width of Friend Street. • 13. Councillor Bencal was also of the opinion that a Special Permit to authorize a two-family premises in this neighborhood, especially at this street and this locus, would not be in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance to zone for adequate light, air, space and parking. 14. Also in opposition were several neighbors, who chose not to speak but not only attended the public hearing, but also signed a Petition in opposition to the request for a Special Permit, citing issues of adverse impact on the quality of life in this densely populated, closely-knit neighborhood and the extant, extraordinary, existing parking problems which would only be compounded by a new two- family home. 15. In particular, the neighborhood Petition noted that addition of additional motor vehicles in the neighborhood, whether on-street or off-street, would cause immediate hardship to this neighborhood, where parking is already extremely limited and, by City Ordinance, is already restricted to resident-only parking. 16. Members of the Board, including Edward M. Moriarty, Jr., questioned the practicality of daily use and, in particular, winter use of the three spaces proposed on the plans for the proposed two-family premises. The distance between Friend Street and the three designated parking areas in the rear of the structure, side by side, make said parking spaces impractical to use. • 2 • CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Based on the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, the Petition, plans attached hereto, testimony of the Petitioner and abutters, and exhibits contained within the Board file, including a Neighborhood Petition in Opposition, signed by 13 residents of Friend Street, the Board determines that Petitioner's request for a Special Permit is hereby denied pursuant to Sections 5-30), 8-6 and 9-4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Board concludes that the relief requested may not be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of this Ordinance, based on considerations of congestion, parking and overcrowding, all as noted heretofore. WHEREFORE On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board Of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. • 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 4. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 2 in favor and 3 in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to gamer the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit and Variance is denied. Variance & Special Permit Denie 'E February 16, 2005 Edward Moriarty S rte\ Board of Appeal • 3 I A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, is any shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal have been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • • 0 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS s BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR -, dlNB SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978.745-9595 S f, MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 3 'n yc N cP O m DECISION ON THE PETITION OF LOYAL ORDER OF MOOSE REQUESTING A o y VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 50 GROVE STREET BPD A hearing on this petition was held on May 18, 2005 with the following Board Members 00 present; Nina Cohen Chairman, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty,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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from use and parking to allow a Fraternal Club to lease meeting space and clubhouse for property at 50 Grove Street located in a BPD zone. The Variances,which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, • building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and 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 is a fraternal organization that has long served the City of Salem as an eleemosynary group. Having sold their former lodge on Highland Avenue, the Loyal Order of Moose seeks a use variance to enable them to lease the building at 50 Grove Street. Additionally, they seek relief from Table IV of the BPD District Density Regulations to allow them to use the existing parking lot, which, with some re-lining, can accommodate roughly 72 cars. 2. The Loyal Order of Moose has about 325 members in Salem. They operate as a function hall for member gatherings, and donate some part of the proceeds from • Beano games to a variety of Salem Groups. Additionally they host special DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LOYAL ORDER OF MOOSE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 50 GROVE STREET BPD page two occasion such as Thanksgiving and Easter dinners and high school banquets for members, seniors, and other groups. They hold a liquor license,which is renewed at intervals with the Licensing Board. 3. Attorney Joseph Correnti represented the landowner, 50 Grove St. Real Estate LLC, and Charlie Sinclair spoke on behalf of the Moose Lodge. The basement level and third floor will be utilized by business tenants,while the Moose Lodge will be open from 3 p. to midnight, Monday through Friday, and from noon to midnight on Saturday and Sunday. It is anticipated that the available parking on site will suffice, since functions and gatherings will occur during the evening when the building's other tenants are not operating. 4. The site has several advantages for a fraternal organization. First,there is little residential use nearby that could be disturbed by evening gatherings. The space is ample,and four separate egress routes will facilitate traffic from the building. The building is fully sprinkled and accessible; the Moose will build and install a new access ramp and new kitchen facilities. . • 5. Ward 6 City Councillor and Council President Mike Bencal appeared and spoke in support of the proposal, as did Ward 4 Councillor, Mike Sosnowski. The proposal also had the support of City Councillors Joan Lovely, Kevin Harvey, Tom Furey and Lenny O'Leary, and of neighbors at 41 Grove Street,John Carbone and Frank Larrivee. Mr. Bencal observed that the proposed petition would maintain the property on the City's commercial tax rolls. On the basis of the above findings of fact,and on,the evidence presented the Board of Appeals finds 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}fie C')Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: - �o • cn C, .D o �r q� �3 n • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LOYAL ORDER OF MOOSE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 50 GROVE STREET BPD page three 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 hispection. 6. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction, but not limited to the Planning Board. • VARIANCE GRANTED 144 Ut4c— Nina MAY 18, 2005 Cohen, Chairmary Board of Appeal C Iti A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 C--)Certificate of Title. a r`— z.o Board of Appeal C� .D CD a o =' cy�,; "'3 C6 n 0 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS a BOARD OF APPEAL !• .p120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR �wbNK SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 n STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 a C-)� MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 r� m DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL SHEA REQUESTING A SPECIAE Ncn PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 HAMILTO& o STREETR-2 n c�- A hearing on this petition was held on January 19, 2005 with the following Board Members present:Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty and Steyen 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 is requesting a Special Permit to convert Rooming House to a three unit residence and a Variance from parking for the property located at I Hamilton 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 fording by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the pubfic.health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after carefiil consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Michael Shea sought a special permit pursuant to Section 8-5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to convert the property at 1 Hamilton Street from an existing non- conforming use as a ten-unit boarding house to a non-conforming use as a three- family residence. Petitioner reported he has entered a purchase and sale agreement with the property owner Orille L'Heureux. • 2. Petitioner seeks a variance from parking requirements of the ordinance to allow of six cars without separate access. Under the proposed plan, a small lot adjacent to • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL SHEA REQUESTING A SPECAIL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 HAMILTON STREET R-2 page two the building would house six parking places. Three of these parking places would be aligned front to back against the rear property line, and three more spaces would be lined up behind them, so that the rear spaces are accessible to residents only if the front spaces are emptied. Under this plan, residents would coordinate to get six cars off the street at once,which is not permitted under the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 3. Due to illness,only four members of the Zoning Board of Appeal were in attendance. One member,Nina Cohen owns property wi_thin_300 ft._of the subject property. Mr. Shea's legal representative, George Atkins Jr. Esq., drafted a waiver of any objection to the participation of Ms. Cohen in discussion and voting on this petition,which was immediately executed by petitioner and delivered to the Board's secretary. 4. Petitioner's plan makes little exterior alteration to the existing building, which was built sometime in the 1830s or 1840s in the Greek Revival style. Architectural drawings submitted by petitioner, created by Richard W. Griffin, show that petitioner plans to include a two-bedroom unit on the fust floor and two two-bedroom units on the third and fourth floors. An existing side porch would be replaced with a smaller • deck leading to the parking area. 5. Mr. Shea submitted an alternate parking plan, in which four cars may be parked diagonally in the lot,which was rejected by residents who spoke of concern about the lack of parking to accommodate the needs of the neighborhood. Mr. Shea also agreed to attempt to use a permeable surface on the parking area to mitigate water runoff to the street. 6. Mr. Shea's proposal had the support of four neighbors, including abutters Richard& Pam Jendrysik of 7 Hamilton St., George Osgood of 352 Essex St. and Charles Hinchey, speaking for Bessie Hinchey of 355 Essex Street: - 7. Speaking in opposition to the proposal were David and Sharon Williams of 342 Essex Street, who expressed concern about increased density of use in the two-family district and with the difficulty of parking in the environs. Also speaking in opposition was Tim Jenkins of 343 Essex St.,who opposed increasing density in the district and noted that the boarding house was well run and had little negative impact on the surrounding single family homes. 8. The proposed parking of six cars on petitioner's lot seemed on balance to create a substantial detriment to the public good not warranted by the proposal to convert the existing nonconforming use to another use not permitted in the district. • • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL SHEA REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 HAMILTON STREET R-2 page three 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. 21 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 I 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 ,Cohen, Chat 19, 2005 Nina Cohen, Chairman J Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of 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 elapses an no appeal has been filed, or that, is 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 Or SALEM MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 LL STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 20p5 OCT 20 P 2.' 2D MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 UU DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MEROPE DELUCA MANAGER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 39 HARBOR STREET R-3 A hearing on this petition was held on October 19, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto, Robin Stein 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from the number of stories to create a rooftop deck for the property located at 39 Harbor Street located in a R-3 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, upon a finding Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building Or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings, • and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners.. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of this district of the purpose of the Ordinance The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property located at 39-41 Harbor Street contains two 4-story residential building. 2. The Petitioner is seeking variances from the height requirement of Section 6-4 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance that restricts height in the R-3 District to 3 '/2 stories. 3. Attomey Stephen Lovely of 14 Story Street appeared and presented this petition. 4. Granting the requested relief will have a positive impact on the use and enjoyment of the residents of 39-41 Harbor Street and is consistent with the intent and purpose of said Ordinance. • 5. There was no opposition to this petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MERPOE DELUCA MANAGER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 39 HARBOR STREET R-3 page two On the basis of the above finding of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petition. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 3. All construction shall be done as to the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall install additional security locks to accessdeck area. G Variance Granted Robin VStein � October 19, 2005 Board of ppea( • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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, MASSACHUSETTS -C j Y OF SALEPI, MA < BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RO FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 7005 JAN 2b A 10: 51 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHOREVO PROPERTIES, LLC REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 HARDY STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on January 19, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto, 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 an existing non-conforming structure and a Variance to allow two dormers to be constructed on a on a new third floor for the property located at 12 Hardy 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 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. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHOREVO PROPERTIES, LLC REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 HARDY 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: I. Petitioner, Chorevo Properties, LLC and Phillip Gouzoule, seeks a Special Permit and Variance from the Board of Appeal to allow him to construct dormers on both sides of the roof of the property at 12 Hardy Street. 2. Petitioner's requests a Variance from the number of stories allowed as of right in an R-2 Zoning District along with a Special Permit to alter an existing non- conforming structure by constructing two dormers on the third floor. • 3. The Variance is necessary because of the Zoning definition of a half-story, vs. Petitioner's intent to create a new, fiill third-story on the premises. 4. Petitioner offered evidence that said frill third-story will provide more living space on the third floor. Presently, the headroom on the existing structure on the 2 '/2 story is inadequate, dark and uncomfortable, and does not promote the full and free use of available living space with adequate headroom. 5. Petitioner represented that the two (2)dormers on the third floor, as redesigned and submitted at the hearing, will not create any problems for direct abutters by either blocking direct abutters' view, or by creating inappropriate cross-views between the new proposed third floor and existing abutters' windows. In fact, the plans were modified to prevent direct cross-views between direct abutters and occupants of the dormers. 6. Petitioner Ru-ther represented that the existing height of the building would not change insofar as the dormers will be built into the existing roofline on both sides of the existing structure, and would not meet and/or exceed the height of the peaks of the roofline of the existing structure on either side. I • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHOREVO PROPERTIES, LLC, REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 HARDY STREET R-2 page three 7. Petitioner further represented that the existing non-conforming structure is a two- family home permitted as of right in this R-2 Zoning District, and that the two (2) dormers proposed would simply provide increased living space for the second unit, without altering the use of the premises as a two-family structure. 8. Petitioner also represented that he envisioned substantial attractive and appropriate renovations to the interior and exterior of the existing two-family structure,with the ultimate intention to market the two-family structure as two separate condominiums,with the first floor condominium being the smaller of the two condominiums, and with the second and proposed third floor being the second and larger condominium unit. 9. No neighbor spoke in opposition to the proposed dormers, or change in the non- conforming stricture from a 2 %2 story to a 3 story structure. 10. Although abutting neighbor,Ms. Jennifer Lebzelter, of 12 Bentley Street, expressed concerns about the windows and/or style of the dormers,which she suggested should be more consistent with this circa 1830 Federal Style structure. 11. A petition was signed by three neighbors in favor of said petition and project. Said neighborhood petition is a part of the Board file and record of these proceedings. 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 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. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHOREVO PROPERTIES, LLC, REQUESTING SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 HARDY STREET page four 3. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 4. The relief requested can 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. 5. 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 0 in opposition to grant the relief requested with the following conditions. 