• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
  • Log In
Itemlive

Itemlive

North Shore news powered by The Daily Item

  • News
  • Sports
  • Opinion
  • Lifestyle
  • Police/Fire
  • Government
  • Obituaries
  • Archives
  • E-Edition
  • Help
This article was published 13 year(s) and 7 month(s) ago

Home, seawall renovations still awaiting final approval

jbutterworth

October 26, 2011 by jbutterworth

MARBLEHEAD – Groom Construction has yet to receive final approval for the renovation of an ocean-side home and the reconstruction and enlargement of a seawall at 15 Spray Ave.The Conservation Commission approved the seawall a month ago – but the state Department of Environmental Protection is due to examine the seawall and Groom?s plans Monday, Nov. 7 to resolve safety questions and wetlands concerns.Groom plans to make the house?s seawall higher to fend off waves and neighbors feared that the new seawall would divert the waves to their property. King said in September that the final plans “minimize any increased risk of storm damage.” Conservation Commission Chairman Walter Haug said two independent consultants offered evidence that the wall design would not affect neighboring properties and the commissioners issued an order of conditions for the work.Attorney Carl King, who represents neighbors of the house, was scheduled to appear before the Board of Appeals Tuesday evening in connection with a dispute between the neighbors and Building Commissioner Robert Ives and his staff.Ives and his staff have ruled that the renovated house at 15 Spray Ave., is existing construction, not new construction.?I think they (figured) it wrong,” King said, stating that new construction would require a variance from the Board of Appeals, since the house exceeds the height and side yard requirements of the Zoning Bylaws.?You can peek through the windows from the street and every piece of wood you see is brand new.”However, after King filed his application to contest the building commissioner?s ruling, Groom modified their plans and Kings and his clients decided not to go forward.Groom and their lawyer, Attorney Paul Lynch, did not attend the hearing. The appeals board unanimously approved King?s request to withdraw without prejudice, meaning that he can bring the appeal forward again if his clients wish.

  • jbutterworth
    jbutterworth

    View all posts

Related posts:

No related posts.

Primary Sidebar

Advertisement

Sponsored Content

What questions should I ask when choosing a health plan?

Advertisement

Upcoming Events

#SmallBusinessFriday #VirtualNetworkingforSmallBusinesses #GlobalSmallBusinessSuccess #Boston

June 20, 2025
Boston Masachusset

2025 GLCC Annual Golf Tournament

August 25, 2025
Gannon Golf Club

Adult Color/Paint Time

July 11, 2025
5 N Common St, Lynn, MA, United States, Massachusetts 01902

Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board

June 17, 2025
Zoom Meeting

Footer

About Us

  • About Us
  • Editorial Practices
  • Advertising and Sponsored Content

Reader Services

  • Subscribe
  • Manage Your Subscription
  • Activate Subscriber Account
  • Submit an Obituary
  • Submit a Classified Ad
  • Daily Item Photo Store
  • Submit A Tip
  • Contact
  • Terms and Conditions

Essex Media Group Publications

  • La Voz
  • Lynnfield Weekly News
  • Marblehead Weekly News
  • Peabody Weekly News
  • 01907 The Magazine
  • 01940 The Magazine
  • 01945 The Magazine
  • North Shore Golf Magazine

© 2025 Essex Media Group