The URL can be used to link to this page

15 CHERRY HILL AVENUE - BUILDING JACKET C A 34 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts ° Board of Building Regulations and Standards CITY OF Massachusetts State Building Code, 780 CMR SALEM Revised Mar 2011 Building Permit Application To Construct,Repair,Renovate Or Demolish a One-or Two-Family Dwelling �yQ This Section For Official Use Only •V - Building Permit Number: Date Appl' d: T1 t Building Official(Print Name) Signature 1 M t SECTION 1:SITE INFORMATION �j 1.1 Property Address: 1.2 Assessors Map&Parcel Numbers rV n 1.la Is this an acce�t?yes no Map Number Parcel Number yr�n O 1.3 Zoning Information: 1.4 Property Dimensions: Zoning District Proposed Use Lot Area(sq ft) Frontage(ft) n J rn 1.5 Building Setbacks(ft) Front Yard Side Yards Rear Yard Required Provided Required Provided Required Provided 1.6 Water Supply:(M.G.L c.40,§54) 1.7 Flood Zone Information: 1.8 Sewage Disposal System: Public❑ Private❑ Zone: _ Outside Flood Zone? Municipal❑ On site disposal system ❑ Check if yes❑ SECTION 2: PROPERTY OWNERSHIP' 2.1 Owner'of Record: ' ` P S / Bch I- A- k A N1 ,Tp��ze� C/c �„„ �►4 OGg7 (� Name(Print) !� City,State,ZIP t�(r�jS'!!`!t Ril� Lie— 92�S- 2k5--/.510 rnpel(ek�el7� Cninrritt. e�- o.and Street Telephone Email Ad sre ss SECTION 3:DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WOW(check all that apply) New Construction❑ Existing Building❑ Owner-Occupied ❑ Repairs(s) ❑ 1 Alteration(s) ❑ 1 Addition ❑ Demolition ❑ Accessory Bldg.❑ Number of Units_ Other ❑ Specify: S[-}IE:O Brief Description of Proposed Work : T 'J& a . Sh P _ .)(Z& C , Qpa &4!e r r SECTION 4:ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS Item Estimated Costs: Official Use Only Labor and Materials 1.Building $ 1. Building Permit Fee:$ Indicate how fee is determined: 2.Electrical $ ❑Standard City/Town Application Fee ❑Total Project Cost'(Item 6)x multiplier x 3.Plumbing $ 2. Other Fees: $ 4.Mechanical (HVAC) $ List: 5.Mechanical (Fire $ Su ression Total All Fees:$ h 00 Check No. Check Amount: Cash Amount: 6.Total Project Cost: $ D -7 7 — 0 Paid in Full 11 Outstanding Balance Due: l SECTION 5: CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 5.1 Construction Supervisor License(CSL) ? License Number Expiration Date Name of CSL Holder List CSL Type(see below) No.and Street Type Description U I Unrestricted Buildin s u to 35,000 cu.ft.) R Restricted 1&2 Family Dwelling Ctty/I'own,State,ZIP M Masonry - �_ RC Roofin Coverin WS Window and Sidin SF Solid Fuel Burning Appliances I Insulation Telephone Email address D Demolition 5.2 Registered Home Improvement Contractor(HIC) HIC Registration Number Expvation Date HIC Company Name or HIC Registrant Name No.and Street Email address Ci /Town State,ZIP Telephone SECTION 6:WORKERS'COMPENSATION INSURANCE AFFIDAVIT(M.G.L.c.152.§25C(6)) Workers Compensation Insurance affidavit must be completed and submitted with this application. Failure to provide this affidavit will result in the denial of the Issuance of the building permit. Signed Affidavit Attached? Yes .......... ❑ No........... ❑ SECTION 7a:OWNER AUTHORIZATION TO BE COMPLETED WHEN OWNER'S AGENT OR CONTRACTOR APPLIES FOR BUILDING PERMIT I,as Owner of the subject property,hereby authorize to act on my behalf,in all matters relative to work authorized by this building permit application. Print Owner's Name(Electronic Signature) Date SECTION 7b:OWNER'OR AUTHORIZED AGENT DECLARATION By entering my name below,I hereby attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that all of the information contained in this applicatiouisUilc and accurate to the best of my knowledge and understanding. rm Owner's or An ze Agent's Name(Ele onic Signature) Date NOTES: 1. An Owner who obtains a building permit to do his/her own work,or an owner who hires an unregistered contractor (not registered in the Home Improvement Contractor(HIC)Program),will not have access to the arbitration program or guaranty fund under M.G.L.c. 142A.Other important information on the HIC Program can be found at www.mass.eoy/oca Information on the Construction Supervisor License can be found at www.mass.eovidns 2. When substantial work is planned,provide the information below: Total floor area(sq.ft.) (including garage,finished basement/attics,decks or porch) Gross living area(sq.ft.) Habitable room count Number of fireplaces Number of bedrooms Number of bathrooms Number of half/baths Type of heating system Number of decks/porches Type of cooling system Enclosed Open 3. "Total Project Square Footage"may be substituted for"Total Project Cost" i 49.62' O 7 s � i N n/f 2013 HANTZOPOULOS nu n/f NANCY PELLETIER FAMILY TRUST LOT 529 y 6,659 S.F. u 0 r - - PROPOSED FOUNDATION NIN0. 15 ZONING DISTRICT — RESIDENTIAL 1 FAMILY SETBACKS do ZONING REQUIREMENT$ I I ' REQUIRED PROPOSED 12.3'--�— 25'_ 1 ,DD 50 - tI}12.3' PLOT PLAN LOT SIZE 15000 S.F 6659 S.F. FRONT 15' 20.3 SIDE 10 IN REAR 30' 67.5 N =HP�{NOFMgS6105, SALEM, MA 50.00' F UENNI$J. '"'" ' f MCMANNS PREPARED FOR CHERRY HILL AVENUE. ' ° VALLEY STREET 'STEREALTY TRUST Uvo 1 = 20' FEB.; 20, 2014 LANDMARK ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. 0 20' 40' 60, 583 CHESTNUT STREET LYNN, MA 01904 (781)592-7016 �� RENSlONS: JOB NO. 13147C Commonwealth of Massachusetts .dk Citv of Salem 120 Washington St,3rd Floor Salem,MA 01970(978)745-9595 x5641 Return card to Building Division for Certificate of Occupancy Permit No. B-17-843 FEE PAID: $1,400.00 PERMIT TO BUILD DATE ISSUED: 9/8/2017 This certifies that HANTZOPOULOS FAM IRRE TRUST 2013 HANTZOPOULOS has permission to erect, alter, or demolish a building 1S CHERRY,HILL AVENUE Map/Lot: 140332-0 as follows: Other Building Permit CONSTRUCTA NEW,2100SIF SINGLE FAMILY HOME (Requested by 13 Cherry Hill LLC) Contractor Name: ROSS DIMAMBRO DBA: DIMAMBRO&SON CONSTRUCTION Contractor License No: CS-107473 �» 9/8/2017 Building Official Date This permit shall be deemed abandoned and invalid unless the work authorized by this permit is commancedwithin sbtirronths after issuance.The Building Official may grant one or more extensions not to exceed six nwnft each upon written request. All work authorized by this permit shall conform to the approved application and the approved construction documents for which this permit has been granted. All construction,alterations and changes of use of any building and structures shall be in compliance with the 10691 zoning by=laws and codes. This permit shall be displayed in a location clearly visible frotn access street or road and shall be maintained open for publlp btspsc&n for the entire duration of the work until the completion of the same. The Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until all applicablesignalures by the Building and Fire Officials ave p*dd d ti tl>ls,permit. HIC#: 181929 "Persons tantractlnp with wogisteredcorgroclors,do not)"*" cess to the,0 arsintya fund"(as set forth in MGL c.142A). Restrictions: Building plans are to be available on site. All Permit Cards are the property of the PROPERTY OWNER. . onwealth �. City of Salem 120 Washington St 3rd Floor Salem MA 01970 9t (.;78))745-9595 x5641 Return card to Building Division for certificate of Occupancy Structure CITY OF SALEM BUILDING PERMIT Excavation PERMIT TO BE POSTED IN THE WINDOW Footing INSPECTION RECORD Foundation Framing r� Mechanical Insulation „ ( SPECTION: DATE Chimney/Smoke Chamber Final Plumbing/Gas Rough:Plumbing 4* Rough:Gas Final r� !� Electrical Service Rough Final Fire De ent Preliminary f Final Health Department Preliminary Final Certificate Number: B-17-843 Permit Number: B-17-843 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City of Salem This is to Certify that the ..............................................................Single Family Building....................................................... located at Building Type 1 S CHERRYHILL AVEN........................................................... UE................................................................ in the .....................................City of km............................................... Address Town/City Name IS HEREBY GRANTED A PERMANENT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY SINGLE FAMILY HOME 13 CHERRY HILL LLCIDIMAMBR0 This Permit is granted in conformity with the Statutes and Ordinances relating thereto, and expires Not Applicable unless sooner suspended or revoked. Expiration Date Issued On: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 �-�- Home Energy Rating Certificate Rating Date: 2018-06-19 �� Final Report Registry ID: 918458783 H p Ekotrope ID: 123Z3yjv ' S@ Index Score: home'sYour - - is a relative perfor15046 t' score- The lower the number, the more ener 01970 Builder:efficient the home. To learn more, visit V5 V5 www.hersindex.com 1 tive An average U.S. home North • - Property Ventures, Your • • - Your Home's Estimated Energy Use: This home meets or exceeds the Use [MBtu] Annual Cost criteria of the following: Heating 49.9 $1,383 2009 International Energy Conservation Code Cooling 1.1 $59 2015 International Energy Conservation Code Hot Water 11.2 $308 Lights/Appliances 23.4 $1,155 Service Charges $72 Generation (e.g. Solar) 0.0 -$0 Home Feature maty: $2,976 Rating Completed by: 4111111111- we"t"M Home Type: Single family detached Energy Rater:Ian Rex 350 Conditioned Floor Area 2,296 sq.ft. RESNET ID:1454792 Existing 1+0 Number of Bedrooms 4 Homes 130 Primary Heating System: Furnace•Propane•96 AFUE 120 Primary Cooling System: Air Conditioner• Electric• 13.5 SEER Rating Cornpany:The Energy Hound Reference 110 Primary Water Heating: Water Heater• Propane •0.97 Energy Factor 10 1/2 Eddel Ave Home ;;x,;.,: imHouse Tightness- 936 CFh150(2.9 ACH50) 978-233-1433 90 ao Ventilation: 69.0 CFM-6.0 Watts Duct Leakage to Rating Provider:Energy Raters of Massachusetts 96 CFM25 Outside SO Above Grade Walls R-21 40 Home Ceilings Attic.R-4930 � �f` Window Type: U-Value: 0.270. SHGC: 0.280 '•- io Foundation Walls: NIA zero Energy 0 Home O]o)NSx[l 2009 IECC Building UA Compliance The En Property Organization II 15 Cherry Hili Av The Energy Hound H Salem, MA 01970 978-233-1433 Inspection Status Ian Rex 2018-06-19 SALE CherryHillAv 1x Lot-B Rater ID (RTIN): 1454792 SALE CherryHillAv 15 Builder RESNET Registered (Confirmed) North Shore Property Ventures, Building UA Elements IECC Reference As Designed Ceilings 55.1 50.0 Above-Grade Walls 97.0 99.3 Windows, Doors and Skylights 188.0 141.3 Slab Floor: 0.0 0.0 