26 ARBELLA STREET - ZBA I
(/ 26 Arbella St. R-2
Carrick & Tardiff
13 8 vs Ito 'I
.m 44p
(9itu of $Ulem, 'Mttssuchusetts FILE=
Poarb Of Apptzd
um��
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JULIE & MATTHEW CARRICK/CATHY &
THOMAS TARDIFF FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 26 ARBELLA ST. (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held November 9, 1988 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Nutting, Strout and Associates
Dore and LaBrecque. 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.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to allow
an existing deck in the rear of 26 Arbella St. which is 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 V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board
of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and codnitions set forth in
Section VIII F and IX D, grante Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction
of nonconforming structures, anc 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, and
after viewing the plan of the property, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was no opposition;
2. The deck is used only in conjunction with its use as a two family;
3. Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor;
4. The deck was not constructed by the petitioners.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, 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 JULIE & MATTHEW CARRICK/THOMAS &
CATHY TARDIFF FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 26 ARBELLA ST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Special Permit requested allowing the existing deck to remain as shown on the
plot plan submitted to the Board of Appeal.
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
John R. Nutti g, tary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
FiJ�i FHIS OECGI::^., i' �2Y. SHALL BE Ii J,DE PUP$'JANT TO SECT',)"' 17 CF 7 .
LnvL IA:;S. L �� .:T: N 20 DNI'S AFTcn THE DA:E is ';�
,,,E 1)FF iC- O" in: CITY' CLERK
OEi'S'Oi;
^c r,• ,'�' S- i, i1 THE VA' . ., _
PEI
OF REURD OR IS REL�ROED All) NI;LG Of: Trl'c GdtiER S GCR1iFILAiE OF IITL .
BOARD OF APPEAL
44
ORTGA E
RP .
r 8AY STATE .1lRVEYINd SEWCE INC,
` 234.CAW ST., BEVERLY, MAr
ir.
CATION + f SALEM. MASS. NOTES=
SALE + 1" a 20 FT OATS r SE?.i 6_ _S 988 " • This Is a Mortgage tnsi"tin survey and not
DEED BK. e 9 + an Instrument survey,therefore this t for
.. . . .. .....
IrERENCE j ... .. .;. is. 20. y, he plot pan b o
.... ....";..... mortgage inspection purposes only.
Rf;gROED IN...E1. ESP.SOUTH Ro y
ASSJ..R��Zg.TiiC.R...P.
s_. ............. • Pits survey Isbased'ob survey marks of
others.
ro , _VPP7ii:RR 54XIgV.MK......_. -_ • Bushes,shrubs, fences and tree lines do
tereby certify fhot 1 have examined the premises and that the not necessarily Indicate property lines
•isding(s) shown on this plan are located on the ground as a The building(s) are not tocnt�d in the special
own and that Mey conformed to the zoning setbacks of the
F EM MA a ooq rutted. flood hazard zone,ai defitted by H.O.D.
�..FICIL_4_.$tlr__:...$. :....... when gg}}
G.Qr.
4L,A,444le 7'0 2>4T&XMi vC
K.�jd;'.rJ .c�Ec� �v-yi�s Gbasia�IoTe�
IL
i
2 Srr �b
2
?� ROPEFRT
N JAMes
Tr as H
f 9 +t
� r�15t
TOTAL P.01