Loading...
10 BROAD STREET - POHL, RICHARD - ZBA 10 BROAD STREET RICHARD POHL i �I >" 1 Ti#u of "indem, assar4ust s z o. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD L. POHL (Petitioner) REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 10 BROAD STREET 4 0% PH '8Z A public hearing on this Petition was held on Match 10, 1982 and thereafter the matter was considered by this Board at a Special Mee i gi`on March 17, 1982-. • The' following Board Members were present: Douglas Hopper�jT�C a�rmant;_ g r�3, Hacker. Piemonte and Feeherry, and Associate Member Luzinski. Not�.ce 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 has requested a variance to allow him to maintain. an office for the practice of psychiatry in a portion of the property in question. The remainder of the property will be used as a single rental dwelling unit. A variance is required because the property is in an R-2 district where the proposed use is prohibited. 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) The property has for many years been used as a single-family dwelling. 2) There was both substantial opposition• to the proposed use from certain persons in the neighborbood.:as well as support,from others. 3) The proposed use would be the first commercial use of this:, kind on this street which has a strong residential character. 4) The proposed use may have a negative impact on pre-existing parking and traffic problems in the area. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and other evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: A. The Petitioner failed to establish circumstances relating to the land or structure which affect that property but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the property is located. The property is an attractive single-family dwelling and can be sold as such', the neighborhood is a residential one. B. The Petitioner failed to establish that a literal enforcement of the provi- sions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance as applied to this property would involve substan- tial hardship to the Petitioner. There is a substantial amount of vacant professional office space in the City. 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. DECISION - March 17, 1982 - RICHARD L. POHL - 10 BROAD STREET Page 2 Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal denied a variance to the Petitioner. The vote was as follows: Messrs. Hopper, Hacker and Luzinski voted in opposition to the variance. Mr. Piemonte voted in favor of the grant of a variance and filed a detailed statement of reasons for his vote with the Board. Mr. Feeherry voted "present." - thony M. Fee erry r C ii ;i12 F2$JJ'siUW A.0 ii v: .. U 1 i''L...,_2 o c�.�t r; ?,•,' 1' f A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS. HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK yr k Y x"li,x �Ojj�Tpr�!} �tl i!,�`�Q/'VG t/ �/!'/� i�6'�Sla S 1_; s c i a > •i�. %Z. �' .:. .. 2.'s� t{t•,, 1 �1 y �..}�'!^.. ��T p - bI 5 E y. A'ary . P 'l i. .� 3.N 3'V Y^ ,�'.f 9 'ai..� ,#fi J+Lr, r .'� ..:. i• ..4 G...�-..�.+ 1.` y hi 74S r'1+ .F�- Y.k 't+k•' ,u AOr t! �� yn' n r _i. � f��.:. ;r }}.1 � • s.. 1 .t ; �E - , _ ' •: w ;.._. 31 .. a+-•.(xr �p+z�.: d.�...,. )- m.�..� ,zF t+ �• r '� t R '�`° �03�3r'�6ESM � •CT@/'riV k � . ? 4 ss R,. i �• } x yam . r F ' i s ,•¢ .Y .: . 'e74�3YR � sb� I�r 9,i^ r .i _ � 1 e - z*� ^ R E•iY ., � y yr +._f,`r7 � ♦r �� � P4 � J i L'�"�..Z. ��}i.��.iw/Y..pii✓IN r/}y . Iz L:a�f',56tT � hof"569- . i�•�' � ' �`rza =2.Sa9 t SF 4 tt m Exlsf.199 2SAa,r;y y c FZ 4- 07 4N CAMQ2iD�E � . . W R SA Z-- E /f CC 7 E. F. i oz J �-JS 3u m �Lj70 �< C FAMSP ) DGE ST. flm- r , 53 70t lei ?m -moi Pie 4 E�. •sem ��1 OFFICE AREA IN RELf1'TI00�! TO THE REST OF THE E HO VSE -, I-1V !E2 N! 7!Z,ya�. WAN. ND,Nl, _=oma' ® ExIsT�N�t .i Pito Pos" / rt. rL- UP e WA ITINC-4 '! . i 17R Room EXISTING " PARKING- j L© '�I -,I `j as •� N 7-j I � ' � !� ,'� ;�.L uH. r v7- as �• AREA FOR vJ $P. i 3 CARS V4T R-y i r , J r+� OFFICE AREA IN RELATION TO THE REST O F TH E H0LASF. �� L�[ 1•ttt� EXISTING lr&A at moi' ,%V �oCO' -=--- PRoPosF 77 ® NON-W EtGNT BEARINGt PgRTtTON To BeREMOVED ! r, i lP ey t— 9 A rf1 I OFFICE UP �4R UP ' I' _ j1l� �tli j i H ri i L ti j A ` S l G ,� • � � cam---. �� T - _ - ' a ,r J \