Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
4 BENTLEY STREET - ZBA (3)
� \ r �� �� �' � � ��� �� �. 0 ,:� ,� ♦� .4 [�. V , 1 Legal Notice Cry OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL 745.9595,EXL 361 will hold a public hearing for all per- sons interested in the petition submit- ' ted by NICHOLAS OSGOOD seeking, a Variance and or Special Permit from side setback to allow a third floor, dedc to be constructed for the proper- ty located at 4 Bentley Street.R-2.1 Said hearing to be held Wednesday,' April 19,2906 at 6:30 p.m.,120 Wash- ington Street,3rd floor,Room 313. ' Nina Cohen,Chairman, SN—4/5,4/12106 s ON CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS �y BOARD OF APPEAL (` 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOC QI I Yr Or SALEM. MA SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 CLERK'S OFFICE TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 1006 DEC -I P b 32 December 7, 2006 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeal Decision — Amended _ - -Petition-of Nicholas Osgood requesting a Variance From Side Yard Setback to Allow Construction of Exterior Stair at 4 Bentley St. (R-2 District) A public hearing on the above petition was opened at the April 19, 2006 meeting of the Zoning Board pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, and was continued until the October 18, 2006 meeting. The following Zoning Board members were present: Beth Debski, Nina Cohen,Richard Dionne, Steve Pinto and Robin Stein The petitioner Nicholas Osgood requests a variance pursuant to section 9-5 to allow the construction of an exterior stairway at the existing dwelling at 4 Bentley Street in the two-family zoning district. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Plans and Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Nick Osgood purchased the property at 4 Bentley St, a three-story residence, in 1995. 2. In May 2005 Mr. Osgood applied for and received a building permit to construct a roof deck and an exterior staircase to allow egress from the third floor. 3. In applying for the building permit, Mr. Osgood submitted sketched showing that the proposed stairway would extend to within three feet of the rear property line and would not be in compliance with rear setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Building Department understood that the dimensional requirements of the zoning code were superceded by Building Code and fire safety requirements, and for that reason the permit was issued without the granting of a zoning variance. 4. In May construction of the stair commenced. A neighbor, Linda Moustakis of 2 Bentley St., immediately objected, on the grounds that the structure was too close to the property line and did not meet zoning requirements. She requested that the Building Department demonstrate their basis for setting aside zoning considerations. She further pointed out that no variance would be required if the egress stairway were sited on the driveway side of the house. 5. On November 22, 2005 the Building Commissioner informed Mr. Osgood that the building permit granting permission to construct the stair was not validly issued and directed him to correct the zoning violation within 60 days of receipt of the notice. See Letter of Thomas St. Pierre, Zoning Enforcement Officer, dated November 22, 2005, incorporated by reference herein. 6. On information and belief, Mr. Osgood did not comply with the Building Commissioner's directive. In late 2005, Mr. Osgood converted the property to a --condominium association-and-filed a-Master Deedand Declaration of Tnist — -- 7. On November 30, 2005 Mr. Osgood conveyed the second floor condominium to Victoria Regan. 8. Mr. Osgood's request to build a roof deck was not part of the original building permit since there was no roof deck shown on the sketches submitted to the Building Department. The Building Department has asked the petitioner to remove any portion of the roof deck that was completed, and, upon information and belief he has done so. This petition does not include a request for a variance to allow a roof deck. 9. At the public meeting, Ms. Moustakis and her attorney John Carr spoke in opposition to the proposed variance, on the grounds that the exterior stair was too large and deprived her of privacy in the enjoyment of her property. Also speaking in opposition to the stair were neighbors Robert Wilde of 5 Daniels St. and Kate Gill of the Daniels House Inn. 10. Also speaking in opposition were City Councilors Lucy Corchado, representing Ward 1, and Lenny O'Leary, Ward 4 representative and a friend of the abutter. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition and detailed plans, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner's request for a variance to construct an exterior stair within 2.5 ft of the rear property line constitutes a substantial detriment to the public good. 2. The proposed expansion does nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. t. 3. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) opposed (Cohen, Dionne, Stein and Pinto) and none (0) in favor, to approve the request for a variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and •-----approved-by-the-Building=Commission er- _ ------ -- -- --- 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. I" eez'A Nina Cohen, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeal - ...�.y.,..t CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS a31e S� BOARD OF APPEAL �" i '( 01 `.;ALEM,.MA 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLEWS OFFLCE j SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 p00�� KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 10 NOV 22 ,P 3: 210 MAYOR November 20, 2006 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeal Decision Petition of Nicholas Osgood requesting a Variance From Side Yard Setback to Allow Construction of Exterior Stair at 4 Bentley St. (R-2 District) A public hearing on the above petition was opened at the April 19, 2006 meeting of the Zoning Board pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, and was continued until the October 18, 2006 meeting. The following Zoning Board members were present: Beth Debski, Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Steve Pinto and Robin Stein The petitioner Nicholas Osgood requests a variance pursuant to section 9-5 to allow the construction of an exterior stairway at the existing dwelling at 4 Bentley Street in the two-family zoning district. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Plans and Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Nick Osgood purchased the property at 4 Bentley St, a three-story residence, in 1995. 2. In May 2005 Mr. Osgood applied for and received a building permit to construct a roof deck and an exterior staircase to allow egress from the third floor. 3. In applying for the building permit, Mr. Osgood submitted sketched showing that the proposed stairway would extend to within three feet of the rear property line and would not be in compliance with rear setback requirements of the Zoning " Ordinance. The Building Department understood that the dimensional requirements of the zoning code were superceded by Building Code and fire safety requirements, and for that reason the permit was issued without the granting of a zoning variance. 4. In May construction of the stair commenced. A neighbor, Linda Moustakis of 2 Bentley St., immediately objected, on the grounds that the structure was too close to the property line and did not meet zoning requirements. She requested that the Building Department demonstrate their basis for setting aside zoning considerations. She further pointed out that no variance would be required if the egress stairway were sited on the driveway side of the house. 5. On November 22, 2005 the Building Commissioner informed Mr. Osgood that the building permit granting permission to construct the stair was not validly issued and directed him to correct the zoning violation within 60 days of receipt of the notice. See Letter of Thomas St. Pierre, Zoning Enforcement Officer, dated November 22, 2005, incorporated by reference herein. 6. On information and belief, Mr. Osgood did not comply with the Building Commissioner's directive. In late 2005, Mr. Osgood converted the property to a condominium association and filed a Master Deed and Declaration of Trust. 7. On November 30, 2005 Mr. Osgood conveyed the second floor condominium to Victoria Regan. 8. Mr. Osgood's request to build a roof deck was not part of the original building permit since there was no roof deck shown on the sketches submitted to the Building Department. The Building Department has asked the petitioner to remove any portion of the roof deck that was completed, and, upon information and belief he has done so. This petition does not include a request for a variance to allow a roof deck. 9. At the public meeting, Ms. Moustakis and her attorney John Carr spoke in opposition to the proposed variance, on the grounds that the exterior stair was too large and deprived her ofrivac in the P y enjoyment of her property. Also speaking in P g opposition to the stair were neighbors Robert Wilde of 5 Daniels St. and Kate Gill of the Daniels House Inn. 10. Also speaking in opposition were City Councilors Lucy Corchado, representing Ward 1, and Lenny O'Leary, Ward 4 representative and a friend of the abutter. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition and detailed plans, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner's request for a variance to construct an exterior stair within 2.5 ft of the rear property line constitutes a substantial detriment to the public good. 2. The proposed expansion does nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) opposed (Cohen,Dionne, Harris and Pinto) and none (0) in favor, to deny the request for a variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. harmony with the existing 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in h y g structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. -:" 6,&A� Nina Cohen, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeal MAR 0 4 2010 DEPT, OF PLANNING& Commonwealth of Massachusetts GIMMUNI DEVELOPMENT ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT CIVIL ACTION NO.: ESCV2009-00998 Matthew Kelleher, PLAINTIFF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA V. AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Nicholas Osgood, DEFENDANT To: Danielle McNight, A TRUE COPY ATTEST Keeper of Records W.K. FOWLER- PROCESS SERVER& DISINZBA, Salem, MA DATE:TERESTED P RSON /7?Cc� y LrJ/ U i GREETING. YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, in the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in accordance with the provisions of Rules 26, 30, and 34 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, to appear and testify on behalf of Defendant, Nicholas Osgood, before a Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or before some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths, commencing at 4:00 PM on Wednesday, March 17, 2010, at the Law Offices of David M. Gabriel, 131 Dodge Street, Beverly, MA 01915, and there to testify as to your knowledge at the taking of the deposition in the above-entitled action. And you are further required to bring with you: • The documents referred to in Shedule A attached hereto. HEREOF FAIL NOT, as you will answer your default under the pains and penalties in the law in that behalf made and provided. Please note that you may avoid appearing for the deposition if the requested records are provided to this office on or before March 16, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. and the records are duly certified by their custodian as being true and accurate and kept in your ordinary course of business. Please contact Attorney David M. Gabriel at (978) 998-6830 if you have any questions or concerns. Dated at: Beverl , Essex oun , this 3 y of March,A.D. 2010. (tor ey fendant odge treet iy Address Beverly Massachusetts My Commission Expires: 12-26-2014 City or Town State SCHEDULE A The Deponent is required to produce at the time of the scheduled deposition any and all documents which concern, refer or relate to the real property located at 4 Bentley Street, Salem, Massachusetts, including but not limited to units 1, 2, & 3. ( hereinafter referred to as the 4 Bentley Street property), and more specifically: 1. Copies of any and all documents and tangible items concerning the 2006 Request for Administrative Appeal and 2006 Petition for Hardship Variance with the City of Salem, including but not limited to the actual petitions and all attachments, findings, rulings, minutes of hearings, audio recordings, newspaper publications, letters to abutters, notices to abutters, certified mail receipts, certified mail return receipts, petitions, support letters and other correspondence from abutters and/or other residents of the city of Salem and all other documents and correspondence concerning the 4 Bentley Street property. 2. Any and all documents which constitute refer or relate to communications by and between the ZBA and/or Victoria A. Regan and/or Attorney John Carr, and/or Linda Moutsakis and/or Matthew Kelleher concerning the 4 Bentley Street property. 3. All photographs, videotapes, movies, diagrams, sketches or other pictorial depictions or representations of the property or any adjacent areas, (including but not limited to the rear staircase) concerning the 4 Bentley Street property. 4. All documents, including files, records, correspondence, letters, certified mail receipts, certified mail return receipts, proof of mailing forms, internal memoranda, memoranda, permit applications, building permits, occupancy permits, inspection reports, sign off sheets, notations of telephone conversations, and any other documents of any nature referring and/or concerning the 4 Bentley Street property. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO: Z6 6 Z3 4 9 L LINDA MOUSTAKIS, ) PLAINTIFF ) i V. ) NICHOLAS OSGOOD, BONNIE BELAIR, ) BETH DEBSKI,ANNIE HARRIS, STEPHEN ) PINTO, ROBIN STEIN,RICHARD DIONNE,and ) NINA COHEN, CHAIRPERSON, BEING ) REGULAR and ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF ) THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS, ) DEFENDANTS rr NOTICE OF APPEAL TO ESSEX SUPERIOR COURT FROM NOVEMBER 27,2006 DECISION OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL UPHOLDING SALEM BUILDING COMMISSIONER'S AUGUST 31 2006 DETERMINATION THAT 4 BENTLEY STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS IS A LEGAL 3-FAMILY DWELLING I, John H. Carr, Jr., attorney for the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action, hereby give notice to the City Clerk of the City of Salem, Massachusetts and to the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal that said Plaintiff has appealed the November 27, 2006 Decision of the Salem Board of Appeal upholding the Salem Building Commissioner's August 31, 2006 Determination that 4 Bentley Street, Salem,Massachusetts is a legal 3-family dwelling. A copy of the Complaint filed as Essex Superior Court Civil action no. 2006-2399C on December 18, 2006 is attached hereto. Linda Moustakis, By her attorney, December 19, 2006 John H. Carr, J , Esq. 9 North Street Salem, MA 970 978- - 60 BBO# 075281 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO: -2,00 — Z3 9 9 C LINDA MOUSTAKIS, ) PLAINTIFF ) V. ) G' NICHOLAS OSGOOD, BONNIE BELAIR, ) BETH DEBSKI, ANNIE HARRIS, STEPHEN t.' PINTO, ROBIN STEIN, RICHARD DIONNE, and T;,-- NINA COHEN, CHAIRPERSON, BEING ) %' REGULAR and ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF ) ri THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL OF THE ) _ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS, ) DEFENDANTS ) COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO M.G.L. CHAPTER 40A SECTION 17 APPEALING NOVEMBER 27,2006 DECISION OF THE SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL UPHOLDING AUGUST 31,2006 DETERMINATION OF SALEM BUILDING COMMISSIONER THAT 4 BENTLEY STREET SALEM MASSACHUSETTS IS A LEGAL 3-FAMILY DWELLING This is an appeal from a Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeal of Salem, Massachusetts(hereinafter"the ZBA"or"the Board"), dated November 27, 2006 and filed with the Salem City Clerk on November 29, 2006, upholding the Salem Building Commissioner's August 31,2006 Determination that 4 Bentley Street, Salem, Massachusetts, is a legal 3-family dwelling. A certified copy of said November 27, 2006 Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit A. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Linda Moustakis (hereinafter"Ms. Moustakis"), owns and resides at 2 Bentley Street, Salem,Massachusetts, 01970, which abuts the subject property at 4 Bentley Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970. She initiated the.complaint to the Salem Building Commissioner(hereinafter"Mr. St. Pierre" or"Zoning Enforcement Officer") challenging the existing use of 4 Bentley Street as a legal 3-family dwelling. 2. Defendant,Nicholas Osgood(hereinafter"Mr. Osgood"), is the owner of unit no. 3 at 4 Bentley Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970 and is/was the applicant for said variance. 3. Defendant,Nina Cohen,who resides at 22 Chestnut Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, is the Chairperson of the Salem Board of Appeal. She voted to uphold Mr. St. Pierre's August 31, 2006 Determination that 4 Bentley Street is a legal 3-family dwelling. 4. Defendant, Richard Dionne, who resides at 23 Gardner Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA. He voted to uphold Mr. St. Pierre's August 31, 2006 Determination that 4 Bentley Street is a legal 3-family dwelling. 5. Defendant, Stephen Pinto(hereinafter"Mr. Pinto"), who resides at 55 Columbus Avenue, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA. He voted to deny Mr. St. Pierre's August 31, 2006 Determination that 4 Bentley Street is a legal 3-family dwelling. 6. Defendant, Robin Stein(hereinafter"Ms. Stein"),who resides at 141 Fort Avenue, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, is an alternate member of the Salem ZBA. She voted to uphold Mr. St. Pierre's August 31, 2006 Determination that 4 Bentley Street is a legal 3- family dwelling. 7. Defendant,Bonnie Belair(hereinafter"Ms. Belair"),whose mailing address is P.O. Box 685, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA. She was absent at the October 18,2006 ZBA hearing. (This is the only address available from the Salem ZBA.) 8. Defendant,Beth Debski (hereinafter"Ms. Debski"),who resides at 43 Calumet Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is an alternate member of the Salem ZBA. She was absent at the October 18, 2006 ZBA hearing. 9. Defendant,Annie Harris (hereinafter"Ms. Harris"),who resides at 28 Chestnut Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA. She was absent at the October 18, 2006 ZBA hearing. 10. The Plaintiff has standing to bring this action, as she is substantially aggrieved by the November 27, 2006 Decision of the Salem ZBA upholding Mr. St. Pierre's August 31, 2006 Determination that 4 Bentley Street is a legal 3-family dwelling. JURISDICTION 11. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 17 of Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. 12. This case is timely, as it has been file 'thin twenty (20) days from November 29, 2006, which is when the ZBA's November ,12006 Decision was filed with the Salem City Clerk. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS - 2 - 13. Ms. Moustakis acquired sole title to 2 Bentley Street, Salem,Massachusetts (hereinafter "2 Bentley Street")in 1996,which property is adjacent to the subject property at 4 Bentley Street. 14. At the time she acquired 2 Bentley Street in 1996, 4 Bentley Street was then being operated as a 3-family dwelling, and Ms. Moustakis then had no reason to believe that the third apartment was an illegal unit. 15. Both 2 Bentley Street and 4 Bentley Street are located in an R-2 (two family)residential zoning district. 16. Mr. Osgood acquired sole title to 4 Bentley Street, Salem,Massachusetts(hereinafter"4 Bentley Street") on November 30, 1995 for$137,250.00. 17. At the present time it is unknown whether said purchase was an arms length transaction, or whether Mr. Osg d had a prior relationship with the Grantor, Anne Carey a/k/a Anne C. Stunzi, Trustee Wthe 4 Bentley Street Realty Trust. 18. On or about February 24, 1997 Mr. Osgood filed an application for a building permit with the Salem Building Department relative to 4 Bentley Street. 19. Said building permit application listed Mr. Osgood's address as"4 Bentley Street,Apt. 2, Salem,MA." 20. With respect to the question"What is the purpose of building?"on said application, Mr. Osgood answered"Renovate 3rd floor Apartment." 21. With respect to the question"Will building conform to law?"on said application, Mr. Osgood answered"Yes." 22. On or about February 27, 1997 then Assistant Building Inspector John J. Jennings (hereinafter"Mr. Jennings")issued a Building Permit to C&D Construction of 42 Coolidge Road, Lynn, MA to"RENOVATE 3RD FL APT; REMOVE&REPLACE WALLS & RENOVATE BATH AS PER PLANS" relative to 4 Bentley Street. 23. Said February 27, 1997 Building Permit recited the following in bold oversized lettering: POST THIS CARD SO IT IS VISIBLE FROM STREET 24. Mr. Osgood never posted said Building Permit so that it was visible from the street, and on information and belief, Mr. Osgood never posted it at all. 25. Ms. Moustakis was also not aware that any work was then going on at 4 Bentley Street. - 3 - 26. The first Ms. Moustakis became aware of the February 24, 1997 Building Permit and interior renovations at 4 Bentley Street was after Mr. Osgood's construction of the 3- story exterior staircase at 4 Bentley Street in May/June of 2005,as hereinafter described. 27. On or about May 25, 2005 Mr. St. Pierre issued Building Permit No. 1006-05 to Mr. Osgood to erect a free-standing, 3-story, exterior staircase within 2 %z feet of the shared side-lot line between 2 Bentley Street and 4 Bentley Street. 28. Mr. Osgood commenced work almost immediately and completed construction of the 3- story staircase in June of 2005. 29. Said construction also included a deck on the roof of the rear el of 4 Bentley Street, for which Mr. Osgood obtained no building permit whatsoever. 30. Said exterior staircase violated the minimum side-lot and rear setbacks provided in the existing R-2 zoning for that area,which are either 5 feet or 10 feet, depending on whether the staircase is deemed to be attached to the structure. 31. Ms. Moustakis contacted Mr. St. Pierre immediately following commencement of construction of the exterior staircase and immediately questioned whether it was permitted under the Salem Zoning Ordinance as a matter of right. 32. Between May 2005 and November 2005 Ms. Moustakis continually sought a ruling from Mr. St. Pierre regarding whether the staircase was illegal. 33. Finally, when Mr. St. Pierre had failed to respond after four months, Ms. Moustakis wrote Mr. St. Pierre a letter on September 20, 2006 which stated the following in its entirety: I am writing this letter to request the revocation of Permit 1006-05 for a staircase and deck at 4 Bentley St., Salem, MA 01970. The permit allows the staircase to be built only two feet two and one-half inches from my property and fence line and is an invasion of my privacy and a devaluation of my property. It is also in violation of the state building code 780 (M12 1014.12.1)which states that staircases and structure shall be ten feet away from the property lines. I request an answer in writing that there is another law that contradicts the code. -4 - 34. On November 22, 2005 Mr. St. Pierre wrote Mr. Osgood a letter revoking the Building Permit for the 3-story staircase that by then had already been built,which letter included the following in relevant part: You are directed to correct this zoning violation within 60 days upon receipt of this notice. Your right to appeal is to the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals. If you wish to discuss this matter, please contact me directly. 35. On March 24, 2006, approximately 94 days following Mr. St. Pierre's November 22, 2006 directive to remove the illegal staircase within 60 days, Mr. Osgood filed an application for a variance to retain said staircase. 36. In the spring of 2005 Ms. Moustakis retained Attorney John H. Carr, Jr. to represent her in this matter. 37. In the course of their research Mr. Carr and Ms. Moustakis became aware that 4 Bentley Street was wet being operated as a 2-family apartment building as of the enactment of the current zoning ordinance in 1965, and thus, was not a legally-grandfathered 3-family dwelling after all. 38. Mr. Osgood's March 24,2006 application for a variance to retain the staircase was first heard on April 19, 2006, and was subsequently continued to July 19, 2006, September 20, 2006, and October 18, 2006. 39. hi the course of these proceedings Mr. Carr formally raised the issue of whether 4 Bentley Street is a legal 3-family dwelling. 40. On July 19, 2006 Mr. Wysor filed a Memorandum of Law on both issues, and on August 15, 2006 Mr. Carr filed an opposing Memorandum of Law. In addition, Mr. Carr submitted multiple affidavits from people who had either lived in the building or in the immediate neighborhood in 1965,all of whom testified that the building was only a 2- family dwelling as of the enactment of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in 1965. 41. It also came to light that on November 12, 1993, Salem's then Building Inspector, Leo Tremblay, wrote an enforcement letter to the then owner of 4 Bentley Street which recited the following in relevant part: This office has learned you are trying to rent a third floor apartment at the above reference address. The records in this department show this property to be a two family dwelling in a Residential Two Family District(R-2). To allow use as more than two - 5 - family would require a variance from the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals. 42. This letter was followed approximately two weeks later by Mr. Tremblay's November 29, 1993 letter to said owner of 4 Bentley Street, which recited the following in relevant part: We have been informed that you have rented a third floor apartment in the above referenced property. You were told by this department in a letter dated November 12, 1993 that you could not have a third unit there, that this property, according to our records, is only a two fancily dwelling, and it would require Board of Appeal action to increase the use. You have evidently chose to ignore my letter. You are hereby ordered to cease and desist all illegal use of the property and to contact this office upon receipt of this notice to advise use of your intentions. Failure to comply will result in the appropriate legal action being taken. 43. Notwithstanding said letters, on December 21, 1993, less than one month after his November 29, 1993 letter, Mr. Tremblay signed a statement on the field card for 4 Bentley Street that read"Determined to be a lawful three(3) family dwelling as per the Zoning Enforcement Officer:"opposite his signature. Said determination was unsupported by any reasoning or reasons for the change whatsoever. At apparently the same time the box in the field card listing"No. Of Families"was obviously altered by hand from"2"to "3." 44. On August 31, 2005 Mr. St. Pierre wrote Mr. Carr in response to the latter's complaint that 4 Bentley Street was not a legally-grandfathered 3-family dwelling, stating the following in relevant part: I have reviewed the information regarding the legal status of 4 Bentley Street. It is my opinion that 4 Bentley Street is a 3-family dwelling. It is my understanding that the third unit it protected from any action by the City due to the provisions of Mass General Law 40A, Section 7. 45. On September 12, 2006 Mr. Carr timely appealed Ms. Moustakis' appeal of Mr. St. Pierre's August 31, 2006 Determination to the Salem ZBA. - 6 - 46. October 18, 2006 the Salem ZBA voted 3 to 1 to uphold Mr. St. Pierre's August 31, 2006 Determination. 47. Forty days later, on November 27, 2006,the Board issued its written Decision relative to said vote, which Decision was filed in the Salem City Clerk's office on November 29, 2006. 48. Apart from the issues raised in this Complaint, said November 27, 2006 Decision contains a least the following 3 mistakes: a. The Decision recited that those voting on November 27, 2006 included Ms. Harris,who did not even attend the October 18, 2006, ZBA hearing, and failed to include Ms. Stein who did; b. The Decision also recites that"the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) opposed(Cohen, Dionne, Harris, and Pinto)and none(0)in favor..."when in fact the vote was 3 to 1,namely Mr. Pinto in the affirmative and Members Cohen, Stein, and Dionne in the negative; C. Said Decision is also incorrectly worded in the negative, namely that 4 members were opposed"to denying the request for administrative review,"whereas in actual fact, 3 members voted to oppose thergrantine of said administrative appeal and one (namely Mr. Pinto)voted in favor. 49. On information and belief, in 2004 and 2005 Mr. Osgood converted 4 Bentley Street into 3 condominium units, unit 1 comprising the entire first floor(less common center and rear staircases), unit 2 comprising the entire second floor(less common center and rear staircase), and unit 3 comprising the entire attic story(less common center staircase). CDnr@fGiorl 50. AS part of said ae-v _*.*__ Mr. Osgood had removed the second internal staircase to the third floor, which had necessitated the 3-story exterior staircase as a second means of egress for the third floor unit. 51. Notwithstanding Mr. St. Pierre's November 22,2006 letter to Mr. Osgood directing him "to correct this zoning violation ie. the 3-story exterior staircase within 60 days upon ((t receipt of this notice"Mr. Osgoodconveyed unit 1 at 4 Bentley Street to Matthew Kelleher on November 30, 2006 for$239,000.00,and sold unit no. 2, also on November 30, 2006, and retained ownership of unit no. 3 on the third floor, which now lacked a legal second means of egress. 52. It now appears that Mr. Osgood concedes that 4 Bentley Street was not a legally grandfathered 3-family dwelling at the time of the enactment of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in 1965, and that it was not a legal 3-family dwelling at the time he purchased said property on November 30, 1995. Instead, he rests his case entirely on the statute of limitations found in Section 7 of Chapter 40A. -7 - 53. As to each of the following Cou,Its, the Plaintiff reaffirms,re-alleges, and reincorporates all of the prior allegations contained in paragraphs 1-52 inclusive above. ARGUMENT COUNTI 4 Bentley Street was never a legal 3-family dwelling 54. No owner of 4 Bentley Street ever obtained variance to allow a third residential unit at said address, which at all material times was and is located in an R-2 zoning district. 55. Neither was said third unit grandfathered as a prior non-conforming use as of the enactment of the current Salem Zoning Ordinance in 1965. 56. Although the effect may seem the same, Section 7 of Chapter 40A does not create additional legal density; it only bars a challenge to an alleged illegal use or structure, and then only under very exceptional circumstances. 57. As hereinafter described,the Plaintiff alleges that those circumstances do not exist here. 58. Thus,the Salem ZBA acted willfully and capriciously, and exceeded its authority, in denying the Plaintiff's requested relief. 59. For this reason alone, said November 27, 2006 Decision should be nullified and overturned. COUNTII Ms. Moustakis had no reasonable notice of the February 24, 1997 Building Permit 60. Mr. Osgood did not post the February 24, 1997 Building Permit"so that it is visible from street,"as was required. 61. On information and belief, he never posted it in any location. 62. Neither was Ms. Moustakis aware that there was then any work going on in the building. 63. The first Ms. Moustakis became aware of the February 24, 2006 Building Permit was after construction of the 3-story staircase in May/June of 2005, which was also when she became aware of Mr. Tremblay's November 12, 1993 and November 29, 1993 enforcement letters, and the irregularities concerning the charge of the field card and the 2-family status of 4 Bentley Street. - 8 - 64. Had she had actual or constructive notice of said work in 1997, she would have similarly inquired and challenged same,just as she did concerning the staircase. 65. Given said circumstances the - 6 years statute of limitations never commenced. 66. Thus, the Salem ZBA acted willfully and capriciously, and exceeded its authority, in denying Plaintiff's requested relief. 67. For this reason alone, said November 27,2006 Decision should be nullified and overturned. COUNT III The February 24, 1997 Building Permit does not protect what is otherwise an illegal third residential use 68. At all material times 4 Bentley Street was and is located in a R-2 residential zoning district. 69. No variance was ever obtained for a third residential unit;neither was said third unit in existence as of the creation of the current Salem Zoning Ordinance in 1965, and thus, it is not a prior non-conforming use. 70. The February 24, 1997 building permit application recited only that certain renovations were being made to 'Td floor apartment," ie. to an apartment on the third floor,"which does not necessarily settle the issue of density at said property. 71. Said application also incorrectly answered"Yes"in response to the question"Will building conform to law?"on said form,which was not then true. 72. Given the above circumstances,the Salem ZBA acted willfully and capriciously, and exceeded its authority, in denying Plaintiff's requested relief. 73. For the reason alone, said November 27,2006 Decision should be nullified and overturned. RELIEF SOUGHT The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: a. enter a Judgment in her favor annulling in full the November 27, 2006 Salem ZBA Decision upholding the Salem Building Commissioner's August 31, 2006 Determination that 4 Bentley Street is a legal 3-family dwelling. b. determine that 4 Bentley Street is only a legal 2-family dwelling. - 9 - c. award the Plaintiff cost and reasonable attorneys fees in connection with her prosecution of this appeal; d. grant such other relief as is just and expedient. Respectfully submitted, Linda Moustakis, By her attorney, December 18, 2006 !BBO# r, ., s . th Stree , MA 0197 25-0060 0752 - 10 - . ONWT CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL • ° 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR t SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 97B-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR _ November 27, 2006r City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeal �^ Decision Petition of Linda Moustakis requesting Administrative Appeal From Nonconforming Use Determination at 4 Bentley St. (R-2 District) r^3 A public hearing on the above petition was opened on October 18, 2006 at a meeting of the Zoning Board pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following d' Zoning Board members and associate members were present: Beth Debski,Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Steve Pinto and Robin Stein. The petitioner Linda Moustakis of 2 Bentley St. sought to appeal, pursuant to Section 9- 2(e) of the Zoning Ordinance, a determination by the Building Commissioner that the dwelling at 4 Bentley Street is an existing nonconforming three-family dwelling. This determination was made in an August 31, 2006 letter from Thomas St. Pierre, Zoning Enforcement Officer and Building Commissioner, to Attorney John H. Carr Jr., who represents Ms. Moustakis, a copy of which is attached to this decision and incorporated by reference herein. Appeal of a determination by the Building Commissioner is according to Section 9-2 (e) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, which states: (e)The concurring vote of four (4) of the members of the board of appeals shall be necessary to reverse any order or decision of the inspector of buildings or to decide in favor of the applicant on any matter upon which it is required to pass under this ordinance or to effect any variation in the application of this ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Linda Moustakis has owned and resided at 2 Bentley St. since 1996. 2. In May 2005 the owner of the abutting property at 4 Bentley St. obtained a building permit and began construction of an exterior stair to the third floor, with the intention of converting the property to three condominiums. 3. Ms. Moustakis objected to the granting of the building permit on the grounds that the dwelling was a two-family dwelling and was located in an R-2 (two-family) " z LST �. Sly R% MASS. district. She also objected to the location of the exterior stair within three feet of the property line, asserting that the dimensional setback had not been observed. 4. In April 2006 Nick Osgood, the owner of 4 Bentley St., applied to the Zoning Board of Appeal for a variance to allow the exterior stair to be built within the rear yard setback. When the matter came for a hearing, Ms. Moustakis raised the issue of whether the dwelling was a legal three-family dwelling? The matter was continued, and attorneys for both parties filed briefs with the City of Salem, which were sent to the members of the Zoning Board of Appeal. 5. In July Ms. Moustakis submitted affidavits concerning the prior use of the dwelling from former residents Stanley Doran, William Wilson, Marianne Bick, Bernard Bartnicki, Jennie Bartnicki and Sandra Baldwin. These affidavits are incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit A. 6. On August 31, 2006 the Building Commissioner determined that the three-family use was "protected from any action by the City due to the provision of M.G.L. c.40A, Section 7." See Letter of Thomas St. Pierre, August 31, 2006, attached as Exhibit B. 7. In October 2006 the Board of Appeal sought an opinion from the City Solicitor with respect to the Building Commissioner's determination, and this opinion was received at the public meeting on October 18, 2006. The Opinion of the City Solicitor, dated October 18, 2006, is attached and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit C. 8. At the public meeting, attorneys for both parties presented argument. On the basis of the above-findings of fact;including allevidencepresented at the public hearing and evidence submitted prior to it, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: The request for appeal from the Building Commissioner's determination of August 31, 2006 is denied. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four (4) opposed (Cohen, Dionne, Harris and Pinto) and none (0) in favor, to deny the request for administrative appeal. Nina Cohen, Chairman TRUE CC P E Salem Zoning Board of Appeal CITY CLERK SALEM, MASS. Chafer 18, 2006 Pagr 2 there must have been a building permit the permit must have been issued by"a person duly authorized to issue such permits; and, the real property .must have been "improved and used in accordance with the terms of the original building permit." Even if a building inspector mistakenly interprets the zoning ordinance or bylaw and issues a building permit,any aggneved party has only six years to file a claim for relief. Hall�rrovipgrtowa Zoning Board oi Appeals, 56 Mast App. . 1103 (2002); jo 385 Mass. 205 (1982). In this particular case, the building inspector issued a building permit in 1997 to "Renovate 3'd fl. Apt. as per plans: new bath 8&replace walla.- The records also note that a certificate of occupancy was issued on May 15, 1997 for the work done pursuant to the building permit. Is appcars from the same records the building inspector had determined that the premises was "a lawful three (3) family dwelling." The building is located in an Rr2 District. It is my opinion that even if the building inspector issued the building permit in error, the time period to appeal his decision has expired. An appeal should have been commenced at leastprior to May 15, 2003 (when the certificate of occupancy was issue. If the Board finds; that a building permit was issued by the proper individual and the prenites was-improved and used in accordance with the-permit,-then-an-action to annul the issuance of the building permit and/or probNt said use is barred by the six year statute of limitations. CITY OF SALEM "A LEGAL DEPARTMENT 97 VARI eiaNSj=XI •SAIM4 VAW 29AMTS01970 TV-90L745-9595 &FNC 9M744.U" gN.BYtiW4R7�r S31�A1�'IIiRBDtiA1�D. �pp 5 ILA" aff scumu0. OUarOR Memorandum for Zoning Board of Appeals To:Nina Cohen, Chairperson, Zoning Board of Appeals From Jerald A Parasella, Assistant City Solicitor RE: 4 Bentley Suter October 18,2006 You requested a legal opinion concerning the issuance of a building permit to the owner of a two-familydwelling to allow the premises to be used as athree-family dwelling.Your specific request is attached as Exhibit A of this opinion. Your request is in response to an appeal filed by Linda Moustaliis of 2 Bentley Street. . She is appealing the decerrnination of the building commissioner that the use of 4 Bentley Street as a three-family home is protected by the statute of limitations in building commissioner's letter is Exhibit B . 40A sec. 7 the ) General Laws ( $ Gene Chapter Chapter 40A sec..7 gosems_the issuance of building permits.The statute gives the building inspector the authority to issue a of. per=.When issuing a building permit, the building inspector must determine if the proposed use meets the zoning requirements of the locus. There is no requirement for notice or a hearing for the issuance of a building permit. Chapter 40A sec. 7 creates a six yw statute of limitations period to challenge that a buildingpermit was issued in error.In order to obtain the protection of the six year statute of limitations: CITU OF SAUMMe IWASSACHUSItY`PS PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 120 WAaNIF4STON STREET. 3R0 FLOOR SALEM MASSAcmusar M O 1970 TELErwoNe: 9767439595 EXT,380 FAX: 970.74098AS CeaDERLCY DRISCOLL MATOr! August 31.2006 John H. Carr Jr.. Esquire 9 North Street Salem.Ma.01970 M 4 Bentley Street Dear Mr. carr. I have reviewed the inf rmstion regarding the legal stal"s of 6 Bentley street_ It is my opinion that 4 Bentley is a 3 family dwelling. R is my unda a ndiag dw th a third unit is pm ted from any nation by the(Sty due to the provisions of Mase Qeperal I aw 4()A,S If you wish to appeal this daetminadont you must file=appeal with the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals. It should be acted, the Issue of the three foully statue is not before the Board. The issue be Cott the Board is the exterior deck and stairway. Sincerely. Thetslas SL Pierre zoning Sm2wacrnag Officer Building Cossmissioner cc:Philip Wysof. N. Mizabetb RcraanL Solicitor Jary Fadsalla.Assistant Solicitor ATMAYU of SANDRA J BAI.�WIN COffCxRtm 9 4 BMWI I.&Y Sl' M 1, Sandra J.Baldwin,being duly sworn, hereby emew that the following is true: 1. I reside at 1 Washington Street,Salem,M machaseth 01970. 2. I am an office manager of the Boston Law firm of Goodwin Procter. formally Goodwin,Procter&Hoar. 3. My mother,whom maiden name was Helen Bartnicki.grew up in the Bw dd family homestead aloo8 with bar 6 srbliags,including our uncle, Bernard Barb-cK who is also submitting an affidavit, along with his wife. iconic 4. I am imlmately Familiar with 4 BcaHey Sheep Salem,Iv amehusetb.not omkly becamhse I grew up at 2 Bentley Shoat,but also because I continued to visit nwnmecous founds and wIs ivcs in tba neighborhood even atter moving out ofApHedtey Street in 1954. S. I can tmequivo"W state that until 1%9(at a minimum)4 Bentley Skeet, Salam,MA had beat omtinuous]y operated as a 2-family apartment building,with one an the terse floor and the other on the second. 6. I now rearM that a vxdaooe was never obtained for 4 Bentley Street to become a 3-&wily property,nor was it gmd&&cmd as a legal 3-family property as of the creation of the aazast zoning in 1%5. Sigmod under oath this / day of July 2006. Sandra J. Baldwin AFM-AM OF J>£NM HARTN M ggff CERNII'IG 4&3 Y S'1'RM I.Jennie Bartnicki,being duly MOM haft swear than the following is mte: 1. I qtly reside at 122 Locust Street,Denvess,Massachusetts 01923 with my husband of 65 years,Benaatd Bavtnicki. 2. From the time my husband and I rowricd in 1941,=uA 1999 (appToximstely).wevisited my sisters and bmtheis,who resided in the Battnicla f roily homestead at 2 Bentley Street,Salem,M&Uwhugd% virtually every Weekend- 3. I can uncoodidomally state Brom first-hand knowledge tbA 4 Bentley Street w"condimously used as s 2-$mWy apartment building from 1941 to at lesat 1998(at a minimum).which consisted ofat fust floor unit,and a second unit on the second floor. Signed undcr oath this y day of July 2006. Jennie Barkaiuld .vonnwyTT OF Bit111VARD B AlY[7YI� I.Bernard Bumid d,being duty swam betsby svmar that the following is tree: 1, 1 cu Mfr Made at 122 Locust Street.DanveM MRS3111hysetts 01923 with raywife of 65 years.Ione saw 2, Fmm the time my wife and I mar iod in 1941.until 1998(VPms�l9)I we visited my sistm and brothers,who resided in the Bartaicki family homestead at 2 Bentley Street.Salam.Maua&uoc'%v o'u 'O'y weekend. 3. I can UnennManally state from fM band kwwkdgo*m 4 Bentley Street was ceeRbitnoos�Y used as a 2-famiPY building fio® 194' to at least 1998(at:a min imuniN hick O° of a first Hoar mail,and a second unit on the second floor. Signed under oath this /)A day of July 2006- Herflard Bartnicki B ["n��RN1NG 4 BltLtl'LEY STRESI' ICK 1,Marianne Birk,beim duly sworn,bereby swear that the following is MUC. 1. 1 currently rea+de at Unit No.217 of the ChOM Hill Condominium Aputmw%4 Duels Fond Road,Demers.Nfts9whuisetes 01923. 2. My bcotb",Staoloy Dare.and I lived at the secood floor unit at 4 goodgy,Shed,Salem,Manach non Som 1957 to 1961 inclusive. 3. During the entice time we resided at 4 Bentley Strut,the PmPmtY w28 operated as a 2-famiJY apartment building. 4. In 1961 we movcd.lust aroand the eocmw to 155 Derby Street,where we ooetinued to reside unto 1968. 5. Bvea after tfomiliarwith 4 nficy Stree+and I moved to 155 Daby S ftcet In 19610 we cCntinued too bevegyvery not only because we b were intimately i with aha nedg Awhood m general,having Broom op thee,but alto because we bad several friends and xcladvea living on Bmtley Shoat,uaoludmg out cousba,Philip and Louis Swiniuck who resided at 14 Bentley Street 6. During the period 1961 tol%I inclusive,4 Bentley Sheet wsa likewise continuously operated as a 2-family apart zie t bwldiu& 7. lam not related by blood or by marriage to Linda Moustnlds of 2 Bewley Street.Salem,Maaaachwotts,01970. Signed under oath this l y r�day of July 2006. arlanne gick AFFIDAVIT O]P STAPILEY DORM CODiCER1yI�TG 4 B�•Nl L1;7t STiZEEr I, Stanley Doran -being duly sworn,hemb'swear that the following is tree 1. I currently reside at 12 Codas'Hill Drive.Danvers.Msssa bnv ts.01923. 2, My sister,Matiaoae Biot,and I lived at the second Baa unit st 4 Beeley Street,Salem,Nbnwhosem fin 19S7 to 1961 inehtaive. 3. During the mire UM we resided st 4 Bentley Sanot,lbs PenPcgtY` w operated as a 2-family npw nnant buildb & 4. In 1961 we moved just around the cam=to 155 Daby Sera t,wbere we owed to reside uwA 196& 5. Even after my sister and I moved to 155 Derby Styet�ino1961vi we continued to be vay familin with 4 Bentley Street. my were iatimabely famr7isr with the neighborhood in yeocral,having PC" up there,but also because wo had several Wends and velsfives living on Bee ft Strut,intimae ma oonsina,YbiliP md,Low SwIV'u*who msided at 14 Beasley Street. 6. During the penud 1961 to196g inclusive,4 Bentley was likewise continuously operated as a 2-farily spwma 7. 1 sm not relatied by blood art by rearnsge to Linda Moushltis of 2 Bentley Street,Salem.Massachusetts,01970. Signed under oath this day of July 2006. tanley AFFIDAVIT Of V- UJAAM VA LSOPI CONCERNING 4 BENTLEY gTREET I, William Wilson,being duly swam hereby swear that the following is tine: 1. I cum mtly reside at 4200 South East 47*Place,Ocala,Florida 34480. uo✓ 2. Dating 1963 and 1964.1 resided is th floor sparomEvt at 4 Bentley Sheol.Salam.Mamudmsetb during 1 Bad 1964. 3. As I am 73 years old now.I was thea 43 and 44 years old. 4. During my eatim occupency of my first floor apartment at 4 Bentley St tic%the peopmW was opetaaed as a 2-family apertrmnt building,the ppatsim unit being thea occupied by as Edwmd Lassiter rmd his wifq Ana Lasritar. 5. I am not related by blood or by marflsv to Linda Moustalds of 2 Bentley St vaL Salem.Masaachusdta„01970. signed Una"oath this 171< day of Jnly 2006. &�dcei- William Wilaoa a John H. Carr, Jr., Esq. 9 North Street Salem, MA 01970 Phone: 978-825-0060 Fax: 978-825-0068 November 30,2006 RECENE By Mail & By Facsimile: (978) 740-0404 DEC 0 4 2006 Daniel J. Merhalski, Staff Planner Department of Planning and Community Development DEPT.Of PLANNING& City of Salem cOMMONITY DEVELOPMENT 120 Washington Street, P Floor Salem, MA 01970 Re: November 20,2006 Salem ZBA Decision denying Petition of Nicolas Osgood for a variance to retain the,3-story exterior staircase at 4 Bentley Street, Salem, MA. Dear Mr. Merhalski: Thank you again for your 11:16 a.m. fax of yesterday's date sending me a copy of the Board's November 20, 2006 Decision relative to the above matter. I am herewith enclosing a copy of a November 29, 2006 letter I hand-delivered to Ms. Cohen's residence at 22 Chestnut Street, Salem, MA yesterday evening concerning same. By way of follow-up uP to that letter, could you kindly check your records to determine whether Ms. Stein,and not Ms. Hams,took part in the vote denying Mr. Osgood's application for a variance. ery tru John H. Carr, Jr. Enc. Cc.Nina Cohen, Chair Ms. Linda Moustakis John H. Carr, Jr., Esq. 9 North Street Salem, MA 01970 Phone: 978-825-0060 Fax: 978-825-0068 November 29, 2006 By Hand Nina Cohen, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeal C/o 22 Chestnut Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: 4 Bentley Street, Salem,MA 01970 Dear Ms. Cohen: With the utmost respect, I believe there is an inadvertent ambiguity in the November 20, 2006 Decision of the Salem Zoning Board Of Appeal regarding the 3-story exterior staircase at 4 Bentley Street which should be corrected. I received a copy of that Decision from Dan Merhalski of the Planning Department by fax at 11:16 a.m. this morning. My clear recollection of what transpired at the October 18,2006 ZBA meeting is that a motion was made to approve Mr. Osgood's application for a variance to permit him to retain the exterior 3-story staircase, as built, which was ultimately denied,with 4 members voting in opposition(namely yourself, Mr. Dionne,Ms. Harris, and Mr. Pinto), and none voting in favor. However, on close reading of your November 20, 2006 Decision,there is a double negative in the wording on page 3 of the Decision that some might construe to mean just the opposite result, since the paragraph beginning"In consideration of the above"at the top of page 3,recites "four(4) opposed and none(0) in favor, to deny the request for a variance..."Emphasis added. Further complicating this ambiguity is the fact that the above-quoted language is"subject to the following terms, condition,and safeguards,"which are 7 in number, and which include a condition no. 2 that states"All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner,"which conditions are completely irrelevant since the application for a variance was denied. I realize that the three express finding of fact beginning at the bottom of page 2 of the Decision, and continuing at the top of page 3, are consistent with the vote I remember, and are at variance with the above-quoted language at the top of page 3,but again,I respectfully submit that such an ambiguity exists, and therefore should be corrected, especially since it is so easy to do so. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, John H. Carr, Jr. Cc. Phil Wysor,Esq. Ms. Linda Moustakis ZBA Action Form - 2006 Petitionerki2k 0SU040 I Date: 101$166 Location: g qty SJ� Members Present: Vote Motion Second - Nina Cohen —' A Richard Dionne rB 'v.�awa. P/YM ']E+hzabe+,D@b&ki Alternates Present: --Robin Stein .—Steven Pinto Vote Total: L")— Conditions: + Mme_ j to �,a, r V® �' <lft., sig, ai John H. Carr, Jr., Esq. 9 North Street Salem,MA 01970 Phone: 978-825-0060 Fax: 978-825-0068 April 19, 2006 By Hand Members Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: 4 Bentley Street, Salem, MA—Application for Variance and Special Permit Dear Members: I represent Ms. Linda Moustakis of 2 Bentley Street, Salem, MA 01970 in opposing the March 24,2006 petition of Nicholas Osgood for a variance and special permit to ratify the already-built third floor deck and catwalk, and 3-story exterior staircase at the rear of 4 Bentley Street, Salem,MA. Regretfully,prior plans prevent me from being present at the April 19, 2006 hearing of the Board on said application. Ms. Moustakis will be testifying in person at the hearing regarding how allowance of Mr. Osgood's petition will substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of her property, especially her privacy, and how difficult Mr. Osgood has been to deal with. I will be addressing in this letter Ms. Moustakis' purely legal objections to the petition. There are two distinct aspects to Mr. Osgood's petition: the 3-story staircase which has already been built approximately 2 1/2 feet from Ms Moustakis' side lot line at 2 Bentley Street,which requires a variance,and the deck and catwalk which has already been built on the roof of the 2-story el overlooking Ms. Moustakis' backyard, which(apparently) requires a special permit The rear el at the 4 Bentley Street property is located directly on the shared property line with 2 Bentley Street. According to Section 7.7 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance the minimum required setback for the exterior staircase is five feet if the structure is deemed to be attached to the main dwelling,and ten feet if unattached. The staircase,as built,is three stories tall,has two landings,is built approximately two feet away from the rear wall of the el,and apart from a purely functional attachment where the top step intersects with the catwalk located on 1 ti the roof of the two-story el, is entirely free-standing and self-supporting. Since such attachment is minimal at best, and is non-structural,we contend that the spirit if not letter of Section 7.7 is best served by enforcement of the 10 foot setback. To do otherwise is to glorify form over substance. But that is not our primary legal objection by any means. The stated basis for Mr. Osgood's variance application is hardship. In the fourth paragraph of page one of his March 24, 2006 letter attached to his petition he clearly and succinctly states the basis for his alleged hardship as follows: "The hardship in this case was created because the inspectors thought that the egress requirement superseded the setback requirement." In point of fact,this is not a legally-recognized hardship at all, as it is well-settled Massachusetts law that a municipality can not be bound by the mistakes of its municipal employees,and that said mistakes can not be used as a basis for circumventing zoning requirements. Mr. Osgood may or may not have been acting in good faith in building the 3-story exterior staircase in reliance on the building permit mistakenly issued by the assistant building inspector,but that does not detract from or supercede the protections afforded Ms. Moustakis by the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Whether the 5 foot setback is applicable,or the 10 foot setback,in either case the staircase as built violates both, since it was built approximately 2 1/2 feet from Ms. Moustakis' property line for each of its 3 stories. As such, since the staircase was built by Mr. Osgood, the claimed hardship is entirely self-created, and thus, is not recognizable as a basis for a hardship variance as a matter of law. (In defense of the assistant building inspector, if the clarity and completeness of Mr. Osgood's application for a building permit was anything like his current petition for a variance and special permit, I can well understand how a mistake could have been made, given how incomplete and gratuitously muddied his present petition is.) Clearly the catwalk,deck,and 3-story exterior staircase are all driven by the lack of an independent second means of egress from the purported third floor unit in the attic of 4 Bentley Street, which continues to be owned by Mr. Osgood,who previously converted the first and second floors into separate condominiums,which he subsequently sold. Both are now owned by separate owners. Since 4 Bentley Street is located in an R-2 district,Mr. Osgood claims that the third floor unit is a grandfathered non-conforming use, or put another way,that it was legally pre- existing as of the date of enactment of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in 1965, and that it has been continuously operated as such ever since. But,for the reasons hereinafter set forth, our investigations reveal that the third floor unit is not a legal dwelling unit at all. Thus, what Mr. Osgood is applying for is a second 2 means of egress for a unit that is not even legal to begin with. By contrast, if the attic were consolidated with the second floor unit, which already has two separate interior means of egress,there would be absolutely no need for the monstrous exterior staircase that has already been built. Since it was Mr. Osgood who created and sold off the second floor condominium,this is another reason why Mr. Osgood is solely responsible for his own present predicament. Ms. Moustakis' family has owned 2 Bentley Street since her grandfather purchased the property in 1925. She herself began living there in 1945 when her aunt owned the property. Her immediate family moved out in 1958,but she continued to frequently visit relatives there until she inherited the property from her aunt in 1996. She has owned and resided at 2 Bentley Street full time ever since. As such,Ms. Moustakis is well aware of the occupancy history of 4 Bentley Street,both from the standpoint of her own personal knowledge, and from people she knows who formerly lived there and are currently available to testify. This first-hand knowledge is buttressed by the City Voting Lists and the City Directories separately published each year for a period well before and after the enactment of the current Zoning Ordinance in 1965,each of which lists the then occupants of 4 Bentley Street as follows: Voting Lists City Directory 1960 Richard Audrey Florence Doran Florence Doran 1961 Richard Audrey Florence Doran Florence Doran 1962 Richard Audrey Directory Missing Vacant 1963 Edward&Anna Lassiter William Wilson William&Faye Wilson 1964 Douglas& Susan Call Douglas Call William&Faye Wilson William Wilson 1965 Douglas& Susan Call Douglas Call Doris&Ronald Jalbert Ronald Jalbert 1966 Helen Borowski Helen Borowski Edward&Anna Lassiter Edward Lassiter 3 Bear in mind that under Massachusetts Law the burden of proof is not on those challenging the validity of an alleged legally-grandfathered non-conforming use, but of those asserting such validity. Our position is that the third floor unit at 4 Bentley Street is not a legally-grandfathered unit for the reasons set forth above, and thus, Mr. Osgood lacks the standing to even seek his within variance and special permit. But even if the third floor unit were legally- grandfathered,we contend that Mr. Osgood's application for a variance concerning the 3- story exterior staircase should be denied because (a)there is no legally recognized hardship and(b) granting his petition would substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and Building Code. As Ms. Moustakis' photographs will clearly demonstrate,both ordinances were designed to protect property owners such as Ms. Moustakis from the kind of 3-story monstrosity that has been built at the very edge of her property line. Regarding Mr. Osgood's application for a special permit to ratify the third story deck and catwalk, I would respectfully point out the following: a. That unlike the 3-story exterior staircase,Mr. Osgood did not obtain a building permit prior to building same,and thus,even that mistaken use of hardship does not apply; b. That a deck on the roof of the 2-story el exceeds the needs of a second means of egress in any event,and represents a gross invasion of privacy for each of the surrounding property owners in this densely built historic neighborhood,including Ms. Moustakis; and C. That the deck and catwalk are both inextricably part of the same second means of egress system as the 3-story exterior staircase, and since a hardship can not be legally granted to permit the staircase,Mr. Osgood's petition for his special permit concerning the deck and catwalk should be denied as well. I am dictating this letter over the phone to my secretary from Charlestown, South Carolina. A primary reason why Charlestown is as beautiful as it is is its strict zoning enforcement,which includes the earliest historic design controls in the nation, dating back to the early 1930's. Salem is no less significant historically or architecturally. Like Charlestown a major reason for its success is the quality and vitality of its neighborhoods. Ms.Moustakis cares deeply for her property and has always taken pains to maintain both her house and grounds to the highest possible standards. She also cares deeply for the neighborhood,and would hate to see an adverse precedent created that 4 would allow the proliferation of these kinds of exterior staircases and decks. Indeed,the question boils down to simply this:would you want such a 3-story staircase built within inches of your property line, especially if it were not allowed under the Zoning and Building Codes. Ms. Moustakis and I urge you in the strongest possible terms to deny both aspects of Mr. Osgood's petition. Very truly yours, Bohr-K.Can-,](-, John H. Carr, Jr. Cc. Ms.Linda Moustakis-By Hand 5 aB ®®®auao maooa®®®® 9B ® ® m®®allB➢®® _ Philip C.Wysor GLOVSKY & GLOVSKY PwysorQ Rloyskyx2.com ATTORNEYS AT L A W Direct Dial(978)720-3112 September 19, 2006 VIA FACSIMILE AND HAND DELIVERED Nina Cohen, Chairperson Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 120 Washington Street, 3`a Floor Salem, MA 01970 RE: Nicholas Osgood 4 Bentley Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Ms. Cohen: It has come to my attention just today that John H. Carr, Jr., Esquire, has filed an appeal from Mr. St. Pierre's determination that the above-referenced property constitutes a three-family dwelling. Although the appeal was filed September 12, 2006, I was not made aware of it until today. As you know, Mr. Osgood's matter before the Board concerns the design of the second means of necessitated egress ecess tated by the third unit at this property. The only reason for the second means of egress is because of the existence of the third unit. Since the determination that this property constitutes a three-family dwelling is now under appeal, it is premature for the Board to take up the question of the design of the staircase. I respectfully request a continuance of Mr. Osgood's petition until the appeal raised on behalf of Mn Carr's client is finally decided. It is my intention to appear at the September 20, 2006 meeting to request this continuance in person. Thank you. ly yours, P C Philip C. ysor PCW:mfs cc: Thomas St. Pierre, Salem Building Inspector (via facsimile) John H. Carr, Jr., Esquire (via facsimile) Eight Washington Street Beverly, MA 01915 Tel: 978.922.5000 Fax: 978.921.7809 I , �lAT4HC�I C�CddCHCQ A 3CNTLCY SW0o UNIT I SAIL( No NA 001970 MIICTOO QIIA NlAN 4 bCNym Smm, UNIT 2 SAL( Wo MQ 099700 3UL'Y 25. 20006 Q/ VY, (CARR, ATM TCIISCQ o OS600D, H. NOMS4AXM L SALON ZOO NIIN4 BOARD OF APPCALSA QCo 4 WHI'L0 PQCCT SAL(EN. HA Z00N06 BOARD OF APPCALS NA4TCQS DCAQ SES AND MADAMS. AS 'YOU EHOOV, WE AQC THC OOVOW OF UNITS OKE AND T"�+ OO AT THC 4 BlhN L(EY MCCT, $AL(CNo NA PQOO PCQ4V. COO LUEC79V(EL 1 9(I d aOVNCQSHIIPOOF THC PQOPCQ4S1, NIS U070 IIS 3CIINC6 SCNT 40O ADMIISC S10M OF OMR POSII4IIONQSD 'WITH klilAQDS 40 THC QCAQ CgTCQIIOOQ S4AIIQSo THC THIRD FLOOR DCCa AND THC QMCSTII OOH OF 'WAC4HCQ THC WALWH4 AS A L(E4AL 4HQCC FAWXY DV(EL2066 TOO &S69Ho 9C CLOOSCDOON OUR UNITS ON NOOV(ENNCQ �Wo 2005 AND THC DCCDS '90C tO04a QCCOQDCD ON 4HIIS DATC, WITH QCA4 ANPOOQTAHCC. AT SHOULD n(E 10004CD THAT A4 NO V2&E DW906 THC PQCQSAdC OQ SAdC OF OMR UNITS DBD W OSCOOD WORN MS OF ANY L(E4AL PQOOCCO2H S OQ HOTIICCS IINMOOdMIINC THC QCAQ PAIRS OR D(= OR THC POSS9b2L974 4HA4 THC PQOOPCQ7'1 NAY NOT N(E A L(E4AL THQCC FANEV DWELL2M ISM VPM A4 THC ZOONIIN4 BOARD OF QPPCALS HCAQIINC6 THAT '&(C AT4CNDCD ON 3MdY 190 2(0(0(6o II4 HAS CON(C 40 OUR XHOOVL(CDC6C THAT THC IINIFOOnNAT OON AND QCSPCC79W PAQ720 IINMOOdMCD AS FAQ f OOQC TC lw(WE AVAQC, TOO 3C FAIR 40 ALL PAQ4IICS IINdOOLWD 91 'WANT 40O ADDQCSS OUR OOMTLOOX 'DWERMA bII SW d IIbOOM aSda�d °aSda aab ROM SII SBab dB '?COE °66 dlWQ MO aMBddaa DHR bd baaa 40014 (MERb d AMUSMOa OR ldaddd SIIa G1aMUM SII LE as °MOIIbVIIaOSSd OQMOa DHA HAM SaaMdaa aaWS D&OOUdw OR (UDUR%ad afl 11BA bII (aaSO DsEq DW SaaMdaa 40 SMdld M ESa(g ADH AMY �E ' MOIISIIaa(a PUT09 aab kWov ITER DR 00"M aba(a AISWOOIIgadd Sd SabU5MAS DRA daab OR RSDM4 MOaSO W bdaaad Sibaddv A10 (941*09 aMIIMOOZ MDIYS aan WOaS ,Q =no w AILVD44R5a damao AIIMW 40(DI4 (54IIaIl DKI dfl MdOfl Dig Iva ov IV&ORD4 ;ngSaSMadxD Ild (aMd AMd °Aufiq SII D4uxus ADV d (55)o( o Da lv&oMD;4 glWOMIS bdab QSAHDMfi5oa MOEM5oSSd 000:a aab MII (9abVbS Allnw5DdS SB (aMbD MOBIlIISOd dWO OOSIV SB a °SW dfl (5)M ddd (5Md (5DRD Qab as 04 QaaM (MOOR Mid HNSK ANY aMAlMDRL (9Md nand MOMM05 d M0 ISab swWAS aab °awmo 'AYR dMb MII Sbabd MOU' M(D5 aab babId (51W0a IYHR MORAMUtSMOa 11d We AMY 4041 (RadBWeab SII DRQ& EM d (9919 AMR)dObd aab 40 dEHP aHAQ %a? bMaSaddad as Sd QMOOIIIldIIaOSSd OaMOaD SW dfl ga6JOdddd Dig OR (aaM IVA(DMM abb Ob sunDd KARA SMOIISIIaaa Ild qHY AMd °Suwu aab aWOND;4 (ROOJSO w Awn Diu Slbaddy 4O (gwoq ` aMIIMOOZ DRA WOaS AM SDRAM Ild Oz nna'a KIM afl (alWOaS bII Iaa4 DA AWA II b a =S&01104 Sd MY SMOIIbIISOd 4W00 °(gIIdS wag ven °MOOUSaWO MII SaWSSB aSDHA 40 MOSW515MO5 MOdW SMOBbdIWaad bUMM 0W SaMBIlaam DMIR4I d04 �C�6QdIIT�f OG' TCaQC�C� G'QGAIIIdl7 ��CddIIN6 W6 Q(�SPMIFMddV D(�F Q COOWN(EM ON VMS IISSM(� MNM TM BURD06 BNSPCCTOOQ HAS C OOMCLUVC D M IINb(MMATII OO N AS TO VGGCGOCeQ 700 MOMMY IS A L(�4AL MM(C FAUX? DITEL906, C LOS906 Ba CLOOSII06 l+I(� VOMdD ALSO Lgt� TOO SIAM THAT T(� AM HOOPCFMd TGBAT 4a(� IISSME CAN D6 Q(EOOLWD M A TIINCdY HANNM T(c ML MAT TMSC CIIQCMNSTANCCE SUMOMM MS PnONLIN AAMC CQ(�AMD AN IINCOW(V900C MACH lw(C QNLUEGG01R(MAN) DO NOT DOMMCE, MOOMIIN6 G'ORVAQD, aMLY COPY POOTaOOF MSOON AWY AND ALL COQQC�SPONDC�NCC� MOM OCCIISIIONS Q(�ACCJCD WY TGM LONII06 BOOAQDOOF QPP(�AM THAW 'YOU FOR 'YOUR MALUANL(� TIINCE AND ATTCNTIION TOO TNCSC NATTCEQS, V(M 7RULV YOOMQS, MATTG EW ULLMIQ MNIIT 9 VIICTOOQIIA RC66AN MNIIT � QrI Y OF SALEM LEGAL DEPARTMENT 93 WASElv6ftHJ5'i U•SALEM W(A&W KSETrs01970 TEL•97&7459595 •FAX 978-744.1279 KmERLEYDRl%C= SMASEMRRMA40.F..SQ. JERALD PAWSEIIA,ESQ. MAYCK QIYSOLicrma ASsr.CWSmxaroR Memorandum for Zoning Board of Appeals To: Nina Cohen, Chairperson, Zoning Board of Appeals From:Jerald A Parisella, Assistant City Solicitor RE: 4 Bentley Street October 18,2006 You requested a legal opinion concerning the issuance of a building permit to the owner of a two-family dwelling to allow the premises to be used as a three-family dwelling.Your specific request is attached as Exhibit A of this opinion. Your request is in response to an appeal filed by Linda Moustaltis of 2 Bentley Street. She is appealing the determination of the building commissioner that the use of 4 Bentley Street as a three-family home is protected bythe statute of limitations in General Laws Chapter 40A sec. 7 (the building commissioner's letter is Exhibit B). Chapter 40A sec. 7 governs the issuance of building permits. The statute gives the building inspector the authorityto issue a building permit.When issuing a building permit, the building inspector must determine if the proposed use meets the zoning requirements of the locus. There is no requirement for notice or a hearing for the issuance of a building permit. Chapter 40A sec. 7 creates a six-year statute of limitations period to challenge that a building permit was issued in error.In order to obtain the protection of the six year statute of limitations: Qrdxr 18, 2006 AW 2 there must have been a building permit the permit must have been issued by"a person duly authorized to issue such permits;" and, the real properly must have been "improved and used in accordance with the terms of the original building permit." Even if a building inspector mistakenly interprets the zoning ordinance or bylaw and issues a building permit, any aggrievedhas only six years to file a claim for relief. Hall v. ProvincetownZonine Board of Appeals, 56 Mass.App.Q. 1103 (2002); iC Rc Resorts Hotels Inc. v. Alcoholic Lic ne_ sing Bd. Of Falmouth 385 Mass. 205 (1982). In this particular case, the building inspector issued a building permit in 1997 to "Renovate 3" fl. Apt. as per plans: new bath &replace walls." The records also note that a certificate of occupancy was issued on May 15, 1997 for the work done pursuant to the budding permit. It appears from the same records the building inspector had determined that the premises was "a lawful three (3) family dwelling." The building is located in an R-2 District. It is my opinion that even if the building inspector issued the building permit in error, the time period to appeal his decision has expired•. An appeal should have been commenced at least prior to May 15, 2003 (when the certificate of occupancy was issued). If the Board finds that a building permit was issued by the proper individual and the premises was improved and used in accordance with the permit, then an action to annul the issuance of the building permit and/or prohibit said use is barred by the sig- year stature of limitations. CITY OF SALIEIIIe MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 120 WASHINGTON STRULT. 3Rn FLOOR SALEK MASSACFXISCTTS 01970 TELepHoNa: 078-745.959$ EXT. 380 is EMt: 978-740.915,68 KIMBERLIKY ORISCOLL MAYOR August 31,2006 John H. Carr Jr., Esquire 9 North Street Salem,Ma. 01970 RE: 4 Bentley Strut Dear Mr. Carr: I have reviewed the inf madon regarding the legal status of d Bentley Street. it is my opinion that 4 Bentley is a 3 family dwelling. It is my understanding that the third unit is protected from any action by the City due to the provisions of Mass General Law 40A, Section 7 If you wish to appeal this determination, you must file an appeal with the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals. It should be noted, the issue of the three family status is not before the Board, The issue before the Board is the exterior deck and stairway. Sincr, Thomas St. Pierre Zoning Bnforecment Officer Building Commissioner cc: Philip Wysor,Esq, Elizabeth Rcnuard,Solicitor Jerry Patisellz, Assistant Solicitor AFFMA OF t3ANDRA J BAI. M CONCERlu (;4 BENT7.EY STRM 1, Sancta J.Baldwin,being duly sworn,hereby swear that the following is true: 1. I reside at 1 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970. 2. I am an office manager of the Boston Law fim of Goodwin Procter, formally Goodwin,Ptoctm&Hoar. 3. My mother,whose maiden name was Helen Bartnicla,$row up in the Battnield family homestead along with her 6 siblings,uwluding our uncle, Bernard Bactoic ' who is also submitting an affidavit,along with his wife, )o, Jeanie. 4. I am intimatoly familiar with 4 Bentley Street„Salem,Massachusetts,not only because I grew up at 2 Bentley Street,but also because I continued to visit muuraous friends and relatives in the neighborhood even after moving out of$Bcutky Sheet in 1954. 5. I can unequivocally state that until 1969(at a minimums)4 Bentley Street, Salem,MA bad been continuously operated as a 2-family apartment building,with one apartment on the fust floor and the other on the secood. 6. I now realize that a variance was never obtained for 4 Bentley Street to become a 3-family property,Our was it grandfathered as a legal 3-family property as of the creation of the current zoning in 1965. Signed under oath this day of July 2006. Sandra L Baldwin AFFIDAVIT OF dENNIE BARTNIQO CONCERNINfi 4 REMIT RY STREET I,Jennie Bartnicki,being duly sworn,hereby swear that the following is true: 1. I currently inside at 122 Locust Street,Danvers,Massachusetts 01923 with my husband of 65 years,Bernard Bartnicki. 2. From the time my husband and I married in 1941,until 1998 (approxunately),we visited my sisters and brothers,who resided in the Bart dcki family homestead at 2 BeWey Street, Salem,Massachusetts, virtually every weekwd_ 3, 1 can unconditionally state from first-hand knowledge tbot 4 Bentley Street was continuously used as a 2-family apartanent building from 1941 to at least 1998 (at a minimum),which consisted of a first floor unit,and a second unit on the second floor. Signed under oath this /Al. �of July 2006, Jennie Battaiuki AFIriDAVIT OF BERIHARD B.AR'1'�IIGlci �CONCERM UA MMJ' PEY STREET' 1, Bernard Batmickl,being duly sworn,bemby swear that the following is true: 1. 1 currently reside at 122 Locust SUM%Danvers.Measachusetts 01923 With my wife of 65 years,Jennie Bartnicki. 2. From the time my wife and 1 married in 1941,unfd 1999(apprmdmawly), we visited my sisters end btotbers,who resided in the But rdcki family homestead at 2 Bentley Street,Salm.Massachusetts,virtually vv"Y weekend. 3. 1 can unconditionally state from fm hand kumiedge that 4 Bentley Sheet was continuouslY used as a 2-family apwtoacut bnakhng from 1941 to at least 1998 (at a mWmum).`Ajch consisted of a first 1100"unit,and a second unit on the second floor. Signed under oath this 14 day of July 2006. Bemard Bartnicki AFFIDAVIT OF BICC CONCERNING 4 B]2TI'I.EY STREET 1,Marianne Bich,being duly swam hereby swear that the following is true: 1. I currently reside at Unit No.217 of the Chary Hill Condominium Apartments,4 Duck Pond Road,Danvers,Massachusetts 13923- 2. My brother,Stanley Doral,and I lived at the second floor unit at 4 Bentley Street,Salem,Massachusetts from 1957 to 1961 inclusive. 3. During the entire time we resided at 4 Bentley Street,the property was operated as a 2-family apartment building. 4. In 1961 we moved just around the comer to 155 Derby Street,where we continued to reside until 1%8. 5. Even after my brother and I moved to 155 Derby Street in t 961,we confMned to be very familiar with 4 Bentley Street,not only because we were intimately familiar with the neighborhood m general,having grown up these,but also because we bad several friends and relatives living on Bentley Street,including our cousins,Philip and Louis Swiduch,who resided at 14 Bentley Street. 6. During the period 1961 tol%8 inclusive,4 Bentley Street was likewise continuously operated as a 2-family apartment building. 7. 1 am not related by blood or by marriage to Linda MOu9ta1v9 of 2 Bentley Street,Salem,Massachusetts,01970. Signed under oath this f y r�day of July 2006. Marianne Bick AFFIDAVIT OF WXLLMM WILSON CONCERNING 4 BENTLEY STREET I. William Wilson,being duly swom hereby sweat that the following is true: 1. I currently reside at 4200 South East 470 Place,Ocala,Florida 34480. 10d 2. Daring 1963 end 1964. I resided is theAM floor apartment at 4 Bentley Street,Salem,Massechtrsetts during 1963 and 1964. 3. As I am 73 years old now,I was then 43 and 44 years old. 4. During my entire occupancy of my first floor apartment at 4 Bentley Street,the property was opeiated as a 2-family apartment building,the upuaam unit being thea occupied by an Edward Lassiter rind his wtfq Aama Lassiter. 5. 1 am not related by blood or by marriage to Linda Mougalds of 2 Bentley Sutcet, Salem,Massachusetts,.01970. Signed under oath this/,VX day of July 2006. William Wilson L AFFIDAVIT OF STANLEY�R�l CONCERNING 4 BENTLEY STREET 1, Stanley Doran,being duly sworn,hereby swear that the following is true 1. I currently reside at 12 Cedar IEU Drive,Danvers,MasswW=ts,01923. 2. My sister,Marianne Bick,and I lived at the second floor unit at 4 Bentley Street, Salem,Massachusetts from 1957 to 1961 inclusive. 3. During the entire time we resided as 4 Bentley Street,the property was operated as a 2-family apartment buuldM& 4. in 1961 we moved just around the canner to 155 Derby Street,where we continued to reside mail 1968. 5. Even after my sister and 1 moved to 155 Derby Street in 1961,we continued to be very famrliar with 4 Bentley Street,not only because we were intimately familiar with the nelgbborbood in general,Laving grown up there,but alio because we had several friends and relatives living on Bentley Street,including our cousins,Philip and Louis Swiniucb,who resided at 14 Bentley Street. 6. During the period 1961 to 1968 inclusive,4 Bentley Street was l7rewise continuously operated as a 2-family apartment building. 7. I am not related by blood or by marriage to Linda Moustalds of 2 Bentley Street.Salem,Massachusetts,01970_ Signed under oath this day of July 2006. 11/28/2006 13:38 9787454345 SALEM HARBOR CDCOM PAGE 02110 AFFIDAy1T 0a<+'STAAiLEX DORAN CO14CERN11yG 4 BEENrLEY STREET 1, Stanley Doran,being duly sworn,hereby swear that the following is true 1. I currently reside at 12 Cedar Hill Drive,Danvers,Massachusetts,01923. 2. My sister,Marianne Bich,and I lived at the second floor unit at 4 Bentley Street, Salem, Massachusetts from 1957 to 1961 inclusive. 3. During the entire time we resided at 4 Bentley Street,the pmpwty was operated as a 2-family apartment building, 4. In 1961 we moved just around the corner to 155 Derby Street,where we continued to reside until 1968. 5. Even after my sister and I moved to 155 Derby Street in 1961,we continued to be very familiar with 4 Bentley Street,not only because we were intimately familiar with the neigbborbood in general,having grown up there,but also because we had several friends and relatives living on Bentley Street,including our cousins,Philip and Louis Swiniuch,who resided at 14 Bentley Street. 6. During the period 1961 to 1968 inclusive,4 Bentley Street was likewise continuously operated as a 2-family apartment building. T I am not related by blood or by marriage to Linda Moustakis of 2 Bentley Street, Salem,Massachusetts,01970. Signed under oath this /`1 day of July 2006. tanley 11/28/2006 13: 38 9787454345 SALEM HARBOR CDCOM PAGE 03/10 AFFIDAVIT OF WXI.T.UM WILSON CONCERNING 4 BENTLEY STREET I. William Wilson,being duly swam,hereby swear that the following is true: I. I currently reside at 4200 South East 4r place, Ocala,Florida 34480, JNd 2. During 1%3 and 1964,1 resided in the f st floor apartment at 4 Bentley Street,Salem,Massachusetts during 1963 and 1964. 3. As I am 73 years old now, l was then 43 and 44 years old. 4. During my entire occupancy of my first floor apartment at 4 Bentley Street,the property was operated as a 2-family apartment building,the vpstaes unit being thea occupied by an Edward Lassiter and his wife, Arna Lassiter. 5. I am not related by blood or by marriage to Linda Moustakis of 2 Bentley Street, Salem,Massachusetts,01970. Signed under oath this 1,7,4 day of July 2006. William Wilson 11/28/2006 13:38 9787454345 SALEM HARBOR CDCOM PAGE 04/10 AFFIDAVIT OF MARIANNE BICC CONCERNING 4 BENTLEY STREET 1,Marianne Bick,being duly swots,hereby swear that the following is tnie: 1. I currently reside at Unit No. 217 of the Cherry Hill Condominium Apartments,4 Duck Pond Road, Danvers,Massachusetts 111923. 2, My brother, Stanley Doren,and I lived at the second floor unit at 4 Bentley Street,Salem,Massachusetts from 1957 to 1961 inclusive. 3. During the entire time we resided at 4 Bentley Street,the property was operated as a 2-family apartment building. 4. In 1961 we moved just around the comer to 155 Derby Street,where we continued to reside until 1968. 5. Even after my brother and 1 moved to 155 Derby Street in t 961,we continued to be very familiar with 4 Bentley Street,not only because we were intimately familiar with the neighborhood in general, having grown up there,but also because we had several friends and relatives living on Bentley Street,including our cousins,Philip and Louis Swimuch,who resided at 14 Bentley Street. 6. During the period 1961 tol968 inclusive,4 Bentley Street was likewise continuously operated as a 2-family apartment building. 