9-11 ALMEDA STREET - BUILDING JACKET e -Ie
a Esselte
AnN
74520 40%W P4
z
f�itY, of �SZtIPm 'Car
Pnttrl? of Appeal '82 JUN 15 A 9 :21
' J4r�14!AE L��
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SALEM HOSPITAL Cir SALEiv T<, `SCE
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LOTS 1A, 1B, 1C, 1 and 3
COLBY STREET AND LOTS 9, 11 AND 1D ALMEIDA STREET
AND 1.2 ACRES ABUTTING THESE LOTS
A nearing on this petition was held on June 8, 1982 with the following Board
Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte and Feeherry
and Associate Member Luzinski. 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.
Salem Hospital, the Petitioner, has requested a Special Permit to use the
property in question for 165 parking spaces to be used by hospital employees.
The property in question is in both an R-C and an R-1 zoning district. The
Special Permit which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by the
Board of Appeal, that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public
health, safety, convenience and welfare.
The Board of Appeal, .af.ter considering the evidence presented at the hearing,
and after viewing the. property, makes the following findings of fact:
1. The Petitioner's request for a Special Permit puts at issue
two legitimate and competing public concerns. On the one hand,
the Salem Hospital is in need of additional parking for its
employees. On the other hand, the proposed location for this
parking. is a residential area.
2. The neighbors in the area in question were unanimous in their
opposition to Salem Hospital's request. We find that their
concerns about the proposed parking area are. in all.;respects: legi-
timate.
3. The area in question is a heavy traffic area by virtue of the
presence of the Hospital, the Salem High School and several
hundred apartment units. The proposed parking area will increase
noise, traffic, and pollution all to the detriment of the resi-
dents in this area.
4. The site in question was the subject of a prior decision by this
Board which authorized the use of the area for parking. Pursuant
to that prior decision, the Hospital has used a portion of the
property for parking. However, there is a substantial question,
which this Board specifically does not resolve by this decision, .
as to the continued viabili} pp thi's Board's prior decision
GENERAL 11 Lt 7� C - ..,-• r T T 17 OF THE A!"-
t r =� ' Cr _ . -_t THE DATE OF FI.
.
OF THIS �'eCu i " I'! 1'! _ CF r Cu'l. ..
PURSAN'T FC
GRANTED hE3c' !
- FICNT-^51 CF 1H =TOR THAT. IF SU it ra .,r� h� ! .S �aE. ` - r - , - HAS CL° rHEO
F .. -S C3 Dc;EED IS
RECORDED IN T7iE S:U;^! LS'SC( �'L.uR(r ( r ,.;5 J ! F::!) c i l;E NAIME OF THt
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED P.SD P"DEED O.1 THE Ci4:_R S CERTIFI AfC OF TITLE.
IsAL
,1C.',1-and 3 Colby Street
,:��:
a3 9 and 1D Almeida Street
�es abutting these lots
S. �e use of the area in question for a large parking area is
in direct Conflict with the residential character of the -
neighborhood.
on the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the BoarR of Appeal concluded that the proposed
use ..ill not promote tho public health, safety, convenience, and welfare
and that the proposed use is not in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance.
Accu�dingly, the Board voted to deny a:Special..Permit-.to_ the_
Petitioners. The Board voted as follows: Messrs. Hopper, Piemonte and
Feeherry voted to deny the Special Permit. Mr. Luzinski voted "present".
l
Anthony M. Feeherr
Secretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AND PLANNING BOARD.