314-330 CANAL STREET - ALSO 16-24 ADAMS ST-SEE 72 LORING AVE - BUILDING INSPECTION 315- ( ,grv"V /
aPa e - • 4 -a y f}dRJ,74
sEc - ��t1-o �i�� fI✓�
314-330 CANAL STREET
Z7 3 O1 1',i X69
// (fi#V oftts$tttljuse#I9
F1LEd:
Paurb Of �u}tfttl ;ITY Cl ii K. aSS.
DECISION-ON THE PETITION OF THE JEFFERSON TRUST FOR A VARIANCE AT '322-3 0
CANAL STREET/72 LORING AVENUE (B-2) .
L�
A hearing on this Petition was held on April 19, 1989 with the following
Board Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Vice
Chairman; John R. Nutting, Secretary, Edward Luzinski; and Peter Dore,
Associate Member. Notice of the hearing was sent to all abutters and others
and notices were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance
with Pf.G.L. C.4OA.
Petitioners, represented by Attorney John R. Serafini, Sr. , are requesting a
variance from Section VII B of the Zoning Ordinance to allow division of land
into four (4) lots in this B-2 zone as shown on the submitted plans.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances 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 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 or the purposes of the Ordinance.
At the hearing, evidence was presented that the configuration of the three
lots presently approved were configured in conformance with Section VII B
of the Zoning Ordinance relating to gasoline service stations. Under that
Section of the Ordinance, minimum lot widths of 12U feet were required. The
Petitioners demonstrated that the use of the property as it related to the
two buildings already constructed did not strictly fit the definitions of
the gasoline service stations, that the use of the buildings was oriented
towards the sale of certain automotive products and certain limited services,
and that there were no gasoline tanks or pumps to dispense gasoline.
Evidence was further introduced that a proposed third building would be
devoted to general B-2 purposes, which were a permitted use on that parcel
of property, and further that the lots in question were of such size as to
exceed area requirements in B-2 zones. It was further pointed out that to
permit four lots with 100 foot lot widths was in keeping with general re-
quirements in a B-2 zone, which requires that minimum lot width be 100 feet
per lot. It was further indicated that there was no intention on the part
of the Petitioners to utilize Parcel II as a gasoline service station. The
Board, after considering all the evidence, made the following findings of fact:
1. The present three lots are very irregular in shape and the proposed
plan would allow better use of the property;
2. Petitioners previously had to comply with zoning provisions relating to
service stations even though the buildings constructed were not auto-
motive service stations in the strict sense of the word;
3. Concerns of neighbors and abutters regarding fences and shrubbery
would be met by the Petitioners;
4. The requirements of lot width under Section VII B of the Zoning
Ordinance created a hardship, since the land was not being used for
automotive gasoline service stations and that to hold general retail
uses, which were permitted in a B-2 zone, to a higher lot width re-
quirement than was normal under the B-2 zoning requirements created
hardships for the Petitioners.
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 and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land involved which are not generally affecting other lands,
buildings or structures in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial and otherwise, to Petitioners;
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from
the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously in favor of granting
the variances requested subject to the following conditions:
1. Parcel II, as shown on the plan submitted, shall not be used as a
gasoline service station.
2. Petitioners and/or assigns to repair and maintain the fencing in the
rear of the property abutting land as shown on the plans, as N/F
Bedard; Adams St. ; N/F Crean and N/F Ferrier. The fence shall be
stockade type along the Bedard property and chain link type along the
others. The obligation to repair and maintain as it pertains to the
abutting Crean and Ferrier property shall be subject to the Petitioners'
ability to obtain cooperation and assistance from those landowners.
The Petitioners shall only be obligated to use their reasonable best
efforts to obtain such cooperation;
3. All lot width dimensions to the new lots are to be per the plans
submitted.
f.
4. Appropriate shrubbery and trees are to be placed along the rear of the
property at 7 Kimball St. and as reasonably possible along the rear
of the property as shown on the plans as N/F Bedard; Adams St.;
N/F Crean and N/F Ferrier. Shrubbery and trees shall be as in the
reasonable judgment of the Petitioners is adequate. The area between
the Petitioners' land and the land of Crean and Ferrier shall be
governed by the limitation set forth in condition 2 as to cooperation
from them;
5. Petitioners and/or assigns shall install and maintain a bituminous
curb at the end of Adams Street;
6. All conditions of the previous decision of this Board dated January 23,
1985 shall be made part of this decision;
7. Proper numbering for the lots shall be obtained from the Assessors
Office, City of Salem;
8. No storage of vehicles shall be allowed on any of the four lots shown
on the submitted plans.