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and ' regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall receive input from the Design Review Board and/or Historic Salem. SPECIAL PERMIT& VARIANCE GRANTED JANUARY 19, 2005 dwfirl)4o�riarty/" Board of Appeal I sem, • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 0 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF- SALEM, MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE • ,q�M 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ^G SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ?005 FEB 23 A MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 'B DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHOREVO PROPERTIES LLC REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 HARDY STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held February 16, 2005 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 a Variance to allow a second curb cut for the property located at 12 Hardy Street located in an R-2 zone. Petition to allow two dormers were granted at a previous hearing. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW • WITHOUT PREJUDICE February 16, 2005 Nina Cohen, Chairma 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 2L CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ClrY0': `qLE m , BOARD OF APPEAL CL;ER/{'g l)F ti CE A • ,y 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 'Y SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ':1005 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 FEB 22 P 2, 45 , REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED FOR SALEM POINT RENTAL PROPERTIES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT ONE HARRISON AVENUE R-2 At the hearing held on February 16, 2005, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow a six (6)month extension for the Special Permit granted for Salem Point Rental Properties for the property located at One Harrison Avenue R-2. The six (6)month extension is based on the previous decision having been recorded at the City Clerk's office on March 3, 2004 _ Richard Dionne Board of Appeal • CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS a ?� BOARD OF APPEAL CITY OF SALEM. MA M. CLERK'S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • ��7 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 1005 JUN 23 A 8-- 59 DECISION ON THE PETITION OFMICHAEL & MARIE NARINKIEWICZ REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 HAWTHORNE BLVD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on June 15, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Nicholas Helides, Steven Pinto 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 requests a Special Permit for a Home Occupation using the left side of the home for Antique & Gift Store for the property located at 3 Hawthorne Blvd located in a R-1 zone. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is section 5-3 (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 OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL & MARIA NARINKIEWICZ • SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 HAWTHORNE BLVE R-1 page two 1. Petitioners indicated that they had spoken with all the neighbors and found no objections. 2. Petitioners stated that there is an Antique Store next door to their property. 3. Petitioners stated that they have owned the property for 2 years. 4. The Petitioners stated that they researched the history of uses and found that their property had been used commercially in the past. 5. Petitioners stated that they have operated an antique store in Salem for the past 20 years. 6. Petitioners stated that their property has two curb cuts. 7. Petitioner stated that there is two car parking on the street in front of their property. 8. Petitioner stated that interior construction to accommodate the commercial use will consist of the construction of a 5 foot interior wall. 9. Petitioner stated that the customer entrance will be from the side of the building. 10. Petitioner stated that the size of the store will be 650-700 square feet. 11. Zoning Board Members referred to Zoning code for guidance and it was determined that the total square footage of the entire building will be the basis for determining the % required by code. 12. Petitioner stated that the signage will be in a side window. 13. In response to a question concerning hours of operation, the petitioner stated that the store will be open Sunday through Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • Friday and Saturday from 9:00 am to 8:00 p.m. 14. The total number of outside employees will be no more than one. 15. Petitioners agree to a limitation of no more than 2 residential living units at any time. 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; • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL&MARIA NARINKIEWICZ • REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 HAWTHORNE BLVD B-1 page three 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. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Inspection. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. All construction shall be done as per the plans submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Boards or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to the Planning Board. • 8. Special permit will expire after 5 years. 9. Interior design must be submitted to Building Commissioner for approval. 10. Petitioner shall obtain a sign permit. 11. Petitioner shall operate within the dwelling unit,with no display visible from the street. U. Business shall be operated only by the residents of the dwelling unit, with not more than one regular employee not residing in the dwelling unit. 13.Petitioner shall utilize not more than 25%of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit. 14. Petitioner shall display not more than one non-electric sign of an area not greater than 1 %z square feet and attached against the building and not Y'protruding. Special Permit Granted /// ✓"� hk Ile�dCJ June 15, 2005 Nicholas Helides/ • Board of Appeal ( � • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17,of 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. • • 0 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS s. iITY OF SALEM, MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S .OFFICE • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR MINB SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 '/Q0[ MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 L JJ JUN 30 A If: 23 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHRISTINE HENDERSON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 HERBERT STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on June 15, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Edward Moriarty, Nicholas Helides, Richard Dionne 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 per Section 6-4 from the number of stories to construct a 3r°floor dormer for the property located at 23 Herbert 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 reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner appeared and presented her petition and requested relief. 2. The request to add a dormer involves a pre-existing 3r° floor. 3. The purpose of the dormer is to raise the height of one wall of an existing third floor, so as to add additional windows and gain increased natural light. 4. The dormer requested would be constructed in a manner below the existing roof line. The present roof peak is 31 feet, within the required limits of the Ordinance. 5. The requested dormer is approximately 3 ft below the current roof peak. The requested dormer will not increase the current roofline or building height. • 6. The building was purchased with the intention of being owner-occupied. The building will be owner-occupied upon completion of dormer 7. The addition of dormer does not increase the number of bedrooms. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHRISTINE HENDERSON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LCOATED AT 23 HERBERT STREET R-2 8. The building was purchased as a two-family. The building will remain a two- family, with the owner residing in the upper unit. 9. The Petitioner's 6-year-old son will maintain his bedroom on the existing third floor. The current 3r° floor bedroom has only one window, facing the back of the building. 10. The Petitioner noted the unusual shape of the lot, the undersized nature of the lot, and the unusual shape of the existing structure as grounds for hardship, in addition to economic hardship. 11. There was no opposition to this petition. 12. Chairperson Nina Cohen expressed concern that the plans presented in computer-design format appeared to be boxy and inconsistent with the unique historic character of the structure. 13. The Petitioner indicated a willingness to construct the addition in an architecturally appropriate manner, with windows appropriate to the structure, architecture and era. • 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. • 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. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHRISTINE HENDERSON REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 HERBERT STREET R-2 page three 6. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. Existing finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 9. Petitioner shall consult with Building Commissioner with the final construction plans regarding the style of windows to be provided in the dormer, and any other replacement windows, so that same will be consistent with the Italian Revivalist style of the structure. Variance Granted June 15, 2005 dward Moriatty WC 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. • 0 CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEM MA a _ BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE • .p_ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR rAN6 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 1005 MAnMfl 33 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 29 A lo. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MANUEL BERROA& HANS VON WEISS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROERTY LOCATED AT 111 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on March 16, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne,Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belier 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 per Section 8-5 to alter an existing non-conforming use to another non-conforming use for the property located at 111 Highland Avenue 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 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 MANUEL BERROA&HANS VON WEISS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 111 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1 page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of facts: 1. Petitioner Berroa is the owner and petitioner. He was represented by Attorney Joseph M. Sano, Esq. of Lynn. Dr. Von Weiss is the prospective buyer of a mixed use property at 111 Highland Ave. In zoning terms the property is an existing non-conforming use; until recently, Mr. Berroa operated a used car sales business on a portion of the site and used the other portion for a residence. The property is non-conforming as to lot size(consisting of 13, 100 sf)and frontage (approximately 48.5 ft.), and also violates the ordinance as to the number of principal uses on one lot. 2. Dr. Von Weiss,who was represented by Attorney George Atkins, stated that he sought permission to end the use as a car lot, and instead to employ the existing buildings as an adjunct to his existing business as a dermatological clinic offering skin care. His existing business, located since 1972 next door at 107 Highland • Avenue, will expand into the new space, and he will employ no more than 4 full time doctors at both clinics. 3. No changes in the footprint of the existing building will be required, although the existing business will be fixed up a bit to house the clinic.No changes are contemplated to the residential use either,which will continue to be rented to tenants. Dr. Von Weiss undertook to add landscaping along the border between the clinic and the residence,to improve the look of the residence and make it more in keeping with the residential section along Willson Road. 4. Mr. Roger Hastings of 3 Willson Road endorsed the plan,provided that the petitioner does make efforts to improve the look of the residence, which he said recently had been somewhat neglected. Another neighbor, Mr. Bernand Caron of 108 Highland Avenue, spoke in support of the Special Permit, saying that Dr. Von Weiss has been a good neighbor. Mr. Jean Pelletier, Ward Councillor for Ward 3, also supported petitioner's request. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing,the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MANUEL BERROA 8c HANS VON WEISS REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 111 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1 page three 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. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. Petitioner shall have no more than 4 full time employees. 6. Petitioner shall install landscaping to separate the clinic use and residential use. 7. Petitioner shall comply with the parking plan submitted and dated February 1, 2005. Special Permit Granted March 16, 2005 Nina Cohen, Chairman CS C 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 40 A, 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 SALEM9 MASSACHyj$19TT!WL-EM, MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERKS OFFICE • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ,1005 SEP 22 P 2: 01 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF 276 HIGHLAND AVENUE LLC REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMITNARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 276 HIGHLAND AVENUE B-2 A hearing on this petition was held on September 7, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty, Steven Pinto, Robin Stein 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 for an ATM Machine as wall as dimensional relief from lot width and side yard to construct a new Bank for the property located at 276 Highland Avenue located in an B-2 zone. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6 • and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land structures, and used, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting the lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. • • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF 276 HIGHLAND AVENUE LLC REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMITNARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 276 HIGHLAN D AVENUE B-2 page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property located in the Business 2 zoning district and being part of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is owned by the Salvation Army and was most recently used as a thrift store. 2. The applicant and property owner are prepared to enter into a long-term lease for the property. 3. The plans submitted with the application and the amended plan submitted at the hearing depict a new 3,500 square foot building to be constructed on the property and to house a Citizens Bank. 4. The property is located on a corner lot abutting three public ways and has an irregular shape. 5. The proposed building overhang is 27 feet from the side yard lot line. The building is • 30.2 feet from the side yard lot ling. 6. The width of the property is approximately 86 feet. The required property width is 100 feet. 7. The applicant was represented by George W. Atkins, III Esquire who introduced the project and explained that the current large building would be removed and replaced with the proposed 3,500 square foot building. 8. Attorney Atkins presented that the proposal would positively impact existing traffic flow around the site. Attorney Atkins further indicated that at the request of the Planning Board during the site plan review process, the existing curb cut adjacent To the corner of Highland Avenue would be eliminated. 9. All traffic would enter the site from a curb cut located on the northerly end of Marlborough Road. 10. Traffic coming into the site would be oriented in a counterclockwise direction around the building and out onto Marlborough Road. 11 Dan Mills, a Traffic Consultant with MDM Transportation Consultants presented the findings of a traffic study of the site. The actual traffic analysis report was not submitted for review by the Board. • 12.Mr. Mills indicated that overall the project would result in an 18% decrease in weekly traffic and that peak hour traffic will be consistent with historic use. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF 276 HIGHLAND AVENUE LLC REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 276 HIGHLAND AVENUE B-2 pagetwo 13. Member(s)of the Board expressed extensive concern about the existing traffic problems at and near the site and the increased draw to the property with the addition of a drive-thru bank. 14. Member(s) of the Board were pleased that the application indicated to enter into a long-term lease. 15. At lease one Board Member expressed interest in further reviewing the traffic study prepared for the applicant. 16. The applicant indicated that he had not been in contact with the Massachusetts Highway Department regarding it's work to improve traffic signaling in the area. 17. David Cohen, the owner of Tri City Sales and a 50-year abutter to the property spoke in favor of the proposal. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board Of Appeal concludes as follows: • 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 4. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 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 and Variance is denied. Variance & Special Permit Denied f September 7, 2005 Robin Stein, Member C�C Board of Appeal • • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, is any shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal have been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • 0 CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL EM 'MA • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLO.ORIGU S OF•F'ICE,�� CLERK SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 1005 SEP 23 A 9V 49'• DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GARY NADEAU REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROERTY LOCATED AT 296 HIGHLAND AVENUE B-2 A hearing on this petition was held on September 21, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne,Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belair and Robin Stein. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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,Per Section 8-5 to allow operation of a used car business for the property located at 296 Highland Avenue located in an B-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 94, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion, of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is,when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare 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 GARY NADEAU REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 296 HIGHLAND AVENUE B-2 • page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of facts: 1. Petitioner Gary Nadeau presented the petition and represented the following; a. He presently operates a Bagel Business at the premises. Business has declined to the point that he wishes to operate a used car business from the premises. b. Mr. Nadeau has another use car business in the city at the present time,A- 1 Auto on Essex Street. c. Mr. Nadeau presented a plan showing 27 lined parking spaces on the premises with room for more. d. The proposed use will reduce the traffic to the site from its present use. e. Inventory will be 30 used cars. f. An application to the Licensing Board will be made subsequent to the Zoning Board decision. g. There will be one handicap parking space. h. No automotive repair will take place on this site. i. There will be 2 employees on site. j. The existing building is 4, 500 square feet. k. Petitioner will line an additional 7 parking spaces on the site. • 2. Jim Fleming spoke in favor of the petition. 3. Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor of the petition and indicated that there was neighborhood support for 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. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GARY NADEAU REQUESTING A SPECIAL • PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 296 HIGHLAND AVENUE B-2 page three 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. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Inspection. S. All construction shall be done as per the plans submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 6. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Boards or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. . 7. Petitioner shall line an additional 7 parking spaces on the site for a total of 34 spaces. �j`�i A p�� Special Permit Granted Y "" ��l��+G��J A September 21, 2005 Nicholas Helides Board of Appeal 1 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17, of MGL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner or record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • Board of Appeal CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CITY OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE • .9 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 r MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 2005 OCT -S P I, I0 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF APD ENG INEERINGREQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 450 HIGHLAND AVENUE BPD A hearing on this petition was held on September 21, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belair and Robin Stein. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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-conformity and a Variance from side setback to construct an addition for the property located at 450 Highland Avenue located in an BPD 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 APD ENGINEERING REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 450 HIGHLAND AVENUE BPD 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 current use of the property is an existing Wal-Mart Store located at 450 Highland Avenue in a BPD zone. 2. The Petitioner is seeking to allow a 400 square foot addition to be built for the proposed produce cooler. A variance is also required for a side setback. 3. A Special Permit is also required because of the rezoning of this district in Business Park. 4. Plans were submitted showing the proposed addition. 5. 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 APD ENGINEERING REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 450 HIGHLAND AVENUD BPD 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 inspection. 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction, including but not limited to the Planning Board. Special Permit & Variance Granted September 21, 2005 Robin Stein (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 • CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS U1i``. `t ,^ 1 BOARD OF APPEAL Urr ICE A 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. UOSROVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 78-74- 9595 1#85 APA 28 -4 /0-' 30 46 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM LINSKEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 45-47 JEFFERSON AVENUE I A hearing on this petition was held on April 20, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty, 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side yard setback to replace existing garage wit new steel and create 40' x 160' building for the property located at 45- 47 Jefferson Avenue located in an Industrial zone. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structure involve. • b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Petitioner appeared before the Board and represented himself at the hearing. 2. The Petitioner property is located in an Industrial Zone 3. Plans were submitted showing the proposed garage. 4. Due to the narrowness of the property, an existing structure and an encroachment from an abutter the proposed garage will be located 5 feet from the right side lot line. 5. The petitioner seeks to construct the new garage for safety reasons as well as to improve the character of the site and allow for future growth • of the business and that of his children who also work on site. 6. There was no opposition to the petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM LINSKEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 45-47 JEFFERSON AVENUE I 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. • 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5 A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 0�/M Variance Granted April 20, 20005 Robin Stein, Membe Board of Appeals 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 SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CITY OF SAL,E'M.'MA CLERK=S OFFICE • ,y_ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 2005 SEP 23 A 9: 4q DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROERTY LOCATED AT 62 JEFFERSON AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on September 21, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne,Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belair and Robin Stein. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 Plumbing Business to replace existing Automotive Shop for the property located at 62 Jefferson Avenue 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 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 94, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion, of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms,this Board is,when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the 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 MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 62 JEFFERSON AVENUE R-I page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans,makes the following findings of facts: 1. Attorney William Quinn presented the petition and represented the following; a. The owner Mike McLaughlin has operated this business franchise since 1997. b. The business is presently being operated out of Beverly, Ma. c. The subject site will be used for the operation of the business office and Storage of material only. d. There will be no retail use or visitation to the site by customers. e. The use will be no more imposing than the former use as Bob's Carburetor f. Two issues in the sale of the property to the petitioner are in the process of being resolved. There is an encroachment issue as well as it was determined that 2,750 sf of land located at 108 Jefferson Ave,presently used for parking is owned by North Shore Medical Center. g. A letter dated September 20, 2005 from North Shore Medical Center was presented indicating that discussions of a sale concerning the parcel are in • process. It. Attorney Quinn also presented a plan dated September 16, 2005 by Registered Engineer Gail Smith,attached to the letter showing eight parking spaces on the parcel under discussion for conveyance. i. Attorney Quinn also presented a parking requirement calculation for the premises indicating; 3 on site employees, 6 company vehicles, gross floor area excluding storage of 500 sf, indication a total of 8 spaces needed. j. Attorney Quinn requested that consideration of approval of the petition be conditioned upon the petitioner obtaining use of 8 parking spaces. k. There will be no late night use of the premises and no hazardous materials stored on site. 1. Another tenant,a used car business occupies the subject and will continue to operate there. They have a license to have 10 cars. m. The petitioner will renovate the facade. n. There are 3 on street parking spaces. 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. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN REQUESTING A • SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 62 JEFFERSON AVENUE R-1 page three 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. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Inspection. S. All construction shall be done as per the plans submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 6. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Boards or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 7. Petitioner shall obtain use of a minimum of 8 parking spaces. Special Permit Granted #elk�d September 21,2005 Nicholas Helides Board of Appeal (Sc • • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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. Board of Appeal • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY Or SALEM, MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR �QMhB SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 7 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 .2005 MAR 2Q P S- 21 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF 65 R & C REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 65 JEFFERSON AVENUE I/RC A hearing on this petition was held March 16, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Nicholas Helides, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from lot size and dimensional requirements to subdivide the lot for the property located at 65 Jefferson Avenue located in an URC zone. The Variances, which have been requested, upon a finding Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building • Or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings, and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners.. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of this district of the purpose of the Ordinance The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: I. Attorney William Quinn appeared and represented the Petitioner's Jeffrey Brothers. 2. The variances requested are lot size, (Lot A is 16,972 so, rather than the 40,000 required) dimensional requirements (side setback is 0; on northerly side, rather than the 30 ft. required) 3. Attorney George Atkins represented the Bouchard's who will use the lot for storage. 4. Councillor John Pelletier spoke in favor of the petition. 0 i• DECISION OF THE PETITION OF 65 R &C REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 65 JEFFERSON AVENUE page two 5. Use will be for temporary storage of vehicles and storage of car parts in enclosed garage. 6. There is to be no auto repair work on this site. On the basis of the above finding of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petition. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. • Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimension 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 is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 6. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering for the City's Assessors Office and shall display number so as to be visible from the street. 7 There shall be no auto repair on site. \ • Variance Granted Richard Dionne March 16, 2005 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 MASSACHUSETT91TY OF ',A,LEM. MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE n: • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 1005 DECS -1 A 10 3 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9646 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DEAN BORDERS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 272 JEFFERSON AVENUE R-I A hearing on this petition was held on December 1, 2005 with the following Board Members present;Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto, Bonnie Belair and Robin Stein. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 per Section 8-4 (2)to rebuild a demolished structure and Variances from lot coverage, lot size, front, side and rear setbacks and from the limitation of one principal use on lot for the property located at 272 Jefferson Avenue 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. At 272 Jefferson Ave in Salem, Petitioner Dean Borders owns a 5000 sf lot with two principal structures: a four-story multifamily house and a one and a half story single family house. The buildings are dimensionally nonconforming and nonconforming as to the existence of 2 principal uses on one lot; the Building Commissioner has deemed the property grandfathered in this R-1 zone as to both dimensional nonconformity and use. 2. The two structures belong to a condominium association consisting of four • ownership units in the larger house and a fifth unit in the single family. The four units in the larger house have been transferred to new owners and are occupied. All unit owners were present at the zoning meeting. ADEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE "'� "�"""�"�" DEEIStCO 'THE`PETfFI03�dE'�1S REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 272 JEFFERSON AV)s C -l A 10 3s page two 3. At some time in spring 2005, Mr. Borders or his agent demolished the single family house and removed all parts of the building above the foundation, except one or more side walls. Immediately following the demolition, the Building Commissioner issued a Stop Work Order barring any further wok at the site. The basis for the Stop Work Order was Mr. Border's failure to secure zoning relief prior to undertaking the demolition. 4. Mr. Borders stopped work on the site and sought relief from this Board to rebuild the single family house on the property. 5. This petition was first heard by the Board of Appeal on October 19,2004, but was continued to November, at which time we agreed to hear the petition at a special meeting on December 1, 2005. 6. Kevin McGrath, an abutter at 3 Arthur Street, testified that following the demolition and stop work order, in violation of state and local building codes,the demolition site was left unattended and open,and building debris was not removed from the property. Mr. McGrath testified that he became aware that electrical service to the demolished single family house was not disconnected, and he strenuously objected to this safety hazard. • 7. Members of the condominium association confirmed Mr. McGrath's testimony regarding the open site, building debris and electrical hazard. When Mr. Borders failed to install a safety fence at the request of the condominium association,they undertook to install a fence at their expense. They also secured a rider to their liability insurance policy to cover occurrences on the site resulting from the demolition and subsequent abandonment of the property. 8. All four unit owners expressed concern the Mr. Borders would be unable to complete construction of the single family house appropriately. The owners objected to any increase in the size of the proposed dwelling, either in the footprint of the building or its height including the addition of any side or rear porches. The unit owners described Mr. Borders as unresponsive to their calls and concerns. 9. Echoing the community reaction, Ward Councillor Jean Pelletier stated that he opposed the grant of any variances to this property on the grounds that Mr. Border's track record as a developer manifested his inability or unwillingness to address legitimate safety and other concerns of the neighbors. 10. Addressing the neighbor's concern, William Quinn, Esq., representing Mr. Borders, apologized for his client's failure to comply with zoning and building codes, which he stated was due to inexperience. Mr. Borders is anxious to finish building a single family house on the footprint of the house that was originally on this site, and regrets inadvertently exposing neighbors or condo owners to dangerous conditions. 11. Mr. Borders offered to commence rebuilding the demolished house by contracting • with an experienced licensed construction supervisor, and he undertook to complete construction within 5 months. CITY GF SALEM, P CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DEAN BORDERS REQUESTING A •'"""' ` __'_V CE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 272 JEFFERSON AVENUE page three 1005 DEC -1 A 10: 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. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having • jurisdiction, including but not limited to the Planning Board. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 6. All construction shall be done according to plans submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner,with plans to be amended to reduce the size of the second floor by eliminating the outside deck adjacent to the parking area and setting the second floor back an additional four(4) feet from the property line shared with the McGrath family. The amended plans and new construction cannot exceed the footprint or height of the demolished structure 7. Petitioner shall hire and use at all times an experienced construction supervisor licensed to work in the City of Salem to oversee construction and both petitioner and construction supervisor shall be responsible for ensuring that all building practices on the site comply with state and local laws and regulations. Petitioner shall submit executed contract with the supervisor to the Building Commissioner • when applying for a permit. 8. Work shall not be conducted between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 am. the following day, or any time on Sundays or Holidays. CI�` OF M S�OFFICEa • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DEAN BORDERS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 272 JEFFERSON AVENUE page four ZOOS DEC -7 A.10: 9. All reasonable actions shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of construction on unit owner and abutters. Advance notice shall be provided to other unit owners and abutters at least 72 hours prior to commencement of construction, and 24 hour advance notice shall be given both verbally and in writing to the McGrath family of any work to be conducted within ten-feet (10')of the McGrath property; 10. The construction site shall be lift in a clean condition free of dust and debris at the end of each day; 11. Construction vehicles shall be removed from the site at the end of each day; 12. Petitioner shall require his contractors not to interfere at any time with the ability of the resident unit owners to access or use their parking spaces on the property. 13. The conditions shall be enforced by the Department of the Building Commissioner, and any violation identified by him which is not cured to his satisfaction after notice to the Petitioner, shall be grounds for the Building . Commissioner to stop the work at the site, and upon his request, shall be sufficient cause for this Board to revoke this approval. 