Framed Floors 41.4 46.8 Basement Walls 0.0 0.0 Rim Joists 5.7 4.9 Overall UA(Design must be equal or lower): 387.2 342.3 Mandatory Requirements 402.1.4 Total UA alternative for insulation and Air Leakage Testing Area-weighted average fenestration fenestration ® SHGC 4 Mandatory Checklist Area-weighted average fenestration Duct Testing U-Factor 404.1 Electrical Power and Lighting Systems Design exceeds requirements for IECC 2009 Prescriptive compliance by 11.6%. Name: Ian Rex Signature: Organization: The Energy Hound Digitally signed: 6/20/18 at 10:46 AM Ekotrope RATER-Version 2.2.5.1952 IECC 2015 Label 15 Cherry Hill A HERS®Index Score: 55 Ceiling: R49 Above Grade Walls: R-21 Foundation Walls: N/A Exposed Floor: R-30 Slab: N/A Infiltration: 936 CFM50 (2.9 ACH50) Duct Insulation: R-8 Duct Leakage: 96 CFM25 Window: U = 0.270, SHGC = 0.280 Door: R-4 Heating: Furnace • Propane • 96 AFUE Cooling: Air Conditioner• Electric• 13.5 SEER Hot Water: Water Heater• Propane •0.97 Energy Factor Signature Building Summary Property Organization En 15 Cherry Hill Av The Energy Hound Salem IAA 01970 978-233-1433 Ian Rex Inspection Status SALE CherryHiIIAv 1x Loi-B 2018-06-19 SALE CherryHillAv 15 Builder Rater ID(RTIN) 1454792 Nath Shore Property Ventures. RESNET Registered(Confirmed) Number Of Bedrooms 4 Number Of Floors 2 Conditioned Floor Area[sq ft] 2,296 Unconditioned attached garage? Yes Conditioned Volume[Cu ft.] 19,146 Total Units In Building 1 Residence Type Single family detached Model Community None Present None Present None Present ---------- 00, -mom Oil None Present Name Libra a Carpet R Floor Grade Surface Area Location Library EYP ►Pe n Floor=Garage R30.FG1 10-16 0 Above Grade 440 0 sq ft Unconditioned.attached garage Floor�UB R30.FG1 10-16 0 Above Grade 783 0 sq ft Insulated Unconditioned Basement stairs>UB R30,FG1 10-16 0 Above Grade 33 0 sq ft Insulated Unconditioned Basement 1 Building Summary Property Organization H 15 Cherry Hill Av The Energy Hound HOW Salem IAA01970 978-233-1433 Ian Rex Inspection Status SALE CherrytillAv 1x Lot-B 2018-06-19 SALE CherryHiIAv 15 Builder Rater ID(RTIN) 1454792 North Shore Property Ventures. RESNET Registered(,Confirmed) Name _ R R30,FG 1 10-16 2684643 1111 Ilia WON Name Library type Surface Arca Location Bands,,Ambiant Cavity Band FG1 R21-R20 64 0 sq ft Exposed Exterior (ExplPlyrWrap/Vinyl) Copy of Bands::: Contin Band FG1 R21-R22 64 0 sq P Exposed Exterior ;Ambiant (Exp/Ply/Wrap Vinyl) MM", IM�� MONO 3FL Name R Cavity Band FG1 R21-R20 19.65 (Exp'PIy�NrapVinvl) Contin Band FG R21-R22 2235 (ExptPry,lvrapR inyl) ...: .. r .ryr aka a.�,... - ,'a.AAAA. _ .7".,a; .,. ,.. W7 _AAAA. w..v,s Name Library Type Surface Color Surface Area Location __----.-...---- Gond>Ambiant FG1 R21,,EXT GyptVmyl Medium 1,978 0 sq It Exposed Exterior Cond>UB FG1 R21,,GAR Gyp"Gyp Medium 105 0 sq ft Uninsulated Unconditioned Basement Gable=Ambiant FG1 R21>BS Gyp=rap Medium 99 0 sq ft Exposed Exterior attic FG1 R21>BS Gyp Nrap Medium 56 0 sq ft Attic 2 Building Summary .h _ Property Organization 15 Cherry Hill Av The Energy Hound Salem IIA 01970 978-233-1433 Ian Rex inspection Status SALE CherryHliiAv 1x Lot-B 2018-06-19 SALE Cherryl-I Av 15 Builder Rater ID(RTIN) 1454792 North Shore Property Ventures, RESNET Registered(Confirmed) Name R FG1 R21 >BS Gyp!Wrap 1713238 FG1R21 >EXT Gyp'Vinyi 1713238 FG1 R21>GAR Gyp/Gyp 17.13336 Name Library Type Wall Assignment Basement Wall Overhang Depth Overhang Ft To Overhang Ft To Orientation Surface Area Assignment Top Bottom 8 1 1 4 0 2 0 2728 COW>Ambiant 0 0 0 West 8 0 sq ft 8 5 1 3 3 52 2728 Cond>Ambiant 0 0 0 West 17 0 sq ft B Bsmt-Sm 2 1 3 2 DbVLOE/Arg- Cond>Ambiant 0 0 0 West 5 0 sq ft Vinyl DrMndox(peri?)0 DbVLoElArgon- Cond>Ambiant 0 0 0 Eas! 4 0 sq ft Wood F 2 3 4 2 0 4 0 2728 Cond>Ambiant 0 0 0 East 32 0 sq ft F8 6 9 6 5 2 2728 Cond>Ambiant 0 0 0 Eas! 297 0 sq ft R 4 1 3 0 3 0 2728 Cond>Ambiant 0 0 0 North 9 0 sq ft R 5 2 3 3 5 2 2728 Cond>Ambiant 0 0 0 North 34 0 sq ft R 7 1 6 4 5 2 2728 Cond>Ambiant 0 0 0 North 33 0 sq ft R I-slider 0 5 6 0 2728 Cond>Ambiant 0 0 0 North 20 0 sq ft R6 1 6 1 5 2 2728 Cond>Ambiant 0 0 0 North 31.0 sq ft X.t h R Name Shgc R 27 28 028 37037 DDI LOE,Ara-Vinyl 045 30303 DOI-oEAroon-Wood 045 2 77776 3 Building Summary Tk AIML Property Organization H 15 Cherry Hill Av The Energy Hound H Salem.FAA 01970 978-233.1433 Ian Rex Inspection Status SALE CherryHIIIAv 1x Lot-B 2018-06-19 SALE CherryHillAv 15 Builder Rater ID(RTIN) 1454792 North Shore Property Ventures. RESNET Registered(Confirmed) looms M, None Present r - - NWMWM' None Present Name Library Type Wail Assignment Basement Wall Emittance Solar Surface Color Surface Area Location Assignment Absorptance Front Therma R-7 R7 composite Cond>Ambiant 0.9 075 Medium 14 0 sq ft Exposed Exterior Side Dr-half R7 composite Cond>Ambiant 09 075 Medium 14 0 sq It Exposed Exterior US Steel-urth wi Cond>US 09 075 Medium 19 0 sq ft Exposed Exterior Name R R7 composite 7 [7Steei-urinvi 44 AW, N-A W, ft7w k_ i++i MiYR,Nva Name Library Type Roof-Deck Area(sq.ft.) Clay or Concrete Room Surface Color Surface Area Location Tries Flat(less Hatch) CE 10!3 R49 AT 1.557 5 No Medium 1 246.0 sq ft Attic Flat over slopes CE 1013 R49 AT 690 No Medium 102 0 sq ft Attic Hatch Panel EPS 1(2") 13 No Medium 10 0 sq ft. Attic Slope V CED x10 vented 693 No Med um 480 0 sq ft Vaulted Roo` 4 Building Summary &4e Property Organization 15 Cherry Hill Av The Energy Hound Salem MA01970 978.233-1433 Ian Rex Inspection Status SALE CherfyHillAv 1x Lot-6 2018-06-19 SALE CherryHillAv 15 Builder Rater ID(RTIN) 1454792 North Shore Property Ventures, RESNET Registered(Confirmed) Name Has Radiant Barrier R CE 10 3 R49 AT No 44.35961 Panel EPS R8(2) No 931 V CED x10 vented No 2585921 Infiltration Measurement Type Shelter Class 936 CFMat 50 Pa Blower door tested 4 { N Ventilation Type Ventilation Rate[Cubic Feet Operational hour per day Fan Watts Runs once every Fthree Energy Recovery Percent lMlnute] hours Exhaust Only 69 24 6 Yes 0 -�- r.; . a U %Interior Efficient %Exterior Efficient Lighting %Garage Efficient Lighting Lighting 100 100 100 M t'�`f`�4'�` -.R+._ None Present None Present 5 Building Summary %#e , • Property Organization 15 Cherry Hill Av The Energy Hound H Salem,IAA 01970 978-233-1433 Ian Rex Inspection Status SALE CherryHlllAv 1x Lot-B 2018-06-19 SALE CherryHillAv 15 Builder Rater ID(RTIN) 1454792 North Snore Property Ventures, RESNET Registered(Confirmed) None Present None Present Name Library Type Heating Percent Load Cooling Percent Load Not Water Percent Load Air conditioner(2) AC 4A7A3036H1 13.5S AH 0% 100% 0% 4TXCB004DS3 33Ko F Fuel-fired air PF S9V23080U3PSAA 96%415e 100°0 0% 0°i distribution(1) Trane%Amencan Std TR#8746400 Water Heating(3) WPI NavNPE-240A 0'n 0% 100% Fuel Type Electric _ Distribution Type Forced Air Motor Type Single Speed(PSC) Cooling Efficiency 13 5 SEER Cooling Capacity(kBtu'h] 33 Fuel Type Propane Distribution Type Forced Air Motor Type Single Speed(PSC) Heating Efficiency 96 AFUE Heating Capacity[kBtulh] 78 Use default EAE No EAE[kWh] 415 6 Building Summary &koe �_� Property Organization H 15 Cherry Hill Av The Energy Hound Salem.MA 01970 978-233-1433 Ian Rex Inspection Status SALE CherryHillAv 1x Lot-B 2018-06-19 SALE CherryHiltAv 15 Builder Rater ID(RTIN) 1454792 North Shore Property Ventures. RESNET Registered(Confirmedi Fuel Type Propane Distribution Type Hydronic Delivery Hot Water Efficiency 0 97 Energy Factor Tankless) Yes h Distribution Type Forced Air Heating Equipment Fuel-fired air distribution(1) Cooling Equipment Air conditioner(2) Sq Feet Served 2296 #Return Grilles 5 Supply Duct R Value 8 Return Duct R Value 8 Supply Duct Area[sq ft] 619.92 Return Duct Area[sq ft J 574 Duct Leakage to Outdoors(CFM25) 96 Total Leakage[CFMBnbsp @&nbsp15Pa] 96 Total Leakage Duct Test Conditions Post-Construction Use Default Flow Rate Yes Duct 1 Duct Location Conditioned Space Percent Supply Area 85 Percent Return Area 85 Duct 2 Duct Location Garage Percent Supply Area 15 Percent Return Area 15 Duct 3 Duct Location Conditioned Space Percent Supply Area 0 Percent Return Area 0 Duct 4 Duct Location Conditioned Space Percent Supply Area 0 Percent Return Area 0 Duct 5 Duct Location Conditioned Space Percent Supply Area 0 Percent Return Area 0 Duct 6 Duct Location Conditioned Space Percent Supply Area 0 Percent Return Area 0 c. Has Ceiling Fan No Cfm Per Watt 100 7 Building Summary lk film Property Organization 15 Cherry Hill Av The Energy Hound H Salem,MA 01970 978-233-1433 Ian Rex Inspection Status SALE CherryHiliAv 1x Lot-B 2018-06-19 SALE CherryHilWv 15 Builder Rater ID(RTIN) 1454792 North Shore Property Ventures. RESNET Registered(Confirmed) Water Fixture Type Standard Use Default Hot Water Pipe Length No Hot Water Pipe Length(ft] 32 At Least R3 Pipe Insulation? Yes Hot Water Recirculation System? No Recirculation System Pipe Loop Length(ft] 30 Drain Water Heat Recovery? No Fuel Type Electric Cef 2 617 Field Utilization Timer Controls qo madam lmiiliiiil Ilium rAnnual nergy Rating 704 kWh/Year Rate $0 08'kWh Gas Cost $2300 te $0 581Therm y 2874 0 331 a. Dishwasher Size Standard Dishwasher kWh i yr 263------- ------ -__._. Range/Oven Fuel Propane Convection Oven? Yes Induction Range? No Refrigerator Consumption 672 kWh'Year f��`��a . .. -u, •° .. � , �.rash �- 3•k. - .e +� ,._. .z -M WARNING CONFIRMED for Fan energy 8 RESNET HOME ENERGY the RATING Standard Disclosure Huffl- For homes) located at: 15 Cherry Hill Av, Salem, MA Check the applicable disclosure(s) in accordance with the instructions on the reverse of this page: 1. The Rater or the Rater's employer is receiving a fee for providing the rating on this home. 2. In addition to the rating, the Rater of Rater's employer has also provided the following consulting services for this home: L]A. Mechanical system design B. Moisture control or indoor air quality consulting El C. Performance testing and/or commissioning other than required for the rating itself D. Training for sales or construction personnel E. Other(specify) 3. The Rater of the Rater's employee is: []A. The seller of this home or their agent B. The mortgagor for some portion of the financed payments on this home C. An employee, contractor, or consultant of the electric and/or natural gas utility serving this home E4. The Rater or Rater's employer is a supplier or installer of products, which may include: Products Installed in this home by OR is in the business of HVAC systems DRater Employer DRater Employer Thermal insulation systems Rater J-]Employer Rater Employer Air sealing of envelope or duct systems Rater DEmpjoyer DRater §qEmpioyer Energy efficient appliances Rater Employer Rater DEmpioyer Construction (builder, developer,construction contractor, etc) Rater Employer Rater Employer Other(specify): -� Rater DEmpioyer DRater EEmployer 5. This home has been verified under the provisions of Chapter 6, Section 603"Technical Requirements for Sampling"of the Mortgage Industry National Home Energy Rating Standard as set forth by the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET). Rater Certification#: 1454792 Name: Ian Rex Signature: Organization: The Energy Hound Digitally signed: 6/20/18 at 10:46 AM I attest that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. As a Rater or Rating Provider I abide by the rating quality control provisions of the Mortgage Industry NationalHome Energy Rating Standard as set forth by the Residential Energy Services Network(RESNET). The national rating quality control provisions of the rating standard are contained inChapter One 4.C.8. of the standard and are posted at http://resnet.us/standards/RESNET_Mortgage_Industry_NationaI_HERS_Standards.pdf The Home Energy Rating Standard Disclosure for this home is available from the rating provider. RESNET Form 03001-2 - Amended April 24, 2007 + Builder Affidavit Property Organization 5 15 Cherry Hill Av The Energy Hound H Salem, MA 01970 978-233-1433 Inspection Status Ian Rex 2018-06-19 SALE CherryHillAv 1x Lot-B Rater ID (RTIN): 1454792 SALE CherryHillAv 15 Builder RESNET Registered (Confirmed) North Shore Property Ventures, Important Notice to Builder Builder affirms in this affidavit that all building characteristics described in the Building Summary Report accurately reflect this New Home. Builder agrees to allow the Home Energy Rating System(HERS)Provider and/or Rater to verify building characteristics of this New Home fully at the HERS Rater/Provider's discretion. The HERS Provider and Rater do not create or imply any duty or obligations to Builder or any subsequent owner. Builder is responsible for taking any actions necessary to protect Builder's interest. There is no guarantee or warranty whatsoever expressed or implied from the HERS Provider or Rater. HERS®Index Score:55 Builder Name: North Shore Property Ventures, Builder Signature: Name: Ian Rex Signature: Organization: The Energy Hound Digitally signed: 6/20/18 at 10:46 AM Ekotrope RATER-Version 2.2.5.1952 This information does not constitute a v,arrant,or guarantee of home energy performance CITY OF SALEM ROUTING SLIP New Construction Certificate of Occupancy X LOCATION y DATE b I a,-) ►ate -T ASSESSORS DATE 93 Washington St. CITY CLERK DATE 93 Washington St. PUBLIC SERVICES DATE)/'Dkt) 120 Washington St. WATER DATE 120 Washington St. CROSS CONNECTION DATE i �J 5 Jefferson Av�eN Ap PLANNING ( DATE � �l L c7�� Yl ► c 120 Washington St. CONSERVATION DATE 120 Washington St. ELECTRICAL DATE 48 Lafayette St. FIRE PREVENTION DATE 29 Fort Avenue HEALTH DATE 120 Washington St. BUILDING INSPECTOR DATE 120 Washington St. 1 15 CHERRY HILL AVENUE I 1 UPC 10330 ty HASTINQS. WN /tel i Ice r✓i r fGe wtuvt✓DP.coh tRV-9-r-3--r3coj /M,tnp'zp_, CITY OF SALEM ROUTING SLIP New Construction ✓ Certificate of Occupancy �j 1 A � +0; � 11 t3�e M►�° ►�-� �� LOCATION '3 Ck H,>iDATE l ASSESSORS DATES (- 93 Washington St. EY'Iv�CLERK — DATE S 93 Washingto . t UBLIC SERVICESDATE 3� 0 Washington S ATER DATE d EI -7 0 Washington StOSS CONNECTION DATEefferson Av PLANNING ►� �C�DATE 120 Washington St. CONSERVATIO DATE 5 lU Zbl} 120 Washington St. ELECTRICAL 5--111, IZ7 48 Lafayette St. FIRE PREVENTION DATE 29 Fort Avenue / HEALTH _DATE 120 Washington Sl-Zs . BUILDING INSPECTOR DATE 120 Washington St. r dAl NDIT,IA CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL t20WnsiuNGTONSIREF t • S:u.;A1,iltASsAaru,t.ITS 0IN MAY 20 A 10: 35 Kwt3i:i 1 N D2i5cou. Tt;J ':978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 �Cwoa h iif CITY CL[Rh;. SNI.L!1, MASS May 20, 2014 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of ANDREW PERKINS requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, and minimum lot width requirements for the property located at 15 CHERRY HILL AVENUE and 21 VALLEY STREET (111 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 19, 2014 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was continued to April 16, 2014. The hearing was closed on that April 16, 2014 with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Nit. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Nit. Watkins, and Mr. Copelas (Alternate). The Petitioner seeks Variances from Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Statements of fact: 1. In the petition date-stamped February 25, 2014, the Petitioner requested Variances to grant relief from the minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, and minimum lot width requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow 15 Cherry Hill Avenue to be recognized as a separate parcel, and to allow for construction of a separate single-family dwelling at 15 Cherry Hill Avenue, in addition to the existing single-family dwelling at 21 Valley Street. The establishment of 15 Cherry Hill Avenue as a parcel separate from 21 Valley Street would result in a reduction in the total lot area of the 21 Valley Street parcel, causing it to become nonconforming, with less than the required minimum lot area and required minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and requiring the granting of a Variance by the Board of Appeals. 2. The two lots — 15 Cherry Hill Avenue and 21 Valley Street — were created as separate legal lots in a 1925 subdivision plan. In the 1920s a building was constructed at 21 Valley Street, while 15 Cherry Hill Avenue remained vacant. Since that time, the dimensional requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance have changed, so the two lots became under-sized and non-conforming. As the two lots have been under common ownership, they have been merged into one lot for zoning purposes. 3. Attorney Scott Grover presented the petition on 15 Cherry Hill Avenue and 21 Valley Street. 4. On April 14, 2014, the petitioner submitted to the Board a written request to modify the submitted petition. The petitioner had reached an agreement to convey the vacant lot at 15 Cherry Hill Avenue to Richard and Nancy Pelletier, owners of the abutting property at 17 Cherry Hill Avenue, who would maintain 15 Cherry Hill Avenue as a vacant lot. The petitioner therefore requested to withdraw that portion of the petition relating to 15 Cherry Flill Avenue and to grant the relief requested as to 21 Valley Street only. 5. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the Petitioner to convey 15 Cherry Flill Avenue as an non-buildable lot to Richard and Nancy Pelletier, causing it to be merged with 17 Cherry Flill Avenue, and would allow 21 Valley Street to exist as a nonconforming lot, with less than the required 15,000 { City of Salem Board of Appeals May 20,2014 Project: 15 Cherry Hill Avenue and 21 Valley Street Page 2 of 2 square foot minimum lot area and less than the required 15,0000 square foot minimum lot area per dwelling unit, having only a 6,681 square foot lot area and a 6,681 square foot lot area per dwelling unit. The 21 Vallev Street lot will remain nonconforming to the Salem Zoning Ordinance requirements with less than the required minimum lot frontage and minimum width of side pard, and those nonconformities would remain. 6. At the March 19, 2014 public hearing, Richard and Nancy Pelletier of 17 Cherry Hill Avenue and an additional abutter expressed their concerns about the petition. At the April 16, 2014 public hearing, Richard and Nancy Pelletier expressed their support for the modified petition, as did Ward 4 Councilor David Eppley. The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the pubhc hearing, and after thorough review of the petition, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: Findings 1. The existing parcel, consisting of 21 Valley Street and 15 Cherry Hill Avenue, is an irregular shape. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would be a substantial hardship. 3. The condition placed upon the approval, establishing 15 Cherry Hill Avenue as a non-buildable lot, allows the desired relief to be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. 4. The desired relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mt. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Copelas) and none (0) opposed, to grant the requested Special Permit to allow the conveyance of 15 Cherry Hill Avenue as a non-buildable lot to Richard and Nancy Pelletier of 17 Cherry Hill Avenue, and to allow 21 Valley Street to exist as an undersized lot, with less than the required 15,000 square foot minimtun lot area and less than the required 15,000 square foot minimum lot area per dwelling unit, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 3. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board 4. The lot at 15 Cherry Hill Avenue shall be combined with 17 Cherry Hill Avenue, and shall be a non- buildable lot. *iecc.a, 01NIL-17 /1SYr11 Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CI'L"Y Cr ERK Appealfrom Ibis deaifioe, f any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the rllatmchmettf General Law Chapter 40A, and And be filed nwhie 20 days of tiling of this decision in the qd!,e of the City Clerk Pursuant to the X[assachusettf General Luws Chapter 4011, Setliou 1/, lbe I'ariance or Spe,ial Permit granted berein shall not take eOrct until a copy of the draisioa bearing Ibe certificate of the City Clerk bru beenfiled with!be Esser South Registry of Deers. v� )N01T,tJ CITY OF SALEM, :NLISSACFIUSETTS :. a b BOARD OF APPEAL ��,9yY ` l013OEC MWASIHNUIONSrar-it'r • sti.i•,�i,�t:�sn�aiu�irrr>ot970 30 P 2 (11 IiIdll4 t:Rl.hA D1usc()1.1. Ti:jx:978-7-h9i9 . PdS:978-740-9846 FILE o M`�t'1i CITY CI-ERI{, SiALEM. HASS December 30, 2013 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of ANDREW PERKINS requesting Variances under Section 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from the minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot frontage, and minimum lot width requirements for the property located at 15 CHERRY HILL AVENUE (RI Zoning District). On December 18, 2013, the Board of Appeals met to discuss the petitioner's request to withdraw the above referenced petition without prejudice. The following Board of Appeals members were present: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Annie Harris (Vice Chair), Richard Dionne, Thomas Watkins, and David Eppley (Alternate). Board of Appeals members Mike Duffy and fames Tsitsinos were absent. At the request of the Petitioner, the Board of Appeals voted to allow the Petitioner to withdraw the petition without prejudice. The vote was unanimous with four ('4) in furor (Nit. Watkins, Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, and \1s. Harris) and none (0) opposed. Mr. Eppley abstained. PERMISSION GRANTED TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE DECEMBER 18, 2013. ` �e/rte & CvYan Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals \ C:OPY OF TI IIS DECISION 1-1:AS BEEN FILED \\TTH T[IL. PI...ANN[NG BOARD :AND "I'FIEi CI'C1' Cl.f_Rf� Ippeal frau This elrriiion, i%aia—ball be nwele purwattt to .Sertiou l7 ol the Hufa,huielli General hour Cherpter 10_'1. and;hell be li""' i,ilbill 20 da; o%lilu{o o%INS deduoit in the o(lire o%the 0/1, Clelk. Pnrfuaw lo the Meeoa,luoal., Gueead fluor (-/,a Flo 10.