14 CHESTNUT STREET - HISTORICAL - BUILDING INSPECTION CHESTNUT ST ,
HISTORICAL
Laversal®
�.owwi. .
Z1i .
CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
M/R8 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 380
MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846
March 15, 2005
Dr. Thomas A. Murray III
14 Chestnut Street
Salem,Ma. 01970
Dear Dr. Murray:
In response to your zoning question regarding the recent changes to Chestnut Street.
The Salem City Council voted to rezone Chestnut Street to single family zoning R-1.
Any structures and any units that were legal prior to the recent change are protected
under State Zoning Law as legal, grandfathered, non-conforming structures. Also, the
Salem News incorrectly stated that permission would be required to create a
condominium unit. This is not correct. Any existing, legal, grandfathered unit can be
made into a condominium unit without any action from the City. The only requirement is
to comply with the Salem Fire Department regulations that relate to hardwiring of condo-
conversions.
I hope this answers your question. If further information is needed, please contact me
directly.
Sincerely,
CL )A
Thomas St. Pierre
Zoning Enforcement Officer
cc: Kate Sullivan,Mayors Office
14 Chestnut St.
Salem, MA 01970
February 25, 2005
Thomas St.Pierre
Acting Director, Public Property
City of Salem
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. St.Pierre,
Recently the City of Salem rezoned Chestnut Street to Single Family Residential.
Newspaper reports were unclear as to the status of existing 2 family houses on that street.
Would you please clarify the status of 14 Chestnut Street under this new zoning?
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
'V-j
Thomas A. Murray, III
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
C.A. 89-642
THOMAS A. MURRAY, III, M.D. )
VS. ) JUDGMENT
ANNIE C. HARRIS, RICHARD A. DEDEL, )
DANIEL GEARY, SALEM HISTORICAL )
SOCIETY COMMISSION )
The above entitled matter came on for trial before the Court, Ronan, J.
presiding, and the issues having been duZy tried and findings having been
duZy rendered;
It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
that the prior decision of the Salem Historical
Society Commission be and hereby is ANNULLED, and
that the plaintiff, Thomas A. Murray, III, M.D.,
be issued a Certificate of Hardship.
The Clerk/Magistrate is directed to send an attested copy of this judgment
mithing thirty (30) days of the date--hereof to the Building Inspector, the
City Clerk, and the Salem Historical Society Sommission, respectively, of the
City of Salem-.
Dated at Salem, Massachusetts this 14th day of February, 1992.
A Lstant C erk
ATTEST
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
C.A. 89-642
THOMAS A. MURRAY, III, M.D. )
VS. ) JUDGMENT
ANNIE C. HARRIS, RICHARD A. .DEDEL, )
DANIEL GEARY, SALEM HISTORICAL )
SOCIETY COMMISSION )
The above entitled matter came on for trial before the Court, Ronan, J.
presiding, and the issues having been duly tried and findings having been
duly rendered;
It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
that the prior decision of the Salem Historical
Society Commission be and hereby is ANNULLED, and
that the plaintiff, Thomas A. Murray, III, M.D.,
be issued a Certificate of Hardship.
The Clerk/Magistrate is directed to send an attested copy of this ,judgment
mithing thirty (30) days of the date-hereof to the Building Inspector, the
City Clerk, and the Salem Historical Society Sommission, respectively, of the
City of Salem.
Dated at Salem, Massachusetts this 14th day of February, 1992.
i
A tstant C erk
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
C.A. 89-642
THOMAS A. MURRAY, III, M.D. )
7
VS. ) JUDGMENT
J
ANNIE C. HARRIS, RICHARD A. .DEDEL, )
DANIEL GEARY, SALEM HISTORICAL )
SOCIETY COMMISSION )
The above entitled matter came on for trial before the Court, Ronan, J.
presiding, and the issues having been duly tried and findings having been
duty rendered;
It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
that the prior decision of the Salem Historical
Society Commission be and hereby is ANNULLED, and
that the plaintiff, Thomas A. Murray, III, M.D.,
be issued a Certificate of Hardship.