VARIANCES GRANTED
xele�/ ,tel
ichard A. Bencal
Vice Chairman, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOAR) AND THE
CITY CLERK.
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE .MAn
GENERAL LA'VVS. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF TILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSAGT TO MASS. CENTRAL L!46. CHAPTER £08, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPF" ' _^.`.IIT
CRANiED HEREIN. SHALL NET TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISI:;71. B"A;:G 1 -
FICATIUN OF THE Gi;P OLERK TBa 2U CATS GAVE E'. PS_1 eI:J W APPYAL HAS p._.. .
CR 1'9AT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL XAS BEDI V:LE, TIIAi IT `.IMI LEEN CIS:+ISSED CR OE*;
REL:.i?JEO FI T9E .J'H ESS'% REASTRY cF i:'c..:DiS ?.!D I`:OESED UNDER PHE ICA,.:-
OF RECORD OR Ij n::CURDED AND NOTED THE 'DINERS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
BOARD OF ASSESSORS 508
A 93 WASHINGTON STREET, CITY HALL, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (SX0745-9595 Ext.261
d.TT
April 12, 1989
I
1
C') M= m
Mrs. Josephine R. Fusco o
City Clerk -,a
City of Salem r '
Salem, MA 01970 m
a - 7.-
Dear
Dear Mrs. Fusco: Cn C9 cr-
Please be advised that the following addresses have been
assigned to the following commercial buildings or proposed
commercial buildings at the intersection of Canal Street
and Loring Avenue:
ADAP Building (Map 32-Lot 31) 292 Canal Street
(currently 322 Canal St.)
New Auto Service Building (M32-L30) 296 Canal Street
(rear of ADAP Building)
Proposed Retail Building (M32-L30) 300 Canal Street
rear of Eastern Bank Building)
..Veet r Ay yours,
U
Peter M. Caron
Chief Assessor
PMC:mjg
cc: Joseph J. Leccese, Postmaster
Chief Joseph F. Sullivan, Fire Department
Margaret R. Hagerty, Principal Clerk, Water Dept
(/William H. Munroe, Inspector of Buildings
Engineering Dept. , City of Salem
John R. Serafini, Sr. , Esquire, 63 Federal St. , Salem
Ctg of '�*ttlem, passuchusetts
Vepartmeut of Publir Works
Water Pibisiou
fALUcNBARaN THOMAS E.BURKE
4�i>�A�G6CR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PUBLICSERVICES
D00Z1 VK RBBBOt P1{#36
August 13, 1987
Mr. William Monroe
Building Inspector
1 Salem Green
Salem, Mass. 01970
Dear Mr. Monroe:
This is to certify that the water has been shut off from the street and
the meter removed from the property locatedat 320 Canal Street, Salem; Mass.
Very truly yours,
THOMAS E. BURKE
mh Assistant Director Public Services
Y
CO 0, C�1ilu of �xlrxzT, � 1zx <u(;zz P
, .,a jeTTT1TTlT Barb
7. k cLM 6 ° (011e �;afr TL Gr££ll
Ms. Josephine Fusco, City Clerk
City Hall
Salem, MA. 01970
Dear Ms. Fusco:
At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board held on
it was voted to endorse "Approval under Subdivision Control
Law not required" on the following described plan:
1. Applicant:
Esther Realty, Inc,
2. Location and Description:
Approximately 183,994 square feet of land located on Canal Street
and Loring Avenue at the intersection of Jefferson Avenue
in Salem, Ma. , commonly designated as 330 Canal Street
and 72 Loring Avenue, respectively.i
Deed of property records n Essex South District Registry.
Sincerely your---
Walter
oursWalter B. Power, III
Chairman
WBP:dey _
RECIPI cG
z *r. f1�it of �3ttlem, gassadjusetts
0 MAY 29 A9 :00
P �
�ppenl
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE APRIL 23, 1980 ,
SALEM ?ASS.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ESTHER REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 314-330
CANAL STREET and 16-24 ADAMS STREET.
A hearing on this petition was held on April 23, 1980 with the following Board
Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr. , Chairman, Messrs, Hopper, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Associate Member Piemonte, Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters
and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on
April 9, 1980 and April 16, 1980. in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws,
Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance and Special Permit for the property at
314-330 Canal Street and 16-24 Adams Street to permit the construction of a rec-
reation facility at this site. A variance is required because a portion of the land
is in an R-1 district where the proposed use is prohibited without a variance. A_
Special Permit is required as to that portion of the property which is in a B-2
zone to permit the use of that property for a recreational facility,
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property concludes as follows: '
1. The Petitioner presented evidence covering the following areas. The land
in question has a peculiar shape and configuration marked in the rear by substantial
changes in elevation and with large outcroppings of ledge. Evidence was also
introduced that the zoning line divides the Petitioner's land so that the front portion
lies in a B-2 district and comprises the substantial part of the Petitioner's property
as is shown on the plans submitted with the petition. The rear portion is located
in an R-1 zone and it is this portion that contains the difficult physical terrain
and problems with access which literally make this portion of the land of the petitioner
useless for development purposes permitted in R-1 zones, The situation is not true
of lots in the general neighborhood. The land in question is composed of extreme
elevations such that access to the rear portion can only be obtained over the
commercial portion. Accordingly, the R-1 portion has special, characteristics not
attributable to other R-1 districts in the area,
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land in question but
do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not the
zoning district generally cause the following special. hardship. Without a variance
this parcel of land cannot be developed as a single parcel. Further, without a
variance the rear portion of the Petitioner's land is unbuildable and hence valueless.
PAGE TWO - DECISION - ESTHER REALTY TRUST . 314-330 CANAL ST. & 16-24 ADAMS ST. .
4. The desired variance and special pewit may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good because the proposed construction is in harmony with the
commercial uses and business establishments in the general area. Furthermore, the,
proposed construction is supported by the neighborhood.
Therefore, the-Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board grants a variance and Special Permit as requested
by the Petitioner to use. the Petitioner's land for the construction of a recreational
facility as shown on plans filed with this Board, .
All construction shall be in accordance with the terms of a prior decision by
this Board on May 17, 1979.
GRANTED
awl,� �
Anthony M. F eherry u
Acting Secr tary
oUJI
L0%
os
L`! N
U ww
w -
APPEAL FROPf<:5111S D?r,90 IF ANY, SHALL B. ".BADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. . - -
GENERAL LA:a?CHAP"-- SCS. AND SHALL CE ::LED :'I!TH;N 20 DAYS AFTER THE LATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECiS;GN IN THE C4 CE OF THE CITY CLERK. -
PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL tA, S C I1- ,ER BCS, S=;,Ti ' 11; THE VAR:f,HCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
GRANTED HEREIN, MALL NST11'61- r E-r J FML A COPY OF THEDii`u.ISI?N, BEAR • THE CERT-
-
FICATION OF THE CIFY CLERX Trill- LL DAIS 1ME SAH ) ,au NG APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, -
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS SEEN FILE, THAT IT :i}S BEE,I D ait!SSSD OR DENIED IS -
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NW-AE OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NGTED ON THE O'ilNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. - -
. BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITR THE CITY CLERK AND THE PLANNING BOARD.
�v,� RECFl1'ED O
Ti#a of rxi�m, tt �tt>rl u �
P
�sxr� of �p�sttl '80 MAY -5 A8 :139
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM MASS
APRIL 23, 1980
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ESTHER REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 314-330
CANAL STREET and 16-24 ADAMS STREET.
A hearing on this Petition was held on April 23, 1980 with the following Board
Members present: James H. Boulger, Jr., Chairman, Messrs. Hopper, LaBrecque,
Feeherry and Associate Member Piemonte. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters
and others and a notice of the hearing was published in the Salem Evening News on
April 9, 1980 and April 16, 1980 in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested a variance for the property at 314-330 Canal Street
and 16-24 Adams Street to permit the construction of a recreation facility at this
site. A variance is required because a portion of the land is in an R-1 district
where the proposed use is prohibited without a variance.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property concludes as follows:
1. The petitioner presented evidence covering the following areas. The land
in question has a peculiar shape and configuration marked in the rear by substantial
changes in elevation and with large outcroppings of ledge. Evidence was also intro-
duced that the zoning line divides the petitioner's land so that the front portion
lies in a B-2 district and comprises the substantial part of the petitioner's property,
as is shown on the plans submitted with the petition. The rear portion is located
in an R-1 zone and it is this portion that contains the difficult physical terrain
and problems with access which literally make this portion of the land of the petitioner
useless for development purposes permitted in R-1 zones. The situation is not true
of lots in the general neighborhood. The land in question is composed of extreme
elevations such that access to the rear portion can only be obtained over the
commercial portion. Accordingly the R-1 portion-has special characteristics not
attributable to other R-1 districts in the area.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land in question but
do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not
the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship. Without a
variance this parcel of land cannot be developed as a single parcel. Further, with-
out a variance the rear portion of the petitioner's land is unbuildable and hence
valueless.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good because the proposed construction is in harmony with the commercial
uses and businesses established in the general area. Furthermore the proposed
construction is supported by the neighborhood.
PAGE 2
J. .
BOARD OF APPEAL. DECISION - ESTHER REALTY TRUST - 314-330 CANAL ST & 16-24 ADAMS ST.
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted in favor of granting
the requested relief. The Board grants a variance as requested by the petitioner
to use the rear portion of the petitioner's land for the construction of a recreational
facility as shown on plans filed with this Board.
All construction shall be in accordance with the terms of a prior decision
by this Board on May 17, 1979.
t;
GRANTED
Anthony M. Veherry, Acting Weretary
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISICII, IF A7•:Y, SHALL BE MADE PUPSUAIIT TO SECTION 17 OF THE RIASS.
GENERAL LA 'S. CF.'i,PTER EGB. A:.D oHA'_! c'E F:LED 4'd1TH:(1 29 CAPS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
GF TiiS OECiSiiiF1 1.."1 i:il OFF;CE GF THE CITY CLERX.
Hi :iASv. C.EI=R.Ai Ml,"' P-1 rl
CrD 8C5, SS_T;::.! 11 THE �l"!Ai-C° CP ;1:1L FERStIT
G rrtTED hL -la SHALL Fi. T-.
AE r -T L-T:L A CuPY I'F h� t �I -L'; DC',Il�w THE CERT-
FILu�Ii OF THE GITY ClEdi_. T:!AF 2P DS. S H'3'E f.:2S°U Ai59 Is^. f,FPEA! HAS 1) "M FILED,
OR 1HAT, IF SUCfI Ail k?P"cA! .:9a ::=E:I FL:QTtI.:; IT ri9S SEEiI iii>,,".ii`oSEO GR DEIIiiO IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSE:C i E3E
1S'RY CF 0_ GS A';,.) IitiJJ;=C UNDER THE NAIi;T OF THE c;YNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECGRDEO AHD 140TED CN THE L"YfIER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK,
W 2 ti V
m � o
�0 �t N
1
0
LOCUS,* 400
�)
Y��/7
C� f
L OCUS MAP
SCALE: / "= 2000'
' s
ZO XYME 0/5T/Z/C T 8-2
RAU ZOT f72EA = /2,OootS.F. o
0
r1/,u o r w/0TH = /00' � I
ROD
�6.
RD s
JQ
�33 . / .
P � ip
� \ \� ��` �o� � 000 \� Q8 op„
89 y
TZ,- ..CD
sso. � h '\\ .46, %?1, qA
'z \� bh DEFRANCES CO
A o 0
o� REALTY TRUST
ROD h�D
N 0
co
0o END OF ACCEPTED
PUBLIC WAY 4ND
BEGIN/NG OF PAPER � ~ N880/0'00'E —
��� STREET /2R 7/ D.H.
0 rq
H= 24, 7z VS.f.
.Q� � J N
LLJ
�Fj J
� 7 9
\. ti
6
.0 - 5880 /o' 00"W
P Zor 3
I
LOT 2o ►.
8= 12,100 ±5. /
\� �
APPROVAL UNDER TXAF
ti� ti sa \ S i S"
SU80/V/S/ON CONTROL
LAW NOT REQUIRED. `cs o2, �\ �. o
5.4LEM PLANN/NG �ti�
30480
10
F�
4"o /22 Op
`S'T oo G h
4S 4 n
v �
GATE r
c.e L07' 1
00 , AR EA = 4o, o.3/f S.f-
G� (2S % BU/CD/,UG COUE/l//GE )
pp `
I ;
33 '
�29�8
rac>
111'1oF
<q ypUT
C J
a 2i p p6
P_ 3968 82
/ CERT/FV THAT TN/S PLAN CONFORMS
S6
TO T/-/E RULES AND RE6UL47-/ONS OF T/JE
REG/STERS OF DEEDS.
PLAN OF L .4ND
15 /fd6 - - /N
5ALEA4
FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY j
i
PROPERTY OF
E S TaER REALTY, INC.
T///S SURVEY 4/VD PLAN WERE PREP4RE0 /N 4CCORDANCE
W/TN 74E PROCEDURAL AND TECL/N/CAL S741VDARDS FOR THE
PR4C7/CE OF LAND SURVEY/NG /N 7-14E COMMONWEALTL/ OF .SCAL E: 30' JULY /S, /984r.
M455A C,4US E TTS.
O ,6 30 60 90
/✓��1� " INC.
' 6 ES S EX SL IR VE V S ER V/CE,
` REGiS rE�C O LANG 3URVEYO.e
/8/ ESSEX STREET - SALEM, MASS.
1138