151 BRIDGE STREET - BUILDING JACKET I51 BRIDGE STREET ^
1
Y
_IR '87 APn -8 A R :53
Ctv of Salem, ZISS?xL�ItISPft$:=' ' me
� s 29uxrb of '4FV [
DECISION ON THE PETITION_OF-JULIANNE KALLAS FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 51 BRIDGE ST. J
A hearing on this petition was held March 25, 1987 with the following Board
Members present: Edward Luzinski, Vice Chairman; Peter Dore, Acting Secretary;
Messrs. , Fleming & Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and
others and notice of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News
in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, owner of the property, represented by Attorney Daniel Reich, is
requesting a Special Permit to allow the existing two family dwelling to be
converted to a three family. Property is located in an R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for
alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, en-
largement, 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 d
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no neighborhood opposition to the plan;
2. There would be adequate off street parking;
3. A Special Permit for the expansion had been granted on March 18, 1981
but did not go forward with expansion at that time;
4. There are numerous two and three family dwellings in the area.
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 granting of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants;
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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JULIANNE KALLAS FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 151 BRIDGE ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to grant the Special .
Permit requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . The conversion be constructed according to plans submitted;
2. The building be owner occupied;
3. The dwelling be in compliance with all the requirements of
the Salem Fire Department;
4. Building and Occupancy permits be obtained.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
Y
Peter A. Dore, Acting Secretary
.' A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
s
APPEAL FROM, THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAI';S, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PUP.SANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERVIT
i CRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NCT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE OECISIDTi. BEARING THE CERT.
FICATION OF THE CITY CLER% THAT 20 DAPS HAVE ELAPSED ANO NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED,
CR THAT, IF SJC4 AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT H:,S BEE:'( DIS"61SSED OR DENIED IS
RECuRCEO IN THE S'vJiH ESSEX REG'
OF DEEDS AND INDEI:LD UNDER THE NA!,iE OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
1
i
°81 RPF -2 AR '53 MARCH, 18, 1981
CITY
C G'�L` TICE
DECISI2 O,N THE PETITION OF JnlA1NE DALLAS FOR A SPECIAL PErMIT FOR 151 BRIDGE
STREET
A hearing on this petition was held on March 18, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs, Piemonte and Hacker
and Associate Member Luzinski. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters
and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News
on March 4, 1951 and March ]-l., 1981 in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws, Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a Special Permit to change the existing
third floor of a two-family house at 151 Bridge Street into a third apartment
unit. The property in question is in an R-2 district. The Special Permit
which has been requested may therefore be granted upon a finding by the Board
of Appeals, that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1. The requested Special Permit is supported by the Salem Planning Depart-
ment and was unopposed by abutters,
2. The use of the property in question as a three-family dwelling is
consistent with the surrounding area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidencepresented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes unanimously that the
proposed use is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Board
votes in favor of granting a Special Permit to the Petitioner,
The Special. Permit is therefore granted in accordance with the following
terms and conditions:
1. The property may be altered to change the third floor of the existing
% two-family house into a third apartment.
2. . All work will be in accordance with plans provided to the Board,
'£SEAL FRWA THIS DECISION; IF ANY. SHALL DE `.?ADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. -
'S!-RAL LAWS, CHAPTER 803 AND SHALL K FIL D VII,HIN 20 DAIS AF ER THE DATE OF FILING
)URSA S DECISION ASS. IN THE LA%VOFFICE Of TF1 . )". CLERK.
-- �i23.>.
'JRSAIIT ,0 MASS. GE",ERAS L �o. 4. ` A. S` S-, ll, THE VARIANCE CR SPECIAL PE g138 }7� er Ch al � n
3RANTED HERGN, SHALL NJ( 7.44E.. Frr..,T. ..4[1 A C)PY .. THc ,-CI_I ,i, UEA*3LIG THE CER - H^ pP e
,KATION OF THE CITY CLERA l Yd 213 A: APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, --
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN, FILE, ,,"•1 t. , £EV SYISSED OR DENIED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEOS'AND MDEXCJ L'NCER THE NAME OF THE OWNER ' '
V7 RECORD OR 4 RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICA(E OF TITLE,
60ARR QE PP^YAd
A`COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CL "1i.
744-6900
DI-NY 9, 1973
DECISION ON THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY JULI \ ,N-E_ KA-LLL4S CONCEENRNG
PROPERTY LOGE\TED AT 1S1 BRIDGE STMEE— R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held on Tuesday, May 9, 1973, at 7:00 P.M. at
One Salem Green. Notices were mailed to abutters and others in accordance with Mass.
General Laws, Chapter 808. Notice of the hearing was duly published in the Salem
Evening News advising the public of this hearing.
The following Board Members were present: Donald Eames, Arthur Labrecque, William.
Abbott, Jane Lwtdregan, James Boulger and Associate Member Douglas Hopper.
Atty. Michael O'Brien, 81 Washington St. , represented the Petitioner before the
Board. The Petitioner purchased the building located at 1S1 Bridge St. last year.
She is having a difficult time financing her mortgage and taxes and she wants to have
a third apartment in order to give her better financial security.
The Petitioner stated that there are manN. three and five family dwellings in the
neighborhood. The Petitioner stated that there is adequate pa-tl .ing facilities for
six cars, although, the parking spaces do not meet all the requirements of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance.
The. Board voted to deny the variance requested. The Board felt that the property
is very dense the way it is. The building is located in a residential zone and there
are traffic problems and parking problems in the area at present.
The Board felt that it could not grant the variance requested without substantial
detriment to the surrounding neighborhood or without derogating from the intent of the
Salem Zoning By-law.
VARIANCE DENIED s:xr xr<:t
APPEAL FRON'1 T1-1IS DECISION, IF ANY, SITALL BE bLaDE PURSU.4NIT TO SECTION 17 OF 11-IE MASS.
GF.NERU-, LklVS, CHAPTER 808, AND SIUVLL BE FILED 1';ITHIN 20 D'�YS AFTER 11-IE D.'\TE OF FILING
OF 'PHIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF 111E CITY CLERK.
A COPY OF 1HIS DECISION WkS BEEN FILED 1qTI1 114E PL..2N1`I\G BOARD A\D TILE CITY CLERK.
BOA1.ZD OF APPF�V,
�. +.�G_.-y' :-.�/. ✓cii�.�,�ic=iii
pane '1'. Ltuidr g.ut J' �r-
creta:-}