Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nonconforming Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues 22 James Street matter after neighbors challenge third‑floor work and request as‑built plans
Summary
Owners of 22 James Street requested retroactive approval for exterior changes and a third level; neighbors said the contractor removed the roof and built beyond the issued permit. The board continued the matter to Nov. 20 and asked for accurate as‑built plans and proposed conditions, including a restriction against renting by the room.
The Woburn Board of Appeals on Oct. 1 continued the petition from 22 James Street LLC after extensive public comment and detailed questioning about work already performed on a nonconforming two‑family dwelling.
Attorney Joseph Tarvey told the board the petitioner seeks approval under §7.3 of the Woburn zoning ordinance to allow construction that the applicant characterizes as a third floor on an existing two‑family dwelling. Tarvey said submitted materials include elevation plans, photos of the original and current structure, and a 2021 legal opinion from the city solicitor about the definition of 'story' and building height. Tarvey reported the building department certified the structure’s new height at 34.9 feet.
Neighbors and multiple citizens said the project went beyond an interior remodel and that the roof was removed and a new, taller roof and third level were added. Several residents said the work produced a structure out of character with James and Davis streets, raised concerns about increased parking demand on a narrow street, and feared the building could be rented by the room. One neighbor said the building ‘‘towers over everything’’ on the block and urged the board to deny the request; others asked the board to require conditions preventing rooming-house or per‑room rentals.
Contractor Anthony Rose and co-owner Rob Klein acknowledged changes made during construction and apologized to the board for not appreciating that the amendment required §7.3 approval for two‑family dwellings. Rose said some interior footprint changes enlarged bedrooms approved on the building permit rather than creating new unrelated units; he and the applicant said inspections (including rough plumbing) had been performed and that the height was verified by the building department.
The board repeatedly emphasized it must tie any decision to accurate, stamped plans that reflect the as‑built condition. The applicant offered to provide as‑built drawings and revised plans; after the board requested clarity on unit layouts, egress, parking and the lot-size calculations, the applicant requested a continuance.
A board motion to continue the matter was approved; the hearing was continued to Nov. 20 in the committee room. The board asked the applicant to share revised plans and a proposed set of conditions with neighbors before the next meeting and indicated it would consider conditioning approval (for example, to require the property remain a two‑family and prohibit per‑room rentals).
