124 FEDERAL STREET - BUILDING IJACKET 124 FEDERAL STREET �
�f
��/rytryg
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
ROBERT A. LEDOUX Legal Department LEONARD F. FEMINO
City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant city solicitor
508&745,M Salem, Massachusetts 01970 50&921-1990
July 14, 1994
Leo Tremblay, Building Inspector
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Mr. Tremblay:
You have requested an opinion in relation to property located at 124-1241/2 Federal
Street. My opinion follows.
The argument has been made that the property in question is exempt from any
changes in zoning as it was in lawful existence prior to the amendment of the zoning.
It is necessary to research historical data in order to determine whether in fact this
was used in some other fashion.
I had occasion to review Polk's Directory for the years 1954 through 1994 not all
years were available, although there was a substantial number of Directories available).
For the period in question, it appears that from 1974 until 1989 the property showed
as a single family in which the family of Melvin Goodman lived and medical offices for
Melvin Goodman and Tobias Goodman. I find no data that supports the theory that this
was used as a two family during that period of time.
l
The building itself is nonconforming in that it does not meet the necessary
dimensional requirements. It certainly can still be used as a single family and arguably
could be used as an office. It is more likely, however, that it will be necessary for a special
permit to be granted in order to use this as a two family house.
As the property has not be used as a single family and office for more than two years,
regardless of reasons for non-use, the property loses its nonconforming use and reverts to
a single family.
Leo Tremblay, Building Inspector
July 14, 1994
Page Two
It is my opinion therefore, that the property in question, although previously used
as a single family and doctor's office, has lost its nonconforming use and has reverted to a
single family house. No evidence could be found in the Building Department of any use
other than that above-mentioned and therefore it is impossible for me to determine that this
was used at any time as a two family.
If you have any questions in connection with the same, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT A. LEDOUX
City Solicitor
RAUlcm
File #9443.05
` Titu of *alcm, masaac4usttts
? f'o Ilublir Propertg 13epartment
Nuilbing Department
(One 6atrm (6reen
500-745-9595 Ext. 300
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
June 25, 1994
Robert Ledoux, Esq.
City Solicitor
City of Salem
RE: 124-12412 Federal St. (R-2)
Dear Mr. Ledoux:
Will you kindly peruse the enclosed data to determine the legal use
of the above referenced property, the property is located in a
Residential Two Family District. This is to determine use only and in
no way is meant to confirm or deny whether said property is in
compliance with all building, fire, electrical, plumbing or gas codes.
Anything you can do to expedite this matter will be greatly
appreciated as the owner of the property would like to begin marketing
the property. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Leo E. Tremblay
Inspector of Building
7
Zoning Enforcement Officer
LET:bms
Enclosures
• • N
i �tltttroe»: hinnass and seals this.... „�� 9 of
i d { ? ,..y.. ,r . . ... ... //��,,, nn,,�
_...............................,.... . .. . ........._...». .ilT /. »..., t (I
t _. ....m.:..................•.........................1.......... .......................»...................................-.......
age ;5MMVtwd tl at 9191:11"Wertts o
Essex as. May a1974
Then perronally appeared the above named Melvin Goodman and Alyce Goodman
i'
i and acknowlt,*d the foregoing instrument to be their free Ilct and deed,befor me
.....?Z ,._......_.
! proa.7 Pabso-•lp�raoofa®®c '
M7 cammixam Anita July 25. 1980
l'i...• *individual--aatTomia•--TeamttinGbtamm—Tenutu the Eat'
1, ( —3llO j•)
!f , - f1tAPt'�tai EEC.6 Aa Ah4NDim SY t7lAAIEa 497 OP 19119
_ Every deed�r�e�tt�d ter rated e¢YI eaotJa or lace endorsed apse tl the full wne,raldenre ad port oErtc sddnsaf the anttme
and a reaul of tke omouat of die tutl moddmtiee tMeror In dallm n the patu r of the offer camidero oe therefor,if not deli eed let
a rpecitic monetary ciao. The full"Widwlke 0411 mem the tead price for the ceervgrnm without deduction for a" Kens ar eo•
j, combmnces aswmed bi the araatte AS MudaiK thrown. All nth atdonemma and recitals AM be recorded n part of the and.
j Poilure to comptr with tbts aftosa Yell act uflae'ehe atualy of any deed. No Wainer of and,ahtll accept a deed roe recording units,
It B in neuplianre wish the,aqui r This sedog
ESSEX SS. RIJjT)E.�197•f!�4I1.M. PAST—/— INST. ft/,Pd
i
0
U
SII 44 66 a.
