The URL can be used to link to this page

78A WEBB STREET - ZBA (2) � � II � � � ,,� -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _:, k . . ., �. 1 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAx: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 2019 NOV -3 P 2: 31 November3,2010 Cil'Y Decision IIIIIVIIIIIIIIIWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� City Of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals WESSEX ESSEX #64 Bk;34478 Pg:480 10/29/2015 09:43 PERMIT Pg 114 Petition of JAMES SHEA,seeldng a Special Permit and Variances to allow the demolition of the existing nonconforming structure at 78A WEBB STREET and to construct a new building containing two residential dwelling units with two parking spaces [R-21. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 20,2010,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch.40A,S 11. The hearing was closed on October 20,2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein,Richard Dionne,Annie Harris, Beth Debski,Becky Curran,Bonnie Belair(alternate),and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to 3.3.3,and Variances pursuant to Section 4.1.1 and Section 5.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances, Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated September 29,2010,petitioner requested'Variances from the number of parking spaces required per dwelling unit and the maximum number of stories permitted,as well as a Special Permit to reconstruct a nonconforming structure. 3. The current use of the property located at 78A Webb Street is a garage,currently used to store equipment 4. Petitioner proposes an addition above the garage that would contain two residential dwelling units,with the existing garage used for parking. 5. At the hearing,Attorney Grover clarified that the request was to add on to and renovate the existing garage structure,not to demolish it,as indicated on the application form. 6. At the hearing,Attorney Grover stated that because the building occupied almost the entire los there would be no place to put additional parking spaces;therefore, meeting the requirement of three parking spaces for a two-family home,which is an allowed use in the R2 zoning district,would constitute a hardship. (3*e.?-- 4 2 7. At the hearing,Attorney Grover also presented a petition of approximately 40 neighbors in support of the project. 8. The Board of Appeals received a letter prior to the hearing in support of the project from Ward One Councillor Robert McCarthy, 153 Bay View Avenue,stating that the renovation and change in use would be a positive improvement to the neighborhood. 9. At the hearing,several residents, including At-Large Councillors Steven Pinto and Arthur Sargent,spoke in support of the project,saying it presented an opportunity to redevelop an unattractive site,and that the shift from a commercial to a residential use would be positive for the neighborhood and for property values. 10. At the hearing,several residents spoke in opposition to the project,citing concerns about traffic,density and appropriateness to neighborhood character. 11. At the hearing,Board members stated their concerns about the parking relief requested,indicating that they would be more inclined to support the project if three parking spaces were provided. In response,the petitioner agreed to change the plans for the interior of the garage structure in order to provide three spaces. 12. At the hearing,Board members indicated that they did not have concerns about allowing relief from the requirement for number of stories,since the height requirement for the building was being met. The Board of Appeal,after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing,and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise,to the appellant; 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance,as the project provides an opportunity to redevelop an unattractive,underutilized site and to change the current commercial use to a residential use in a residential neighborhood. 4. The applicant may varythe terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to allow for the proposed addition and renovation. 5. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below, 3 On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to,the Plans,Documents and testimony,the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Variance from the number of allowed stories is granted to allow for the proposed renovation and addition to the structure on 78A Webb Street. 2. A Special Permit to alter a nonconforming structure is granted to allow for the proposed renovation and addition to the structure on 78A Webb Street. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five (5) in favor(Stein, Curran,Debski,Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for Variances and subject to the following terms, conditions,and safeguards: 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 to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 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 of the building is to comply with the submitted plan. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any CityBoard or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction,it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. /gym Robin Stem, Salem Board of Appeals 4 ✓ A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND T m aw 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 of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.Pursuant to the 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 certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. Ogg .rct� Hes dddO Na f?lImmiumotres 4 ss�d AAPEAL has[lean flied in BMs oHlof. AA�C�Y , 23 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO: Clerk, City of Salem, Massachusetts Please take notice that Kieth C. Willa an aggrieved person under G.L. C 40A, Section 17 hereby appeals the October 20, 2010 of the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem granting the petition of James Shea for a special permit and variances for property located at 78A Webb Street, Salem. The decision challenged is contained in a document issued by the Board of Appeals to the applicant, James Shea, a copy of which was filed with your office on November 3, 2010. Please take notice that Keith C. Willa has this day filed a complaint in the Land Court appealing the decision of the Board of Appeals granting said special permit and variances. A copy of the plaintiffs complaint is attached hereto. Dated : November.23, 2010 Respectfully submitted, Kieth C Willa by his attorney, Michael E. O'Bn , Esquire 91 Ord Street Salem, MA 01970 Tel. 978-745-0780 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS LAND COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT ESSEX,ss CASE NO. KIETH C. WILLA, Plaintiff vs ROBIN STEIN, RICHARD DIONNE, ELIZABETH DEBSKKI,ANNIE HARRIS and REBECCA CURRAN, as they are MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SALEM, and JAMES SHEA, Defendants COMPLAINT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER G.L. C40A,SECTION 17 PARTIES 1. The plaintiff, Keith C. Willa, resides at 78 Webb Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970. 