14. Petitioner shall initiate the construction within 30 days after this approval becomes legally effective,shall conduct the work diligently and continuously, shall complete the work within five months after beginning it, unless extreme weather conditions cause delay and then only upon application to the Building Commissioner for a specific additional tie for completion. A Certificate of Occupancy is required prior to occupancy of the unit. 15. Petitioner shall indemnify and hold harmless the condominium association and each member thereof for any and all liability arising out of damage to property held in common by the condo association or to damage to individual property. 16. Petitioner shall reimburse within 30 days of demand any additional expense incurred by the condominium association as a result of his actions or inactions arising from the demolition and stop work order, including without limitation legal fees up to $1,000.00 and the cost of additional insurance premiums incurred by the condominium association. 17. Petitioner through his counsel shall revise the condominium documents to reflect the changes to the condominium documents resulting from the reconstruction and • shall be solely responsible for the costs of such revision and of recording same on the condominium deed and master plan. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DEAN BORDERS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 272(JEFFERSON AVENUE R-1 page five 18. Petitioner shall submit revised plans for the single family house to the condominium association for approval and comment by the members prior to applying for a building permit to begin construction. VARIANCE GRANTED DECEMBER 1,2005 Nina Cohen Chauma�Serl 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 n f � { n Ncn T-7 O y Ln cn • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUS€. TjT*'- SALEM. MA s BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE • ,p, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ' SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745.9595 ,1005 JUN'2'1 .A 10: 18 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GREGORY MAITLAND REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 29-31 LEACH STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on June 15, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Nicholas Helides, Edward Moriarty, Stephen Pinto and Bonnie Belair. 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 a Variance from the number of stories to construct a 3`d floor dormer for the property located at 29-31 Leach Street located in an R-2 district. 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 and 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; 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 the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after reviewing the plans at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The house was a legal 4 family converted into 4 condominiums. The other three unit owners are in approval of the project. 2. There was no opposition to the proposed variance. On the basis of the above finding of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve • substantial hardship to the petition. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF GREGORY MAITLAND REQUESTING A • VAIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 29-31 LEACH STREET 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing . structure. • 6. There will be no roof deck allowed on the dormer. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. Variance Granted gBon� June 15, 2005 L. Belair CS��S 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 • • ov CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTiS Ur SALEf9 MA BOARD OF APPEAL OLE�✓('S OFFICE • .y 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR �w'Y�Ng SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 Z005 SEP MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 30 A q: j DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PEDRO JIMEIREZ REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 54 LAWRENCE STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on September 21, 2005 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 requests a Special Permit per Section 8-4 to allow the expansion of a three level deck for the property located at 54 Lawrence 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 CI1 Gr SALEM, MA CLEiPWS OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PEDRO JIMENEZ REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 54 LAWRENCE STREET R-2 page two 1905 SEP 30 A g: j 1. Petitioner Pedro Jimenez would like to increase the size of the already existing structure. The expansion would add to the safety of the tenants of the building and facilitate moving in or out of the units 2. Plans were submitted showing the proposed decks. 3. 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 favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relate to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit before beginning any construction 4. Petitioner is to provide a report from a structural engineer as to the capacity of the House to support the increased structure of the new decks. Special Permit Granted September 21, 2005 &onnie Belair • Board Of Appeal C CITY k'iF SALEM, ,MA CLERK'S OFFICE • -ZOOS SEP 30 A 9: I 1 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17, of MGL Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that the 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • • CITY OF SALEMp MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL Glr OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 105 A10V -2 P 2: SU DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL COOK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 105 LEACH STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on October 19, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair, Robin Stein and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting Variances from side & rear setback, lot coverage and distance between structures to extend garage for the property located at 105 Leach 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 reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Michael Cook had previously been before the Board in September and was continued to the October meeting.. The Pelletier's of 107 Leach Street had previously opposed the petition due to the size of the structure. 2. Mr. Cook did revise his plans to accommodate the abutters. 3. The changes made are as follows: a. Roof type changed to gambled b. Roof height lowered to 16.5 feet c. Eliminated aerial walk to door d. Eliminated dormer & doorway • e. Reduced size of rooftop deck f. Change use of 2rd floor to storage g Added internal pull-down stairs. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL COOK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LCOATED AT 105 LEACH STREET R-2 • page two 4. Plans were submitted showing the new plans. 5. 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 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Inspection 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Boards or Commissions having jurisdiction, but not limited to the Planning Board. Variance Granted Robin Stein Cie October 19, 2005 Board of Appeal`s • 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 CfrYOF BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK S F CE A • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 1k AUG MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9848 �� '4 � .. 3�. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENDRA MALIONEK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 LEE STREET R--1 A hearing on this petition was held on August 17, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Edward Moriarty, Nicholas Helides and Robin Stein.. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 28 x 20 two- story addition for the property located at 20 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 reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner, Kendra Malionek appeared and represented herself at the hearing. 2. Plans were presented showing the two-story addition. 3. Councillor Bencal appeared and spoke in favor of the petition. Several neighbors spoke in support of this petition. 4. It was noted that the home is presently not displaying a street numbers Petitioner stated that she would immediately place the numbers on the home. 5. There was no opposition to this petition. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENDRA MALIONEK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LCOATED AT 20 LEE 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 4 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. • 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 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 obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. Unless this decision expressly provides otherwise any zoning relief granted does not authorize petitioner to demolish or deconstruct any structure (s) on the property to an extent greater than 50% of the structure as measured by floor area or replacement cost. If a structure on the property is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent of the replacement const or more than fifty percent of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. '4 < Variance Granted Nicholas Helides E Cee` August 17, 2005 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. • CO CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETITUF SALEM. MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE V • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR As�MM6 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 [� STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ,jl]O((J DEC I9 A II. 2Z MAYOR FAX: 978-740.9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF YMCA OF THE NORTH SHORE, INC REQUESTING A DETERMINATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LEGGS HILI. ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on December 1, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair, Edward Moriarty and Robin Stein. 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 a determination of reasonableness for proposed parking per Section 7-3 (g) for new recreational facility for the property located at Leggs Hill Road located in an R-1 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. Petitioner YMCA of the North Shore, Inc. (`Y") seeks a determination from the Board of Appeals of the reasonableness under Section 7-3 (g) of the Zoning Ordinance of allowing parking spaces for 246 vehicles at a new Y facility to be constructed at a site on Leggs Hill Road in Salem. 2. As grounds for its petition, the Y states the following; A. The new facility at Leggs Hill will serve an underserved market of Salem, Swampscott and Marblehead residents. The new Y will offer an adult health center, childcare facilities, outdoor and indoor swimming pools, a gymnasium and a dance center, with offices, storage areas and locker rooms. It is projected to serve 3800 members and additional 400 non-members users. B. The petitioner, a regional Y, currently operates recreational facilities in Beverly, Ipswich, Gloucester, Salem and Marblehead. The largest single facility is the Sterling Center in Beverly, which serves 4,750 membership units (one unit= one individual or more in a family usually traveling in one car), and while it is 20% larger, the Sterling Center traffic pattern provides a basis for comparing parking capability and usages. C. At the Sterling Center a parking area with 300 spaces has proved adequate to serve users all times of day. Dividing the number of • user units by the number of parking spaces provides a ratio of CICLERK S~OFFICER • DECISION OF YMCA OF THE NORTH SHORE, INC REQUESTING DETERMINATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LEGGS HELL ROAD R-1 .2605 DEC A 1122 17.4 at this Beverly facility. The comparable percentage for the projected Leggs hill facility with 246 parking spaces is 17.1, which supports the feasibility of the proposed parking lot. D. In support of its petition the Y submitted a parking evaluation prepared by Vinod Kalikiri, P.E., P.T.O.E. of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) from which these figures are taken. Mr. Kalikiri presented his report and findings and answered questions at the public meeting. The report and its findings, dated November 22, 2005, are hereby incorporated by reference. Also present were Jack Meany, Executive Director of the YMCA of the North Shore, Paul Gorman and other members of the North Shore YMCA Board of Directors, Claudia Chuber, President of the Board of Directors of the Salem YMCA, and Deb Amaral, Director of the Salem YMCA. The Y was represented by Attorney George Atkins III. E. Outside of daily and weekly usage schedules, the Y from time to time hosts larger events like swim meets, which require additional parking. These events are planned in advance and the Y undertook on these occasions to arrange off-site parking at • another facility, which shuttle buses to the Leggs Hill site. F. Should the parking plan as submitted prove inadequate because usage exceeded projections, Mr. Meany noted the site plan included an open field adjacent to one of the proposed lots. This filed could be adapted to serve future parking needs if it became necessary. It is the goal of the Y that the access road to the facility will never by used for YMCA parking. G. The Leggs Hill facility will support a new partnership between the Y and the Boston Ballet, which will operate a satellite- teaching unit within the new facility. This will make high quality dance instruction much more available to North Shore families, and will enable dance instructors to visit local schools for arts presentations. The Salem, Marblehead and Swampscott school districts will also be offered the use of the facility for their gymnastic practices and meets, and for swim team needs. H. Numerous neighbors attended the meeting and aired their concerns about the adequacy of parking and the need to keep YCMA cars from parking on the access roads. Ward 5 City Councillor Joseph O'Keefe also attended the meeting and spoke in support of the proposed parking plan following the presentation and Mayor Stanley Usovic2 Jr. of Salem submitted a letter in support of the proposal. • CITY OF SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF YMCA OF THE NORTH SHORE REQUESTING A DETERMINATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LEGGS HILLS ROAD 7005 DEC 19 A II: 22 Therefore, based upon the evidence presented, the Board voted 5 in favor and 0 in opposition with the following conditions 1. Petitioner shall provide current membership data upon request of the Board of Appeal. 2. The Board reserves the right to revisit the adequacy if necessary. GRANTED Nina Cohen, Chairman DECEMBER 1, 2005 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 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 • 0 � m CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS C111 OF SALEM. MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR P, 120 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELFPPHONE:: 7 8-9846595 -ZOOS AUG 2b A 8: 44 MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SUSAN KOCUR REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6-8 LOONEY AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on August 17, 2005 with the following Board Members present; Edward Moriarty,Nicholas Helides,Nina Cohen and Robin Stein. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 size,minimum lot area per dwelling& lot width to construct a single family dwelling for the property located at 6-8 Looney Avenue in an R-1 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: I. Petitioner appeared and presented a petition and a request for relief, a scaled site plan signed by a registered architect, and 3 sheets of signatures by neighbors in support of the proposal. 2. Petitioner's Attorney Scott Grover, Esq., stated that Ms. Kocur and her family had lived many years in the neighborhood,that the majority of lots in the area were compatible in size with the lot at 8 Looney Ave, and an additional single family home would contribute to the neighborhood by allow a new family to come to live • there. /• DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SUSAN KOCUR REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6-8 LOONEY AVENUE R-1 page two 3. Ms. Kocur's requested was supported by Ward 4 City Councillor Leonard O'Leary, by and abutter, Michael Ward of 66 Proctor St.,and by the 38 neighbors who signed her petition. 4. Ms. Dorothy Flynn, an abutter, said that a low stone wall between petitioner's property and her own was falling down, and she requested that the stone wall be rebuilt prior to any construction on the lot at 8 Looney Ave. She also stated that the small lot could support only a small house, and she requested that limits be place upon the height of any structure to be built on the lot at 8 Looney Ave. 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 4 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. That any structure to be built shall not exceed two stories in height. 7. The Petitioner shall build a two-foot stone wall on the perimeter line between her • home and Mrs. Flynn's at 10 Looney Ave. for the entire length of the lot line between the two propertied prior to conveying the property to a developer. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SUSAN KOCUR REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6-8 LOONEY AVENUE R-1 page three VARIANCE GRANTED l v�(/fb1.Ci O_ n � AUGUST 17, 2005 (/�l� Nina Cohen, Chairman CSC/1L, 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 • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ' OF ch ® BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK FICE A g 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • '�� SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ;1005 STANLEY J.MAYOR UOSROVICZ, UR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 98488- 595 FEB 23 A .8 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SAMUEL FISCHER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8-8A LORING AVENUE R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on February 16„ 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto,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 New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit 8-4 and a Variance from rear yard setback to construct a small addition for the property located at 8-8A Loring Avenue 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. 0 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SAMUEL FISCHER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8-8A LORING AVENUE 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, Samuel Fischer appeared before the Board to present his plans for his addition. 2. Petitioner contends that he needs more space in the rear of his property. He intends to add a second level to make this possible. Plans submitted showed intent to keep the house looking the same as the rest of the house. 