18 CROMBIE STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION 18 CROMBIE STREET
i
i
No. 153L-2
HASTINGS, MN
LOS ANGELES-CHICAGO-LOGAN.OH
MCGREGOR.TX-LOCUST GROVE.GA
U.S.A.
�d •� ins//� �o� �'
���p
s� �roa�
. �- � o
, .
Certificate No: 304-05 Building Permit No.: 304-05
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
City of Salem
Building Electrical Mechanical Permits
This is to Certify that the RESIDENCE located at
Dwelling Type
0018 CROMBIE STREET in the CITY OF SALEM
- - -- - - -------------- -- -- - - - ------
Address Town/City Name
r
IS HEREBY GRANTED A TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY
30 DAY TEMPORARY
This permit is granted in conformity with the Statutes and ordinances relating thereto, and
expires _ Tuesday Jan 24,2006 unless sooner suspended or revoked.
Expiration Date
Issued On:Thu Dec 21,2006 -------- --
---------------
-- -- ---
GeoTMS®2006 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions,Inc. -
`y�yuu��.=,�
�� �S1yM0 ���
••
. 0
o y
�rs�s: :.�''
� � x
u
0018 CROMBIE STREET 304-05
GIS#: _J4029--, - COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Map: �6 CITY OF SALEM
Block:
Lot: — -- -
-- -[0452_ — --- --
Permit#CategoryREPAIR REPLACE BUILDING PERMIT
Permit# '304-OS
Project# JS-2005-0319
Est. Cost: IS20.000.00
Fee i$185.00
Const Class: PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO:
:Use Group: ! Contractor: License:
— -- --
Lot Size(sq. ft.) 11800 JOHN GOFF Architect- 9251
Zoning: B5 Owner: HABITAT FOR HUMMANITY oa
Units Gained:_ Applicant: JOHN GOFF
Units Lost: I
Dig Safe#: -- ---AT: 0018 CROMBIE STREET
ISSUED ON 17-Sep-3004 AMENDED ON: EXPIRES ON: I7-Mar-2005
S
TO PERFORM THE FOLLOWING WORK:
304-05 HOUSE RESTORATION TJS
POST THIS CARD SO IT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET
Gas Plumbing. : _ - - Buildin
' Electric
Underground: ! ground: Underground: Excavation: ix
Servicer=a-L"—'i6 M ler. L�" Poolings:
Rough J 6-O� Rough: P, O(( �3
Rou h Foundation:
Final: Final: Final: Rough Frame:
a IF Lpe
Fireplace/Chimney: !/ D iO
D.P.W. Fire Health
Insulation:
Meter: Oil: D
House p Smoke: Final:.._,_.-
Treasury:
Water: Alarm:
'Sewer: Spriukl-:rs:
y
THIS PERMIT MAY BE REVOKED BY THE CITY OF SALEM UPON O"LAT�IO OOF ITS
RULES
RULES AND REGULATIONS.
sf -
Signature:
r
Fee Type: Receipt No: Date Paid: Check No: Amount:
BUILDING REC-2005-000353 17-Scp-04 825 5185.00
i
I
GcoT.\ISCg,2004 Des I.auriers Municipal Solutions.Inc.
��OMDIT�� CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
go" -� �'tG„ PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
=' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR -
��`', yb c SALEM, MA 01 970
TEL. (978)745-9595 EXT. 380 -
FAX (978) 740-9846
STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR.
MAYOR
April 2, 2003
Holyoke Square Inc.
Holyoke Square
ATTN: Jean Dennis
Salem, Ma. 01970
RE: 18 Crombie Street
Dear Owners:
The building at 18 Crombie Street has been vacant and unused for several years. The
State Building Code 780, CMR requires the owner of a building to keep that building safe
and secure. To date, I think your company has met that requirement.
The reason I am writing, is to make your company aware of emergency regulations that
were adopted by the B.B.R.S. back on April 10, 2001 after the Worcester fire.
The new requirements require the owner of a vacant building to provide a monitored
intruder alarm to alert owners and Fire Department of the presence of an intruder.
I have enclosed a copy of the building code regulations.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. If you have any
questions, please contact me.
Sin ely,
Thomas St. Pierre
Acting Building Commissioner
cc: Mayors Office
Tom Phillbin
Electrical Department
Fire Prevention
BY EMERGENCY ACTIONS OF THE BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS
AND STANDARDS -VOTED AT THE DECEMBER 12, 2000 MONTHLY
MEETING OF THE BBRS AND FURTHER REVISED AT THE APRIL 10,2001
MEETING OF THE BBRS
Amend 780 CMR Chapter 1. & 121 by adding two new subsections: (1) 121.7 and (2)
121.8.
780 CMR 121.7 Standards for making buildings safe or secure: Any owner of a
building who has been notified that said building shall be made safe or secure under 780
CMR 121.2, shall:
(1) Remove all materials determined by the head of the fire department or building
official to be dangerous in case of fine.
(2) Secure all floors accessible from grade utilizing one of the following methods so
long as such method is approved by the head of the fire department and local
building official in writing:
(a) Secure all window and door openings in accordance with the U.S.
Fire Administration,National Arson Prevention Initiative Board
Up Procedures,continuously until sucli time as the building is
reoccupied, or;
(b) Provide 24 hour watchman services, continuously until such time
as the building is reoccupied,or;
(c) Provide a monitored intruder alarm system at the perimeter of all
floors accessible from grade, continuously until such time as the
building is reoccupied.
Said owner, as the case may be, shall notify the building official that the approved
method chosen to secure the building has been incorporated. Said owner shall
allow the building official to enter the building for an inspection to ascertain that
the building is secured and made safe. Said owner shall allow the head of the fire
department to enter the building. The building official shall be supplied with
records of maintenance and operation if the provisions in clause 2(b)or 2 (c)are
used.
(3) Maintain any existing fire alarms or sprinkler systems unless written permission is
obtained from the head of the fire department in accordance with M.G.L.c. 148, §
27A to shut off or disconnect said alarms or systems.
(4) Maintain utilities unless written permission is obtained from the building official
to disconnect said utilities. Permission to disconnect utilities shall not be granted
if it will result in inadequate heat to prevent freezing of an automatic sprinkler
system or inadequate utilities to maintain any other protection systems.
(5) The requirements of 780 CMR 121.7 (1) - (4) do not prevent a building official
from ordering or taking expeditious,temporary security measures in emergency
situations pending the completion of the requirements of 780 CMR 121.7 (1)-
(4). For the purposes of 780 CMR 121.7(5), an "emergency situation" shall be
defined as: an unexpected incident,which by its very nature may present a threat
to public safety personnel who may be required to affect a rescue effort or
conduct fire extinguishment operations.
Upon refusal or neglect of said owner to comply with such notice, any building official
acting under the authority of 780 CMR 121.3 or 121.5,shall cause to be secured all
window and door openings accessible from grade in accordance with the U.S. Fire
Administration National Arson Prevention Initiative Board up Procedures or other
equivalent procedure approved by the head of the fire department, continuously until
such time as the building is reoccupied.
Any building which has been made to conform to the provisions of this regulation during
vacancy may be reoccupied under its last permitted use and occupancy classification,
provided that any systems which were disconnected or shut down during the period of
vacancy are restored to fully functional condition and subject to 780 CMR 111.2 and
MGL Chapter 40A. The local building official shall be notified in writing prior to re-
occupancy. If said building is changed in use or occupancy or otherwise renovated or
altered it shall be subject to the applicable provisions of 780 CMR 34.
780 CMR 121.8: Marking or identifying certain buildings that are especially unsafe
in the case of fire. Any building official who determines that a building is especially
unsafe in case of fire undei 780 CMR 121.2, shall notify the head of the fire department
about the existence of said building. The building official,in cooperation with the head
of the fire department, shall cause said building to be marked in accordance with the
marking requirements established by the Board of Fire Prevention Regulations in 527
CMR 10.00.
Cttp of *aYem, 41ag5atbu5etV5
`
Public Propertp Department
r �
jguilbing Department
one 6alem green
(978) 745-9595 &1. 360
Peter Strout
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
June 8, 2001
Crombie St. Neighborhood Assoc.
RE: 18 Crombie Street
To Whom it May Concern:
This office has performed a number of survey inspections on the above referenced
property and found that the building is not condemable at this juncture according to the
criteria setforth by the Massachusetts Building Code CMR 780, Chapter 1.
Sincerel
Peter Strout
Building Commissioner
LUNDREGAN
LAW OFFICES
WILLIAM J.LUNDREGAN THE KINSMAN BUILDING TELEPHONE(978)741.3888
JANET.LUNDREGAN 81 WASHINGTON STREET FACSIMILE(978)741-8110
SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 Email:wjl@lundmganlaw.wm
January 17, 2001
c-�
s �
C—
MS. Deborah E. Burkinshaw —
City Clerk 00 r r
City Hall " D M"
Salem,MA 01970a
c.n >
RE: Abandoned Building on Crombie Street
Dear Ms. Burkinshaw:
As you know, I represent Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company.
Holyoke has received a request to attend a meeting of the City Council Committee on
Government Services on Thursday, January 18, 2001, at 6:00 p.m.
I regret to inform you that we are unable to attend the Committee meeting.
This matter is presently before the Appeals Court for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and I believe it would be inappropriate for Holyoke or myself to make
comments while this matter is in litigation.
You may inform the Committee that we are in the process of ongoing discussions with
the Legal Department of the City of Salem.
If any member of the Committee should have any..questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Veryly your
; ---`
WlL IAM J. LUNDREGiIN
WIL/cr
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
WILLIAM J. LUNDREGAN Legal Department JOHN D. KEENAN
City Solicitor Assistant City Solicitor
91 Washington Street 93 Washington Street 15 Church Street
Tel:978.741-3888 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Tel:976-744-8500
Fax:978-741-8110 Fax:978-744-0111
October 28, 1998
Building Inspector's Office
Kevin Goggin
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: HOLYOKE MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO., INC. v.
SALEM REDVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AC No. 98-P-1671
Dear Kevin:
As recently discussed, the above captioned matter which pertains to 18 Crombie
Street has been scheduled for Appeals Mediation on November 17th. Prior to
that, I would like to have the premises reinspected and a determination made of
its "dangerousness" pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. c 143. What, if anything, needs
to be done to make this property safe? Is it in such a state of disrepair at this
time that it is appropriate to order demolition of the premises?
Holyoke has agreed to such an inspection. Please coordinate directly with Jean
Davis (740-2205) at that office at your earliest convenience. The results from
the inspection will be necessary to proceed on an informed basis.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Do not hesitate to contact me with
any questions.
Ve st regards,
Jo D. Keenan,
As i tant City Solicitor
JD jm.salem
cc. Webb F. Primason, Esq.
�.
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS /ot 0"L
WILLIAM J.LUNDREGAN Legal Department JOHN D. KEENAN
City SolicitorAssistant City Solicitor
81 Washington Street 93 Washington Street 15 Church Street
Tel:978-741-3888 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Tel:978-744-8500
Fax:978-741-8110 Fax:978-744-0111
October 16, 1998
RE; Holyoke v, City ofSalem
/SRA
18 Crombie Street
Dear Mayor Usovicz:
This matter has made its way to the appeals court. A mediation will soon be
scheduled to see if there is any way to resolve this matter short of a full-blown
hearing before the Appeals Court. Briefly, you may recall this case essentially
boiled down to Holyoke purchasing the property and wanting to tear down 18
Crombie to landbank for future use and in the short-term use for extra parking.
The SRA opposed the demolition and former Building Inspector Munroe made
the determination that is was not an "unsafe" building needing to be torn down.
I do not believe it has been reinspected in since other than the outside porch,
which was recently torn down. Judge vanGestel in his decision upheld the power
of the SRA to oppose the demolition and the discretion of the building inspector
to make the determination of"safe."
Although we "won"the court decision, I must agree with Judge vanGestel's
comments (footnote 4 attached), that nobody, neither the citizens of Salem nor
Holyoke, have gained much from this seemingly endless legal odyssey. At this
time, even if we are upheld on appeal – which I think we will be – 18 Crombie
Street will decay until we have no option but to order it torn down. It is my
opinion that we should attempt to bring the parties together again at this time to
see if anything is possible to finally bring some closure to this matter. I would
like to set up a meeting with you, Craig Wheeler, Peter Strout, Tim Clarke,
President of Historic Salem, Inc., head of Historical Commission, Doug Ryder,
President Holyoke and counsel Webb Premason. I-Wo
that the new building mspeetor to a look at=the structure before our.I eeting?
�h_It Is his opinion that thls bullding� s unsafe,._Itsho d be-d ed If ofd
—we sshould discuss other options. --
Please contact me at your convenience so that we may discuss this matter. As
you know, Bill Lundregan previously represented Holyoke. Obviously, he has
withdrawn from the case and has had absolutely no input on this matter since
that time. I do not even talk to him about it in our case discussions.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Ve b t regards,
Jo n . Keenan,
Ass nt City Solicitor
JDK/kjm.salem
ENC.
I
18
it ever arises, or the hands of this Court if it is that next judge, should
not be. tied by this non-disposition of the issue today. No declaratory
r .
judgment shall be rendered.
ORDER FOR JUDGMENT'S
In case number 91-2352-A judgment shall be entered for the
defendant dismissing all counts of the complaint.
In case number 92-0688-A judgment shall be entered for the
defendants dismissing all counts of the complaint.4
Allan van Gestel
Justice of the Superior Court
DATED: July 30, 1997
4 The Court is well aware, and regrets, that the foregoing disposition of these two casest
does little to resolve the underlying issue of the fate of the building at 18 Crombie Street ini
Salem. The City seeks to preserve the building for historical purposes, but has declined to
take it by eminent domain or even establish the area as an historic district under G.L. c. 40C.
`t City e that it can -- unfair)
y .., Y seems to hope yin the Courts view -- force Holyoke Square to
do theublic's work, at Holyoke Square's P y q private expense, and repair and restore the
building. Holyoke Square, which presumably bought the building with its eyes wide open, `t
cannot be forced to make repairs and can, if it chooses, continue to allow the building to
deteriorate until such time as the Building Inspector must do more than look the other way
NF
and issue a demolish or repair older under G.L. c. 143, sec. 6. Neither Holyoke Square nor
N.-
the citizens of Salem have gained much from this seemingly endless legal odyssey. But the
Court can do no more -- and should do no more -- than decide the issues brought before it as € k
the law dictates.
r�:
of �ttlEm, fflttssttr4usEttli
Public Propertg Department
Department
line #alem l4reen
588-745-9595 L-xt. 388
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
August 10, 1995
Holyoke Square, Inc.
Holyoke Square
Salem, M.A 01970
RE: C18_Crombie St. , Salem,
To Whom Ever It May Concern:
This office has received complaints concerning the above mentioned
property. On August 10, 1995, I conducted an inspection and found that the
rear porch post, supporting the roof structure, is in an unsafe condition and
must be repaired immediately.
Please contact this office upon receipt of this letter to inform us of
your course of action in this matter. Failure to do so within fifteen (15)
days will result in court action being taken against you.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Leo E. Tremblay
Building Inspector
LET/jmc
cc: Councillor Donahue
Councillor Harvey
LUNDREGAN
L A W O F F I C ES
THE KINSMAN BUILDING
WILLIAM J. LUNDREGAN 81 WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE (508) 741-3888
JANE T LUNDREGAN SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 FACSIMILE (508) 745-3607
August 29, 1995
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 18 Crombie- Street, Salem, MA
s
Dear Mr. Tremblay:
Please be advised that I represent Holyoke Square, Inc. , Holyoke
Square, Salem, MA 01970 and they have forwarded to me your
correspondence to them dated August 10, 1995.
Since I have just returned from vacation and our Architect, Charles
DeMarco of DeMarco/Jarek Partnership, 233 Derby Street, Salem, MA,
is''currently 'on vacation—until September 5, 1995, be assured that
upon Mr. DeMarco' s return we will have a meeting to discuss the
appropriate course of action to be taken pursuant to your Order
dated August 10, 1995, pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 143.
If you have any questions with reference to this matter, please do
not hesitate to call me.
Ver trul yo ,
W IAM J. LU DR AN
WJL/amp
(jA4Pe'1nw)'479
Tito of �ttlem, mttssocl�usEttsPublic Propertp Department
+'Builbin9 p i9e artment
(One *nlem (5reen
508-745-9595 Ext. 300
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
August 10, 1995
Holyoke Square, Inc.
Holyoke Square
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 18 Crombie St. , Salem, 1•A
To Whom Ever It May Concern:
This office has received complaints concerning the above mentioned
property. On August 10, 1995, I conducted an inspection and found that the
rear porch post, supporting the roof structure, is in an unsafe condition and
must be repaired immediately.
Please contact this office upon receipt of this letter to inform us of
your course of action in this matter. Failure to do so within fifteen (15)
days will result in court action being taken against you.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Leo E. Tremblay
Building Inspector
LET/jmc
cc: Councillor Donahue
Councillor Harvey
POSTAGE POSTMARK 00 DATE
RETURN SHOW TO WHOM,DATE AND RESTRICTED w
RECEIPT ADDRESS OF DELIVERY DELIVERY - Q
CERTIFIED FEE+RETURN RECEIPT W N
SERVICE
>w
� TOTAL PoSIAGE AND FEES
NOINSURANCE DON RAG RGVIGEO- w¢
Ir
SENT TO. NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL OQ
r— ISFE MFR RIM wa
_ ,
O�
Holyoke Square, Inc. a
o Holyoke Sq'uake '. . .,, WI,
a SAlem, AIA 09170 F O
ru
� W2
U
QW
PS FORM 3800 a
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL o
Up.
PoNRo�,NE. 2
su seance ------------------
I
I
STICK POSTAGE STAMPS TO ARTICLE TO COVER FIRST CLASS POSTAGE,
CERTIFIED MAIL FEE,AND CHARGES FOR ANY SELECTED OPTIONAL SERVICES(see front).
1. If you want this receipt postmarked,stick the gummed stub to the right of the return address of the
article,leaving the receipt attached,and present the article at a past 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 to the right of the return address
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 r,
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. 1
5. Enter fees for the services requested in the appropriate spaces on the front of this receipt.If return'
receipt is requested,check the applicable blocks in item 1 of Form 3811.
6. Save this receipt and present it if you make inquiry. '
SENDER:
• Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the
• Complete items 3,and as-a o following services(for an extra fee):
• Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this card
to you. 1. ❑ Addressee's Address
• Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not permit.
• Write"Return Receipt Requestetl'on the trendless below the article number. 2. El Restricted Delivery
• The Return Receipt Fee will provide you the signature of the person delivered to and the
date of deliver . Consult postmaster for feg.
3.Article Addressed to: T.; 4a.Article Number
�{ P 921 991 798
ti^A";x OYC<t S+fS3rfL,. `k:.
KW_.. 46.Service Type
4 yoke. Sq
NA 09170 � CERTIFIED ;
7.D Deliv Jh/
5.Sign lure—(A(dressee) 8.A res M e's Address
I (ONLY if requested and lee paid.)
6.Signature—(Agent) II
I
PS Form 3811,November 1990 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT I
!f
I
pUnited States Postal Service
Ip Official Business
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE
USE,$300
Illwu�l�l��nl�ulll�unll��wlul�l�lull�nll
INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS
ONE SALEM GREEN
SALEM MA 01970-3724
e
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
ROBERT A. LEDOUX Legal Department JOHN D. KEENAN
City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor
314 Essex Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 15 Church Street
assacuses
508-741-2111 508-744-8500
August 4, 1997
Leo Tremblay, Bldg. Inspector
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
RE: Demolition of 18 Crombie Street
Dear Leo:
Please find attached decision I recently received from the Court on the above
captioned matter. I think you will find it interesting reading. It discusses your discretion
as Building Inspector to determine what buildings are a"danger." The Court upheld
Inspector Munroe's decision that 18 Crombie was not a danger. The decision also
reviews some definitions of danger.
Especially interesting is Judge vanGestel's comments in Footnote 4 at the end of
the decision. I am not sure what Holyoke will do from here, but I do not think this issue
is resolved yet.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Ve best regards,
Jo n . Keenan
JDK/kjm
Enc.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTIONS
NO. 91-2352-A
and
NO. 92-0688-A
HOLYOKE SQUARE,INC.
V.
SALEM REDEVELDPMENT AUTHORITY
and
HOLYOKE SQUARE,INC.
V.
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD, et al.
FINDINGS. RULINGS and ORDER FOR JUDGMENT
These two cases, tried together before the Court without a jury,
involve the future of a simple, old house at 18 Crombie Street in the
heart of the historic City of Salem, Massachusetts. The plaintiff, the
house's present owner, believing it to be hazardous and beyond repair,
wants to proceed with its demolition. The City of Salem, acting through
its Redevelopment Authority, with encouragement from its Historical
2
Commission, wants the house preserved as a part of a Crombie Street
historical district. The City's Building Inspector refuses to issue an
order that the house be demolished; and the State Building Code Appeals
Board supports that decision.
The action against the Redevelopment Authority (the "SRA") is, for
the most part, in the nature of certiorari. The plaintiff ("Holyoke
Square") charges that the SRA's decision was in excess of its authority,
unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary and capricious, and
otherwise contrary to law.