-I, Sedin)i l l, !Gr I ,nirune or,lp eri,rl Prreeil {Hurled bemire dw/l iw 1.ik..e e_ffild eudd a enf y a(the dee'i.rinn Nami� 1/)e,r) of Me L717 0Y-i(. has been filed❑dth the EutN Sowb Re;irnp n%Deeds Cl OF T?435:.0"7JSETTS DeDartrient Of The Trial Court 3ssex, ss. Superior Court 11o. 91-1275 Robert Gerolamo, et al VS. Richard Bencal, et als SUMMARY JUDGM=TT (MASS . R . CIS/. P. 5b ) This action came to be heard before the Court, Ronan, J. presiding, upon the motion of the plaintiffs Robert Gerolamo and Barbara Gerolamo for summary judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 56, the Court finds that thore is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that the plaintiffs Robert Gerolamo and Barbara Gerolamo are entitled to a judgment as a matter of lair. It is hereby Ordered that : the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Cit? of Salem is annule. The Clerk/Magistrate of this Court snail within 30 days send an attested copy of this judgment to the City Clerk, Building Inspecto: and Board of Appeals respectively of the City of Salem. Dated at Salem, ?Massachusetts, this 5th d ay of Yovember, 1991. Assistant Clerk u m 4� wv 15 a Ca OF P'?4SS:,=TS--TTS Deuartment Of The Trial Court Essex, Ss. Superior Court Ko. 91-1275 Robert Gerolamo, et al VS. Richard Bencal, et als SU%71ARY =GAMTT (MASS . R . CII/. P. 5b ) This action came to be heard before the Court, Ronan, J. presiding, upon the motion of the plaintiffs Robert Gerolamo and Barbara Gerolamo for summary judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 , the Court finds that thore is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that the plaintiffs Robert Gerolamo and Barbara Gerolamo are entitled to a judgment as a matter of lair. It is hereby Ordered that ; the decision of the Eoard of Appeals of the Cit,.r of Salem is annule( The Clerk/Magistrate of this Court snail within 30 dad*s send an attested copy of this judgment to the City Clerk, nuilding Inspector and Board of Appeals respectively of the City Of Salem. Dated at Salem, ?Massachusetts, this 5th day of T'ovember, 1991. Assistant Clerk v ,1 t� f 1-Y yi TF C. CC— 107 T::"_rTH OF TtA S; TS '. US--T 1 J Denartment Of The Trial Court ssex, ss. Superior Court IIo. 91-1275 Robert Gerolamo, et al VS. Richard Bencal, et als SUMMARY JUDGM---TTT (MASS . R . 0-I11. P. 5b ) This action came to be heard before the Court, Ronan, J. presiding, upon the motion of the plaintiffs Robert Gerolamo and Barbara Gerolamo for summary judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 56, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that the plaintiffs Robert Gerolamo and Barbara Gerolamo are entitled to a judgment as a matter of lair. It is hereby Ordered that : the decision of the Doard of Appeals of the Cit-r of Salem is annule The Clerk/Magistrate of this Court snail withinj0 days send an attested copy of this judgment to the City Clerk, nuilding Inspector and Board of Appeals respectively of the City of Salem. Dated at Salem, Massachusetts, this 5th d ay of TITovember, 1991. Assistant Clerk v F .:�li'V, yT �: r � (fitn of -5ttlem, �4EZjsstttlrusetts -Soura of Aupeul '91 APR -3 P 3 :07 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BRIAN CALL (PETITIONER) , BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT,, 15 CHERRY HiLL AVENTEI (R-1 ) CITY CLERK'S OFFICE SALC:*" `:9S A hearing on this petition was held February 27, 1991 and continued until March 20, 1991 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio, Mary Jane Stirgwolt and Associate Member Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting Variances from lot size and frontage to allow parcel to be divided and to construct a single family home on the newly created lot. Said single family dwelling will conform to all setback requirements. The property is located in an R-1 district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was opposition voiced at the hearing. 2. A petition in opposition to this application was submitted. 3. The proposed division will bring these lots into conformity with other lots in the area with regard to depth. 4. The newly created lot will be equal in lot area and frontage to many of the lots in the same district. 5. This is the only lot in the area with frontage on two streets. 6. The proposed single family dwelling will meet all setback requirements. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BRIAN CALL ( PETITIONER) BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 15 CHERRY HILL AVENUE, SALEM page two On basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. Febonio opposed) to grant the Variances requested subject to the condition the petition obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor. Variance Granted March 20, 1991 ichard Febonio, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK M1 W C V Wi(') Appeal from this decision,If any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of `-L; tZ o the Mass.General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days > P'1 V' atter the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. ZF: F,nsuant to Mass.General Laws, Chanter 808, Section 11, the Variance JJ " 'F='31 Permit Granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the LL sC UQ 'ecision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have }N elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, If such appeal has been F' filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex V Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner.of record or is Woordad and noted an the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEAU JOHN M. HARTLEY, ESQ. Attorney at Law P.O. Boz 709, Seaport Landing, 152 The Lynnway, Suite 3A, Lynn, MA 01903-0809, (781) 581-5270 Also adodned in Illinois June 5, 2000 Peter Strout Building Inspector City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Re: 15 Cherry Hill Avenue Dear Mr. Strout: I represent Robert and Barbara Gerolamo, who own property which abuts the lot referred to above. It is the understanding of my clients that you have issued an opinion that the above-referenced lot may be built upon because it is a prior non-conforming lot. However, as indicated in the Decision of the Board of Appeals and the Superior Court regarding the application of Brian Call, this lot is not a separate lot, but was in fact owned by Beneficial Mortgage Company in common with the abutting lot, upon which there is a dwelling. Therefore, in order to build upon this lot it would be necessary for the owner to obtain a variance from the Zoning By-Law of Salem. As you can see from the proceedings which took place in 1991, my clients would oppose any such variance. If you have, in fact, issued an opinion that the above lot is buildable without the necessity of obtaining a variance, I would appreciate your reviewing the enclosed materials and revising your opinion to make it consistent with the decision of the Superior Court. Very tr 1 your , n M. rtley, Esq. r� Encl. cc: Robert & Barbara Gerolamo Cookie Melanson EXHIBIT A Chi hi Uf ~�1CI1T, {71cZ55iICIi118C>fa RFF V` ( z - --, �- Board of Aupral ''" : V1 APR -3 P3'07 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF BRIAN CALL (PETITIONER) . BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 15 CHERRY HILL AVERUE (R-11 CITY CL_FWS OFFICE SALE" `ta A hearing on this petition was held February 27. 1991 and continued until March 20, 1991 with the following Board Members present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti. Richard Febonio, Mary Jane Stirgwoit and Associate Member Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting Variances from loc size and frontage to allow parcel to be divided and to construct a single family home on the newly created Lot. Said single family dwelling will conform to all setback requirements. The property is located in an R-1 district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would Involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was opposition voiced at the hearing. 2. A petition in opposition to this application was submitted. 3. The proposed division will bring these lots into conformity with other lots in the area with regard to depth. 4. The newly created lot will be equal in lot area and frontage to many of the lots in the same district. 5. This is the only lot in the area with frontage on two streets. 6. The proposed single family dwelling will meet all setback requirements. TT -d TS02-SbL (8LG) oweiojas auagoa 4Eb :21 DO 22 Rew DECi.SION ON THE PETITION OF BRIAN CALL (PETITIr-IIER) BENEFLC:AL MORTGAGE COMPANY tOWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 15 CHERRY HILL A'-j'UIUE, ZALEM page two On basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent Of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-7 (i4r. Febonio opposed) to grant the Variances requested subject to the condition the petition obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor. Variance Granted March 20, 1991 lchard Febonio, Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK r- W C v t` Apoeei from this decision.if any.shall be made Pursuant to Sectlan 17 Of M yt•t C11" C'• I.4e mass.Gena Lairs.Chapeer CU.and shad be filed within 20 da" c atter the date of fidrtg of this decision N the olfiCe of the Gly C18tk. P.rrtUnet to Mus.General Laws.ch:nler 40.4.Section 11. Ute Variance (- fr LJ ulm al Perll grtnted hemp snail not take effect until a COPY of the LLC.e< `.=Lion.Czarina the cl rtdicalan of If City Clerk that 20 days have Yf eloosed and no aoPeal has been mtld.or that it Such aneeat has been L— tiled.that it has&eon dismissed or denied s recorded In Ina South Essen Q Registry of Qeeds and indexed Under the home or the owner.of record or Is =Corded,end rOted en"owners Certihea&e of Ties. w BOARD OF APPEAU O1 'd 1SOZ-911"L(BLBI oweloja0 q.tagoa deb :21 00 22 ReW COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. ) ROBERT GEROLAMO and ) BARBARA GEROLAMO, ) Plaintiffs ) V. ) COMPLAINT RICHARD BENCAL, JOSEPH CORRENTI, ) RICHARD FEBONIO, MARY JANE ) STIRGWOLT, EDWARD LUZINSIG, ) ARTHUR LABRECQUE, AS THEY ARE ) MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF ) THE CITY OF SALEM. BRIAN CALL and ) BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY, ) Defendants ) INTRODUCTION 1. This is an appeal pursuant to the provisions of M.G.L. c.40A, §17, of a decision of the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem granting a variance to BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY and BRIAN CALL. PARTIES 2. Plaintiffs own and reside at premises situated at 22 Cherry Hill Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts. 3. Defendant, RICHARD BENCAL, is a member of the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, and he resides at 19 Goodale Street, Salem, Massachusetts. 4. Defendant, JOSEPH CORRENTI, is a member of the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, and he resides at 15 1/2 Station Road, Salem, Massachusetts. 5. Defendan4 RICHARD FEBONIO, is a member of the Board of Appeals of the City of �Gbn Nt xotn.Esq. !O.�A �.n tiq zm.&��M �Mw1 MT 18.ID� B 'd TSOZ-SbL (BLB) oweloja0 gjagoa dZb :ZT 00 22 aeW Salem, and he resides at 4C Arnold Drive. Salem, Massachusetts. 6. Defendant, MARY JANE STIRGWOLT, is a member of the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, and he resides at 17 Andrew Street, Salem, Massachusetts. 7. Defendant, EDWARD LUZINSKJ, is a member of the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, and he resides at 24 Hardy Street, Salem, Massachusetts. 8. Defendant, ARTHUR LABRECQUE, is an associate member of the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, and he resides at 11 Hazel Street, Salem, Massachusetts. 9. Defendant, BRIAN CALL, is an individual residing at 12 Pope Street, Salem, Massachusetts. 10. Defendant,BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY,is a corporation with a usual place of business at 90 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. FACTS 11. Defendants, BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY and BRIAN CALL, on or about January 31, 1991, filed an application with the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem for a variance from the requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance as they relate to the premises situated at 15 Cherry Hill Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts,(the Premises)which premises are situated in a Residence R-1 District under the City of Salem Zone Ordinance. 12. The Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, after a public hearing that was held on March 20, 1991, voted an said date to grant such variance to Defendants. BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY and BRIAN CALL. 13. The decision of the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem .-ranting such variance was filed in the office of the City of Salem City Clerk on April 3, 1991. A certified copy of the decision is attached to this complaint as "Exhibit A". 14. Plaintiffs are persons aggrieved by the decision of the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, in that their place of residence is located across the street (i.e. Cherry Hill Avenue) from the Premises. 15. The decision of the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem exceeds the authority of the said Board of Appeals, is based upon legally untenable grounds, and is not appropriately authorized under M.G.L. c.40A_ 16. Specifically, the decision of the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem fails to set forth the specific findings required by M.G.L. c.40A, §10 as a prerequisite to the grant of a two M.Uankr,Esq. PAL A.i a..worms rnm-a+e L 'd 1902-9bL (8LG) owelojag zjagob dZb :21 00 22 new variance. 17. The decision of the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem is unreasonable, arbitrary anc capricious, and has no substantial basis in fact. THEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court, pursuant to the provisions of M.G.L. c.40A, §17. and the Court's general equity power_ 1. Enter an order annulling the decision of the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem. 2. Grant such other and further relief as this Court may deem to be proper and just_ Respectfully submitted, ROBERT GEROLAMO and BARBARA GEROLAMO By their Attorney: John M. Hartley, Esq. P.O. Box 709 Seaport Landing' 152 The Lynnway, Shite 3A Lynn, MA 01903-0809 (617) 581-5270 Dated: April 22, 1991 mm K[conic,.>sv. .D,a.= M�L... mtry� U 4n WA mgr prnaamo 9 'd 1902-9t+L (BLS) owelojag 4jagoy d24 :21 00 22 ReW L CO'NtOP'bEA;TR OF r4A3SACHUS2TT3 Department Of The Trial Court Essex, ss. Superior Court No. 91-1275 Robert Gerolamo, at al vs. Richard Bencal, at als SUMMARY JCDGKMT (MASS. R. CIV. F. 5b ) This action came to be heard before the Court, :Ronan, J. presiding, upon the motion of the plaintiffs Robert Gerolamo and Barbara Gerolamo for summary judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. F. 5b, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that the plaintiffs Robert Gerolamo and Barbara Gerolamo are entitled to a judgment as a matter of lair. It is hereby Ordered that; the decision of the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem is annule The Clerk/Magistrate of this Court shall within 30 days send an attested copy of this judgment to the City Clerk, Building Inspecto: and Board of Appeals respectively of the City of Salem. Dated at Salem, Massachusetts, this 5th day of Yovember, 1991. Assistant Clerk I ° t I 'd ISOZ-SbL (8L6] oweloiag zjagoy dlb :El oo ea ReW Cite of 6alem, AaM5arbuattg Pubtit Propertp Mepartment Wuilbing Mepartment One fpalem green (976) 745-9595 ext. 360 Peter Strout Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer opth�PY June 22, 2000 Michael Labrecque 21 Valley Street Salem,Ma. 01970 RE: 15 Cherry Hill Avenue Dear Mr. &Mrs. Labrecque: After reviewing all the documents that consisted of the Board of Appeals case in 1991, the court appeal that annulled the decision, along with the Assistant City Solicitor's submission of the case law pursuant to this matter. We find that the lots have merged. Sincerely, Peter Strout Zoning Enforcement Officer 8 VP ge 115k 30 3 `�^ Ol 1p S t _ / �-� X114- 0\ O 1296 ° /� p\ti \ / \ h 115 11 6 3\ /x \\ / 11?9 \ / O'b0�ti \ h bL 6gh\6 41\ 6,2l '1652 i 00 h 60906 96 \ 2g,2gra \ \R` /.0 AC. OAo D O \\ 11,2 1 bpm__-----=`;6 tp 97 4214 �\\ 9 \ \ / �030 3000 3k Mx N � J • \� �D p A 1018 2y6 ,00 497 8✓ �a. C C 663 » 2 O 6 ' \"�lL 2/648 \\\\vo °° a �w//,�� ?O%2 D ' ' 6 J a \r \f d 1214 041 �' 25� \0313 re ,° oR 'a °� � \rd \ \\ I 1 00 0 fJO ++ .aO �o \ \\ Igo 2 2�,j3g1 ,r ti�p3 2 300 \ \ \ 1\, 9 o°\a \3S \Q, o o\\\\ �oaa 015011 < Aja \ \\ 26�0 2 F, 9a `�� 03 1\� b P 6 13 0° y 603 2935 cp _ 20000 O 669,155 " I 3 O� °ss 8pE2 " P•lo e a o \R' ,9, ( � 00 201 p e e le, tih 10 \ �L'l9g f \ V ° �° <� \ a V \y 0 16 s .. 7264 2�9R1 �"�60 2�e° 6° � a 1g 1 Ibp A6 �° N 2yg1 2 660D ° ,t° Zg 45 w 12' Q� ° ,a g\R \p0 OD ,p a0 4616 °� \3\62 65 \\ d s �e TE)14,4 �A °�a 63 X61 0 ` 6 �� 1p 2191 O y. 9F 2 0 00 303 0 ` "A �`4j\ 6 50 '0 268 J 0 1 1 p6R i 66 p a s g, R2 Z b\2o R( 260 0 O 2°c Q\ 9120 1 9t o o a .a 261D � \ o r�" 3 FFA 1D6g6 ,L6626 gg\ S Tro * "° 9y • / ZeA1 ykb2 o.e l �'O + 596 � `" \"c a i 1!,6602058 266n Zg33 �° .'� . � �� 526 153- 1 . �� ,yrs <�.� 5 c 43W ' - e . ^cF"�.�gr r" „ f 9a tuyP"'1 1 \{\.P i m'�k. ?�x�a 4o- 196* xu 2 � 196 �vG �p ".2 a A x ASACK, et al. v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF WESTWOOD Pagel of 3 MA Appeals Court .... NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted here are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.This preliminary material will be removed from the Bulletin Board once it is printed in the Official Reports advance sheets. If you find a typographical error or other formal error,please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court,Room 1407,Boston,MA 02108; (617)557-1030. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 97-P-2176 Appeals Court PHILIP P. ASACK & anotherM V. w. BOARD OF APPEALS OF WESTWOOD No. 97-P-2176. Norfolk. May 13, 1999. -September 15, 1999. Present:Perretta,Dreben,&Spina,JJ. Zonine,Variance,Building permit,Lot. Civil actions commenced in the Superior Court Department on January 6, 1995, and February 18, 1997,respectively. The cases were consolidated and heard by Barbara A.Dortch-Okara,J. Stephen Gordet for the plaintiffs. Thomas P.McCusker Jr.,for the defendant. DREBEN, J. When in 1988,the plaintiffs purchased property in Westwood, described in their deed as lots 7 and 8 on a recorded plan, they were unaware that in 1970,prior to the passage of the 1975 revision of G. L. c. 40A,including a new Sect. 10,M a variance had been issued for lot 7.The 1975 revision required a variance to be exercised within a year of its grant. Discovering the existence of the variance during a refinancing of the property and relying thereon, the plaintiffs in 1994 sought a building permit. The permit was denied, the denial was upheld by the Westwood board of appeals(board)and, in turn,by the Superior Court.0 We affirm. r , ASACK, et al. v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF WESTWOOD Page 2 of 3 The facts are undisputed and are set forth in the findings of the trial judge. In 1970,Rosemary M. and Robert J. Valinote owned lots 7 and 8 shown on a 1936 plan. Their home was on lot 8,which they purchased in 1936. They acquired lot 7,an adjacent unimproved lot, in 1942. Due to changes in the zoning by-law after 1936,lot 7 in 1970 lacked both the frontage and the area needed to be a buildable lot. The requirements,which continue to the present time, are that the lot have an area of 40,000 square feet and a frontage of 125 feet. In 1970, the Valinotes obtained a variance in order to qualify lot 7 as a buildable lot. The variance contained no language placing a time limit on its validity and could continue in force without limit of time. See Hogan v. Haves, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 399,403 (1985). In 1972,the Valinotes sold lot 8 to Ronald L. and Marguerite L.Prosser,and in 1973 sold them lot 7. Also in 1973,the Prossers conveyed both lots to Ronald L. Prosser as trustee of the Prosser Family Trust. As trustee,Prosser in 1987 filed a petition for a variance to construct a house on lot 7,but this was denied by the board. Although Prosser filed an appeal from that denial to the Superior Court, his appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. In 1988,the plaintiffs purchased both lots from the Prosser Family Trust,and in 1994 applied for the building permit, the denial of which is the subject of this appeal. As indicated earlier,the first notice the plaintiffs received of the 1970 variance was in 1993 or 1994 when a title examination was performed for a refinancing of their property. The plaintiffs rely on language in Hogan v. Haves, 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 403,to support their contention that G. L. c. 40A, Sect. 10,the statute which provides that a variance lapses if not exercised within one year after its grant, see note 2, supra, is not retroactive and does not apply to variances which were granted prior to its effective date. In Hogan,the owner of two adjoining lots obtained a variance allowing her to divide her ownership so that she could sell the lot with the existing house and garage and build a small residence on the other lot. She sold the lot with the house in 1975 to Hogan's predecessor in title and sold the remaining vacant lot in 1982 to Hayes.Faced with Hogan's argument that the variance had lapsed by reason of c. 40A, Sect. 10,Justice Kaplan termed"drastic,"and not matching the statute's text,a construction that would destroy wholesale all variances more than one year old remaining unexercised on the effective date of the statute. Ibid.He also indicated that a"milder"construction which takes the form of cancelling variances which have not been exercised within a year of the new statute"might put a great and insupportable strain on the statutory language."Ibid. As in Hogan,we need not reach the broad issue of retroactivity. We also need not decide whether the trial judge was correct in ruling that there was no exercise of the variance by the 1972 conveyance of lot 8 to the Prossers.IQ Even if we assume that the sale was such an exercise,we agree with the defendant board which in its decision stated, "[T]o the extent that the separation of said Lot 7 and Lot 8 could in any way be determined an exercise of a variance, the subsequent merger of Lot 7 and Lot 8 in common ownership in the absence of anything more,would nullify any type of an exercise." Unlike the situation in Hogan,where the two lots ended up in different ownership, here the subsequent purchase of lot 7 by the Prossers, who were already the owners of lot 8,effected a merger as did the later purchase of both lots by the plaintiffs. This result is closely analogous to the"principle of long-standing application in the zoning context[with regard to nonconforming exemptions]: a landowner will not be permitted to create a dimensional nonconformity if he' [can use] his adjoining land to avoid or diminish the nonconformity."Planning Bd. of Norwell v. Serena,27 Mass.App. Ct. 689,690(1989),and cases cited, S.C.,406 Mass. 1008(1990). Burke v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Harwich,38 Mass. App. Ct. 957, 958-960(1995). Moreover, "[a]djoining parcels held in common ownership are generally considered one lot for zoning purposes.Heald v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Greenfield,7 Mass. App. Ct. 286, 290 (1979).The'usual construction of the word"lot"in a zoning context ignores the manner in which the components of a total given area have been assembled and concentrates instead on the question whether the sum of the components meets the requirements of the by-law.'Becket v. Building Inspector of Marblehead,6 Mass. App. Ct. 96, 104(1978)." Girard v. Board of Appeals of Easton, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 334,335 (1982). A person owning adjoining record lots may not artificially divide them so as to restore old record „ boundaries to obtain a grandfather nonconforming exemption;to preserve the exemption the lots must retain"a separate identity."Lindsay v. Board of Appeals of Milton, 362 Mass. 126, 132 (1972). A basic purpose of the zoning laws is"to foster the creation of conforming lots."MuEp v.Kotlik, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 410,414 n.7 (1993). See Giovannucci v. Board of Appeals of Plainville,4 Mass.App. Ct. 239,242-243 (1976). We see no reason why this purpose,which is reflected in the zoning principle that precludes an owner from availing himself of ASACK, et al. v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF WESTWOOD Page 3 of 3 a nonconforming exemption unless lie includes his adjacent land in order to minimize the nonconformity, Sorenti v. Board of Aooeals of Wellesley, 345 Mass. 348, 353 (1963), should not also apply to the plaintiffs who by reason of their deed from the Prossers own both lots 7 and 8. Their ownership of lot 7,which is adjacent to nonconforming lot 8, reduces or eliminates the nonconformity. See Vetter v. Zoning Bd. of Appeal of Attleboro,330 Mass.628,630-631 (1953).For this reason,they cannot avail themselves of the 1970 variance, and the denial of the building permit was proper. Since the plaintiffs,by their own admission,were not aware of the variance when they bought the property,no equitable considerations militate against this result. Compare Hogan v.Haves, 19 Mass. App. Ct.at 404,where the plaintiffs' position opposing a building permit was described as "so intrinsically inequitable that it should not prevail." Judgment affirmed. FOOTNOTES: [11 Deborah Van Valkenberg. [21 In relevant part G.L. c.40A, Sect. 10,as inserted by St. 1975,c. 808, Sect. 3,provided: "If the rights authorized by a variance are not exercised within one year of the date of grant of such variance they shall lapse,and may be reestablished only atter notice and a new hearing pursuant[to] this section."The provision was again amended by St. 1984, c. 195. [31 Two cases involving the same issues were consolidated. Apparently,there was a procedural difficulty in the first case,and the plaintiffs two years later reapplied for a building permit. 141 The plaintiffs argue,again relying on Hogan,that the 1972 sale of lot 8 was an exercise of the variance. In Hogan, the court found that there was a sufficient exercise of the variance by the sale of the lot containing the house in 1975 because,without it,the built-on lot would have been in manifest violation of the lot area and minimum frontage requirements. In the present case the board and the Superior Court judge distinguished Hogan on the ground urged by the defendant board, namely that a variance was not required for lot 8,that it had status as a valid nonconforming use, and was not dependent upon a variance to comply with the zoning by-law. The facts set forth in Hogan and in the record of the present case are insufficient for us to accept that distinction.The lots in Hogan were originally separate lots and acquired by the owner at different times, see Hogan at 400 n.3,and the discussion of the court appears to treat the two lots as merged. o CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MA O 1970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 EXT. 380 FAX (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. PETER STROUT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROPERTY MAYOR March 4, 2002 Michael Labresque/Teresa Herbert 15 Cherry Hill Avenue Salem,Ma. 01970 Dear Owners: This office has received complaints about the storage of contractor trailers and trucks being stored on your property. This property is located in a,R-1 zone. A commercial use is not allowed. You are directed to cease the storage of trailers and trucks within 15 days upon receipt of this notice. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Thomas St. Pierre Local Building Inspector cc: Mayors Office Tom Phillbin, Chief of Staff Councillor O'Leary ) JOHN A. FALLON,ESO. FALBO, SOLARI & GOLDBERG A Professional Law Corporation 5 Essex Green Drive Peabody,MA 01960 (978)532-8891 Fax(978)532-5222 Also Admitted to Florida Bar - CITY'OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS WILLIAM J.LUNDREGAN Legal Department JOHN D.KEENAN City Solicitor i Assistant City Solicitor 81 Washington Street 93 Washington Street 60 Washington Street Tel:978-741-3888 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Tel:978-741-4453 Fax:978-741-8110 Fax:978-740-0072 June 14, 2000 Peter Strout, Bldg. Insp. One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 RE: 15 Cherry Hill Avenue Dear Inspector Strout: I have reviewed the materials provided to you by Attorney John M. Hartley regarding the above captioned parcel. It would appear from the documentation provided that the two adjoining lots were held in common ownership by Beneficial Mortgage Company. Indeed, Beneficial apparently agreed to this need for a variance as it filed for same in 1991, along with Brian Call who was probably going to buy the parcel if approved. Although the variance request was approved by the Board, ultimately it was vacated (as most variances are) by Judge Ronan when Gerolamos appealed the matter. Where these parcels were held in common ownership by Beneficial, they would be considered merged for'zoning purposes. I have enclosed a copy of a case that seems to be directly on point. See Asack v. Bd. of Appeals of Westwood, 97-P-2176 Appeals Court (September 15, 1999). To preserve any "grandfathered" status as a "buildable" nonconforming lot, the parcels must maintain separate identity. See Asack. If, however, there were two separate buildings (houses) on the combined lot, it would be possible to subdivide on a Form A, approval not required. See Mass. Gen. L. c. 41, § 81L, 112„(definition of subdivision).' 'The applicant deserves an 81P ("ANWI endorsement under this exemption even if one of the lots created by the submitted plan violates provisions of the applicable zoning regulations. See Smalley v. Planning Board of Harwi k, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 599, 602-04 (1980). i Hopefully, this information is helpful to you. Very best regards, Joh D. Keenan, s' Assiant City Solicitor JDK/ jm Enc. CC. Denise Sullivan, Assistant Planner i s ASACK, et al. v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF WESTWOOD Pagel of 3 MA Appeals Court 9 2 NOTICE:The slip opinions and orders posted here are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.This preliminary material will be removed from the Bulletin Board once it is printed in the Official Reports advance sheets. If you find a typographical error or other formal error,please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court,Room 1407,Boston,MA 02108;(617)557-1030. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 97-P-2176 Appeals Court PHILIP P. ASACK & anotherM V. BOARD OF APPEALS OF WESTWOOD No. 97-P-2176. Norfolk. May 13, 1999. -September 15, 1999. Present:Perretta,Dreben,&Spina,JJ. Zoning,Variance,Building permit,Lot. Civil actions commenced in the Superior Court Department on January 6, 1995,and February 18, 1997, respectively. The cases were consolidated and heard by Barbara A. Dortch-Okara,J. Stephen Gordet for the plaintiffs. Thomas P. McCusker.Jr.,for the defendant. DREBEN, J. When in 1988, the plaintiffs purchased property in Westwood,described in their deed as lots 7 and 8 on a recorded plan, they were unaware that in 1970,prior to the passage of the 1975 revision of G. L. c. 40A,including a new Sect. 10,M a variance had been issued for lot 7. The 1975 revision required a variance to be exercised within a year of its grant. Discovering the existence of the variance during a refinancing of the property and relying thereon, the plaintiffs in 1994 sought a building permit.The permit was denied,the denial was upheld by the Westwood board of appeals(board)and, in turn,by the Superior Court.0 We affirm. ASACK, et al. v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF WESTWOOD Page 2 of 3 The facts are undisputed and are set forth in the findings of the trial judge. In 1970,Rosemary M. and Robert 1. Valinote owned lots 7 and 8 shown on a 1936 plan. Their home was on lot 8,which they purchased in 1936. They acquired lot 7,an adjacent unimproved lot, in 1942.Due to changes in the zoning by-law after 1936,lot 7 in 1970 lacked both the frontage and the area needed to be a buildable lot. The requirements,which continue to the present time, are that the lot have an area of 40,000 square feet and a frontage of 125 feet. In 1970, the Valinotes obtained a variance in order to qualify lot 7 as a buildable lot. The variance contained no language placing a time limit on its validity and could continue in force without limit of time. See Hogan v. Haves, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 399,403 (1985). In 1972,the Valinotes sold lot 8 to Ronald L. and Marguerite L.Prosser,and in 1973 sold them lot 7. Also in 1973,the Prossers conveyed both lots to Ronald L. Prosser as trustee of the Prosser Family Trust. As trustee,Prosser in 1987 filed a petition for a variance to construct a house on lot 7,but this was denied by the board. Although Prosser filed an appeal from that denial to the Superior Court,his appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. In 1988,the plaintiffs purchased both lots from the Prosser Family Trust,and in 1994 applied for the building permit, the denial of which is the subject of this appeal. As indicated earlier,the first notice the plaintiffs received of the 1970 variance was in 1993 or 1994 when a title examination was performed for a refinancing of their property. The plaintiffs rely on language in Hogan v. Haves, 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 403,to support their contention that G. L. c. 40A, Sect. 10,the statute which provides that a variance lapses if not exercised within one year after its grant, see note 2,supra,is not retroactive and does not apply to variances which were granted prior to its effective date. In Hogan,the owner of two adjoining lots obtained a variance allowing her to divide her ownership so that she could sell the lot with the existing house and garage and build a small residence on the other lot. She sold the lot with the house in a lot i Hogan's predecessor in title and sold the remaining vacant lot in 1982 to Hayes.Faced with with the s argument that the variance had lapsed by reason of c.40A, Sect. 10, Justice Kaplan termed"drastic,"and not matching the statute's text,a construction that would destroy wholesale all variances more than one year old remaining unexercised on the effective date of the statute. Ibid.He also indicated that a"milder"construction which takes the formof cancelling variances which have not been exercised within a year of the new statute"might put a great and insupportable strain on the statutory language."Ibid. As in Hogan,we need not reach the broad issue of retroactivity. We also need not decide whether the trial judge was correct in ruling that there was no exercise of the variance by the 1972 conveyance of lot 8 to the Prossers.IQ Even if we assume that the sale was such an exercise,we agree with the defendant board which in its decision stated, "Mo the extent that the separation of said Lot 7 and Lot 8 could in any way be determined an exercise of a variance,the subsequent merger of Lot 7 and Lot 8 in common ownership in the absence of anything more,would nullify any type of an exercise." Unlike the situation in Hogan,where the two lots ended up in different ownership,here the subsequent purchase of lot 7 by the Prossers,who were already the owners of lot 8,effected a merger as did the later purchase of both lots by the plaintiffs.This result is closely analogous to the"principle of long-standing application in the zoning context[with regard to nonconfonning exemptions]:a landowner will not be permitted to create a dimensional nonconformity if he [can use] his adjoining land to avoid or diminish the nonconformity."Planning Bd. of Norwell v. Serena,27 Mass. App. Ct. 689,690(1989),and cases cited, S.C.,406 Mass. 1008(1990). Burke v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Harwich, 38 Mass. App. Cf. 957,958-960(1995). Moreover, "[a]djoining parcels held in common ownership are generally considered one lot for zoning purposes. Heald v.Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Greenfield 7 Mass. App. Ct. 286,290(1979). The'usual construction of the word"lot" in a zoning context ignores the manner in which the components of a total given area have been assembled and concentrates instead on the question whether the sum of the components meets the requirements of the by-law.'Becket v. Building Inspector of Marblehead, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 96, 104(1978)." Girard v. Board of Appeals of Easton, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 334, 335 (1982). A person owning adjoining record lots may not artificially divide them so as to restore old record boundaries to obtain a grandfather nonconforming exemption;to preserve the exemption the lots must retain "a separate identity."Lindsay v. Board of Appeals of Milton, 362 Mass. 126, 132(1972). A basic purpose of the zoning laws is"to foster the creation of conforming lots."Mumhv v. Kotik, 34 Mass. App. Cl. 410,414 n.7(1993). See Giovannucci v.Board of Appeals of Plainville,4 Mass. App. Ct. 239,242-243 (1976). We see no reason why this purpose,which is reflected in the zoning principle that precludes an owner from availing himself of ASACK, et al. v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF WESTWOOD Page 3 of 3 a nonconforming exemption unless lie includes his adjacent land in order to minimize the nonconformity, Sorenti v. Board of Appeals of Wellesley, 345 Mass. 348, 353 (1963),should not also apply to the plaintiffs who by reason of their deed from the Prossers own both lots 7 and 8. Their ownership of lot 7,which is adjacent to nonconforming lot 8, reduces or eliminates the nonconformity. See Vetter v. Zonin Bd. of Apeal of Attleboro, 330 Mass.628,630-631 (1953). For this reason, they cannot avail themselves of the 1970 variance, and the denial of the building permit was proper. Since the plaintiffs,by their own admission, were not aware of the variance when they bought the property, no equitable considerations militate against this result. Compare Hogan v. Haves, 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 404, where the plaintiffs' position opposing a building permit was described as "so intrinsically inequitable that it should not prevail." Judgment affirmed. FOOTNOTES: [11 Deborah Van Valkenberg. [21 In relevant part G.L. c. 40A, Sect. 10,as inserted by St. 1975,c. 808, Sect. 3,provided: "If the rights authorized by a variance are not exercised within one year of the date of grant of such variance they shall lapse,and may be reestablished only after notice and a new hearing pursuant[to] this section."The provision was again amended by St. 1984,c. 195. [31 Two cases involving the same issues were consolidated. Apparently,there was a procedural difficulty in the first case,and the plaintiffs two years later reapplied for a building permit. [41 The plaintiffs argue,again relying on Hogan,that the 1972 sale of lot 8 was an exercise of die variance. In Hogan, the court found that there was a sufficient exercise of the variance by the sale of the lot containing the house in 1975 because, without it,the built-on lot would have been in manifest violation of the lot area and minimum frontage requirements. In the present case the board and the Superior Court judge distinguished Hogan on the ground urged by the defendant board, namely that a variance was not required for lot 8, that it had status as a valid nonconforming use, and was not dependent upon a variance to comply with the zoning by-law. The facts set forth in Hogan and in the record of tlhe present case are insufficient for us to accept that distinction. The lots in Hogan were originally separate lots and acquired by the owner at different times,see Hogan at 400 n.3,and the discussion of the court appears to treat the two lots as merged. Citp of Salem, Aam5arbu5CM5 Public Propertp Mepartment Wuilbing Mepartment (OU*al¢m green (978) 745-9595 Ext. 380 Peter Strout Director of Public Property �n /� Inspector of Buildings �( 1`I`1( Zoning Enforcement Officer `16 June 22, 2000 Michael Labrecque 21 Valley Street Salem, Ma. 01970 RE: 15 Cherry Hill Avenue Dear Mr. & Mrs. Labrecque: After reviewing all the documents that consisted of the Board of Appeals case in 1991, the court appeal that annulled the decision, along with the Assistant City Solicitor's submission of the case law pursuant to this matter. We find that the lots have merged. Sincerely, Peter Strout Zoning Enforcement Officer ci CCPP40DU7 ALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Department Of The Trial Court Essex, ss. Superior Court No. 91-1275 con v Robert Gerolamo, et al t-- a u 'D o� LUvs. x., 00 � WLL Richard Bencal, et als m , rj O V s"7= SUMMARY JUDGMENT (MASS. R . CIV. P. 56 ) This action came to be heard before the Court, Ronan, J. presiding, upon the motion of the plaintiffs Robert Gerolamo and Barbara Gerolamo for summary judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 56, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that the plaintiffs Robert Gerolamo and Barbara Gerolamo are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. It is hereby Ordered that ; the decision of the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem is annuled. The Clerk/Magistrate of this Court shall within 30 days send an attested copy of this judgment to the City Clerk, Building Inspector and Board of Appeals respectively of the City of Salem. Dated at Salem, Massachusetts, this 5th day of November, 1991, Assistant Clerk Hf 1� pi 'r PUE ec)PY, ATTEST YY Q PE UFY ASSY. CLERK J Ctu III 1£IIi, c1ic�55c�LI11I5PIt5 '' 9 �nttrD �f ��reul SIL b 2 43 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL N. & MARIE BUONFIGL10 FOR &WIANCE AT LOT 214 ON CHERRY HILL AVENUE (R-1 ) l� "TY CLARX.*At In. q�33_ A heari on this petition was held on June 29, 1988 with the following Board Memoers present, James Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Vice-Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary; Edward Luzinski and Associate Member Arthur LaBrecw_ e. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notice were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variances to add parcel A to lot 2 and from rear setback to allow construction of a deck at Lot 214 on Cherry Hill Avenue in this R-1 zone. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances & ist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which do not generally affect ether lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the to the petitioner; and c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the _ntent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at ;1"'c hearing, Takes the following finding of fact: 1 . No opposition was presentee to the pian_ 2. Suoport of the plan was voiced and letters were suhn-itted. 3. The parcel of land to be transfered slopes down to the present owners property. 4. The proposed deck will add to the enjoyment and comfort of the property in question. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which affect the premesis which do not generally affect the district. 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve a substantial hardship upon the petitioner. 3. The variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. i DECISION ON THE Psi ITION G= 7:%-_7L 5 MnRIE OFT Lv FOR A `;< Rr-,NCc AT LCIS 214 ON CHERRY HILL PAGE T4C Therefore, the Zoning Board of oceal v=ea ,vnani,nousiv 3-0 to c_ranc the relief requested subject to the following conaitions: 1. All conditions of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire Fire Safetv be adhered to. 2. Proper street numbering for lot 214 be obtained from the Salem City Assessors. 3. All construction be done as per the plans saLmitted and as per all existing City and State Codes. 4. All set backs be as per the plans submitted. GRANTED Ri hard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH TILE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK OF RERIRJ Ok n::J BOARD OF APPL41- Ctv of '*ttlem, Attssuchusetts ' A s Poxrb of '4vwl AL 6 2 43 JW w�41Mt P'" DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL N. & MARIE BUONFIGLIO FOR J1 LANCE AT LOT 214 ON CHERRY HILL AVENUE (R-1) 01TP CWAI#AlElq.AA A hearing on this petition was held on June 29, 1988 with the following Boar Members present, James Flaming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Vice-Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary; Edward Luzinski and Associate Member Arthur LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notice were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variances to add parcel A to lot 2 and frau rear setback to allow construction of a deck at Lot 214 on Cherry Hill Avenue in this R-1 zone. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which do not generally affect other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the to the petitioner; and c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following finding of fact: 1. No opposition was presented to the plan. 2. Support of the plan was voiced and letters were submitted. 3. The parcel of land to be transfered slopes down to the present owners property. 4. The proposed deck will add to the enjoyment and comfort of the property in question. on the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which affect the premesis which do not generally affect the district. 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would involve a substantial hardship upon the petitioner. 3. The variance requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL N. & MARIE BUONFIGLIO FOR A VARIANCE AT LOT 214 ON CHERRY HILL AVENUE, SALEM PAGE TWO Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5-0 to grant the relief requested subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire Fire Safety be adhered to. 2. Proper street numbering for lot 214 be obtained from the Salem City Assessors. 3. All construction be done as per the plans submitted and as per all existing City and State Codes. 4. All set backs be as per the plans submitted. GRANTED Rithak�rheEJ� � Ri hard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION 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 MASS_ GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER EOE, AND SHALL BE FILED W!"EIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO ;:.ASS. GENERAL L�iV:S. CNA??ER EDF. SEC;DJ-J '1I. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PER"!T GRR.NIED HEREri, SHALL NOT if,"t EFTECT _11J:111 COPY OF Th- �-��= E r!' THE J_si Fir;.1 2N OF THE ! U__:; 'i HAT 2) 71AiS L: . N:, APPEAL Pa BEEN Fii' D, IT F II-EN CLS.:. S -D 0P DENIED IS LP T4Ai IF U6h AN AFrAL HAS c' - Fi'. - RECC'�DcD IN ir= a U,H ESSEX RE' STV ,F AND D-L.XEO UN D_R iH_ ,,.;,,'E OF THE C.. . , OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AHD NOfEO ON In, OWNERS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPFAL N. s AUG 1 Mem, C x!9 '81 •2 s�o FILE* �ourb of ��r211 9ITY CLERK.SALEM. MASS. CITY CLERK, SAI_FH. KASS. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL_&_MAP,IE BUONFIGLIO FOR A VARIANCE AT-16-CHERRY HILL-AVE. (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held July 29, 1987 with the following Board Members present: Janes Hacker, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal, Secretary, Messrs. , Luzinski, Fleming and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners are requesting a Variance from lot area to allow construction of a single family dwelling in the this R-1 zone. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures is the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nul'_ifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The lot in question is unique in size and shape; 2. No opposition was raised. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship on the petitioner; 3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the 4 public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose or t'ne Ordinance. 1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAUL & MARIE BUONFIGLIO FOR A VARIANCE AT 16 CHERRY HILL AVE. , SALEM page two Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the relief requested, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All construction be done as per existing City and State Build_ns Codes; 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. in its letter to the Board be adhered to; 3. Property street numbering be obtained from the Salem Assessors Office; 4 . All construction be done in compliance with all provisions of the current Zoning Ordinance except for lot size; 5. A. Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. VARIANCE GRANTED V � 'Richard A. Bencal,-Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPE,L �P`r.;. TPIS D1ISI0I I. k'r. Shy L BE N"� PVR❑, T _ F �t iibl'•� GEi\ 5k.. Lk,.' Sc CI-.. 'i E'iH.c 0 \li S V D. 0 R p g �Rp un IS P_�unJ�D A u •.+ Gtl 5p.rR7 DH APPEAL kpf t� (; f �'f' i �_ � �1' a ,:: ,'f ;.;., ,„ r , ;;+,'�; �3 ,4:, 1 . :i8 _ __9_ _ P pJi.cdO.'�e�. _4 .J F i L V Y sf } y l � i � 15� _ "r �. 9� _ ___` __i�-f��A7.,_ c_r. _ d V s .:.�s�s � Sr:' .,.« ,,. �.. �:;' I � �. ry ��. 1 .,�pt r r f L. :'�' __: x .. 795 ___ - oU L,;Ci❑I�:y.� _ 'Ca L.Tfb of � 1£Ilh ��c�557Ch1I5£f 5 M (@nr !Snirm 6rrrn FORM A - DFC:510?: T N � rn n � m A Ms. Josephine Fusco i W N City Clerk OD City Hall _ $ Salem, MA 01970 - m m CO Dear Ms. Fusco: At a regularly scheduled meeting of te:e Sale- Plarning Board held on September 8, 1988 it was voted to endorse "A_p:oval Under Sub- division Control Law Not Reauired" on the followina described plan: 1. Applicant: Paul M. Buonfiglio 18 Cherry Hill Avenue Salem, MA 01970 2. Location and Description - 16 and 18 Cherry Hill Avenue, Salem, MA Deed of property records in Essex South District Registry. Sincerely, Walter Power III Chairman WP/sm V �1 5� 5� -rHoNliS Mlg2lal�ro CITY Of sA1,EM dy i i V dye �c 40 �� yN/cc (Lots '^d Q � r � 3 3 LOC!/S U,AP sZ3e NAUMKEfi6 2F1fL>Y MflV)96f AleVr CORP. JONA/ J. OoWN E V Scr�o fJI0P20Vfl L ' UPO U 711E o 1p 5 Ab 99 �� sUBOIU1510A) CQ.0720 G 53� � LOT 2 v Z/w A/OT 2EQUl/1E0. 1��\� f7= 9/lotS.F LR �SETI 5196FN PC 19,U,Ulv6 BOflRD � 5ti�fib`• ,_ \�' li Qq RoSF2T V. GE201,411O � ��-�� , � `I 11 Y ANn; H 00� vP 88737 0 L\G TER�� A Q� X18 / CER>l6Y r,�Ar rues PL.9N COw60RMs PL 4/V OF L,4ND 70 7,UE 2UCfs .4111.0 REG4114VOIVS Of 721E REG✓STE'/LS Of DEfOS. I A/ tz 60/1 RF61S71?Y USE 0101Y Q� NO 7-E �( ,` " PROPERTY of P1712CEL ,9 70 8E CobV£VED PfIUL N. MlglEh BUDNfIGLIO TO L OT 2 70 FOAM ONE COV 7-160005 LOT OF 1/041 ` S.F. SCALE: /"= 30' fEB21119r /9, 1988 o i0 zo 3o Go 90 NO2-rH S902E SU2VEY CO2P. 181 ESSEX 57,2E ET S,41-w, MASS- �F"30 {