Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Reconstruction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA unanimously grants finding to raise and rebuild 2‑family at 158 Salem Street
Summary
After reviewing departmental memos and a presentation from the applicant’s attorney, the Wakefield ZBA found that raising and reconstructing the legal nonconforming two‑family at 158 Salem Street will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and granted the requested determination unanimously with an added paragraph clarifying nonconforming‑use status.
The Wakefield Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously on July 15 to grant a finding under bylaw section 190‑27A allowing the raising and reconstruction of a legal nonconforming two‑family dwelling at 158 Salem Street.
Attorney Brian McGrail told the board the house would be relocated onto a newly created Lot 1 as part of an approved subdivision, brought into current setback compliance and rebuilt without substantially increasing the nonconforming nature of the lot. He said prior approvals anticipated this resiting and that the project is consistent with previously approved plans. "This is the proposal to raise the existing two‑family dwelling and reconstruct a new two‑family dwelling on Lot 1...and it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood," McGrail said. (Brian McGrail)
Chair Tom Lucey read departmental correspondence into the record: Wakefield Fire Chief Tom Purcell raised no zoning objection but noted that raising the structure would require review of supplemental water supply and hydrant details; the town engineering department recommended the utilities and grading match the most recent planning board definitive subdivision plan and noted a roadway‑cut moratorium on that section of Salem Street; the conservation commission reiterated landscape conditions tied to the project’s prior order of conditions.
A board member moved to grant the finding and added language clarifying that the reconstruction does not constitute a substantial extension of the legal nonconforming use; the amended motion was seconded and passed unanimously with recorded yes votes from Dave Hatfield, Joe Pride, Chip Tarbell, Kasumi Humphreys and Chair Tom Lucey.
The board stated it cannot impose typical conditions on a pure finding but placed the departmental memos on the public record and expects the applicant to follow engineering and conservation recommendations during construction.