The claim involving the State Building Code Appeals Board (the
"Appeals Board") and the Salem Building Inspector (the "Inspector") is an
appeal pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, sec. 14 from the decision of the Appeals
Board supporting the Inspector, although it also raises certiorari issues
and requests declaratory judgment relating to the supremacy of the
determination of the Inspector over that of the SRA.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Holyoke Square, Inc. is a Massachusetts corporation doing business
at Holyoke Square in Salem, Massachusetts. Holyoke Square is
controlled by the Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company, a long-time,
respected corporate citizen of Salem. The house at 18 Crombie Street is
located at and on the northeast corner of a parking lot across Norman
Street from Holyoke Mutual's principal place of business. Both the house
and the parking lot are owned by Holyoke Square.
3
The Salem Redevelopment Authority is a public authority corporate
and politic, organized under the General Laws of Massachusetts.
Crombie Street is located within the Heritage Plaza West Urban Renewal
Plan promulgated by the SRA and, thus, both the street and the house at
number 18 are, for certain purposes, within the regulatory jurisdiction
of the SRA.
The State Building Code Appeals Board is an administrative agency
within the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety. The
Appeals Board is empowered by law to make regulations and to conduct
adjudicatory proceedings relative to the interpretation of the State
Building Code and related laws.
The house at 18 Crombie Street is not located in any official
historic district of the City of Salem such as those provided for in
G.L. c. 40C; nor is the house a designated National Historic. Register
property under 16 U.S.C. sec. 470, et seq. Crombie Street itself,
however, is part of a National Register designated federal historic
district, and 18 Crombie Street is considered part of the Crombie Street
Historic District (the "District"). The National Register designation
came about as a result of a 1979 request by the SRA to the
Massachusetts Historical Commission. The request was granted on
September 16, 1983, five years before Holyoke Square purchased the
property at 18 Crombie Street.
The Crombie Street Historic District is composed of the eight
remaining buildings of this downtown residential enclave. The District
includes a cross-section of residential buildings from various periods of
4 -
development, along with a church originally built as a theater. The
boundaries of the District include the six buildings that face Crombie
Street -- including number 18 -- and two buildings at the west end of
Barton Square, adjacent to Crombie Street on the west.
Crombie Street was laid out in 1805 by Benjamin Crombie,
proprietor of the "Sign of the Ship," a tavern that stood on Essex Street,
east of his new street. Between 1805 and 1815, Crombie sold four
house lots behind his tavern, as well as narrow strips of frontage on the
street to other landholders to the west. Only two of the houses standing
today were built before Crombie sold the remaining property in 1819.
The District, however, was still shown intact on the 1851 map of Salem.
As the only surviving downtown residential group from the early
19th century, the houses on Crombie Street are said by the
Massachusetts Historical Commission to provide important information
about the character of the City of Salem at that time. All the buildings
directly abut the sidewalk, suggesting high density, but placement on
the lots is irregular, creating a rural atmosphere. Wood is the dominant
building material, although the church and one house -- called the
Bowker House -- are brick, as is the Prince House that predates
Crombie's activity. _
While the architectural quality within the District is said to be
variable, three buildings clustered at its north end are all considered
individually noteworthy. The Crombie Street Church, built as a theater
in 1828, is the architectural highlight of the District. It is described as
having monumental relieving arches on its facade that define its
5
composition and suggest the Federal style, but the panelled detailing of
the broad piers separating these arches, along with a pair of quadrant
windows 1n the gable and wide corner pilasters, are suggested to
introduce a newer Greek Revival influence.
Neighboring the church stands the substantial Bowker House, built
in the Federal style around 1810. It was "modernized" in 1860 by
overlaid brimstone trimmings. The hybrid design of Bowker House is
considered very successful, reinforcing the central importance of this
house to the District.
The Pierson House, facing Barton Square, is called an unusually
graceful vernacular Italianate residence, typical of the residences that
lined Barton Square in the mid-19th century.
The house at 18 Crombie Street is a bit of an onion in a petunia
patch. It is a quite small, two-story, gambrel-roofed, Georgian house,
the origins of which are unknown. The house is believed to have been
moved to the site in 1830 by James Bott. The end wall faces Crombie
Street and contains three six-over-six windows, vertically aligned and
centered on the wood-shingled wall. A narrow, simple framed doorway
that crowds the right corner is believed to have been added when the
house was moved to the site. A massive central chimney is readily
visible from the street. A small ell with a shallow pitched roof extends
to the left, set back fifteen feet from the front wall.
The house at 18 Crombie Street is perhaps most historically
_ useful as an example of how simple working people lived at the time. _
6
There is little evidence that persons of note ever resided there.l That
latter point, to this Court, however, is of no moment. History benefits
from an understanding of how everyone existed, not just the rich or
famous. No persons "of note" are identified as having greeted the
Mayflower when she landed at Provincetown, or later at Plymouth, but
history certainly has been well served by knowing how and where those
truly native Americans lived.
Holyoke Square purchased 18 Crombie Street from the Naumkeg
Trust Company, the latter acting as Trustee of the Frances H. Wendt
Realty Trust, on February 16, 1988. The purchase price was $169,000.
At the time of Holyoke Square's purchase, immediately adjacent to
18 Crombie Street on the south was, and still is, a parking lot, bounded
by Crombie Street on the west and Norman Street on the south, owned by
Holyoke Square. In the midst of the parking lot, on the east side, is a
facility described as an auto laundry. Across Crombie Street from the
parking lot is a small strip mall including a White Hen Pantry
convenience store. Very little is left in the area snaking up the Crombie
Street District in light of the many past changes approved by the SRA in
and around the neighborhood. Those changes have included: demolition
of a building at the corner of Essex and Washington Streets, leaving a
vacant lot known as Lappin Park; demolition of a cafe and a diner on
Norman Street, next to a Dunkin' Donuts, and construction of multi-level
1 The SRA offered some evidence that William B. Pike resided at 18 Crombie Street
from 1853 through his death in April, 1876. Mr. Pike was Collector of Ports for Salem and
Beverly throughout President Buchanan's administration and is said to have been close
friends of Nathaniel Hawthorne and President Pierce. .
The title history from 1806, after the date of Crombie's purchase, describes
subsequent owners as: a merchant, a trader, a saddler, a chaise maker, a painter, a weigher
and gauger, a physician, a carpenter, a widow, and a telephone answering service operator.
residential housing in their place; demolition of a gasoline service
station at the corner of Crombie and Norman Streets, and subsequent
construction of a small strip mall and parking lot; renovation of the old
Salem Theater, on Essex Street, and demolition of the buildings next
door; and demolition of the buildings on the corner of Essex and Crombie
Streets, and subsequent use of the land as a parking lot.
After purchasing 18 Crombie Street, Holyoke Square explored
possible uses by .it for the building. Included in its ideas were use as a
conference center or as office space, however, consultation with
experts in the building construction business quickly led Holyoke Square
to the conclusion that the repairs that would be necessary to make the
building useable were economically unfeasible. One source suggested
that the building had a fair market value of $154,600 but would require
the expenditure of an additional $113,100 to make the necessary repairs
before the building would be habitable. Other cost estimates were even
higher.
In September, 1990, Holyoke Square received a report from
DeMarco/Jarek Partnership, architects and engineers in Salem with
particular expertise in renovating and evaluating old and historic
buildings. The DeMarco/Jarek report catalogued numerous deficiencies
found at 18 Crombie Street. Included were: serious problems with the
roof; marginal condition, at best, of the principal chimney; peeling paint
and rotting conditions on the exterior walls; electrical entrance cables
in poor condition and rotting service cables; collapsing brick and block
foundations on the front and left sides; wooden gutters rotting, and
copper gutters improperly spaced too close to all fascias; downspouts in
8
marginal condition; improperly sloped grading around the foundation;
rear stairs rotting; thresholds rotting; all windows in poor condition;
entry doors not square; flashing around doors and windows in poor
condition; foundation walls collapsing; evidence of insect damage;
unlevel floors; loosened plaster throughout; electrical outlets in poor
condition and limited in number; chimney flues in need of lining; sagging
floors and ceilings; all plumbing in need of replacement; insulation in
poor condition; and heating, plumbing, water and eletrical systems
inoperative.
Holyoke Square also presented evidence by Nucci Vine Associates,
structural engineers, to the effect that the building is tilting over at
the rate of 1/4" to 1/2" per year. Nucci •Vine Associates opined that
conditions of the foundation require reconstruction and repair to insure
a safe and stable foundation structure prior to any occupancy of the
house.
R. Eric Rumpf, of Rumpf & Associates, who originally advised the
Inspector, testified that the structure falls substantially short of
satisfying the generally safe and acceptable requirements of the
Massachusetts State Building Code.
The Court, with counsel and their experts, took a view of the
premises at the time of the trial in April, 1997. In the course of the
visit, concern was expressed that the upstairs flooring might not be
able to support the weight of the visitors. The observations by the
Court's untrained eye confirmed, in essentially all respects, the findings
in the reports and testimony of Holyoke Square's experts.
9
After concluding that demolition was its preferred alternative to
attempting the extensive repairs neccessary at 18 Crombie Street,
Holyoke Square, on May 28, 1991, appeared before the SRA, and a hearing
was held on its application for permission to remove the building.
Holyoke Square argued that it was too costly to renovate the property
and that its plan was to create additional parking spaces for employees
and ultimately landbank for future development. The SRA voted 4 to 1 to
deny the application. Earlier, on April 12, 1991, the Salem Historical
Commission voted against the demolition of 18 Crombie Street because
of the Commission's belief that the property was an historically
significant building within the District. The SRA's vote was premised
on its consideration of the historical significance of the property, its
view of the structural soundness of the building, and its general
opposition to landbanking with no immediate plans for redevelopment.
By letter dated August 5, 1991, Holyoke Square's architects
formally notified the Inspector that "the building located at 18 Crombie
Street is in a state of disrepair and if not corrected will pose a hazard
to the well-being of pedestrians in the area." The architects' letter
concluded with a recommendation "that your department conduct an
immediate inspection of its own, and then issue an order to the Owner to
remove the structure or make it safe, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143, Sec. 6."
On August 18, 1991, the Inspector and Holyoke Square's architect
made an inspection of 18 Crombie Street. Shortly thereafter, on
August 29, 1991, the Inspector declined to issue an order to Holyoke
Square to remove the structure or make it safe. The Inspector concluded
10
that, "although this single family house has a number of problems, it has
not deteriorated to the point of being a hazard to the public safety and
welfare, and to order its demolition at this time would be premature."
Holyoke Square appealed the Inspector's decision to the Appeals
Board, and an adjudicatory hearing was held on February 11, 1992. At
the hearing Holyoke Square presented the reports of its experts
concerning the condition of the house. On June 3, 1992, the Appeals
Board issued a decision denying Holyoke Square's appeal and affirming
- the decision of the Inspector. -
Since the decisions noted above, nothing has been done to the
property at 18 Crombie Street by Holyoke. Square other than boarding up
the windows and blocking its entrance. Thus, the deterioration that
comes with time moves inexorably, albeit slowly, forward.
RULINGS OF LAW
The Court, in making its rulings of law, will treat the two cases in
the chronological order of their filing, which mirrors their evolution in
the process.
The Salem Redevelopment Authority Case
This case involves issues surrounding the propriety of the action
by the SRA, in May of 1991, when it voted to deny Holyoke Square's
11
application for permission to demolish the building at 18 Crombie
Street.
The SRA is a public authority organized pursuant to G.L. c. 121B,
secs. 4, 9 and 11. As such, it developed the Heritage Plaza West Urban
Renewal Plan in the City of Salem for the purpose of establishing
standards and controls for the redevelopment and renewal of properties
within its boundaries. The house at 18 Crombie Street is wholly within
the boundaries of Heritage Plaza West.
The legislative purpose of G.L. c. 121B is to promote sound
community growth. Boston Redevelopment Authority v. Charles River
Park "C" Company, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 777,, 783 (1986). Included among the
powers of the SRA within the Heritage Plaza West area is the oversight
of demolition and removal of buildings and improvements. See G.L. c.
121B, sec. 46(b). -
This case principally is an action in the nature of certiorari under
G.L. c. 249, sec. 4. It lies only where the petitioner, here Holyoke
Square, has exhausted all administrative remedies. Carney v.
Springfield, 403 Mass. 604, 605 (1988). In a certiorari case a court will
correct only a substantial error of law, evidenced by the record, which
adversely affects the material rights of the plaintiff. Id. In doing so,
the Court may only rectify those errors of law "which have resulted in
manifest injustice to the plaintiff or which have adversely affected the
real interests of the general public." Id.
i
12
Holyoke Square argues, and the Court agrees, that the scope of
judicial review in an action in the nature of certiorari is whether there
was substantial evidence to support the SRA's decision, citing Boston
Edison Co. v. Boston Redevelopment Authority, 374 Mass. 37, 47-54
(1977). See also Doherty v. Retirement Board of Medford, 425 Mass. 130,
135 (1997); Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks v. Planning Board of
Lawrence, 403 Mass. 531, 539-543 (1988). "Substantial evidence" is
such evidence"as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion." Jordan Marsh Co. v. Labor Relations Commission, 316
Mass. 748, 756 (1944). Under the substantial evidence test, however, a
reviewing court is not empowered to make a de novo determination of
the facts, to make credibility choices, or to draw different inferences
from the facts found by the agency. DoheIU v. Retirement Board of
Medford, supra, 425 Mass. at 135.
"When the contention is made that an agency has acted arbitrarily
or capriciously, or that the agency had abused its discretion, . . . , the
aggrieved party making the contention is fundamentally charging that
the agency's decision for one reason or another is unreasonable." Cella,
Administrative Law and Practice, 40 M.P.S. sec. 1574. Although it is a
close issue, this Court cannot, and does not, find that as a matter of law
there was insufficient evidence in May of 1991 to support the SRA's
decision or that it was abitrary or capricious in its conclusion to
13
deny the application to demolish the property at 18 Crombie Street.2
Although not part of a c. 40C historic district, it cannot be said that
there wasn't ample evidence of historical interest in the property.
Further, the Inspector had not then, nor has he now, found the property
to be so dangerous as to order it demolished or repaired. Additionally,
Holyoke Square's lack of a plan for the site, other than expanding a
parking lot and landbanking, cannot be overlooked.
Holyoke Square also poses the possibility that the SRA's action has
the effect of an administrative taking of the 18 Crombie Street property
because it prevents the preferred use thereof by its owner. The Supreme
Judicial Court spoke on this subject just days ago. Its decision in
Daddario v. Cape Cod Commission, 425 Mass. 411 (1997) provides the
answer to why there is no administrative taking here. It said that
[t]his court has repeatedly recognized that government
regulations "may deprive an owner of a beneficial
property use -- even the most beneficial such use --
without rendering the regulation an unconstitutional
taking." . . . "Land use planning is not an all-or-nothing
proposition. A government entity is not required to
permit a landowner to develop property to [the] full
extent he might desire or be charged with an
unconstitutional taking of the property." . . . That an
alternative, permissable use might be less profitable
is not determinative. Id. at 416-417
2 Holyoke Square contends, among other things, and the then Chair of the SRA seems to
have conceded, that in voting to deny the application, the SRA applied a different standard of
reasonableness to Holyoke Square's request because it was a corporation rather than an
individual. The Chair admitted that the SRA felt that it would have a right to expect Holyoke
Square to expend more money on restoration of the house than it would expect of an individual
owner. This attitude by the SRA is to be condemned. All citizens, rich and poor, corporate or
individual, come before the government with equal standing and are entitled by our
Constitutions, State and Federal, to equal treatment. This Court will tolerate nothing less.
Having stated its position, however, the Court still finds sufficient evidence to support the
SRA's decision and concludes that its determination was not unduly affected by its improper
assumption that it could expect more from a corporation than an individual.
14
The Case against the Building Inspector and
the State Building Code Appeals Board
The challenge to the decision of the State Building Code Appeals
Board is governed by G.L. c. 30A, sec. 14. The Court is required to give
due weight to the expertise, technical competence and specialized
knowledge of the agency, as well as the discretionary authority
conferred upon it. G.L. c. 30A, sec. 14(7). Similar to the law applicable
to the certiorari claim, the Court may not make a de novo determination
of the facts or draw different inferences than the agency. Vaspourakan.
Ltd. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, 401 Mass. 347, 351
(1987) Nor may it substitute its judgment for that of the board.
Southern Worcester Regional School District v. Labor Relations
Commission, 386 Mass. 414, 420-421 (1982). "In the absence of clear
error, the interpretation an administrative body gives to its own rule is
entitled to deference." Purity Supreme. Inc. v. Attorney General, 380
Mass. 762, 782 (1980). In challenging the Appeals Board's decision,
Holyoke Square has the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the
Appeals Board's ruling, Faith Assembly of God v. State Building Code
Commission, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 333, 335 (1981), and the Court must apply
all rational presumptions in favor of the validity of the administrative
action. Long v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 61, 65
(1988).
The Appeals Board's decision is subject to reversal only if it is
based on an error of law, is unsupported by substantial evidence, or is
abitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
15
accordance with law. Cella, Administrative Law and Practice, 40 M.P.S.
sec. 1567.
Holyoke Square contends that the Appeals Board, and the Inspector,
both committed legal error when they concluded that the building at 18
Crombie Street had to be in imminent danger of collapse, and it was not,
although all parties had acknowledged the building's deteriorating
condition. Holyoke Square points out, correctly, that the statute, G.L. c.
143, sec. 6, does not require that a building be in an "imminent" danger
of collapse before the local Building Inspector should issue a demolition
or repair order.3 See, "., Ribeiro v. Town of Granby, 395 Mass. 608, 612
(1985). The pertinent language of G.L. c. 143, sec. 6 reads:
The local inspector, immediately upon being informed
by report or otherwise that a building . . . in that city
or town is dangerous to life or limb or that any building
in that city or town is unused, uninhabited or abandoned,
and open to the weather, shall inspect the same; and he
shall forthwith in writing notify the owner, . . . , to
remove it or make it safe if it appears to him to be
dangerous, or to make it secure if it is unused,
uninhabited or abandoned or open to the weather. . . .
(Emphasis added).
This case is unusual in that the owner, Holyoke Square, is seeking
to have the Inspector directed to order it to demolish its own building.
The more usual course is for an owner to resist and appeal from such an
order. No cases suggesting when the Inspector must order a building to
be demolished have been brought to the attention of the Court, or found
3 The fact that 18 Crombie Street was not in imminent danger of collapse in August of
1991 is borne out by the fact that it is still standing as of the date of these findings and
rulings in July of 1997, despite no preservative action by its owner in the meantime.
16
by it. Nor do there seem to be any appellate decisions on the meaning of
when a building is "dangerous" as that word is used in G.L. c. 143, sec. 6.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "dangerous"
as "exposing to danger:. involving risk: demanding caution or care as
extremely unsafe: HAZARDOUS, PERILOUS." The Oxford English
Dictionary posits: "Fraught with danger or risk; causing or occasioning
danger; perilous, hazardous, risky, unsafe."
A vessel is considered dangerous or unseaworthy when it is unfit
for its intended purpose. Ferrara v. A & V Fishing. Inc., 887 F. Supp. 26
(D. Mass. 1995). On the other hand, a fire-eating act in a hotel was found
not "abnormally dangerous," Thomalen v. Marriott Coro., 880 F. Supp. 74
(D. Mass. 1995), while a shopping cart with a broken wheel in a
supermarket was. Cronin v. W.A. Foodliner, 55 Mass. App. Dec. 158
(1974). The point is that what is "dangerous" has varied meanings in
different contexts.
Certainly, 18 Crombie Street today, at least in its interior, is
unfit for its intended purpose, and it undoubtedly was in August of 1991.
Its exterior also is desperately in need of corrective work. The Court
cannot, however, say that it is now, or was then, "dangerous" to the
public in general, as opposed to occupants of the building. This is not
because the Court has no view on the subject, but rather because it is
the determination by the Inspector, not the Court, that is under review.
The Court, on the evidence presented, including its own view of the
property in 1997, cannot rule that the Inspector abused his important
discretion in concluding, with his special expertise, that 18 Crombie
17
Street was not dangerous "to the well-being of pedestrians in the area,"
to use the words chosen by Holyoke Square's architects, in 1991. See,
e.g., n. 3 supra. The matter before the Inspector was not, after all,
whether to issue a certificate of occupancy. Nor can the Court conclude
that the Appeals Board was wrong in affirming the Inspector's
conclusion. There was "substantial evidence," as that phrase is
employed in the appellate decisions, to support the declination to issue
a demolish or repair order.
Insofar as Holyoke Square seeks relief under the certiorari
statute, its claim fails because certorari is only available to correct
errors of law that are not otherwise reviewable. See Carney v.
Springfield,ield, supra, 403 Mass. at 605. Holyoke Square's c. 30A appeal
was the appropriate course to follow. See, e.g., She Enterprises. Inc. v.
State Building Code Appeals Board, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 271, 272 (1985).
Certiorari does not lie here.
Holyoke Square also seeks a declaratory judgment to the. effect
that a demolish or repair order by the Inspector cannot be overruled or
countermanded by the SRA. This may well be the law in the context of
an order under G.L. c. 143, sec. 6. The Court's previous statement
notwithstanding however, the issue on which the declaration is sought
has not been shown to be the subject of a dispute between the SRA and
the Inspector. Certainly, no such controversy is presently before the
Court. See G.L. c. 231A, sec. 1. "Declaratory judgment, . . . , 'is a vehicle
for resolving actual, not hypothetical, controversies."' Boston Herald,
Inc. v. Superior Court Department of the Trial Court, 421 Mass. 502, 504
(1995). Thus, the hands of the next judge to hear this issue, when and if
18
it ever arises, or the hands of this Court if it is that next judge, should
not be tied by this non-disposition of the issue today. No declaratory
judgment shall be rendered.
ORDERFORJUDGMENFS
In case number 91-2352-A judgment shall be entered for the
defendant dismissing all counts of the complaint.
In case number 92-0688-A judgment shall be entered for the
defendants dismissing all counts of the complaint.4
Allan van Gestel
Justice of the Superior Court
DATED: July 30, 1997
4 The Court is well aware, and regrets, that the foregoing disposition of these two cases
does little to resolve the underlying issue of the fate of the building at 18 Crombie Street in
Salem. The City seeks to preserve the building for historical purposes, but has declined to
take it by eminent domain or even establish the area as an historic district under G.L. c. 40C.
The City seems to hope that it can -- unfairly in the Court's view -- force Holyoke Square to
do the public's work, at Holyoke Square's private expense, and repair and restore the
building. Holyoke Square, which presumably bought the building with its eyes wide open,
cannot be forced to make repairs and can, if it chooses, continue to allow the building to
deteriorate until such time as the Building Inspector must do more than look the other way
and issue a demolish or repair order under G.L. c. 143, sec. 6. Neither Holyoke Square nor
the citizens of Salem have gained much from this seemingly endless legal odyssey. But the
Court can do no more -- and should do no more -- than decide the issues brought before it as
the law dictates.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
No.
91-2352B
...............................•--HOLYOKE_SQUARE, _INC......--......._...................,Plaintiff`')
U.
SAL EMREDEVELOPMENT_AUTHORITY
Defendants)
JUDGMENT
ON ALL COUNTS
This action came on for (trial) (:bmidno before the court, van Gestel, , J.
presiding, and the issues having been duly (tried) (bmd) and findings having been duly rendered,
Itis ODDEaED and ADJUDGED:
( t4t,zW ggt{Qxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx7meEamrxafxEhe
YMNK"NxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXkuxmmzc�Q+.cxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxic
x4yMXIVMI;gtxtbwm ttmxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXANAIMAWMuk$xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
jSttiBtk�yxD �t>�k�l�xtk7s$ou4km�ctf8�)
(that the plaintiff Holyoke Square, Inc. take nothing, that the action
be dismissed on the merits, and that the defendant Salem Redevelopment Authorityrecover of the
plaintiff Holyoke Square, Inc. its Ags costs-of action.)
Dated at Peabody Massachusetts, this 30th day of July
19 97.,
Wstant Clerk
V
l
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
No. 92-688B
HOLYOKESQUARE, INC.
...... . ........ .- ..... ............................,Plaintiffs)
U.
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL .Defendant(s)
. ........................... ... . ...... ..... .- ......... - ..............
JUDGMENT
ON ALL COUNTS
This action came on for (trial) i7hXKKKg) before the court, van Gestel J.
presiding, and the issues having been duly (tried)xQh'md) and findings having been duly rendered,
It is ORDERm and AD1DDcm:
MWUWPUKdffxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxicxxxxxxxnvwmmfxtlw
dbl xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx4g]SWcgfc$xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*M�mmmxdi@g�w4wxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx3gnhg4ww� �c$xxxxxxxxxxxxx
a�j�t44�de'tR14j��u?ccxlFn4xEt�taxgfc�Stf�I74ix�
(that the plaintiff Holyoke Square, Inc. take nothing, that the action
be dismissed on the merits, and that the defendants State Bldg. Code Appeals Bd. , recover of the
et al
plaintiff Holyoke Square, Inc. their Acis costs of action.)
Dated at Peabody Massachusetts, this 30th day of July
1997 .
r..A.L'216-s. -r ............... . ..........
As ' ni Clerk
MRCP Form 32 7.74-5000 D
F�
Py�'TER 5 DAYS RETURN TO
JAMES DENNIS LEARY, ESQ. '--
CLERK OF COURTS ESSEX COUNTY5 til jc 'b"
J.S.00SiAGE
3FEDERAL STREET
SALEM,, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 APR-5'96
0 .3 2
AS
osaeis� �.
_ . . ._ . _
4
S
l
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 91-2352A
CIVIL ACTION NO. 92-688
HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC.
Plaintiff
V.
THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT
AU'T'HORITY, ET AL )
Defendants )
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
Now comes the Defendant, City of Salem, by its attorney, Leonard F. Femino,
and moves that this Honorable Court continue the assigned trial date from Monday,
April 1, 1996 and states the following:
Counsel for the Defendant has resigned his position as Assistant City. Solicitor
effective April 1, 1996 after more than ten years. A new Assistant City Solicitor begins
working for the Defendant on April 1, 1996 and will require some time to become
familiar with this matter.
ASSENTED TO:
William J. egan nard F. Femino
81 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor
Suite 37 One School Street
Salem, MA 01970 Beverly, MA 01915
(508) 741-3888 (508) 921-1990
For the Plaintiff 'ftrereb For the Defendants
•documynt tva thatatruedopyoftheabove
as served u
appearing pro se and)the atttorney of rn (each ecord
for each ! ;her) P rty d
on c n Y mail
LUNDREGAN
LAW O F F I C ES
THE KINSMAN BUILDING
WILLIAM J. LUNDREGAN 81 WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE (508) 741-3888
JANE T. LUNDREGAN SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 FACSIMILE (508) 745-3607
March 4, 1996
Mr. Leo Tremblay
Building Inspector
City Hall
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 18 Crombie Street
Dear Mr. Tremblay:
On November 14, 1995, I wrote to you pursuant to the
enclosed correspondence.
May I please have a reply.
4W
rryy trul you ,
W LIAM J. LUNDR AN
WJL:ej
Enclosure
'ti
LUNDREGAN
L A W OF F I C ES
THE KINSMAN BUILDING
WILLIAM J. LUNDREGAN 81 WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE(508) 741-3888
JANET LUNDREGAN SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 FACSIMILE(508) 745-3607
November 14 , 1995
Mr. Leo Tremblay
Building Inspector
City Hall
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 18 Crombie Street
Dear Mr. Tremblay:
I am writing to you again pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143, Sec. 6 in
order to apprise you of the fact that the building located at 18
Crombie Street is in a state of disrepair and poses a serious
hazard to the well-being of pedestrians in the area.
On October 13, 1995, Robert R. Rumpf Associates inspected the said
building at the invitation of its current Owner, the Holyoke Mutual
Square, Inc. A copy of his report is annexed hereto for your
information.
It is our opinion that 18 Crombie Street is in danger of collapsing
and that, therefore, it poses a health and safety hazard to persons
within its vicinity. Indeed, were it not for the addition of the
porch and corner rooms (which are themselves now failing) it is
probable that the main frame would already have toppled. Clearly,
this property should be condemned and demolished.
It is our request that your Department conduct an immediate
inspection of its own, and then issue an order to the Owner to
remove the structure or make it safe, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143,
Sec. 6.
If you have any questions with reference to this matter, please do
not hesitate to call me.
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM J. LUNDREGAN
WJL/amp
cc: Holyoke, Square, Inc.
f
LUNDREGAN
L A W OFFICES
THE KINSMAN BUILDING
WILLIAM J. LUNDREGAN 81 WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE(508) 741-3888
JANET LUNDREGAN SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 FACSIMILE 15081 745-3607
November 14, 1995
Mr. Leo Tremblay
Building Inspector
City HallQ QJ
One Salem Green /'//�
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 18 Crombie Street '�
Dear Mr. Tremblay:
I am writing to you again pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143, Sec. 6 in
order to apprise you of the fact that the building located at 18
Crombie Street is in a state of disrepair and poses a serious
hazard to the well-being of pedestrians in the area.
On October 13, 1995, Robert R. Rumpf Associates inspected the said
building at the invitation of its current Owner, the Holyoke Mutual
Square, Inc. A copy of his report is annexed hereto for your
information.
It is our opinion that 18 Crombie Street is in danger of collapsing
and that, therefore, it poses a health and safety hazard to persons
.
within its vicinity. Indeed, were it not for the addition of the
Y
porch and corner rooms (which are themselves now failing) it is
probable that the main frame would already have toppled. Clearly,
this property should be condemned and demolished.
It is our request that your Department conduct an immediate
inspection of its own, and then issue an order to the Owner to
remove the structure or make it safe, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143,
Sec. 6.
If you have any questions with reference to this matter, please do
not hesitate to call me.
Ver truly y rs,
WIIAM J. LUND GAN
WJL/amp
cc: Holyoke Square, Inc.
f
9100942
ROBERT M. RUMPF & ASSOCIATES Re: Frame Condition
CONSULTING ENGINEERS Report(amended& revised)
101 DERBY STREET Residence-unoccupied
SALEM. MASS. 01970 18 Crombie Street
508-745-6596 FAX 508.745-6596 Salem,MA 01970
10-31-95
October 31, 1995
Mr. William J. Lundregan, Esq.
81 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. Lundegran:
Enclosed herewith please find our current reports pertaining to the present
structural condition of the subject building above-referenced. Also, we have
included the computations prepared to determine the carrying - or liveload -
capacity of the second and third floors.
Evident in these reports, and the corresponding computations, is the fact that
structure falls substantially short of satisfying the generally safe and acceptable
requirements of the Massachusetts State Building Code.
Please advise if you have any further questions regarding this matter.
r r
Res ct lull ted;,
.
REric Rumpf .,
Robert M. Rumpf& Associates
✓` #100942 � '.
ROBERT M. RUMaF & ASSOCIATES e: ;game Condition 'A
CONSULTING ENGINEERS deport(amended& revised)
101 DERBY STREET Residence-unoccupied
SALEM. MASS.01970 18 Crombie Street ��. •� •��
sosaas-ssss FAX sos-las-ssss Salem,MA 01970 \ \�J
9-22-95
September 22, 1995
Mr. William J. Lundregan, Esq.
81 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
REPORT
This is a report on our inspection of the referenced building.
In general, we have determined that it is structurally unsafe and does not meet
Massachusetts Building Code requirements.
The substructure is in poor condition; part of the foundation has deteriorated to
the point that it endangers the structural integrity of the building above it. The
superstructure is inadequate; we have determined through observation and
analysis of the purlin floor framing capacity that is was dangerously
underdesigned.
If you require additional information, please advise.
Respectfully subm' ed,
flu,
Robert M. Rumpf, P.E.
Robert M. Rumpf& Associates
l _
#1009gb++'�•
ROBED i. fRuMFF & ASSOCIATES �� SN OF M• ��
Re: Frame Condition j-
C: 3uLTING ENGINEERS Report(amended& revised)
s AN
.�+.
DERBY STREET Residence-unoccupiedOR
--ALEM, MASS.01970 18 Crombie,Street �� srRuciid:rt�
508-7,5-6596 FAX 508-745-6596 Salem,NIA 01970 : N433749 + i
:10- IALE�
nV1
October 22, 1995
Mr. William J. Lundregan, Esq.
81 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
REPORT
General-
My site visit was conducted on October 13, 1995; a portion of the first floor
ceiling was removed to expose the second floor framing for inspection.
Field Investigation-
I observerd that the second floor joists were partially hewn, five inch diameter
logs spanning over nine feet.
r
Conclusion -
Similar to the third floor framing(investigated by other members of this firm), the
second floor framing is inadequate to support residential loading. The roughly
planed log framing has insufficient strength in bending to support the loads as
required by the Massachusetts Building Code and, therefore, is unsafe.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew W. Way, P.E.
Robert M. Rumpf& Associates
x. y-,:: door CapacltY Study 'A Of 4
s
4
ROBERT M. RUMPF Pa ASSOCIATES ROBERT
/ C
8 s +'
CONSULTING ENGINEERS fo m U ✓t2'E�' $ M. .,
S
PF
101 DERBY STREET - 63
SALEM.MASS.01 970 - al ern, M 4pf oo.. 6663�� W
500-745-6590 FAX 500-745-0590OR ��S TEP \per
2nd Floor t"rarer
Assvme �w_ 1, O'k.
6 24
--
w /04 w . D.89x�o2 = 0, 07/ h (�
Load capacefy requlrcd by code : ps �
D-L.• plastcr : �OpsF
CjeckFlaminc' _ /p ,L
L ,L ZOpsF,
40 „
60 PSFlc)or ca acct
S 4/ o below -
3r4 Floor dram �egulrCrnPn`t _
/4, 2 I span 3x 4 oto ! Q " avrra P oc
,455-4,11'"e
S = 3X4g, 0 in 3
ml,ax wr¢j w 0, 027 hIF
17pst^
F(o___T capac_i tT
/5 72 16 below
req v ire mer,
i \�/
V �j
�`
LUNDREGAN
LAW O F F I C ES
THE KINSMAN BUILDING
WILLIAM J. LUNDREGAN 81 WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE (508) 741-3888
JANE T. LUNDREGAN SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 FACSIMILE(508) 745-3607
September 11, 1995 -
Mr. Leo F. Tremblay,
Building Inspector
Public Property Department
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 18 Crombie St. , Salem, M.P.
Dear Mr. Tremblay:
I have had occasion to discuss this matter with Mr. Douglas Ryder,
the President of Holyoke Square, Inc. and with their architect, Mr.
Charles Demarco of Demarco/Jarek Partnership.
We agree with your position that the rear porch post, supporting
the roof structure, is in an unsafe condition. It has been our
position for the past two years that the building is unsafe and
should be condemned.
Pursuant to MGL c. 143 S 6, we are fully prepared forthwith to
remove the porch posts and the attendant roof structure.
Pursuant to your conversation with me in your office on August 17,
1995, wherein you indicated that your letter of August 10, 1995 is
to be considered an order to remove or make safe, we are fully
prepared to go forward and remove the structure. If you wish us
to apply for a demolition permit, we will do so.
If you have any questions with reference to this matter, please
do not hesitate to call me.
a
ruly yo s,
M J. LUND AN
WJL:ej
s - �
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
KEVIN T. DALY Legal Department LEONARD F. FEMINO
City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor
508-745-0500 Salem,Massachusetts 01970 508-921-1990
March 18, 1992
Mr. William Munroe t r '
tan c' r
Building Inspector
City of Salem a1 r, C)o
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Holyoke Square Inc. v
r�
Dear Bill:
Enclosed herewith please find Discovery filed in the
above-mentioned matter. Would you kindly have someone in
your office prepare responses and collect the documents
requested for my review.
Please call with your questions or comments.
Very ruly yours,
Leonar F. Femino
LFF/gsw
Enclosure
cc: William Luster, City Planner
e
-�
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
KEVIN T. DALY Legal Department LEONARD F.FEMINO
City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor
508-745-0500 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 508-921-1990
March 18, 1992
7_r s
Mr. William Munroe
c ,
Building Inspector
city o cc -
f Salem
One Salem Green ..
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Holyoke Square Inc. n
Y �
c
Dear Bill:
Enclosed herewith please find Discovery filed in the
above-mentioned matter. Would you kindly have someone in
your office prepare responses and collect the documents
requested for my review.
Please call with your questions or comments.
Very ruly yours,
Leonar F, Femino
LFF/gsw
Enclosure
cc: William Luster, City Planner
7456596 �\/
STRUCTURAL REPORT `zH of A,,
18 CROMB I E STREET sr��
ROBERT M. RUMPF 8C ASSOCIATES SALEH, MAS.SACUSETTS ROBERT_', �f
]March 18, 1991 M'
0IFMV
CONSULTING ENGINEERS V No. Da
101 DERBY STREET ,p
SALEM. MASS.01970 Q�.e "�5 TEP
STRUCTURAL REVIEW OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Submitted to: Salem Planning Department
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
INTRODUCTION
This report is confined to the present structural
condition of the above-referenced buildiLS; Saner41
dea_riptionc of repairs and construction are listed with
associated approximate costs. Observations ,and
recommendations are drawn from the following:
* site visit and visual inspection
of the existing building interior.
* review of the OVERVIEW STUDY
prepared by Demarco/Jarek Partnership,
Architects and Planners, dated
September 1990.
* prior experience with similar
building types and typical construction
procedures for structural rehabili-
tation.
While we generally agree with the Demarco/Jarek report,
we have addressed only the structural aspects of the
building: foundation, framing, and related components.
Remedies to structural problems are discussed later;
included in our repair estimate is a line item which
covers the cost of cutting and patching required for the
structural improvements only. Anticipated renovation
costs which are not warranted by the structural
condition of the referenced building are considered -
and presented - by others.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
We find that the condition of the superstructure of the
original building and the addition is acceptable to good
with the exception of the sills and various aspects of
the first floor framing (as discussed in the
Architects' report) .
745 6596
STRUCTURAL REPORT
18 CROMBIE STREET o ROBERT.' s
ROBERT M. RUMPF & ASSOCIATES SALEM, MASSACUSETTS N1. I
CONSULTING ENGINEERS March 18, 1991 3 N�b632�
101 DERBY STREET
SALEM. MASS. 01 970 �pf o-�S TE
The condition of the back porch is such that it should
be be torn down entirely.
The original building has a very severe lean to one side
which we partly attribute to the way it was built and
added to, but mostly to problems with the foundation.
The condition of the foundation is fair to poor and
likely to further deteriorate due to disintegration of
its brick masonry components. In addition, severe
settlement at two corners and at the Chimney supports
has occurred while lateral movement of some of the walle
is evident (consistent with the description in the
Architect-i' report) ,
RECOMMENDATIONS
Pursuant to the above description of observed
structural problems, we recommend the following
corrective measures:
* Shore superstructure and replace building
sills entirely.
budget $ 6, 280. 00
* Jack-up the superstructure where required to
level position to properly facilitate resting
sills on a new foundation. Some improvement in
the presently excessive leaning of the building
may result from this operation.
budget S 4, 860. 00
* Provide miscellaneous first floor framing
reinforcing, connections, and supports. Repair
chimney foundation.
budget S 970. 00
7456596 STRUCTURAL REPORT kA OF a4rr,2 ?.
18 CROMBIE STREET ROBERT-; . s
ROBERT M. RUMPF & AssociAres SALEM, MASSACUSETTS V M. r
RUMPF. r
CONSULTING ENGINEERS March 18, 1991 No.�6yD32 0
� r
101 DERBY STREET QeP CPS r
SALEM. MASS.019'10 f�aS/ONAI t�4`
K Remove porch completely and replace rear
access with new stairs from exterior grade to
first floor.
budget $ 710. 00
* Remove existing concrete floor and replace
with a new reinforced slab on vapor barrier with
construction points on suitable, compacted gravel
base. Install sump pit with pump to prevent
damage from possible future flooding conditiane,
budget S 3, 230. 00
* Remove the existing foundation and excavate
t�Ap parlmater to allow installation of new cast-
in-place concrete foundation walls and footings;
dampproof foundation exterior. Include code-
required vents or windows.
budget $ 7, 130. 00
* Provide improved interior access to
basement: install new stairs and rails. Provide
new exterior bulkhead, bulkhead stairs, and
weatherproof doors for exterior access.
budget $ 1, 670. 00
* Remove all unused piping, wiring, conduits,
miscellaneous obstructions, etc. , in basement.
Clean and treat areas exposed to moisture or
adjacent rot.
budget $ 480. 00
746,6696 '
STRUCTURAL REPORT ?�E�tH OF 0441 C
18 CROXBIE STREET c ROBERT ,
ROBERT M. RuMRE & ASSOCIATES SALEM, N SSACUSETTS � 'A i
March 18, 1991 0IN 32
UMP \
CONSULTING ENGINEERS � O
101 DERBY STREET pP ti V
OF
/STEP `+`��•'
SALEM. MASS.01970
J s�ONAI E /f
k Cut and patch as necessary for disturbed
areas, caused by these specified structural
improvements, to match original or adjacent
exposed construction: interior and exterior.
budget $ 960. 00
Also, although not absolutely required structurally, we
recommand that the addition be torn down in its entirety
and properly rebuilt. In doing so, this structure would
contribute to the stability of the original building
while following an improved architectural design.
CONCLUSION
The above-listed observations and subsequently devised
recommendations are rendered to show the reasonable
minimum requirements to adequately rehabilitate the
structure and allow architectural and related utility
improvements to follow. While the superstructure needs
work as specified to be restored to level and near-plumb
condition, the general intent of the Engineer is to
require a new, structurally sound foundation and in
doing so, achieve the additional benefit of a clean,
dry, and usable basement.
745-6596
STRUCTURAL REPORT
18 CROMBIE STREET
ROBERT M. RUMPF & ASSOCIATES SALEM, MASSACUSETTS
CONSULTING ENGINEERS March 18, 1991
10 1 DERBY STREET
SALEM. MASS.01970
Mr. William Luster
Salem Planning Department
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Mr. Luster:
Enclosed herewith please find our report on the structural
condition of the above-referenced building per your request,
lawme report outlines the remedial construction necessary to
prevent further deterioration of the structure and assure
greater safety to its occupants.
If you require additional information relevant to this
matter - or our services in another project - please advise.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert M. Rumpf, P. E.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
NO.
-----------------------------------)
HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , Plaintiff )
VS. )
THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS )
BOARD, THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, and WILLIAM MUNROE, ) ,,
as he is the Building Inspector =,
of the City of Salem, ) `
o c-
Defendants
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF ? � U
DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT, WILLIAM MUNROE --
�, r�
Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 34 the Defendant is heredy'
required to produce copies of the following documents at the
officer of Plaintiffs' Counsel within forty-five (45) days of
receipt hereof. NOTE: Notwithstanding their use of "all, "
"any and all" and/or other, all-inclusive designations, the
following Requests shall be deemed to exclude from their
scope materials privileged by the attorney-client privilege,
the attorney work-product privilege, and the privilege
afforded to materials compiled by or at the behest of Counsel
in anticipation of litigation.
A. Any and all correspondence, memoranda, notes,
records, reports, studies, and/or other documents of any kind
and nature whatsoever, by whomever authored, for whatever
purpose(s) , to whomever addressed, and by whomever received,
excepting herefrom only matter privileged by the
1
3 . Please state whether or not you received a letter
dated August 5, 1991, written by the DeMarko/Jarek
Partnership. Professional Architects, concerning the building
located at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts. For your
reference, a copy of said letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit
A.
4 . If the answer to no. 3 is in the affirmative, please
state the following information:
(a) The date on which you received the said letter; and
(b) Whether or not you reviewed the contents of said
letter prior to making any inspection of the said building in
August of 1991.
5. Please state whether or not you made an inspection of
the said Crombie Street building on or about August 18 , 1991 .
6. If the answer to no. 5 is in the affirmative, please
identify and describe in full and complete detail each and
every finding made by you as a result of said inspection
which contradicts or otherwise differs with any findings or
statements made by the DeMarko/Jarek Partnership in their
aforesaid letter of August 5, 1991. In answering this
interrogatory, with respect to each such dispute, please
identify:
(a) The specific finding or statement made by
DeMarko/Jarek with which you differ;
(b) Your own specific finding which differs from that
made by DeMarko/Jarek; and
2
(c) The reasons, in full and complete detail, why you
believe DeMarko/Jarek is in error on the contested point.
7 . Please state whether or not you have previously seen
a copy of a Structural Report on the said Crombie Street
building dated March 18, 1991, authored by Robert M. Rumpf,
Professional Engineer. For your reference, a copy of said
Report is annexed hereto as Exhibit B.
8. If the answer to no. 7 is in the affirmative, please
state the following information:
(a) The date on which you received the said Report; and
(b) Whether or not you reviewed the contents of said
letter prior to making any inspection of the said building in
August of 1991.
9. Please identify and describe in full and complete
detail each and every finding made by you as a result of your
own inspection of the subject Crombie Street building which
contradicts or otherwise differs with any findings or
statements made in the said Rumpf Report. In answering this
interrogatory, with respect to each such dispute, please
identify:
(a) The specific finding or statement made by the Rumpf
Report with which you differ;
(b) _ Your own specific finding which differs from that
made by Rumpf; and
(c) The reasons, in full and complete detail, why you
believe Rumpf is in error on the contested point.
3
10. Please state whether or not you have previously seen
the Estimate of Repair Work written by the DeMarko/Jarek
Partnership, Professional Architects, concerning the building
located at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts, a copy of
which is annexed hereto as Exhibit C.
11. If the answer to no. 10 is in the affirmative,
please state the following information:
(a) The date on which you received the said Estimate;
and
(b) Whether or not you reviewed the contents of said
Estimate prior to making any inspection of the said building
in August of 1991.
12 . Whether or not you have previously reviewed the said
Estimate of Repair Work, please identify and describe in full
and complete detail each and every finding made by you as a
result of said inspection which contradicts or otherwise
differs with any findings or statements made by the
DeMarko/Jarek Partnership in their aforesaid Estimate. In
answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such
dispute, please identify:
(a) The specific finding or statement made by
DeMarko/Jarek with which you differ;
(b) Your own specific finding which differs from that
made by DeMarko/Jarek; and
(c) The reasons, in full and complete detail, why you
believe DeMarko/Jarek is in error on the contested point.
4
13 . Please state whether or not you have previously seen
the Estimate of Repair Work written by Jeffrey R. Martel, of
Martel Designer-Craftsman, Inc. , concerning the building
located at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts, a copy of
which is annexed hereto as Exhibit D.
14 . If the answer to no. 10 is in the affirmative,
please state the following information:
(a) The date on which you received the said Estimate;
and
(b) Whether or not you reviewed the contents of said
Estimate prior to making any inspection of the said building
in August of 1991.
15. Whether or not you have previously reviewed the said
Estimate of Repair Work, please identify and describe in full
and complete detail each and every finding made by you as a
result of said inspection which contradicts or otherwise
differs with any findings or statements made by Martel in his
aforesaid Estimate. In answering this interrogatory, with
respect to each such dispute, please identify:
(a) The specific finding or statement made by Martel
with which you differ;
(b) Your own specific finding which differs from that
made by Martel; and
(c) The reasons, in full and complete detail, why you
believe Martel is in error on the contested point.
5
16. Please set forth in full and complete detail a
statement of any and all facts known to you that support your
professional opinion that the subject Crombie Street building
does not qualify for condemnation and/or does not pose a
safety hazard to persons and property in the vicinity
thereof.
17 . Based upon your aforesaid inspection of the subject
Crombie Street property, and the findings that you made as a
result thereof, does the said building presently qualify for
an occupancy permit?
18 . If the answer to no. 17 is in the negative, please
set forth in full and complete detail an itemization, with
respective estimated costs, of the work that needs to be
performed upon the subject property in order to qualify said
property for an occupancy permit.
19. Please set forth an itemization of all removal
and/or demolition projects permitted within the "Crombie
Street National Historic Register District" from January,
1970 to date hereof. In answering this interrogatory, with
respect to each such project, please identify:
(a) The date on which the project was approved;
(b) The building(s) and use(es) which was/were removed
and/or destroyed, and the alleged historic significance
thereof; and
(c) The building(s) and use(S) which succeeded
that/those which was/were removed and/or destroyed.
6
20. Please set forth an itemization of all removal
and/or demolition projects permitted within the "Heritage
Plaza West Urban Renewal Plan" from January, 1970 to date
hereof. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each
such project, please identify:
(a) The date on which the project was approved;
(b) The building(s) and use(es) which was/were removed
and/or destroyed, and the alleged historic significance
thereof; and
(c) The building(s) and use(s) which succeeded
that/those which was/were removed and/or destroyed.
21. Please itemize and summarize all of the evidence
which you submitted to The State Building Code Appeals Board
at the Board' s hearing on or about February 11, 1992 .
22 . Please identify, by name, address, occupation of
profession, and business or professional address, each person
known or believed to have knowledge of facts relevant to this
case.
23 . Please identify, by name, address, occupation of
profession, and business or professional address, each
witness whom this Defendant intends to call to testify at the
trial of this case.
24 . Please identify, by name, address , occupation of
profession, and business or professional address, each expert
witness whom this Defendant intends to call to testify at the
trial of this case; and with respect to each such expert,
please state:
7
(a) the subject matter on which the expert is expected
to testify;
(b) the substance of the facts and opinions to which the
expert is expected to testify; and
(c) a summary of the grounds for each expected opinion.
HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. ,
By Its Att rney
7i ,Lundrega Esq.
8 ashington Str
S ite 37
Salem, MA 01970
(508) 741-3888
8
Pr
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss.
SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
NO.
amu :------
7-77--)
HOLYOKE SQUARE, .INC: , PlaintiffF.
) - 67fPf M
vs.,Fix i" Al ) COMPLAINT
THE STATE BUILDING:`CODEJ PEALS )
BOARD, THE BALEMREDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, :and`WILLIAM *UNROE,
as he is the Building Inspector )
of the City of Salem,
-.
Defendants
-------
Parties T r` �
A.
rr,
1. Plaintiff, ` HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , is a Massaeusets
Corporation doing business within this Commonwealth and
having a usual place ofbusiness at Holyoke Square, Salem,
Essex County, Massachusetts.
2. Defendant, THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD, is
an administrative agency within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety, organized
pursuant to }M.G.L. Ch. 143, Sec. 100, empowered to make
regulations or to conduct adjudicatory proceedings relative
to the interpretation and enforcement of the State Building
Code, and having a usual place of business at one Ashburton
Place, Room 1301, Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts.
3 . Defendant
SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTfioRITY, is a public
authority corporate and politic, organized under the
Massachusetts General Laws, with the ability to sue and be
1
f
sued, and having a usual place of business at One Essex
Green, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts.
4. The Defendant, WILLIAM MUNROE, is the BUILDING
INSPECTOR of the City of Salem,` with an office at One Salem
; - , Green, .Salemi,EssexrCountp,,fV sachusetts.
x �!'Faot$ `
5. Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate knownand
numbered as 18 1;.Crombiee: Street, Salem, Essex ==county,
Massachusetts:
6. On or about July � 3, 1990 the Plaintiff commissioned
the DeMarko/Jarek.'iPartnership, Professional Architects; :to
inspect the said Crombie Street property in order ' to
determine whether the building thereon was reasonably safe
for use and occupancy; and the said Architects did inspect
the said property, as requested, on or about the said date.
7. By letter dated August 5, 1991 the Plaintiff's
architects formally notified the Defendant BUILDING INSPECTOR
that, "the building located at 18 Crombie Street is in a
state of disrepair and if not corrected will pose a hazard to
the well-being of pedestrians in the area. " The said letter
concluded with a recommendation, "that your department
conduct an immediate inspection of its own, and then issue an
order to the Owner to remove the structure or make it safe,
pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143; Sec. 6. "
S. On or about August 18, 1991 the Defendant BUILDING
INSPECTOR made an inspection of the said Crombie Street
property.
2
9. By decision dated August 29 , 1991 the Defendant
BUILDING INSPECTOR failed, neglected and refused to issue an
order to the Owner to remove the structure or make it safe.
10. The Plaintiff is in agreement with its architects
hat the.;., said Crombie Street building is in a state of
disrepair and if not corrected will pose a hazard to the
well-being of pedestrians in the area.
11. The Plaintiff is informed, and does believe, that
repair of the said building is economically unfeasible.
12. The Plaintiff is ready and willing to remove the
present, unsafe building.
13. However, the said property is located within the
jurisdiction of the Defendant REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, and
said AUTHORITY has refused to authorize the removal of the
said building.
14. The Defendant BUILDING INSPECTOR is the chief
administrative and enforcement officer of the Building Code
within the City of Salem and the Defendant REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY is without authority to over-rule a decision of the
BUILDING INSPECTOR regarding enforcement of the Building
Code.
15. Accordingly, on or about October 4 , 1991 the
Plaintiff timely appealed the said Decision of the Defendant
BUILDING INSPECTOR to the Defendant STATE BUILDING CODE
APPEALS BOARD.
16. On or about February 11, 1992 an adjudicatory
hearing was held before the Defendant APPEALS BOARD on the
3
Plaintiff's said appeal.
17. Then and there, the Defendant APPEALS BOARD issued a
decision DENYING the Plaintiff's Appeal and AFFIRMING the
aforementioned Decision of the Defendant BUILDING INSPECTOR.
Count One: Appeal Under Administrative Procedures Act
18. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and here re-
alleges paragraphs 1 through 17, supra .
19. This is an Appeal of the Defendant APPEALS BOARD's
decision, and is brought pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 30A, Sec. 14 .
20. The said decision exceeded the authority of the
Defendant APPEALS BOARD, was based upon error of law, was
made upon unlawful procedure, was unsupported by substantial
evidence, was contrary to the evidence presented, and was
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise
not in accordance with law.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Court will:
(a) Grant this appeal;
(b) Review the said decision of the Defendant APPEALS
BOARD;
(c) Reverse the said decision of the Defendant APPEALS
BOARD;
(d) Order the Defendant APPEALS BOARD to instruct the
Defendant BUILDING INSPECTOR to issue an order to the
Plaintiff to remove the subject building or make it safe,
pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143 , Sec. 6; and
(e) Award the Plaintiff such other and further relief as
may be appropriate.
4
I`
Count Two: Certiorari
21. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and here re-
alleges paragraphs 1 through 17, supra.
22 . This is a Complaint for Certiorari, seeking judicial
review„ of the Defendant APPEALS BOARD's decision, and is
brought pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 249, Sec. 4.
23. The said decision exceeded the authority of the
Defendant APPEALS BOARD, was based upon error of law, was
made upon unlawful procedure, was unsupported by substantial
evidence, was contrary to the evidence presented, and was
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise
not in accordance with law.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Court will:
(a) Grant certiorari;
(b) Review the said decision of the Defendant APPEALS
BOARD;
(c) Reverse the said decision of the Defendant APPEALS
BOARD;
(d) Order the Defendant APPEALS BOARD to instruct the
Defendant BUILDING INSPECTOR to issue an order to the
Plaintiff to remove the subject building or make it safe,
pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143 , Sec. 6; and
(e) Award the Plaintiff such other and further relief as
may be appropriate.
5
Count Three: Enforcement of the Building Code
24. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and here re-
alleges paragraphs 1 through 17 , supra.
25. This is a Complaint in equity seeking judicial
enforcement of the Building Code, and is brought pursuant to
M.G.L. Ch. 143 , Sec. 57.
26. The Plaintiff is a party aggrieved by the failure of
the Defendant BUILDING INSPECTOR and the Defendant APPEALS
BOARD to enforce the applicable provisions of the Building
Code.
27. The said failure to enforce the Building Code
exceeded the authority of the Defendants, was based upon
error of law, was made upon unlawful procedure, was
unsupported by substantial evidence, was contrary to the
evidence presented, and was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse
of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law.
28. As a direct and proximate result of the said
unlawful acts or refusals to act, the Plaintiff is exposed to
potential liability to any person or persons who may be
injured if and when the subject property collapses.
29 . The Plaintiff is without an adequate remedy in law.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Court will
issue an Order to the Defendant BUILDING INSPECTOR directing
him to enforce the Building Code and issue an order to the
Plaintiff to remove the subject building or make it safe,
pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143 , Sec. 6; and award the Plaintiff
such other and further relief as may be appropriate.
6
Count Four: Declaratory Judgment
30. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and here re-
alleges paragraphs 1 through 17, supra.
31. This is an action for declaratory relief and is
brought pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 231A. All persons interested
herein have been made parties hereto and duly served with
process.
32. The Plaintiff avers that the Defendant REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY is without authority to over-rule a decision of the
BUILDING INSPECTOR regarding enforcement of the Building
Code.
33. The Plaintiff avers that in the event this Court
awards Plaintiff the relief requested under Counts One, Two
and/or Three hereof, with the result that the Defendant
BUILDING INSPECTOR issues a "remove or make safe" order
pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143 , Sec. 6, the Defendant
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY will be without authority to
countermand or otherwise interfere with the execution of such
order.
34 . A genuine dispute regarding the matters set forth in
paragraphs 32 and 33 , supra, exists between the Plaintiff and
the Defendant REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Court will
issue a Judgment declaring, that the Defendant REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY is without authority to countermand or otherwise
interfere with the execution b
n
y the Plaintiff of a remove or
make safe" order issued pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143 , Sec. 6,
7
1
and awarding the Plaintiff such other and further relief as
may be appropriate.
HOLYOKE SQUARE, Pic. ,
By I s At orne ,
WilLundrega , Esq. '
81 ashington Str, t
Mite 37
Salem, MA 01970
(508) 741-3888
8
, . y it I II��Itl l: :1 T
Cvtp of *aleM9 jjaggaCt Ug !i
Public Propertp Department �,
QCT O Arj 9�
�3uilbinq ,Department
One :oalem Oreen CI T'11 Or S;_ LE?i„1ASS.
745-9595 (Ext. 380
William H. Munroe
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
August 29, 1991
Charles A. DeMarco, A.I.A.
DeMarco and Jarek Partnersnip
Pickering Wharf
223 Derby Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 18 Crombie St. , Salem
Dear Mr. DeMarco:
In response to your request and accompanied by David Harris, Assistant
Building Inspector, Attorney William Lundregan and you, I made an inspection
of the above referenced property on August 18, 1991 to determine the structural
stability of the building located on the site.
Considering the fact that the structure is about one hundred sixty ( 160)
years old I found it to be in reasonably good condition. The frame of the
structure was in extremely good condition with the exception of a couple of
areas of the sill plate which showed some water damage and carpenter ant
infestation. I was surprised to find the foundation wall was red brick rather
than stone indicating the foundation may be much newer than the house. The
foundation has some areas that are in need of repair but there was no sign
of there being stress enough to cause failure. The electrical, heating and
plumbing should be upgraded to meet the needs of todays appliances.
It is my opinion that, although this single family house has a number
of problems, it has not deteriorated to the point of being a hazard to the
public safety and welfare, and to order it demolished at this time would be
premature.
Sincerely,
C41 MSoe
Inspector of Buildings
WHM:bms
cc: William Lundregan, Esq.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
NO.
ttir�t y•
H LYOICErSQUARE, IN , Pl if .
?g•'' w
i r'\'it ' �y •tsJ�,G.^�
vs
t THE `'STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS : ) f
BOARD] THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT
p
AUTHORITY, and WILLIAM,MUNROE,
asahe`is the pector;'
"of ,the City of
„',,x.. ; ,Defendants • •�;;
CffitTIFICATB OF SERVICE
I, WILLIAM J.. LUNDREGAN, ''hereby certify that I served '
copies of:
1. Plaintiff's First Interrogatories to Defendant,
William Munroe;
2. Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents
by Defendant William Munroe; and
3. Certificate of Service
by enclosincjr- thesame with . the Summons and Complaint for
Sheriff's service upon all of the named Defendants.
Signed under penalty of perjury.
W liam J un regan, Esq
81 Wash' ton Street
Suite 37
Salem, MA 01970
(508) 741-3888
r
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
NO.
-----------------------------------)
HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , Plaintiff )
VS. )
THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS )
BOARD, THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT --
AUTHORITY, and WILLIAM MUNROE,
as he is the Building Inspector Mfr,, co x
of the City of Salem,
--
Defendants c u 4 m
-----------------------------------)
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO 4 r'
DEFENDANT, WILLIAM MUNROE
Pursuant to Mass. R.Civ.P. 33, the Defendant, WILLIAM
MUNROE, Building Inspector of the City of Salem, is hereby
required to answer the following interrogatories within the
time provided by rule. NOTE: Notwithstanding their use of
"all, " "any and all" and/or other, all-inclusive
designations, the following Interrogatories shall be deemed
to exclude from their scope materials privileged by the
attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product
privilege, and the privilege afforded to materials compiled
by or at the behest of Counsel in anticipation of litigation.
1. Please state your name, address, occupation and
business address.
2. Please state the name, address, occupation and
business address of each and every person consulted for
information used answering these interrogatories.
1
3 . Please state whether or not you received a letter
dated August 5, 1991, written by the DeMarko/Jarek
Partnership. Professional Architects, concerning the building
located at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts. For your
reference, a copy of said letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit
A.
4. If the answer to no. 3 is in the affirmative, please
state the following information:
(a) The date on which you received the said letter; and
(b) Whether or not you reviewed the contents of said
letter prior to making any inspection of the said building in
August of 1991.
5. Please state whether or not you made an inspection of
the said Crombie Street building on or about August 18, 1991.
6. If the answer to no. 5 is in the affirmative, please
identify and describe in full and complete detail each and
every finding made by you as a result of said inspection
which contradicts or otherwise differs with any findings or
statements made by the DeMarko/Jarek Partnership in their
aforesaid letter of August 5, 1991. In answering this
interrogatory, with respect to each such dispute, please
identify:
(a) The specific finding or statement made by
DeMarko/Jarek with which you differ;
(b) Your own specific finding which differs from that
made by DeMarko/Jarek; and
2
10. Please state whether or not you have previously seen
the Estimate of Repair Work written by the DeMarko/Jarek
Partnership, Professional Architects, concerning the building
located at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts, a copy of
which is annexed hereto as Exhibit C.
11. If the answer to no. 10 is in the affirmative,
please state the following information:
(a) The date on which you received the said Estimate;
and
(b) Whether or not you reviewed the contents of said
Estimate prior to making any inspection of the said building
in August of 1991.
12 . Whether or not you have previously reviewed the said
Estimate of Repair Work, please identify and describe in full
and complete detail each and every finding made by you as a
result of said inspection which contradicts or otherwise
differs with any findings or statements made by the
DeMarko/Jarek Partnership in their aforesaid Estimate. In
answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such
dispute, please identify:
(a) The specific finding or statement made by
DeMarko/Jarek with which you differ;
(b) Your own specific finding which differs from that
made by DeMarko/Jarek; and
(c) The reasons, in full and complete detail, why you
believe DeMarko/Jarek is in error on the contested point.
4
13 . Please state whether or not you have previously seen
the Estimate of Repair Work written by Jeffrey R. Martel, of
Martel Designer-Craftsman, Inc. , concerning the building
located at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts, a copy of
which is annexed hereto as Exhibit D.
14. If the answer to no. 10 is in the affirmative,
please state the following information:
(a) The date on which you received the said Estimate;
and
(b) Whether or not you reviewed the contents of said
Estimate prior to making any inspection of the said building
in August of 1991.
15. Whether or not you have previously reviewed the said
Estimate of Repair Work, please identify and describe in full
and complete detail each and every finding made by you as a
result of said inspection which contradicts or otherwise
differs with any findings or statements made by Martel in his
aforesaid Estimate. In answering this interrogatory, with
respect to each such dispute, please identify:
(a) The specific finding or statement made by Martel
with which you differ;
(b) Your own specific finding which differs from that
made by Martel; and
(c) The reasons, in full and complete detail, why you
believe Martel is in error on the contested point.
5
16. Please set forth in full and complete detail a
statement of any and all facts known to you that support your
professional opinion that the subject Crombie Street building
does not qualify for condemnation and/or does not pose a
safety hazard to persons and property in the vicinity
thereof.
17. Based upon your aforesaid inspection of the subject
Crombie Street property, and the findings that you made as a
result thereof, does the said building presently qualify for
an occupancy permit?
18. If the answer to no. 17 is in the negative, please
set forth in full and complete detail an itemization, with
respective estimated costs, of the work that needs to be
performed upon the subject property in order to qualify said
property for an occupancy permit.
19. Please set forth an itemization of all removal
and/or demolition projects permitted within the "Crombie
Street National Historic Register District" from January,
1970 to date hereof. In answering this interrogatory, with
respect to each such project, please identify:
(a) The date on which the project was approved;
(b) The building(s) and use(es) which was/were removed
and/or destroyed, and the alleged historic significance
thereof • and
(c) The building(s) and use(s) which succeeded
that/those which was/were removed and/or destroyed.
6
20. Please set forth an itemization of all removal
and/or demolition projects permitted within the "Heritage
Plaza West Urban Renewal Plan from January, 1970 to date
hereof. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each
such project, please identify:
(a) The date on which the project was approved;
(b) The building(s) and use(es) which was/were removed
and/or destroyed, and the alleged historic significance
thereof; and
(c) The building(s) and use(s) which succeeded
that/those which was/were removed and/or destroyed.
21. Please itemize and summarize all of the evidence
which you submitted to The State Building Code Appeals Board
at the Board's hearing on or about February 11, 1992.
22 . Please identify, by name, address, occupation of
profession, and business or professional address, each person
known or believed to have knowledge of facts relevant to this
case.
23 . Please identify, by name, address, occupation of
profession, and business or professional address, each
witness whom this Defendant intends to call to testify at the
trial of this case.
24 . Please identify, by name, address, occupation of
profession, and business or professional address, each expert
witness whom this Defendant intends to call to testify at the
trial of this case; and with respect to each such expert,
please state:
7
I
(a) the subject matter on which the expert is expected
to testify;
(b) the substance of the facts and opinions to which the
expert is expected to testify; and
(c) a summary of the grounds for each expected opinion.
HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. ,
By Its Att rney
fas8 Lundreg Esq.
hington Str37
Salem, MA 01970
(508) 741-3888
8
i
tt;6596
STRUCTURAL REPORT tH OF
18 CROMBIE STREET
. c
ROBERT M. RUMPF & ASSOCIATES SALEM, MASSACUSETTS ��? ROBERF
o
CONSULTING ENGINEERS March 181991 M.U R M N
101 DERBY STREET NO. 6
SALEM. MASS.01970 P "/$TEP @V
S�aNAt
a�
STRUCTURAL REVIEV OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Submitted to: Salem Planning Department
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
INTRODUCTION
This report is confined to the present structural
condition of the above-referenced buildingj igenarKl
descriptions of repairs and construction are listed with
associated approximate costs. Observations and
recommendations are drawn from the following:
* site visit and visual inspection
of the existing building interior.
* review of the OVERVIEW STUDY
prepared by Demarco/Jarek Partnership,
Architects and Planners, dated
September 1990.
* prior experience with similar
building types and typical construction
procedures for structural rehabili-
tation.
While we generally agree with the Demarco/Jarek report,
we have addressed only the structural aspects of the
building: foundation, framing, and related components.
Remedies to structural problems are discussed later;
included in our repair estimate is a line item which
covers the cost of cutting and patching required for the
structural improvements only. Anticipated renovation
costs which are not warranted by the structural
condition of the referenced building are considered -
and presented - by others.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
We find that the condition of the superstructure of the
original building and the addition is acceptable to good
with the exception of the sills and various aspects of
the first floor framing (as discussed in the
Architects' report) .
T4Z 6596
STRUCTURAL REPORT ���`��A OF ef"s�
18 CROMBIE STREET o ROBERT : ,
ROBERT M. RUMPF & ASSOCIATES SALEM, MASSACUSETTS i M.
•n -
CONSULTING ENGINEERS March 18, 1991 s RU PE
N%4632
101 DERBY STREET 4 P427
SALEM. MAS5.01970
I � '
The condition of the back porch is such that it should
be be torn down entirely.
The original building has a very severe lean to one side
which we partly attribute to the way it was built and
added to, but mostly to problems with the foundation.
The condition of the foundation is fair to poor and
likely to further deteriorate due to disintegration of
its brick masonry components, In addition, severa
settlement at two corners and at the chimney supports
_ has occurred while lateral movement of some of the walls
is evident (consistent with the description in the
Archltaote` report) ,
RECOMMENDATIONS
Pursuant to the above description of observed
structural problems, we recommend the following
corrective measures:
* Shore superstructure and replace building
sills entirely.
budget $ 6, 280. 00
* Jack-up the superstructure where required to
level position to properly facilitate resting
sills on a new foundation. Some improvement in
the presently excessive leaning of the building
may result from this operation.
budget $ 4, 860. 00
* Provide miscellaneous first floor framing
reinforcing, connections, and supports. Repair
chimney foundation.
budget $ 970. 00
746�6596 �H OF MAS \V /
STRUCTURAL REPORT ! �c� V
18 CROMBIE STREET �0 ROBERTI - �
ROBERT M. RUMPF 8C ASSOCIATES SALEM, MASSACUSETTS
RUMPF_ a
CONSULTING ENGINEERS March 18, 1991 No. 692
P 4'
op 4i W
101 DERBY STREET Off. G✓S T£P `rW
SALEM. MASS.01 970 Fay/ONAI
i
* Remove porch completely and replace rear
access with new stairs from exterior grade to
first floor.
budget $ 710. 00
Remove existing concrete floor and replace
with a new reinforced slab on vapor barrier with
construction ,joints on suitable, compacted gravel
base. Install sump pit with pump to prevent
damage from possible future flooding conditions,
budget $ 3, 230. 00
* Remove the existing foundation and excavate
the perimeter to allow installation of new cast-
in-place concrete foundation walls and footings;
dampproof foundation exterior. Include code-
required vents or windows.
budget $ 7, 130. 00
* Provide improved interior access to
basement: install new stairs and rails. Provide
new exterior bulkhead, bulkhead stairs, and
weatherproof doors for exterior access.
budget $ 1, 670. 00
* Remove all unused piping, wiring, conduits,
miscellaneous obstructions, etc. , in basement.
Clean and treat areas exposed to moisture or
adjacent rot.
budget $ 480. 00
=.til
'1456596
STRUCTURAL REPORT ?���`SH OF MA:�c
18 CROMBIE STREET C ROSERy
ROBERT M. RUMPF ESC ASSOCIATES SALEM, MASSACUSETTS M.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS March 18, 1991 080 Ru PF '^
IN 32
32 O
101 DERBY STREET 49
SALEM. MASS.01970 �f S T� 4�P
'3/ NAL fa
* Cut and patch as necessary for disturbed
areas, caused by these specified structural
improvements, to match original or adjacent
exposed construction: interior and exterior.
budget $ 960. 00
Also, although not absolutely required structurally, we
rauammaDd that the addition be torn down in its entirety
and properly rebuilt. In doing so, this structure would
contribute to the stability of the original building
while following an improved architectural design.
CONCLUSION
The above-listed observations and subsequently devised
recommendations are rendered to show the reasonable
minimum requirements to adequately rehabilitate the
structure and allow architectural and related utility
improvements to follow. While the superstructure needs
work as specified to be restored to level and near-plumb
condition, the general intent of the Engineer is to
require a new, structurally sound foundation and in
doing so, achieve the additional benefit of a clean,
dry, and usable basement.
IL
7145-6596
STRUCTURAL REPORT
18 CROMBIE STREET
ROBERT M. RUMPF & ASSOCIATES SALEM, HASSACUSETTS
CONSULTING ENGINEERS March 18, 1991
101 DERBY STREET
SALEM. MASS.01970
Mr. William Luster
Salem Planning Department
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Mr. Luster:
Enclosed herewith please find our report on the structural
condition of the above-referenced building per your request.
C�Ama report outlines the remedial construction necessary to
prevent further deterioration of the structure and assure
greater safety to its occupants.
If you require additional information relevant to this
matter - or our services in another project - please advise.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert M. Rumpf, P. h`.
13
r 1.
IT Y 0. � '
.:.S3•dale �oard 7 `".7u� and J&nwzarda
William F. Weld AZZa CAOC
L� .s�e%Gurlon A" - G fjo�
FOR STATE USE ONLY 0.2f08
�
Fee Rcc'd:
(617) 7^_7-3200
Check No.
Rcc'd UJ': STATE IIUILDING CODE APPLY S BOARD
AI'1'GL APPLICATION FORA
DATE:
DOCKET NUMBER:
The undersigned hereby appeal to the Static hoard or Ilaildim- Remilations and Standards from the decision
of the:
I4uilding Official from the Ciq/KtX%X of: Salem, Massachusetts
Board of Appeals from the Cityfl own of:
Other Municipal Arenev/Official entitled:
State A-ency/Official entitled:
OTHER:
Dated: October 4 , t9 91 , having been a;,,,!rieved by such (Check Appropriate Space)
X lntcrpretation _ Order Requirement Direction
X Failure to Act Other - Explain
Subject: (Suhmit a hrief statement of reasons and principal points upon which the application, appeal or
petition is haled) Al,i, APPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF THE CODE MUST RE LISTED
The Owner of the building at 18 Crombie Street , Salem, MA requested
the Buil ing nspec or on August >
the
to M.G .L. Ch. 143 Sec . 6 (See attached letter ) . The
P6lding , InsRectvr irgsprected the building on AuySt3gj1$ 18 , 14691 and
, nn+ , ecu an nr a pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. I4 i , Sec . (( See
attache letter ) .
State hrief1v desired relief: The decision of the Building Inspector should be
overruled and the owner should be ordered o remove or ma e structure
safe pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143 , Sec. b.
APPELLANT: Holyoke Square , Inc.
ADDRESS FOR SERVICE: Holyoke Square, Inc . , c/o William J. Lundregan, Esq .
81 Washington Street , Salem, MA 0197 ( 508) 741-3888
l'elephoneNo.
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY INVOLVED: 18 Crombie Street , Salem, MA 01970
APPELLANT'S CONNECTION TO PROPERTY IN'VOLVED: Owner
APPLAPLC-1/90
1
�� 1oo�rre���ty72lU�(,Gf,(IL �����LC7b6GP.�
(9.x6Ca,6 VeB (/) ce. 0/✓ UMJ Jale,�I`
t � / O
L•c,� __ ��,e ✓UfJ(L7C1 r� `�CIGUf!ng %���pp �.l LO/�LQQ/KQb
William F. Weld ��o-,�zfm��acr� ���� � Ce lJt[tx�
Governor one aXYd/t(IG'A&n :l" -
Kentaro Tsutsumi � �^. ✓u� *� 021,08
Chairman (617) 727-32(X)
SERVICE NOTICE
Charles J. Dinezio DOCKET NUN113ER:
Administrator
I, William J. Lundregan as Attorney for the
Appellant/Petitioner Holyoke Square, Inc. in an appeal
riled with the State Building; Code Appeals Board on October 4 , 1991
HEREBY SWEAR L'NDGR THE PAINS AND PF.NAI:FIFS OF I'ERJURI• THAT IN ACCORDANCE o1ITH
I'llE PROCEDUItES ADOPTED BY THE SPATE' BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND
STANDARDS AND SECTION 121.2.1 OF TI1F. SPATE BUILDING CODE, 1 SERVED OR CAUSEDTO BE
SERVED, A COPT' OF THIS APPEAL AI'1'LICA•IION ON THE FOLLOWING PERSON(S) IN THE
FOLLOWING MANNER:
NAME AND ADDRESS OF
PERSON'/nGFNC�' Si•;RVBD NIM,1101) OF SERVICE, DATE OF SERVICE
William Munroe
Bng Inspector Last and Usual October 4 , 1991
uildi
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, MA TT70
Sign : AI'I GLLANT/PErlTIOi'
On the 4th Dai, of October 19 91 , PERSONALLY APPEARED
BEFORENtETIIEAISOVENAMED William J . Lundregan , Esq .
(TYpe or Print the Name of the Appellant)
AND ACKNOWLEDGED AND SWORE TILE ABOVE STATE GNTS TO BE TRUE.
NOTARY PUBLIC Anne M. Poor
11/2/95
SERVNO'fE.1/90 COMMISSION EXPIRES
V
1fL EPT
[� DeMarco • )arek
Partnership T �' CIO %1 r
f91
Ole CITY GFc ``10';ASS.
Architects
& Planners
5 August 1991
William Munroe
Euildinq Inspector
City Hall
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 18 Crombie Street
Dear Mr. Munroe:
We are writing to you pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143, Sec. 6 in order
to apprise you of the fact that the building located at 18 Crombie
Street is in a state of disrepair and if not corrected will pose a
hazard to the well-being of pedestrians in the area.
On July 3, 1990, we inspected the said building at the invitation
of its current Owner, the Holuoke Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
A copy of our report is annexed hereto for your information. In
summary form, our firms findings include the following :
Roof
The roof appears to be 18+ years old. The lower rear portion was
incorrectly flashed to the abutting wall of the house. The lower
left gabel roof valleys should have been ( but were not ) lined with
metal. The absence of an adequate attic ventilation system
requires the installation of a continuous soffit and ridge vent
sustem, in order to reduce excessive attic humidity. There is
evidence of a pre-existing ice damming problem. The rear plumbing
vent has been installed on the outside wall and does not meet the
building code.
Chimneu
One ( 1 ) of the two (2) chimneus is in marginal condition, at
best. All of its flashings have deteriorated. The chimney cap is
in need of rebuilding and- all the flues need to be lined.
Exterior Walls
The exterior-warlfs. fascias, soffits and trim are all wood and are
in marginal condition. The cedar shingle sidinq is in marginal
condition and is r„ppinq and splitting on most sides of the
building. Paint has been peeling from all wood surfaces. The
fascias, soffits and all of the corner boards are in rotted
condition. The electrical entrance cables are in poor condition.
Pickering Wharf 0 223 Derby Street 0 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • 508/744-4141
Mr. William Munroe
S August 1991
Pane 2
and the service cables entering the house are rotting. Most
significantly, the brick and block: foundations on the front and
left sides of the building are collapsing.
Drainage
The gutters are in poor condition. The wooden gutters are rotten
and the copper gutters should be (but are not ) spaced away from
all fascias. The downspouts are in marginal condition. Grading
around the foundation does not slope awau, thus causing water to
pond.
Grounds
The rear wooden stairs are rotting. The rear brick patio is in
marqinal condition, of major concern is the wood porch structure
including, but not limited to, the roof, rafters, corner post, and
porch decking. Floor joists and decking have been severely
damaged by wood rot and wood boring insects.
Doors_and_Windows
All of the windows are in poor condition. Their thresholds are
rotting. The entry doors are not square. All flashing around
windows and door heads are in poor condition. The window sashes
are loose in their casings. The entire bulkhead is unsafe.
Easement
The brick walls are in poor condition, and the right and rear
foundation walls are collapsing. On the front and right sides,
the sills are in poor condition, evidencing rot and insect
damage. The right side floor joists have been damaged bw wood
borinq insects. The brick support posts are in poor condition and
are deterioratinq_.
Kitchen
The general structure of the kitchen is t
not squared and ��e floor
is not level . Electrical circuits are very limited. The walls,
ceiling, floor and electrical outlets are all in marninal
condition.
Mr. William Munroe
5 August 1991
Page 3
Ha llways_and_Entries
The rear stairwell is marginal. The plaster finish in the front
stairwell has loosened.
Liv_ing_Room_(Front)
The ceiling sags, due to settling of the foundation. The hardwood
floor similarly is not level . Electrical outlets are in marginal
to poor condition, and are limited. The windows are .marginal due
to excessive peeling of paint. The doors are marginal and are not
square. The fireplace is marginal and in need of flue lining.
Rining_Room
The walls, ceiling and floor are all marginal . The ceiling sags
and the structure has settled to the left. Outlets and fixtures
are limited and in poor condition. The fireplace is marginal and
in need of a flue lining.
Closed_In_Porch (Rear_Right )
The floor and the ceiling sag. The outlets and fixtures are
inoperative and limited.
Sedroom___Second Floor Front
The walls and ceiling are in marginal condition. The plaster is
cracking and the ceiling is sagging. The floor is marginal and is
not level. There are no electrical outlets, fixtures or
switches. The door is not square. The fireplace is marginal and
the flue needs to be lined.
Bedroom_=_Sec2nd_Floor_Rear
The walls and the ceiling are in marginal condition. The plaster
is cracking. The doors and windows are in marginal condition.
The fireplace is in poor conditions the hearth needs rebuilding
and the flue needs lining.
Bedroom_=_Third_Floor_Front
Same comments'as,'Sie-cond Floor Rear .Bedroom.
Mr. William Munroe
5 August 1991,
Page 4
Bathrooms
The bathrooms are located on the second and third floors; neither
one of them is operative.
Attic
The insulation and ventilation systems are in poor condition. The
chimneys and flues are in marginal condition. The left chimney is
in need of repair, and there is evidence of leaking at the chimney
flashings. The roof is in need of soffit and ridge venting.
Utilities
The heating, plumbing, water and electrical systems are currently
inoperative.
It is our opinion that the foundations at 18 Crombie Street are in
danger of collapsing and that, therefore, it poses a health and
safety hazard to persons within its vicinity. Indeed, were it not
for the addition of the porch and corner rooms (which are them-
selves now failing) it is probable that the main frame would
already have toppled. Clearly, this property is a candidate for
condemnation.
It is our recommendation that your Department conduct an immediate
inspection of its own, and then issue an order to the Owner to
remove the structure or make it safe, pursuant to M. G.L. Ch. 143,
Sec. 6.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
DeMarco/Jacek Par rship
Charles A. DeMarco, A. I . A. onald F. a ek A. I.A.
CAD:pl
Enclosure
x
cc: William Lundregan, Esq.
Douglas Ruder, Pres.
I
IT'f 0 :. .5.�
V♦'illiam F. Weld aa
FFcckcc'd-
7STATE USE ONLY O'�� y-_ 02f08_ (617) '?7.32pp
-- S'lA'rE BUILDING CODE APDL%Is 1sOAl2U
APPEAL APPLICATION FORA?
DOCKET NUAIIIER: DATE:
The undersigned herclry al/11e;,1s
of the- to the Stile Ilnard of Ilnildin� Ita"ulations and Standards from the decision
Iluildin; Official from the Cilt,
of: Salem, Massachusetts
lioard of Appeals from the Cityflown of. _
Other MuniciPal Agency/OITTcial entitled:
Smte A,-enn'/OfTicial entitled:
OTIIER:
Dated: October 4 , ly 91
X h:rvin� been a;;�,rieved by such
Interpretation Order (Check Appropriate Space)R Failure to Act Requirement Direction
Other - E•>:piain
Subject: (Submit a brief statement of reasons and principal points upon which thea tlicalion v
Petition is based) ALL, APPROPRIATE SEC"LIONS OF TIIE CODE MUST 1iE LISTED
The Owner of PI PP I or
the building at 18 Crombie
the Buil Ing nsppec or on ugus Street , Salem, MA requested
ur uant to M. G.L. Ch. 143 Sec . 6
kee lding, InsectQr inspected the buildinttached letter) . The
„he ' t' on AuQu 9
attache letter t to M.G.L. Ch, I4 t id ,
l69 and
State briefly desired relief: The decision of the Blll.lCh. See
overruled and the owner shout g Inspector should be
e or ere o remove or ma e structure
safe pursuant to M.G. .
ec .
APPELLANT.- Holyoke Square, Inc.
ADDRESS FORSERvICE: Holyoke Square, Inc. , c/o William J. Lundregan , Esq.
81 Washington Street , Salem, MA O1 7
ADDRL•SS OF PROPERTI' 7elephoneNo. (508 ) 741-3888
INVOLVED:
APPELLANT'S18 Crombie Street , Salem, MA 01970
CONNECTION PROPERn, INVOLVE[): Owner
A PPLA PLC-1/90
(
// jQ G�G!'P. �✓ U�X�G J
O
William F. Weld ,.,&"ao( j&& (VAe
Governor one SAxk--YCon• A" _ G '3n0'
Kentaro Tsutsumi 6&&n, ✓&AJ-a� 020108
Chairman (617) 727-33(X)
SERVICE NOTICE
Charles J. Dinezio DOCKET NUN113ER:
Administrator
I, William J. Lundregan as Attorney for the
Appellant/Petitioner Holyoke Square , Inc. in an appeal
riled with the State Building Code Appeals Board on October 4 , 1991
IIEREM' SWEAR UNDER THE PAINS AND I'ENAI;I'IIiS OI' I'F:R.IUIiI'Tl1A'I' IN ACCORDANCE MITII
THE PROCEDURES ADOPTED IIY THE STATE BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND
STANDARDS AND SI?C'I'ION 121.2.1 OFTHE STATEBUILDING, CODE- 1 SERVED OR CAUSED TO 111'
SERVED, A COPY OF •(•Ills APPEAL APPLICATION ON THE FOLLOWING I'ERSON(S) IN 771E
FOLLOWING MANNER:
NAME. AND ADDRESS OF
PERSON/AGENCY ShaiVED Nil."1,1101) OF SERVICE DATE OF SERVICE,
WillidinTTg InMunroe
Builspector Last and Usual October 4 , 1991
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
s� ig 1 : art et t.v nrenno
On the 4th Day or October 19 91 PERSONALLY APPFi1RED
BEFORE NtETiiEABOVENAMED William J . Lundregan, Esq .
(Type or Print the Name of the Appellant)
AND ACKNOWLEDGED AND SWORE TILE ABOVE STAT(' ENTS TO BE TRUE.
NOTARY PUBLIC Anne M. Poor
11/2/95
SERVNO'TE.1/90 COMMISSION EXPIRES
l
IIL C 'iEi T
C] DeMarco • Jarek
Partnership 007 tf
Q• fF�
CITY o
Architects v"``'h
& Planners
5 August 1991
William Munroe
Building Inspector
City Hall
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: IS Crombie Street
Dear Mr. Munroe:
We writing to you pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143, Sec. 6 in order
to apprise you of the fact that the building located at 18 Crombie
Street is in a state of disrepair and if not corrected will pose a
hazard to the well-being of pedestrians in the area.
On July 3, 1990, we inspected the said building at the invitation :
of its current Owner, the Holuoke Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
A copy of our report is annexed hereto for your information. In
summaru form, our firms findings include the following:
Roof
The roof appears to be 18+ years old. The lower rear portion was
incorrectly flashed to the abutting wall of the house. The lower
left gabel roof valleys should have been ( but were not ) lined with
metal . The absence of an adequate attic ventilation system
requires the installation of a continuous soffit and ridoe vent
sustem, in =order to reduce excessive attic humidity. There is
evidence of a pre-existing ice damming problem. The rear plumbing
vent has been installed on the outside wall and does not meet the
building code.
Chimneu
One ( 1 ) of the two (2) chimneus is in marginal condition, at
best. All of its flashings have deteriorated. The chimney cap is
in need of rebuilding and- all the flues need to be lined.
Exterior Walls
The exterior-waifs, fascias, soffits and trim are all wood and are
in marginal condition. The cedar shingle siding is in marginal
condition and is cuppino and splittina on most sides of the
building. Paint has been peeling from all wood surfaces. The
fascias, soffits and all of the corner boards are in rotted
condition. The electrical entrance cables are in poor condition..
Pickering Wharf 0 223 Derby Street • Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • 508/744-4141
Mr. William Munroe
5 August 1991
Pace 2
and the service cables entering the house are rotting. Most
significantly, the brick and block foundations on the front and
left sides of the building are collapsing.
Drainage
The autters are in poor condition. The wooden gutters are rotten
and the copper gutters should be (but are not ) spaced away from
all fascias. The downspouts are in marginal condition. Grading
around the foundation does not slope away, thus causinq water to
pond.
Grounds
The rear wooden stairs are rotting. The rear brick patio is in
marginal condition. Of major concern is the woodporch structure
includinq, but not limited to, the roof, rafters, corner post, and
porch decking. Floor joists and decking have been severely
damaged by wood rot and wood boring insects.
Doors_and_Windows
All of the windows are in poor condition. Their thresholds are
rotting. The entry doors are not square. All flashing around
windows and door heads are in poor condition. The window sashes
are loose in their casings. The entire bulkhead is unsafe.
Easement
The brick walls are in poor condition, and the right and rear
foundation walls are collapsing. On the front and right sides.
the sills are in poor condition, evidencing rot and insect
damage. The right, side floor joists have been damaged bu wood
boring insects. The brick support posts are in poor condition and
are deteriorating.
Kitchen
The general structure of the kitchen is not squared and the floor
is not level . Electrical circuits are veru limited. The walls.
ceiling. floor and electrical outlets are all in marginal
condition.
M
Mr. William Munroe
5 August 1991
Page 3
Hallwags_and-Entries
The rear stairwell is marginal. The plaster finish in the front
stairwell has loosened.
Living_Room_(FrontJ
The ceiling sags, due to settling of the foundation. The hardwood
floor similarly is not level . Electrical outlets are in marginal
to poor condition, and are limited. The windows are ,marginal due
to excessive peeling of paint. The doors are marginal and are not
square. The fireplace is marginal and in need of flue lining.
Pining-Room
The walls, ceiling and floor are all marginal . The ceiling sags
and the structure has settled to the left. Outlets and fixtures
are limited and in poor condition. The fireplace is marginal and
in need of a flue lining.
Closed_in-Porch_(Rear_Right)
The floor and the ceiling sag. The outlets and fixtures are
inoperative and limited.
Bedroom - Second Floor Front
----------------------------
The walls and ceiling are in marqinal condition. The plaster is
cracking and the ceiling is sagging. The floor is marginal and i
not level . There are no electrical outlets, fixtures or
switches. The door is not square. The fireplace is marginal and
the flue needs to be lined.
Pedroom___Seccnd_Floor Rear
The walls and the ceiling are in marginal condition. The plaster
is cracking. The doors and windows are in marginal condition.
The fireplace is in poor condition; the hearth needs rebuilding
and the flue needs linina. .
_P•edroom___Third_Floor_Front
Same comments'as,Second Floor Rear .Bedroom.
Mr. William Munroe
5 August 1991,
Page 4
Eathrooms
The bathrooms are located on the second and third floors; neither
one of them is operative,
Attic
The insulation and ventilation systems are in poor condition. The
chimneys and flues are in marginal condition. The left chimney is
in need of repair, and there is evidence of leaking at the chimney
flashings. T4ie roof is in need of soffit and ridge venting.
Utilities
The heating, plumbing, water and electrical systems are currently
inoperative.
It is our opinion that the foundations at 18 Crombie Street are in
danger of collapsing and that, therefore, it poses a health and
safety hazard to persons within its vicinity. Indeed, were it not
for the addition of the porch and corner rooms (which are them-
selves now failing) it is probable that the main frame would
already have toppled. Clearly, this property is a candidate for
condemnation.
It is our recommendation that your Department conduct an immediate
inspection of its own, and then issue an order to the Owner to
remove the structure or make it safe, pursuant to M. G.L. Ch. 143,
Sec. 6.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
DeMarco/Jarek Par rship
Charles A. DeMarco, A. I . A. Ponald F. a ek A. I.A.
CAD:pl
Enclosure
cc: William Lundr6gan, Esq.
Douglas Ruder, Pres.
Salem
Redevelopment
44-6900
Authority ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 744.4580
February 10, 1992
State Board of Building Regulations and Standards
McCormack State Office Building
One Ashburton Place - Room 1301
Boston, MA 02108
RE: Holyoke Square Inc.
18 Crombie Street
Dear Sirs/Madams :
I am writing concerning the appeal of Holyoke Square, Inc. ,
which requests that the State Board of Building Regulations and
Standards reverse a decision of William Munroe, Salem' s Inspector
of Buildings, for the dwelling at 18 Crombie Street.
Holyoke has gone through various local processes in attempt to
demolish the building in question. In November, 1990, the Salem
Historical Commission denied Holyoke 's request to waive the
Demolition Delay Ordinance. In April, 1991, the Salem Historical
Commission' s final recommendation was in opposition to the granting
of a demolition permit. In May, 1991, the Salem Redevelopment
Authority (SRA) denied Holyoke ' s request for demolition of 18
Crombie Street. An appeal of the SRA' s decision by Holyoke is
currently pending in Superior Court.
Prior to the SRA' s decision, the City of Salem contracted
Robert M. Rumpf & Associates to provide an independent structural
condition report of the property. The report recommended that only
the back porch of the building be torn down and provided reasonable
minimal requirements to adequately rehabilitate the structure. The
report concluded that the building was not a hazard to public
safety and welfare.
It is my opinion that Holyoke is not appealing the decision of
Salem' s Inspector of Buildings out of concern for public safety and
welfare, but is attempting to use the State Building Code appeals
process as a means of fulfilling their own independent objectives .
I urge you to uphold the fi ings of Mr. Munroe and to deny
the appeal of Holyoke Square, I
Wcerytrator
Salem Istorical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(6171745-9595. EXT. 311
February 10, 1992
State Board of Building Regulations and Standards
McCormack State Office Building
One Ashburton Place - Room 1301
Boston, MA 02108
Dear Sirs/Madams :
The Salem Historical Commission is writing with regard to the
appeal by Holyoke Square, Inc. for 18 Crombie Street in Salem, MA.
The appellant requests that a decision of the Inspector of
Buildings for the City of Salem be overruled and that the owner
should be ordered to remove or make the structure safe pursuant to
M.G.L. Ch. 143, Sec . 6 .
In September, 1990, Holyoke Square, Inc. requested a waiver of
the Demolition Delay Ordinance from the Salem Historical Commission
in order to demolish 18 Crombie Street. The purpose of the
proposed demolition was to create a parking lot and to "landbank"
the site for future use. To facilitate our decision, members of
the Salem Historical Commission, including a licensed architect, an
architectural designer, an historian and a contractor specializing
in the restoration of historic properties, inspected 18 Crombie
Street.
The Commission found that building was in relatively sound
condition with no significant deflection in the floors, walls or
ceilings . The Commission found that the house was not racked as
much as the estimate of DeMarco-Jarek Partnership, Holyoke' s
architect, and the Commission found that there was no evidence that
the house in continuing to rack. The Commission also found that
the gradual settling and modest racking of a house of this age is
not a condition to prove the structure to be unsafe. Ceiling beams
of the house show no evidence of bug or water damage except for one
small area. The house framing was in excellent condition. The
brick foundation showed no major cracks, settlement or fissures and
there was no evidence that any corner is slipping. The foundations
may be out of plumb one or two inches, which is not surprising for
the age of the house, but they did not appear to be unsound. There
was one small area of sill rot. There was evidence that the house
was moved to this location and, therefore, the foundations may be
newer than the rest of the house. There was no musty smell to the
house, indicating that there has been no sepage of water into the
basement. 18 Crombie Street is one of seven properties located
within the Crombie Street National Register District (which is the
only surviving downtown residential district from the early 19th
century) .
Based on these findings, the Commission voted not to waive the
Demolition Delay Ordinance. The Commission' s final recommendation
was in opposition to the granting of a demolition permit for this
historically significant building.
In May, 1991 , the Salem Redevelopment Authority, within whose
jurisdiction 18 Crombie Street resides, voted to deny Holyoke' s
request for demolition. Holyoke has since filed an appeal of this
decision with Superior Court.
The City of Salem proudly contains a myriad of historic homes
- many of which are in greater disrepair than 18 Crombie Street.
To allow the demolition of this property, as being a hazard to the
public safety and welfare, would be to suggest that several hundred
homes in Salem should be leveled.
The Salem Historical Commission is in complete agreement with
Salem' s Inspector of Buildings ' letter of August 29 , 1991 to
Charles DeMarco. We sincerely hope that the State Board of
Building Regulations and Standards will deny the appeal of Holyoke
Square, Inc .
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
IrH�SALE HISTOR C L COMMISSION
John H. Carr, Jr.
Vice Chairman
VtV *aiem' *Va55agU5ettg
-Public Vroperty Di apartment
uilbing department
One *aiem Orem
745-9595 Ext. 380
William H. Munroe
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
August 29, 1991
Charles A. DeMarco, A.I.A.
DeMarco and Jarek Partnersnip
Pickering Wharf
223 Derby Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 18 Crombie St. , Salem
Dear Mr. DeMarco:
In response to your request and accompanied by David Harris, Assistant
Building Inspector, Attorney William Lundregan and you, I made an inspection
of the above referenced property on August 18, 1991 to determine the structural
stability of the building located on the site.
Considering the fact that the structure is about one hundred sixty ( 160)
years old I found it to be in reasonably good condition. The frame of the
structure was in extremely good condition with the exception of a couple of
areas of the sill plate which showed some water damage and carpenter ant
infestation. I was surprised to find the foundation wall was red brick rather
than stone indicating the foundation may be much newer than the house. The
foundation has some areas that are in need of repair but there was no sign
of there being stress enough to cause failure. The electrical, heating and
plumbing should be upgraded to meet the needs of todays appliances.
It is my opinion that, although this single family house has a number
of problems, it has not deteriorated to the point of being a hazard to the
public safety and welfare, and to order it demolished at this time would be
premature.
Sincerely,
411m Munroe
Inspector of Buildings
WHM:bms
cc: William Lundregan, Esq.
Cusmr
" .:.
Salem Hist®ricai ®m�nissa®n
ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(617) 745-9595,EXT.311
April 12, 1991
FINAL RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEMOLITION PERMIT
William Munroe
Director of Public Property
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE : 18 Crombie Street
Dear Mr . Munroe :
As per Part II , Chapter 2 , Article XV, Divison 2, Section
2-394 (demolition Delay ) of the Code of Ordinances , the Salem
Historical Commission hereby submits this written recommendation
regarding the demolition of 18 Crombie Street .
The Salem Historical Commission is opposed to the granting of
a demolition permit for 18 Crombie Street due to the property
being a historically significant building within the Crombie
Street National Register District .
Sincerely,
Annie C . Harris
Chairman
cc : Holyoke Square, Inc .
-�'U|LU F//T
�-
2
��^�[n�����
�������JQ�
ONE SAL EHGREEN.SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS ole70
.o1n7^5-06ys, EXT 311
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEMOLITION 288MI?
RE. 18 Crombie Street
On Wednesday, November 7 , 1990 / the Salem Historical
Commission unanimously voted in opposition to the granting of a
permit for demolition for 18 Crombie Street as proposed by
Holyoke Square Inc . through its representative William J.
Luodregan/ Esq.
As per Part II , Chapter 2 , Article X\/, Division 2, Section
2-394 (Demolition Delay ) of the Code of Ordinances, no permit for
demolition shall be issued until a more thorough investigation is
undertaken and a final written recommendation regarding the
granting of the permit for demolition is provided by the
Commission to the Director of Public Property and to the property
owner . Such investigation and recommendation shall be completed
within 180 days of the original submission (October lS/ 1090 ) to
the Historical Commission.
I attest that this is an accurate record of the vote taken,
not amended or modified in any way to this date .
November 12 / 1990 Ja 8, Guy
Cl��k o� the C��miasiou
Tr^ C/
Miss
Building Inspector
City Clerk
J8isCom8/Deoial7
� 1
S � 1 7/j /{� 1l .1
a��: : Jir'�:id9'LvJI v.J 9lJrJ7JRZ.Z�6.�
ONE SAL EPA GREEN SALEM. PAASSACH'JSE77S 312-10
c 1 71 445-9595. E<T. -!! I
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEMOLITION PERMIT
RE: 18 Crombie Street
On Wednesday, November 7, 1990, the Salem Historical
Commission unanimously voted in opposition to the granting of a
permit for demolition for 18 Crombie Street as proposed by
Holyoke Square Inc . through its representative William J.
Lundregan, Esq.
As per Part II , Chapter 2, Article XV, Division 2 , Section
2-394 (Demolition Delay ) of the Code of Ordinances , no permit for
demolition shall be issued until a more thorough investigation is
undertaken and a final written recommendation regarding the
granting of the permit for demolition is provided by the
Commission to the Director of Public Property and to the property
owner. Such investigation and recommendation shall be completed
within 180 days of the original submission (October 15, 1990 ) to
the Historical Commission.
I attest that this is an accurate record of the vote taken,
not amended or modified in any way to this date .
November 12, 1990 Jan A. Guy
C14/k of the C mission
cc : Building Inspector
City Clerk
JHisCom8/Denial7
dale �oard o��ud/di �� daliaxa and A"Wa lW4
William F. Weld ./l' oxmaaE Jule l� 'e ✓clog
Governor one Awwo&n gLe; _ G /J07
02f08
Kentaro Tsutsumi ✓�oa�a�e, ��aaaadEu�a
Chairman (617) 727-3200
Charles J. Dinezio
Administrator
n r?
December 6, 1991 —
William Munroe rn One Salem Green =
,
Salem, MA 01970
Docket Number: 91-116 _
Property Address: 18 Crombie Street, Salem, MA
Hearing Date: December 19, 1991
Hearing Time: 9:30 AM
The Appeal for the subject property has been scheduled to be heard on the hearing date and time
indicated above. The hearing will take place in the State Board of Building Regulations and
Standards (BBRS) Conference Room (Room 1301) at the McCormack State Office Building, One
Ashburton Place, Boston Massachusetts 02108.
The State Building Code Appeals Board requires your presence or that of you representative at its
hearing relative to the above mentioned case.
Please brine with you a copy of the record, including any documents, plans, sketches, drawings, etc.,
that will help to give the Appeals Board grounds to adjudicate this appeal.
Sincerely;
THE STATE BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
Kathy McNeil
Administrative Secretary
0�e T6oWvrrroouu�a C o��ac�tuaell6
A
� /[J /,
William 4('. Weld
�:/()[�(Q.�9f.6 � and �� i
o,yeaaE Jtale
Governor ,� >I xerCo�c lace - 9a6,m mol
Kentaro Tsutsumi "adm6eff4 02f08
Chairman (617) 727.3200
Charles J. Uinezio
Administrator
c
January 27 , 1992 r'•
William H Munroe
Inspector of Buildings
One Salem Green-2nd Floor
Salem MA 01970
Docket Number: 91-116
Property Address: 18 Crombie Street, Salem
Hearing Date: February 11, 1992
Hearing Time: 9: 30 AM
The Appeal for the subject property has been scheduled to be heardon
the hearing date and time indicated above. The hearing will
takeplace in the State Board of Building Regulations and
Standards(BBRS) Conference Room (Room 1301) at the McCormack State
OfficeBuilding, One Ashburton Place, Boston Massachusetts 02108.
The State Building Code Appeals Board requires your presence or
thatof your _representitive at its hearing relative to the
abovementioned case.
Please bring with you a copy of the record, including any
documents,plans, sketches, drawings, etc. , that will help to give
the AppealsBoard grounds to adjudicate this appeal.
Sincerely;
THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Kathy McNeil
Administrative Secretary
I j^ DeMarco • Jarek
tt ' Partnership
Architects
--{®� & Planners
c August 1991
William Monroe
Building inspector
City Fail
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: IS Crombin ctr eat
Dear Mr. Munroe:
;e are writing to you pursuant to M. G. L. _h. 143. Sec, 6 in order
to apprise you of the fart that the jyildin❑ located at IS Crombie
Street is in a state of disreoair and if ,.c:t corrected will pose a
hazard to the well-being of pedestrians in the .area.
On July 3, 1990, we inspected the said building at the invitation
of its current Owner. the Holuoke Mutual Fire insurance vomgam_.
A copy of our report is annexed hereto for your information. In
summary form, our firms findings include the following :
Roof
The roar appears to be le+ years old. The lower rear portion was
incorrectly flashed to the abutting wall of the house. The lower
left gabel roof valleys should have been ( but were not ) lined with
metal . The absence of an adequate attic ventilation system
requires the installation of a continuous soffit and ridge vent
system, in order to reduce excessive attic humldltu. There is
evidence of a pre-existing ice damming problem. The rear plumbing
vent has been installed on the outside wall and does not meet the
building code.
Chimney
One ( 1 ) of the two ( ) chimneys is in marginal condition, at
best. All of its flashings have deteriorated. The chimney cap is
in need of rebuilding and all the flues need to be lined.
Uteriar Walls
--------------
The exterior walls, fascias, soffits and trim are all wood and are
in marginal condition. The cedar shingle siding is in marginal
condition and is cupping and splitting on most sides of the
building. Paint has been peeling from all wood surfaces. The
fascias, soffits and all of the corner boards are in rotted
condition. The electrical entrance cables are in poor condition.
Pickering Wharf • 223 Derby Street 0 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • 508/744-4141
KIMLING DEQ F
Mr. William Munroe
5 August 1941 ;IZ3 I � ;i 39 .. ?
Page K=n ID
-
MY C z G ASS.
and the service cables entering the house are rottina, Most
significantly, the brick: and block foundations on _he front and
left sides of the building are collapsing.
Dra age
The Gutters are in poor condition. The wooden gutters are rotten
and the copper gutters should be ! but are not ) spaced away from,
all fascias. The downspouts are in marginal condition. Grading
around the foundation doe=_ not slope _.way, thus causing water to
pond.
Grounds
The rear wooden stairs are rotting. The rear brick patio is in
marginal condition. Of major concern is the wood porch structure
including, but not limited to, the roof , rafters, corner post, and
porch decking. Floor joists and decking have been severely
damaged by wood rot and wood boring insects.
Doors and Windows
All of the windows are in poor condition. Their thresholds are
rotting. The entru doors are not square. All fla.shina around
windows and door heads are in poor condition. The window sashes
are loose in their casinos. The entire bulkhead is unsafe.
Easement
The brick walls are in poor condition, and the right and rear
foundation walls are collapsing. On the front and right sides,
the sills are in poor condition, evidencina rot and insect
damage. The right side floor joists have been damaged by wood
boring insects. The brick: support posts are in poor condition and
are deteriorating.
Kitchen
The general structure of the kitchen is not squared and the floor
is not level . Electrical circuits are very limited. The walls.
ceiling, floor and electrical outlets are all in marginal
condition.
Mr. William Munroe �)
5 August 1991
Page
C!T'i
hiallwaus and Entries
--------------------
The rear stairwell is marginal . The plaster finish in the front
stairwell has loosened.
Living-Room-(Front )
The ceiling sags, due to settling of the foundation. The hardwood
floor similarly is not level . Electrical outlets are in marginal
to poor condition, and are limited. The windows are marainal due
to excessive peeling of paint. The doors are marginal and are not
square. The fireplace is marainal and in need of flue lining.
P-in in Rgom
The walls, ceiling and floor are all marginal . The ceiling sags
and the structure has settled to the left. Outlets and fixtures
are limited and in poor condition. The fireplace is marginal and
in need of a flue lining.
Closed-In_Porch_ ( Rear_Right )
The floor and the ceiling_ sag_ . The outlets and fixtures are
inoperative and limited.
Bedroom - Second Floor Front
_ _Qojr_ rn±
The walls and ceiling are in marginal condition. The plaster is
cracking and the ceiling is sagging. The floor is marginal and is
not level. There are no electrical outlets, fixtures or
switches. The door is not square. The fireplace is marainal and
the flue needs to be lined.
Bedroom - Second Floor Rear
---------------------------
The walls and the ceiling are in marainal condition. The plaster
is cracking. The doors and windows are in marginal condition.
The fireplace is in poor condition ; the hearth needs rebuilding
and the flue needs lining.
Bedroom - Third Floor Front
---------------------------
Same comments as Second Floor Rear Bedroom.
6UILDI:"G r PT
Mr. 'W41liam Munroe
August 1991
Page 4
05.
CII ( Ci :,
Bathrooms
The bathrooms are located on the second and third floors: neither
one of =hem is operative.
Attic
The insulation and ventilation systems are in poor condition. The
chimneys and flues are in marginal condition. The left chimney is
in need of repair, and there is evidence of leaking at the chimney
flashino=_.. The roof is in need of soffit and ridge ventinq.
Utilities
The heating, plumbing, water and electrical systems are currently
inoperative.
It is our opinion that the foundations at IS Crombie Street are in
danger of collapsing and that, therefore, it poses a health and
safety hazard to persons within its vicinity. Indeed, were it not
for the addition of the porch and corner rooms (which are them—
selves now failing) it is probable that the main frame would
already have toppled. Clearly, this property is a candidate for
condemnation.
It is our recommendation that your Department conduct an immediate
inspection of its own, and then issue an order to the Iwner to
remove the structure or make it safe, pursuant to M. G. L. Ch. 143,
Sec. S.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us.
Veru truly yours,
DeMarco/Jarek Par . rship
Charles A. DeMarco, A. I .A. Ponald F. a Ek A. I.A.
CAD:pl
Enclosure
cc: William Lundregan, Esq.
Douglas Ryder, Pres.
SUrtUFnC;
DEPT
0 DeMarco • )arek
Partnership OCT �' 00 RECqVOD Ift rg'
C •
Architects QTYFSALEM,M4SS.
& Planners
5 August 1991
William Munroe
Building Inspector
City Hall
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 18 Crombie Street
Dear Mr. Munroe:
We are writing to you pursuant to M_G.L. Ch. 143, Sec. b in order
to apprise you of the fact that the building located at 18 Crombie
Street is in a state of disrepair and if not corrected will pose a
hazard to the well-being of pedestrians in the area.
On July 3, 1990, we inspected the said building at the invitation
of its current Owner, the Holyoke Mutual Fire Insurance Compan .
A copy of our report is annexed hereto for your information. in
summary form, our firms findings include the following :
Roof
The roof appears to be 18+ years old. The lower rear portion was
incorrectly flashed to the abutting wall of the house. The lower
left gabel roof ,.alleys should have been (but were rot ) lined with
metal. The absence of an adequate attic ventilation system
requires the installation of a continuous soffit and ridge vent
system, in order to reduce excessive attic humidity. There is
evidence of a pre-existing ice damming problem. The rear plumbing_
vent has been installed on the outside wall and does not meet the
building code.
Liiim ey
One ( 1 ) of the two (2) chimneys is in marginal condition, at
best. All of its flashings have deteriorated. The chimney cap is
in need of rebuilding and. all the flues reed to be lined.
E''t ort or Wails
.N
The exterior-wSTS, fascias, soffits and trim are all wood and are
in odor s.marginal condition. The cedar shingle siding is in marginal
condition and is cupping and spitting on most sides of the
building. Paint has been peeling from all wood surfaces._ __. The
fascias, soffits and all of the corner boards are 'in rotted
condition. The electrical entrance cables are in poor condition.
Pickering Wharf 0 223 Derby Street 0 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • 508/744-4141
Mr. William Munroe
5 August 1991
Page 2
and the service cables entering the house are rotting. Most
significantly, the brick and block foundations on the 'front and
left sides of the building are collapsing.
Drainage
The gutters are in poor condition. The wooden gutters are rotten
and the copper gutters should be (but are not) spaced away from
all fascias. The downspouts are in marginal condition. Grading
around the foundation does not slope away, thus causing water to
pond.
Grounds
The rear wooden stairs are rotting. The rear brick patio is in
marginal condition. Of major concern is the wood porch structure
including, but not limited to, the roof, rafters, corner post, and
porch decking. Floor joists and decking have been severely
damaged by wood 'rot and wood boring insects.
Doors_and_W_ndows
All of the windows are in poor condition. Their thresholds are
rotting. The entry doors are not square. All flashing_ around
windows and door heads are in poor condition— The window sashes
are loose in their casings. The entire bulkhead is unsafe.
Rasement
The brick walls are in poor condition,, and the right and rear
foundation walls are collapsing. On the front and right sides,
the sills are in poor condition, evidencing rot and insect
damage. . The right, side floor joists have been damaged by wood
boring inserts. The brick support posts are in poor condition and
are deteriorating.
Kitchen
The general structure of the kitchen is not squared and the floor
is not level . Electrical circuits- aro veru limited. The waii5,
ceiling, floor and electrical outlets are a!! in marginal
condition. ,.
Mr. William Munroe
5 August 1991
Page 3 .
Ha 11wagE_2nd_Entries
The rear stairwell is marginal. The plaster finish in the front
stairwell has loosened.
Li v_ing_Rogm_(Front )
The ceiling sags, due to settling of the foundation. The hardwood
floor similarlu is not level . Electrical outlets are in marginal
to poor condition, and are limited. The windows are marginal due
to excessive peeling of paint. The doors are marginal and are not
square. The fireplace is marainal and in need of
flue lining.
Pining-Room
The walls, ceiling and floor are all marginal . The ceiling sags
and the structure has settled to the left. Outlets and fixtures
are limited and in poor condition. The fireplace is marginal and
in need of a flue lining.
Closed_In_Porch_(Rear_Riaht)
The floor and the ceilina spa. The outlets and fixtures are
inoperative and limited.
Sedroom___Second_Floor-Front
The wails and ceilingg are in marginal condition. The Plaster i=
_-cracking and the cell
_-
g ina is sagging. The floor is marainal and i
not level. There are no electrical outlets, fixtures or
switches. The door is not square. The fireplace is marninal and
the flue needs to be lined.
Bedroom
---cecond_Floor_Rear
The walls and the ceiling are in marainal condition. The plaster
is cracking. The doors and windows are in marginal condition.
The fireplace is in poor condition; the hearth needs rebuilding
and the flue needs lining. .
Eedroar:, -_Tt,ird_ laor_Front
Same commen' s as;Sscond Floor Rear .Bedroom.
Mr. William Munroe
5 August 1991,
Page 4
Bathrooms
The bathrooms are located on the second and third floors; neither
one of them is operative.
Attic
The insulation and ventilation systems are in poor condition. The
chimneys and flues are in marginal condition. The left chimney is
in need of repair, and there is evidence of leaking at the chimney
flashings. Ttie roof is in need of soffit and ridge venting.
Utilities
The heating, plumbing, water and electrical systems are currently
inoperative.
It is our opinion that the foundations at IS Crombie Street are in
danger of collapsing and that, therefore, it poses a health and
safety hazard to persons within its vicinity. Indeed, were it not
for the addition of the porch and corner rooms (which are them-
selves now failing) it is probable that the main frame would
already have toppled. Clearly, this property is a candidate for
condemnation.
It is our recommendation that your Department conduct an immediate
inspection of its own, and then issue an order to the Owner to
remove the structure or make it safe, pursuant to M.6.". Ch. 1141,
Sec. 6.
If _you have any questions or concerns, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
DeMarco/Jacek Par rship
Charles A. DeMarco, A. I . A. ponaldA. I.A.
CAD.pl ` .
Enclosure
x
cc, William Lundr6gan, Esq.
Douglas Ruder, Pres.
A44 U&axd/ pol�a A u�, andAxelz,�
William F. Weld `/�et�oa�mao� J�a(.e rjrire ✓p W"Mu q
Governor rtw A&Ww6n gtc; _ Room -180-1
Kentaro Tsutsumi �caCo�g ✓ff�ella 021,08
Chairman (617) 727-3200
Charles J. Dinezio
Administrator
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS POARD
June 3, 1992
William J. Lundregan, Esq.
81 Washington St.
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Docket: #91-116
Property Address: 18 Crombie Street
Salem, MA 01970
We are pleased to enclose a copy of the decision relative to the above-mentioned case wherein certain
variances from the State Building Code had been requested.
Sincerely,
STATE BUI ING CODE APPE�B ARD
Thomas M. Riley
Clerk
cc: State Building Code Appeals Board
�>�te Ur om�m,4�tll�eca,� �.�ac,ltu,6e�`b
rf . late oBocrad `7 Auaz�nyeadati AaanJd,�AndaxtZ
William F. Weld ✓rCCIOo�maa� /&& tv*,e Aa- ","�
Governor tvvw &A 'ce _ Room x,30-/
Kentaro Tsutsumi G . ✓��+ 02108
Chairman (617) 727-3200
Charles J. Dinezio
Administrator
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Docket #91-116
Date: June 3, 1992
In accordance with MGL c143, Section 100 and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Building Code,
this Appeals Board has found the following:
The appellant, Holyoke Square, Inc., on October 4, 1991, appealed to this Appeals Board the decision of the
Building Official, City of Salem, dated August 29, 1991.
Although a public hearing was originally scheduled for December 19, 1991, the appellant requested
postponement and the public hearing was ultimately held on February 11, 1992, in Boston before members
of the State Board of Building Regulations and Standards who acted as the State Building Code Appeals
Board and in such capacity, a majority of the said Appeals Board found in its opinion the enforcement of the
Massachusetts State Building Code would not do manifest injustice to the appellant and the relief requested
would conflict with the general objectives of the State Building Code and any of its enabling legislation.
There were present at the said hearing:
William J. Lundregan, Holyoke Square, Inc., 81 Washington St., Salem, MA 01970
David Harris, Building Inspector, Salem Bldg. Dept., 1 Salem Green, Salem, MA 01970
Leonard F. Femino, Asst. City Solicitor, One School St., Salem, MA 01915
Jane A. Guy, Salem Planning Dept., One Salem Green, Salem, MA 01970
Charles DeMarco, Holyoke Square, Inc., 223 Derby St., Salem, MA 01970
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Docket #91-116
DateGune 3, 1992
The appellant testified that Holyoke Square, Inc., acquired the property at interest with the intention of
utilizing same for commercial purposes but sometime after purchase determined that renovations to the
property would be cost prohibitive, in part due to the structural condition of the building.
The appellant testified it is the contention of Holyoke Square,Inc.,supported by consultants'evaluations,that
the building should be viewed as an unsafe structure and consequently, in accordance with MGL c143 s6, the
Building Official should order that the building be demolished (Nucci Vine Associates "Building Monitoring
Report",dated 2/10/'92 and the"Overview Study"of DeMarco/Jarek Partnership,dated September 9, 1990 are
the consultants' reports offered in support of the contention that the building is unsafe).
The City of Salem testified that the building at interest did have certain structural problems related to age,
construction and decay,but did not view such condition as warranting an"unsafe building"call per MGL c143
s6,and offered as additional proof of this position,the report of Robert M. Rumpf&Associates -"Structural
Report, 18 Crombie SL, Salem, MA", dated 3/18/91.
It came to light during testimony that the appellant and the City of Salem are currently in Essex Superior
Court regarding the same property but on matters tied to City by-laws affecting properties within Salem's
"redevelopment area"-the appellant noted however that he was before the State Building Code Appeals Board
simply on the "unsafe building" issue as addressed in MGL c143 s6.
Having heard all testimony and noting.that both the appellant's consultants and the City's consultant and__.._..._____.__
Building Department do not view the building as in danger of imminent collapse (although all parties
recognize the building's deteriorating condition), the Board unanimously voted to uphold the decision of the
City of Salem Building Department and does not find sufficient reason to require the immediate condemnation
and demolition of said building.
SO ORDERED
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Docket #91-116
DateJune 3, 1992
The following Board Members were present and voted in the above manner:
Lcr�Chairman, �
William P. Kramer L John B rover ��-t� James allisey -zsvv
C/A true copy attest, dated
/ ! terkk
Thomas M. Riley
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the State Building Code Appeals Board may appeal to a court of
competent jurisdiction in conformance with Chapter 30A, Section 14 of the General Laws.
e
T
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
KEVIN Dor Legal Department
City Solicitor
icittor LEONARD F. FEMINO
508-745-0500 93 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor
Salem, Massachusetts 01970 508-921-1990
June 30, 1992
William Luster, City Planner
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Bill:
Enclosed herewith please find a copy of the decision from the State Building Code
Appeals Board regarding 18 Crombee Street for your files.
g
yours,
ooaid F. Femino
LFF/gsw
Enclosure
cc: David Harris, Assistant Building Inspector
I
,.CONDIT.{,A.�c
AfOLNINE DD?P
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(617)745-9595,EXT.311
February 10, 1992
State Board of Building Regulations and Standards
McCormack State Office Building
One Ashburton Place - Room 1301
Boston, MA 02108
Dear Sirs/Madams :
The Salem Historical Commission is writing with regard to the
appeal by Holyoke Square, Inc. for 18 Crombie Street in Salem, MA.
The appellant requests that a decision of the Inspector of
Buildings for the City of Salem be overruled and that the owner
should be ordered to remove or make the structure safe pursuant to
M.G.L. Ch. 143, Sec . 6 .
In September, 1990, Holyoke Square, Inc. requested a waiver of
the Demolition Delay Ordinance from the Salem Historical Commission
in order to demolish 18 Crombie Street. The purpose of the
proposed demolition was to create a parking lot and to "landbank"
the site for future use. To facilitate our decision, members of
the Salem Historical Commission, including a licensed architect, an
architectural designer, an historian and a contractor specializing
in the restoration of historic properties, inspected 18 Crombie
Street.
The Commission found that building was in relatively sound
condition with no significant deflection in the floors, walls or
ceilings . The Commission found that the house was not racked as
much as the estimate of DeMarco-Jarek Partnership, Holyoke 's
architect, and the Commission found that there was no evidence that
the house in continuing to rack. The Commission also found that
the gradual settling and modest racking of a house of this age is
not a condition to prove the structure .to be unsafe. Ceiling beams
of the house show no evidence of bug or water damage except for one
small area. The house framing was in excellent condition. The
brick foundation showed no major cracks, settlement or fissures and
there was no evidence that any corner is slipping. The foundations
may be out of plumb one or two inches, which is not surprising for
the age of the house, but they did not appear to be unsound. There
was one small area of sill rot. There was evidence that the house
was moved to this location and, therefore, the foundations may be
newer than the rest of the house. There was no musty smell to the
house, indicating that there has been no sepage of water into the
basement. 18 Crombie Street is one of seven properties located
within the Crombie Street National Register District (which is the
only surviving downtown residential district from the early 19th
century) .
Based on these findings, the Commission voted not to waive the
Demolition Delay Ordinance. The Commission' s final recommendation
was in opposition to the granting of a demolition permit for this
historically significant building.
In May, 1991, the Salem Redevelopment Authority, within whose
jurisdiction 18 Crombie Street resides, voted to deny Holyoke' s
request for demolition. Holyoke has since filed an appeal of this
decision with Superior Court.
The City of Salem proudly contains a myriad of historic homes
- many of which are in greater disrepair than 18 Crombie Street.
To allow the demolition of this property, as being a hazard to the
public safety and welfare, would be to suggest that several hundred
homes in Salem should be leveled.
The Salem Historical Commission is in g
complete agreement with
P
i
Salem' s Inspector of Buildings ' letter of August 29 1991 to
P g g
Charles DeMarco. We sincerely hope that the State Board of
Building Regulations and Standards will deny the appeal of Holyoke
Square, Inc.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
HE SALE HISTORIC L COMMISSION
John H. Carr, Jr.
Vice Chairman
d
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
KEVINT. DALY,'
City Solicitor i , Legal Department,. . LEONARD F.FEMINO
508-745-0500 93 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor
Salem, Massachusetts 01970 508-921-1990
June 30, 1992
William Luster, City Planner
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Bill:
Enclosed herewith please find a copy of the decision from the State Building Code
Appeals Board regarding 18 Cromhee Street for your files.
Very tr yours,
onard F. Femino
LFF/gsw
Enclosure
cc: David Harris, Assistant Building Inspector
�' C�xecu/i�le � iCe t�✓ ul�calalety
.Male -Toard of Auld Ala"ona aced Anda
William F. Weld J&& C)ffw _0&a ntr
Governor CCW Q&"f0&ft 0)" _ Room -/,To/
Kentaro Tsutsumi �t)o6lon, /�aaaac�u�aet7a 0,2fON
Chairman (617) 727-3200
Charles J. Dinezio
Administrator
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Docl:A #91-116
Date: June 3, 1992
In accordance with MGL c143, Section 100 and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Building Code,
this Appeals Board has found the following:
The appellant, Holyoke Square, Inc., on October 4, 1991,appealed to this Appeals Board the decision of the
Building Official, City of Salem, dated August 29, 1991.
Although a public hearing was originally scheduled for December 19, 1991, the appellant requested
postponement and the public hearing was ultimately held on February 11, 1992, in Boston before members
of the State Board of Building Regulations and Standards who acted as the State Building Code Appeals
Board and in such capacity, a majority of the said Appeals Board found in its opinion the enforcement of the
Massachusetts State Building Code would not do manifest injustice to the appellant and the relief requested
would conflict with the general objectives of the State Building Code and any of its enabling legislation.
There were present at the said hearing:
William J. Lundregan, Holyoke Square, Inc., 81 Washington St., Salem, MA 01970
David Harris, Building Inspector, Salem Bldg. Dept., 1 Salem Green, Salem, MA 01970
Leonard F. Femino, Asst. City Solicitor, One School St., Salem, MA 01915
Jane A. Guy, Salem Planning Dept., One Salem Green, Salem, MA 01970
Charles DeMarco, Holyoke Square, Inc., 223 Derby St., Salem, MA 01970
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Docket #91416
Datejune 3, 1992
The appellant testified that Holyoke Square, Inc., acquired the property at interest with the intention of
utilizing same for commercial purposes but sometime after purchase determined that renovations to the
property would be cost prohibitive, in part due to the structural condition of the building.
The appellant testified it is the contention of Holyoke Square, Inc.,supported by consultants'evaluations,that
the building should be viewed as an unsafe structure and consequently, in accordance with MGL c143 s6, the
Buildin, Official shoold order that the building be demolished (Nucci Vine Associates "Building Monito!in!
Report",dated 2/10/92 and the "Overview Study"of DeMarco/Jarek Partnership,dated September 9, 1990 are
the consultants' reports offered in support of the contention that the building is unsafe).
The City of Salem testified that the building at interest did have certain structural problems related to age,
construction and decay,but did not view such condition as warranting an "unsafe building"call per MGL c143
s6, and offered as additional proof of this position,the report of Robert M. Rumpf&Associates - "Structural
Report, 18 Crombie St., Salem, MA", dated 3/18/91.
It came to light during testimony that the appellant and the City of Salem are currently in Essex Superior
Court regarding the same property but on matters tied to City by-laws affecting properties within Salem's
"redevelopment area"-the appellant noted however that he was before the State Building Code Appeals Board
simply on the "unsafe building" issue as addressed in MGL c143 s6.
Having heard all testimony and noting that both the appellant's consultants and the City's consultant and
Building Department do not view the building as in danger of imminent collapse (although all parties
recognize the building's deteriorating condition), the Board unanimously voted to uphold the decision of the
City of Salem Building Department and does not find sufficient reason to require the immediate condemnation
and demolition of said building.
SO ORDERED
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Docket #91-116
Datejune 3, 1992
The following Board Members were present and voted in the above manner:
Chairman,
William P. Kramer "` John E. rover �yizt— James allisey -sem-1
("tu'C-
A true copy attest, dated
I
t
Thomas M.
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the State Building Code Appeals Board may appeal to a court of
competent jurisdiction in conformance with Chapter 30A, Section 14 of the General laws.
a
_ J" :lJoard of Aw"wyp �li /tea and J&ndo
William F. Weld /[�C(�a�rnadE JCa& CAV 'OAA" t�v
Governor C." ,QU G _ Room /,10-
Kentaro Tsutsumi ✓� . 1&aad&4e0 0,2708
Chairman (617) 727-3200
Charles J. Dinezio n '
Administrator
r�
January 27, 1992
William H Munroe
Inspector of Buildings
One Salem Green-2nd Floor
Salem MA 01970
Docket Number: 91-116
Property Address: 18 Crombie Street, Salem
Hearing Date: February 11, 1992
Hearing Time: 9: 30 AM
The Appeal for the subject property has been scheduled to be heardon
the hearing date and time indicated above. The hearing will
takeplace in the State Board of Building Regulations and
Standards(BBRS) Conference Room (Room 1301) at the McCormack State
OfficeBuilding, One Ashburton Place, Boston Massachusetts 02108.
The State Building Code Appeals Board requires your presence or
thatof your representitive at its hearing relative to the
abovementioned case.
Please bring with you a copy of the record, including any
documents,plans, sketches, drawings, etc. , that will help to give
the AppealsBoard grounds to adjudicate this appeal.
Sincerely;
THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Kathy McNeil
Administrative Secretary
Salem
Redevelopment
44-6900
Authority ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 744 -4580
February 10, 1992
State Board of Building Regulations and Standards
McCormack State Office Building
One Ashburton Place - Room 1301
Boston, MA 02108
RE : Holyoke Square Inc.
18 Crombie Street
Dear Sirs/Madams :
I am writing concerning the appeal of Holyoke Square, Inc . ,
which requests that the State Board of Building Regulations and
Standards reverse a decision of William Munroe, Salem' s Inspector
of Buildings, for the dwelling at 18 Crombie Street.
Holyoke has gone through various local processes in attempt to
demolish the building in question. In November, 1990, the Salem
Historical Commission denied Holyoke' s request to waive the
Demolition Delay Ordinance. In April, 1991, the Salem Historical
Commission' s final recommendation was in opposition to the granting
of a demolition permit. In May, 1991, the Salem Redevelopment
Authority (SRA) denied Holyoke' s request for demolition of 18
Crombie Street. An appeal of the SRA's decision by Holyoke is
currently pending in Superior Court.
Prior to the SRA' s decision, the City of Salem contracted
Robert M. Rumpf & Associates to provide an independent structural
condition report of the property. The report recommended that only
the back porch of the building be torn down and provided reasonable
minimal requirements to adequately rehabilitate the structure. The
report concluded that the building was not a hazard to public
safety and welfare.
It is my opinion that Holyoke is not appealing the decision of
Salem' s Inspector of Buildings out of concern for public safety and
welfare, but is attempting to use the State Building Code appeals
process as a means of fulfilling their own independent objectives .
I urge you to uphold the fi ings of Mr. Munroe and to deny
the appeal of Holyoke Square, I
S cer y
i ster
Proje t Administrator
p
A �xecuGirie ��cCe a��u�c ��
s ' .Mate Aoala o/ and, ftwarda
William F. Weld /N�oa�maa�C /tate CAW .GiY wa�ty
Governor One ,Qu&"& t 9LCc - Room /.30-f
Kentaro Tsutsumi �ddac�lEi�aetta 0,21,08
Chairman (617) 727-3200
Charles J. Dinezio
Administrator
n �
December 6, 1991
47 r
William Munroe r'n
x-
One Salem Green :n ca =>_
-- ;
.., �Jn
Salem, MA 01970
M.
t
Docket Number: 91-116
Property Address: 18 Crombie Street, Salem, MA
Hearing Date: December 19, 1991
Hearing Time: 9:30 AM 0/1
C " •o ate-
The Appeal for the subject property has been scheduled to be heard on the hearing date and time
indicated above. The hearing will take place in the State Board of Building Regulations and
Standards (BBRS) Conference Room (Room 1301) at the McCormack State Office Building, One
Ashburton Place, Boston Massachusetts 02108.
The State Building Code Appeals Board requires your presence or that of you representative at its
hearing relative to the above mentioned case.
Please bring with you a copy of the record, including any documents, plans, sketches, drawings. etc.,
that will help to give the Appeals Board grounds to adjudicate this appeal.
Sincerely;
THE STATE BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
Kathy Mc eil
Administrative Secretary
C
57 y '°� �X 0/g J94
Wf1�77CC1`4Fo
y 0E- SAL L( ,l•,nss•�
William F. Weld /m � � '
FOR STATE USE ONLY ne JOah ,/ //�acueae�a O'ems
Fee Recd: ✓Navaaa� (617) 727-3200
Check No.
Recd B},: STATE MILUING CODE APPEALS BOARD
APPEAL APPLICATION FORM
DATE:
DOCKET NUMBER:
The undersigned herehy appeals to the Statc hoard or Iloildimg Regulations and Standards from the decision
of the:
Building Official from the Cityrl6,Mvlr oF. Salem, Massachusetts
Board or Appeals from the Cityrrown of: _
Other Municipal APency/Oficial entitled:
State Agency/Oficial entitled:
OTHER:
Dated: October 4 , 19 91 , having heen aggrieved by such (Check Appropriate Space)
% Interpretation _ Order Requirement Direction
X Failure to Act Other - Explain
Subject: (Suhmit a hrief statement of reasons and principal points upon which the application, appeal or
petition is hased) ALA, APPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF THE CODE MUST BE LISTED
The Owner- of the building at 18 Crombie Street , Salem, MA requested
the Buil ing Inspec or on ugus o ins
pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143 Sec . 6 ( See attached letter ) . The
Bpilding, Insppecty iRs ected the buildincr on Au4giutI t 18 , 1 91 and
a, � not , c¢n an n pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. I4� , Sec . (( See
attached letter) T
State hrielly desired relief: The decision of the Building Inspector should be
overruled and the owner should be ordered o remove or make structure
safe pursuant to M.G.L. Ch . 143, Sec. b .
APPELLANT: Holyoke Square , Inc .
ADDRESS FOR SEM CE: Holyoke Square, Inc. , c/o William J. Lundregan , Esq . ,
81 Washington Street , Salem, MA 0197
T'elephoneNo. ( 508 ) 741-3888
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY INVOLVED: 18 Crombie Street;Salem,'MN 01970-7
APPELLANT'S CONNECTION TO PROPERTY INVOLVED: Owner
APPLAPLC-f/90
T
✓fze U� o�mirir,�yr�e�re�:u� a��i2'GaQdG�,/tcc6eC�Q
Q @ //V�XCG pa#1
to- --- �- �.ZP.CdLII?,,,e �/�ff.� 6L ✓ J
s ,
.date ✓iJuard 2)aal,n{je Aiya4weo mrd A.Wrda
William F. Weld ��`e(�owmgac ,sate CAW
a - -Owan_�Governor Cne J4/ Iu,, " _ Ao /jo
/
Kentaro Tsutsumi 021,08
Chairman (617) 727-320)
SERVICE NOTICE
Charles J. Dinezio DOCKET NUMBER:
Administrator
1, William J. Lundregan as Attorney for the
Appellant/Petitioner __Holyoke Square , Inc. in an appeal
filed with the State Building Code Appeals Board on October 4 , 1991
IIEREBY SMEAR UNDER THE PAINS AND PENAIXIES OF PERJURY TIIAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY 'I'IIE STATE BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND
STANDARDS AND SECTION 121.2.1 OF"I HE STATE BUILDING CODE, I SERVED OR CAUSED TO BE
SERVED, A COPT' OF THIS APPEAL APPLICATION ON TUE FOLLOWING PERSON(S) IN THE
FOLLOWING MANNER:
NAME AND ADDRESS OF
PERSON/AGENCY SERVED C.1GTIIOD 011' SE'RVICIi DATE OF SERVICE
Wil
Builldiniam gInsMunroepector Last and Usual October 4 , 1991
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, MA U1770
�Siignoll
/r LLANT/1`EnT1;0
On the 4th Day of October 19 91 , PERSONALLY APPEARED
13EFORENIET11EABOVE NAMED William J . Lundregan , Esq.
(7 ype or 11rinI the Name of the Appella nQ
AND ACKNOWLEDGED AND S)5'ORE 'I'lIE ABOVE STA TC� TO BE TRUE.
NOTARY PUBLIC Anne M. Poor
11/2/95
SERVNOTE.I/90 COMMISSION EXPIRES
�II�LDiric DEPT
tp o ver , asgaC Uge tg
Public Propertp Department ,
OCT � CI 00 AH 91
�rn„gwN Nuilbing Department
RECEIVED
One *alem Oreen CITY OF SALEM,MASS.
745-9595 P!xt. 380
William H. Munroe
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
August 29, 1991
Charles A. DeMarco, A.I.A.
DeMarco and Jarek Partnership
Pickering Wharf
223 Derby Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 18 Crombie St. , Salem
Dear Mr. DeMarco:
In response to your request and accompanied by David Harris, Assistant
Building Inspector, Attorney William Lundregan and you, I made an inspection
of the above referenced property on August 18, 1991 to determine the structural
stability of the building located on the site.
Considering the fact that the structure is about one hundred sixty (160)
years old I found it to be in reasonably good condition. The frame of the
structure was in extremely good condition with the exception of a couple of
areas of the sill plate which showed some water damage and carpenter ant
infestation. I was surprised to find the foundation wall was red brick rather
than stone indicating the foundation may be much newer than the house. The
foundation has some areas that are in need of repair but there was no sign
of there being stress enough to cause failure. The electrical, heating and
plumbing should be upgraded to meet the needs of todays appliances.
It is my opinion that, although this single family house has a number
of problems, it has not deteriorated to the point of being a hazard to the
public safety and welfare, and to order it demolished at this time would be
premature.
Sincerely,
>_ iam Munroe
Inspector of Buildings
WHM:bms
cc: William Lundregan, Esq.
F-J= DeMarco • Jarek PL'I!_i?I"! DEPT
Partnership
AUC �L 39 orf `of
Architects
log & Planners RECEf`dF0
CITY OF S . r :MASS.
5 August 1991
William Munroe
Building Inspector
Citu Hall
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: IS Crombie Street
Dear Mr. Munroe:
We are writing to you pursuant to M. G.L. Ch, 143, Sec. b in order
to apprise you of the fact that the building located at IS Crombie
Street is in a state of disrepair and if not corrected will pose a
hazard to the well-being of pedestrians in the area.
On July 3, 1990, we inspected the said building at the invitation
of its current Owner, the Holyoke Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
A copy of our report is annexed hereto for your information. In
summary form, our firms findings include the following:
Roof
The roof appears to be IS+ years old. The lower rear portion was
incorrectly flashed to the abutting wall of the house. The lower
left gabel roof valleys should have been (but were not) lined with
metal . The absence of an adequate attic ventilation system
requires the installation of a continuous soffit and ridge vent
system, in order to reduce excessive attic humidity. There is
evidence of a pre-existing ice damming problem. The rear plumbing
vent has been installed on the outside wall and does not meet the
building code.
Chimney
One ( 1 ) of the two (2) chimneys is in marginal condition, at
best. All of its flashings have deteriorated. The chimney cap is
in need of rebuilding and all the flues need to be lined.
Exterior Walls
--------------
The exterior walls, fascias, soffits and trim are all wood and are
in marginal condition. The cedar shingle siding is in marginal
condition and is cupping and splitting on most sides of the
building. Paint has been peeling from all wood surfaces. The
fascias, soffits and all of the corner boards are in rotted
condition. The electrical entrance cables are in poor condition,
Pickering Wharf 0 223 Derby Street • Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • 508/744-4141
E,DILDI,4r DEPT
Mr. William Munroe a i (�
5 August 1991 AN 1 ? 9 aq 39 AH I
Page 2
R Ec-LrVEo
CITY OF SALEM,MASS.
and the service cables entering the house are rotting. Most
significantly, the brick and block foundations on the front and
left sides of the building are collapsing.
Drainage
The gutters are in poor condition. The wooden gutters are rotten
and the copper gutters should be (but are not ) spaced away from
all fascias. The downspouts are in marginal condition. Grading
around the foundation does not slope away, thus causing water to
pond.
Grounds
The rear wooden stairs are rotting. The rear brick patio is in
marginal condition. Of major concern is the wood porch structure
including, but not limited to, the roof, rafters, corner post, and
porch decking. Floor joists and decking have been severely
damaged by wood rot and wood boring insects.
Doors and Windows
All of of the windows are in poor condition. Their thresholds are
rotting. The entry doors are not square. All flashing around
windows and door heads are in poor condition. The window sashes
are loose in their casings. The entire bulkhead is unsafe.
Basement
The brick walls are in poor condition, and the right and rear
foundation walls are collapsing. On the front and right sides,
the sills are in poor condition, evidencing rot and 'insect
damage. The right side floor joists have been damaged by wood
boring insects. The brick support posts are in poor condition and
are deteriorating.
Kitchen
The general structure of the kitchen is not squared and the floor
is not level . Electrical circuits are very limited. The walls,
ceiling, floor and electrical outlets are all in marginal
condition.
Fir. William Munroe
5 August 1991 An I Z {�7 AH,
Page 3
R E CE M_'J i
CITY OF 5:,1--1: MIASS,
Hallways-and_Entries
The rear stairwell is marginal. The plaster finish in the front
stairwell has loosened.
Living_Room_(Front )
The ceiling sags, due to settling of the foundation. The hardwood
floor similarly is not level . Electrical outlets are in marginal
to poor condition, and are limited. The windows are marginal due
to excessive peeling of paint. The doors are marginal and are not
square. The fireplace is marginal and in need of flue lining.
Dining_Room
The walls, ceiling and floor are all marginal. The ceiling sags
and the structure has settled to the left. Outlets and fixtures
are limited and in poor condition. The fireplace is marginal and
in need of a flue lining.
Closed-In_Porch_(Rear Right )
The floor and the ceiling sag. The outlets and fixtures are
inoperative and limited.
Bedroom - Second Floor Front
----------------------------
The walls and ceiling are in marginal condition. The plaster is
cracking and the ceiling is sagging. The floor is marginal and is
not level. There are no electrical outlets, fixtures or
switches. The door is not square. The fireplace is marginal and
the flue needs to be lined.
Bedroom - Second Floor Rear
---------------------------
The walls and the ceiling are in marginal condition. The plaster
is cracking. The doors and windows are in marginal condition.
The fireplace is in poor condition; the hearth needs rebuilding
and the flue needs lining.
Bedroom - Third Floor Front
---------------------------
Same comments as Second Floor Rear Bedroom.
BIJILDING DEPT
Mr. William Munroe
5 August 1491 AUG 12 9 39 Rei °91
Page 4 RECEIVED
CITY OF SALEM,HASS.
Bathrooms
The bathrooms are located on the second and third floors; neither
one of them is operative.
Attic
The insulation and ventilation systems are in poor condition. The
chimneys and flues are in marginal condition. The left chimney is
in need of repair, and there is evidence of leaking at the chimney
flashings. The roof is in need of soffit and ridge venting,
Utilities
The heating, plumbing, water and electrical systems are currently
inoperative.
It is our opinion that the foundations at 18 Crombie Street are in
danger of collapsing and that, therefore, it poses a health and
safety hazard to persons within its vicinity. Indeed, were it not
for the addition of the porch and corner rooms (which are them-
selves now failing) it is probable that the main frame would
already have toppled. Clearly, this property is a candidate for
condemnation.
It is our recommendation that your Department conduct an immediate
inspection of its own, and then issue an order to the Owner to
remove the structure or make it safe, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143,
Sec. b.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
DeMarco/JZZ:
p
Charles A. DeMarco, A. I.A. Ponald F. a ek A. I.A.
CAD-pl
Enclosure
cc: William Lundregan, Esq.
Douglas Ryder, Pres.
u.;
Cttp of ebairm, Aaggacbagettg
' w pi Public Propertp Department
�3uilbing Department
One abalem green
745-9595 Cxt. 360
William H. Munroe
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
August 29, 1991
Charles A. DeMarco, A.I.A.
DeMarco and Jarek Partnersnip
Pickering Wharf
223 Derby Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 18 Crombie St. , Salem
Dear Mr. DeMarco:
In response to your request and accompanied by David Harris, Assistant
Building Inspector, Attorney William Lundregan and you, I made an inspection
of the above referenced property on August 18, 1991 to determine the structural
stability of the building located on the site.
Considering the fact that the structure is about one hundred sixty ( 160)
years old I found it to be in reasonably good condition. The frame of the
structure was in extremely good condition with the exception of a couple of
areas of the sill plate which showed some water damage and carpenter ant
infestation. I was surprised to find the foundation wall was red brick rather
than stone indicating the -foundation may be much newer than the house. The
foundation has some areas that are in need of repair but there was no sign
of there being stress enough to cause failure. The electrical, heating and
plumbing should be upgraded to meet the needs of todays appliances.
It is my opinion that, although this single family house has a number
of problems, it has not deteriorated to the point of being a hazard to the
public safety and welfare, and to order it demolished at this time would be
premature.
Sincerely,
i iam Munroe
Inspector of Buildings
WHM:bms
cc: William Lundregan, Esq.
a BUILDING DEPT
NOV 13 12 23 FM '90
1
y.,u.r. RECEIVED
�. . gYOFSALEM,MASS.
r 1I C 4"a
ONE SALEM GREE`!.SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
t6171 745-9595. EXT. 311
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEMOLITION PERMIT
RE : 18 Crombie Street
On Wednesday, November 7 , 1990, the Salem Historical
Commission unanimously voted—in—opposition to the granting of a
permit for demolition for .18..Crombie_Street as proposed by
Holyoke Square Inc . through its representative William J.
Lundregan, Esq.
As per Part II , Chapter 2 , Article XV, Division 2, Section
2-394 (Demolition Delay ) of the Code of Ordinances , no permit for
demolition shall be issued until a more thorough investigation is
undertaken and a final written recommendation regarding the
granting of the permit for demolition is provided by the
Commission to the Director of Public Property and to the property
owner. Such investigation and recommendation shall be completed
within 180 days of the original submission (October 15, 1990 ) to
the Historical Commission.
I attest that this is an accurate record of the vote taken,
not amended or modified in any way to this date .
November 12, 1990 Jan A. Guy
Clk of the C mission
cc : Building Inspector
City Clerk
JHisCom8/Denial7
A
r
.CONDIT.
c
2 i
S
9fGIMINE D-
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(617)745-9595,EXT.311
April 12 , 1991
FINAL RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEMOLITION PERMIT
William Munroe
Director of Public Property
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE : 18 Crombie Street
Dear Mr . Munroe :
As per Part II , Chapter 2, Article XV, Divison 2, Section
2-394 (demolition Delay) of the Code of Ordinances, the Salem
Historical Commission hereby submits this written recommendation
regarding the demolition of 18 Crombie Street .
The Salem Historical Commission is opposed to the granting of
a demolition permit for 18 Crombie Street due to the property
being a historically significant building within the Crombie
Street National Register District .
Sincerely,
Annie C . Harris
Chairman
cc : Holyoke Square, Inc .
Cite of *alem, 41am5arbuattz
Aubtit 3prapertp Mepartment
�3uitaing Mepartment
One*alem Oreen
(978) 745-9595 ext. 380
Peter Strout
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer ;
March 14, 2001
Holyoke Insurance
39 Norman Street
Salem, Ma. 01970
RE: 18 Crombie Street
Dear Facility's Manager:
I conducted an inspection of 18 Crombie Street this morning at the request of a'eighbor.
The second floor windows have been broken out. Section 103 of the Massachusetts State
Building Code requires the property owner to "maintain a safe, operable and sanitary
condition of its property". You are therefore to fix or secure the second floor windows at
18 Crombie Street.
Failure to comply with these orders within fifteen (15) days will result in legal action
being taken against you in Salem District Court.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
2
Frank DiPaolo
Local Building Inspector
cc: David Pelletier
Com, ��, � d
a ,
� 2
c� a« �
�� � �
U � q �v
i
Salem #1015 St
arms, MA Salem #928
em, MA Salem #396
, MA Salem #183
ly, MA Salem #902
A Salem #824
ly, MA Salem #583 St
MA . - Salem #582
MA Salem #981 St:
rly, MA Salem #018
v Salem #1006
MA Salem #546
ad, MA Salem#1970 HIC
f
Cite of 6alem, Aa!6garbUattg
Public i3ropertp Department
WuitDing Department C�iO
(One fpalem Oreen
(978) 745-9595 text. 380
Peter Strout
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
APRIL 24,2001
HOLYOKE INSURANCE CO
39 NORMAN STREET
SALEM,MA 01970
RE: 18 CROMBIE STREET
DEAR FACILITIES MANAGER:
THIS IS A FOLLOW UP ON THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT OUT MARCH 14,2001. AS OF
TODAY,NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE AND NO ONE HAS CONTACTED THIS OFFICE.
SECTION 103 OF THE MASS STATE BUILDING CODE REQUIRES THE PROPERTY OWNER TO
MAINTAIN A SAFE,OPERABLE AND SANITARY CONDITION OF ITS PROPERTY. A PERIOD
OF FIVE(5)WEEKS HAS GONE SINCE MY LETTER WAS SENT TO YOU, WITH NO RESPONSE
YOU GIVE ME CHOICE BUT TO FINE YOU FIFTY(50)DOLLARS. IF YOU DO NOT MAKE A
GENUINE EFFORT WITHIN SEVEN(7)DAYS,ANOTHER FIFTY(50)DOLLAR FINE SHALL
FOLLOW.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANTICIPATED COOPRERATION IN THIS MATTER.
SINCERERLY,
FRANK R. DIPAOLO
LOCAL BUILDING INSPECTOR -