3. The petition shows three kitchens in the house. Mr. Fischer assured the Board he • would not rent to a third party. 4. A condition was put on this petition that the property shall remain as a two family dwelling. 5. 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 Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do 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. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 4. The relief requested can 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 SAMUEL FISCHER REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8-8A LORING AVENUE R-2 page three 5. 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 with the following conditions. i. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 7. Property shall be limited to a 2 family dwelling. SPECIAL PERMIT &VARIANCE GRANTED FEBRUARY 16, 2005 Steven PintoS Board of Appeal v A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 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 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 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 SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR MINK SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 n �1 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846p nn *1 70 N � Or DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THEODORE & SHRLEY ANGELAKIS "r' REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MALL !:t STREET R-2 ^' ;n v .N `6 - A hearing on this petition was held on October 19, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto, Robin Stein 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from frontage and lot size requirements to acquire a 113 square foot portion of land from the property located at 7 Mall Street to be given to 9 Mall Street located in an R-2 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, upon a finding Board that: • a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building Or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings, and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners.. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of this district of the purpose of the Ordinance The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property located at 9 Mall Street is an irregularly shaped lot and the owners believed that they owned this portion of land and had landscaped this portion. 2. The property owner at 7 Mal Street has agreed to give this piece of land to the owners of 9 Mall Street. In doing so, the property owner increases the non-conformity of the lot at 7 Mall Street which necessitates the need for the requested variances. 3. Attorney Sally Calhom appeared and represented the petitioners. • 4. There was no opposition to this petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THEODORE & SHIRLEY ANGELAKIS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MALL STREET R-2 page two On the basis of the above finding of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petition. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and • regulations. 2. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted onnie Be air October 19, 2005 Board of Appeal ��C 0 �o n ti � ti o� 0 �3 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the 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 N (-) O • =) r o m� n N UjC�i J= � o r- D nm -n3 N n' m� N D • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTCITyS. (zALEM. MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERKS OFFICE • mgw. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ypMSALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 f� /� f0 I O MAYOR FAX: 978.740-9848 .206.0 29 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL&NANCY RUGIEL REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 45 MARCH STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on April 20,2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair,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 New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit per Section 84 to alter a non-conforming structure and a Variance from side yard setback for the property located at 45 March Street R-2 Zone. 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. • CITY OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE -2005 APR 2q A 10: 10 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL &NANCY RUGIEL REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 45 MARCH 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. Petitioners,Michael &Nancy Rugiel, and their Architect, David F. lacquith,of Beverly, appeared and presented this petition for relief in the form of a Special Permit and Variances as above-referenced. 2. Detailed plans were shown relative to the relief requested, including the proposed reconstruction creating an alteration in the pre-existing,non-conforming, four- unit,residential structure with specific violation of Zoning Ordinance dimensional • requirements relative to side yard setback, second means of egress and increased lot coverage with no increase in density. 3. Petitioners represented that all neighbors were in favor of the project. 4. There was no opposition to this petition. S. The proposed new construction would not increase density nor present any problems relative to on-street parking, while enhancing this unique property's water views. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing the Zoning Board of Appeal concluded as follows: 1. Special conditions do exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. • CITY OF SALEM. MA • CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL&NANCE RUGIEL REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR TNP?Rh1WRT* la 10 LOCATED AT 45 MARCH STREET R-2 page three 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 3. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 4. The relief requested can 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. S. 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 with the following conditions. 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board's or Commission having Jurisdiction, but not limited to the Planning Board. SPECIAL PERMIT&VARIANCE GRANTED Edward Moriarty APRIL 20, 2005 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, MASSACHUSETTS-II y BOARD OF APPEAL 'LER A"��' MA �r 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR K S OFFI&E • SALEM, 970 TEL. (978)) 7 7455-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 1005 App, 28 A I STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR 'Q 3 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 97 MARGIN STREET A hearing on this petition was held on April 20, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman; Richard Dionne, Ed Moriarty, 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 install two additional electric substation transformers and associated electric equipment on property located at 97 Margin Street, off Jefferson Avenue. Petitioner also requests a Variance from lot width as well as from side yard setback to install two steel poles associated with the substation. The site is located in the Industrial Zoning District and already is the site of an electric substation owned by Petitioner and its affiliate, New England Power Company. • The provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which are applicable to these requests are Sections 5-3 j, 8-6, and 9-4 for a Special Permit, Section 9-5 and Table ]I following Section 6-4 for the Variance, all of which provide as follows: Section 5-3j Extension of Nonconformity. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this ordinance, the Board of Appeals may, in accordance with the procedures and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4 herein, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures and for change, 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, nor shall this paragraph apply to billboards, signs or other advertising devices. Section 8-6 Board of Appeals; granting Special Permits Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing this ordinance, the Board of Appeals may grant Special Permits as authorized by Section 5-30) and section 9-4 herein when the same may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of this ordinance. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 97 MARGIN STREET Section 9-4 Special Permits a. In hearing and deciding applications for Special Permits, the Board of Appeals shall decide such questions as are involved in determining whether such Special Permit should be granted and shall grant Special Permits with such conditions and safeguards as are appropriate under this ordinance or shall deny Special Permit when not in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. The Board of Appeals shall not have the power to grant any Special Permit where use of land or structure is specifically excluded from the district. b. The Board of Appeals may authorize the issuance of a Special Permit for a change to another nonconforming use of an existing nonconforming building or use or its alteration or enlargement, provided that the Board finds that the use as changed, altered or extended will not depart from the intent of this ordinance and its prior use or degree of use; provided that such building or use is neither increased in volume nor area unreasonably. c. A Special Permit shall not be granted by the Board of Appeals unless and until written application for the Special Permit is made, stating the grounds on which such • permit is requested and public notice and hearing is held in accordance with Chapter 40A and unless said application complies in all other respects with provisions of this zoning ordinance. d. Violation of such conditions and safeguards as are made a part of the terms under which the Special Permit is granted shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance. e. Failure by a Special Permit granting authority to take final action upon an application for a Special Permit within ninety (90) days following the date of public hearing shall be deemed to be a grant of the permit applied for. f. Construction or operations under a Special Permit shall conform to any subsequent amendment of this ordinance, unless the use or construction is commenced within a period of not less than six (6) months after the issuance of the permit and, in cases involving construction, unless such construction is continued through to completion as continuously and expeditiously as is reasonable. g. Any Special Permit granted under this section shall lapse to within two (2) years, and including such time required to pursue or await the determination of an appeal from the grant thereof, if a substantial use thereof has not sooner commenced except for good cause or, in the case of permit for construction, if construction has not begun by such date except for good cause. • Section 9-5 Variances • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 97 MARGIN STREET a. In authorizing, upon appeal or petition in specific cases, a variance from the terms of this ordinance, the Board of Appeals shall determine that such variance will not be contrary to the public interest and that, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. b. A variance from the terms of this ordinance shall not be granted by the Board of Appeals unless and until: 1. A written application for a variance is submitted, demonstrating 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 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 purposes of this ordinance. • 2. Public notice and hearing is held, according to the rules of the Board. c. In granting any variance, the Board of Appeals may impose limitations both of time and of use, and the continuation of the use permitted shall be conditioned upon compliance with regulations to be made and amended from time to time thereafter. Violation of such limitations and regulations shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance. d. Rights authorized by a variance that are not exercised within one (1) year of the date of the grant of such variance shall lapse. Table H lot width and side yard setback in the Industrial Zoning District: Minimum lot width (feet) 150 Minimum width of side yard (feet) 30 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. As to authorizing a Variance, in summary, the Board requires that Petitioner demonstrate • (i) special conditions and circumstances affecting its proposed project but not generally • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 97 MARGIN STREET affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district, (ii) literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to Petitioner, and (iii) 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 Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the submitted plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Massachusetts Electric Company seeks permission to install two additional transformers and associated electrical equipment adjacent to the existing electric substation on property located at 97 Margin Street, off Jefferson Avenue. The new transformers will tap the existing 115 kV transmission lines and reduce the voltage to 13.8 kV for delivery to customers. 2. Petitioner also seeks permission to install a single-story 14 foot by 36 foot prefabricated metal building to house the protection and control systems for the new equipment. The building will meet all setback requirements, however • two steel poles required to tap the transmission lines will be within the 30 foot side-yard requirement. 3. The lot is 50 feet wide, as measured at the 30 foot setback from Jefferson Avenue, and opens to approximately 160 feet in width at the location of the substation. 4. As grounds for its Petition, Petitioner states that continued load growth in the City of Salem requires the installation of the described equipment and building to meet electrical demand in a safe and reliable manner. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. Petitioner's proposal will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. 2. The Special Permit can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood. 3. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the Petitioner. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 97 MARGIN STREET 4. The Variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the District's purpose. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted 5 in favor and 0 in opposition, to grant the Special Permit and Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, codes, ordinances and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the 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 is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Special Permit and Variance Granted Nina Cohen, Chairman C S J April 20, 2005 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 • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS + BOARD OF APPEAL CITY OF SALEM M • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CL ERK-SFI aG' 9 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 El STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR JUL 28 P DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS COTE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 3 �� THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 54 MEMORIAL DRIVE R--1 A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Edward Moriarty, Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belair 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 side yard setback to construct a 16 x 29 garage/addition for the property located at 54 Memorial Drive 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 reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner presented a letter from City of Salem, Parks & Recreation Department in support of the petition, 2. The addition will be 2 story with storage on the second floor. 3. The petitioner stated that other side of the dwelling has ledge and therefore the addition could not be located there. 4. Petitioner stated that the garage will be constructed on a foundation. 5. Petitioner presented the original plans for the existing home, which showed a garage in the same location, which was never constructed. 6. There was no opposition to the petition. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS COTE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LCOATED AT 54 MEMORIAL DRIVE 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and • approved by the Building Commissioner. 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 obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. if Variance Granted Nicholas Helides July 20, 2005 Board of Appeal / ��►1C • 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 SALEM9 MASSACHUSETLTS;' 017 SALEM. MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERKS OFFICE • ip,_ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 4NS SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 /� C STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ` ZOOS JAN 2b ^ IO' J1 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JERRY & PAMELA RYAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 NICHOLS STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on January 19, 2005 with the following Board Members present;Nina Cohen Chairman, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty and Steven Pint. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 dormer for the property at 4 Nichols 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. The Petitioner appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. Plans were submitted showing the proposed third floor dormer. 3. The area will be approximately 900 square feet and the home will remain a two family dwelling. 4. There was no opposition to this petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JERRY& PAMELA RYAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 NICHOLS 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 4 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. The dwelling shall remain a 2 family residence. Variance Granted January 19, 2005 / chard Dionne Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JERRY& PAMELA RYAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 NICHOLS STREET R-2 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days 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 • v6 c� CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS MA BOARD OF APPEAL ClC 1 OF SALEM. CLERK'S OFFICE ` • ,yd, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR O'Y1N8 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 ZOOS NOV 23 A 9: 35 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BRUCE BORNSTEIN REQUESTING A MODIFICATION OF A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 NICHOLS STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on November 16 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Robin Stein, 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 requests a Modification from terms of a Special Permit to allow change in size of apartments for the property located at 6 Nichols 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 OF THE PETITION OF BRUCE BORNSTEIN REQUESTING A MODIFICATION OF A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 NICHOLS STREET R-2 page two 1. Petitioner Bruce Bornstein owns a building at 6 Nichols Street which is presently used as an environmental testing lab and business in accordance with a special permit granted by this Board in September 30, 1992 2. In May 2004, Mr. Bornstein requested the Board grant him a Special Permit to allow three residential apartments at the property. These would be located in the same business as the environmental lab, with two units on the second floor and one on the third floor. After a hearing the Board granted a special permit for the residential uses subject to a number of conditions. 