The CZerk/Magistrate is directed to send an attested copy of this ,judgment
withing thirty (30) days of the date hereof to the Building Inspector, the
City Clerk, and the Salem Historical Society Sorimission, respectively, of the
City of Salem.
Dated at Salem, Massachusetts this 14th day of February, 1992.
1
A Lstant Clerk'
11RUE '0yx A--f-1 ESQ'
C
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
FEB 18 3 ;.?+ '22
ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT. r
C.A.
CM-Or
642 J
THOMAS A. MURRAY, III, M.D. )
)
)
VS. ) JUDGMENT
)
ANNIE C. HARRIS, RICHARD A. DEDEL, )
DANIEL GEARY, SALEM HISTORICAL )
SOCIETY COMMISSION )
The above entitled matter came on for trial before the Court, Ronan, J.
presiding, and the issues having been duly tried and findings having been
duly rendered;
It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
that the prior decision of the Salem Historical
Society Commission be and hereby is ANNULLED, and .
that the plaintiff, Thomas A. Murray, III, M.D.,
be issued a Certificate of Hardship.
The Clerk/Magistrate is directed to send an attested copy of this judamen.t
mithing thirty (30) days of the date hereof to the Building Inspector, the
City Clerk, and the Salem Historical Society Somnission, respectively, 'of the
City of Salem.
Dated at Salem, Massachusetts this 14th day of February, 1992.
A Lstant C erk
Fl .TRU OPY, "
TEST
y_,
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss . SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
OF THE TRIAL COURT
THOMAS A. MURRAY, III , M.D.
Plaintiff )
VS . ) CA No . 89-642
ANNIE C. HARRIS , RICHARD A. DEDEL, )
DANIEL GEARY, SALEM HISTORICAL SOCIETY COMMISSION )
Defendants )
FINDINGS OF FACT, RULINGS OF LAW AND CONCLUSIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE:
This is an action brought by a plaintiff landowner who
occupies a residence within a designated historical district
within the City of Salem, who seeks judicial review and reversal
of a decision of the- Defendant , Historical Commission of Salem.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
L. Thomas A. Murray, III , a physician, owns a residence
which is situated at 14 Chestnut Street within the City of Salem
and find that that locus is within an established historical
district.
2 .. The individual defendants constitute the membership
of the City. of Salem' s, Historical Commission and are sued in
their representative capacities .
3 ., On Septemer 15 , 1988 the plaintiff secured from and
filed with the Commission an application for a Certificate of
(2)
Appropriateness with respect to certain reconstruction work upon
the roof of his residence , to .wit , to replace an existing green
asphalt roofing shingles (which were then leaking in places)
with a different brand of assimulated wood color called "Wood Blend"
and to replace one existing skylight , to restore an alleged
previously removed second skylight and to install on the rear of
the roof an additional two skylights .
4 . On September 15th, 1988 the Salem Historical Commission
was operating subject to the constraints of Proposition 22 with
an inadequate staffing. A single employee of the planning department "
who had the title of Preservation Planner by the name of Kent C . Healy,
that acted for and on behalf of the Commission. It was he who had
custody of the applications and would deliver them over in City Hall
to persons requesting the same , and it was he who would secure
and act as the filing agency for those applicants who came into
- City Hall.
5 . The Plaintiff Murray had gone to City Hall looking for
the Historical Commission. Its address was listed as 1 Salem Green,
City Hall Annex, and he was directed to the Planning Board offices
which are in the annex. There , this Kent Healy introduced himself
as the clerk for the Commission and delivered over to the plaintiff
the application that .he sought . Subsequently, Murray returned
with the completed application, with a paint sample , with a shingle
sample and with a skylight catalog and asked Healy if he should
(3)
leave those items along with the application. Healy assured him
that he need not , but that he would- need them at the time of the
Commission' s hearing.
