24 SOUTHWICK STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION
30 Dearborn Street
' Salem, Mass. 01970
Ntvember 29, 1976
Mr. John B. Powers i €
Building Irispector 'and
Zoning Enforcement Officer
CITY OF SALEM
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Jack: ; ^+
As we discussed today, I feel that the proposed construction on
the lot at 24 Southwick Street is in violation of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance with respect to Off-Street Parking, Section VII. C.
Southwick Street is an extremely narrow street, and the problems
with residents parking on each side of the street and blocking the
.street are numerous. Therefore, it is imperative that any new con-
struction on Southwick Street conform to at least the minimum off-
street parking requirements to encourage the future residents to
park off the street and not contribute., to future increased conges-
tion` of Southwick Street.
I believe -'the proposed construction at ; 24 Southwick Street does
not conform to the Zoning Ordinance for the following reasons:
1. The lot, as designed, does not include off-street
parking for two cars (Section. VII.C.6,p.36t i
spaces per dwelling unit, with a minimum of 2
spaces are required) .
A. Cars cannot be accommodated in front of
lots
CASE I 1) Two cars cannot be parked perpendicular
to street in front of building because
stall depth must be at least 19 feet
(VII.C.4.b.1) and only a 15'-foot set-
back is shown.
CASE II 2) Two cars cannot be parked perpendicular
to street along each side of building
because stall width must be at least 9
feet (VII.C.4.b.1) and area setbacks
must be at least 2 feet (VII .C.4.e.2) ,
for a total of 11 feet each side. Side
setbacks shown are only 10 and 10i feet.
a
- Mr. John B. Powers
November 29, 1976
Page Two
I>k ,
CASE III 3) Two cars cannot be parked parallel to
the street because 300 sq. ft./car
(VII.C.6) x 2 cars = 600 sq. ft. mini-
mum area is required, and , allowing for
the 2 foot setback requirement, only 44.5
feet x 13 feet = 578.5 sq- ft. are avail-
able. Additionally, although the 22 lineal
feet per parallel parking space x 2 cars =
44 feet would barely fit into the 44.5
frontage shown, parallel parking in front
of' the building would necessitate exten-
sive maneuvering 'on the sidewalk, which
is expressly prohibited by Section VII.C.4.e.1.
CASE IV B. Cars cannot be accommodated in the rear of the
building because the driveway must be at least
12 feet wide (VII.C.4.d.1) i add on the 2 foot
setback, and 14 feet is required on one side of
the building. The maximum side setback shown is
10.5 feet.
CASE V C. Both cars cannot be accommodated along one side
of .the building because of the reasons in Case II ,
above , and Section VIL. 0-4-c. states that "Parking
facilities shall be designed so that each motor
vehicle may proceed to and from-;;the parking space
provided for it without requiring the moving of any
other motor vehicle".'
2. Possible alternative arrangements are as follows:
A. Cars could be accommodated in front of lot in
the following ways:
CASE L 1) Perpendicular to ,streot in front of
building. This would require the building
to' have a front setback of 19 feet.
CASE II_ . 2) ` Perpendicular to street along each side .of
building. This would ,require the building
be set back 11 feet from each side line.
This would be a poor design, however, be-
cause it .would severely limit access to
side doors, .and , therefore , the owners would
not be likely to use the spaces.
' a
,� t
Mr. John B. Powers
November 29, 1976
Page Three
CASE III 3) There is no alternative to Case III,
because any arrangement of parallel
parking would require extensive maneu-
vering on the sidewalk, which is
prohibited.
CASE IV B. Cars could be accommodated in rear by allowing
14 feet along one side (12 feet for driveway
and 2 feet for setback) . A
CASE V C. There is no feasible ,alternative to Case V. as
parking along one side of,the house to allow each
car to be moved independently would require a mini-
mum side setback of 9 feet + 9 feet + 2 feet = 20
feet. Add this to the .10.,,foot setback on the other
side, and the resultant house would be only 14.5
feet x 39 feet.
The applicant 's plans, as presented, . show no parking areas, and,
as I have attempted to demonstrate above, I see no way parking for
the required two automobiles can be provided within the regulations
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore , I am requesting that you enforce the Zoning Ordinance
with respect to Off-Street Parking against the person requesting
a building permit for the lot at 24 Southwick Street.
Please inform me of the final determination of this matter.
Sincerely,
!!��4 Lz,�4—
Staley eDermet
SM/mbm
Enclosures (9)
r
t '
_ 1
4Q,
2
f
10.5
au
44.E
F-
2 _-
iA
sz. �•Zz _ _o•zz _._. yz:.
7rv&201t All. NO - -
"�� W ONShHyX�.
�w
1311 e �N add
•of.
-i
07
c
3
i
— 4
_ E
`- '. :.._., ...-..._ .. .-. �. ..._........ .. a r.«_....... - .r.' '.-.:.
F
<.
ol
WMWAY
10
u
_.. _. ._. ............. ... _. - _ . ._. _... .„... - — —,-.. _ _ —
GPS �
rc
W ,
10
t5 ,1 NOT
Wme
C� Z
,
IO 10-IS
a _
--- .-_
-- - - -
u
j'
i
Y _
- - --- _.CCSWnl. 5eLAQ 3 ►T
Sit r,
C ¢S ;t Titft Tom
-L%La( . .tivf4 NTib
-s fazr
AP 'IItg _5W
moi_
M ,
\ L la 1.
N
oc, _
cR '"
t=�
I -
f �
WILLIAM J. TINTI CITY OF SALEM PETER R. MERRY
CITY SOLICITOR ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
70 WASHINGTON STREET MASSACHUSETTS 15 DERBY SQUARE
SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM. MA 01970
745-3030 744-2948
December 1 , 1976
Mr. John B. Powers
Building Inspector
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. Powers:
You have requested my opinion with regard to an objection to proposed con-
struction on the lot at 24 Southwick Street. Mr. McDermott's letter,
citing Section VII, (c) (6) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, analyzes the
various possibilities for providing the required two parking spaces con-
sistent with proposed construction.
I do not find it necessary to deal with each of the cases presented as
I feel that Mr. McDermott has misinterpreted the relevant sections of
the bylaw in case II. Case II reads as follows :
Two cars cannot be parked perpendicular to street along
each side of building because stall width must be at
least 9 feet (VII (c) (4) (6) (1 )) and area setbacks
must be at least 2 feet (VII (c) (4) (e) (2)) , for a
total of 11 feet each side. Side setbacks shown are
only 10 and 102 feet.
The word "stall " , which is not defined in the bylaw, refers to the
two-dimensional space necessary for a parking space. Numbers 1 and
2 of Section VII (c) (4) (6) establish that a stall must be 9 feet
wide, and 19 feet deep where, as in the instant case, perpendicular
or angle parking is involved. There does not seem to be a question
on either the surveyed plan or the diagram accompanying Case II of
the existence of a "stall" on each side of the lot going back from
the street.
The question then focuses on the meaning of Section VII (c) (e) (2)
which Mr. McDermott suggests establishes an "area setback. " The
section referred to reads as follows:
Mr. John B. Powers
December 1 , 1976
Page 2
2. The surfaced area of a parking lot and all entrance
and exit drives shall be set back a minimum of two feet
from all lot .lines, except where an access driveway
crosses the street lot line.
The language of the section is unambiguous and requires that the "surfaced
area of any parking lot shall be set back two feet from the lot line. It
does not create any additional setback requirement with regard to the loca-
tion of a stall . If, for instance, the stalls on each side of the lot in
question are not surfaced, though the stall may come within nnP font of
the adjacent lot there would bg no viol.at'ion of the above-cited Section
2. It would seem that the rationale for the section is to prevent one
party from placing asphalt or waterproof material up to the lot line,
thereby channeling all surface water on to an abuttor's property..
It is, therefore, my opinion that Case II of Mr. McDermott's letter is
not a correct statement of the law and that a stall of appropriate size
exists on each side of the proposed structure.
Very truly yours,
Peter R. Merry
PRM:acd
�COMIT� G1
20IL?ING DEPT
9lSRf�i.M(uF.Omr
WILLIAM J. TINTI �Q 10
WILLIAM mm R
CITY SOUCITOa CITY OF SALEM ,{{��AY'F�i£� IT. C�JTP�CITY SOLICITOR
70 N/ASHING,TON STREET MASSACHUSETTS RM'I�[���c FF.Y SG'.IARE
SALEM, MA 01970 CITY
I` Y OF s),Ll bj;4g$970
745-9030 744-
. �
March 29, 1977
Mr. David W. Pierce
Pierce, McLaughlin & Company
Fifteen Chestnut Street
Peabody, Massachusetts 01960
Dear Mr. Pierce:
I would call your attention to Massachusetts General Law
Chapter 40A, Section 11, a copy of which I have attached. This
section in effect, states that once a Notice of Hearing for change
in a zoning law has been published, no building permit may be law-
fully issued under the prior zoning.
On February 1, 1977, a change in the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Salem was advertised which required a minimum of 5,000 square
feet of area and 50 feet of frontage for all lots whenever created.
It is my understanding that the lot in question does not have
the adequate area and therefor, a building permit cannot be issued.
If in fact, the proposed Zoning amendment is not passed by the
City Council, a building permit at that point in time, may legally
be issued.
In any case, you are free to apply to the Board of Appeals for
a Variance from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance in order to utilize
the lot.
If you have any further questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
William J. Tinti
City Solicitor
WJT/dld
Enclosure
cc: Building Inspector
i
~ Allc f/UCSCA/ A//i `4'AIM/N6S
�.�.s
J `
Q � PRepessn � �
FOtlAIGMPYe.0
24 x39' 1
,
44,5'
SOU THWICK ST.
PLM S8=1M LMMON
OF PROPOS► M&MMON
IN MLEPt 4248
SCALE /"= 20' OCTOBER 7 1976
Ife- en
♦rta+`
REGISTERED 7AND SURVE r*