Loading...
7 SUTTON AVENUE - ZBA -.. _ ___ . .�„ �, ..,r�. � � - _ I, I �� ^�> � 1 r n V �' �� li \ Iii l � II �, Legal Notice } CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL 745.9595,Ext.381 . Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the petition sub- mitted.by THOMAS RICE requesting a Special Permit per Section 8-4 and a Variance from front yard setback to demolish existing single family and to - rebuild new single family dwelling for the property located at 7 Sutton Avenue R-1,Said hearing to be held Wednesday,March 15,2006, at 6:30. , p.m., 120 Washington Street, 3rd floor,Room 313. Nina Cohen,Chairman SN-3/2,3/9/06 I CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL i 0 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR C+LC'� S �fFI_Cil= SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9848 .1GQ6 M'Aft.3,1 ,A 10: 10 8 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS RICE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 SUTTON AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on March 15,2006 with the following Board Members present: Bonnie Belair,Nicholas Helides, Richard Dionne,Robin Stein and Edward Moriarty. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit per Section 8-4 and a Variance from front yard setback to demolish existing single family and to rebuild new single family for the property located at 7 Sutton Avenue located in an R-I zone. The provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to the request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3 6),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 Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permit for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures,and for changes, enlargement, extent 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 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 Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: A. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. B. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise,to the petitioner. CI1 ; �� g�OrrlCEa CLERK G 5 .gR3.1 Al�' OS DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS RICE REQUESTINA SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 SUTTON AVENUE R-1 page two C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after reviewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: I. Petitioner Thomas Rice appeared and presented his plans to demolish and rebuild his single family dwelling. 2. The existing house is in structural failure and should be replaced in entirety as supported by a structural engineer from Lich Architects. 3. Neighbors speaking in support of the petition were from 5 Sutton Ave., 111 Columbus Ave, 11 %:Sutton Ave, 109 Columbus Ave, 3 Sutton Ave, 14 Sutton Ave and 10 Sutton Ave. 4. Mr. Gregorian who resides at 9 Sutton Ave was concerned about the elevation of the new structure and how the new structure would impact on the issue of drainage. 5. Larry Spang of 125 Columbus Ave spoke in favor of the preservation and wanted to restore the building. 6. Councillors Lucy Corchado of Ward I and Jean Pelletier of Ward 3 also spoke in favor of the petition and that is was not economically feasible to preserve the home to its historic character. 7. Donna Vinson spoke on behalf of Historic Salem Inc. and wanted to encourage preservation of this house as it was architecturally rare. On the basis of the above findings of fact,and on the evidence presented at the hearing the Zoning Board of Appeal concluded as follows: 1. Special conditions do exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 3. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. L, 'i I UI SALEM, t1A CLERKS OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS RICE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 SUTTON AM4Vk�tl A 10: 0 S page three 4. The relief requested can 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. 5. The Special Permit granted can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted, 5 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the relief requested with the following conditions. 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be of wood composition. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to the Planning Board. 8. The height of the garage shall be limited to eighteen (18')feet 9. The driveway will not be paved past the house; but will be composed of crushed stone to alleviate any drainage issues. 10. The house will not be greater in height than the house at 9 Sutton Ave. 11. Any drainage issues that are created by the new construction will be remediated to the present state. 12. There will be no blasting at the site. 13. Petitioner shall seek guidance from Historic Salem Inc,with the new construction. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS RICE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 SUTTON AVENUE R-I Page four 14. A curb cut will be allowed on the other side of the new construction. Variance and Special Permit Granted R6�z� March 15, 2006 Bonnie Belair C S C Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General laws Chapter 40A, Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. o r� Board of Appeal PPe m� fn p O y 0 co &MIMI THE OFFICE OF ALLEN M.LIED ARCHITECTS, P.C., LTD. March 13, 2006 Mr. Thomas Rice - ,Architecture Plannin124 Highland Avenue,Apt.No. 2 g ty, Interior DesignSalem . ,MA 01970 rT. Project Management. Structural Engineering RE: STRUCTURAL CONDITION EVALUATION REPORT -� Single-Family Residence 7 Sutton Avenue f Salem, MA 01970 - (Lieb Architects Project No. 2006-01) ' Dear Tom: At the request of you and your Architect, HND Architects,we visited I` + above referenced property on March 10, 2006 to view the condition of the existing building structure of this residence that you currently own. We met you at the site and you were present during our walk-through evaluation of the existing structural conditions. The referenced property is a residential neighborhood in the "Salem a Willows"portion of Salem,MA. It appears that the two-story timber framed structure at the front portion of the residence,nearest Sutton Avenue, is the original portion of house. Based on our field observations of the framing, it appears that a timber framed addition was subsequently + constructed on the rear of the `original"house at some later time. �I yti ��R The following is a summary of bur-findings and is the professional opinion of this Office and is based on our field observations of the conditions of the existing building structure at the time of our visit and our professional ' -- structural engineering experience: j President:6 Allen M.Lich,AIA_ I_ °A 1. We observed significant differential settlement in the majority of the P incipals: `original"portion of the residence. This differential settlement was Mark W.Barrett,NCARD r readily apparent from both the exterior and interior of the house. The Donald L.Peach,P.E. settlement is clearly visible at the exterior wrap-around covered porch - �LL on the front and two-sides of the front portion of the house, at the timber floor framing of both the First and Second Floor levels of the "original "portion of the house as well as in the basement area and 14 50 Salem street crawl space under the house. Based on our observations of the Building 8yl differential settlements in the porch and floor in combination with the Lynnfield,MA 01940 condition of the portions of the foundation(i.e. timber posts) exposed IIp:781.246.0111 f:781.246.1991 w .liebarchitects.com Yi I! I to view, it is the professional opinion of this Office that the foundation V� system of the"original"portion of the house is in a state of structural failure and must be replaced in its entirety. We observed timber posts p� supported directly on rock and some supported directly on soil with no footings. At the newer"addition"portion of the house we observed concrete masonry unit basement infill walls that have no spread footings under them. f" rda '- Replacement of the existing failed foundation system under the house '�� c_ �G . will be very costly because it will require that you retain a specialty 9 contractor(i.e. a structural building mover)to jack the existing #ray building structure up off the existing foundation and temporally Y I support the entire building on steel beams and timber grillage to facilitate the demolition and removal of the existing foundation system and excavation of soil as required to construct a new cast-in-place concrete foundation system, consisting of cast-in-place concrete foundation walls and spread footings. The house would then be lowered back down onto the new concrete foundation system once they have been completed. 