2. The defendant, Robin Stein, is chairperson and a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Salem with an address at 141 Fort Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts 01970. 3. The defendant, Richard Dionne, is a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Salem with an address at 23 Gardner Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970. 4. The defendant, Elizabeth Debski, is a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Salem with an address at 43 Calumet Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970. 5. The defendant,Annie Hams, is a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Salem with an address at 28 Chestnut Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970. 6. The defendant, Rebecca Curran, is a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Salem with an address at 14 Clifton Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts 01970. 7. The defendant, James Shea, resides at 43 Dearborn Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970. FACTS 8. This action concerns the grant of a special permit and variances for the demolition and/or reconstruction of a one story garage located at 78A Webb Street, Salem, Massachusetts (hereinafter referred to as the"locus")owned by the defendant lames Shea( hereinafter referred to as"defendant Shea") and it's conversion into a three story, two-family home. 9. The locus consists of a lot of land containing 1,194 square feet of land with a one story three bay garage thereon, in a neighborhood zoned R-2 according to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance ( hereinafter referred to the"zoning ordinance"). 10. The defendant Shea obtained title to the locus by deed dated March 8, 1983 and recorded with Essex South District Registry of Deeds Book 7064, Page 525 and is classified by the City of Salem as undeveloped land only, with a total 2010 fiscal year assessed value of$17,400.00. The defendant Shea alleges he has used the locus as storage in connection with his roofing business, but maintains that his business has outgrown the garage and he now proposes to convert it into a two-family home for rental income. However, the Salem assessors office reflect the fact that since 2001 the locus has been assessed for it's land value only with no value assigned to the structure, suggesting either abandonment or non-use of the nonconformity of the structure. 11. The plaintiff, Keith C Willa(hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff'), owns a two story home located at 78 Webb Street, Salem, Massachusetts on a lot consisting of 3,385 square feet of land directly abutting the locus.The plaintiff owns the home jointly with his wife where they reside in the upper level and rent out the lower level. 12. The plaintiffs home is in an R-2 neighborhood according to the zoning ordinance. 13. The plaintiff, along with his wife, obtained title to property at 78 Webb Street by deed dated October 1, 2004 and recorded with Essex South District Registry of Deeds Book 23462, Page 26. Said property is classified by the City of Salem as a two-family with a land value of $101,300.00 and a building value of$218.400.00, for a total assessed value of$319,700.00. 14. As an immediate abutter, the plaintiff is a person aggrieved by the decision of the Zoning Board of the City of Salem(hereinafter referred to as the"zoning board")which is the subject of this complaint. 15. On September 29, 2010 the defendant Shea filed a petition with the zoning board requesting a special permit pursuant to section 3.3.3 of the zoning ordinance (nonconforming structures) that would allow him to demolish the existing one story garage at the locus and construct two residential dwelling units on the footprint of the garage. He requested that the zoning board grant him a variance from the 1%minimum parking space requirement per dwelling unit in R-2 neighborhoods as required by section 5.1 of the zoning ordinance so as to allow for only 1 space per unit. In addition, he requested that the zoning board grant him a variance to exceed the 2%: story maximum height of buildings in R-2 neighborhoods required by section 4.1.1 of the zoning ordinance. 16. On October 20, 2010, after a public hearing, the zoning board voted to grant a special permit to alter the locus so as to change it's nonconforming use as a garage to a two-family residential use as well as a variance to exceed the minimum number of stories allowed in R-2 neighborhoods. The zoning board issued it's written decision on November 3, 2010. 17. The November 3, 2010 written decision of the zoning board was filed with the Salem City Clerk (hereinafter referred to as the "clerk")on November 3, 2010.A copy of said decision filed with the clerk is attached hereto and marked "Exhibit A", the clerk having refused to provide the plaintiff with a certified copy of the same. 18. The November 3, 2010 decision granting a special permit exceeds the authority of the board in that the zoning ordinance does not allow for the demolition, alteration,or reconstruction of a nonconforming structure or for one more substantially detrimental than a existing nonconforming structure. The decision of the board granting a variance from the maximum height of buildings in an R-2 neighborhood also exceeds the authority of the board as there is no substantial hardship to defendant Shea, nor can the variance be granted without substantial detriment to the public and the plaintiff. In addition, the board has no authority to grant a special permit under section 3.3.3 of the ordinance( nonconforming structures ) because under section 3.3.6 (abandonment or non-use) it has no authority to grant special permits to nonconforming structures which have been abandoned or not used for a period of two years or as authorized by c.40A, section 6. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that this court: 1. Order that the decision of the board dated November 3, 2010 be annulled; and 2. Grant such other and further relief as this court deems meet and just. Keith C. Willa lys attorney, Dated: November 23, 2010 Michael E. O'Brien 91 Ord Street Salem, MA 01970 Tel. 978-745-0780 BBO# 376035 „ �,•onl>t , r CITY OF SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS t• BOARD OF APPEAL ^ - _ 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3R0 FLOOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745.9595 FAX: 978.740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR ZTI t. ,1 —3 ;P NO%vinhcr.1, 20 10 Dc'cisloII Cry of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of JAMES SHEA, seeking a Special Permit and :u-fiances Wallow the denwlition of file existing nonconforming structure at 78A WEBB STREET and w const uct a new building con taining.tsvo residential dwelling units with mo p:u•kinti spaces IR-21. . A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 20, 3010, pursuant to IVhss General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The heating was closed on October 20, 3010 Reith the follov.ill,, Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Annie H:Irlis, Beth Debski, Becky Curran, Bonnie Belair(alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to 3.3.3, anti Variances pursuant to Section -1.1.1 Mid Section 5.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Onlinances. Statements of fact 1. Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner ar the hearing. 3. In a petition dated September 29, 2010, petitioner requested Variances from the number of parking spaces required per dwelluig unit.and the maximum number of stories permitted, as well as a Special Peri it to reconstruct a nonconforming stRtctum. 3. The current use of the property located at 78A Webb Street is a garage,curmutk used to store equipment. 1. Petitioner proposer .in addition above the garage that would contain two residcmi.11 &yelling units, %vitt the exirting g,awge used for parking. �. At the hearing, Attorney Grover clalitICL I that the request was to add ou to ,uld rcnoiate the existing garage structure, m It to denullish it, AS indicated on the Application form. I,. ;\t the hearing, AttomeP Grover stater) that because the building occupied ,111111 Lt 111C%mite lot, there would he 110 place to put additional parking spaces; therefore, Illeetin;”' the requireuieot of there parking spaces fora two-fall ilyhome, %lilt h 1, ill.dloaird use In the 112 ZUlllltg dlrtnCt, W1 nlld constitute a liardsllip. At the hearing, Attonhey Grover also presented :a petition of.approxina:uel 41" neighbors in support of the project. �. The Board of Appeals received a letter prior to the hearing in support of the proicct from Ward One Councillor Robert NIX-Irthy, 133 Bay View Avenue, stating that the reraov:ation and change in use would be .a positive improvement to the neighborhood. 9. At the hearing,several residents, including At-Large Councillors Steven Pinto .std Arthur Sargent,spoke in support of the project,saying it presented an opponhuait c t redevelop an unattractive site, and that the shift from a commercial to a residenti.il use would be positive for the neighborhood and for property values. 10. At the hearing, several residents spoke in opposition to the project,citing concerns about traffic, density and appropriateness to neighborhood character. 11. At the hearing, Board members stated their concerns about the parking relief requested, indicating that they would be more inclined to support the project if three parking spaces were provided. In response, the petitioner agreed to change the plans for the interior of the garage structure in order to provide three spaces. 12. At the hearing, Board members indicated that they did not have concerns about allowing relief from the requitement for number of stories, since the height requirement for the building was being met. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. Special conditions :and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building', which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district, 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant, 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, as the project provides an opportunity to redevelop an unattractive, undenitilized site and to change the current commercial use to a residential use in a residential neighborhood. 4. The .applicant naaw van•the of the Residential Two-Family Z0ning District to allow fnr the proposed addition :and renovation. 3. In permitting suds change, the board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. Lin the basis of the above findings of fact and .ill evidence presented at the public heal III" iuclinling, but nut linuted to, die Plans, Documents and tesnniom•, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Valiance front the number of allowed stories is granted to allow for the proposed renovation and addition nu the structure on 78A Webb Street. 2. A Special Permit to alter a nonconfurnung stricture is granted to allow for the proposed renovation and addition to the structure on 78A Webb Street. fu consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein. Qirrm, Debski, Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requestS for Variances and subject to the fullo«ing terns, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all cityand state statutes, ordinances, Codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Coirutussioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictlyadhered to. `f. Petitioner shall obtain a budding permit prior to beginning anyconstniction. 5. Exterior of the building is to comply with the submitted plan. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not linuted to the Planning Board. 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structures) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fif tv percent (50%) of its fluor area or more than fifty percent (5098,) of its replacement cost ar the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50'%)) of its replacement cost or more than fift.-percent (i0"x.) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be recunstnicted except in conformity with due provisions of the Ordinance. 1<ob,n Stein, �iaur� Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION Id<\S BI?EN FILED wl—lij -RAE PLANNING IWARI > .\ND TF IE CITY Y CLERK .Appeal from this derision, if any, shall be male pursuant to Section 17 of the !Massachusetts General Laws Utapter 40A, and 511,111 be filed within 20 days of filing of this derision in the office of the City Cleric Pursuant to Idle Mass-lchuseIts Genera I Laus Chapter 40A, Scc6 u1 H, the Valiance crSpecial PCrnAI ,gnunel Win shall not take effect until a Copt•of the lreision healing the Cenific.ue of the CQ Ch rk leas been filed with the Essex South lkynv of Deeds. ZONING DISTRICT — R2 REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED LOT AREA 15,000 1268 1268 LOT WIDTH 100 27.6' 27.6' FRONT 15 0 0 SIDE 10 1.5 1.5 REAR 30 8.0' 8.0' BLDG HEIGHT 1 35 10.7 33.4't MOT 472 AP 35 3OLSALEM LOT COVERAGE 35% 71% 71% 547.29'00"E 54255318E 1.5' I .4.0' o 2.0' utility pole Lv w MAP 35 LOT 590 0 3 MAP 35 LOT 591 Lo D KEITH WALLA EXISITNG BUILDING m o ,o -co CARRELL MCCAFFREY z TO BE REMOVED , AND REPLACED a ro 78 WEBB ST. IN SAME FOOTPRINT N V) Ld c) #78A Z Q z.0' 4.s' z7.s1' -• N, 0'50'00"W on line WEBB STREET " ..`. '` PLOT PLAN OF LAND Is GAIL °� �e 78A WEBB STREET I CERTIFY THAT THE BUILDI SMITH SALEM HEREON ARE LOCATED ON No.35043 o r PROPERTY OF THE GROUND AS SHOWN. 9OA �Fcisfa�i�' JAMES SHEA SS��NAt LpUO% SCALE 1" = 10' SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 NORTH SHORE SURVEY CORPORATION 14 BROWN STREET — SALEM DATE REG. PROF. LAND SURVEYOR 978-744-4800 #3400 i � � � � C c�- � � �� T s l .rJJaa7Y��&tE _ rJ d _ � r o �1I r I11 a. r r �Y 111ti1titi11111ti'�� - II t M v d - JIM.Qry 1 10 erg V' Mq 4V f AI t4 It Alp Tj 978 744-M 1))*jm Hi - .-,unim OF S1 r1 17, !�RAI 11 HGI 16 jt �MAti -KA Irk," &__*:Pt ftftc4 Nit 1 21 W;r4l IC AMID-, 'A'4, 41 l _ fP I 'P . r t L' s 1�, SU 'JJ I. jl fn I Irl w I iv 'n _ Oi ty 10 P e at a ), yWwb 'Jp,A^.�� ✓ �� ,41 r ♦\1}�jiJ':l `tl�`."j 1�1� s^ K\ � \T�P t¢,yvp,,.,J� � ti?v T 4 , F�W �nvvvwwwut�i~ 'hRv �1 �.�. M i rZtt3\-� �\ .._ `�. ,�� tf p ' •_�ipi l' .of;Y t./ >�; f+�a aJ�!}• "��J d`,xe�'Fk....-r t x .� \. `�r� c >��_ � � _C.� r"—� t ., r ?� � a ■�; �y�" �?' �' q� � :. .. ,yam � �z� + � r ( ep f - ; '+. .rr � N�r�y'y ,, J��s�7'r'��° � r �" �T♦u�.T �J JS u 'e"'4 ` , ,• fg J ' d^J� Ya3:P� t s«e..'a... arf'r:s [[.n Pi Jte ♦♦ ); t � � s I ri 999107285 S7300710. jpe 7/8 r • Walareens 04595 0 10/19/10 a i �w tic Q _A { rrrr ""�Y' ` ,• '� � 1 ! na�� F�(n3 1{'j�i�lr r� e1—t c'��, ,;�r, Y F !!! iX- F � i y -v.5 1 i_ 990107S85 S7200732rips 2/8 Waisreens 04595 0 10/19/10 ' - e } .�„ 'f%'� ��_ .� , �. � _� :�/� ��; �/ / l �y zee° I� �� . ee�. ,, � �� i �_ I' � d � '��I_ i�I'1.�.3r<'ic�� G i K:: p w�' inti " u ?"T��ia � o yy t r ; 1 u. ,-r .� y isy v+rt (�l,F;a nyr*n„ ,-... �� {4�ee�' 1 - . .,t„ - 7 :7300706: ,i n:g 8/8 FA , 1 (,.�, i b�-��/�� ,'prJ ,, �� : a° ��,,,%-� i> _ �' ,�'�.,v , ,� - ��, sx �� /� �� of �: ��. _ - _ ��w� TM.. _� �—___ ,� r� �� - �, �-- �! �x � / '..,. , �� 'F�x � ` � �.f � � — _ �� r�. ' t a Ams. � ` r �� y � A�;k '� I f }1� � � 4 f�i �)g� U c++. 9 r R� � ++ .? _. n n � F �4}yam � ,f '.s � _ + K`.`„ � �� ... r �S _.� // T 1 Y - �x' �. �. %,N r � / I /, } ��. �� i ` �/ � 1. ,N � _ I � ��j� �:: tii, i � '� t - S �� _. ' y ' � n �� \ �. ��, 't. i � 1 ® ��5ix Fer k � yet';� � �J v�, �•� I .01 !�yj f� I ��st= _ �i -•.+ ,_ %"fir.. ''„�-�. � _ 14,��•1_�'�e��a, ,Imo. ,9 � + I� � ■�� -.- r ; ,` y ,J 1 ZONING DISTRICT — R2 REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED LOT AREA 15,000 1268 1268 LOT WIDTH 100 27.6' 27.6' FRONT 15 0 0 SIDE 10 1.5 1.5 REAR 30 8.0' 8.0' BLDG HEIGHT 35 10.7 33.4± Miv 35 OT BLDG LOT COVERAGE 35% 1 71% 71% 547.29'00"E 5425 538"E .4.0' o ai 2.0' utility pole Lv w MAP 35 LOT 590 IM 3 MAP 35 LOT 591 m EXISITNG BUILDING o KEITH WILLA z TO BE REMOVED m, CARROLL MCCAFFREY AND REPLACED W 78 WEBB ST. IN SAME FOOTPRINT v E W 0 #78A Z Q 2.0' /'4.6' N4050 00"W on line WEBB R STREET a��P� S9°y PLOT PLAN OF LAND GAIL °��. 78A WEBB STREET I CERTIFY THAT THE BUILDI 9 sl y SALEM HEREON ARE LOCATED ON � PROPERTY OF THE GROUND AS SHOWN. $ONo.35043 '`FrsRNq� ?ooQaw JAMES SHEA SCALE 1 10' SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 �1 L ro NORTH SHORE SURVEY CORPORATION DATE REG. PROF. LAND SURVEYOR 14 BROWN STREET — SALEM 9.78-744-4800 #3400 F Daniel H. Pierce &J. Tracy Pierce 22 Andrew Street Salem, MA 01970 20 October 2010 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Petitioner: ' 'James Shea Property Location: 78A Webb Street Subject: Request for Special Permit&Variances to construct a building containing 2 residential dwelling units with 2 parking spaces in a Two-Family Zone Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: As homeowners at 22 Andrew Street and neighbors of the subject property, we are writing to confirm our strenuous objections to the applicant's request for Special Permit and/or Variances to construct a 2-unit residential building at 78A Webb Street in Salem. We request therefore, that the Board of Appeals deny the petition for Special Permit and Variances for the following reasons: 1. The existing structure located on the property is a"Private Garage" which is only permitted in R-2 two-family residential districts as an accessory use when it is clearly incidental to the principal use. Therefore, since this private garage is not incidental to a residential use that currently exists or previously existed on the property, the current building and use is a"Nonconformity" as defined by Section 3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The lot is a"Nonconforming Lot". With only 1194 square feet in area, the lit is substantially below the minimum 15000 square feet of area required by the Ordinance, and with only 28 feet of lot frontage the lot is far below the minimum 100 feet of frontage required by the Zoning Ordinance. 3: The "Nonconforming Use of Land", although no longer permissible under the current Zoning Ordinance, may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, and is not enlarged, increased or extended. 4. The "Nonconforming Structure" which could not be built under the terms of the current Ordinance by reasons of restrictions on area, lot coverage,yard setback dimensions, location on the lot, etc., may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, and is not enlarged or altered in any way which increases its nonconformity. • Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 20 October 2010 Page 2 5. Regarding the "Nonconforming Use of Structure", the neighborhood has been concerned for years that the structure is unlawfully being used for"storage of building supplies" which is not allowed in an R-2 District under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. Such use of a structure is only permitted in B-4 and I Districts. However, the use of the structure may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, and is not enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved or structurally altered in any way, except when the use of the structure is changed to a conforming use permitted in the district. Moreover, if the nonconforming use is superseded by a permitted use the structure must conform to the regulations for the district, and the nonconforming use may not be resumed. In conclusion, based on the above nonconformities, we do not believe that the Zoning Board of Appeals should permit or authorize the issuance of a Special Permit for a change to another use, (conforming or nonconforming) based on the fact that the Board can not find that the use as changed, altered and enlarged would not depart from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, as stipulated in the Ordinance, if