21 ARBELLA STREET - ZBA 21 Arbella St. (R-2)
Janet Frazier /
I
I
ofttlem, � ttssttrl�use##s m
3 s
Paurb of �ppeal z m
,_Y F 3 O
v,o
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JANET FRAZIER FOR A T
c� a
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 21 ARBELLA ST. , SALEM rn w
A hearing 'on this petition was held March 27, 1985 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Strout
and Associate Member Bencal. 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.
W Petitioner, owner of the premises, requests a Special Permit to allow her to
L N
convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district.
U P W y
N i m o o The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
m H c o for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows:
p 6 O W
a t 8 5 w O ¢
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
V L z Z W
of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in
U
Illf` i W z z W = Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction
• � < m z � 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
H a o o detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
�• Z J W
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
r - o
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding
J L t r
w :2 - by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
6 LL L F• � W C
The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes
the following findings of fact:
o N i H 1 . Parking requirements of the Ordinance would be met, according to the
N r N g o plan presented to the Board, through piggy-back parking;
LL ti o W 2. Piggy-back parking is a basically inconvenient and unworkable system
iW LL which would not adequately meet the parking space needs of the this
Q o E: c - property if it were a three family;
3. The neighborhood is fairly congested, and off street parking is
already inadequate.
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 petitioner's plan would be substantially detrimental
to the public good.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 3 to 2 to grant the relief requested.
Because the petitioner did not receive the 4 votes to grant, the petition is
denied.
Scott E. Charnas, Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK