0 GLENN AVENUE - BUILDING JACKET GLENN AVENUE
��.CCr01y,
MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN MARY P. HARRINGTON
CITY SOLICITOR "t"�" no+�` ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
93 WASHINGTON STREET O � AOC 93 WASHINGTON STREET
andand
187 FEDERAL STREET CITY OF SALEM !JO 59 FEDERAL STREET
SALEM, MA 01970 MASSACHUSETTSE I'VE 0 SALEM, MA 01970
745.4911 CIT OF S HL.IDH, t m SS. 744.0350
744.3383
Please Reply to 187 Federal Street Please Reply to 59 Federal Street
January 29 , 1986
Gerard Kavanaugh
City Planner
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Re: , _ s , andf148
Glenn venue, Salem
�- _
Dear r. Kavanaugh :
You have requested my opinion relative to three questions
presented concerning the construction of a single-family home
on the above two lots. Specifically; you have asked the follow-
ing:
1 . Q. "Does the petitioner need only 50 feet of
frontage because the lot was subdivided
prior to the enactment of the zoning ordi-
nance?"
A. An examination of the title to the above lots
indicate that they were held in common owner-
ship and about to be conveyed to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the current 100 foot lot width
requirement would have to be complied with
before a single-family structure could be
built. Hcwever,- thc combined width of the
two lots totals 116 : 70 square feet and the
, combined area totals 16, 104 square feet.
This conforms to the width and area require-
ments of the zoning ordinance.
2 . Q. "what must the petitioner submit to the Plan-
ning Board so that a building permit can be
granted?"
A. In the instant case, it is my opinion that
there is no division of land into two or more
lots so as to constitute a subdivision within
the meaning of Massachusetts General Laws Chap-
ter 41 , Sections 81K-81GG. Rather than divid-
ing land, the petitioner is combining land to
meet the R-1 density requirements of the zon-
ing ordinance.
Gerard Kavanaugh - 2 - January 29 , 1986
3 . Q. "What improvement to the abutting roadway must
be undertaken to meet necessary subdivision
control and frontage requirements?"
A. None, as it is not a subdivision. However, the
zoning ordinance (Definitions Sec. II, #23 ) re-
quires buildable lots to have frontage on an
improved public street. I believe it would be
reasonable to assume that "improved" means
paved. As the ordinance does not specify how
much frontage on an improved street is requir-
ed, it is my opinion that if there is at least
some frontage abutting an improved street
(paved) the land .is buildable, provided it
meets the density requirements of the zoning
ordinance . It should also be noted that Sec-
tion 25-105 of the Salem Code of Ordinances
relative to sidewalks and curbing should be
complied with.
In summary, it is my opinion that the construction of a sin-
gle-family residence on the above lots does not constitute a sub-
division. In addition, the two lots appear to conform in all res-
pects to the minimum density requirements (area, width) for con-
struction of a single-family home. Obviously, all the other re-
quirements of the zoning ordinance relative to the position of
the proposed residence (coverage, front yard, side yard, rear
year and height) must be complied with.
If you desire additional information, please feel free to
contact me.
/Veytru �yo ,
Michael E. O' Brien
City Solicitor
MEO/jp
cc: City Clerk
Building Inspector