2. The existing timber floor framing(beams and joists) at the First and M r Second floor levels, besides having significant differential settlements as previously discussed, is structurally deficient and inadequate to - - support the current Massachusetts State Building Code Floor Live loads(i.e. 40 pounds per square foot on the First Floor and 30 pounds per square foot for the Second Floor bedrooms). In addition,the existing floor framing at both floor levels exhibit significant and excessive deflection under the weight of a person standing at mid- span. To bring the floor framing up to current Building Codes and eliminate the excessive deflections will require complete reframing of both floor levels. 3. The original exterior bearing wall framing is also structurally deficient and inadequate to support the combined floor and roof loads. It _ L,# appears that the existing bearing wall framing in the house will need to be structurally reinforced, augmented and reframed to provide 4 _ -4 . ll adequate load bearing capacity. 4. The existing roofing materials are in a state of failure. Many holes I were observed in the roofing materials and the roof sheathing that has `- allowed the penetration of rain water into the Second Floor of the house. Based on the appearance of the roofing,the roof has been leaking for an extended period of time. In the several areas where the roof framing was exposed to view we observed areas of deteriorated and rotted timber roof framing and mold was observed—all of which indicate high-moisture contents within the building. Once the existing f ( 1 Second Floor ceilings are removed we would expect many additional areas of rotted timber roof sheathing and roof framing members to be found. Reframing of portions, if not all of the existing roof will likely ! be required. * _ In general, it is the professional opinion of this Office that the existing j� building foundation system is in a state of structural failure and must be replaced in its entirety. The majority of the timber roof, floor and wall framing is structurally deficient and will need extensive repair and reframing. Based on our field observations, it is the professional opinion E P of this Office that the existing foundation and timber framing systems (i.e. the building structure), in their current condition, are beyond reasonable economic repair and a complete demolition and rebuild of the house and foundation is the most cost effective solution. I I We trust that this report meets your needs at this time. Please discuss this report with your Architect and if either of you need further or additional r k structural engineering services please do not hesitate to call or email our i office. r , iF a I W`- ( Respectfully submitted, w The Office of Allen M. Lieb Architects, P.C., Ltd. i' Donald L. Peach, P.E. Principal—Structural Engineer x/c: HND Architects Original Report Has Embossed Seal Below With Signature in Red Ink X3.13 3/12/06 7 Sutton Ave. Salem,Ma. I have viewed the plans for 7 Sutton Ave prepared for Tom Rice and Tracy Flaherty by HND Architects. I have also seen the condition of the existing structure and support the demolition and house reconstruction project. Name w Address Signature � oe"to `� C©Lv w v z �A-L v� 6mA £.. £. C.0 U h. 1�i o I M.Nuc ic,o 1 I ,F. Wh-n C ,, , S 4.n; I v M - 6UAd> caw PA 6 uS s i 3/8/06 124 Highland Ave Salem, Ma. 01970 978 745 4538 To whom it may concern, My name is Tom Rice and I recently purchased 7 Sutton ave. with my fiance Tracy Flaherty. We currently own a house in Salem on a busy street and can not wait to move in to this new location. Tracy is a florist working in Stoneham and I am a firefighter in the town of Marblehead. I have a construction manager/supervisor license and work in this field as well. We new there would be a lot of work ahead of us to fix up this property, but closer examination forced us to decide on a better strategy. The existing house has no foundation under 80% of the structure. In addition there are no lally columns carrying the main beams,no insulation in the walls, extensive mold growth, water damage, and pest problems. We hired HND Architects from Essex, Ma. To evaluate the building and they could find no redeeming value to