14-16 PARK STREET - ZBA 14-16 PARK STREET Lp
DOUGLAS DREW
R`"rr1 F'::
2' Cgt#u of �Sa[exn, fflassar4usdts
'62 FEB 26 P 1 :44
Poura of ( }"V 1.
.n: ( /
CITY C.'_=Rt,, OFFICE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF DOUGLAS DREW REQUESTING A VASYII� E FOR=
14-16 PARK STREET
A hearing on this Petition was held on February 17, 1982 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Mr. Piemonte and Associate
Members Luzinski and Martineau. 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.
The Petitioner proposes to increase the number of residential units at this
site and requests a variance from existing parking regulations which would
otherwise require off-street parking for the new units. The property is in an
R-3 district.
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of
fact:
1. There are substantial parking and traffic congestion problems in the
area which will be made worse if the requested variance is granted.
2. The requested variance was opposed by the Salem Fire Marsha] , the
Planning Board and several neighbors.
On the basis of the above f-indings of fact, and other evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
A. The grant of the requested variance would result in a fire safety
problem in the area, would exacerbate a parking and traffic problem in the
neighborhood and would in general have an adverse effect on the area. Moreover,
the Petitioner failed to establish circumstances relating to the land or struc-
ture which affect that property but donot generally affect the zoning district
in which the property is located.
B. The Petitioner failed to establish that a literal enforcement of the
provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance as applied to the property would involve
substantial hardship to the Petitioner.
C. The Petitioner failed to establish that the requested variance could
be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying
or substantially derogating from the intent and purposes of the Salem Ordinance. -
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted unanimously in opposition to the
granting the requested relief. The Board denies the requested variance to the
Petitioner.
APPEAL :'.G:• i.. -c: .. �._ °_ .._7.'!; To !7 511 r.1ASs. -
GFI:E.,,1L .... _. d::! _ 'i .. . . 3:, .A,S ,:. •HE "f�iE OF FILH:Aoua
O T
ti= Hopper, irman
UAi;HO i. ",. ✓'.�,i i' '1 E F!_.: D I: A .. CroT.
Fr:Ala: CF iIA COPY=OF• THISFDECISION AND 'PLANS' HAS .BEEN_,�D WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
OR Taf:r. IF s_" . „ . :;: .. s �_E. _ ',.; I; D L
RE ORJED 1ii Tk S".'t ESSE`. REc !S7 ur G[U� F.iJ : .:f'EO ::.:L: '�i:. i.:d.iE OF THE 0"iPlEP,
OF RECORD 04 IS AND PIC:ED ON 7NE TE OF IIILE.