"BK 6 0 6 4. PG maOIANNOaT" Ovteewm x= ONOOT room aNOMDfj*m"II
}. Melvin Goodman and Alyce Goodman, both
of Sateen. Essex County.hbmdmwtts6
O
beingzatnismied,for eonsidesatlon paid, N
m H
gracts to Alyce Goodman •
& of Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts with qutirlabe camust a
_m
' the fend in Salem, in said Essex County, with the buildings tbereca, situated at
r 124-124 1/2 Federal Street, bounded and described its follower
)D,w;peea"a emvmbrm^s.w)
Begiontog the west corner of Federal and Lynn Streets and thence running Northerly
by Lynn Street, forty-eight and twenty-nine hundredths (48.28)feet to land nor or formerly
1 ' fo of Rebecca Dembofsky; thence running Southwesterly by said Dambofsky's land, eleven a
w and sixteen hundredths (11.16) feet to corner; thence Northwesterly by said land, five and
.'
seventy-four hundredths 5.74 feet; thence Southwester) nineteen and
h' ( ) Y. seventy-seven
hundredths (19.77) feet to a corner; thence Northwesterly thl tty-five and sixty-three
i� N hundredths (95.63) feet to a corner;thence Westerly, forty-six and four hundredths (46.04)
feet to the wcst side of a right of way; thence Southeasterly by said right of way, one hundred
j ' and fourteen bundredthe (100.14) feet to Federal Street; thence Easterly by Federal Street,
It seventy-one,and forty-six hutdredthe (71.46)feet to Lynn Street and point of beginning; and
y I ; being shown as.Lot C on a plan made by Thomas A. Appleton, C. E."-recorded with Essex
South District Registry of Deeds, Book 2838, Page 25, and containing 5813 square feet.
t m Consideration for the within conveyance being lees than One Hundred ($190.00)
Dollars, revenue stamps are not needed.
a
• I m
w
i �
i
t I
at 124 �4Q Federal Street, bzaunded and described-as--f ollows:W encualrurce,,!t avTJ
Beginning the west corner of Federal and Lynn Streets and thence
running Northerly by Lynn Street, forty-eight and twenty-nine hundredths
(48.29) feet to land now or formerly- of Rebecca Dembofeky; thence run-
ning Sbuthwesterly. by said Dembofsky's land, eleven and sixteen hundred-
ths (11.1.6) feet to corner; t .thence Northwesterly by said land, five and
seventy-four hundredths (5.74) fget,• thence Southwesterly, nineteen and
seventy-seven hundredths t 19.77)' feet tq° aFcorner; thence. Northwesterly,
thirty-five and sixty-three hundredths3. .63)feet to, a corner; thence
Westerly, forty-six and Pour hundredthe ,',(46.0 ) feet to the west sidV of.
a right of way;, thence Southeasterly by 'said right of way, one hundr'Od
and fourteen hundredths (ioo.14). fe, .aet .to'Federal Street; thence. fdst.er W
by Federal• Stre'et, seventy-one;: and ;fortyix hundredthe (71.46) feeVto7':
Lynn Street and point of begintiln ., and being shown as Lot C on a plan
made by Thomas 7A. Appleton, -. recorded with Essex South Distriof "
Registry of Deeds, Book 2838, Page 25, and: containing 5813 square feet.
Being the same premiseA conveyed to me by deed of Melvin Goodman,
of even date, to be recorded hierewith, and being subject to the right
of way referred to therein. ;
Said premises are conveyed subject to a $7,000 mortgage given to
v - the Beverly Savings Bank and taxes assessed by the City of Beverly for
the year 1945•
There is no money consideration for this deed.
vi%cx
rs�z fs�if�e�aa�xdmo-�sc�k#xnts �dcaabmc�io-ymeax�laeaelo.
Mitoses my hand andseal this eighteenth• day of June 1945
$g®gg, .ss.. - .,,•: ,,: :�`�: .Jtuas. 18, 19:45
Then personally appeared,the above nimed -Zelda
and admewledged the foregoing instrnmeat to be. :her • freei acct�aiid deed.,before the
My camudisi a IxDL'ea" Denamb Pt` 3•---......19 45
400 HHHVS M"aM DTH 90LS M 90S %v3 LT=CT RHS 49/CZ/90
I, Zelda Slotnick,
of Beverly, Essex County, Massachusetts,
being unmarried, for consideration paid,grant to Melvin Goodman and Alyce Goodman, husband
and wife, as tenants by the entirety, both
of Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts with gattrfetm raa:naata
ti,Ptnnd ;o rSalem. in said Essex Countv. with the 'buildin¢s thereon. situated
from all encumbrances made by h�h, nd.tba he,win, and his heirs;executors and administrators shall, warrant
and defend the same to the gra "-his heirs and assigns forever against the lawful claims and demands
of all persons claiming by, through or under the grantor, but against none other.
r m �' .� lel i\ �•o. (gg_+ �yF�jn I 06
V to
to
0. s a
J;
e 1
,
S
I I
S00@l W3'IVS NVWAMMIll 90L2 Sb! 90S %Vd LUCT RAJ. tont/90
P
(THE FOLLOwhNC IS NOT A PART OF THE DEEP, A16 IS Nor To RE UCORDEl.) .
Ir.. :. .CsAnn..:IRS, SWnoN 11.-CwnE v-Lnws: .. . .
A deed in substance following the form entitled ..,Quitclaim Deed" shall when duly executed have the
for" and:effect ofl-a deed'vin,,fee simpk'td:fh'e grantee, his heirs and assigns, to his and their own use, with
covenants on the part of the grantor, for himself, his heirs, exeeurm,administrators and successors,with the
grantee, his heirs, successors and assigns, that,at the time of the delivery of such deed the premises were free
oc�c�
`9 9
� � N
v�r7»,u0 :•�ra9 8.N 4,,.
i r
OD
i4r 0
r.•..a` o. •0$6i'Y� '0N s peIS3 -'d8 Rti''H'aoy
01 )J4
•SSYII'ICMS•I.S'Q•09'SGTM 10 /.:a,i.S1�='-; X3S7+
, H
R a c d8'O�
U 'd
Y
Lh"NO t� /QG`B�'CC�9 OEA7BOFS,YY
�NG.E-M, /YJi9SS
�C'IQL C /K. u
✓.•ay /930.
COTE & CASEY
ATTORNEYS AT LAw
SHETLAND OFFICE PARK
27 CONGRESS STREET
SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
DANIEL J. CASEY- TELEPHONE(508) 744-1011
JAMES M. COTE (, FACSIMILE (508) 744-1979
'ALSO ADMITTED IN MAINE
Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested
November 8, 1994
Mr. Leo Tremblay
Zoning Enforcement Officer
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
\4
Re: 124-124 1/2 Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. Tremblay:
As you know, I am an attorney representing the Estate of Alyce Goodman, owner of the
referenced property. The property contains approximately 7,800 square feet of living area and
sits on a lot containing approximately 5813 square feet of land in an R-2 zone.
The structure contains'twdj dwelling units and has not been altered in many years.
You have communicated to Betsy Merry, who for marketing purposes had informally requested
Robert Ledoux's opinion as to whether the structure could be sold as a two family, that it was
the City Solicitor's opinion that the property could be used as a two family only by special
permit.
I have since met with Mr. Ledoux and provided him with additional details as to the status of
the structure and as to the treatment of the structure under applicable provisions of M.G.L.A.
C. 40A and case law, including Webb Nichols & Another v. Board of Zoning Appeals of
Cambridge, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 631 (1988) (copy attached).
I have asserted, and I believe Mr. Ledoux concurs (although I do not, of course, presume to
speak for him), that the property can be used as a two family without a special permit. This
is so because the owner proposes only to change the use of the property from one permitted
I_/
use to another permitted use, without altering the existing structure (which, again, is already
comprised of facilities for two dwelling units). This is also so regardless of what the past uses
of the property have been, since the owner is not proposing to reestablish any nonconforming
use of the property (such as a convenience store in a residential district) but is only proposing
to use the property for a permitted use (two family in an R-2 zone).
Accordingly, I hereby formally request that you provide the owner of the subject property,
through my office, your interpretation as to whether or not the subject property may be used
as a two family without a special permit. I request that you consult with Mr. Ledoux to obtain
any new comments he may have bearing on this issue.
I thank you for your time and attention.
Very truly yours,
1 �
iel I Casey
Attorney for the Estate of Alyce Goodman
DJC/NS
Enclosure
cc: Robert A. Ledoux, Esq.
(Via Facsimile)
631
26 Mas. App (t- 631
W1:1w NIa101.5 rQ another' tis. BOARD or- 7onln�c; APPEAL
(d CMti]RIDGE.
ALJ'IL.clknd,.. la- NYC - [)""Wmr6, IVKI
Prcacnr. rtxiins, F si+ .N F acs. II
I
lonm,� NonCOnfofln mg use or structure. Special ponnn. Cmnhn ar,�P_
Under tha pw,iwn>of the Cambridoc zonine ordinance a specie pcnnn teas
required tchcn Iltonnlccs were made m buildimt
a nonconforming -at
accomodate a change from one pcnniucd acceSWI) use to another
m
permitted usc- 1633-6341 _
Reno etion;ro e ccmun garage In Cambridge, a prcexaung noncmdornnn^
i stnlaurz under the zoning ordinance made to implcntent n then�e of
USC to an architect's Ironic office were 'nlicrauons as matter of last
tcilhm the Ineanmp of that term as u,cd nuhe zoning orchnance_16.41
1
I
(-[\'[L AcnoN commenced in the Superior Court Department
on October 1. 1985.
The case was heard by William Highgas, Jr., L, sitting
under statutory authority.
Bit Albright for the defendant.
Edtt�ard IA/olf, Jr.. for the plaintiffs_
DRIBLN. 3. file questions raised by this appeal are. (l)
whether, under the Cambridge zoning ordinance, a special permit
is required when alterations are made to a nonconforming building
to acconunodatc a change from one pemutted accessory use to
another pemlitted use; and (2) whether the renovations, made in
this case to implement the change from a garage tom architect s
home office, were as matter of law alterations within the meaning It
of the ordinance. we axe constrained by the terms of the ordinance
o answer "yes" to both questions.
\N e take the facts from the findings of the trial judge. Relying
on a building permit issued by the city's then zoning compliance
_K lane P. Nichols. ----
k�
t
4i
26 Mass. App. Ct. 631
632
Nichols v.B..d of Zoning APPA°f'CMbridgc.
iffs;Webb and Jane P:.Nichols', renovated
officer,the plaint .
their garage so that Webb could use it as a home architect's
the district. The garage
office, a permitted'accessoi' use in
did hot.meet.tha sideline>'requirements of the ordinancevements
was a preexisting nonconforming structure.wed mprod not change
made by the Nicholses;listed in the margin,
the ,footprint' of the garage- ara e-had been converted into
More than a year after the g g
a home office",'another zoning inspact. ...notified and requ fed
that therenovatioris violated the zo e. go
the cc
pector's ruling
a specialr.mut'The plaintiffs app after that body
to the board of,zonmg a -peal
oardj and '
nl ms ctor s `determination 'to:the
upheld the secpnd zomngi Pe, ;,, " , b designation
Superior Court: Alter hearing, aud$el g Y
ruled•:that sQecial pennitlwas notreq the pertinent
VJe turn to the governing statute acid ordinance,
arts'of'wtuctf'are set.forth m
ilia anargtrt.`'General Laws;
parts h .,4c r c
_. . rformed .installation of utilities(water.gam,
' 'The following,work was Pe hung fixtures elecatric.outlets .a Sas sP,?� qua
i; 11
and electric)iinstallaaon of:lig hd -oii"thefloorr installation
heater two telephones�a cc ing fan and carpe g
e doors;reshmghag the roof;
and=insulahonof'a`uew i�Is operlthe garage cement+wall dropping e
lacmginc"te p al sue and insialiauov A
enlargement of one window to three nines its opgin.•
pPin SV1ndOW5 ` 1:. { r k z fva tl `. tz31S0 needed ThC
Of sC \ ,
Theon issiated' red
! 6oardcon ediditsrePY inSt 1975 c:808 § 3,
t ' ng 1 to structures .4
•Generar,Imwb' 140A onwgoodnancesshalluojaP.FY .
oruses law X.in ex ste ce. bpt shall aPP to tissued afterbthe first a s,
I: extension of such tv,e to a�buildms° ordmance7rfto any ou<trucuon
notice ofG' bhcge of such'stcu tbr°uY°otera fo
e uon v �f.� e first nonce of laid Pr for'the same p uPose`m a
1; e�eg7""" .&�-event p+irP f . ri4t4.;.•e -.
irs;useforasub„s7anYtaUY , alit hasi�aypplted) d
substantiallylerrnt faignner (. P Secuon 1r4.
bfrUte z8ning ordinance4s enutled Nobconfonniry
Arable8iD00 S'S ' = r stares or n'
aiollows sor {r
8:11 reads pot appl to'exrshng raildmg sf but rt•Slia115
-Ibisii;j& MAI
1'. to lhewxisang of any butlaiji v 's�iucture br16f 15nd "•
41Y y Epange of yse thereof and to ady coni uct fof abnilduigto;+
Alien rile same;would amount to recoustmcuon,extension of
strucWre 1a�louia? ..
structural change+and td�Y alteration of a buildi±ig
w •
c sc
i
r,33
�
26 Mass- API i d,�:
of
CC
St
4(IA' 6 I„nt ixonlormin the tnuscs' cmc,1i110 Iinildi t`t mind
be accorded to on �'
uctures, and the exisun2 use of any buildin11 g o[ structure
1946). 13111' Y stated, the is i
" (citations omiucd) Inspecror of Bldgs- o uclj u g
Alurph) , 320 Mass. 207, 20)
cs t0 the three situations ofi1°r�oit-
an
provides that it thl I a change of use, -1
Hance I acute, � ) "
(ormit}' permitted by the g amounting to arocon-
or structural change and (3)
ny altern-
alteration of a noncon(ormmb bwl tna
struction', extension
tion of a [noncon(ormmg] building or structure to Pmvidz for
Is use for a pwpose or n} a manner substantially different from
he use to which it was Put before alteration.
Thz plaintiffs would ha 'e
LIS construe the ordinance I onl a
when there is an alteration to
equlring a special pzrnut
usz
channe from a nonconfor"X111-
building to accommodate a a
i
Neither the statute nor the Yoc`
use. ;..
qs cated above. the ordinance h f
to another noncon(orm[n„ -fhe first Is when there is
dinance is so limned. set forth in
in three nonconforming situations.
any change in tf nonconforming use. Section g.21 ,
e to a Permitted use may
he margin,5 makes clear that a cecnal permit A fortiori. if no
h effected without seeking a sP permit'
use to another
alterations are made, a change from a P
resented to the board °lies only
Permitted use need nottb� eferred to in § S.I I app
appeal. The chance is nonconforming d to
when the use, although changed, structure is
When, ho "'ever, a
nonconforming prior le alteration
different from the useP —
pros'ide for ause —
__
differ enc from the use
or for its use for the same purpose _
for its us pose or in a manner or ub,
its US}' ff t,
�u� before iter [lot supplied). rovidcs
to which it was } greater extent ( P arae ing A p
to a substantially g ecial perm[ts and so Par [ing Appeal may
Section 8.22 Pro°ides for sP no
"In a Residence distract the board of Z,o use)
in feleviell part ement of a n0nconfomaln_
grant a Spec, Permit lot [he altuation or enlargement o(a
nructurI (but not die alteration or enlarg
- which existed at the[f cable
g �1 Any nonconforming structuree 01
Planning'Board of the aPP
public hearing by amendment thereto may be
the firs[ notice of p Prior ordinance or any 11
Provisions of this or any P in but when so changed to be conform '
continued or changed to be conform S• L.
inLC a shall not be made nonconforming again.'•
I'
ism
634 26 Mass. App. Ct. 631
Nichols v. Board of Zoning Appeal of Cambridge.
(situation three), the ordinance applies even if the new use is
a permitted one. Beginning with St.. 1920, c. 601, § 7, with
only minor changes in language, the zoning statute applies to
"any alteration of a building to providefor.its use for a purpose,
or in a manner, substantially different.from the use to which
it was put before the alteration." See Opinion of the Justices,
234 Mass. 597, 603(1920) If the plaintiffs' construction were
accepted, the third portion(in our numbering)of the ordinance
(and the zoning statute)would be wholly superfluous as changes
from one nonconforming use to another are already,covered
by the first portion.
The judge, relying on Boston&Albany.R.R. v.Department
of Pub. Util., 314:-Mass :634;:637-638, .(1943), .ruled that a
permit was not required because the structure..had not been
"altered such as'to:amount ito>a-xeconstruction,:extension.or
{, structural change ' The oidinance, however, specifically dif-
ferentiates between:th64nagnitude of the alterations required
h by-thesecond=d:third Uauses iThe.renovations.madehere,
see note`2, suprapalthough not perhaps of the magnitude of
"reconstruction, extension oistructural change," were,altera-
I! tions as matter of lawand were not ordinaryrepairs..See Boston €
I&F Albany R R v Department of:Pub. -UtiL , -.314 Mass.. at
637 638;D Ambra v Zoning:$d of Appeal of Attleboro,,324
' Mass. 61;.•62;63 (1949).
R1
Although we hold that the.ordinance requires a special permit `
from --&board tosanction the alterations;hade byrtheplaintiffs,
when the board considers the.application fora special permit to
it will doubtless_consider.the.following'matters:favoring its "
-grant 'The_footprint'=of.the building has inot.changed; and there V
liar b66n`no increase'm its`noiiconfdrr iity'As the judge inti-
jpated,the appearrance pf the garagehasimproved bMoreover,
! awhile ilie city is not:estopped_.by the'action of the.first zoning
inspector,')ie board,=m considering whether to grant a permit
+,. -1,ln cases,where the movisrons of the relevant o>;dtnance were less clear, i.
;;.courts have_construed them tolallow intenor al[eiatrons for a--pennftted use
.Without aspecial pelirut'-See Petruzzi,v 'I.ohiq Bd of Appears of Oxford, M
176Conp.479 484,U .79) qukdu akar sR;2 n1wi ownshrpZonfngA,ppeals• t f
2 Pa Commw. 489 494,(1971) r
is
Jf
h n':' ..�,,. f:n < fie. ^'+ r HY Cn S`t"" r:•�, s l ! r
�� l§��, { ae ilj �s lK{ �=^y�t? � -wkf SLS'(+., d*��44^•fe"� ^fy J S ` ��'
to��i-✓S+ °. �,•. }t.r f ✓..Leez'S M n. �2� '�1� rK si���i�'n�Lel=i'�'n x f v s .,i �:
Sr
bs
i"�~�'J-'.yR'.1,4;'r fY,Y',:✓r 5.,.,eA`7v� E 3;wP`:r�"�ri.�'s�: 3f„�at«"..�r�Jr.S,Ea*n.�`'T`3..rrtC .`F,;: +• r s.. ..; � r.” ' }'
r+i
y r y' ry x
J ry
4Y`ti �
ry
Y
i n
� Y_{
k
k.;
?`4
r
! 1
t
1�
1
i
i
i
1 '
r
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
ROBERT A. LEDOUX Legal Department LEONARD F. FEMINO
City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant City solicitor
508'745a363 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 50e-9214990
December 6, 1994
Leo Tremblay, Building Inspector
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
RE: 124.124 1/2 Federal Street
Salem, Massachusetts
Dear Mr. Tremblay:
You have inquired as to the legal status of the property above-mentioned as a two
family residence. The following is the undersigned's opinion as to that legality.
The property involves a substantial house sitting near the corner of Lynn Street and
Federal Street. The house itself is non-conforming as to dimensional requirements and has
been such since the adoption of zoning in the City of Salem in 1925. Because of its prior
existence, it is however non-conforming and as such may remain so without modification.
It appears that the house at some point in the past was used as a two family dwelling.
That use was suspended some time ago and it became a one family house on one half of the
house and a physician's office in the other half of the house. The owner was Dr. Melvin
Goodman and he in fact maintained that property as a single family residence with a home
occupation for a number of years.
Dr. Goodman passed away during the 1980's and the house was occupied by his widow
until her demise. The house now is vacant and it is the desire of the new owners to use the
property as a two family dwelling.
I am personally familiar with the site, having lived for a number of years at number
123 Federal Street, which is directly across the street. The house in question is a substantial
house of many thousand square feet of living area, far too much to be economically feasible
for single family use in this day of high energy costs.
Leo Tremblay, Building Inspector
December 6, 1994
Page Two
The proposal to use the house as a two family dwelling is a permitted use in the zoning
district and does not in any fashion alter the footprint of the building in question. The issue
of parking has constantly been an issue on Federal Street and there is none available on the
site. It is the undersigned's opinion that the lack of parking should not prohibit the use as a
two family because virtually all of the houses on that street lack sufficient parking and the lack
of parking preceded zoning.
It is the undersigned's belief that the use of the house as a two family dwelling would
be nothing more than a continued use of a non-conforming structure in an R-2 zone, which
by definition is a legal use of the property.
I hope this is of assistance to you.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT A. LEDOUX L- _M
RAL/lcm
Titg of *ttlem, massac4usetts
Public Prupertg 19epartment
Iguilbing Department
Mut dalem (�rrrn
508-745-9595 Ext. 380
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
December 7, 1994
Cote & Casey
Attorneys at Law
Shetland Office Park
27 Congress Street
Salem, Mass. 01970
RE: 124-124 1/2 Federal Street
Dear Mr. Casey:
Per your request, I have submitted documents to Mr. LeDoux for an
assessment of the legal use of the above mentioned property. Enclosed
please find Mr.LeDoux findings of legal use of the property. Thank you
for your patience in this matter.
Sincerely,
Leo E. Tremblay
Zoning Enforcement Oficer
LET: scm
cc: Robert LeDoux
Councillor Harvey, Ward 2
Ctv of ttlem, C Httssttcl�u$etts
Pnttra of �trpeal
/ O
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE ESTATE OF MELVIN
GOODMAN FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT1�24-124 1/2 FEDERAL STREET�(R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held December 7,1994 after having been
continued from November 2, 1994. The following Board Members were
present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen,
Albert Hill and Associate Member Arthur Labrecque. Notice of the
hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing
were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
At the request of the petitioners Counsel, Daniel J. Casey, the Board
of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant leave to withdraw this
petition for a special permit to allow a single family dwelling to be
converted into a two family dwelling. Granted leave to withdraw
without prejudice.
GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE
December 7, 1994
Stephen C. Touchette, Chairman
Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK.
Y
L ,
r
1 R
-7f'
a
IJL-I
d
;f
� C
�rw
i
i
y,
1
1 '
c
i
k: DRAWINCTRL¢
WF1 IE5r EM\/A,nbH .
ECT
1,f
�J12* FEVWAL STREET(,/grin BthaA.tsocsatesylne
33 q xim"RM•wmm a musulimEm02111 DATE c $GLF. n JOB r G DRAWN BY
};. M(617)338.3888■PAR(617)482-"97. BI ZI�J5 1'4 `1�0�� 5oa
FO70nEAM/BROOK9DE 576198 '
1
1 !
fe.
S:
1i
. 3
9
NEW OPE#�IN�a-�
NEW GIAt
� NEW aift
Palzl'E Cot.FiY#Zp.
DADft, GUL "1
S
WITH WINfoN
r 1t11C(. .MUG Iii
-bW-
Cl I J
A*
•R i
•�x
!C
iSn i.
;I
I_
t F
1 DRAWING MU FIRST Fl.l M M.A 4 ..
PIIOJECT
(fnn Beha Associates,Inc. I � � - 5r
33 XINGSTONSTREET •BOSTON•MASSACNUSETTS02111 DATE SCALE1 JUTS 6 DRAWN BY
TFL 1617)338-1000 •FAX(617)482A037 6/21�j q sI�On �05
FOTOBEI1MIBpOOK507E meFle � � ' ' •�.: _ I
5g7 JAI
3,9B0 .75 /icy b F 1
S by D01,�
573 3,2 Og3 a y
576 d 592
ror 1 8/3
e
s ,
Ios-s em 47 �
sI
1lls ao ja I ,ee a•, • 1II ,Io w•,i_�
F E D E R A L '
its c,Ie , nr-ne ne -`�
T - o h 3 s,-s a
2
m 4,940 53 r
5J 5,/ st
x 537 :LFTs i:•'. i
4000 536
,000
T
1�l
I
10
s
, • '`j 4
r
M OWL l y.
L �l!
MOWN- ta�T
}
L,11A +I rA, t.; tID
,
;I
u I
� A
DRAWING TIII.F, yip rLAW _
I,
PROJECT' •'�� I
(/6m BehaAssociates, Inc. IZ4 FWEKPL ST
33KINGSTONSMET • POS"FON• MASSACIIUSEIIS02111 DATE SCALE
7T1..16,17)338 30M1 •FAX(6171482.9097 -71-61105 1/f!; )OB 1�5 DRAWN BY
(nitg of *alem, fiittssar4usetts
Public Properttl Bepartment
s Nuilbing Department
(Out Ouiem Ifreen
500-745-9595 fid. 300
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
July 19, 1994
Betsy Merry
Sales Associate
23 Summer Street
Salem, MA 01970
re: 124-1241 Federal Street
Dear Ms. Merry:
I have enclosed a copy of the City Solicitor's opinion relative to the
use of the above referenced property. It is his opinion, and I concur with
this opinion, that this property is a lawful single family dwelling and
would require approval of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeal to
increase or change said use.
If I can be of any further assistance do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely, n
Leo E. TremblEnforcement Zoning Enforcement Of icer
LET:bms
cc: Councillor Harvey, Ward 2
Enclosure: (1 )
o. copy w CERTIFICATI.OF OCCUPANCY
3 CITY OF SALEM
issued:U as 9GPermit N:&
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 Cit of Salem Building Dept.
DATE July 24, 19_96 PERMIT NO, 365-1995
APPLICANT Silva Bros. Construction ADDRESS 41 Locust St. 1499
(N0.) (STREET) (CONTR'S LICENSE)
CITY Reading„ STATE Ma ZIP CO& 8E1Z TEL.NO.
PERMIT TO Alteration (_) NUMBER OF
STORY One Family DWELLING UNITS 1
(TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT) NO I 0 OSEDUSE)
AT(LOCATION)'r�124'Federal St.I ZONING DISTRICT R-2
i(NO.I��ISTREET)---- - '
,
BETWEEN AND
(CROSS STREET) (CROSS STREET)
LOT
SUBDIVISION LOT BLOCK SIZE
BUILDING IS TO BE FT.WIDE BV FT.LONG BV FT.IN HEIGHT AND SHALL CONFORM IN CONSTRUCTION
TO TYPE USE GROUP BASEMENT WALLS OR FOUNDATION
(TYPE)
REMARKS. Renovate kitchen, 2 bedrooms, & exterior repairs. L.E.T.
AREAOR100,000. PERMIT Q 605.
(CUBIC/SQUARE FEET)
VOLUME ESTIMATED COST FEE W
OWNER Kevin & Deborah Guinee
ADDRESS a era t. Salem, BUILDING DEPT. L.E.T.
~ o Job Site Copy
(duplicate issued: 3/26/96) BUILDING
CITY OF SALEM
l gra SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
PERMIT
DATE 7/24 19 95 PERMIT NO. 365-95
APPLICANT
Silva Bros. Construction ADDRESS 41 Locust St. 1499
_ (N0.) (STREET) (CONTR'S LICENSE)
Reading
8 STATE MA ZIP CODE 01867 TEL.NO.
Alteration ORB famil NUMBER OF
PERMIT TO
( ) STORY y DWELLING UNITS 1
(TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT) NO. (PROPOSED USE)
124 Federal St. ZONING
AT(LOCATION) DISTRICT R-2
(NO.) (STREET)
BETWEEN AND
(CROSS STREET) (CROSS STREET)
LOT
SUBDIVISION LOT - BLOCK SIZE
BUILDING IS TO BE FT.WIDE BV FT.LONG BY FT.IN HEIGHT AND SHALL CONFORM IN CONSTRUCTION
TO TYPE USE GROUP BASEMENT WALLS OR FOUNDATION
(TYPE)
REMARKS: Renovate kitchen, 2 bedrooms, & exterior^repairs. L.E.T.
AREAOR `�?t.iti 1 "tl V� MIL L0 UNV'42000. PERMIT
VOLUME ESTIMATED COST FEE 605.
(CUBIC/SQUARE FEET)
OWNER + (' BUILDING DEPT.
L.E.T.
ADDRESS BY
THIS PERMIT CONVEYS NO RIGHT TO OCCUPY ANY STREET,ALLEY OR SIDEWALK OR ANY PART THEREOF,EITHER TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY,ENCROACHMENTS
DON PUBLIC PROPERTY,NOT SPECIFICALLY PED-.^TT^:D UNDER THE BUILDING CGDE,MUST BE APPROVED BY TF:E,UnISDICToC-C GTREET OR ALLEY GRADES AS WELL
AS DEPTH AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC SEWERS MAYBE OBTAINED FROM THE OEPARTMENTOF PUBLIC WORKS.THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT RELEASE THE
APPLICANT FROM THE CONDITIONS OF ANY APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION RESTRICTIONS.
MINIMUM OF THREE CALL INSPECTIONS APPROVED PLANS MUST BE RETAINED ON JOB AND THIS CARD KEPT WHERE APPLICABLE SEPARATE
REQUIRED FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK: POSTED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE. WHERE A PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR
(.FOUNDATIONS OR FOOTINGS. ELECTRICAL,PLUMBING AND
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS REQUIRED,SUCH BUILDING SHALL
2.PRIOR TO COVERING STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL INSTALLATIONS.
MEMBERS(READY TO LATH). NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE.
3.FINAL INSPECTION BEFORE OCCUPANCY.
POST THIS CARD SO IT IS VIS113LE FROM STREET
BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVALS PLUMBING INSPECTION APPROVALS ELECTRICAL INSPECTION APPROVALS
d��/� CJ
976 _
2 2 2 �-N S. .3 ,�6 -93—
)%E—AL I INSPECTION APPROVAL F!PE DEPT.INSPE ING APPROVALS
OTHER CITY ENGINEER 2 2
WORK SHALL NOT PROCEED UNTIL THE FASNOTED
IT WILL BECOME NULL AND VOID IF CONSTRUCTION WORK IS INSPECTIONS INDICATED ON THIS CARD
INSPECTOR HAS APPROVED THE VARIOUS TARTED WITHINSIXMONTHS OF DATE THE PERMIT S ISSUED CAN BE ARRANGED FOR BY TELEPHONE
STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION ABOVE. OR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION.
Citp of &- ale Y, A1a!55arb 15ett!6
Public property 3hpartment
Wui(bing Bepartment
ene f9atem Breen
(978) 745-9595 (Ext. 330
Leo E. Tremblay /P 44,
Director of Public Property ��
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
May 29 , 1998
Mrs . O ' Shea
1 Lynn Street
Salem, Mass . 01970
RE : 1 Lynn Street
Dear Mrs . O ' Shea :
Following an inspection of your property located at 1
Lynn Street we offer the following observations and
possible solution to resolve this matter .
1 . The fence was installed by the O ' Shea ' s .
2 . The right of way on the Guinee ' s property is free and
clear .
3 . Both parties will discuss either trimming of bottom
of the gate or reversing the swing to direct the gate
into Mrs . O ' Shea ' s property.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation
in this matter .
Sincerely, —,`//
6ExPierre
Assistant Building Inspector
TSP : scm
cc : Kevin & Deborah Guinee
Councillor Flynn, Ward 2