6 . Murray went on vacation and upon return made two and
perhaps more , inquiries of this Kent Healy as to when it was that
the Commission would hear his matter. Healy represented that the
Commission "had not placed them upon any agenda" . After some fall
storms and resulting in leaks from the roof, upon Murray' s inquiry,
Healy asserted that he didn' t need Commission approval and that
staff person then wrote a letter to the building inspector that
the Historical Commission was "without jurisdiction" . All as
more fully appears herein as Exhibit No . 5 . Thereafter, a building
permit in fact was issued. All as more fully appears in Exhibit No. 6 .
And work on the roof thereafter began.
7 . Subsequently, the Plaintiff Murray by mail received an
undated notice of hearing alleged to be from the Clerk of the
Commission, but unsigned; that constitutes Exhibit 71 apparently,
and I infer that this notice was sent on behalf of the Commission,
in connection with Exhibit 2 .. It was only after the plaintiff
arrived at the meeting that he learned that the Commission was
not acting upon his September 15th, 1988 application.
8 . The application dated November 2 , which is Exhibit 7 ,
apparently was offered by Healy, who partly because of these
circumstances , and other inadequacies and deficiencies has since
been terminated from his municipal employment and is presently
(4)
from parts unknown. On prior occasions , Healy has told Commission
members and the plaintiff, multiple and diverse stories . He has
averred that there was no September 15 , 1988 application. He has
stated to the contrary, that there was a September 15 , 1988
application. He has stated that there was , but he ripped it up .
He has also stated that Murray gave him something, but it wasn' t
an affidavit. It was only after this suit started that in the
discovery procedures of 1990 , the September 15 , 1988 application
was retrieved from the City Hall Annex Planning Department , where
this irresponsible employee had irresponsibly placed it .
9. The attempt to bring these issues , or the Murray matter,
to the attention of the Historical Commission in fact and in law
was defective. There was some testimony by the plaintiff that
the Commission on November 16th had been alerted because of
receiving complaints about the work. It was not Exhibit 7 ,
Murray ' s application. It certainly was not Murray' s application
when the less than fourteen day notice required by Chapter 40 (c)
§11 was received. No waiver factually can be inferred by this
Court that Murray waived the sixty day right , because there ' s no
reason on the evidence to. conclude that he was aware that the
Commission was bound to act within that period of time .
RULINGS OF LAW:
Predicated upon. the facts herein above set forth and pursuant
to. Rule 52 , which states that this Court shall separately set forth
(5)
its conclusions thereunder, this Court now makes its conclusions
of law.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
The decision of the Historical Commission on November 16th,
1988 , is not within the provisions of . Chapter 40 (c) , since the .
Commission was bound to act in or within sixty days of the
application being filed. In this instance it ' s true that the
Salem Historical Commission and all the members of it had no
knowledge of that and they were deceived by their employee , their
lent employee Healy, but that deception cannot be related to the
plaintiff in this case .
B. On December 7 , 1988 the Defendant Commission denied the
application for a Certificate of Hardship for the reasons set
forth therein. The first is that it never was established that
the application had been made sixty days earlier . That ' s so as
factually stated above. It now appears , of course , that that wasn ' t
SO.
C. This is, a case in which the Commission performed its public
duty with care and concern and reflection and even a rehearing ,
but it was a situation in which, not through the fault of the
Commission, but through the fault of Healy, the sixty day period
had run, so therefore , I 'm required to make this ruling and do so .
(6)
CONCLUSION:
The judgment shall annul the prior decision of the
Commission and it is ordered that Plaintiff be issued a
Certificate of Hardship.
John T. Ronan, Justice
of the Superior Court
DATE:
0
Gordon Boud & CornpancU, 9nc.
Multiple Life Adjusters £a Surveyors I established 1926
ADDRESS REPLY TO:
!p C0601Vi"c
'_ Office
Form of Notice of Casualty Loss to Building
Under Mass. Gen. Laws, Ch. 139, Sec. 36
To: Building Commissioner or Board of Health or
Inspector of Buildings Board of Selectmen
1 addresses
1
Re: Insured:
Property address: M
Policy No. 5-C)4 -'Z 2/60c) -6,
Loss of 19
File or Claim No. .S- 7362
Claim has been made involving loss, damage or destruction of the above captioned property, which
may either exceed $1,000.00 or cause Mass. Gen. Laws, Chapter 143, Section 6 to be applicable.
If any notice under Mass Gen. Laws, Ch. 139 Sec. 3B is appropriate please direct it to the attention
of the writer and include a reference to the captioned insured, location, policy number, date of loss
and claim or file number.
T ;gsp,yzisrc?
On this date, I caused copies of this notice to be sent to the persons named above at the addresses
indicated above by first class mail. O
K 2 2s b3
Sig re and date
MASSACHUSETTS CONNECTICUT NEW HAMPSHIRE VERMONT MAINE RHODE:ISLAND
/ I Boston Gloucester Bridgeport Claremont Brattleboro Augusta Pawtucket it
CLA MSSERvIC6 OF Barnstable Lawrence New London Gorham Burlington LewistonNEW ENGLAND.IMC. Brockton Pittsfield No.Haven Manchester .. S.PortlandFall River Salem Waterbury Portsmouth
Falmouth Springfield W.Hartford
Worcester
6
tit of aassa se#��
> �? ok mi RECEIVED
Paurb of Mme[
J 9t
'81 AUG -7 P2 :58
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THORVALD G. LAURITSEN FOR A
SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONVERT THE EXISTING TWO FAMILY HOUSE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
AT 14 CHESTNUT STREET INTO TWO CONDOMINIUM UNITS SALEH mA.ss_
A hearing on this petition was held on.July 29, 1981 with the following
Board Members present: Mr. Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker and
Feeherry and Associate Members Lusinski and Martineau. 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 has requested a Special Permit to convert the existing .
two-family dwelling at 14 Chestnut Street to a two-unit condominium.
This proposed condominium conversion is covered by the terms of the
City of Salem's condominium conversion ordinance. The Special Permit that has
been:requested may therefore be granted only upon a finding by the Board of Appeals
that (1) the grant of the Special Permit will not adversely impact upon the
City's existing stock of rental units for low and moderate income families and
elderly people on fixed incomes; (2) the grant of the Special Permit is not contrary
to the Salem Master Plan; and (3) the grant of the Special Permit will not adversely
impact on the neighborhood.
The Board of Appeals, after considering the evidence at the hearing, and after
viewing the property voted 3-2 in favor of the requested Special Permit (Messrs..
Hopper, Feeherry and Martineau in favor; Messrs. Hacker and Lusinski opposed) .
However, because a request for a Special Permit requires the affirmative vote of
four members of this Board, the Petitioner's request for a Special Permit was denied.
In support of their vote to deny the requested Special Permit, Messrs. Hacker
and Lusinski concluded as follows:
1) Chestnut Street is a location which has received national recognition for its
unique architecture and for the fact that the interiors and exteriors of the historic
homes on the street have been preserved.
2) The proposed division of this property into condominium units with the
inherent problem of dispute resolution which is present in a small condominium
development presente a threat to the stability of the area and specifically to the pre-
servation of this unique example of Greek Revival architecture.
3) The increase in the number of owners of this property increases the
likelihood that this property might be used for professional offices or for other
non-residential purposes.
4) The conversion of this property into two condominiums will have an adverse
RE CE IV E
DECISION - THORVALD G. LAURITSEN - PAGE 2 081 AUG -7 P2 :58 .
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SAL-EN A � -
impact on the availability of rental units for people with moderate
incomes.
5) There was substantial oppo�on by the/Chestnust St. Association and
abutters to the condominium conver o
ony M. Fe herry, ecretary
APPEALK0, THIS.DECISI'N, IF AW, SHALL BE WADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERALLAWS, CHAPFER 308, AND SHALL BE FiLEI' 4JITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK..
PURSANT TO A.;,. rtid PAI Ia99S, CHAP---,. 303, S C'Yi f: 11, Tti_ V0ANCF OR SPECIAL PERMIT
GRANTED HEc PN, SHALL W - IXAE EFT- LT HpITIL A COPY OF irlE%. CISION, SEARING THE CERT-
FICATION CF HE CIPY CLER;i THAT 20 JAYS ;VE E WSED A?I?. NIP APP-AL HAS BEEN FILED,
OR THAT, 8F SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN HLE, THAT li HAS DEEM DiS3H-SED OR DENIED IS -
RECORDED VO THE SOU:H ESSEX RECISFRY OF L'EEDS.AND ;NDEAED TINDER THE NAME OF THE OVINE@
4F RECORD OR LS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLE
Parb of Appml '82 JUN 15 A9 :21
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THORVALD G. LAURITSE0J �LESK'0 C F F I C E
A SPECIAL PER'bflT FOR 14-14 1/2 CHESTNUT STREET
A hearing on this petition was held on June 2, 1982 with the following Board
Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Piemonte, Hacker and
Feeherry and Associate Member Luzinski.
Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and a notice of bhe hearing
was properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Mass. Gen.
Laws Ch. 40A. This hearing was scheduled in accordance with the terms of the
judgment entered by the Court, Bennett, J. id the case Lauritsen v. Hopper et al.
(Superior Court, Essex County, C.A. No. 80-1873) . That case involves an appeal
by the petitioner from a prior decision of this Board denying petitioner's
request for a Special Permit to allow the conversion of the subject property
to two condominium units. Under the terms of the judgment entered in that case,
the Court remanded petitioner's request for a special permit to allow the conver-
sion of the subject property to condominiums to this Board for "further considera-
tion of the [petitioner's special permit] application and specific findings in
the following areas":
1. Upon what basis can it be found that the locus
[14 Chestnut Street] ever constituted.a part of
the City of Salem's stock of rental units avail-
able to "families of low and moderate income"?
2. Upon what evidence can it be found that condominium
conversion of No. 14 Chestnut Street will contribute
to poorer maintenance than that existing in the case
of wooden semi-detached dwellings on the north side
of Chestnut Street?
3. For what reasons are two owners less likely to be
able to resolve disputes than multiples of two owners,
given a condominium agreement containing a workable
dispute [resolution] mechanism?
After a public hearing on this matter, this Board concluded as follows on the
above issues:
1. With respect to Issue No. 1 above, the Board unanimously
concluded on the basis of evidence presented to it--including
in particular the new materials relating to the rents which
were previously charged for the apartment at the site, which
materials were provided to the Board in a brief submitted on
behalf of the Chestnut Street Associates— that 14 Chestnut
Street, at some time in the past, constituted a part of the
City of Salem's stock of rental units "available" to families
ty_14 112 Chestnut Street
J�, 1982
2
of moderate income. The Board bases its unanimous decision
on this issue principally upon the relative low rent received
for the apartment at the locus several years ago. Whether
measured by HUD guidelines or any other standard, the apart—
ment was."available" to familes of low or moderate income. No
evidence was submitted to the Board on whether a moderate
Income family ever rented the apartment at the locus.
i
However, with respect to the collateral question raised by
the City of Salem's condominium conversion ordinance, the
Board split un the question whether the conversion of the
apartment at the locus to a condominium would have any impact
upon the City's stock of rental units available to families
of moderate income. Board Members Messrs. Feeherry and Hopper
were of the opinion, both because of the current rent for the
apartment and because the property at issue has but a single
j rental unit, that the conversion of this property to two
condominiums would have no impact upon the City's present
stock of rental units available to families of moderate incomes.
. Whereas, Board Members Messrs. Piemonte, Luzinski and Hacker
were of the opinion that the conversion of the one rental unit
at the locus to a condominium will have an adverse effect on
the City's available stock of rental units for families of
moderate incomes. In this regard, Messrs. Luzinski and Hacker.
are particularly concerned about the impact of this condominium .
conversion upon the very limited number of moderate income
rental units in the area of the City where the property is
located. Moreover, Messrs. Piemonte, Luzinski and Hacker
are all also of the opinion that this condominium conversion,
by virtue of the precedent that it will set, will have an
adverse effect on the City's overall stock of rental units
for families of low and moderate incomes.
2. With respect to Issue No. 2 above--the question whether there
is evidence upon which it can be found that the conversion of
this property to condominiums will contribute to poorer main—
tenance than that existing in the case of wooden semi—detached
dwellings on the north side of Chestnut Street--Messrs. Hopper,
Feeherry and Piemonte are of the opinion that no such evidence
was presented to the Board and that to the contrary, the evi—
dence indicated that condominium conversion would contribute
to better overall maintenance of this property as compared to
those sites on the north side of Chestnut Street which are
referenced by the Court in Issue No. 2. Messrs. Hacker and
Luzinski hold the contrary opinion that it is more likely than
not that condominium conversion will contribute to poorer
maintenance and in particular, that condominium conversion
would have the effect of reducing the likelihood of maintaining
the unique historic interior and exterior features of the locus
property. Messrs. Hacker and Luzinski hold this view based
upon the evidence submitted to the Board which indicated that
■s.
Chestnut .Street
due to the likelihood of disagreement over matters of taste
and finances, the maintenance of the exterior of this property
may be subject to frequent arbitration and with the resulting uncer-
tainty of outcome and delays ordinarily accompanying litigation,
maintenance of the entire structure and common areas will suffer
to the detriment of the entire house and neighborhood. This
situation is different from the case of semi-detached wooden
structures where the failure of the two owners to agree to
maintenance or repairs would not impede maintenance from pro-
ceding. In such otructures where one owner fails to maintain,
only ono-half of the structure suffers. '
3. Finally, on':Issue No. 3 above--the question thether there is
evidence that "two owners are less likely to be able to resolve
disputes than multiples of two owners given a condominium agree-
ment containing a workable dispute [resolution] mechanism"--
Mr. Feeherry is of the opinion that the dispute resolution
features in the petitioner's condominium documents provide a
workable framework for the resolution of all disputes amongst
owners. All other members of the Board are of the opinion that
the dispute resolution mechanisms in the condominium documents
are procedurally awkward, time-consuming, and expensive and
that they do not provide adequate standards to ensure a workable
process for resolving disputes, particularly if such disputes
relate to capital expenditures concerning preservation of the
unique architectural features of the .subject property. ' In
- - addition, Messrs. Hopper, Hacker and'Luzinski are also of the
opinion that the size of the condominium conversion (i.e. , a
two-unit conversion) presents inherent dispute problems, such
as dividing large;.capital expenses amongst only two owners--
which are not present in larger condominium conversions where
no single owner can obstruct maintenance.and require that an
issue such as maintenance be decided:byarbitration.
Ahony M. Feehe y
ecretary
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK APPAL 1 ..
S _ .,I.' .. c TO S-.*hN I] .F
OF 15iS LEC':C!;!N I:. i5`_ ..FF;'..i ...= ii`.7
LPA .-c
Fw i:D'! OF iN .J ...... .. .. '''i
OR "HU, !' Su"11 Al:
RECC•RCED IN THE �_!i;. _SSb: ,.'R THE ........ Ci '•'r.E ,...X`R
OF UCCRD OR IS RacilRDEU AND NuiLU U7{ I':-- J4".L;R6 :;Li:i G'CriE Gr 'i
. BOARD OF APPEAL
tiff's'..�. _ _. 'Y'_r_ .. -�- •. _ ...- .. _ a . �... .. _ .
rR .SENDER: Complete items 1,2,3 and 4.
In
o Put your address in the"RETURN TO"space on the
3 reverse side.Failure to do this will prevent this card from
W being returned to you.The return receipt fee will provide
.� you the name Lig
parson delivered to and the date of
depvarv.For additional fees the following services ares
available.Consult postmaster for fees and check box(es)
,F for cervicals)requested.
J
m 1. Show to whom,date and address of delivery.
w
2. ❑ Restricted Delivery.
3. Article Addressed to: 4
4. Type of Service: Article Number
❑ Registered ❑ Insured
19 Certified 13COD 3 x'09
❑ Express N6il
Always obtain signature of addresseegagent and
DATE DELIVERED.
G 5. Signature—Addresses g, •r
3r X
rp 6. Signature—Agent - r T
-11 X
A
S 7. Date of Deellivery I/
0 �'f l'
z
S. Addressee'sAddrese( NL t andlee
OMM IS/
In
n� �1�D/97d
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE I (I I I
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
SENDER INSTRUMNS u-®
Prim your name,address,and ZIP Code in the
space below.
• Complete items 1,2,3,and 4 on the reverse.
• Attach SO tfOnt e}article M 6pace permits, PENALTY FOR PRIVATE
otherwise affix to back of artiele. USE.1300
• =article"Return Receipt Requested"
ad stem to number.
RETURN _
TO
1 ems of an r
� g
(N,o.a b Stteet,AA ¢w .
ife,P.O.P, Box or O.No.)
City,Stets,and ZIP Code)
P 443 509 280
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED—
" NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
(See Reverse)
0
streej/a
/ G
P.o. to and z oae
U
Postage $
stifled Fee "a
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee \
Return Receipt Showing
to whom and Date Delivered
Return Receipt Showing towhom, (�
N Date,and Address of Delivery � V
ao
TOTAL Postage and Fees $
a
fyoatmerk or Date
0.
C
0
u.
ti
a
BRCS POSTAGE STACPS TO ARTICLE TO COVER FIRST CIASS POSTAGE,
CIFINREO NAIL FEE,AND CHARGES FOR ANY SELECTED OPTIORAL SERVICES.(no ftaq
1.(fyou womthis receipt postmarked,stickthe gummedstubonthe left portion of the etldressaide
ofthearticle towing the receiptattachad andpresentthe article at apostof iceservicewindowor
hand it to your rural carrier.(no was charge)
2 If you do not want this receipt postmarked,stick the Summed stub on the left portion of the
address side of the article,date,detach and retain the receipt,and mail the article.
3.If You want a return receipt,who the certiRed-mall number and your name MW address on e
return receiptcerd,Form 3811,and attach ittothefrontofthe articlebymeans ofthegummedends
H space permits.Otherwise,affk to back of article.Endorse front of article RETURN RECEIPT
REQUESTED adjacent to the number.
4.11 you went delivery restricted to the addressee,or to an authorized agent of the addresses.
andores RESTRICTED DELIVERY on the front of the article.
S.Enter fees for the services requested in the appropriate spaces on the front of this recelpL If
return receipt Is requested,chock the applicable blocks In hem 1 of Form 3811.
8.Save this receipt and present it N you make Inquiry.
e w.00.a, fit# of Sttll'nt, , tts c ix E##s
a �iublic �r�tper#� �e�ttr#tueu#
qfa MM��pir llillltlt `nepartnirri#
William H. Munroe
One Salem Green
745-0213 October 22, 1985
Dr, and Mrs. Thomas Murray
1� Chestnut Street
Salem, Ma. 01970
Dear Dr. & Mrs. Murray,
Upon inspection of your property, specifically the inground pool,
on the morning of October 21, 1985 I determined by view that no °
protective fencing exists on the premises.
As was indicated in your initial application for installation of
the above, this safety requirement is needed and should be in place
at this time.
Please see to it that this protective fencing is in place within
thirty (30) days of receipt of this notice.
Failure to comply will result in the appropriate legal action, v
't Sincrel ours,
E ga J. Paquin
Ass Bu ldin Spector
EJP/hmc
c.c. Mr. Mroz, Mayor's Aide
City Clerk
Councillor Lovely
Historic Commission
V -
r.
P 154 217 414
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED
NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
(See Reverse)
a ent to
0
StrrL?nd
a 1
P. tate a IP Code
O
i
6 Postage $
Vl
J
� Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt Showing
to whom and Date Delivered
mReturn receipt showing to whom,
m Date,and Address of Delivery
m TOTAL Postage and Fees $
LL
c Postmark or Date
9
E
`o
LL
N
a
DICK POSTAGE STAMPS TO ARTICLE TO COVER FIRST-CLASS POSTAGE,
CERTIFIC MAIL FEE,AND CHARGES FOR ANY SELECTED OPTIONAL SERVICES.(see front)
L If you want this receipt postmarked,stick the gummed stub on the left portion of the address side of the article
leaving the receipt attached and present the article at a post office service window or hand it to your rural carrier.
(no extra charge)
2. If you do not want this receipt postmarked,stick the gummed stub on the left portion of the address side of the
,article,date,detach and retain the receipt,and mail the article.
3. If you want a return receipt,write the certified mail number and your name and address on a return receipt card,
Form 3811,and attach it to the front of the article by means of the gummed ends it space permits.Otherwise,affix
to back of article. Endorse front of article. RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED adjacent to the number.
4. If you want delivery restricted to the addressee, or to an authorized agent of the addressee, endorse
RESTRICTED DELIVERY on the front of the article.
5. Enter fees for the services requested in the appropriate spaces on the front of this receipt.If return receipt is re-
quested, check the applicable blocks in item 1 of Form 3811.
6. Save this receipt and present it if you make inquiry.
rR .SENDER: Complate dins 1,2,3 and 4.
e Put youraddressin the"RETURN TO"space on the
3 revertesida.Failure to do this will prevent this card from
tit being returned to you.The return receipt fee.will provide
you the name of+he person delivered to and the date of
delivery.For additional few the following services are
c
available.Consult postmaster for fees and check boxiest y r
.� for serviceia)requested. {
J
1. Show to whom,date and adorns of delivery t
it
2. ❑ Restricted Delivery.
V
3. Article Addrewad to,
t ,
4. �rvsfto:T
ervice: Article Number
❑ d ❑ Insured l5yal7 L/i L(
❑ COD
❑ Express Mail
Always obtain signature of addresseesr agent and
DATE DELIVE D.
p 5. Signature-4% r
p /
r� 6. Signa re-Agent
n x
S 7. Date of Delivery
C f6'� sj
i
B. Addresses's Address(ONLYt request . paral
9
T
t7
M
V
-ESSF
UNITED STATES POSTAL SE E����
OFFICIAL BUSINESS pV[C
SENDER INSTRUCTION
Print your name,address,and ZIP C
space below. r 5
• Complete it,,,1,2,3,and 4 on the
• Attach to front of article if space permits, PENALTY FOR PRIVATE
otherwise affix to back of article. USE.$loo
• Endorse article"Return Receipt Requested"
adjacent to number.
RETURN
TO
eof Sand
(N/.=and Apt,Suite P.O.Box or R.D o.)
(City,State,and ZIP Code)
ottl>'nt, tts �ztu�E##s
$ s
z Public Prnpertg Peparttnent
Pttilbinq 39rVartment
William H. Munroe
One Salem Green
745-0213
f
December 10, 1985
Dr. and Mrs. Thomas Murray
14 Chestnut Street
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Dr. and Mrs. Murray
As per my letter to you dated October 22, 1985 in respect
to your pool fencing, would you please notify us as to
the status of the above.
Thank You,
Edg # - P quip
Ass B ing Inspector
EJP/jdg
c.c.: Mr Mroz, Mayors Aide
City Clerk
Councillor Lovely
Historic Commission
'S S,Vfj Allo
-
98,
Hv To 'N
14 Chestnut Street
CD u,
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
January 21 , 1986
c5 F
�} U
Edgar J. Paquin
Assistant Build Inspector
City of Salem
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Mister Paquin,
Please excuse the delay in responding to your letter
of December 10 , 1985 . Our pool is now surrounded by a
fence at least four feet high with lockable gates .
Sinc rely,
Thomas A. Murray, III