78A WEBB STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION 74520 400/oP4
TINTI, QUINN, GROVER & FREY, P.C.
27 CONGRESS STREET,SUITE 414
WILLIAM J.TINTI SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
tinti@rintilaw.com WILLIAM B.ARDIFF(1965•1995)
WILLIAM F. UINN TELEPHONE
Q MARCIA MULFORD CINI
WilliamFQuinn@aol.com (978)745.8065 • (978)7442948 OF COUNSEL
SCOTT M.GROVER TELECOPIER JOHN D.KEENAN
smgrover@tintilaw.com (978)745.3369 OF COUNSEL
MARC P.FREY www.tinrilawsom JERALD A.PARISELLA
mpfrey@tintilaw.com OF COUNSEL
JONATHAN M.OFILOS
jofilos@tintilaw.com
THOMAS J.HOGAN
tjhogan@tintilaw.com
MARCY D.HAUBER
mhauber@tintilaw.com
CHRISTINA M.MIHOS
cmihos@tintilaw.com
October 28, 2015
James Shea
45 Dearborn Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 78A Webb Street Zoning
Land Court 10 MISC 443245 (JCC)
Dear James:
Based upon the Judgment of Dismissal entered recently by the Land Court in this appeal of the
Salem ZBA's 2010 Zoning Decision, I have obtained and recorded an attested copy of the Zoning Board's
original Decision dated Nov. 3, 2010 granting your Special Permit to allow demolition of the existing
structure and construct a new 2-family dwelling at 78A Webb Street in accordance with the conditions
of that Decision and the plans submitted. No further appeal can be filed as a matter of law.
This means that you should now be able to now pull your demolition and building permits to
construct the project. You have one year from the recording date (today)to pull the building permit and
begin construction, as all Zoning decisions expire after one year(that period can be extended by 6
months provided that you file for such extension before the decision has expired). Please consult with
Salem Building Inspector Tom St. Pierre on all such permitting and construction matters.
Very truly yours,
William F. Quinn
cc.Thomas St. Pierre, Building Inspector
SS�i
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
LAND COURT
DEPARTMENT OF THE TRLAL COURT
ESSEX, ss. 10 MISC 443245 (JCC)
KEITH C. VILLA,
Plaintiff,
v.
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.
JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL
On September 29,2015,this court issued a fourteen-day Order for Plaintiff to file an
affidavit showing good cause why he failed to appear at the Status Conference held on
September 28,2015. No affidavit has been filed. Accordingly,it is hereby ordered that the case
be DLSMZSSED,without prejudice.
TZy
RDERIe Court(Cutler, C.J.)
Attest:
Deborah J.Patterson,Recorder
Dated: October 14,2015
A.TRLPE#-;O *
ATTEST
��aboi-�rtt,571 ctbc •
RECORDER
1
$ x CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 1
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
r TELEPHONE: 978.745-9595
�u+ FAX: 978-740-9846
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ZQlJ NOVP 21
MAYOR
November3,2010
NII�I�f1�I�IIII111II11�Nllf��lil�
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals SO ESSEX 09#6443 34478 Pg448B
PERMIT Pe 11
Petition of JAMES SE EA,seeking a Special Permit and Variances to allow the
demolition of the existing nonconforming structure at 78A iWEBB 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,§ 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
smries 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 bearing,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 lot,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.
4'
.� 2
7. At the hearing Attomey Grover also presented a petition of approximately 4Q
neighbors in support of the project.
&. 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 vary the 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.
i •
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 Hams) 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 constniction.
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 (500%) 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 fiftypercent (50%) of its floor area at the time of
destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the
provisions of the Ordinance.
Rlam x
Rom tem, air
Salem Board of Appeals
4
I A COPY OF THIS DEC[SION 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 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.
_Dens
D
I hwfty ieet to >save.
no doe ova lnatmmem on eL9aoa am,,
"0 APPEAL has been Ilio In ft �
A lhm
ATTEn..
0"z
rasa
(11itLI of S Iem, �R� sstt�husett�
Office of the Ctg Touncil
"r. � friit�+Mall
'pecU�.
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE DAVID B. GAUDREAULT WARD COUNCILLORS
PRESIDENT
1993 1993
DONALD T. BATES DEBORAH E. BURKINSHAW GEORGE A NOWAK
GEORGE P. MCCABE KEVIN R. HARVEY
JANE STIRGWOLT CITY CLERK VINCENT J. FURFARO
STANLEY J. USOVICZ,JR. LEONARD F. O'LEARY
DAVID B. GAUDREAULT
May 3, 1993 SARAH M. HAYES
MARK E. BLAIR
Mr. Leo Tremblay
Building Inspector
Salem, Ma. 01970
Dear Mr. Tremblay:
We have received numerous complaints concerning the illegal use
of the garage located on the Andrew Street Extension ( 78A Webb St. ) .
This garage is presently being used as an auto shop. Vehicles are
frequently parked for repair on the Andrew Street Extension and
adjacent private property.
Please issue a "cease and desist" order to the property owner to
stop all illegal use of this garage.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
ORGE A. NOWA KEVIN R. HARVEY
COUNCILLOR WARD ONE COUNCILLOR WARD T
ANE TIRGWOLT
COUNCILLOR AT LARGE
1.
tFEF,-H-U3 THh 9'. 47 AM PIERCE ARCHITECTS FAX NO. 9767453376 P. 1
Daniel H. Pierce&J.Tracy Pierce
22 Andrew Street
Salem,MA 01970
14 January 2002
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
Nina Cohen, Chairperson
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 11
ilding'
Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals:
As homeowners at 22 Andrew Street and neighbors of the subject property, we are IIN Iiting t,
confirm our strenuous objections to the applicant's request for Special Permit and4 lVanai 3S to
construct a 2-unit residential building at 78A Webb Street in Salem. We request th fore, t ii the
Board of Appeals deny the petition for either a Special Permit or Variances for the ;Ilowir
reasons:
1. The existing structure located on the property is a "Private Garage" which i only ' emittcd
in R-2 two-family residential districts as an accessory use when it is clearly 'Qenta to the
principal use. Therefore, since this private garage is notJncidental to a resi ,ntial u' that
currently exists or previously existed on the property, the current building E 0 use i t.
"Nonconformity" as defined by Article VIII of the Zoning Ordinance.
i
2. The lot is a "Nonconforming LOP' (Sec. 8-2). With only 1194 square feet, area, a lot is
substantially below the minimum 5000 square feet of area required by.the r
inan and
with only 28 feet of lot frontage the lot is far below the minimum 50 feet ontag
required by the Ordinance.
3. The "Nonconforming Use of Land" (Sec. 8-3), although no longer permi$ able un .i the
current Ordinance, may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful an is i t:
enlarged, increased or extended. F
4. The "Nonconforming Structure" (Sec. 8-4), which could not be built undt� ;lthe ter s of
the current Ordinance by reasons of restrictions on area, lot coverage, yard tback '
dimensions, location on the lot, etc., may be continued so long as it remains therwi lawful,
and is not enlarged or altered in any way which increases its none i f i
I
5. The "Nonconforming Use of Structure" (Sec. 8-5). We in the neighborhc 1d have aen
concerned for years that the structure is unlawfully being used for "storago Qf buil lg
supplies" which is not allowedin an R-2 District under the terms of the cuii nt Zoi ig
Ordinance. Such use of a structure is only permitted in B-4 and I Districts. owev the
use of the structure may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawfu pfd is t
I
I
I!'
s.
AaB,-LO-03 THU 9: 18 AM PIERCE ARCHITECTS FAX NO. 8707463376 F. Z
- I
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 14 January 2003 Page
enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved or structurally altered in any NA ay,
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 structut 3 must
conform to the regulations for the district, and the nonconforming use may not be r:sumed.