3. The present petition is being submitted because due to existing structural conditions, Mr. Bornstein has revised the plans for the residential apartments. Although there will still be two units on the second floor, due to an unstable condition of the floor Mr. Bornstein now wishes to convert a smaller area to residential uses. Accordingly he is before this Board to seek modification of the original floor plans for the second floor apartments. The third floor apartment is unaffected by this petition. 4. There was no opposition to the proposed modification of the permitted • apartment floor plans. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows; 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 2. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 3. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. 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 in opposition to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relate to smoke and fire safety shall • be strictly adhered to DECISION OF THE PETITION OF BRUCE BORNSTEIN REQUESTING A MODIFICATION OF A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 NICHOLS STREET R-2 page three 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit before beginning any construction 4. Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statures, ordinances, codes and regulations 5. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Existing finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 7. Petition shall continue with all the previous conditions of May 12, 2004. Special Permit Granted November 16, 2005 /N Nma Cohen SC Board Of Appea A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK r 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. • he��e CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETT,`}' OF SALEM, MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERft'S OFFICE • 'T 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ABPp11N6�� SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 2005 APR 29 A 10: 01 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HARRY & CHARLIE VERVATES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 NICHOLS STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on April 20, 2005 with the following Board Members present;Nina Cohen Chairman, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty,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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from side yard, front yard and lot area to remove existing structure and rebuild on existing foundation for property at 18 Nichols 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. The Petitioners appeared and presented their petition and request for relief. 2. The Petitioners purchased the property about six (6) months ago and attempted to commence some modest renovations, only to find that the structure of the premises was infested with termites to such a severe and substantial extent that the entire structure could not be saved by piecemeal repairs. • CIT'( OF SALEM mA CLERK'S OFFICE • 1005 APR 29 A 10: O9 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF HARRY& CHARLIE VERVATES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 NICHOLS STREET R-2 page two 3. Petitioners' representations were supported by dramatic photos indicating the scope and severity of the termite infestation as it related to the structural supports, beams, sill, and the like, of the building. 4. A neighbor, on behalf of her deceased mother's estate and premises abutting the property, Ms. Kay Durkin, spoke about her concern about rebuilding the premises regarding an abutting/contiguous retaining wall which could impact adversely the premises of Ms. Durkin's mother's estate. 5. Petitioners indicated that they would be personally rebuilding the retaining wall in question in a good and workmanlike and safe manner which would further be to the reasonable satisfaction of Ms. Durkin and her safety and structural concerns. 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. • CIl Y OF ;;ADEM MJ CLERIC'S OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF HARRY & CHARLIE VERVATES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 NICHOLJ095 APR 29 A STREET R-2 page three 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction, but not limited to the Planning Board. 8. The petitioner/owner shall repair and/or replace the existing retaining wall, as necessary, in a good and workmanlike manner, in accordance with any and all applicable and/or state building codes. VARIANCE GRANTED APRIL 20, 2005 Edward Moriarty, Member Board of Appeal • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days 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 CLERK'S OFFICE BOARD OF APPEAL .7� 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR n1Ng SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 [ /� STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 .1005 JAN 2b '^ IO' `51 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHRISTOPHER ZORZY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 115 NORTH STREET B-1 A hearing on this petition was held on January 19, 2005 with the following Board Members present;Nina Cohen Chairman, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty and Steven Pint. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 (10 feet) and a Variance from lot width(58'19")to construct a 50' x 40' steel building for the property at 115 North 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 careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plane, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Petitioner, Christopher Zorzy appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. Mr. Zorzy is the owner of A&A Services at 115 North Street in Salem. 3. The Petitioner states that the building height will not be any higher than 27 feet nor will it contain heat or water. Petitioner further states that he will plant trees to enhance appearance. 4. Petitioner stated that his business has grown and needs the additional space to • store equipment that is used for his business. 5. Mr. Dick Goldberg, an abutter and Mr. Bruce Weir spoke in favor of this petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHRISTOPHER ZORZY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 115 NORTH STREET B-1 page two 6. W. Staley McDermitt spoke in opposition with concerns about future business. 7. The Petitioner would like to construct a 50' x 40' steel building at the rear of his property. 8. Plans were submitted showing the proposed steel building. 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 4 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. The rear building shall remain an accessory use to the primary use of the property on North Street. Variance Granted January 19, 2005 ` Richard Dionne Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHRISTOPHER ZORZY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 115 NORTH STREET B-1 page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days 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 SALEMt MASSACHUSET-T�SOF SALEM. MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERKS OFFICE -- • �,p, 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 2005 NOV 28 P 2: 22 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN LOCKE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 144R NORTH STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on November 16 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriaty, Robin Stein and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from rear yard setback and lot area to subdivide the lot at 5 Dearborn Street for the property located at 144R North Street located in a R-2 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, upon a finding Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building • Or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings, and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners.. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of this district of the purpose of the Ordinance The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Petitioner, John Locke appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. The rear setback will be 0 instead of the required 30 feet and the lot area will be 4,496 square feet instead of the 15,000 square feet. 3. Petitioner is seeking the variance to show the actual use of the land. 4. There was no opposition to this petition. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN LOCKE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 144R DEARBORN STREET R-2 page two On the basis of the above finding of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petition. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. • 2. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 3. No merger has occurred. Variance Granted Robin Steins November 16, 2005 Board of Appdd��11 • 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 MASSACHUSETTS • BOARD OF APPEAL CITY OF SALEM. MA ,CLERK'S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ' STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 28aS -NOV 30 -.^ ,.10.,�.I AMENDED /1 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN LOCKE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 144R NORTH STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on November 16 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriaty, Robin Stein and Nicholas Helides. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from rear yard setback and lot area to subdivide the lot at 5 Dearborn Street for the property located at 144R North Street located in a R-2 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, upon a finding Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building • Or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings, and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners.. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of this district of the purpose of the Ordinance The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Petitioner, John Locke appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. The rear setback will be 0 instead of the required 30 feet and the lot area will be 4,496 square feet instead of the 15,000 square feet. 3. Petitioner is seeking the variance to show the actual use of the land. 4. There was no opposition to this petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN LOCKE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 144R NORTH STREET R-2 page two On the basis of the above finding of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petition. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 3. No merger has occurred. sn, Variance Granted Robin Stein November 16, 2005 Board of Appeal • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEM, MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ''1fN6 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 7 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 2005 AUG -2 A II• 22 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF FLORA TONTHANT REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30 NORTHY STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Bonnie Belair,Nicholas Helides, Steven Pinto 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 non-conforming structure&Variance from rear setbacks & density and a request to review previous 3 year Special Permit for Bed/Breakfast for the property located at 30 Northy Street R-2 Zone. 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 fording 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. 0 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF FLORA TONTHANT REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30 NORTHY, 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. Flora Tonthant has more than the required parking spaces for an addition to her building. She will not cause any added congestion to the neighborhood. 2. Architect David Jaquith presented the plans to the Board. 3. Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski spoke in favor of the petition as did John Robinson owner of 3 properties on Northy Street, Douglas Sabin of 32-34 Northy Street. There was also a petition submitted with 13 signatures from abutter in • favor of this petition. 4. There was no opposition to this petition. 5. The previous 3 year review of the Bed/Breakfast was lifted as Ms. Tonthant has shown the property has done well and has not caused any detriment to the neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact,and on the evidence presented at the hearing the Zoning Board of Appeal concluded as follows: 1. Special conditions do 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. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 4. The relief requested can 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 FLORA TONTHANT REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30 NORTHY STREET page three 5. 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 with the following conditions. 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board's or Commission having Jurisdiction,but not limited to the Licensing Board. • 7. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. SPECIAL PERMIT&VARIANCE `— GRANTED Atevento JULY 20, 2005 Board of Appeal A COPY OF TMS DECISION HAS 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, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL C-) 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR -4 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970p r-, � m STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 O 50 x1 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 NCf. N37 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JANET GREEN REQUESTING.A VARIANCE ANIS c�3 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 72 ORCHARD STREET m➢ R-1 40 L A hearing on this petition was held October 19, 2005 meeting with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Robin Stein Steven Pinto, 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. At the request of the Petitioner, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a Special Permit and a Variance to allow existing garage structure to be rebuilt as a single living unit for the property located at 72 Orchard Street located in an R-1 zone. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE • OCTOBER 19, 2005 Nina Cohen, ChairmarrSC/� Board of Appeal 1 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of 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 • X CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTSCITY OF SALEM?MA < BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE • q� 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ` 'f1N8 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ,1005 SEP ?2 P 2: O 1 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL SHEPPARD REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITFOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 OSGOOD STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held September 21, 2005 meeting with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Robin Stein 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. At the request of the Petitioner, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for Variances from lot coverage, lot area, and addition unit and a Special Permit to alter a non-conforming dwelling for the property located at 25 Osgood Street located in an R-1 zone. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW • WITHOUT PREJUDICE September 21, 2005 �X ///v✓�'� dkyu Nina Cohen, Chairmaq(.+ 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 MASSACHLtrPFTOTS:ALEM,",MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFI:LE. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR vSALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 2005,MAY"I'T P 3 :05-1 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE VARIANCE GRANTED FOR SALEM POINT RENTAL PROPERTIES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 50 PALMER STREET B-1 At the hearing held on May 18, 2005, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow a six (6) month extension for the Variance granted for Salem Point Rental Properties for the property located at 50 Palmer Street. The six (6) month extension is based on the previous decision having been recorded at the City Clerk's office on July 28, 2004 and the extension is granted until January 27, 2006 Nina" Cohen, ai kn Board of Appeal Cite • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEM, MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE a • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MOOS JUN 2l A (a: I MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 8 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLAIM HARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 34 PLEASANT STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on June 15, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Nicholas Helides, Edward Moriarty, Stephen Pinto and Bonnie Belair. 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 a Variance from the number of stories to construct a 3 d Floor dormer for the property located at 34 Pleasant Street located in an R-2 district. 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 and 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; 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 the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and after reviewing the plans at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The house has been converted into three condominiums. The third unit is vacant and the owner of the second unit was not present. 2. There was no opposition to the proposed variance. On the basis of the above finding of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve • substantial hardship to the petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF WILLIAM HARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 34 PLEASANT STREET R-2 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction and the building permit shall have a condition that requires the approval of the condominium association. • 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. There will be a third floor unit with deck allowed on the dormer. 7. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. Variance Granted June 15, 2005 nnie L. Belairf S� r Board of Appeal 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 • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CI1`Y OF SALEM 'MA CLERK'S OFFICE BOARD OF APPEAL • y� 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 2005 SEP 22 P 2: 00 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CHARLES WHITNEY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT PIERCE ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held September 21, 2005 meeting with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Robin Stein 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. At the request of the Petitioner, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for relief from the requirements that a lot needs frontage on an improved street to allow construction of a single family home for the property located at Pierce Road located in an R-1 zone. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE • September 21 , 2005 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 BOARD OF APPEAL • ,q 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR MIf� SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SORKADH MUSTAFA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 PROCTOR STREET R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on January 19, 2005 with the following Boal Members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty and Steven P-iato.. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearinvere properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts or General Laws Chapter 40A. Tr D 3 C-)• The petitioner is requesting a Variance from Section 7-3 (g) to allow a driveway to-be m� located in the front yard for the property located at 21 Proctor Street located in ani 1 v 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 a variance to construct a driveway in the front yard of his property at 21 Proctor Street. Currently the two-family dwelling has no off-street parking and the neighborhood is a congested one. 2. Petitioner's property is sited at a ninety-degree bend in the road, with a difficult egress from the driveway to Proctor Street. The site is also steeply graded. At the Board's request petitioner submitted a site plan by Meridian Engineering showing the degree of incline and view angles for the proposed driveway. 3. An existing six-foot stonewall on the property perimeter will be partially deconstructed to allow the driveway to be built. This wall will be reconstructed in accord with the requirements of the Building Code, and an eighteen-inch • concrete retaining wall will be erected on petitioner's property to separate the driveway from the sidewalk and redirect rainwater runoff onto the street. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SORKADH MUSTAFA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 PROCTOR STREET R-2 page two 4. There was no opposition to the proposed variance. 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 4 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. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. Variance Granted January 19, 2005 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SORKADA MUSTAFA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 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 • • 0 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CITY OF SALEM. MA CLERK'S OFFICE • ,q 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 200 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9848 UG 2U A q: OT DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL EUGENIO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 RAYMOND ROAD R--1 A hearing on this petition was held on August 17, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Edward Moriarty, Nicholas Helides and Robin Stein.. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 7 1h x 18 single story addition for the property located at 10 Raymond 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 reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner, Michael Eugenio appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. Plans were presented showing the one-story addition. 3. Petitioner stated they needs more living space in their home, 4. The addition will be 7 Y2 x 18 and requires a variance from the rear yard setback. 5. There was no opposition to this petition. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL EUGENIO REQUESTING A • VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LCOATED AT 10 RAYMOND 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 4 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. • 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 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 obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. Unless this decision expressly provides otherwise any zoning relief granted does not authorize petitioner to demolish or deconstruct any structure (s) on the property to an extent greater than 50% of the structure as measured by floor area or replacement cost. If a structure on the property is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent of the replacement const or more than fifty percent of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance 8. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Boards or Commissions having jurisdiction, but not limited to the Planning Board. Variance Granted Edward Moriaty CsC/'ti� • August 17, 2005 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. • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF' SALEM. MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERKS OFFICE • ,y_ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR hlf� SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 '1 p STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ;2005 OCT 2b P 2' 20 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DEBRA GOLDBERG REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 54 RAYMOND ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on October 19, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto, Robin Stein 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. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from off-street parking to allow a second driveway for the property located at 54 Raymond Road located in a R-1 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, upon a finding Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building Or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings, • and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners.. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of this district of the purpose of the Ordinance The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Petitioner's home is located on a steep grade making use of the existing off-street parking extremely difficult during inclement weather. 2. The use of Petitioner's off-street parking is further aggravated by the property being located on the apex of a sharp curve. 3. Petitioner is seeking approval for an additional curb cut to allow parking at safer and more convenient location on her property. 4. The owner of 55 Raymond Road spoke in support of the additional curb cut. A letter • in support was also submitted by the owners of 6 Fairview Avenue • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF DEBRA GOLDBERG REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 54 RAYMOND ROAD R-1 page two 5. The owner of 53 Raymond Road opposed the additional curb cut. 6, The driveway shall be no more than 14 feet. On the basis of the above finding of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petition. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, • subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 3. All construction shall be done as property exists today. 4. Petitioner shall make improvements to the sidewalk of their property. Variance Granted Robin 6telin11C October 19, 2005 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 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, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF SALEM, MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 9 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 -AUG /� STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. 'TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 IUUS AU" �2 A 11:.21 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KIM & SHANE FRANKLIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 SAVOY ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Nicholas Helides, Steven Pinto 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 rehearing for a Variance/Special Permit to construct a single story addition. This is a rehearing of original petition with specific and material changes as determined by the Salem Planning Board for the property located at 20 Savoy Road R- 1 Zone. 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 KIM& SHANE FRANKLIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 SAVOY ROAD R-1 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: I. The Petitioners, along with their architect, appeared and presented a petition and request for relief. 2. The request includes revised plans submitted before the Planning Board of the City of Salem on April 21, 2005. 3. The new plans call for the demolition of the existing three-season porch on the • premises. 4. The plans further call for the expansion of the existing kitchen and the building of a deck. 5. Most importantly, the plans do not request, as requested and denied heretofore before this Board of Appeal on or about December 2004, permission to build above the kitchen, to include a new second- floor bedroom. 6. The plans further minimize the impact on the surrounding neighbors and the view and potential views of abutting neighbors. 7. According to Petitioners' architect, the existing kitchen is only 9' x 14' and is inadequate for Petitioners' growing family. The new expanded kitchen will be approximately 17' x 15'. 8. The new plans not only met with the approval of the Planning Board, but also many of the Petitioners' surrounding neighbors who had expressed concern regarding the original petition of December 2004, providing for a two-story addition. 9. In fact, Petitioners presented signatures, totaling eight, from Petitioners' abutters • acknowledging said abutters' review of the proposed plans and agreement with the plans as revised for a kitchen and deck, only. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KIM& SHANE FRANKLIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 SAVOY ROAD R-1 page three 10. Petitioners emphasized that the revised plans did not include a request to build above the kitchen to include a full second floor bedroom and that said new revised plans were limited to a first floor kitchen addition, only, to minimize any impact on any views or potential view of immediate abutting neighbors. 11. Not all abutters or neighbors were in favor of the revised petition and plans requesting permission to construct a one-story addition with deck. 12. In fact, Mr. Edward Ferris presented a petition signed by 13 neighbors, indicating their opposition to the proposed plans for expansion of the home at 20 Savoy Rd. 13. The opposition expressed concern regarding density, height and loss of view if the proposed single story addition for an expanded kitchen were granted by the Board. • 14. Petitioners further emphasized, in terms of their revised plans, that the existing width of the house, represented to be 27', would be honored by the addition, which would not be wider than 25'. 15. Petitioners further represented that the proposed addition would not encroach on the 30' setback. 16. Although,Petitioners conceded the proposal would violate lot coverage and side yard setbacks to a modest extent. 17. Petitioners further represented that they had spent considerable time and substantial money to present a revised, substantially scaled-down plan for addition to their premises, had the approval of the Planning Board as to a finding that the new plan was a significant and materially altered plan, and had the support of many, although, of course, not all, abutters and neighbors. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing the Zoning Board of Appeal concluded as follows: 1. Special conditions do 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. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KIM & SHANE FRANKLIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT/VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 SAVOY ROAD R-I page four 3. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 4. The relief requested can 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. 5. 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 0 in opposition to grant the relief requested with the following conditions. 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board's or Commission having Jurisdiction, but not limited to the Planning Board. 7. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 8. Unless this decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure (s) located on the subject property to an extent or more than fifth percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than 50% of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in the provisions of the Ordinance. n r SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE -G�GUWG�GG� C� GRANTED Edward Moriarty JULY 20, 2005 Board of Appeal • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KIM & SHANE FRANKLIN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMITNARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 SAVOY ROAD R-1 page five A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the 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 SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTSr'Il Y OF SALEM M s CLERK $ OFF A BOARD OF APPEAL ICE r • ? ip,_ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR MfNB SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. FA% USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: E :978-740-9846845-9595 1005 SEP 30 AMAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL &NANCY LEBLANCE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22-24 SCHOOL STREET R-2 A hearing of this petition was held on September 21, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Richard Dionne,Nicholas Helides and Robin Stein. 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 from the number of stories to construct a 3`d floor dormer for the property located at 22-24 School 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 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. Petitioners Michael &Nancy LeBiance of 7 Moulton Ave. requested a variance to allow a third floor dormer for the building at 22-24 School Street. 2. As grounds for this request, Ms. LeBlance stated that the requested dormer had been partly built, pursuant to a building permit dated October 16, 2004. Although a building permit was issued by the City, it was apparently issued without the required zoning relief. As further grounds she stated that the third floor living area would not become a separate living unit, but she requested permission to install a bathroom on the third floor. 3. A Stop Work order issued by the Building Commissioner on June 16, 2005 stated that the building permit had expired, and zoning relief was needed for the third floor dormer. • 4. Several neighbors spoke in opposition to the proposed petition. James Fleming of 47 Buffum Street stated that petitioner's property, a two-family house, is in CITY 0r SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF MICHAEL &NANCY LEBLANCE • REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22-24 SCHOOL STREET R-2 .1005 SEP 30 A 9: 18 page two disrepair and is badly maintained. He observed a toilet seat was left on the front porch off the house for several weeks, among other problems. 5. Jean Krajeski of 21 School Street also opposed the petition, stating that it appeared an illegal third apartment was being installed in the building. She also observed that the residence lacked sufficient off-street parking for the residents' cars. Because of insufficient off-street parking, residents and visitors park on both sides of School Street,even though it is not allowed, and this in tum creates a hazard because the curve of the street at this point impedes visibility. 6. Cheryl Liakos of 1 School Street, also opposed the petition, for the above reasons and because she felt resident children were endangered by the congested traffic on School Street. Mrs. Thomas Hayes of 44 Barr Street,also opposed the petition for the above reasons and because she objected to the increase in density caused by the illegal third unit in the building. 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 September 21, 2005 Nina Cohen, Chairmar�� Board of Appeal • C17�-Y.�A4F SALEM. MA • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLAIN 6'S OFFICE BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to SectionZIL7,of�#,�� G Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of t�u�s d�kisil 9 1 $ 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 SALEM, MASSACHUSE71TSALEM. M4 BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE • 'rp,_ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR MING SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 .1095 DEC 28 p 4^ Q`' IS MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL SPEROUNES REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 49 SCHOOL STREET A hearing on this petition was held on December 14, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty and Robin Stein. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 maximum height of building and maximum height of stories to allow an additional story for the purpose of adding a roof deck for the property located at 49 School Street located 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 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 PAUL SPEROUNES REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 49 SCHOOL 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. The Petitioner owns the property located at 49 School Street, which is located in an R-2 zone. 2. Attorney Stephen Lovely of 14 Story Street in Salem represented the Petitioner before the Board. 3. The Petitioner's building located on said property exists nonconforming to the current zoning in that it contains three (3) legal residential units. 4. The Petitioner sought relief from the Board in order to create a roof deck on the property to be used by the existing residential units. 5. The Board considered petitioner's proposal and found that granting the requested relief would not distract from the intent of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. • 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, 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 PETITION OF PAUL SPEROUNES REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 49 SCHOOL STREET R2 page three 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Inspector. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure 6. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Inspection.. 7. Unless this decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not authorize Petitioner to demolish or deconstruct any structure(s) on the property to an extent greater than 50% of the structure as measured by floor area or replacement cost. If a structure on the property is demolished by any means to an extent of more than 50% of its replacement cost or more than 50% of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with this Ordinance. Special Permit & Variance Granted December 14, 2005 (/ I Robin Stein 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 0 CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSEITIT,SOF SALEM. MA < BOARD OF APPEAL CLERKS OFFICE • qe 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 I 2005-JUL 28' A 10: 22 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AAA MODULAR HOMES LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 SCOTIA STREET R-I A hearing of this petition was held on July 20, 2005 with the following Board Members present:Nina Cohen, Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Edward Moriarty,Nicholas Helides 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 from lot size and lot are to subdivide 2 lots into 4 lots for the property located at 16 Scotia 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 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 AAA Modular Homes LLC (Daniel Hibbard,officer)of 23 Trifone Road, Revere purchased adjacent residential properties at 14 and 16 Scotia Street in early 2002. Prior to beginning any construction,petitioner discovered hazardous waste materials including asbestos at the property, which was unfortunately partially uncovered and spread over the lot, causing a dangerous environmental condition at the property... 2. In July 2002,the City of Salem Building Inspector and the State Department of Environmental Protection ordered petitioner to cease work at the property and to obtain an environmental regulation regarding material containing asbestos. 3. Petitioner subsequently conveyed the property still subject to the stop work order to the present owners: Petitioner's mother Lillian Hibbard of 3 Belgrade St. in Revere and his uncle Joseph Oreto. • 4. In July 2003, Petitioner and then-owner Hibbard sought variances from lot size and lot width to create 4 lots at the property. He was denied zoning relief. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AAA MODULAR HOMES LLC • REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 SCOTIA STREET R-1 page two 5. In June 2004 Mrs. Hibbard was ordered by the City of Salem Board of Health to remediate the asbestos contamination of the property within two months. 6. Petitioner did not show the Board an environmental assessment of the property. Petitioner has not completed a cleanup plan, nor has any remediation ever been undertaken at the property, which is still contaminated with hazardous material .more than three years after the discovery of the hazardous condition at the site. During this period of time, petitioner has made no effort to protect the health of the neighbors and abutters. 7. Petitioner through his attorney Lawrence Simeone Esq. now renews his request to subdivide the two properties and create four lots, two of which would be less than 4,875 and two of which would be 5,050sf. All four lots require a variance from lot width requirements. 8. As grounds fro hardship, Petitioner states that the remediation of the asbestos would require an expenditure of greater than$150,000, and that without the possibility of income from the four lots,he is not in a position to undertake the expense of asbestos remediation. 9. Ward 4 City Councillor Leonard O'Leary opposed the granting of the variance, on the grounds that the developers failed to stabilize the site once they knew of • the contamination. The work done on the site changed the topography of the land so that future development will require regarding to protect adjacent properties from water and soil runoff. Mr. O'Leary argued that the property is too small for 4 houses and cannot safely accommodate safety vehicles. 10. Also present at the hearing and speaking against the proposal were neighbors Paul Butler, Deborah Pomoroy, Tom Welch and Dorothea Cormier. 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. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AAA MODULAR HOMES LLC REQUESTING A • VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 SCOTIA STREET R-1 Variance Denied 1 44/ July 20, 2005 �s Ninaa C ,` ' Uvn' Cohen, Chairm 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 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 0 % CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ?� CITY BOARD OF APPEAL ()r SALEM, MA �q CLERK'S OFFICE • T�' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR �g'nN6 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 1�n MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 r �5 NQV 28 P 2: 22 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAUL FLORES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 SIILVER STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on November 16, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair, Robin Stein 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 side yard setback to construct a two-story addition for the property located at 6 Silver 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 reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Paul Flores appeared and presented his petition to the Board. 2. Plans were submitted showing the two -story addition. The side setback will be 5 feet instead of the required 10 feet. 3. A petition was submitted with 7 names of abutters in favor of this petition. 4. .There was no opposition. 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 PAUL FLORES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR • THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 SILVER STREET R-2 pagetwo 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 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 obtain a Certificate of Inspection. 7. Unless this decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does Not authorize Petitioner to demolish or deconstruct any structure (s) on the property to an extent greater than 50% of the structure as measured by floor area or replacement cost. If a structure on the property is demolished by any means to an extent of more than 50% of the replacement cost or more than 50% of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with this Ordinance. Variance Granted November November i6, 2005 Bonnie Belair 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. • 0 " CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETT%II Y OF SALEM, MA Ulu BOARD OF APPEAL CLER}t'S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • ' g SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 1UUJ MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 JAN 22 P 2: 46 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF LUIZ QUARESMA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27 SILVER STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on June 15, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty, Nicholas Helides, Bonnie Belair 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 rear setback and lot coverage to construct a 14 x 18 addition for the property located at 27 Silver Street located in an R-2 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve • substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Petitioner, Luiz Quaresma owns and occupies an existing nonconforming two family residence at 27 Silver Street. He seeks a variance from setback requirements to add a two-story 14 by 18 addition to expand the existing dwelling. 2. An enclosed porch presently sits on the site of the proposed addition to petitioner's dwelling. The proposed variance would enable petitioner to replace the existing structure with a winterized addition that would be 11 feet from the rear lot line and would increase the overall lot coverage, which is presently nonconforming. 3. 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 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 LUIZ QUARESMA VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27 SILVER STREET R-2 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5 Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • Variance Granted June 15, 2005 Nina Cohen, Chairma��C� Board of Appeals 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, MASSACHUSETT!VF" OK SALEh, A e � BOARD OF APPEAL • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR Yom'' SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 1005 JUN - I P 2:314 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROCHELLE DIMATTEO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 SOUTH STREET R-I A hearing on this petition was held on May 18, 2005 with the following Board Members present; Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty,Nicholas Helides, Robin Stein 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 Variances from lot area and side yard setback to allow a 10' x 18' two story addition replacing previous enclosed porch for the property located at 13 South Street 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. The Petitioner, Rochelle DiMatteo appeared and represented herself at the hearing. 2. The petitioner constructed a 10' x 18' two story addition without knowing she needed to come before the Board of Appeals for-Variances from lot area and side yard setback. Once she was made aware, she applied for the Variances. 3. A letter was submitted from Councillor Leonard O'Leary in support of this • petition. 4. A petition was also submitted with 19 names of the abutters in favor. • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROCHELLE DIMATTEO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 SOUTH STREET R-1 page two 4. A petition was also submitted with 19 names of abutters in favor of this petition. 5. Plans were submitted showing the new addition. 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. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. VARIANCE GRANTED MAY 18,2005 ✓�,S CEJ\ Steven into, Mem 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 CIerk 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 MASSACHUSETT!W)' O"r Cn M MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK S OFFICE o e • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 NOV —2 p MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 2' Sia DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RICHARD GRIFFIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 SMITH AVENUE R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on October 19, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair, Steven Pinto and Robin Stein.. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting Variances from front& rear setback, lot coverage, number of stories and a Special Permit to tear down existing dwelling and replace with new single family for the property located at 2 Smith Avenue 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 reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Architect, Richard Griffin appeared and represented the petition at the hearing. 2. Petitioner requests to tear down existing structure and rebuild. 3. The requested relief requires front and rear yard setbacks, lot coverage and number of stories. 4. Plans were submitted showing the new construction. 5. There was no opposition to this petition. • • DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RICHARD GRIFFIN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LCOATED AT 2 SMITH AVENUE 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 requirements of the Salem Fire Department shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. Petitioner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Boards or Commissions having jurisdiction, but not limited to the Planning Board. Variance Granted Steven into /SC � October 19, 2005 Board of Appeal L • 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 SALEM, MASSACHUSETT!�I1 ,, � . SALEM, �fA BOARD OF APPEAL CLEriK S OFFICE 4 • q� 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR rQN6 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 78- 9846595 1005 NOV I l P 3: 36 MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NORTH RIVER DEVELOPMENT TRUST REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 SOUTH MASON STREET BPD A hearing on this petition was held November 16 2005 meeting with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Nicholas Helides, 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's Attorney, George Atkins, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a Variance from use as wall as Variances from density, lot area, maximum lot coverage, front, side and rear setbacks and a Variance from parking for the two commercial units for the property located at 3 South Mason Street BPD. • GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE NOVEMBER 16, 2005 /I NinaCohen, Chairmarl�5'CI'�,\ 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 BOARD OF APPEAL • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR '711Y8 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9848 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JULIANE TACHE TRUSTEE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21 W EBB STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held August 9, 2005 meeting with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Edward Moriarty, 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. 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 per Section 8-5 and 9-4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct a duplex residence for the property located at 21 Webb Street located in an R-2 zone. n GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE c RT • AUGUST 9, 2005 U;(n N O3� Tm G� 0' Nina Cohen, Chairman CSe y c�13 D Board of Appeal w A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of 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' Or SALEM. MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLEWS OFFICE , • ,{� 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ^�7 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 Q STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ,ZOOS SEP 30 A q: ) q MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CLISSOLD, LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4446 WINTHROP STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on September 21, 2005 with the following Board Members present; Richard Dionne,Nicholas Helides,Nina Cohen, Bonnie Belair and Robin Stein. Notice of the hearing was sent to 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 parking requirements to allow a second curb cut and from the parking requirements of Article 7-3 for the property located at 44-46 Winthrop Street in an R-2 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: • a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and 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 Clissold LLC, a real estate trust whose trustee is Andrew Oliver of Marblehead, seeks a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow two curb cuts and two off-street parking places for the property located at 44-46 Winthrop Street. The two-family house is undergoing renovation into two condos, each of which will be allowed one off-street parking place. 2. As grounds for the curb cut request, petitioner through his Attorney Scott Grover states that with only one curb cut, residents would have to use the area behind the • house to park their vehicles. Allowing the second curb cut would permit residents to preserve open spaces for a garden at the rear of the house while parking at the front. CLERK'SrOFFICE1A 1005 SEP 30 A 9. 19 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CLISSOLD LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4446 WINTHROP STREET page two 3. As grounds for the parking variance request,petitioner states that most of the surrounding homes have two off-street parking spaces. 4. There was no opposition to the proposed request. 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. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction, including but not limited to the Planning Board. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. VARIANCE GRANTED SEPTEMBER 21, 2005 ma Cohen, Chairmatl/` �l 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 • • 4v CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHU,�SETTS�,LC0- MA + BOARD OF APPEAL CLEPK'S OFFICE • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RO FLOOR mNB SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 joOS JUN —2- P 2: 31 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHRISTOPHER CASEY REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT/VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 WOOKSIDE STREET R2 A hearing on this petition was held on May 18, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Richard Dionne, Edward Moriarty, Steven Pinto, Robin Stein 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 per Section 8-4 and a Variance from lot are per dwelling to convert a single family dwelling to a 2 family for the property located at 10 Woodside Street located in an R-2 zone. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land structures, and used, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting the lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHIRSTOPHER CASEY REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMITNARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 WOODSIDE STREET R2 page two The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Christopher Casey appeared and presented the petition. 2. Mr. Casey, who is the owner and also a developer, would like to convert this single family home to a two family dwelling. 3. If the relief is granted it would reduce the number of bedrooms from seven (7) to four (4). 4. A number of neighbors appeared and voiced their concerns about the change to a two family. The main concerns were regarding parking issues and the added traffic to the neighborhood. 5: Councillor Michael Bencal and Councillor Pellitier appeared and opposed this petition noting the density of the neighborhood. 6. The Board Members found no hardship to stand behind this petition. • On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board Of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 4. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in harmony with the neighborhood and will not promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 0 in favor and 5 in opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit and Variance is denied. Variance & Special Permit Denied • May 18, 2005 Edward Moriarty SCS, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, is any shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal have been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • •