The URL can be used to link to this page

36 FEDERAL STREET - BUILDING JACKET I J 36 FEDERAL STREET A c StREET PERMIT Citp of C*atem nnuac� Office of Ingector of A3uilbingz Gil 7{all /\I tV� G� 20 J J ermrssr'on rs.�Srefre6y yiven to` /4/JC�f l" V4 % to occapy`or ^5 D �� l_f �/4, purposes t rn`ronl o`eslale L)-4- ArA �d ` OfsidemalA. o`s1reel. / 1 7liis permrl is fi nmletllo LML A d 20 su6jecl to Jlie prooi'sions of lnie ordi/ances anYlslalules rn relalron to cSireels ano/JFre 9nspeclion anc/Gonslructron o`J.3ur/dilys rn IFre Cry of cSalem. i Direct/ar olPu6lc cSeruices //�/` �j� .9napeclor o�.'�ui/dnys 1\ � 5 ISSUED THROUGH A. A. DORITY COMPANY BOSTON STREET PERMIT BOND KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,That we Marguerite Concrete, Inc. , of 11 Rosenfeld Drive; Hopedale , MA 01747, hereinafter referred to as Principal,and United Casualty and Surety Insurance Company a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and authorized'to do business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,as Surety,are held and firmly bound unto City of Salem, MA,hereinafter referred to as Obligee, in the sum of One Thousand dollars ($1,000.00) lawful money of the United States of America,to the payment of which sum,well and truly to be made,we bind ourselves,our executors,administrators,successors and assigns,firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH,That whereas,the Principal has made application for a license or permit to the Obligee for the purpose of opening and/or occupying a public way. NOW,THEREFORE,if the Principal shall faithfully comply with all ordinances,rules and regulations which have been or may hereafter be in force concerning said License or Permit,and shall save and keep harmless the Obligee from all loss or damage which it may sustain or for which it may become liable on account of the issuance of said license or permit to the Principal,then this obligation shall be null and void;otherwise,to remain in full force and effect. THIS BOND IS EFFECTIVE FROM Tune 1st,2017 AND EXPIRES ON Tune 1st,2018 unless renewed by issuance of a continuation certificate. The Surety may at any time terminate its liability by giving thirty(30)days written notice to the Obligee,and the Surety shall not be liable for any default after such thirty day notice period,except for defaults occurring prior thereto. SIGNED,SEALED AND DATED June 1,2017 By: !� Margaerite Concrete,Inc. United Casualty and Surety Insurance /C/om any — Bond No. 292892 By- Richard W y:RichardW Crawford Attorney-in-Fact A.A.Dority Company,Inc. 262 Washington Street,Suite 99 Boston,MA 02108 (617)523-2935 Fax:617-523-1707 ' tJ C&S Power No: UNITED CASUALTY AND SURETY INSURANCE COMPANY QUINCY M_ASSAGLIUSETTS III q�111 ILIIII`I,IIIIPOWE SOF ATTfT16 - _— - KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That UNITED CASUALTY AND SURETY INSURANCE COMPANY,a corporation of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,does hereby make,.constitute and appoint ll 9I111f'IIIIIIIil : i��'� y _ Philip B. Crawford, Richard=VW ilrawford_,..Katie E:Ford, "James,M,Crawford, Jeffrey W CYawford — 11jjjj4 suint,i1P its true and lawful Attorney-in-Fact,with full power and authority,for and-on behalf of the Company as surety,to execute and deliver and affix the seal of the Company thereto,if a seal is required,bonds,undertakings,recognizances,consents of surety or other written obligations in the nature thereof,as follows - - _ — uil mP IumoM II�11 lil�'llii �. _ — _ - Any.and all bonds_;undertakings,ieoogrnzances,iconsen of surety or other written obhganons mthe-na[ur Iulgeof �� IIIII 1191�'II�UIIh. dIVN ' y. ole Ulul .�ll' - — anaYo bind UNITED-CASUALTY AND`SURETY,INSURANCE COMPANY thdruby�ill ofthe acts of said Attorney-in-Fact pursuant to these presents,are hereby ratified and confirmed. This power of attorney is signed and sealed by facsimile under and by authority of the following Resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of UNITED CASUALTY AND SURETY INSURANCE COMPANY at a meeting duly called and held on the I"day of J� 1993 whtch= :lm we Resolutions are now in full force and effect - it ill' SII Ii h °',t — Resolvedthatthe President,Treasurer,or Secretary6e=end'they-ere Gerety authorized and empowered to appoint Altomeys-in-Fact of the Company,m e name and-8siis a - - to execute and acknowledge for and on its behalfas Surety any and all bonds,recognizances,contracts ofindemnity,waivers ofcitation and all other writings'obligatory in the nature thereof,with power to attach thereto the seal of the Company. Any such writings so executed by such Attorneys-in-Fact shall be binding upon the Company as if they had been duly executed and acknowledged by the regularly elected Officers of the Company in their own proper persons. This power of attorney is signed and sealed by facsimile under and by the authority of the following Resolution adopted by the Board of Directors - _of UNITED CASUALTY AND SURETY INSURANCE COMPANY,at a meetmgZ6Ij§jN"d-beta=on the I"day of July, 1993:, u ml , xin Thafthe signamreafany officer authorized by Resolutioils ofthis braid and the Company seal rrta affxedfipitsffihil -Baypower of attorney or special power of attorney or eenificalmirofeither given for the execution briny bond,undertaking,recognizance or otherwrat�en ii in enaturethereof;such signature and seal,when so used being -hereby adopted by the Company as the original signature of such officer and the original seal of the—Company,to be valid and binding upon the Company with the same force and effect as though manually affixed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,UNITED CASUALTY AND-SURETY INSURANCE COMPANY has caused these presents to be signed by its_ proper officer and its corporate seal to be_heKtiftnfff.9i day of September,;2015 — `/ — 'lie u� ° Aly-EN SURETY INSURANCE COMPANY Todd S. Caill Pfe� Commonwealth o€-Mlassachuselts,County of Norfolk ss: ; , On this 17th d9fiTSeptember in the year 2015 before me personally came ToddSCafngan e tomknown,who,being by me duly sworn,did depose and say: that he resides in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; that Wis President of UNITED CASUALTY AND SURETY INSURANCE COMPANY,the corporation described in and which executed the above instrument;that he signed his name thereto by the above quoted authority;that he knows the seal of said corporation;that said seal affixed to said ins 's such corporate seal,and that it was so affixed by authority of his office under the said timporatio_n. ERIN Conrail c _ - Oman Estill �� N =TSUALTY 1,Timothy M. Carrigan,Treasurer of UNIAND SURETY INSURANCE COMPANY,certify that the foregoing power of attorney,and the aboucquoted Resolutions of the Board of Directors of July 1, 1993 have-not been.abndg=ed or revoked and are now-in full force andeffect - Ilhdt ��IP iP"� I�I J� • ��E� IPr >�. _ - - -- - �� Iu� R, Stgued and sealed by its proper officer a 4111'Zorate seal to be hereunto affixed tMay7j 1 Timothy N4Clitrriganjreasfrer TO CONFIRM AUTIfENTIGF MQEMFIIS BOND OR DOCUMENTt'CALL(800) 829-26@ r Pill Alit Kan'tKOPa•Kt Kant Kop Security Security Paper � Security Paperer i ,. Hidden Pantograph I Hidden Pantograph • Color Match I Color Match • Artificial Watermark Artificial Watermark • Anti-Copy Coin Rub Anti-Copy Coin Rub Erasure Protection Erasure Protection • Security Features Box I Security Features Box • Microprint Protection Micropbnt Protection • Acid Free f Acid Free i IF Kan't Kopy^K1 Kan't Kopy°Kt Security Paper i Security Paper • Hidden Pantograph Hidden Pantograph • Color Match , Color Match Artificial Watermark 1 • Artificial Watermark • Anti-Copy Coin Rub • Anti-Copy Coin Rub • Erasure Protection Erasure Protection • Security Features Box Security Features Box • Microprint Protection Microprint Protection • Acid Free I Acid Free i i I of '�'$Utpm' �TS�FSC�iLY�Et�B _+"Air¢ Otparlmrnt Rrahquartrrs Q;iiief _ January 8, 1979 Mr. Kevin Burke, District Attorney 36 Federal Street Pe: Inspection of Superior Salem, Ma. 01970 g- —' �-- S�deral Street, Sal Sir: , ication As a result of an in-service fire department inspection conducted by Engine Co. #1, with complaints registered by said officer of the inspecting company, and further conference with you on the existing fire hazards within the Superior Court building, the following recommendations are submitted which should receive serious consideration. These rec omiendations are made as a result of my inspection, in the interest of fire prevention and to correct conditions that are or may becoire dangerous as a fire or life safety hazard, may be required for legal occupancy of the premises or are otherwise in violation of law. _ 1. Each means of egress shall be provided with an approved fire extinguisher. All existing soda and acid fire extinguishers shall be rerroved as obsolete for fire fighting purposes. These extinguishers have been found to be un- stable, have shells which are dangerous due to age and potential weakness of the casings under pressure. Reconuended are ten (10) pound ABC (dry chemical type) fire extinguishers, placed on wall brackets and located within ten (10) feet of each floor egress and with a maximum interior travel distance to any fire extinguisher of fifty (50) feet. 2. This occupancy should have provisions for an approved fire alarm systema This system may be of a selective alarm type, which would provide the following. a. Master fire alarm box, which would transmit an alarm to the Salem Fire Alarm office. b. Proprietary alarm panel with battery for secondary source of energy. c. Zone annunciator. d. Local manual fire alarm stations at egress areas on each floor. e. Spoke detectors situated at least in corridors throughout the structure, spaced no trore cnan thirty, (3O) feet apart. It would also be apropos to place additional detectors in court moms, library and major office areas. f. This system may be selective in nature, - use of audible horns and ii, rts, as requires. _h c _ ai __ers Bo='-4rules, which would only flash the light and transmit the master alarm box, initially. This would not disrupt court sessions in the day tirre, for alarms not directly affecting the court room area, but would give visual notification to alert the court J 2 _ (con't) f. personnel and custodial force of an emergency within the structure. A master key would be available to the arriving fire officer and and any key personnel to initiate the audible alarm if deemed necessary for complete evacuation. 3. This occupancy has no emergency lighting system required under provisions of the Mass. State Building Code, Section 624.4. Emergency lighting should be provided in all stairways and corridors as well as court rooms to eliminate panic conditions, provide security lighting and provide safe egress from the structure during a loss of power. The present lack of emergency lighting and exit signs is a direct violation of Mass. codes and does not set a good example, especially true when we as code enforcement officers bring a violation to the court for prosecution and the court itself is in violation of law. 4. Several violations exist as to egress. The type and capacities of egress are in violation of several areas as follows: a. Third floor (jury area) , Federal St. stairway has a door which is not listed for use at the top of the stairway. This door has no self-closing device and has an excessive amount of plain glass in the door and is left open at all titres. This stairway becomes an open shaft creating drafts which could spread fire rapidly to the top floor. b. The other end of the third floor is wide open creating an extreme vertical draft problem. The open elevator shaft with the adjacent winding stairwell places all persons on the third floor in jeopardy. This area must be given im ediate consideration for enclosure to . protect life and property. c. The building inspector will be advised to inspect this occupancy 1 to determine occupancy requirements for this third floor area. \\ It was noted that approximately one hundred fifteen (115) persons were occupying this area awaiting jury duty. d. The first and second floor corridors open directly into the Commissioners Building with no partition and approved doors to provide a fire stop in the event of fire. These areas must be provided with approved partitions under provisions of Article 6 of the Mass. State Building Code. This corridor provides a means of egress which presently is in violation of the codes. This area presently places both structures in a vulnerable position for rapid spread of fire horizontally. e. The Clerk of Courts office area occupied for approximately thirty (30) persons has only one means of egress. This area of occupancy which should receive consideration for an approved second means of egress. Any emergency condition occurring within this room would present a life safety hazard if the primary egress were blocked. This area also serves the public as well as the eiTployees. f. The probation offices situated in the lower level (basement) has been reported as lacking an approved secondar-y means of egress. The area has been cleaned up considerably since the original inspection, but in providing the secondary mans of egress through a set of stairs to the outside, two other problems have developed. (1) The exterior door was found padlocked and is unavailable. (2) The door to the corridor off the stairway does not have a self-closing device which would keep the door closed at all times, (as required by law) and presents a vertical and horizontal fire spread condition. - 3 - g. The District Attorney's office partitions placed within the office area, leave a small corridor, which in my opinion is not of sufficient width to provide adequate egress path. This matter should be reviewed by the Building Inspector. 5. The tunnel door from the boiler room was found wide open. This door shall be kept closed at all times and requires a self-closing device to keep it closed. 6. Several areas used for kitchenette operations are also used for storage areas. The combined use with the hazards of hot plates, etc. adjacent to corrbustible products, tends to provide a very basic fire hazard potential. An area should be provided for use of cooking and hot plate usage separate from any storage. Proper electrical outlets to be provided. 7. It is to be noted that the cramped quarters for office space has developed into a serious problem for storage of paper work. Several open piles of papers were observed in the offices, which could lead to accidental ignition sources and subsequent fire with a loss of valuable papers and confusion in the normal routine of the offices. 8. A lack of approved exit signs was noted throughout the structure. Exit signs are required in this occupancy by the Mass. State Building Code, Section 623.1. 9. Several areas of defective new and existing wiring and related equipment appears to exist within this occupancy. This matter which is under the jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector will be referred to that office. This item covers open fuse boxes, 30 amp. fuses in use, old turn switches falling apart, hanging wires, extension cords, lack of adequate receptacles, etc. 10. It is recon¢ nded that all supply closets be kept locked at all times for security reasons. These closets provide the easiest location for placement of devices which could lead to security situations, none of us wish to see occur. 11. It was noted that the baserrent storage areas under the Commissioners Building, which I am sure contains much valuable material, is open to spread of fire, open to valdalism and does not provide the structure separation required in the building code. This basement area requires doors and partitions which would serve as security as well as prevent the spread of fire. The area also has several electrical defects which will also be addressed by the electrical inspector. 12. The News Reporters' room can only be classed as a dungeon and unsafe. Respectf,lly submitted, DJG:rq �. cc - Judge Adams Lieut. David J. Cr�ggin Lt. William Cronin Salem Fire N,arshal . aifDm Llectr cal -Dept. Salem Building Inspector Mass. Building Inspector File y � CHU of �ttlEm, �ttsstt�I�use##� . ? Iluhlir 13roperig Vtpartment Puaing PtyartI:mad .�JOIIlt �R. �OEOETS S �BTOi1D �#TEEt . 745-OZ 13 � August 12, 1975 Bureau of Building Construction RE: Maes. State Project No CES 72-1 Leverett Saltonstall Building, Contract-No.2— Goveroment Center Additions & Renovations-to 100 Cambridge Street Salem Court Souse Boston, MA 02202 Essex County, Salem, MA ATTENTION: Mr. Arthur Poulus Chief Examining Engineer Dear Sir: We have made a review of the preliminary plans submitted for the referenced project and have given our comments to Mr. Ron Barnes of the County Engineer's office. When the plans are completed we shall be available for further review and comment. Yours very truly, Assistant Building Inspector DFM:tc cc: Mr. James Carlin, County Engineer I\ Bl 01PdG DEpr Ulj�% �'i '�B�o�rt�/ianccsu�� /�e.ldacJUL iq 09 A RECEIVED OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL CITY OF SALEI'I,14ASS. JOSEPH A. O'KEEFE, PE 1010 Commonwealth Avenue State Fire Marshal Boston, Massachusetts 02215 July 119 1978 File No. 87-11-1 Mr. Tom Clasby Bedar and Alpers 344 Newbury Street Boston, Mass. 02115 Re: Addition and renovations to Essex County Courthouse complex of Salem, MA. Dear Mr. Clasby: This letter will confirm our meeting here on Friday July 7, 1978 at which we discussed the concerns of Salem Fire Lt. David Goggin regarding the applicability of Fire Prevention Regulation #4 rule 10. After reviewing the plans of the renovations to be made at the rear of the Registry of Probate I conclude the open parking beneath the structure of fire resistance construction to be constructed in that location would not be considered a "Special Garage" falling under the pro- visions of FPR-4. I suggest a special outside sprinkler system with listed and approved window sprinklers be provided at all window openings. This system to be actuated by special fire detection devices. Furthermore each window opening on the insllde of the building should be pro- tected by an ordinary listed sprinkler head on a sep- arate system. Both systems should be connected by waterflow alarm devices thru a master box to the Salem Fire alarm system. National Fire Protection Standard #13 should be used as a guide in the layout of both sprinkler systems. ery truly yours, i v J se' h A. 0 Kee , PE ate Fire Mars al cc: Salem Fire Lieutenant David Goggin John Powers Building Inspector 13r D :1 :? and ALY [; ItS , f.'."o, ,e A r p Lt. noggin, in his final review, has indicated that he feels this may be tr , . case; but, as he is not certain, and since there appears to be no practical gray of accommodating such a .firc wail , he has also deferred any final dtci: i;n on the matter to your office. So, to recap the whole issue in brief form, there'' seem to be three specific and related questions : 1) is this "open. parking On grade beneath structures of fireproof construction" in .fact considered to be a "Special Garage" under FPR-4? 2) if so, is there any alternate to construction of a fire 'sail for providing an adequate rire .separation? t 9 - 3) if it IS not a "Special Garage," are the fire protection me;sures presently provided adequate in your eves for the public sa'ii.'tY? 1 Bili sure that your time is at least as crowded as our own, but as 1 I'ienti Rn"d when we spoke before, we have been on a very tight schedule for the Mean of Building Construction and County, and did not have an earlier oppertunit; to go this material to you .n fact, the drawingq have been issued a5 hpy ' staid and the job is presently being bid . Because Of that, we Mould ortitlY aiprociate it if it would be possible to review this matter in person p within the coming week so that we might have time to include any necessary .b chances in an addendum to the bidding package1 will contact you aqa i hy i ��. 5 t , ;. f phone. after you have received this material , to set up an appOiniuCK to a d ;scuss the Problem in detail . t Very truly yours, '1 0 i Tom Clashy TC:jea cc : Essex County Engineers Office -- J.R. Carlin Attachments : Drawings L-1, L-3, A-1 , f._3, .4-9, and A-10 i i I i •� cox Dirt l'� � . � � 3zihlic 1r« er#n �r art�nettt 9�0�MinO�� 1ltC�t2iij �P�Tctl tll[Eltt Jol;u ��. �:lofurss (73nc �alcw Chrecn - . 7=65-0.13 December 20, 1978 Mr. James R. Carlin, County Engineer Office of the County Engineer Court House Salem, MA 01970 RE: Dear Mr. Carlin: Building Permit #527 (12/28/77) Please be advised that under Section 114.2 of the Massachusetts State Building Code I am pleased to extend the referenced permit for ninety (90) days as requested in your letter of December 19, 1978. Unless work is commenced by March 21, 1979 this extension will expire although you have the right to request a further extension. Very truly yours, JOHN B. POWERS Superintendent of Public Property, Building Inspector JBP:tc COUNTY OF ESSEX S OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER COURT HOUSE, SALEM, MASS. 01970 i*4► 744.1240 F,xr. 14 .LAMES R. CARLIN. P.E. COUNTY ENGINEER MAURICE T. DENCH. P.E. F. RICHARD GELOTTI December 19, 1978 ASST. ENGINEERS Mr. John B. Powers Superintendent. of Public Property One Salem Green Salem, Mass . 01970 Re: Building Permit #527 Dear Sir: I respectfully request that Building Permit #527 relating to the addition and renovations to the Essex County buildings on Federal Street, Salem, be extended for 90 days to March 21, 1979. Bids on this project will be received on January 12 and January 19, 1979 and work should be commenced before March 21, 1979 . Very truly yours, J SR. CARLIN my Engineer JC/fn a� ,ao01 ME uny �pQ� ,� pF CITY OF SALEM HEA LI DEPARTMENT BOARD OF HEALTH Salem, Massachusetts 01970 ROBERT E. BLENKHORN 9 NORTH STREET HEALTH AGENT May 28 , 1985 (617) 741-1800 Catherine M. Donovan , Chairperson Commissioner ' s Office 36 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mrs . Donovan : A re-inspection was conducted:on May 2.0.F, 1985 of the Registry of Deeds Building at;C 6 Federal Street by a representative of this department . The following was noted: FLOOR ONE - MEN ' S AND WOMEN ' S ROOMS 1. The peeling paint on the ceilings and wall has been cor- rected. 2 . The piping along the ceilings are in good repair. Due to possible asbestos insulation these pipes should be periodically inspected and maintained. 3. The build-up of grime and soil on the walls and floors have been corrected. ' 4 . The toilet rooms do not have sufficient ventilation. Me- chanical ventilation must be installed. 5 . The heavy build-up of grime on the janitor' s sink has been corrected FLOOR TWO - PLAN ROOMS T. Missing tiles on ceiling and gouges in wall still exist . 7. The floor needs cleaning as well as the windows and tops of cabinets . EMPLOYEES ' LUNCH ROOM - OLD SECTION OF BUILDING 8. Peeling paint still exists on ceiling 9 • Torn couch has been removed. 10 . New table tops have been installed 11. One shelf is still in poor repair 12 . The build-up of dust and grime on the floor has been corrected REGISTERED LAND ROOM 13. The peeling paint on the ceiling still exists PHOTOSTAT ROOM 14 . Tde peeling paint on the ceiling and walls still exists 15 . Employees still complain that soot and odors emanate periodically from the wall vent 16 . The condition of the floor has been corrected and the plastic on the windows has been removed May 28 , 1985 SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT 9 North Street Salem, MA 01970 Page 2 To : Catherine Donovan Commissioner' s Office 36 Federal St . Salem, MA 01970 MAIN DEED R0014 17 . The peeling paint on the ceiling and walls still exists 18. Floor has a build-up of grime and soil EMPLOYEES ' LUNCH ROOM - NEW SECTION OF BUILDING 19 . The missing ceiling strips have been replaced TOILET ROOMS ( mens ' and 1 womens ' rooms ) 20 . The ventilation still does not work 21. The build-up of grime and soil on the floor throughout the building has been corrected This department wishes to express our sincere thanks and ap- preciation for the cooreration we have received concerning the above-mentioned items . During the re-inspection the inspector found that most of the employees were enthused with the im- proved conditions of the building. Kindly submit in writing to this department your intentj6g)fis to make the necessary corrections concerning the remaining items . Regarding item ,#18 we realize it is difficult to keep the floor clean due to the heavy volume of traffic bit daily maintenance should alleviate the problem. If we can offer any assistance please contact this office at 741-1800 . Very truly yours , FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH REPLY TO : OBERT E. BLENKHORN , C. H. O. BRIAN LOCKARD Health Agent Sanitarian REB/bs cc : Charles Atkinson , Superintendent of Buildings 36 Federal st . Salem Wm. Munroe , Code Coordinator Louis C . Mroz , Adm Ass ' t to Mayor Salvo John O ' Brien , Personal Registry of Deeds Gex olil a Ctv of Public Praperty Department `hiilbiltq -3epartnimt _�Inlpa �i- �3ulurrs (One Salent (F)rrrn i-ta-R2 t3 January 29, .1980 Attorney John Jennings 56 Central Avenue RE: Superior Court House Lynn, MA 01901 Federal Street Salem, MA _ Dear Attorney Jennings: It was a pleasure to meet with you on January 25, 1980 to make on-site assessment of conditions at the Superior Court jury quarters. It is my understanding that this area was added to the structure sometime in the early 1930's. What codes were in effect at that time and under which jurisidiction occupancy was permitted are not known to me. What is quite obvious is that this facility, as currently used, is severely lacking in the basic minimum requirements for public safety by today's standards. The open stair wells and un- enclosed elevator shaft provide excellent chimneys for bringing smoke and heated gasses into the area. No emergency lighting is available in the event of a power failure. The circular metal stairway serving as one egress from.&is level in no way meets any present day codes and should not even be considered as an allowable method of egress. The three jury rooms may have an allowable total capacity of twelve each but under no conditions should the total population of this floor exceed thirty-six. The housing of jury pools on this floor is a serious building code violation and should be discontinued immediately. I trust these comments will serve the purpose for which they were requested. If I can be of any further assistance in this matter please feel free to call upon me. Very, truly yours, Assistant Building Inspector n DFM:tc cc: County Engineer - Richard Carlin paMom4 A 1 0 �ublic PY-T1yE1`tV �� epnrtlneut ua aua✓ Sf "<c.«„ oo°' �ltt�jttt� �E�T2TT't1YIEnt {Inlln n3. 113iners (One Salem Green - - 745-0213 4 September 21, 1978 Mr. James R. Carlin, County Engineer Office of the County Engineer Court House Salem, MA 01970 RE: Building Permit #527 (12/28/77) Dear Mr. Carlin: Please be advised that under Section 114.2 of the Massachusetts State Building Code I am pleased to extend the referenced permit for ninety (90) days as requested in your letter of September 20, 1978. Unless work is commenced by December 21, 1978 this extension will expire although you have the right to request a further extension. Very truly yours, JOHN B. POWERS Superintendent of Public Property, Building Inspector JBP:tc `t COUNTY OF ESSEX +R 8 OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER COURT HOUSE, SALEM, MASS. 01970 9t• 744.1240 F.xc 14 JAMES R. CARLIN. P.E. COUNTY ENGINEER MAURICE T. DENCH. P.E. F. RICHARD GELOTTI ASST. ENGINEERS September 20, 1978 Mr. John B. Powers, Building Inspector City of Salem Public Property Dept. One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Building Permit #527 Dear Mr. Powers: I respectfully request that Building Permit #527 relating to the addition and renovations to the Essex County buildings on Federal Street, Salem, be extended for 90 days to December 21, 1978 . Present plans are to call for the bids for the new addition to the Registry Building and the necessary work on the boiler plant only. Very truly yours , ur *Ounsty R. CARLIN Engineer JC/fn COUNTY OF ESSEX�1IlLL $ OFFICE OF COUNTY El&NU ER EST COURT HOUSE, SALEM, MASS. 01970 0 °*• \ t15 a� 1 ' Oct 1 9 .JAMES R. CARLIN. P.E. 11J oyCEtVEp S 744.1240 Ext. 14 COUNTY ENGINEER IJ 1\ SpLEt �As CtfY OF M AU RICE DEN CH, P.E F. RICHARD GELOTTI \N ASST.ENGINE RS `} October 13 , 1978 Mr. John B.Powers , Building Inspector City of Salem Public Property Dept. One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Building Permit #527 Dear Mr.Powers: I respectfully request that Building Permit #527 relating to the addition and renovations to the Essex County buildings on Federal Street, Salem, be extended to February 16 , 1979 . Present plans are to call for bids for the new addition to the Registry Building and the necessary work on the boiler plant by November 10, 1978, with work on the site to start by February 16, 1979 . Very truly yours, MES R. CARLIN County Engineer JC/fn J June 23, 1978 Mr. James Carlin County of Essex Office of County Engineer Court House Salem, Massachusetts 01970 RE: Building Permit #527 Deer Mr. Carlin: Please be advised that under Section 114.2 of the Massachusetts State Building Code I am pleased to extend the referenced permit - for ermit .for ninety (90) days as requested in your letter of June 21 , 1978. Unless work is commended by September 21 , 1978 this extension will expire although you have the right to request a further extension. Very truly yours, JOHN D. POWERS Superintendent of Public Property, Inspector of Buildings JBP/mlr COUNTY OF ESSEX 3 OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER COURT HOUSE, SALEM, MASS. 01970 i*• 744.1240 Ext. 14 .JAMES R. CARLIN. P.E. COUNTY ENGINEER MAURICE T. DENCH. P.E. F. RICHARD GELOTTI ASST. ENGINEERS June 21, 1978 Salem Building Inspector Public Property Dept. One Salem Green Salem, Mass . 01970 Re: Salem Courthouse addition and alterations Dear Sir: The County of Essex requests an extension of time for building permit No. 00527 dated December 28 , 1977 . This permit is for an addition to the Registry of Deeds Building and to alter, renovate other buildings, as per plans in file, for courtrooms and county offices at No. 32, 34 and 36 Federal Street in Ward 2 of the City of Salem, Mass. Very truly yours,, IF. f/ .�. J S R. CARLIN ty Engineer JC/fn ' N Com' d P Y � UJB C �N Ja d'1 y u- "= d O J vr- v E0 Office of the 69J11 COUNTY PLANNER, "� hT COUNTY OF ESSEX 32 Federal Street 19 t : Salem, Massachusetts ? (617)745.8400 01970 Thoma.m, Ji.'x SS Planner (617) 744.2842 Thomas C. Gbx� c t. PldiirE'pp� John J. Quigley, Feder Funds Co-Ordinator MEMORANDUM TO: MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS OF ESSEX COUNTY FROM: COUNTY PLANNER DATE: JUNE 27 , 1979 SUBJECT: STATUS OF FEDERAL INSURANCE RATE MAPS OF ESSEX COUNTY 1 . As a result of several discussions with community planners concerning waterfront development , a question surfaced pertaining to the validity of existing "flood hazard areas " . Someone mentioned that the "Blizzard of 78 " was being viewed as the new 100-year storm , which would mean existing maps would be revised. 2 . We inquired of the Federal Insurance Administration as to what assessments were made concerning the "Blizzard of 78 " and also the "Floods of 79" . The attached letter will help clarify the situation and status of flood insurance rate maps for your community. 3 . In the event that proposed developments come under the existing floodplain, reviewers may wish to check with the Boston office for a preliminary determination of a revised map. 1 • �a'`�rew,u'„c DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION =W 1161111 15 NEW CHARDON STREET s „c BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02114 �dnda N�0 June 6, 1979 s REGION I IN REPLY REFER TO! Thomas J. O'Leary, Jr. ` County Planner Office of the 'County Planner County of Essex 32 Federal Street Salem, Massachusetts 'Dear Mr. O'Leary: This is in response to your letter of .lay 24, 1979 requesting information on flood insurance studies for Essex County. With respect to your concerns that the "Blizzard of 1978" necessitates a revision to our flood insurance studies, please be advised that we believe that this storm approximated a 100-year event for the coastal communities in Essex County. It is our intention to either do an original detailed study or a restudy of all the coastal comm- unities affected by the 1978 blizzard. For those communities where a detailed study or restudy is in progress the study contractor will utilize the 1978 event in delineating flood zones on the Flood Insur- ance Rate Maps. The attached list (as you provided) should give you an indication of proposed completion dates for those communities listed in Essex County. As you will note all the communities (except Andover and West Newbury) have either initial studies or restudies in progress. In regards to the January 1979 riverine flooding, it is our understanding 3 that: along the larger local streams, e.g. the Concord and Shawsheen Rivers, the flooding was just less than the 100-year flood; along smaller streams (those with a drainage area less than ten square Tiles) the January 1979 flood was approximately a 10-25 year flood; and finally, there was no severe flooding on the Merrimack River, which is dependent on upstream basinwide snowmelt and rainfall . If you have any questions, or if we can be of any additional service, please contact this office at (617) 223-2616. ' Sincerely, 4dward A. Thomas Regional Director Federal Insurance & Hazard Mitigation Federal Emergency Management Agency Anticipated Study FIRM Effective Present Status Com letion Date Date Amesbury Stud in Progress Early 1980 Andover Regular Program 08/01/78 Beverly Study in Progress Summer 1980 Boxford Study to start Fall 1979 Summer 1981 Danvers Restudy Early 1980 Essex Study in Progress Summer 1980 Georgetown Study in Progress Early 1980 Gloucester Study in Progress ummer 198Q Groveland Study in Progress Early 1980 Hamilton Study to start Fall 1979 Summer 1981 Haverhill Study to start Fall 1979 Summer 1981 IDswich Study to start Fall 1979 Summer 1981 Lawrence Study to start Fall 1979 Summer 1981 Lynn Study to start Fall 1979 Sumner 1981 Lynn f i e 1 d Study in Progress Late 1979 Manchester Stud in Progress Summer 1980 Marblehead Study in Progress Summer 1980 Pderrimac Study to start Fall 1979 Summer 1981 Methuen Study in Progress Earl 1 Middleton --Study in Progress Early 1980 Nahant Restudy in Pro ress Summer 1980 Newbury Restudy in Progress Summer 1980 Newbur ort — Restudy in Progress __ Summer 1980 North Andover Study to start Fall 1979 Summer 1981 I Peabody Restudy in Progress.. Early 1980 Rockport Study in Pro ress Sumner 1980 Rowley Study in Progress Summer 1980 Salem Restudy in Progress Summer 1980 Salisb ry Restudy in Progress Summer 1980 _ SaStudy in Progress Summer 1980 u s Sv.-amDscott Restudy in Progress Summer- 1980 - Tonsfield Study in Progress Late 1979 F` Wenham Study o start Fall 1979 Summer 1981 d; Kest Newbury Regular Program 06/15/79 ,r f PROJECT AFFIDAVIT APRIL 3 1979 TO TIIE BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE CITY/'TOWN OF: SALEM a I, THOMAS CRABTREE as PRESIDENT p i on behalf of UNIVERSAL TLST'ING SERVICES N IT_ W H a Massachusetts-licensed laboratory (Lic_ense No. CTL-- 009 _, Expira- `° Ution Date: 1-2-80 __) hereby certify that in accordance with the .. _ a z H provisions of. the State Building Code and the Rules and Regulations for the Licensing of Concrete Laboratories, which has been engaged as the concrete test- H W y ing laboratory for the project known as SALEM COURT HOUSE H M 0 W E 5j FEDERAL & BRIDGE STS H cw z located at H W H W U H x H owned by _ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS and agree to perform all functions as required by the State Building Code and more particularly Sections 1.27.0 and 128, and the Rules and Regulations for Licensing Concrete Laboratories and the standards of good engineering practice; and such performance and responsibility shall continue until the said building official shall receive written notification of the termination of laboratory functions certifying that the owner has also been so notified. Such termination shall be effective no earlier than three (s) working days from the notification received by the building official. C � N SIGNED: t n r�- TITLE: PRESIDENT L: 4i— a, ].W w LABORATORY: UNIVERSAL TESTING SERVICES INC w 5 RICHARDSON LANE �r Y ADDRESS :_ STONEHAM, MA 02180 Cr_1 r o— U k,,On this� FOURTH day of APRIL 19 79 Then personally appeared before me the above-named THOMAS CRABTREE and made oath that the above statements by him are true. BEFORE ME: ROTARY PUBLI MY CO,PIISSION EXPIRES: NOVEMBFR '3 , 19 83 BUILDING OFFICIAL USE ONLY RECEIVED: _ 19 Permit Number APPROVED: ___ DATE: '19 — Termination Notice (if any) Received : _' 19 — Termination Notice (if any) Effective: , 19 Successor Laboratory engaged, No. CTL-- Effective-19---- PROJECT AFFP)AVIT APRIL 3 19 79. TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. OF THE CITY/TOS;,' OF: SALEM I, _ THOMAS CRABTREE as PRESIDENT z on behalf of UNIVERSAL TESTING SSERVICES ITR( Ea a Mlassac_husetts-licensed laboratory (License No. CTL--_009 Expire tion Date:_1-2-80 ) hereby certify that in accordance with the z H provisions of. the State Building code and the Rules and Regulations for the. e „ q Licensing of Concrete Laboratories, which has been engaged as the concrete Y.est— W z ., ing laboratory for the project known as SALEM COURT HOUSE �D o W — - — �, FEDERAL 8 BRIDGE STS F, z located at :n F ° owned b COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS C x Y -- - -- ---- 0. r-a W W and agree to perform all functions as required by the State Building Code and more particularly Sections 127. 0 and 128, and the Rules and Regulations for Licensing Concrete Laboratories and the standards of good engineering practice; and such performance and responsibility shall continue until the said building official shall receive written notification of the termination of laboratory functions certifying that the owner has also been so notified. Such termination shall be effective no earlier than three (s) working days from the notification received by the building official. SIGNED: TITLE: PRESIDENT LABORATORY: UNIVERSAL TESTING SERVICES ICK 5 RICHARDSON LANE ADDRESS :_STONEHAM, MA 02180 On this FOURTH day of APRIL , 19 79 then personally appeared before me the above-named THOMAS CRABTREE and made oath that the above statements by him are true. BEFORE ME: NOTARY PUBLIC MY COH'TISSION PIRES: NOVEMBER 3 e .19 83 BUILDING OFFICIAL USE ONLY RECEIVED: 19 Permit Number APPROVED: _DATE: 119 Termination Noci.ce (if. any) Received _ , 19 Termination Notice (if any) Effective: _ _, 19 Successor Laboratory engaged , No. CTL-- Effective 19 PROJI,CT AFFIDAVIT APRIL 3 19 79 TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE CITY/TOWN OF: SALEM THOMAS CRABTREE as PRESIDENT on behalf. of UNIVERSAL i'ESTING SERVICES 11_C_. W EE,, a Massachusetts-licensed laboratory (License No. CTL-- 009 Expira- tion Date: 1-2-80 _ _ .. _ _ ) hereby certify that in accordance with tine a z H provisruns of. the State: Building code and the Rules and Regulations for the Licensing of Concrete Laboratories, which has been engaged as the concrete test- WW z „ ing laboratory for the project known as SALEM COURT HOUSE _. H mow HFEDERAL & BRIDGE STS F z located at ;n H W H W U H y oimed by _ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS and agree to perform all functions as required by the State Building Code and more particularly Sections 127. 0 and 128, and the Rules and Regulations for Licensing Concrete Laboratories and the standards of good engineering practice; and such performance and responsibility shall continue until the said building official shall receive written notification of the termination of laboratory functions certifying that the owner has also been so notified. Such termination shall be effective no earlier than three (3) working days from the notification received by the building official. I SIGNED / � eyai� TITLE: PRESIDENT LABORATORY: UNIVERSAL TESTING SERVICES IN 5 RICHARDSON LANE ADDRESS: STONEHAM, MA 02180 On this FOURTH _ day of APRIL 19 79 then personally appeared before me the above-named THOMAS CRABTREE _ and made oath that the above statements by him are true. BEFORE ME: : . NOTARY PUBLI KY COMMISSION XPIRES: NOVEMBER 3) 19 83 BUILDING OFFICIAL USE ONLY RECEIVED: 19 Permit Number APPROVED: DATE: ,19 Termination Noc:tce (if any) Received: _ 119 Termination Notice (if any) Effective: _, 19 Successor laboratory engagud, No. CTL--- Effective-19--- i 'SBCC-T,-3O9-7F. ' 071 Zi smmanuz�a� a� �2ZaQd��E P T JOHN W. MC CORMACK STATE OFFICE BU ff OIACCEIVEO C� OF SALEM,MASS." Michael S. Dukakis ROOM 1305 GOVERNOR Charles A. J. Theodore ONE ASHBURTON PLACE, BOSTON 02108 CHAIRMAN CHARLES J. DINEZIO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - - March 26, 1976 John Powers Building Inspector Salem Building Department 5 Broad Street Salem, Massachusetts RE: MASS PROJECT C.E.S. 73-1, CONTRACT NO, 1, FIRST DISTRICT COURT HOUSE, ESSEX COUNTY Dear Mr. Powers: It has come to my attention that you are delaying the issuance of a build- ing permit for the above-referenced project on the basis that the pertin- ent plans must first be approved by the Department of Public Safety. I would like to remind you that this is in contradiction to the statute, which clearly indicates that the Department of Public Safety is only re- sponsible for state-owned buildings. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please let me know. Sincerely yours, STATE BUILDING CODE BA ISSION Charles A. J. Theodore Chairman CAJT:ls JY• . cc. John Welch, Bureau of Building Construction r.. Titu of $.Aem, 'fflttssuchusetts .: ;. � � �IiCi�it �XIIpPXf� �PpttrtmPnt �GL�4V�' �tli�tY[$ �P�J2tXfI:tP1'Cf ' John P. rufuers 5 Probil Street Tan-nzl� .- October 20, 1975 Bureau of Building Construction BE: Mass. State Project No CSS 73-1 Leverett Saltonstall Building First District Court of Essex Government Center Essex County, Salem, MA 01970 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 Attention: Mr. Robert San Clemente Dear Sir: We have made a review of the plans submitted for the referenced project and have given our comments to Mr. Ron Barnes, of the County Engineer's Office. Yours very truly, Daniel F. Mansur, A.I.A. Assistant Building Inspector DFM:tc cc: Mr. Scenes Carlin Notes of meeting held at Building Inspector's Off i(l/ @1",DN)-Tat 10:00 a .m. , February 13, 1975, re: Mass. State Project CES 72-1 Contract #1 , Salem Superior Courthouse Complex. In attendance: Jack Powers , Building Inspector FEB 9 40 AM '15 Dan Mansur, Assistant Building Inspek �F��ED Ron Barnes, Essex County Represep ta)t JIVED 9A SS. Phineas Alpers, Bedar and Alpers 1 . Reviewed plans of Salem Courthouse Complex with Dan Mansur" re: existing , buildings and new building code. Indicated to Dan that documents represent work on exterior of buildings only. 2. We agreed, at this date, to install new 3' x 4' ventilating skydome (pyrodome) on roof over front stairwell , Superior Courthouse Building - dome with fusible link and with manual control . We will send letter to Building Inspector in�Tci-cating that s aft t to dome will be completed in work of contract documents being prepared for interior renovations. 3. Agreed to remove existing skylight (wood) referenced in note 5-24, Drawings A-5, (Delete note from drawings) . 4. Agreed to install 3 ' x 4' pyrodome in flat roof of connecting link (near elevator) between Superior Courthouse and County Commissioners Building . (Dome to be as described in Note 2 beforehand.) 5. On Drawing A-20, detail M/A-20, plywood cover at flue opening to be shown covered with light gauge metal , metal to be around all plywood edges and to cover exposed face. ? 6. Meeting with fire prevention chief (Gargan) to be set up to review drawings and to explain Iintent of Contract CES 74-1 #1 (interior renovations) . 7. We called A. Poulos to discuss type of letter and approval that B.B.C. was seeking from local Building Department. S. We suggested that our office would appreciate' having a representative of Building Department present at meetings that bwe intended to schedule with our client at the initial stages of development of plans for renovating the interiors of the Courthouse Complex (CES 74-1 #1 ) . (Also include Fire Department Representative.) Mr. Powers agreed' to above. 9. Building Department official agreed that venting of stairwell in "Deeds" Building could best be handled in subsequent contract. Meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Phineas Alpers BEDAR and ALPERS, INC. cc: B.B.C. County Engineers Office Building Inspector ABB-4 'f ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS BOARD 1010 Commonwealth Avenue Boston, Massachusetts 02215 Tel. No. 566-4500 Mr. James R. Carlin County Engineer . Court House Docket No.- 75-107 32 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 DECISION The Architectural Barriers Board held a hearing under the provisions of General Laws, Chapter 22, Section 13A, and Chapter 30A on an appli- cation for modification of, or substitution for, certain Rules and Regulations of the Board as specified in said application on behalf of Essex County Superior Court House e era Salem, MA 01970 DATE: March 3, 1975 TIME: 11:30 PLACE: 18 Tremont St. , Boston, Conference Room A - 12th Floor Upon the evidence and testimony presented the Board VOTED: to grant variance on PER-1 Any person aggrieved by final decision of the Board may file an appeal within thirty days after receipt of such decision in accordance with the provisions of General Laws, Chapter 30A. ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS BOARD Francis Quinn, Date: March 4, 1975 Executive Director Tito of #alem, fiittssac4usetts t f' Public Propertg lgepartment Guilbing i9epartment (One Onlem 46reen 508-745.9595 Ext. 380 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer July 31 , 1997 Board of County Commission 36 Federal Street Salem, Mass . 01970 RE : 50 St . Peter Street Dear Board Members: This office has been contacted by several concerned citizens in the area of St. Peter Street, concerning the barbed wire fence around the property located at 50 St . Peter Street and asking if this department can do anything about having it removed for esthetic reasons . This office has no legal rights to ask to have the barbed wire removed, but is making a request for its . concerned citizen and abutters that the wire no longer serves a purpose and would enhance the esthetics in the area if nothing else . We would appreciate it if the Board could find that the barbed wire is no longer necessary and have it removed. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Leo E . Tremblay Inspector of Bui dings LET: scm cc: Jane Guy Councillor Flynn, Ward 2 ' l,ll Y VN JALtM ��,�4 NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT TASK FORCE 6� REFERRAL FORM Date: Address: Complaint: Complainant: � Phone#: Address of Complainant: DAVID SHEA CHAIRMAN KEVIN HARVEY BUILD IN PEC R Er Fr'TRrCAL DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION CITY SOLICITOR HEALTH DEPARTMENT SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY ANIMAL CONTROL POLICE DEPARTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR TREASURER/COLLECTOR n DPW WARD COUNCH-LOR _ nd I DAN GEARY SHADE TREE .r PLEASE CHECK THE ABOVE REFERENCED COMPLAINT AND RESPOND TO DAVE SHEA WITHIN ONE WEEK. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE. ACTION: demand and no refusal; and that the case was left to the jury with.right instructions on this point." § 5. Removal of gates, rails, bars or fences upon or across ways Any person may remove gates, rails, bars or fences which are upon or acro,,, !I a public-or private way legally laid out, unless they have been placed there p, ! ;I prevent the spread of disease dangerous to the public health, or unless the, have been erected or continued by the license of the county commissioners U, of the selectmen or road commissioners or of the person for whose use such j' private way was laid out. A person aggrieved by such removal may apply to the county commissioners, selectmen or road commissioners, respectively, and if upon examination it appears that such gates, rails, bars or fences were 4 erected or continued by such license, they shall order them replaced. Historical and Statutory Notes C.L. c. 65, § 3. R.S.1836, c. 25, §§ 27, 43. R.L.1902, c. 53, § 3. St.1693-1, c. 6, § 5. G.S.1860, c. 46, §§ 4, 5. St.1917, c. 344, pt. 6, § 3, St.1786, c. 81, § 5. P.S.1882, c. 54, H 4, 5. pt. 8, § 1. Cross References N Nuisances, abatement of, generally, see c. 243, § 1 et seq. L. Removal of fences on way to prevent spread of disease prohibited, see c. 84, § 8. I, Surveyors or road commissioners empowered to remove obstructions, see c. 84, § 7. i; Notes of Decisions i In general 1 other obstruction placed on the same prevent- Nuisances 2 ing the free and convenient use of the road." i II 2. Nuisances 1. In general Any individual may remove an unlawful ob. rstruction from a public way when he has occa- The power by wer wer conferred d § 5, to order obstruct upon justices of the sion to use it in a lawful manner,and may enter upon the land of the party erecting or continu. tions in a town way or private way to be re- ing the nuisance for the purpose of removing it. moved, is not judicial; and a sheriff is not doing so little damage as possible to soil or responsible for the acts of his deputy in execut- buildings. Inhabitants of Arundel v. McCulloch ing such an order. Davis v. Smith (1881) 130 (1813) 10 Mass. 70; Gordon v. City of Taunton Mass. 113. (1879) 126 Mass. 351. } In the case of Hollenbeck v. Rowley(1864)90 A gate erected upon an existing highwav by a Mass. 473. 8 Allen 473, the court said; "It was turnpike corporation is a nuisance unless spe. undoubtedly competent for the defendant, or cially authorized by the Legislature, and an% any other person having occasion to use the individual may abate it. Wales v. Stetson public road, to remove all rails, bars, rocks, or (1806) 2 Mass. 143, 3 Ann.Dec. 39. § 6. Barbed wire fences Whoever builds or maintains a barbed wire fence within six feet of the ground along a sidewalk located on a public way shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty nor more than fifty dollars. 758 { t ,A s 'x,:7•,. ria -tit '4 .. sr Ali a, �J I BOUNDARIES AND ENCROACHMENTS 86 § 7 Note 1 Historical and Statutory Notes St.1884, c. 272. St.1917, c. 344, pt. 6, § 4, R.L.1902, c. 53, § 4. pt. 8, § 1. "$ j Library References - � Fences C-19. WESTLAW Topic No. 171. C.J.S. Fences § 14. Notes of Decisions Construction and application I the street, is not maintained along a sidewalk, within this section, prohibiting the construction of barbedwire fences along a sidewalk upon a 1. Construction and application public street. Quigley v. Clough(1899)53 N.E. A barbed-wire fence, running diagonally 884, 173 Mass. 429, 73 Am.St.Rep. 303. across a yard from the house to the corner of :1 § 7. Removal of unused poles, structures, etc. from public ways The aldermen or selectmen may cause the removal from public ways and ! places of unused poles, wires, structures or other appliances, at the expense of the owners thereof. Historical and Statutory Notes St.]889, c. 398. St.1917, c. 344, pt. 6, § 5, �{ R.L.1902, c. 53, § 5. pt. 8, § I. 41 Cross References Aldermen or selectmen empowered to locate electric transmission lines, see c. 166, § 22. Department of public works to remove on abolition of grade crossing, see c. 159, § 74. ` Library References . "t Highwav b102. Ij WESTLAW Topic No. 200. tl., C.J.S. Highways § 181. fit Notes of Decisions In general 1 higher importance that the ordinary use of the �l highways should not be interrupted than that these companies should enjoy the privileges {E 1. In general they desire, and it is so deemed by the legisla- ture. Yet that it may sometimes be impossible In the case of Suburban Light& Power Co. v. that they can have locations in the direction Board of Aldermen of City of Boston (1891) 26 they desire without this result, owing to the -r�p N.E. 447, 153 Mass. 200, the court said: "That narrowness or other condition of the streets, is [} the power given to the aldermen of a city or the obvious. In such a case as the second section selectmen of a town in regard to the location of of Pub.St. c. 109, declares that the posts, wires, i+� poles, etc., was one to be exercised in their etc., 'shall not incommode the public use of the discretion, and that the whole subject was com- highways or public roads,' the right on the part mitted to them by the statutes, seems to have of telegraph companies to demand a location been assumed in several cases. ° " it is of must yield to the higher public interest." '�',•�� r DRAFT City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, March 12,2008 A special meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein (chairperson), Richard Dionne, Elizabeth Debski,Rebecca Curran, and Annie Harris. Also present were Lynn Duncan and Amy Lash of the Planning Department. Business Items A motion was made by Rebecca Curran to approve the minutes of February 13, 2008, seconded by Robin Stein and approved (5-0). Public Hearing Petition of JOHN DONAHUE seeking the variances necessary to allow for a building located at 60 FEDERAL STREET to be moved to 90 SUMMER STREET [R-2]. Variances are being requested from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot width,maximum lot coverage, depth of front yard,depth of side yard, depth of rear yard, and parking requirements. The Petitioner, John Donahue, thanked the board for scheduling a special meeting. He explained that there are tight time constraints imposed by the State who would like to start the Courthouse project. He said the state would have liked the homes moved days ago. John Donahue presented the Board with the plan on the neighborhood from 1874 and said that his lot at 90 Summer Street had once been two lots- 90 Summer Street and 9 Downing Street. The house at 9 Downing was destroyed in the Salem Fire and not rebuilt. He presented the Board with a list of other lots in the neighborhood and the square footage of these lots. He also submitted photographs of the building at 60 Federal Street, and his lot at 90 Summer Street. He submitted a written statement to accompany his application and mentioned that his proposal would save the nearly 200 year old home and would fit with the character of the neighborhood. Meg Twohey(Federal Street Neighborhood Association) spoke in favor of the petitioner, she said it was a very small house, which sits in a much tighter way currently than what is pr"o'posed. Stephen Robinson (1-5 Downing Street) spoke against the petition. He said though John Donahue has been a friend a good neighbor, he has a number of concerns about the proposal. He feels the addition of a small wooden building would cause a fire hazard, he has concerns about the small lot size, and concerns about parking, which he already thinks is an issue. He said he has made an effort to rent his apartments to single car tenants for a discounted rate and this would undermine these efforts. He said that John Donahue has a beautiful backyard that provides attractive relief for his children and the neighborhood children by taking them off the street. He feels the proposal is a net negative and hopes the Board votes to deny it. 1 DRAFT Robert Femino (a resident of Endicott Street), represented his father, Frank Femino who owns 120-124 Margin Street. Robert Femino submitted a petition opposing the application. The petition was signed by twenty three (23) residents and property owners of properties on Prescott Street, Margin Street, Endicott Street, Downing Street, and Summer Street. The reasons for opposition noted on the petition included: congestion, worsening parking issues, it would not blend in, it is one of the last green spaces in the neighborhood, it would require the loss of a mature maple tree. Robert Femino said he is opposed to what John Donahue wants to do, thought he has been a good neighbor. He said that he was not consulted before John got the ball rolling; if he were in John's shoes he would have discussed his proposal with the neighbors first. He said at first his father was not opposed to John's proposal. After they had spoken, and they spoke to others, including their insurance company, they realized that they didn't want to support it. He was concerned it could affect the water table, as well as the value of their house, and the value of other homes in the neighborhood. He said his father was a lifelong resident of Salem and had lived on Margin Street for fifty(50) years. He said his father does not have anything nice to look at from the windows of his home other than John's property. He said that because people did something 100 years ago does not mean that we should do it today. He stated that zoning was created for a reason, and it should protect abutters. He said that the lot is flat and not unusually shaped. He said there is good soil. He sees no hardship or grounds to grant any variances. He said that the ordinance is there to protect both his father and John. He asked that John withdraw the petition. He finds it hard to believe the City can't find another location. He feels a rundown house should not be located six (6) feet from his father's house. Donald Friary (10 Broad Street) lives just around the corner from Summer Street and submitted a letter of support from Historic Salem Incorporated. He is anxious to preserve all three homes and thinks a dense urban neighborhood is where they belong. Ruth Wall (13 Crombie Street) wanted to come to represent Historic Salem's interest, however, she has changed her mind and would like to speak in favor of keeping the yard in support of the neighbors. She keeps her horses in this neighborhood. Kathryn Harper (Salem Historic Commission) feels the house would fit nicely in this location. Jessica Herbert (Salem Historic Commission) said that the grass lot looks like a missing tooth. She feels that it is a great little house that would fit in nicely. Laurie Bellin (Salem Historic Commission) mentioned that the Federal Street neighborhood and the whole City will be burdened by the new Courthouse Project. This is just one of three historic homes that need to be moved or they would be torn down. This neighborhood would not be the only residents burdened. 2 DRAFT Joseph Zavalia (15 Prescott Street) asked the Board to drive down Prescott Street before making a decision. He said this will be a big burden, take into consideration the parking. He is against the proposal and wishes the zoning laws would be followed. Darrow Lebovici (122 Federal Street) said the setbacks are not any smaller than other setbacks in the neighborhood. There would be no new precedent, it would fit in. Robin Stein asked whether the petitioner would like to respond to the public comments. John Donahue said the residence would be a single family and it only has four bedrooms. He said Prescott Street is frequently open, even around dinner time when people are home and he has photos without cars there. He really doesn't feel that this small residence will have the huge impact that people are talking about. He said he offered to center the house and to remove the parking. He is glad everyone likes his backyard. John Donahue mentioned that 27-29 Endicott Street, a duplex with almost zero setbacks on all sides, was recently constructed. He feels that the zoning is intended for new development, not situations like this. He said this house is smaller, and the setbacks would be similar to most homes in the neighborhood. He said it is not taking away from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and it would be less intense that most houses in the neighborhood. Stephen Robinson said the parking space currently in front of where this house would go is occupied already and he doesn't think this house would just have one or two cars associated with it. Robert Femino said he stood in front of the Board of Appeals supporting the house at 27-29 Endicott Street two years ago because it would remove an eyesore from the neighborhood across. He said he feels there is no hardship in this case. He said their carport is part of their house and the carport is right up against the fence. Councilor Jean Pellitier(Ward 3) commended Mr. Donahue for the attempt to save the house, but he said he needed to support the neighbors. He wanted to clarify that Mr. Donahue can cut down the tree and not keep his yard as green space because it's private property. He confirmed that there would be one parking space. He said he understands that zoning is designed for petitioner relief while still watching out for the neighbors. Robin Stein read several letters of support into the record including letters from: • Historic Salem Incorporated • The Federal Street Neighborhood Association • State Representative Keenan • Mary Whitney She also read the petition signed by five (5) residents, submitted by John Donahue in support of the request, and the petition signed by twenty (23) residents and property owners, submitted by Robert Femino opposed to the request. Councilor Pelletier pointed out that the key on the map presented to the Zoning Board reversed the colors of the text for frontage and the address. 3 DRAFT With no further public comments, the public portion of the meeting was closed and the discussion was brought back to the Board for questions and comments. Rebecca Curran confirmed the residence would be used as a one family. John Donahue said yes, currently there is one unit upstairs and there was a law office on the first floor. Interior work would be done to convert it back to a one family. Annie Harris asked whether the plan was to sell or rent the house. John Donahue said sell. She asked how many square feet the house was? John didn't know off hand but said the dimensions are about 25' x 40' as shown on the plot plan. Rick Dionne asked if the petitioner had thought about putting the parking on the opposite side. John Donahue said the location of the house was suggested by the land surveyor so that a driveway for one car could be included near the entrance. Rick Dionne said it really is a small house. Beth Debski said it looks like something belongs on the proposed location. She said every time the ZBA meets, there is an issue about parking and in this case you would have parking for a car on site. Annie Harris said she doesn't understand the fire hazard concern. She doesn't agree with the loss in property value the neighbors were anticipating. She acknowledged that the yard was a lovely green space, but it is private property. She thinks the only impact is congestion. Robin Stein said she thinks the Board could make a recommendation to move the parking to the other side if it was okay with the Building Code. Rick Dionne said they could not make it mandatory. Rebecca Curran said she would be comfortable approving it with that recommendation. John Donahue asked if it was approved with that recommendation, if a new plan would be needed. Robin said the plan with the house location would be needed for a building permit. John asked if that were the case if the building could go back on the sidewalk. Lynn Duncan said this would complicate the decision, because the variance requested is for a front setback of three (3) feet. You would have to clarify that the zero (0) foot setback would be allowed if the recommendation is followed. Robin Stein said she believe they would be able to craft that language. Lynn said she thought that would be fine as long as the Board is clear in their decision. Robin Stein said this is a challenging problem accompanied by many recurring problems that come up in Salem frequently with so many nonconforming neighborhoods. Rick Dionne said he understands this as an opportunity to save one (1) historic home, when there are actually three (3) that need to be saved in a short period of time. Robin Stein said she is aware there has been a long search for sites. 4 DRAFT Lynn Duncan said this was actually a second request for proposals by the state. Lynn said that the City looked at City owned land as well but could not come up with any sites. Robin Stein said this is a very small house and this particular neighborhood supported larger impacts than this more recently. Annie Harris said she feels this would fit appropriately with the way the neighborhood has been developed. Rebecca Curran made a motion to approve the petitioner's request for variances subject to nine (9) conditions and the recommendation that the driveway be located on the right side of the residence. Rebecca said she feels the Board should expand on standard condition#5 relating to materials to specify that the historic character shall be maintained. Annie Harris asked whether it is clear that this is intended to be a historic rehab. Lynn Duncan suggested we ask the petitioner for a comment. John Donahue acknowledged that the windows would need to be replaced and asked what he would be required to replace them with. John said only some of the windows are still historic. Rebecca Curran said she wanted true divided light, with no vinyl. Robin Stein said she thinks they should rephrase the condition to say the historic character and materials shall be maintained. Lynn Duncan asked whether DCAM imposed conditions. John said that there are recommendations. Annie Harris asked what happens if the recommendations aren't followed. Robin said this is why they should craft the language they had discussed. Lynn Duncan asked what the petitioner thought about going in front of the Historic Commission, though she is not sure they should require it. Robin Stein said she would be comfortable just saying whatever is done needs to be consistent with the historic nature of the house. Rebecca Curran said she thinks it is reasonable to ask he go through Historic Commission review because of the amount of relief granted. Robin Stein asked whether the intention is to keep the historic nature. John Donahue said the exterior is fine the way it is though a few windows would have to be changed. There will not be any extensive exterior changes. Rebecca restated the condition to say the historic nature shall remain substantially intact. Robin Stein said she would work to craft language incorporating the Board's concerns. The motion was seconded by Beth Debski and approved(5-0) (Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne, and Harris). The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 pm. Respectfully submitted, Amy Lash, Staff Planner 5