the structure, its foundation, or architecture. Tracy and I made the decision to approach tearing down the building and starting over with a more energy efficient and attractive house than the existing. I would like to invite anyone interested to come by the house Sunday March 12° from 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm to view the plans and see the current condition of the building. We have worked closely with our architect to come up with an attractive home that is in keeping with the existing house and fits in with the neighborhood. If you are not interested in the construction project you are welcome to come by just to get to know us. Thank you for your time. Tom and Tracy LIST OF DRAWINGS ,- Al EXISTING t PROPOSED SITE PLAN A2 EXISTING t PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS F R O F O S A .I- TO T H E A3 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Al PROPOSED GARAGE PLAN tELEVATIONS RICE / FLAHERTY RESIDENCE f -1 SUTTON AVENUE i SALEM'( , MA 019 -10 DATE : MARCH 09 , 2006 i H . N . D : ARCHITECTS I SOUTHERN HEIGHTS ESSEX, MA 0I929 (918) 168-1299 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PROPERTY -PROPERTY LINE 53'-5" i +- 6" 31'-2"+- +- 15'-3" 7'-0" +- 20'-4" I ' 12 N I O -F _O I � I+ I F z I II-- I EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING SIiTE PLAN 1262 SF I SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" I- L . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PROPERTY - - - - - .PROPERTY LINE I 53'-5" 46'-5" T-0" I I W i w 5-0" 26'-0" N z N I � PROPOSED E8 RENOVATION PROPOSED SITE PLAN � SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" -I NOR HD RICE / FLAHERTY RESIDENCE EXISTING t PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE; I/8' 1'-O" I SUTTON AVENUE , SALEM , MA 0I910 H.N.D. ARCHITECTS DATE: 03-09-06 Al I SOUTHERN HEIGHTS, ESSEX, MA 01929 53'-5" 53'-5" 15'-3" 7'-0" 11'-1" +- 20'-1" +- 15'-3" 7'-0" ----------�--- ----- II II BATHRM I BEOROOn 3 I rn rn I I I I II I iv N II I •- '. II 1 + + I II II ° y ------------'L---- y FRONT w N PORCH SF N I BEDROOMI 1 Bt6 I 1 + + I y I 1 qREARHEN LIVING ROOM I BEDROINI I 1 I I 6. EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN 53'-5" 53'-5" 46'-5" 7'-0" 5'-2" 46"-3" 7'-0" ---- ------ a V] Do OD II II II IISS II _ II � BATH I I J 1 LL__ _ IJ LJ I " vOHi ENTRYr^_fie I T II BEDROOM 1 OPEN MSTER I -TN LAIC-M j+] OFFICEIII M II PIRST BATH �l�Vll CLOSET UOSE IIS UOYI I FLOOR I I ON UP II DN Q El I _ I ---- MALL I ® FRONT DECK PORCH I I r cv N I IV w L ING ROOM o > I r Q "ASTER BEDROOM SEMO _o E) E l I 0880 DINING BEDROOn B I AREA KITCHEN I —n n--- — — --n n-- I � v II II BATNRoon II II I ___F__+ II II QO O II II I PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN CALLED NORTH i RICE / F L A H E R T Y RESIDENCE EXISTING t PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS SCALE: I/8 = r- -1 SUTTON AVENUE , SALEN , NA 0I9 -10 H.N.D. ARCHITECTS DATE: 03-09 -06 A2 I SOUTHERN HEIGHTS, ESSEX, MA 01929 ATM _=-- --------- --- — ----� --•� — — _ �_ - Am SECOMOR Ulm —_-- ------- _--__ _---- — —_ _ MOM ft00RCFL_G � 1 rm Sccm WFLOOOOR ----- --- RC011D FLOOR ----------- --- -------- --- — Lcsr FLOOR rnxc FRST fLaaggix� _ iPST FLOOR ff fLOOR �PORCN ROOK PROPOSED LEFT SIDE ELEVATION PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION i ---- -- -- ------- - -_ _ ---__=__==____-__-_- _-_ -- ----- ------ - ----- --------------------- ----- ----- ------- --_ — __ _-- -- _--_ __=== _ _ _ ATCfjj -(j�AM SECORO ROOK mm �LECM FLOOR CELNG scouo RooR xcrno FLOOR _ _ _____ __ ----- _ fRSi RLOOR EEML FRST FLOOR LEEK _ _ _ Boom � o00 oI FA fRSi ftOOR� MST FLOP _ – �FORCH BOOR PROPOSED RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION RICE / F L A H E R T Y RESIDENCE PROPOSIED ELEVATIONS SCALE; 1/$" = r-D° 7 SUTTON AVENUE , SALEM , NA 01910 H.N,D, ARCHITECTS DATE; 03-09-06 A3 I SOUTHERN HEIGHTS, ESSEX, MA 01929 .p GARAGE fL0 PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION • I I 5'-0" 26'-0" ------------ PROPOSED GARAGE N N 572 SF r PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION PROPOSED GARAGE PLAN P I C S / FL_ A H E R T Y F ESI D E NCE PROPOSED GARAGE PLAN t ELEVATIONS SCALE, 118° = P-0" 1 SUTTON AVENUE. , SALEM , MA 0I9 -10 H.N.D. ARCHITECTS DATE; 03-09-06 1� I SOUTHERN HEIGHTS, ESSEX, MA 01929