In conclusion, based on the above nonconformities, we do not believe that the Zoning Boardof
Appeals should permit or authorize the issuance of a Special Permit for a change to another e,
(conforming or nonconforming) based on the fact that the Board can not find that the use a.ts
changed, altered and enlarged would not depart from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
Specifically, as stipulated in Section 9.4, subparagraph b of the Ordinance, if the proposed it icrease
in volume or area of the building is "unreasonable", the board may not approve a special p mnit
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 grantii g of
Variances for this proposed project would incur substantial detriment to the public good an 4 would
nullify the intent of the district and the purpose of the "Zoning Ordinance, we request the Zo ing
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 unlawlul
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 ax'st, and
to direct the owners of the property to correct any violations as required to comply with the ll
applicable Codes and Ordinances.
Thank you for your support and consideration.
Sincerely,
Paniel J. i
Tracy Pierce
3
a
1
1
f
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Official Business Cz
n� 19 3 �0 .. _
' P iTT'F" PRIV
USE, 8300
Print your name, address and ZIP Code here
• Leo E. Tremblay, Zoning Enforcement
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
IiI,,,,,,flLl„h„IIL,,:,Ild II:"Ill,:„�II,i,,,lal,lal,1l,,,ll
SENDER:
• Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services'+ I also wish to receive the
.• Complete items 3,and 4a&b. following services (for an extra
• Print your name and address on the reverse of this.krm so that we can fee):
.return this card to you.
(�-rsr,• Attach this form to the front of the meilpLsee,orr o�he back if space 1. ❑ Addressee's Address
Y' does not permit.
• Write"Return Receipt Reduested"on the rimailpiec$'below the article number. 2 ❑ Restricted Delivery
• The Return Receipt Fee will provide you the signature of the person delivers
to and the date of delivery. Consult postmaster for fee.
3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number
James Shea P 009 226 294
Professional Roofing 4b. Service Type
78A Webb St. ❑ Registered ❑ Insured
Salem, MA 01970 X Certified ED COD
❑ Express Mail Return Receipt for
Merchandise
7. Date of Delivery
1 - rc -5
. Si nature (Addressee) 8. Addre ee's Address (Only if requested
Y
and fee is paid)
6fSignature (Agent)
PS Form 3811, November 1990 *U.S.GPO;1991-287*66 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
(Etta of ' Ulrm, Massar4usefts
Public Propertg Department
+Nuilbing Department
tine #Ulem Green
508-745-9545 Ext. 300
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
May 13, 1993
councillor Nowak, Ward One
Councillor Harvey, Ward two
councillor Stirgwolt, Councillor at Large
RE: 78A Webb St. (R-2)
Dear Councillors:
This department, in response to your correspondence dated May 3, 1993
regarding alleged violations at the above referenced property, made and
extensive inspection and found nothing to corroborate these allegations.
Additionally, a letter was received from James Shea, owner of the property,
stating that there is no auto body shop located there and inviting you to
visit the site at any time.
At this time there does not appear to be any necessity for further
action. If, after accepting Mr. Shea"s invitation, you are still not
satisfied, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
0
Leo E. Tremblay (/
Zoning Enforcement Officer
LET:bms
/78Awebb2/
Titu of 11*ttirm, Massar4usets
`ss iso Public Propertg Department
'Nuilbing Department
(One Onlem Green
588-745-9595 Ext. 3H➢
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
April 9, 1993
James Shea
78A Webb St.
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 78A Webb St. (R-2)
Dear Mr. Shea:
It was brought to my attention that the above referenced property, the
home of Professional Roofing, is being used for a different use, and it has
been alleged you no longer own said property. I would appreciate your
letting me know the status of this property as any change in use would most
certainly require action from the Board of Appeal . Also, could you please
inform me as to the status of the appeal on this property. I am aware that
this property was granted a special permit to construct a second story
addition and this special permit was subsequently appealed. We have
nothing in our files as to the outcome of this appeal and we would be most
appreciative if you could provide us with this information.
I thank you for your prompt and courteous attention in this matter and
look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Leo E. Tremblay '
Zoning Enforcement/Officer
LET:bms "
cc: Councillor Stirgwolt
Councillor Harvey, Ward 2
Titu of gWrtn, Mttosar4uoetto
Public Propertp Department
9e� +iguilbing Department
(One #stem Green
500-745-9595 Ext. 380
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer May 3, 1993
James Shea
78A Webb St.
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 78A Webb St. (R-2)
Dear Mr. Shea:
On April 9, 1993 I sent a communication to you regarding the current
use of the above referenced property. As to date I have not received any
response from you. I have however, received correspondence from three (3)
of the City of Salem Councillors, a copy of which I have enclosed, stating
the property is being used as an auto shop. This property is located in
the Residential Two Family District and said use is a violation of the City
of Salem Zoning Ordinance.
You are hereby ordered to Cease and Desist all illegal uses and to
contact this office within seven (7) days of receipt of this notice.
Failure to comply with this notice can result in the appropriate legal
action being taken.
I thank you in advance for your courtesy and prompt attention in this
matter.
Sincerely,
Leo E. Tremblay
Zoning Enforcement Officer
LET:bms
cc: Councillor Stirgwolt
Councillor Harvey, Ward 2
Councillor Nowak, Ward 1
Enclosure: (1)
Certified Mail !kP 009 226 294
MO SENDER:
y • Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. also Wish t0 receive the
m • Complete items 3,and 4a&b. following services (for an extra U
a Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can fee):
N return this card to you. y
d
• Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space 1. El Addressee's Address y
does not permit.
L • Write"Return Receipt Requested"on the mailpiece below the article number. 2 ❑ Restricted Delivery G
• The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the data 0
c delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. m
cc
3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number /�� r^�
rti J L `
m �
4b. Service Typ d
.tet —1 R
O ❑ Registered ❑ Insured
y ` l Certified ❑ COD 5
❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for
R Merchandise w
1-70 7. Date of Delivery '
¢ 5. Signature (Addressee) 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested y
and fee is paid)
L
¢ 6. Signature (Agent) ~
I 3
> PS Form 3811, December 1991 *U.S.GPO:/992-32= DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 111111
Official Business PENALTY FOR PRIVATE
USE TO AVOID PAYMENT
OF POSTAGE,$30Q
t
Print your name, address and ZIP Code here
oto Z.
AdIL
L=R
Professional Roofing Contractors, Inc.
P.O. BOX 262 45 DEARBORN STREET
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(508) 744-6888
May 12 , 1993
Leo E . Tremblay
Director of Public Property
One Salem Green
Salem, Mass . 01970
RE : 78A Webb Street
Dear Mr . Tremblay ,
I recently received your letter regarding the
78A Webb Street property . There is no auto shop
located at this site . Please invite the counselors
to visit the site if there is a problem .
Thank-you .
Sincerely ,
James W . Shea
.Owner.
April 9, 1993
James Shea
78A Webb St.
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 78A Webb St. (R-2)
Dear Mr. Shea:
It was brought to my attention that the above referenced property, the
home of Professional Roofing, is being used for a different use, and it has
been alleged you no longer own said property. I would appreciate your
letting me know the status of this property as any change in use would most
certainly require action from the Board of Appeal. Also, could you please
inform me as to the status of the appeal on this property. I am aware that
this property was granted a special permit to construct a second story
addition and this special permit was subsequently appealed. We have
nothing in our files as to the outcome of this appeal and we would be most
appreciative if you could provide us with this information.
I thank you for your prompt and courteous attention in this matter and
look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Leo E. Tremblay
Zoning Enforcement Officer
LET:bms
cc: Councillor Stirgwolt
Councillor Harvey, Ward 2
NOTICE OF APPEAL �r ry
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'Bribn, 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 Harris, 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 James 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 Iocus 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'/2 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%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.
C--AMOichael�E.
h CWilla
is aorney,
Dated: November 23,2010 OBrien
r 91 Ord Street
Salem, MA 01970
Tel. 978-745-0780
BBO# 376035
unl r CITY OF SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS
/tx t
BOARD OF APPEAL
^
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELEPHONE: 978-745.9595
dr FAX. 978.740-9846
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL Cil li.,� _ �• �h
MAYOR
NoN elllbl'I 3, 2x10
Decisioll
Cityuf Salenl Zoning Board of Appeals
Petition ofJAINIES SHEA, seeking a Special Permit and Variances Wallow the
demolition of the existing nonconforming structure at 78A WEBB STREET and to
construct a new building containing.two residential dwelling units with thco parkin ;
spaces 112-21.
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 20, 2010, pursuant to N'LI<,
Cenertl Law Ch. -FOA, § 11. The hearing was closed on October 20, 2010 with the fullov.ing
Zoning I-Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Annie di.,
Beth Debski, Becky Curr n, 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
:uld 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 Permlit to reconstnlct a nonconforming
structure.
3. T11e current use of the property located at 78A Webb Street is a garage,currently
used to store equipment.
1. Petitioner proposes all addition above the garage that would contain two residenti.d
d'.yclliltg units, %1itll the existing g.urage Used for parking.
5. At the hearing, Attorney Grover clarified that the request Was to add on to .Ind
renovate the existing garage struclUre, Holt to demolish it, as indicated un the
application form.
I,. At the hearing, AttomevGroyerstated that because the building occupied .Iln1,)Nt the
entire lot, there would lie no place to put additional parking spaces; therefore,
meeting the requirement of three parking spaces fora two-family home, %%hick
Aloard Use in the K1 zoning dhtlict, Wnould C011stitllte a h•udship.
?. At the hearing, Attorney Grover also presented a petition of approsinaatelh 40
neighbors in support of the project.
S. '['he Board of Appeals received a letter prior to the hearing in support of the prl,ie�t
from Ward One Councillor Robert McCarthy, 133 Bay View Avenue, stating that the
renovation and change in use would be a positive improvement to the
neighborhood.
R. At the hearing,several residents, including At-Large Councillors Steven Pinto and
Arthur Sargent,spoke in support of the project,saying it presented an opportunit y 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 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, snakes the followiu
zl
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 nuay 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 vacv the terns of the Residential Two-Family Zunis
District to allow frau the proposed addition and renovation.
7. In permitting such change, the f;uard of Appeals requires certain appropriate
conditions and safeguards as noted below.
Cuuh the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing
including, but not liinuted to, the Plans, Documents and testinnomy, the Zoning Board of
Appeals concludes:
1. A Valiance from the number of allowed stories is ,ranted to allow fur tlr:
11
proposed renovation and addition to the structure on 78A Webb Street.
2. A Special Permit to alter a nonconforming structure is gr med to allow G'r
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,
Currin,Debski, Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for
Variances and subject to the following tenns, 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 anon issioner.
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 anyconstruction.
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 front any Gty Board or Commission havin
Cla!'Y OF THS llECa5h>N HAS BEEN FILED Willi `Cl
CI1 fE PLANNING Sl�:1N!
AND TIME CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if mie,shall be trade pursuant to Section 17 of the hlassachuseus
General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed withut 20 days of filing of this decision in the
office of the City Clerk Pursuant to the i`lass.tchusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Secti"n
11, the Variance or Special Permit ,,nutted lirrrin shall not take effect until a cope of thr
decision beamig the certificate k,f the OtV UL r1. leas ['cell filed with the Essex South Re isuv
U1 Deeds.
t
........... CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR
SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01 970
--- ----- TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595
FAX, 978-740-9846
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 201 l",! -3 P 2: 3 b
Noxernbcr 3, 1010
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Petition of.JANIES SHEA, seeking a Special 1'erolit .111(1 Variallees to allow the
demolition of the existing nooconforming structure at 78A WEBB STRLETand In
construct new building containing two residential dwelling units with hio parhill",
spaces 112-21.
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 20, 2010,pursuant to khu�
General L.aw Ch. 40A, 5 11. The hearing was closed on October 20, 2010 with the follov.'111;
Zoning Board of Appeals Rienibets present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris,
10
Beth Debski, Becky Curran, Bonnie Belair(alternate), and jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate).
Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to 3.33, and Variances pursuant to Section -1.1. 1
and Section 3.1 of the Q),of Salem Zoning Ordinances.
Statements of fact:
I. Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner at the hearing.
2. In a petition dated September 29, 2010, petitioner requested Variances from the
number of pat-king spaces required per dwettilig unit and the maximum nLInibo:r of
stones permitted,as well as a Special Pet nit: to reconstruct a nonconforming
str1actilre.
3. The current use of the property located at 78A Webb Street is it garage, current!(
Used to store eqUipment.
4. Petitioner proposes an addition above the garage that would contain two residential
&,VC11111- Units, Stith the e., stino, garage used for parking.
5. At the hearing, Attorney Grover clarified that the request was to add on to and
renovate [Ile CXIStIlIg n�M.a"C StRIC11AIC, not to LIC1110fiSlI I ,*[ as indicated ndicated on the
application form.
G. At the hearing, Attorney Grover stated that because the building OCCLIPICLI almost 111C
entire lot, there would be 110 Place to PLIt additional parking spaces; therefore,
meeting the requirement of three parking spaces fora two-farrid,
vlionie, which is ,in
11110%ked use in the R2 zoning district, would constitute A hardship.
i
7. At the hearing,Atromev Grover also presented a petition of approsimatelc 40
neighbors in support of the project.
5. The Board of Appeals received a letter prior to the hearing in support of the pt u)Cct
from Ward One Councillor Robert NlcCtrthy, 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 opponunin to
redevelop an unattractive site, and that the shift from a commercial to a residenti.tl
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 salted 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 plaits
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, undenrtilized site and to change the current
commercial use to a residential use in a residential neighborhood.
4. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoniirg
District to allow for the proposed addition and renovation.
i. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropri.rc
conditions and safeguards as noted below.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearin
irdLILIM% but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of
Appeals concludes:
L A Variance from the number of allowed stories is granted to allose for the
proposed renov:uiun and addition to the snuctu e on 78A Webb Street.
?. 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 follo%6ng terns, conditions, and safeguards:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all cityand state statutes, ordinances, codes :md
regulations.
3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to
and approved by the Building Comutussioner.
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 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 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
stnrcture(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than f illy
percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (500/,,) of its
replacement cost at the time of destnrction. If the stnucture is demolished 11
any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50'%,) of its replacement
cost or more than f ifty percent (500X) of its floor area at the time of
destnrction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the
provisions of the Ordinance.
J/ 1 6Lrt
bm it
Steri, carr
Salem Board of Appeals
A COPY OF TFUS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITHH THE PLANNING BOARD
AND THE CITY CLEF
Appeal from this decision, if:un•, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the MassaChtlSenS
General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 30 daps of filing of this decision in the
uffice of the Citi-Cerl:. Pursuant to the \lassachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section
11, the V.uiance or Special Permit ;granted heft Im shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision heating the certificate of the Cin Clcilc has been filed with the Essex South Ke'istn,
of Deeds.
CITY OF SALEM
FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS
48 LAFAYETTE STREET
SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
SALEM
FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
TEL
77,
CEOFF1HOURS
8-9 A.M. & 1-2 P.M.
1
N
i l i
Gd4.07320..�6 ru:..� , .� ' y
i
4 ��
f
i�.
f
i
L
I �
OBi.07�20.,,.6 ru�•�c._.��_ � a
.r.....-----�-_
Iti
.+
{ . ._
I
"}
<(; '�
� .' .11
: '
A �� � .�
f
I