20-20 1/2 PHELPS STREET - ZBA 20 - 20k Phelps St. R-2
Andrew Karahalis
I
III
, .auuk�y
CitU of $alem, �ffittssar4usetts
Paxrb of Appeal
w m, ems'
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDREW KARAHALIS FOR
r.
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 20-20'� PHELPS ST. , SALEM V
A hearing on this petition was held on November 28, 1S84;with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charngs, Gauthier, Luzinski
and Strout. 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 existing two family into a
three family dwelling and a Variance from minimum parking requirements in this
R-2 district.
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 conditions set forth in Section
VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non-
conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of non-
conforming lots, land, structures,a nd 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 consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . No building plans were submitted;
2. Piggyback parking was proposed and would extend onto the sidewalk
creating a hazardous situation;
3. Petitioner was not present to explain the plans in detail;
4. Size of the lot is less than 3,000 square feet.
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 creates a substantial detriment to the public good.
2. The relief requested does not promote the public health, safety,
convenience and welfare of the city's inhabitants.
DEC
ON ON
ION OF
EW
HALIS
FORIAISPECIALHPERMITTFOR 220-20DRPHELPSAST. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 - 0 against granted the Special
Permit and Variance requested.
SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE DENIED
4James H. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERF
L
L
u
co U
APPEtI M. — THIS PECISION. IP ANY, SHALL BE MADE PJMOC'%T TO SECTION 17 OF THE VASS.
c" ER:._ _ ..'° i' At,D ^r: .,L BE f:._" „!T-"+ 25 CAPS AFIEB THE CATE OF F :!i G
G° _ ',Hi C= Cl-if CLF".Y.
kECC-.IkD 7:r Ti:_ . _ _..SEt fi!J:'a+ pF =_LCS Ff:a _,.ED :ecR TdE I:'UE TnE Ct ..=R
OF REGCRO OR IS RFwRO'.O AJu GG'r.0 OR THE O, NER S CE-ohc,,TE W 11TLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
N
/�NDRt w TiGMn/ Tiq /?A /-/i9 L /.J
S7. S.n44rm
OcT �9$4
-- ----------- —
L /a.v.*.�
Tl4rzKlivc Ap,,, -A 900 .la Fr
i
_MT
G AAk' l'A 2 _
ti
I
I �
I
SIT OA ,Z v s P4 �E:
'/y l ry Fy V v k OF C
14 Fi �7 C y l i
✓=
-47
J
-v
I�
I /
d
m
� v
C. r
F
L