the proposed increase in volume or area of the building is"unreasonable", the Board may not approve a Special Permit for such proposed changes in use or its alteration or enlargement. With regard to the approval of any Variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals to construct a 2-family residence on said property, the applicant can not demonstrate that any hardships exist which would satisfy the requirements of the Ordinance. Therefore, since the granting of Variances for this proposed project would incur substantial detriment to the public good and would nullify the intent of the district and the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, we request the Zoning Board of Appeals deny any request for Variances as well. Thank you for your support and consideration of this serious matter. Sincerely, Daniel H. Pie e J. Trac Pierce Y Daniel H. Pierce &J. Tracy Pierce 22 Andrew Street Salem, MA 01970-4004 17 March 2003 Mr. Thomas St. Pierre Inspector of Buildings &Zoning Enforcement Officer City of Salem 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Property Location: 78A Webb Street, R-2 Zoning district Petitioner: James Shea d/b/a Professional Roofing Subject: Withdrawal of Petition to the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeal for Special Permit/Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling, lot coverage and number of stories to allow construction of a 2-family residence. Dear Mr. St. Pierre: On 19 February 2003, we attended the Zoning Board of Appeals public meeting to hear the continuation of the Petition of James Shea regarding 78A Webb Street as referenced above. However, it was announced at the opening of the public meeting that the Petitioner had withdrawn his Petition to the Board of Appeal. Unfortunately, we were unable to attend the prior public meeting on 15 January 2003. As a result, on January 14th,r*nd-delivered a letter of objection to the Clerk of the Board with the understanding that our wo be read into the public record at the meeting scheduled for January 15. We were later disappointed to learn that our letter had in fact not been read or recognized at the public meeting, although a copy was later found in the file for the subject Petition. Since the Petitioner has withdrawn his Petition to the Board of Appeals, there would appear to be no reason to record our 14 January 2003 letter of objection to this Petition. However, we have since teamed that the Petitioner has been advised that he can proceed with constructing the proposed project after approval of a building permit, and that no further review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required. We do not agree with such a finding, and are confident the Petitioner's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance is totally incorrect and inconsistent with the intent of Chapter 40A of the General Laws of Massachusetts. Accordingly, this letter is submitted for your careful consideration in the review of the Petitioner's anticipated application to proceed with changes to the existing nonconforming property and use. As homeowners at 22 Andrew Street and neighbors of the subject property, we strenuously object to the approval of any Building Permits, Variances or Special Permits that the Petitioner may request to construct a 2-unit residential building at 78A Webb Street in Salem. We request that you deny any Building Permit Application which would constitute a change in Mr. Thomas St. Pierre, Inspector of Buildings & Zoning Enforcement Officer City of Salem 17 March 2003 Page 2 use or which would enlarge or alter the existing structure inn�y way which "increases its nonconformity", and we request you notify the Petitioner that he must return to the Board of Appeals for approval of applicable Variances and Special Permits as stipulated by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, based on the following provisions of the Ordinance: 1. Permitted Uses, R-2 District(Sec. 5-2): The existing structure located on the property is a"Private Garage"which is only permitted in R-2 two-family residential districts as an accessory use when it is "clearly incidental to the principal use." 2. Article VIII - Nonconformity (Sec. 8-1 Intent): The intent of the Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1965 was to allow the continuation of nonconforming buildings and uses which existing prior to the adoption of the Ordinance and to require approval of Special Permits or Variances when enlargement or alteration of a nonconforming structure or use is proposed (as provided in Section 9-4). The land and 3-car private garage structure located at 78A Webb Street was initially subdivided from the 2-family residence at 78 Webb Street by the owners Richard S. and Gertrude C. Martin on I October 1963. Ownership of 78 Webb Street was transferred to Robert M. and Kathleen H. Martin for less than $100, while ownership of 78A Webb Street was retained by Richard S. and Gertrude C. Martin. While the 2- family residence at 78 Webb Street transferred ownership five times between 1963 and 1985, the 3-car garage located at 78A Webb Street remained in the Martin family until 1972 when it was sold to Robert P. McNeill. McNeill later sold the garage to James Shea d/b/a Professional Roofing on 8 March 1983. The above has been confirmed by review of Registry of Deeds records. In addition, the first record of 78A Webb Street in the Polk Salem City Directory occurs in 1971. No business name or business use is identified. The property is identified for the first time as being a separate and distinct lot from the adjacent 78 Webb Street. In conclusion, since the private garage is not incidental to a residential use that currently exists or previously existed at the time of amnesty or the "grandfathering" of all pre-existing nonconforming uses and structures in 1965, the current private garage building and use is a"Nonconformity"as defined by Article VIII of the Zoning Ordinance, and as such, any proposed changes after 1965 to said nonconforming structure requires Zoning Board of Appeals approval. Mr. Thomas St. Pierre, Inspector of Buildings &Zoning Enforcement Officer City of Salem 17 March 2003 Page 3 3. Nonconforming Lot (Sec. 8-2): With only 1194 square feet in area, the lot is substantially below the minimum 5000 square feet of area required by the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, with only 28 feet of lot frontage, the lot is far below the minimum 50 feet of frontage required by the Ordinance. Subparagraph (1) of Section 8-2 stipulates that lots which could not otherwise be built upon for residential purposes under the terms of the Ordinance by reason of restricted lot area or lot width, may be used for one or two-family residential use if it meets the following provisions: • at the time of recording or endorsement of the Ordinance (1965),the lot was not held in common ownership with any adjoining land; and • the lot conformed to then-existing requirements; and • the lot has at least 5000 square feet of lot area and 50 feet of frontage. In conclusion, the subject property does not meet the stipulated provisions of Section 8-2 and is therefore not a buildable lot for residential purposes. The existing lot, building and use remain nonconforming, and therefore any proposed change to the existing nonconforming building or use must comply with the current Zoning Ordinance. 4. Nonconforming Use of Land (Sec. 8-3): Although no longer permissible under the present Zoning Ordinance,the existing use may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, and is not"enlarged, increased or extended to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied in 1965. 5. Nonconforming Structure (Sec. 8-4): A pre-existing structure which could not otherwise be built under the terms of the Ordinance by reasons of restrictions on area, lot coverage, height, yard dimensions, location on the lot, etc., may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, and is not enlarged or altered in any way which increases its nonconformity or which increases its height except as provided for in Section 8-6. 6. Nonconforming Use of Structure (Sec. 8-5): As neighbors on Andrew Street, we have been concerned for years that the structure is unlawfully being used for"storage of building supplies"which is not allowed in an Mr. Thomas St. Pierre, Inspector of Buildings &Zoning Enforcement Officer City of Salem 17 March 2103 Page 4 R-2 District under the terms of the Ordinance. Such use of a structure is only permitted in B-4 and I Districts. The use of a pre-existing nonconforming structure may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, and: • the structure is not enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved or structurally altered, except when changing the use to a use which is permitted in the district; and • if no structural alterations are made, the nonconforming use of the structure may be changed to another nonconforming use,provided that the Board of Appeals finds that the proposed use is equally or more appropriate to the district than the existing nonconforming use; and • if the nonconforming use is superseded by a permitted use, the structure must conform to the regulations for the district, and the nonconforming use may not be resumed; and • if the nonconforming use is abandoned or not used for a period of 2 years, the nonconforming use and structure shall lose whatever rights might otherwise exist to its continuation. However, the current use as "storage of building supplies"is not grandfathered because it did not exist at time of passage of the Zoning Ordinance in 1965. In conclusion, we still contend that the use of the building and lot for anything other than storage appropriate to a residential use is not permitted by the Ordinance and therefore the current use by Professional Roofing for"storage of building supplies"is unlawful. As was originally brought to the attention of the Inspector of Buildings in May of 1993, we again request that a"cease and desist'order be issued to the owner of the subject property if,following your inspection of said premises, it is determined that the building is being used illegally. 7. Board of Appeals - Granting Special Permits (Sections 8-6 and 9-4): The Board of Appeals may grant a Special Permit for a change to another nonconforming use or for its alteration or enlargement, provided that the Board finds that the use as changed, altered or extended will not depart from the intent of the Ordinance and its prior use or degree of use, and provided that the building or use is neither increased in volume nor area unreasonably. Mr. Thomas St. Pierre, Inspector of Buildings & Zoning Enforcement Officer City of Salem 17 March 2003 Page 5 In conclusion,first, we do not believe that the aaU proposed change of use, alteration or enlargement of the subject property shall be approved or authorized except by granting of Special Permits and/or Variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals as stipulated in the Zoning Ordinance. Second, with regard to any future application by the owner of 78A Webb Street to the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval to change the nonconforming structure and use to a conforming residential use, we contend that the owner will not be able to demonstrate that any hardships exist which would satisfy the requirements of Section 9-5 of the Ordinance. Therefore, since the granting of Special Permits and/or Variances for the subject Petition would incur substantial detriment to the public good and would nullify the intent of the district and the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, we will continue to speak out in opposition to the subject Petition or any similar Petition to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and we will request that the Board of Appeals deny any request for Variances or Special Permits. Thank you for your support and your commitment to adhering to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. If you have any questions or comments concerning the points raised in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully, fe aniel H. Pier J. Tracy Pierce copy: Mayor Stanley J. Usovicz, Jr. Regina Flynn, Councillor Ward Two John Keenan Esquire, City Solicitor Daniel H. Pierce &J. Tracy Pierce 22 Andrew Street Salem, MA 01970 14 January 2003 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Petitioner: James Shea Property Location: 78A Webb Street Subject: Request for Special Permit&Variances to construct a 2-unit residential building Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: As homeowners at 22 Andrew Street and neighbors of the subject property, we are writing to confirm our strenuous objections to the applicant's request for Special Permit and/or Variances to construct a 2-unit residential building at 78A Webb Street in Salem. We request therefore, that the Board of Appeals deny the petition for either a Special Permit or Variances for the following reasons: 1. The existing structure located on the property is a"Private Garage" which is only permitted in R-2 two-family residential districts as an accessory use when it is clearly incidental to the principal use. Therefore, since this private garage is not incidental to a residential use that currently exists or previously existed on the property, the current building and use is a "Nonconformity" as defined by Article VIII of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The lot is a "Nonconforming Lot" (Sec. 8-2). With only 1194 square feet in area, the lot is substantially below the minimum 5000 square feet of area required by the Ordinance a nd with only 28 feet of lot frontage the lot is far below the minimum 50 feet of frontage required by the Ordinance. 3. The "Nonconforming Use of Land" (Sec. 8-3), although no longer permissible under the current Ordinance, may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, and is not enlarged, increased or extended. 4. The "Nonconforming Structure" (Sec. 8-4), which could not be built under the terms of the current Ordinance by reasons of restrictions on area, lot coverage, yard setback dimensions, location on the lot, etc., may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, and is not enlarged or altered in any way which increases its nonconformity. Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 14 January 2003 Page 2 5. The "Nonconforming Use of Structure" (Sec. 8-5). We in the neighborhood have been concerned for years that the structure is unlawfully being used for"storage of building supplies" which is not allowed in an R-2 District under the terms of the current Zoning Ordinance. Such use of a structure is only permitted in B-4 and I Districts. However,the use of the structure may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, and is not enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved or structurally altered in any way, except when the use of the structure is changed to a conforming use permitted in the district. Additionally, if the nonconforming use is superseded by a permitted use, the structure must conform to the regulations for the district, and the nonconforming use may not be resumed. In conclusion, based on the above nonconformities, we do not believe that the Zoning Board of Appeals should permit or authorize the issuance of a Special Permit for a change to another use, (conforming or nonconforming) based on the fact that the Board can not find that the use as changed, altered and enlarged would not depart from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, as stipulated in Section 94, subparagraph b of the Ordinance, if the proposed increase in volume or area of the building is"unreasonable" the board may not approve a special permit for such proposed changes in use or its alteration or enlargement. With regard to the approval of any Variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals to construct a 2-family residence on said property,the applicant can not demonstrate that any hardships exist which would satisfy the requirements of Section 9-5 of the Ordinance. Therefore, since the granting of Variances for this proposed project would incur substantial detriment to the public good and would nullify the intent of the district and the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, we request the Zoning Board of Appeals deny any request for Variances as well. Finally, with regard to item 5 above, we request that the Zoning Board of Appeals notify the Building Inspector and the Fire Department inspectors of our concerns regarding the unlawful storage of building materials and supplies in the building at 78A Webb Street, to request that written citations be issued if any violations of the Massachusetts State Building Code are found to exist, and to direct the owners of the property to correct any violations as required to comply with the all applicable Codes and Ordinances. Thank you for your support and consideration. Sincerely, anima el H. Pier J. Tracy Pierce uv -la-eUin U' !:3.JH t-MUM: 7(b(448b14 T0: 19787453369 P.3 Re: 78A Webb Street, Salem Massachusetts B signing below, we wish to advise th Y gn g � e e Board of Appeals of our support of the Petition of James Shea for approval to construct a two family home on the property at 78A Webb Street. Mr. Shea has shared with us detailed plans and photographs of the building he plans to construct and we believe it will significantly improve the neighborhood by removing the dilapidated commercial building and replacing it with a structure and use that is compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the R-2 zoning district. We urge the Board to grant Mr. Shea's petition. Signature: Name and Address: S S Sr/ `' a -4- ""' """ �"•-"^ R�- • 7rorvvaaty _10: 19787453369 P.2 Re: 78A Webb Street,Salem,Massachusetts By signing below, we wish to advise the Board of Appeals of our support of the Petition of James Shea for approval to construct a two family home on the property at 78A Webb Street. Mr. Shea has shared with us detailed plans and photographs of the building he plans to construct and we believe it will significantly improve the neighborhood by removing the dilapidated commercial building and replacing it with a structure and use that is compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the R-2 zoning district. We urge the Board to grant Mr. Shea's petition. Signature: Name and Address: rJ Q[1YY�yt�c� 'Qin irvtiA'uv-� Zl.olo �� k Sa-9.QNn , I � �✓I u�L � 41 Sf G Yo V5;i ri UP r-I we� �r�r� ��2�! �ffl�jl �UJGirV,S�i 7/ld�f5/��i UN/ P011 I A7Z.11 .�(rA /� I to(;-�W _` �t�YYrr,P Cc-nsg 1'�1 19�bb b� 5�L sol- '- "i*` — jrtsr44a814 T0:19787453369 P.; Re: 78A Webb Street, Salem,Massachusetts By signing below, we wish to advise the Board of Appeals of our support of the Petition of James Shea for approval to construct a two family home on the property at 78A Webb Street. Mr. Shea has shared with us detailed plans and photographs of the building he plans to construct and we believe it will significantly improve the neighborhood by removing the dilapidated commercial building and replacing it with a structure and use that is compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the R-2 zoning district. We urge the Board to grant Mr. Shea's petition. Signature: n Name and Address: 771 AA i CK W ebb Sf /e� m �F ofi c�YhcS`et r b mos 5-77 5XZr10 All d fpr /�'LFsr ��• .�rlv�, �1J/ AtO IIA ib '/� UhIbSf 'J QJ(14'+Ui14 TO:19787453369 P.4 Covers) 6 1��L SV- re- V- re—ar s HOMES WITHIN VICINITY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY 78A Webb Street, Salem, Massachusetts Webb Street 90 - 2 family 81 - Feline Hospital 82 - Condo, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 77 - Condo, Units 1, 2, & 3 78 - 2 family 73 - 1 family 76 - 1 family 71 - Condo, Units 1 & 2 72 - 2 family 70 - 1 family 60 - Apartments — 4 units 50 - 2 family Briggs Street 18 - 2 family 19 - 2 family 20 - 3 family 21 - Condo Units 1 & 2 24 - 2 family 23 - 1 family 26 - 1 family 25-27 - Apartments, 5 units 28 - 1 family 29-31 - 2 family 29 - 2 family 33 - Condo, Units 1 & 2 32 - 2 family 35 - Apartments, 4 units 34 - 2 family Andrew Street 19 - Apartments — 4 units 20 - 1 family 21 - Condo, Units 1 & 2 22 - 2 family 23 - 3 family 24 - 2 family 25 - Apartments, 5 units 26 - Condo, Units 1, 2 & 3 29 - Condo, Units 1, 2, and 3 30 - 3 family 35 - Condo, Units 1, 2, and 3 J Pickman Street 26 - 2 family 24 - Condo, Units 1 and 2 22 - 1 family 20 - 2 family 18 % - 1 family 18 - 2 family Spring Street 20 - 1 family 18 - 1 family 13 - 3 family 3-5 - Condo, Units 1, 2, and 3 7 - Condo, Units 1 and 2 9 - 2 family Milk Street 1 - 3 family 3 - 1 family 4 - garage 5 - land only 6 - 1 family 8 - 1 family CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ASSESSOR PARCEL MAP — 35 $ : 1 ea�6.s23sew _rin b sSdqa ati6p5 i \ 99666 50 6476 z �•\.