201R FAYS AVENUE - BUILDING JACKET ooi�z , ys Ave-A
/!/! saEc �o
SIIG'Q4.x a
UPC 10330
HASTtNAS,6iN
r
November 3, 1999
Peter Straud, Building Inspector
City of Salem
City Hall
93 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
John David Keenan, Esq.
15 Church Street
Salem, MA 01970
Re: 201 Rear Fays Avenue, Lynn/Salem
Dear Gentlemen:.
I am writing to request.younconsideration of returning my.deposit, ,;
which I.placed to securethe.issuance of a'building permit on January 6, ;
1999. I am aware that there may be policy or ordinance concerns against
such a return, but I truly feel that my circumstances were, if not 100%
unprecedented, at least significantly out of the norm. As I am sure you both
recall, I was initially issued a building permit, which I believe was based on
logical and legal understanding of the circumstances. Abutters, as is their
right, from whatever motivation, appealed. The course of the appeal was
convoluted and unnecessary. There clearly did not have to be more than one
hear'ng hmve` er,.a war of att_tion clearly favored mgr abutters as they
knew from the inception that the party selling to me was aged and required a
quick and finite resolution. The fact that the initial decision was upheld, as
it should have been in short order, was ultimately of no solace since my seller
could not wait. I know from my various readings that the law favors
decisions on the merits, so that each party at least has a sense that justice
was provided,rather than victory on procedure. My case is one of those rare
instances where a victory;on the merits was tantamount to,a defeat by '. ,
procedure due to the;reluctance of the Board to rule on what was, is and will
remain a straight-forward, clear-cut.issue: The dalliance. of the Board; in the
face of overwhelming evidence, seemed to be unusual deference to the
quantityof my opponent's arguments, rather than their quality.
As a prior candidate for office, I have always held the belief that
government should be the source of equitable distribution of services to all of
its citizens. I honestly believe that the Board's reluctance to make a decision
cost me the opportunity to build my dream house. I was more than willing to
lose the deposit had I been wrong. Its return would restore an element of
fairness to the process. I earnestly request first that you give this your full
consideration in light of all the circumstances known to you, and second, you
should have the courtesy to respond.
Thank you for your willingness to listen throughout this case.
Sinc Dly,
Deborah and Kevin Buchanan
. o
n � n
1
WILLIAM J.LUNDREGAN CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
City Solicitor Legal Department JOHN D.KEENAN
81 Washington Street 93 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor
Tel:978-741-3888 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 60 Washington Street
Fax:978-741-8110 Tel:978-741-4453
Fax:978-740-0072
February 24, 1999
Peter Strout
Zoning Enforcement Officer
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
RE: 201 Rear Fay Avenue
Permit Number 1-99
Dear Inspector Strout:
You have asked the question of whether a Salem lot with frontage on an
improved way can be issued a building permit for a single family home?
Residential Conservation District:
The subject parcel, 201 Rear Fay Avenue, is situated in the R-C District.
Certainly, a single-family dwelling is a permitted use in this district. (See Zoning
Ordinance Sec. 5-2(a)(1)).
Appropriate Frontage;
As a grandfathered lot, the parcel needs only the minimum frontage requirement
of fifty (50) feet. See Mass. Gen. L. ch. 40A, § 6. The subject property appears
to have the adequate frontage required on the improved way John Cann Way.
(See attached South Essex Registry of Deeds, Book 43, Plan 46-A (1925)). The
deed to the subject parcel also clarifies that the property abuts, in fact is
bounded on its easterly side by John Cann Way. It is my understanding that this
improved way is paved and provides water and sewer as well. It also appears
that John Cann Way provides additional access to Belleaire Avenue and
properties abutting same. The deed to the property provides specifically, "the
right to use the ways and avenues shown on said plan, in common with others
entitled to use the same, for all purposes for which ways are commonly used."
Under the Zoning Ordinance Adopted by the City of Salem on or about August
27, 1965, at Section II, "Definitions,"subsection (b), "Selected Terms and
Words,"the terms lot, street and way are defined as follows:
Page Two of Two
February 24, 1999
Inspector Strout .
RE: 201 Fay Avenue Rear
Lot* A parcel of land occupied or designed to be occupied by a
principal building and the accessory buildings or uses customarily
incident to the principal building, including such yards and other
open spaces as are arranged and designed to be used with such
buildings. Such lot shall have frontage on an improved
public street and may consist of a single lot of record, a portion
of a lot of record, or a combination of such lots or portions of lots
of record, provided that such lot is used for only (1) principal use.
(emphasis added)
Street.• A public or private way which affords the principal
means of access to an abutting property.
Way.- A street or alley or other thoroughfare or easement
permanently established for passage of persons or vehicles.
John Cann Way affords the principal means of access to 201 Fay Rear and
provides a permanently established passage for both persons and vehicles. From
both the deed to the property and Plan of Buchanan Park (1925), subject
("grandfathered'I parcel does satisfy the minimum frontage requirements per
Chapter 40A and the local zoning ordinance.
This opinion is limited to the singular issue of frontage as pertains to this parcel.
Hopefully, this has adequately answered your question. If additional specific
information or questions are posed, do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you
for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,.
l�
JOH D. KEENAN,
ASS ANT CITY SOLICITOR
Jdk/kjm.zoning
cc. William Lundregan City Solicitor
FI=IBBON, MAYO & ANDREWS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2 SALEM GREEN
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELEPHONE(978) 744.114E
FRANCIS T. MAYO 744-il4c
GEORGE T. ANDREWS lELECOPIEP,(978) 744.11V
February 5, 1999
Office of the Building Inspector
City of Salem
City Hall
Salem, MA 01970
Re: 201 Rear Fays Avenue/Permit Number 1-99
Dear Sir:
This is a request for enforcement of the Salem zoning ordinance pursuant to Article IX,
Section 9.2 thereof, and Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 7.
I represent Mildred Vitali, Samuel Vitali and Richard Vitali, owners of property known as
191 Fays Avenue, Lynn,Massachusetts. A portion of said property is located in Salem and is
depicted on Assessors Map 1 as Lots 3 and 4. My clients' property abuts that belonging to
Elvena S. Clark, depicted as Lot 2 on said Assessors Map, for which on January 6, 1999 you
issued a building permit for the construction of a single family home.
The parcel for which you issued a permit has no frontage within the meaning of the Salem
ordinance which contains the following definition:
Article II - Section 2.2: "Lot. A parcel of land occupied or designed to be occupied by a
principal building and the accessory buildings or uses customarily incident to the principal build-
ing, including such yards and other open spaces as are arranged and designed to be used with
such buildings. Such lot shall have frontage on ani pro- —'Mic street and may cancisr of a
single lot of record, a portion of a lot of record, or a combination of such lots or portions of lots
of record, provided that such lot is used for only one (1)principal use." (Emphasis supplied).
Specifically, John H. Cann Way is not an"improved public street" in Salem or Lynn and
therefore cannot legally be used to satisfy the frontage requirement. In fact, contrary to the hand
drawn plan submitted by the applicant, according to the Assessors' Map(see attached) said way
does not even appear to abut the locus.
Furthermore, although listed as the "owner or lessee" on Section V of the application for
a building permit, it appears that Kevin Buchanan is neither.
of ,Sttlrm, ttssttrljuse##s
''4•. - �atsra of '�r1p}renl
March 19, 1999
John D. Keenan, Esq.
Assistant City Solicitor
60 Washington Street
Salem, Ma. 01970
RE: 201 Rear Fayes Ave.
Permit No. 1-99
Dear John:
Thank you for the opinion regarding the issuance of a building permit for the above
mentioned property. We are providing copies of the opinion.
To the parties involved, we anticipate that this matter will be on the agenda for the Board
of Appeal's meeting April 21, 1999.
Mr. Mayo has agreed to notify the abutters of the continuance by certified mail to enable
any parties interested to attend.
Nina Cohen
Chairman, Board of Appeal
cc: All Board OF Appeals Members
Mr. Kevin Buchanan
Mr. Mayo, Esq.
Peter Strout
William Lundregan
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
WILLIAM J.LUNDREGAN Legal Department JOHN D.KEENAN
City Solicitor Assistant City Solicitor
81 Washington Street g3 Washington Street 60 Washington Street
Tel:978-741-3888 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Tel:978-741-4453
Fax:978-741-8110 Fax:978-740-0072
February 24, 1999
Peter Strout
Zoning Enforcement Officer
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
RE: 201 Rear Fay Avenue
Permit Number 1-99
Dear Inspector Strout:
You have asked the question of whether a Salem lot with frontage on an
improved way can be issued a building permit for a single family home?
Residential Conservation District
The subject parcel, 201 Rear Fay Avenue, is situated in the R-C District.
Certainly, a single-family dwelling is a permitted use in this district. (See Zoning
Ordinance Sec. 5-2(a)(1)).
Appropriate Frontage:
As a grandfathered lot, the parcel needs only the minimum frontage requirement
of fifty (50) feet. See Mass. Gen. L. ch. 40A, § 6. The subject property appears
to have the adequate frontage required on the improved way John Cann Way.
(See attached South Essex Registry of Deeds, Book 43, Plan 46-A (1925)). The
deed to the subject parcel also clarifies that the property abuts, in fact is
bounded on its easterly side by John Cann Way. It is my understanding that this
improved way is paved and provides water and sewer as well. The deed to the
property provides specifically, "the right to use the ways and avenues shown on
said plan, in common with others entitled to use the same, for all purposes for
which ways are commonly used."
Under the Zoning Ordinance Adopted by the City of Salem on or about August
27, 1965, at Section II, "Definitions,"subsection (b), "Selected Terms and
Words,"the terms lot, street and way are defined as follows:
Page Two of Two
February 24, 1999
Inspector Strout
RE: 201 Fay Avenue Rear
Lot.• A parcel of land occupied or designed to be occupied by a
principal building and the accessory buildings or uses customarily
incident to the principal building, including such yards and other
open spaces as are arranged and designed to be used with such
buildings. Such lot shall have frontage on an improved
public street and may consist of a single lot of record, a portion
of a lot of record, or a combination of such lots or portions of lots
of record, provided that such lot is used for only (1) principal use.
(emphasis added)
Street.- A public or private way which affords the principal
means of access to an abutting property.
Way.* A street or alley or other thoroughfare or easement
permanently established for passage of persons or vehicles.
John Cann Way affords the principal means of access to 201 Fay Rear and
provides a permanently established passage for both persons and vehicles. From
both the deed to the property and Plan of Buchanan Park (1925), subject
("grandfathered') parcel does satisfy the minimum frontage requirements per
Chapter 40A and the local zoning ordinance.
This opinion is limited to the singular issue of frontage as pertains to this parcel.
Hopefully, this has adequately answered your question. If additional specific
information or questions are posed, do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you
for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,.
IL-�
JOH D. KEENAN,
ASS ANT CITY SOLICITOR
Jdk/kjm.zoning
CC. William Lundregan City Solicitor
ro > td ix
;.z T
N n w
`_q ` r�
k,� CD
it tilos t+ ' fir•., to
b
s a MI 7 . 0 Z D
o °* � . � F r' GF
Z
I r
V.ic.t.or...p.— L.a.... o.Y..t...And...-1rt•l�ilr.._'.i ZOIIVAI 11ot h......................................
.. ....w........................f.......... .....
..................................................
...........iniT2
...................................................................................................................................... .........
of....L ......... t•.............................._._........................_...........
.
rx
•�+�t•�a.or.:.F : . . . """' County,r Massachusettsfor consideration paid, grantto.......a1vn3.tfntioofl ,....vi.fe...o.f...L1.do.n..G.....2tan
w00.....................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................................
ot.....5..<^,. . ....Lynn....................................................................................................................................with quildalttt rournnnte
........................ -................................................................................................
......................... ...................................................................
the lana in....:-.S.alem,.........t.h..t?.t....zs..s.1:>7i:m...gP... '.o Qc.......=�..On.. elan eltti tled "Plan
o.P a Portion gf... 3uc"itr�ian Parl_ , Belleoire : ectioti 3order n.c ... n}l.
..... ..
..........t.....................
.........io
tneecrii,tiou end encumbrancaa•if any)
"""' """"' "
;venue , Lynn, l.lass. , PTOperty of Fred A. ]:Orton et al, rust CCs , dat Cd
July 8, 1925 , said plan Ueing recorded with ESSOX .iolith District
ReGistry of Doods , JA].': 7.1 , 1925, bounded and Qeacr).h oJ. o.n �011o:,e;
(113
i?orthwesterl•y by land now or formerly of the City of Peabody,
two hundred twenty-six and seven tenths (226. 7 ) feet ;
Northeasterly by land of _-ed A. Iforton et al , one hundred
(100) feet ;
Isasterly b;; a curved line by a proposed road, as shorn on
said plan; and
Southwesterly by lots 436 to 441, inclusive, on said clan
one hundred lift 5 /
y-.four and fi<'ty-two hundredths (1.
_ 4.52
foot ;
Containing nineteen thousand eighty-five square feet (19,-085 ) ,
be all of said measurements more or less.
Said property is conveyed subject to taxes for the current year .
Being a portion of the premises conveyed to us by Fred A.
Ilorton et al, trustees , by deed dated July 31, 1925, and recorded
with Essex South District Deeds, Book 2650, Page 4, toget}er with
the right to use the streets , ways and avenues shown on said
plan, in common with others entitled to use the same, for all purposes
for which clays are commonly used.
36
and running South,,.esterly fifty (50) feet to the northeasterly cor-
/�` mer Of Lot 36; thence turnin6 and runtin� .
o southeaster_y one hundred seventy
five (175) feet by the easterly line of Lots 31 to 36 inclisive, one hundred
seventy five (175) feet to the point of be
- ginning; containing eighty seven
f' J/yY hudred fifty� y (8750) square feet, be all of said measurements more or less.
TIZIms its hand and seal this 27th day of august , 1925.
CM21'Oi:a�ALTF. OF LASSACH MTTS Kanufacturers National Bank (CO=-Donate seal)
Esse::, ss. IM, Kass. , ) - Earle I. Foster Caster
August 27 1925. Then per appeared the above named Earl- I. Foster
ani ackmowledged the foreecing instrument to be
the free act and deer , of
the 2tanufacturers liztionzl 3z '• of L-
van, lass., before me
nillinm T. Bar-.-y Nota.; Public (Notarial seal)
1:Y commission expires Karch 10, 1927.
.Essex ss. Received Sept. 8, 1925- 30 M. past 8 A. jr. Recorded anti Examined.
Hoyt et al - Victor P.L. Hoyt and Arthur W. LOaval, both of Lynn, Essex county, Lassa-
to chusetts for consideration
Paid, grant to Elvena Stanwood, wife Of Eldon G.
c^ Y
ata ood Stanwood, of said Lynn with QU=LLM COMIANTS the land in Salem, that is ;
t:
shown as Pa-cel A on plan en
Stamt P titled 'Plan of a Portion of Buew_nan Parl:,Be:-
CanDO-celed�� lezise Section, Boine_-ino FaY Avenue, Iy3n, lass. , Property of Iced A.NOrton
2 et al, -astees, dated July 8, 1925,^ said
/ Pian being recorded with Esser
Sol h District Registry of Deeds, Tiny 31, 1925 Boot. of :P1ans 43, plan 46
bounded and described as follows: UOrthwesterly by land now or formerly Of f
3� the City of Peabody, two hundred twenty six azif seven tenths (226.7) feet;
l;ortheasterly by land Of Fred A. ?;Orton et al, one bund ed (100) feet; East- F
eriy by a curved line by a proposed rod, as sham on said plan; and South- `r
r.
we--terry b ices •;36 to 441nc ;.
lu ._ e, On said pIan, one hundred fifty four h.
and fifty two huniredths (154.52) feet; Containing nineteen thousand eighty ..
Sive square feet (19,085), be all of said measurements more or less. Said
Property is conveyed subject to tales for the current year. Being a portion
of the Piemises conveyed to us b '
YFred A. Norton et al, trustees, by deed
dated July 31, 1925, and recorded with Essex South District Deeds, Book
2650, Page 4, together with the right to use the streets, ways and avenues S`
oM On said plan, in cO®on with others entitles to use the same, for all Y
Purposes for which ways are commonly used. ie, Edith H. LOIIVal and Edith z;
C. Hoyt wives Of said grantors release to saidw
grantee all rights of dower
and homestead znd other interests therein. ;
iT1MS our hands and seals .
this 27th day Of August, 1925. Arthur W. Lonval
(seal) �=
COiLOMWEALir OF KASSACHD-SETTS ) Edith E. Lonval �
)) (sea_)
Essex, ss. Lynn, Kass. victor P. L. Hoyt (seal)
OilBUILDING
v��DONBIT
CITY OF SALEM
ERMIT
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
9g�ihrNerp -
: :a �
! 1'.'-moi �i' 19 v PERMIT NO.
DATE "
APPLICANT 'Clv' I l — ADDRESS 1407 (STREET) (CONTR'S LICENSE)
CITY
Ht-Ii%Y STATE I,vi!:j ZIP CODE i t'i;� TEL.NO.
NUMBER OF .I
PERMITTO � ril_il_I (_) STORY klh DWELLING UNITS
NOZONING
(TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT) . (PROPOSED USE(
I,t:_
0 171:�. Ia�t'i:i "r'Y-\i'_: -'-`+ : DISTRICT
AT(LOCATION) INO) (STREET)
- AND
BETWEEN (CROSS STREET)
(CROSS STREET)
LOT
I(y i
SUBDIVISION LOT '1002BLOCK SIZE
BUILDING IS TO BE FT.WIDE BY FT.LONG BV FT.IN HEIGHT AND SHALL CONFORM IN CONSTRUCTION
TO TYPE USE GROUP BASEMENT WALLS OR FOUNDATION ITYPE)
J :rl..i_Y L('.fG�_i_J. r:• I. ;f {-' �N..� JEy Y. L 77-
REMARKS: pp
U.l..i� Iii PERMIT
Q i J 7b
AREA OR ESTIMATED COST.p :I.((SLI.,, 09?1� FEE �
VOLUME (CUBICISOUARE FEET) ,
OWNER !'.t'� I``� l_!Qi-11-41Via BUILDING DEPT. T .
El
ADDRESS 7S 17,1rD T. Pi E- .i , KC.._
THIS PERMIT CONVEYS NO RIGHT TO OCCUPY ANY STREET.ALLEY OR SIDEWALK OR ANY PART THEREOF,EITHER TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY,ENCROACHMENTS
ON PUBLIC PROPERTY,NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED UNDER THE BUILDING CODE,MUST BE APPROVED BY THE JURISDICTION,STREET OR ALLEY GRADES AS WELL
AS DEPTH AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC SEWERS MAYBE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT RELEASE THE
APPLICANT FROM THE CONDITIONS OF ANY APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION RESTRICTIONS. WHERE APPLICABLE SEPARATE
MINIMUM OF THREE CALL INSPECTIONS APPROVED PLANS MUST BE RETAINED ON JOB AND THIS CARD KEPT PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR
REQUIRED FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK: POSTED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE. WHERE A ELECTRICAL.PLUMBING AND
1.FOUNDATIONS ORFOOTINGS. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS REQUIRED,SUCH BUILDING SHALL MECHANICAL INSTALLATIONS.
2.PRIOR TO COVERING STRUCTURAL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE.
MEMBERS(READY TO LATH).
3.FINAL INSPECTION BEFORE OCCUPANCY.
POST THIS CARD SO IT IS VISIBLE FROM STREET
BUILDING INSPECT ION APPROVALS PLUMBING INSPECTION APPROVALS ELECTRICALINSPECTIONAPPROVALS
1 1
1
2 2 2
BOARD OF HEALTH
GAS INSPECTION APPROVALS FIRE DEPT.INSPECTING APPROVALS
1 7
OTHER CITY ENGINEER 2 2
iNCPFCTIONS INDICATED ON THIS CARD