`k��.S�e•yT ��.•x _ O 3.5-29A . 35aQ7 36- ,46M39 CEq - , 36-Q 60 y- ��ag 9a5$ . . tioa .... . __ ._ 3.5-0546 • •`•T ��•� ` t - G�35 3669 w �• �7 3^atiyo ^ 9 3548 3 s e�i zi y 3859 ^3a aati ,: 3561- ?a:` 35 91 •�•.� � � \ 36a�t�58 35- ^�^ �9e� 35-QA50 3 6 �0 o- 5&92 �,�•`. �•� 3 2 2. .`� .� ^ ...`25-055 5 _ 6� z, se 32+193 `•�•� +5IM „ ^ S , 5 3559 y^ rvo 3� 35n 35,0 62 °fi 1 0 ^.. ,� ti 5M2 °> J 3 8 35;Q88 3ti ��" 3523 . 5 3595 zj 5 351-PP .m dN� 33577 35-1 7 a 3560 r. ,- 5a8 35- 7 lbivlf ... ti^ 35,24 3555 3 (P 35 64 ,� ^A 3 g A^ '^35 02 c$ 3`• 65 35 3574 �" ,, �. 35 0035i`�99. i. ee -„355 _ �'+ .... ,, ..,. 3 d -35A2 35&42 _ .. 3 '. _35-Q�56 3566 g35�g72 �'' yo 3 3 �4._ . 10 �9 .. �r03 - 3 35-M9 3557 •i�,�(��' 3587 3570 /O\ r s o 35194 3 50 w 35 . a^ 357 3 67 35-( 6, C ' ,;�6 352 c ' 4t2 ' ',➢.' ,� /Q! ' ,'� ”>. .:..ti 35x38 OB 35-92 "i;yy •Sd' `IS, :: 7 � ea� —PJ 3531 y^ 35 41 ` `ia'. 37Qi co37 -`t1ao07 4' 41 {; •ryyy ��l.yY' �6° 35-0532 --_85St _ 5..(15 .� 2 . 'O1^ J. . XA . --3 9J. },.. v 310, 70 35 J 3590 ^ N, ' ' a 3573 5.�� -�� 8 35 � _�_ . A a 355089, 89 a �' 82 �L Ca 'yrs.. : /� ��``� 3lp October 20, 2010 City of Salem Board of Appeals 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Board Members, While we are excited to have the property at 78A Webb Street developed, we feel that the site may be too small to support a two-family building. Several years ago a developer proposed wilding a two-family on the mush bigg€r`tat at 70 Webb Sir€et ontyte have'his appeal fier a variance struck down. Comparing the locations and sizes of both lots leads us to believe that the same issues that resulted in a single family home being built at 70 Webb Street would come into play for the 78A location as well. It has been brought to our attention that the owner wants to build a two-family for his two sons to live in. Seeing as his two sons are "one-family" is it necessary that the building be zoned for a two-family?As long as the house is built to code, could two separate units be built in a "single family home" at this site? Lastly, we are concerned that the building as proposed would result in a box being built on the site. Although this is not an historic neighborhood, we feel that the design and materials used should be complimentary with the more distinguished homes of the area. 3incerefy, Michael and Dawna Bueco 72-74 Webb Street Danielle McKnight From: Robert McCarthy[robertkmccarthy@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:36 PM To: Danielle McKnight Subject: Petition Danielle I will be unable to attend tonight' s meeting due to a previous engagement. For the record I would like to state that I have not received any correspondences or phone calls against Mr Shea' s application for 78A Webb St . Mr Shea has sent me a rendition of how the new structure will look and it seems to fit into the neighborhood. I personally feel that this will be an improvement over the existing state of the property and will enhance the neighborhood. I will leave the final decision up to the wisdom of the Board with regards to the application and any restrictions that you my impose on the applicant. The one concern is that the egress to the walk way thru Andrews St ext be maintained and left unobstructed at all times. Thank you for your consideration Bob McCarthy Councillor Ward One 1 _I. N . h 40' 2'-0" 5'-4" 12'-11/2" 8'-9" 4'-1" 1'-8 1/2" 40'-0" o r l'-4" I 12'-I 1/2" 8'-9" 11'-9 1/2" I U o TW28210 TW28210 TW2852 TW2852 m Ua No ROOF TW2852 2 O - BATH �RooF I " I I TW2852-2 2'-2" 8'-9" -10 1/2" I U " og j I 14 -1 I/2" 4' 4 I/2" rn j I I HALLWAY j L.: . ;; STAIR a � w w I ° A 2IIjjIAIIIIIIIIII C. L_ i 5 - 4_3 6O"ANI' rIIjIIIII II " P o_ n— CL. uCL *O ' "Caz41 lo��Fy DINING KITCHEN o BATH UBL P HALLWAY ---- 3 -8 1/4" N 2-I 3/4"xl4„ D�EP ----- -5'-2 1/4” 8 1/4" � I LVL BEAMS w 00 ------------ CL.CL CL NOTE: SIZE OF WINDOWSLIVING O iLIVING/DININ o 9'-4 3/4" 101-0 3/ CONSULTANTS:DETERMINED IN FIELD BEDROOM BEDROOM O� co T STAIR OBEDROOM BEDROOM RgOF ROOF TW2852-2TW2852 2 TW2852 2 W2852 2 TW2852-2 TW2852-2 CA &_3 1'-4" 9 -11 3/4" I0'-3" 12'-5 1/4" 2'-0" 5'-4" 9'-11 3/4" 10'-3" 4'-8 3/4" 1 -8 1/2" 40'-0" 40'-0" SMOKE DETECTOR SMOKE DETECTORSecond Floor Plcn First Floor P I a n Scale: 1 /4" = 1 — O" Scale: 1 /4" = 1 ' — O" 0 4'-1 31/32" 40'-0" O NOTE: DIMENSIONS FOR FOOTPRINT OF BUILDING ARE EXISTING-VERIFY 1O" LL ALL DIMENSIONS IN FIELD 0 LL I HOUR CLEAR DOOR---i 0o 12'-II I/2" T-2 I/4" MECH. STORAGE LLI E co QNEW WALLS IN GARAGE AREA TO BE 2X4 WD. STUDS-16O.C. W/ 5/8" CEILING �F GARAGE AREA TYPE "X" FIRE RATED OQ TO BE 58" TYPE "X" FIRE GYP. BD. BOTH SIDES RATED CYP. BD. I HOUR DOOR DOOR � . O CL I HOUR DOOR REVISIONS: ATNEW DOCRGK-NEW GARAGE DOOR O FINTO EXIST. TO FIT INTO EXIST. UP OPENING-V.LF.OPENING-V. F. MECH. — LM REMOVE EXIST. GARAGE -- — REMOVDOOR E NEW WALLAS DOOR-FILL IN WALL W/ REQ'D TO INSTALLDOOR CONC. BLOCK AS REQ'D. NEW DOOR FLOOR 'pCN=W PIERS FOR PLANS PURGOLA-(OPTIONAL) SCALE 1/4" 1-O" DATE: 3/24/03 1'-4 /4" 43'-3 23/32" PROJECT No.: 02015 DRAWN BY: S.P.A. 44'-1 31/32" CHECKED BY: D.J.G. Gcrcge Level Plcn SMOKE DETECTOR SHEET No. Scale: 1 /4 = 1 ' - 0" I CONTINUOUS RIDGE U VENT-TYPICAL-1i' U U H o �. 12 U � o 5 � W y 7 m FIBERGLASS ASPHALT U a m o ROOF SHINGLES-TYP. U C m h p 4-) ro m H � � � � d El, U oma SINGLE-PLY MEMBRANE m ROOFING OVER THIS +' ;,, r AREA-TYPICAL � U a m SECOND FLOOR CIO ., a E., i 5/4x6 WD. U W CORNERBDS. TYPICAL � 6 M ® ® 9® L ® T PAD. TRIM in ® AROUND WINDOWS CONSULTANTS: J_IJ —:H CEDAR CLAPBOARD SIDING-TYPICAL FIRST FLOOR IXIO WD TRIM W/ IX3 WD. BLOCKING BEHIND TYPICAL NEWCOAT FINISH EXISTING PURGOLA gg g OVER EXISTING CONC. OPTIONAL BLOCK-TYPICAL I EXISTING CONC. GARAGE FL. i R e a r E l e v a t i o n L e f t E l e v a t i o n Scale: 1 /4" = 1 ' - 0" Scale: 1 /4" — 1 ' — O" z o O 12 — W �— 5 W N QL O cf) O IIIIIIIIIIIIIII11y FF11 1111 MEE F=7z O w E Lil Q o O z _ SECOND FLOOR W U w O ® R c i m REVISIONS; Fm Ell FIRST FL. ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0•' DATE: 3/24/03 EXISTING CONC. PROJECT No.: 02015 GARAGE FL. DRAWN BY: S.P.A. CHECKED BY: D,J.G. Right Elevation Front Elevation SHEET No. Scale: 1 /4" = 1 ' - 0" Scale: 1 /4" = 1 ' - 0" A - 2