7. I am not related by blood or by marriage to Linda Moustald s of 2 Bentley Street, Salem, Massachusetts, 01970. Signed under oath this 1 y riday of July 2006, Marianne Dick 11/28/2006 13:38 9787454345 SALEM HARBOR CDCOM PAGE 05/10 AFF'IDtlVIT OF BERNARD BAR Isi CEFJQNtz 4EY S ET 1, Bernard Barmicki,being duly sworn,hereby swear that the following is true: 1. 1 currently reside at 122 Locust Street,Danvers,Massachusetts 01923 with my wife of 65 years,Jennie Bart mdu- 2. From the time city wife and 1 married in 1941,Until 1999(ap oxifft rely), we visited my sisters and brothers,who resided in the Bartnicki family homestead at 2 Bentley Street, Salem,Massachusetts,virtually every weekend. 3. 1 can unconditionally state from firsthand lmowledgo that 4 Bentley Street was continuously used as a 2-family apaYtme»<building from 1941 to at least 1998(at a minimum),which consisted of a first floor unit,and a second unit on the second floor. Signed under oath this /"� day of July 2006. Bernard Bartnicki 11/28/2006 13:38 9787454345 SALEM HARBOR CDCOM PAGE 06/10 AFFIDAVIT OF JENNIE BARTNICIG CONCERNING 4 BEN77.EY STREFff I,Jeanie Barnioki,being duly sworn,hereby swear that the following is true: 1. I currently reside at 122 Locust Street Danvers,NWsachtxcetts 01923 with my husband of 65 years,Bernard Barnicid. 2. From the time my husband and I married in 1941,until 1998 (approximately),we visited my sisters and brothers,who resided in the Barnlcki family homestead at 2 Bentley Street, Salem,Massachusetts, virtually every weekend. 3. 1 can unconditionally state from fust-band knowledge that 4 Bentley Street was continuously used as a 2-family apartment building from 1941 to at least 1998 (at a minimum),which consisted of a first floor unit,and a second unit on the second floor. Sigrid under oath this day of July 2006, Jennie Bartnik:ki 11/28/2006 13:38 9787454345 SALEM HARBOR CDCOM PAGE 07/10 AFFIDAVITOF SANDRA I BALPWIN CONCERNING 4 BENTLEY STREET 1, Sandra 7.Baldwin,being duly swam,hereby swear that the following is true: 1. I reside at 1 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970. 2. I am an office manager of the Boston Law firm of Goodwin Procter, formally Goodwin,Procter&Hoar. 3. My mother, whose madden name was Helen Bartnidd,grew up in the Bartnkki family homestead along with her 6 siblings,including our uncle, Bernard BattnicK who is also submitting an affidavit,along with his wife, Jennie. 4. I am intimately familiar with 4 Bentley Street, Salem,Massachusetts,not only because I grew up at 2 Bentley Street, but also because I continued to visit numerous friends and relatives in the neighborhood even after moving out o£4Bentley Street in 1954. 5. I can unequivocally State that until 1968(at a minimum) 4 Bentley Street, Salem,MA had been continuously operated as a 2-family apartment building,with one apartment on the first floor and the other on the 5=00d- 6. econd6. I now realize that a variance was never obtained for 4 Bentley Street to become a 3-family property,nor was it grandfathered as a legal 3-family property as of the creation of the current zoning in 1965. Signed under oath this day of July 2006. dvt) Sandra J. Baldwin L.. t � f' i i'kl �`�• h �t�� � ' � � +� . f l! ,�d R` X�. %s 'FF�f >' .�� i�'' � I M� �_.,;.���» , 4:��t s� r �!•"� +� a.� al �12f' f �� .. t-„As� �� l, ���� � "-Ick `�° G '" � } �• 'p`g �. ./. / ,��r'r,�:. . 1`7Lt1 r j .N• .o•w� rt�'§+JI� �- �/' - _ �",]' `d y1i f �'{�•�/ ,r c �tji! 11IlF�ry ��1 T�l RY r at �� +'. 17 "F ' � � v:"•."". _ ` e • S='�e'` y ��I Yjtq�i T t• ":i{�C>''►�'���i�tCi,. RL. fC. :'iJ �.�.I 'a ' R t�5. �44� at`� wY 1�>- 'F� ] ' � " ' '_ � �_ a •,* ���� 'i.� �Wim'�- r �` R �'A � �L�V r;��!'q"� y�s3 t: OIL _. �l.1i. +, .:.3• 'tai `-a�r.;�rrk .t:l J, '' ; } y +yk,r� IP fE11 .,.Rj} �`.i Imo• . �G" ' �� ` tom. .f Zr�-y+�c, ,ye. 'F•T, li r `y � 1 �y „Fi c.; .f^' 1� �..Ii�,y s A. •iro.,. •.. 41PMW ,r•- ,«- , /?�' � 1"!!` -•:. r � ly j ., 1 •:♦ + ' - sla w: s a � •1.1''. ` .'��w� 9 Ir.7 c ,y{ -J4+'• "-.Jy++�. rf "� �' �4 A7�Fr;. �a♦ ^I� >r� 1.��% r� �•w� �`°�i '. !r �,PS: h`� �:kt � "�.� r�.Fr.•..•y, �1 •�&e�ti��}�`r? s' 'ilf�c � r�y's+��T i'�' ` ' �� '� �: ?.'."'` y� �; i�,.�_ a �,(„�!•+, h .ti� �Jp`i I J3.•-�.e'Y� � i+ 4.'�-. 1' • 4 .r•R � � t I�R'{!•fir C w x.:`t�SY , v �tti 1 �A;;f��. 1 SbliJ.`. � •,..,.l�� ��eY•' 7 "1 `,qi .4�L •T � �0}f` V_.. fit:err 1 ,'s � r•.��G J�w.i.!i�l ii {y y4 tS`�,K♦ - � � � s �s i� t w. � �/af� Y�'m.r� 'Y"j.L rFr w+L F� } � ...' !' 9N S`>•. �. ,�_`Aa v.�tt,..al ' •,C� •¢t���,. `,. �� y ,.. a �'' ' .IIRI�I��'I �I _— —R J^ .4.—."'"Ac'� la+r• a,�-+1� �y:�T�y � �i�//l I �� �R �T; \° J.,.+,i ' Y'�;Af�t111Y,. Rifu ,a. �"#' .iY j�v■ .h�' a 1 mom y � „ ply,^.a__.! y � '� If��4>�II if�. � I.-1 [•F!�' 11f "!� t� 1 Ip••� \ 1 a' �� �. � ����' "i ?� ', }I MII 1'I� .f.R' �..ii�rt�l 1 ) } } �C��}: �, 1�� 1R• � _ _ y� ?may 1qe s (1 � y� i d III�•ui1 �k �' �I1(iF��'_; "y� _• �..._ �.: t. . .4� 4 } R 4l c wl Am • ,iia �- • ,4 A a. �41`.1�• � �� � 3 yam+ �r, •,=IY. `�'iC � Trk- ..ztoo JJ W� �, s 11 ret t �. 4�a 6 Q a ., • r � -� LIar�1�A , �I ^ � of vqr ;��+.� ♦ }♦ a .a� .'i V i: ��� , p �QR•.�,�. a� p� °�� alai+ . �l�i�.�� � :F' 44N*VMrit w O'A'P►`'/,4, -•y • �,�'�' . as `�"d. � : ,`1 , s4o put"t., 01 ML \M���4�I� ■+'r 1*�:7�1�i• '���fiC�3p ..M'��� y1 �W��•,• •` :.e\ <�w+i. 14 vN OL llw gw Fit �: . +�:��="+`ice `���+�,• J��� r.`..`►.�tC� .'`` \, a fi rVoR 4,� V. J zEl 191 0 low _ _moi r:.'.:.�•rse -.. -- -- --.. _.., twl WC M *RWI,.,�,�i "y+s #�yIF s, M1 eJ� iii�Yi• 1 -o 1 i Y d �t i i r �I �- `';l � �. ` v ./ •; � /` � �/ .i✓1 1� l+ �' � ...(fie x •,/.• / •sat '�` �_ "�N"3'".�•S� / � `: �_- -� .,�,. � ... 1�� M , J��/. 4 :n.: .,�_ \� t'� '1 _ ` psi' ✓ y 9i4 � � � rbc 3� 11�-' t�{ �� � I♦ Yl S . 1 ♦ I z 1 4 i I i q 1 00 0 i _ l `�� e � • �'1 Gyp' �. A�, ~� a , � r kms, AA h� �,�I L f •r y,.�+/3��� . AIR ET rt SA ` � a;� .7��A;,.,,•rte `��'�1 4 \ ti r ry , f SWA z �R7 ♦I i� "A t 7 t t _ •` i i ~ 1 F • � 11 r�R a 1M �n t /a TY NOW RN INNO p t. ,'�} 1'z 7 yrs. r •• .. t- r d.a w v 1 1� �\.Yi7C"�°+ dr sy���'�ktie�'� ��}'�',O + r�f'I i 'i I "•{�)�'r" "� m lL � NNV V ���� 1 ��i• /y 71 � �"- 1 0 lL .� � yam.., \ �+�„y.•w+•�"� i 1r n.�, 1W' rr�0' ��I swY�M1 2..'; ��` � p• '.ri9�iJ 4•a ,li � ` y'1, .ft ,.y��'; .war , � II'��� , •:'i` r,l� .y- J hA f 1� 1v � A ro • + �il7 � y' a mom . �dffM d 0D L Orsi �1N I ` kl: Ip w k _1� ,���(�` �° 1'�Ga 41•i j V ¢C,� t fi R. , Vie•• i/. a��� I�ff I . . yr7►1i+�1',jj.�t':+�nI�Y.^.(�''Pir�aU ,µ[9i.�''�rd(y77„f1�A.Jr' '”'7 Ali,\ � 4CZ'pWF-:�l I 1i LrSu,` t1 S .per 14 Fol 14 �?a�Y.I i� 1 '�.S p .,yQ., '• �i1F� +a4 . ! ��h,�� r 6/` .• Al f.J.i!�. � s �.�p,.y��y d t�• �. T. •,fwt �. c4� sf .� r �y. . • iI4. �` a' I , � R st 1 7 '1; rl df r 1; i1 '•tea'._•_Y 4���Cnn I z � �1 fir, 'I ��. �.w•...� �.:•?, `�".:,._� I, � • v '�'� �. �r. ��:I,Y—•.rte _'"`C .�'.,.a, //J/�' ��...AIt1 yy�� ,� �I � -'— � � ,_ t � � - !, `) 'i \I`�",►�y.. 1111 ��. tT � will IIIIIIII (� +cc •-'I��,,A -. -� � "` 'Q` Art Lk t ';•.h,, - A. _ ,r-„.f—•-. .. .rA,� �,. , 1' �' r 1 syr Ile It . - 1 �' Yom” " -r �,,,,v - �1 � __ A•.1 11 i `�. r1 � .. � f• r; . 1 F �TJX .���T�•raa���� � �«� ^� \ � F Yy7C-�de•y.L'"'�yq•�r I '�' ��.�f � lI`4 i r w r n 6 S FA-IA1� �l �r 1 1 r � w 1 I I Y cccLLL z. (z v � 1• ��T'y n f ' ��•�Cy i ` 1 �. •111 �. �� ann,��.`\' `� � .moi y��Gr.l �LL.1,�� JI�F ���g°• � ��.. AG+�� 60 [EURRIEPH i 989HE®® 6A ID a ®EE®E®W GLOVSKY & GLOVSKY ATTORNEYS AT LAW Philip C.Wysor pwvsonju)t9ovs kvx2.com Direct Dial(978)720-3112 June 14, 2006 VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL City of Salem Building Department 120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor Salem, MA 01970 ATTENTION: Sally RE: 4 Bentley Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Sally: Confirming our recent telephone conference, this is to request a continuance of the hearing on the above-referenced property from June 21, 2006 to July 19, 2006. It has come to our attention that one or more abutters may not have received notice of the hearing. It is my understanding that you will let interested parties know of this request. Thank you. VeqC. ours, a Phllysor 4?L PCW:mfs cc: Mr. Nicholas Osgood 4 Bentley Street, Unit#3 Salem, MA 01970 Eight Washington Street Beverly, MA 01915 Tel: 978.922.5000 Fax: 978.921.7809 Current List of Outstanding: (as of 17 July 2006) Stop Work Orders Violations Required Inspections Stop Work Orders: 13 Barton Square - 12/11/2005 On-going issues, R5 Violations, BBRS involvement, some compliance 38 Ocean Avenue - 5/1/2006 11 Ward Street - 5/24/2006 No permits can be granted until retaining wall issues are dealt with 260 Jefferson Avenue - 5/25/2006 Owner currently abroad, working towards compliance 28 Marlborough Road - 7/12/2006 Owner working with his Engineer towards compliance Required Inspections: Q P 13 Barton Square - 12/11/2006 (See above) 128 Bridge Street - 3/21/2006 Combined inspection with Licensing date not set 184 North Street - 7/5/2006 Violations: 20 Ord Street - 11/10/2005 18 Linden Street - 3/9/2006 Owners are working towards solution 59 Summer Street - 4/18/2006 Awaiting Historic Commission decision 138 Bridge Street - 7/14/2006 142 Bridge Street - 7/14/2006 85 — 85 1/2 Proctor Street - 7/14/2006 83 — 83 1/2 Proctor Street- 7/14/2006 Owner has brought in Plot Plan that shows wall on abutters property 13 Columbus Avenue - 7/13/2006 Owner is working on abatement issue This is a current list of actions by J. Barbeau, there are others by T. St.Pierre not reflected on this list. PETITION We,the undersigned owners and residents affected by the application of Nicholas Osgood for a variance to permit the already-built exterior staircase at 4 Bentley Street, Salem,MA, and the related application for a special permit to permit the already-built deck and catwalk on the roof of the two-story el at said property,hereby strongly oppose both applications. In a nutshell we feel it is ugly, obtrusive, a blight on the neighborhood, is an invasion of privacy for the adjacent property owners,reduces our property values, and sets a very bad precedent for the future,both for our historic neighborhood,which is currently unprotected by historic district legislation, and for other neighborhoods throughout the city. Name Address . S L S :.� z ;r I S4 ?O 1 t-5 5. , l April 19, 2006 Petition to Support a Proposed Roof Deck located at 4 Bentley Street unit 3, Salem MA. Petitioner: Nick Osgood 4 Bentley Street, Unit 3 Salem, NLA. 01970 By signing this petition you agree with the petitioner that the proposed roof deck to be .constructed on existing joist members already on the roof is consistent with other structures in the neighborhood and is not an obtuse or unsightly structure. NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE q7 i;SS£,e Sr- AA Klbl�� 7V7 V7/1 0 °ham— JHh Z1 /f � 5 tow of �$Ujenj, 49assar4uoetts Public Propertg Beparttneut A p 7� •3,q�u�MlNt �v Puilbing 33epartntent William H. Munroe One Salem Green 745-0213' f November"20 "1985 Mr. Steven D. White 30 Commercial Street Marblehead.,_MA .01945 RE: 4 Bentley Street, Salem, MA Dear Mr. White, }^- - As per your request this office has researched record's available on your property located at 4 Bentley Street with, the following findings. The building has been occupied as a three (3) family dwelling prior to 1965 and this use has continued to date. It is i located in a residential two (2) family zone and is there for a LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE. of land. This letter is in.noway meant to confirm that the property does or does not conform to all'_current ,$uilding, Fire, Electrical, Plumbing or-Gas Codes. a Sincerely, E _William.H. Munroe. Inspector of Buildings Zoning Officer WHM/jdg (MLI Of I$Hltm, massac4usetts public Propertg Department Guilbing Department Out ftitm Gam 508-745-9595 Ed. 380 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer (November-12 1993 Four Bentley St. Realty Trust Anne Cardy 4 Commercial St. Marblehead, MA 01945 RE: 4 Bentley St. , Salem Dear Ms. Cardy: This office has learned you are trying to rent a third floor apartment at the above reference address. The records in-this. department_,showithis property to.-be,-a two family dwelling-in• a Residential, Two.Family_District (R-2) . To allow use as more than two family would require atvariance from the.city,of,LSalem;Zoning;Board,of;Appeal., If you need any further information do not hesitate to contact this department. Sincerely, [Leo E:Tremblay' Zoning Enforcement' fficer LET:bms cc: Councillor Nowak, Ward 1 THU of ftem. mtsssc4usetts <<{ Public frupertq Oepurtmud $uilbinq Ecpurtment (9ne owem 6"M 500-745-9595 Ext. 300 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer rNovember. 29, 1993 Four Bentley St. Rlty. Trust Anne Cardy 4 Commercial Street r Marblehead, MA 01945 RE: 4 Bentley St. , Salem Dear Ms. Cardy: We•have °been informed that:you,have rented-a;.third floor,apartment at the',above referenced. property. You,were told by this. department. in a , letter. dated November 12,. 1993 that. you. could;not have-a. third,unit there,,, that this.propertpaccording,to our_.records, is only a two family'dvelling , and it would require Board of Appeal action to increase the use. You have evidently chose toignore*my letter., 4You-are, hereby ordered to cease and desist all illegal use of the. property and to contact this office upon receipt of this notice to advise use of your intentions. Failure -to comply_will_,result_in.the appropriate legal.'action`being•-taken:.. Sincerely, 4 e14�_jj I L'eo: E. Tremblay Zoning Enforcement Officer LET:bms Certified Mail 11P 921 991 557 /4bntly/ I � DEPT. CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMEat' 2 3G FII �3 BOARD OF HEALTHRETE IVE D 9North Street CITY OF SALEH,t,1~'S' ROBERT E.BLENKHORN Salem, Massachusetts 01970 HEALTH AGENT 508-741-1800 December 6r,19.93- - Four Bently Street Trust Anne Carey Stunzi Trustee, Paul Stunzi 4 Camercial Street Marblehead, Me 01945 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Stunzi: Cn 12/6/93, we received a phone call from your tenant Mrs. True, apartment #2 at 4 Bently Street in Salem. She stated that a portion of the ceiling-in the living roan had collapsed as the result of water damage from the apartment on�the third..floor., (See Our December 3, 1993 Inspection Report citing this violation) . Subsequently, a phone call was placed to you notifying you of this and the message was left on an answering machine. (On'.12/7/93, Building Inspector l eo;Tremblay notified us that he had been in contact with you and that you are in the process of correcting the source of the leaking airs making.all structural and ceiling repairs necessary. Our records indicate that no,Cert ficate of:Fitsress•was•ever.'issuedtfor any of the apartments°`at that address which,.oonstitutes,arviolation of;cityaof.` SalsaCode ofOidinances :.Article XIII'ard violation of State Sanitary Code, Chapter II, 105 CMR 410.000 "Minimtmn Standards of Fitness for Human Hatitation. ,0wjune:1, 1992, a notice was sent to you regarding the rental of,Apartment.#l,,but•yoLr did.notr respond:,, Be advised that Certificates of Fitness (in effect since 1988) must be obtained for all apartments. . Contact this office at your earliest convenience to arrange the same for apartnents 1 and 3. A Certificate i.nspectJ and reinspection will be conducted by V. Muustakis. (Apt. #2) . Enclosed is paperwork regarding the above ordinance, plus applications for all apartttlents. Your prompt response is appreciated to resolve the existing Certificate of Fitness violations. FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH REPLY TD: ROBERT E. BLEla0i0RN, C.H.O. VIRGINIA M7USTAKIS Health Agent Sanitarian 'fAtL4 f CITY OF SALEiM PUBLIC PROPRERTY DEPARTI/IENT kl?NFJILFY URISCOi.I. MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET*SAIF-N,ALtSSACHU$ETIS 01970 Tu.:978-745.9595 FAx 978.740.9846 it January 5,2006 Nick Osgood 4 Bentley Street Salem, Mass. 01970 ARE: Zoning Violation Mr. Osgood, :Via a phone message you left at my office, you indicated that you were not clear on the specific Zoning Violation. Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 7-8 Accessory Structures (3) states that, no unattached accessory building or structure shall be located nearer than (5) five feet to any side lot line." In Salem, I have consistently treated decks, with no roofs, as Accessory Structures. The egress stair you constructed does not meet this dimensional requirement. Hopefully this answers your question. Sincerely, Thomas StYierre Building Commissioner Zoning Officer APPLICATION FOR. APPLICATION NO.(COURT USE ONLY) PAGE Thai Court or main CRIMINAL COMPLAINT of 1_ DWWd Court DeW, I,the undersigned complainant,.request thata criminal complaAt issue against the accused charging the oterm(s)listed below.it the accused HAS NOT BEEN ARRESTED and the charges kwoNa: $NOIR DItrict as Wuhlvw ONLY MISOEMEANOR(S).I request a hearing 0 WITHOUT NOTICE bemuse of an irnmimal threat of $1111111ft (&Oil 0 BODILY INJURY 0 COMMISSION OF A CRIME 0 FLIGHT 0 WITH NOTICE to accused 0ONE OR MORE FELONIES,I request a hearing 0 WITHOUT NOTICE 0 WITH NOTICE to accused. WARRANT Lv i] ARREST STATUS OF ACI requested because prosecutor represents that,aecused may not appear unless arrested. ❑ MAS HAS NOT INFORM • ABOUT NAME(FIRST MI LAST)AND ADDRESS BIRTH DATE SOClM:SEd a PCF NO. MARITALSTl, 1/ f 1 r ! t' c E. �' 1. F l � J DRIVERS LICENSE NO, J it, J i _ GENDER H Bow , r WEIGHT - HAIR .RACE COItPLEkION SCARSIMARKSRATTOOS BIRTH STATE OR COUNTRY DAY PHO EMPLOYERISCHOOL !MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME(FIRSTS MI LAST) FATHER'S NAME(FIRST MI LAST) CASE INFORMATION COMPLAINANT NAME(FIRST MI LAST) C COMPLARIANT TYPE ..ADDRESS C. :.� L*&v� ❑ t�T1�N OTNFJi l r_ PLACE OF OROM MCIDENT REPOW ND. OSTM 0/r1 ?d CITATKIN NO(B). s OFFENSE CODE - DESCRIPTION - OFFENSE VARIABLES(e.g.wift name,oonaaed aresnce "o vA*e(phoperttt eater vppMle i'*masn'ea• LarWW Atlrrl W OFFENSE CODE OESCRIPION. .. OFFENSE 2 VARIABLES ::CODE DESCRIPTION OFFENSE _ REMARKS S SKGNA �. DA FIL) COVRT USE Ota.Y A HEARING UPON THIS COMPLAINT APPUCATION DATE OF HEARING TIME OF"MIND - o WILLBE HELO AT THE ABOVE COURT ADDRESS ON I I J AT r,t •. l�.F ) John H. Carr,Jr., Esq. 9 North Street Salem,MA 01970 Phone: 978-825-0060 Fax: 978-825-0068 April 19, 2006 By Hand Members Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: 4 Bentley Street, Salem, MA—Application for Variance and Special Permit Dear Members: I represent Ms. Linda Moustakis of 2 Bentley Street, Salem, MA 01970 in opposing the March 24, 2006 petition of Nicholas Osgood for a variance and special permit to ratify the already-built third floor deck and catwalk,and 3-story exterior staircase at the rear of 4 Bentley Street, Salem, MA. Regretfully,prior plans prevent me from being present at the April 19, 2006 hearing of the Board on said application. Ms. Moustakis will be testifying in person at the hearing regarding how allowance of Mr. Osgood's petition will substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of her property, especially her privacy, and how difficult Mr. Osgood has been to deal with. I will be addressing in this letter Ms. Moustakis' purely legal objections to the petition. There are two distinct aspects to Mr. Osgood's petition: the 3-story staircase which has already been built approximately 2 1/2 feet from Ms Moustakis' side lot line at 2 Bentley Street, which requires a variance,and the deck and catwalk which has already been built on the roof of the 2-story el overlooking Ms. Moustakis' backyard, which(apparently) requires a special permit. The rear el at the 4 Bentley Street property is located directly on the shared property line with 2 Bentley Street. According to Section 7.7 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance the minimum required setback for the exterior staircase is five feet if the structure is deemed to be attached to the main dwelling,and ten feet if unattached. The staircase,as built, is three stories tall, has two landings, is built approximately two feet away from the rear wall of the el,and apart from a purely functional attachment where the top step intersects with the catwalk located on 1 ' the roof of the two-story el, is entirely free-standing and self-supporting. Since such attachment is minimal at best, and is non-structural,we contend that the spirit if not letter of Section 7.7 is best served by enforcement of the 10 foot setback. To do otherwise is to glorify form over substance. But that is not our primary legal objection by any means. The stated basis for Mr. Osgood's variance application is hardship. In the fourth paragraph of page one of his March 24, 2006 letter attached to his petition he clearly and succinctly states the basis for his alleged hardship as follows: "The hardship in this case was created because the inspectors thought that the egress requirement superseded the setback requirement" In point of fact, this is not a legally-recognized hardship at all, as it is well-settled Massachusetts law that a municipality can not be bound by the mistakes of its municipal employees, and that said mistakes can not be used as a basis for circumventing zoning requirements. Mr. Osgood may or may not have been acting in good faith in building the 3-story exterior staircase in reliance on the building permit mistakenly issued by the assistant building inspector,but that does not detract from or supercede the protections afforded Ms. Moustakis by the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Whether the 5 foot setback is applicable,or the 10 foot setback,in either case the staircase as built violates both, since it was built approximately 2 1/2 feet from Ms. Moustakis' property line for each of its 3 stories. As such, since the staircase was built by Mr. Osgood,the claimed hardship is entirely self-created, and thus,is not recognizable as a basis for a hardship variance as a matter of law. (In defense of the assistant building inspector,if the clarity and completeness of Mr. Osgood's application for a building permit was anything like his current petition for a variance and special permit,I can well understand how a mistake could have been made, given how incomplete and gratuitously muddied his present petition is.) Clearly the catwalk,deck, and 3-story exterior staircase are all driven by the lack of an independent second means of egress from the purported third floor unit in the attic of 4 Bentley Street,which continues to be owned by Mr. Osgood,who previously converted the first and second floors into separate condominiums,which he subsequently sold. Both are now owned by separate owners. Since 4 Bentley Street is located in an R-2 district, Mr. Osgood claims that the third floor unit is a grandfathered non—conforming use, or put another way,that it was legally pre- existing as of the date of enactment of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in 1965, and that it has been continuously operated as such ever since. But, for the reasons hereinafter set forth,our investigations reveal that the third floor unit is not a legal dwelling unit at all. Thus,what Mr. Osgood is applying for is a second 2 i means of egress for a unit that is not even legal to begin with. By contrast, if the attic were consolidated with the second floor unit,which already has two separate interior means of egress,there would be absolutely no need for the monstrous exterior staircase that has already been built. Since it was Mr. Osgood who created and sold off the second floor condominium,this is another reason why Mr. Osgood is solely responsible for his own present predicament. Ms. Moustakis' family has owned 2 Bentley Street since her grandfather purchased the property in 1925. She herself began living there in 1945 when her aunt owned the property. Her immediate family moved out in 1958,but she continued to frequently visit relatives there until she inherited the property from her aunt in 1996. She has owned and resided at 2 Bentley Street full time ever since. As such,Ms. Moustakis is well aware of the occupancy history of 4 Bentley Street,both from the standpoint of her own personal knowledge, and from people she knows who formerly lived there and are currently available to testify. This first-hand knowledge is buttressed by the City Voting Lists and the City Directories separately published each year for a period well before and after the enactment of the current Zoning Ordinance in 1965, each of which lists the then occupants of 4 Bentley Street as follows: Voting Lists City Directory 1960 Richard Audrey Florence Doran Florence Doran 1961 Richard Audrey Florence Doran Florence Doran 1962 Richard Audrey Directory Missing Vacant 1963 Edward&Anna Lassiter William Wilson William&Faye Wilson 1964 Douglas& Susan Call Douglas Call William &Faye Wilson William Wilson 1965 Douglas & Susan Call Douglas Call Doris&Ronald Jalbert Ronald Jalbert 1966 Helen Borowski Helen Borowski Edward& Anna Lassiter Edward Lassiter 3 Bear in mind that under Massachusetts Law the burden of proof is not on those challenging the validity of an alleged legally-grandfathered non-conforming use,but of those asserting such validity. Our position is that the third floor unit at 4 Bentley Street is not a legally-grandfathered unit for the reasons set forth above, and thus,Mr. Osgood lacks the standing to even seek his within variance and special permit. But even if the third floor unit were legally- grandfathered, we contend that Mr. Osgood's application for a variance concerning the 3- story exterior staircase should be denied because(a)there is no legally recognized hardship and(b)granting his petition would substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and Building Code. As Ms. Moustakis' photographs will clearly demonstrate,both ordinances were designed to protect property owners such as Ms. Moustakis from the kind of 3-story monstrosity that has been built at the very edge of her property line. Regarding Mr. Osgood's application for a special permit to ratify the third story deck and catwalk, I would respectfully point out the following: a. That unlike the 3-story exterior staircase, Mr. Osgood did not obtain a building permit prior to building same, and thus, even that mistaken use of hardship does not apply; b. That a deck on the roof of the 2-story el exceeds the needs of a second means of egress in any event, and represents a gross invasion of privacy for each of the surrounding property owners in this densely built historic neighborhood, including Ms. Moustakis; and C. That the deck and catwalk are both inextricably part of the same second means of egress system as the 3-story exterior staircase, and since a hardship can not be legally granted to permit the staircase, Mr. Osgood's petition for his special permit concerning the deck and catwalk should be denied as well. I am dictating this letter over the phone to my secretary from Charlestown, South Carolina. A primary reason why Charlestown is as beautiful as it is is its strict zoning enforcement, which includes the earliest historic design controls in the nation, dating back to the early 1930's. Salem is no less significant historically or architecturally. Like Charlestown a major reason for its success is the quality and vitality of its neighborhoods. Ms. Moustakis cares deeply for her property and has always taken pains to maintain both her house and grounds to the highest possible standards. She also cares deeply for the neighborhood, and would hate to see an adverse precedent created that 4 would allow the proliferation of these kinds of exterior staircases and decks. Indeed,the question boils down to simply this: would you want such a 3-story staircase built within inches of your property line, especially if it were not allowed under the Zoning and Building Codes. Ms. Moustakis and I urge you in the strongest possible terns to deny both aspects of Mr. Osgood's petition. Very truly yours, a ohm +(.carrjr. John H. Carr, Jr. MC Cc. Ms. Linda Moustakis-By Hand 5 Titg of t$ttlem, fttssuc4usetts Vublir Propertg 19epartment tiguilbing Department Cone Bn(em d;reen 500-745.9595 €d. 300 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer March 28, 1994 Four Bentley St. Realty Trust Anne Curry, Trustee 4 Commercial Street Marblehead, A 01945 RE: 4 Bentley Street Dear Ms. Curry: Thank you very much for your prompt response to the notice dated March 18, 1994 regarding second means of egress from the third floor of the above referenced property. I appreciate your taking immediate action to correct said violations. This office will notify all the appropriate departments and the Ward Councillor that this situation has been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. Sincerely, Leo E. Tremblay 7 Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer LET:bms cc: Councillor Ahmed, Ward 1 Titu of -10$ttlem, mtto,sttrllusetts 4 4 Public Propertg Department +�r Guilbing Department (one %lem (green 500-745-9595 Fxt. 380 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer March 18,- 1994 , Four Bentley St. Realty Trust Anne Curry, Tr. 4 Commercial St. Marblehead, MA 01945 RE: 4 Bentley St. Dear Ms. Curry: I have received a complaint from the City of Salem,Realth°Department regarding the second means of egress at the above °referenced-property. I conducted an-inspection of the property todayi March-18. 1994 and founds-the egress from the third floor apartment had been totally blocked up with wood panels. This .a violations of the Massachusetts State Building Code :Section 3401. 10.1 Means of Egress. You are hereby requested to contact this office immediately upon receipt of this letter in order to correct this situation. Failure to comply will result in the appropriate legal action being taken. Sincerely, Leo E. Tremblay Inspector of Buildings LET:bms cc: Councillor Ahmed \4bntly\ x SO TBIE HOARD OFBPPEAIa ,-The Uo%e resent that he/she Ware the owners of a certain parcel of land located at: Street; Zoning District and said parcel V cte y Bection(a) of the Massachusetts State Building Code. -Plans describing the work proposedhavebeen submitted to the Impactor of Buildings In accordance with Section IX A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. :The Application forP.ermitwas denied by the Inepectorof Buildings for the following reason(s): .The Underdyted-hereby petitions the Board of Appeal to vary the terms of the Selem Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to approve the application fee permit to build as filed, as the -enforcement of said Zoning By-lran and Building Code would involvepractical-difficultyor unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be grantedwithout substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the .Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for the following reasons: (PLEASEPRINT) ff�/5� Owner:. lt�Z�-Hue.gd' ni. WC-000 .Petitioner: Address; �/. L��NTGcY .f T,t U.N7-7-7 Address: Tat.No ,JALc�+/hA 0/ `r7 a TaL No. +� JSignature) �— 'Date: y o L This original application must be Sled with the City Clerk A certified copy of this petition will be returned to petitlonaratthe-time offiling-with-the City Clark to-then-be-Mod with.the.Secretary:of.the.Board of Appeal.,.fousw weals prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeal, along with a check for adverYsing in the.amount, ot`l S ,made payable to the'Salem Evening News'. ATRUE Fh :t) y hZ Htll; 9" ATTEST '1d30 9N1011f: ,, 1 \� �+ to txs aoAan oh?APhrsa>e ,rgfis YOndOrtigne`d�e�roaant that he/she.Ware the owners of a certain parcel of land located at: - _ TSP —t'lot Street; Taning District and parcel U sUcted by Section(a) of the Massachusetts Sate Building Code. _Plato describing the work proposed have been.submltled to W inspector of Buildings in accordance with Section IX A.I of the Zoning Ordinance. - :The Application for.Perndt was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following raason(s): The Undersigned hereby petitiwa the Board of Appeal to vary the terms of the Sdem Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to approve the appllcailon fee permit to build as filed, ss the . enierums=d of odd Zoning By-Wmand Building Code would Involve practical diMeWtV or unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and"W may be granted without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the - Zmdng Ordinance and Building Code for the following reasons: Lao- (PLEASEPBhNT " Owner,. nLC.:fZ04.kf 1�i. OJ(000 Petitioner: Jflti f Address. y I1AMMAF-r J7 UNZT7 Address: TeL No2 0 TeL No. '(Signature) t Date: This original application must be Ned with the City Clerk. A certified copy of this petition will be returned to petitioner,at am time of,filing with the City Clerk,to then be Ned with the Secretary of.ths Board of Appeal. founw- we ks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeal, along with a check for admUsing in the.amount•pf`), (:.. .made payable to the Tatem Evening NoW. _"•, A TRUE yh '•�i b ilz ddS', ATTEST l33a JUNE, 2005 SPOKE WITH NICHOLAS OSGOOD AND WAS TOLD THAT HE WAS TURNING HIS THREE FAMILY INTO CONDOS. HE SHOWED ME THE SPACE IN HIS BACKYARD WHERE HE HAD PREPARED AN AREA TO BUILD A "SECOND EGRESS" (STAIRCASE). HE ALSO TOLD ME THAT HE WAS GOING TO BUILD A DECK ON THE ROOF. HE PROCEEDED TO BUILD THE"STAIRCASE"WHICH LOOMED OVER MY BACKYARD AND THE OTHER TWO NEIGHBORS BEHIND ME. I HAVE SPOKEN TO THE NEIGHBORS AND THEY ARE BOTH VERY DISTURBED AND ANGRY OVER HIS VIOLATION OF OUR PRIVACY. WHEN I SPOKE WITH THEM,THEY WERE ALSO QUITE UPSET WITH HIS TREATMENT OF THEM WHEN THEY PLACED OBJECTIONS TO THIS STRUCTURE. HE NOT ONLY BUILT THIS MONSTER OF A STAIRCASE BUT THEN PROCEEDED TO BUILD A DECK ON THE THIRD FLOOR ROOF. THE STAIRCASE IS ONLY TWO FEET AND 1/2 INCHES FROM MY PROPERTY LINE AND ALSO THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE NEIGHBORS. THE DECK OVERLOOKS OUR HOUSES AND GIVES A CLEAR VIEW INTO OUR LIVING SPACES. I CALLED THE BUILDING INSPECTORS OFFICE AND ASKED FOR TOM STYIERRE. HE TOLD ME THAT JOSEPH BARBEAU WAS HANDLING THAT PERMIT. J.BARBEAU VISITED ME AT MY HOME AND TOLD ME THAT N. OSGOOD ONLY HAD A PERMIT FOR A STAIRCASE AND CAT-WALK, BUT NOT A DECK. I PROTESTED AT THE SIZE AND STRUCTURE OF THE STAIRCASE BUT HE KEPT QUOTING THAT WITH A SECOND EGRESS HE COULD BUILD THAT TYPE OF STRUCTURE. HE THEN WENT TO VISIT N.OSGOOD TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT HAVING ONLY A PERMIT FOR A CAT- WALK AND NOT A DECK. I ASSUMED THAT HE WOULD STOP THE DECK, BUT WHEN HE CAME BACK TO MY HOUSE,HE SAID THAT HE COULD BUILD THE DECK. I THEN PUT IN A CALL TO TOM STYIERRE AND HE CAME OUT ,VIEWED THE SITUATION AND SAID HE DID NOT, INDEED,HAVE A PERMIT FOR A DECK AND PUT A STOP-WORK ORDER ON THE DECK. N.OSGOOD THEN CALLED MAYOR STAN USOVICH AND COMPLAINED THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTORS OFFICE LIED AND THAT HE DID HAVE A PERMIT FOR A DECK. THE MAYOR CALLED THE BUILDING INSPECTORS OFFICE AND WAS TOLD THAT HE DID NOT. AFTER THE STOP-WORK ORDER ON THE DECK,N.OSGOOD KNOCKED ON MY DOOR AND WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE SITUATION. HE KEPT TALKING ABOUT HOW I SHOULD ACCOMODATE HIM AND HIS STAIRCASE AND HAD SEVERAL SUGGESTIONS AS TO HOW I COULD CAMOFLAUGE IT. THE NEXT TIME HE TALKED TO ME WAS TO TELL ME THAT HE WAS PUTTING A NEW ROOF ON AND HE WANTED HIS "MEN"TO PUT THEIR LADDERS ON MY DRIVEWAY FOR FOUR DAYS. HE WANTED TO DICTATE THE TIME AND CONDITIONS. I TOLD HIM THAT THE TIME WASN'T CONVENIENT AND WITHOUT DISCUSSING IT FURTHER, HE STARTED TO YELL AT ME AS TO HOW I HAD TURNED OUT TO BE A"BAD"NEIGHBOR. I TOLD HIM THAT BEFORE HE CAME ONTO MY PROPERTY,HE HAD TO HAVE A BOND OF $1000.00 TO COVER ANY DAMAGE THAT MAY BE DONE. I DID NOT DENY HIM ACCESS,AS I KNOW THAT HE CAN COME ONTO MY PROPERTY TO REPAIR OR ACCESS HIS PROPERTY BUT HIS HEAVY-HANDED MANNER MADE IT DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH HIM. HE DID NOT ANSWER ME, BUT WHEN I LEFT THE NEXT DAY, HE WAITED UNTIL I HAD LEFT AND RAN DOWN TO THE POLICE STATION TO SAY THAT HE WANTED TO POST A BOND. THE POLICE STATION DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT AND TOLD HIM TO GO AHEAD.WHEN I RETURNED ABOUT TWO HOURS LATER, HIS MEN WERE IN MY DRIVEWAY WITH THEIR LADDERS AND I WAS-UNABLE TO DRIVE INTO MY OWN DRIVEWAY. TOM STYIERRE HAD COME BY AT THE SAME TIME BECAUSE I HAD TOLD HIM ABOUT THE INCIDENT AND HE DISCOVERED THAT N.OSGOOD HAD NOT OBTAINED A PERMIT TO PUT A ROOF ON. HE TOLD THE WORKERS TO STOP AND SINCE THEY DID NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND ENGLISH , THEY KEPT WORKING. HE TOLD ME TO CALL THE POLICE. HE FOUND N.OSGOOD AND TOLD HIM TO STOP WORK BUT IT WASN'T UNTIL THE POLICE CAME AND SPOKE TO HIM, THAT HE FINALLY STOPPED THE WORK SINCE THEN, THERE HAVE BEEN THREE POLICE DETAILS . 1) START WORK ON ROOF THAT WAS STOPPED BECAUSE HE STILL DID NOT HAVE A PERMIT. THAT HAD TO BE ABORTED UNTIL HE DID. 2) START WORK ON ROOF AFTER HE GOT A PERMIT 3) STARTED TO SPRAY PAINT HOUSE . ENTERED MY DRIVEWAY AND WRAPPED MY CAR IN PLASIC WITHOUT INFORMING ME THAT THE WORKERS WOULD BE PAINTING OR EVEN TO ASK PERMISSION TO COME ON MY PROPERTY AND WRAP MY CAR THIS BEHAVIOR HAS GONE ON AND WHEN I WAS TALKING TO A NEIGHBOR HIS BROTHER,WHO IS THE CONTRACTOR CALLED ME A"BITCH NEIGHBOR"SEVERAL TIMES. I HAVE DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH AND HAVE BEEN TOLD BY TOM STYIERRE THAT THERE WAS A LAW THAT SAID THAT N. OSGOOD COULD BUILD THIS TYPE OF STAIRCASE SO CLOSE TO MY PROPERTY AND THAT OF MY NEIGHBORS BECAUSE IT GAVE SPECIAL"DISPENSATION" TO A SECOND EGRESS. I HAVE CALLED THE SALEM LAW LIBRARY , SPOKEN TO FORMER CITY SOLICITORS, LAWYERS AND EVEN RESEARCHED THE LAWS MYSELF AND NO-ONE HAS FOUND ANY LAW THAT EXEMPTS THE STATE LAW OF 10 FEET AWAY FROM A NEIGHBORS LOT LINE. I HAVE WRITTEN A LETTER TO TOM STYIERRE AND HAD IT TIME- STAMPED AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AND AT THE BUILDING INSPECTORS OFFICE AND AM WAITING FOR A REPLY. HE IS SAID TO HAVE FOURTEEN DAYS TO DELIVER THE CONTRADICTORY LAW TO ME. I WANT AN ANSWER AND WILL CONTINUE TO PURSUE THIS MATTER. I HAVE CONTINUED TO SPEAK WITH TOM STYIERRE AND HE TOLD ME THAT A CONTRADICTORY LAW ALLOWING SPECIAL DISPENSATION FOR A SECOND EGRESS TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE EXISTING ZONING LAW DID NOT, IN FACT, EXIST. HE THEN WROTE A LETTER TO NICHOLAS OSGOOD ON NOV.22, 2005 TELLING HIM THAT HE WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE ZONING LAW REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND EGRESS STAIRCASE AND WAS TOLD OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE SALEM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. THERE WAS NO ACTION TAKEN REGARDING THIS.APPARENTLY, AS I WAS MADE TO UNDERSTAND, TOM STYIERRE INFORMED ME THAT NICHOLAS OSGOOD DID NOT FIND THE FIRST LETTER CLEAR ENOUGH AS TO THE ZONING LAW HE HAD VIOLATED. A SECOND LETTER WAS SENT ON JAN.5,2006 FURTHER EXPLAINING THE VIOLATION. THERE HAD BEEN NO ATTEMPT ON NICHOLAS OSGOOD'S PART TO FILE FOR AN APPEAL UNTIL A COURT HEARING WAS FILED FOR APRIL 17, 2006. APPARENTLY HE THEN CONTACTED THE BUILDING INSPECTORS OFFICE AND WAS TOLD THAT IF HE FILED FOR AN APPEAL ON FRIDAY, MARCH 24, 2006 BY NOONTIME,HE WOULD BE ABLE TO BE PLACED ON THE APRIL 19, 2006 LIST BEFORE THE SALEM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. HE ARRIVED AT THE OFFICE A 11:45 AND MADE OUT AN APPLICATION. I PLAN TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AND PRESENT MY OBJECTIONS TO THE STAIRCASE AND HIS PLANS FOR A DECK. HE NEVER DID HAVE A PERMIT FOR A DECK, ONLY A SECOND EGRESS STAIRCASE EVEN THOUGH THE DECK REMAINS ON THE ROOF HALF FINISHED. THE FACT IS THAT IF HE REBUILT THE STAIRCASE ON HIS DRIVEWAY SIDE OF THE HOUSE HE WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SALEM ZONING LAW OF FIVE FEET FROM MINE AND MY NEIGHBOR'S LOT LINE. THIS WOULD REMOVE THE EXISTING STAIRCASE WITH IT'S LANDING'S VIEWS INTO THE PRIVACY OF OUR BACKYARDS AND OUR LIVING SPACES. IN REGARD TO THE DECK,BOTH MYSELF AND THE ABUTTERS OPPOSE IT. FROM THE BEGINNING,EVEN THOUGH N.OSGOOD DID NOT HAVE A PERMIT,HE WENT AHEAD AND STARTED TO BUILD ONE UNTIL A STOP- WORK ORDER WAS PLACED ON IT BY TOM ST.PIERRE. REGARDLESS OF THE PROTESTS OF MYSELF AND ABUTTERS,HE DID NOT DISMANTLE THE FOUNDATION HE HAD ERECTED. HE DID BUILD A CATWALK AND ADDED A DORMER ON THE ROOF. THE DECK IS EVEN MORE OBTRUSIVE AND LOOMS OVER THIS ALREADY CONGESTED NEIGHBORHOOD. IT LOOKS DIRECTLY INTO MY BEDROOM WINDOWS. HE ALSO MENTIONED TO ME THAT THE STAIRCASE LOOKS INTO MY KITCHEN AND TOLD ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT HE CAN SEE INTO HER BATHROOM. THIS BLATANT DISREGARD OF OUR PRIVACY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE TOLERATED. EVEN IF HE WERE TO PUT UP A PRIVACY FENCE ON THIS DECK, IT WILL BLOCK OUT SUNLIGHT, AIR& SKY NST AS THE STAIRCASE DOES NOW AND WORSEN THE SITUATION. THERE ARE NO OTHER DECKS OR STAIRCASES OF THIS NATURE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SURROUNDING STREETS. THERE IS ONLY ONE DECK ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE AND IT DOES NOT OVERLOOK ANYTHING EXCEPT ITS OWN BACKYARD AND IS SET BACK FAR ENOUGH SO AS NOT TO COMPROMISE ANYONE'S PRIVACY. I HAVE SUBMITTED PICTURES SHOWING THE ROOFTOPS AROUND MY BACKYARD ,OF THE NEIGHBORS HOUSES AND ALONG BENTLEY,ESSEX AND DERBY STREETS TO SHOW THAT THERE ARE NO DECKS OR STAIRCASES CONSISTENT WITH N.OSGOOD'S PROPOSED AND EXISTING STRUCTURE. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE BUILDING AT 68 ESSEX ST. WAS DENIED THE BUILDING OF DECKS APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH AGO. I AND MY NEIGHBORS ARE TOTALLY&ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THIS STRUCTURE, BOTH THE STAIRCASE AND DECK . IT HAS BLOCKED OUT SUNLIGHT ,IT HAS ROBBED US OF THE ENJOYMENT AND PRIVACY OF OUR BACKYARDS AND GARDENS AND HAS DEVALUED OUR PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ALTHOUGH I WAS TOLD BY N.OSGOOD THAT HE WAS TO LIVE HERE, IT IS FURTHER PROOF THAT HE HAD AND HAS NO INTENTION OF LIVING THERE SINCE HE HAS BOASTED OF AND SHOWN PICTURES OF THE HOUSE HE WAS BUILDING IN VERMONT AND WHERE HE IS NOW LIVING. HE TOLD ME IN THE BEGINNING THAT HE INTENDED TO SELL THE THIRD FLOOR AND EVEN MENTIONED A FIGURE OF SOMEWHERE IN THE VICINTIY OF ONE HUNDRED SEVENTIES SINCE HE FELT IT WAS REALLY AN ATTIC AND A PERSON CLOSE TO SIX FEET TALL WOULD HAVE TO STOOP OVER TO WALK IN THERE. THAT WAS WHY HE WANTED TO OFFER THE DECK AND LARGE STAIRCASE. THE IMPRESSION I HAD WAS THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD SELLING POINT. I HAVE SPENT A YEAR OF MY LIFE DEALING WITH HIS ARROGANCE AND TOTAL DISREGARD FOR MYSELF AND THE NEIGHBORS WITH HIS MAIN OBJECTIVE OF SELLING THE HOUSE AND THE PROFITS INVOLVED. I AM ASKING THE SALEM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO REJECT HIS REQUEST FOR A HARDSHIP VARIANCE FOR THE STAIRCASE AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A ROOF DECK, THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, LINDA J. MOUSTAKIS 2 BENTLEY ST. SALEM, MA. 01970 0004 BENTLEY STREET is 135 Map:: 3COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHI 5 Block: CITY OF SALEM Lot: 0376 _ Category: REPAIR/REPLACE Permit# 1006-05 BUILDING PERMI EProject# SIS-2005-1278 j st.Cost: '$17,000.00 Fee Charged: 1$107.00 Balance Dae:-$.00 1 PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO: Const Class: _ Contractor: License: Use Groupe DECK MASTERS LotSlze(sq ftJy3432 _ 1Zonin : 34 2 -- Qlvner: OSGOOD NICHOLAS M ....s.-..�.. _...-.............._...y,1 q rDi s Gained: " APPlieant: DECK MASTERS _ s Lost: AT: 0004 BENTLEY STREET Safe#: ! ISSUED ON:t23-May-2005.- AMENDED ON: EXPIRES ON: 23-N TO PERFORM THE FOLLOWING WORK.- 1006-05 ORK:1006-05 BUILD 2ND EGRESS STAIRS JB POST THIS CARD SO IT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET Electric Gas Plumbing Buildin Underground: Underwood: - Underground: Excavation: Service: Meter.. Footings: Rough: Rough: Rough: Foundation: Final: Final: Final: Rough.Frume: Fireplace/Chhuncy: D.P.W. Fire Health .. Insulation: Meier: Oil: Final: House b Smoke: Treasury: Water: Alarm: Sewer: Sprinklers: THIS PERMIT MAY BE REVOKED BY THE CITY OF SALEM UPON VIOLATION OF ANY i RULES AND REGULATIONS. Signature: Fee Type: Receipt No: Date Paid: Check No: Amouni BUILDING REC-2005-001542 23-May-05 2335 8107.00 GeoTMS®2006 Des L.nuriers Municipal Solutions,Inc. N Thomas St.Pierre Building Inspector Salem,MA. 01970 Dear Sir, I am writing this letter to request the revocation of Permit 1006-05 for a staircase and deck at 4 Bentley St., Salem, Ma.01970. The permit allows the staircase to be built only two feet two and one-half inches from my property and fence line and is an invasion of my privacy and a devaluation of my property. It is also in violation of the state building code 780 CMR, 1014.12.1 which states that staircases and other structures shall be ten feet away from the property lines. I request an answer in writing that there is another law that contradicts this code. c -_ --Thank you _ Linda J. Moustak s .two .ARTICLE 1. IN GENERAL page ARTICLE i. IN GENERAL F Sec. 12.1. State building code adopted For the purpose of regulating the construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, demolition, remove inspection, classification and definition of any building or structure; the use and/or occupancy of all buildini and structures and parts thereof; the establishment of fees as outlined in this article; and the standards requirements for materials to be used, that certain code known as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Sta Building Code, made by the authority of chapter 802 of the Acts of 1972 and as subsequently amended, beir the whole thereof and except as such additions are set forth in section 12-2, ?s adopted and incorporated fully as if set out at length in this section. A copy of such code is on file in the office of the city clerk. (Code 1973, § 7-1) i i i i { 780 CMR: (STATE BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS MEANS OF EGRESS approximately five feet (1524 mm) above the open,the opening shall be a minimum of 50% floor landing in a position which is readily visible of the height of the enclosing well,with the top when the doors are in the open and closed of the openings not less than seven feet(2134 positions. mm)above the top of the balcony. 3. Separation from the interior of the building 1014.12 Exterior stairways: Exterior stairways is not required for an exterior stairway located shall have openings on at least one side facing an in a building or structure that is permitted to outer court,yard or public way. The openings shall have unenclosed interior exit stairways in have an aggregate width of not less than 20e/a of the accordance with 780 CMR 1014.11. stairway perimeter and an aggregate area on each level of not less that 12%of the total perimeter wall 780 CMR 101M SMOXEPROOF area of each Level. In other than occupancies in Use gp(CLOSUM Group R-3,trends,platfotms and landings which are Past of arterior stairways in climates subject to snow 1015.1 General: A smokeproof enclosure shall or ice shall be protected to prevent accumulation of consist of an enclosed interior exit stairway that same Exterior stairways shall not be accepted as an conforms to 780 CMR .1014.0 and an outside exit in the following cases: balcony or a ventilwad vestibule meeting the I. Occupancies in Use Groups 1-2 and I-3 in requirements of 780 CMR 1015.0. Where access to the buildings that exghceed four stories or 50 feet roof is required by 780 CMR 1027.0,such access (15240 s it 1x in shall be from the smokeprooj enclosrae where a 2. Floors that exceed five stories or 65 feet smokaproojenclosure is required. (diis98tarn) in height above the level of esu 10153 Where required: In buildings having a �` height of 70 feet above the grade plane,at least one 1014.12.1 Location: Exterior exit stairways shall exit stairwell shall be protected by a smokepmof not project beyond the street tat lire.-Exterior enclosure serving all floor levels. In buildings exit stairways shalt be located.8t.leau.:ten feet having exit stairwells more than 30 fat below the ( (3048 mm)-from adjacent lot lbxs and Som other level of exit discharge, at least one exit stairwell i baitdings on the um lot unless openings in such shall be protected by a snokeproof enclosure. buildings are protected• by r/.-hour-opening serving all floor levels located below the level ofaxu protectives.• discharge. Exception:r Noncombustible exterior- , Exception: Occupancies in Use Group 1-2. �- stairways constiutting not more than 50%of the required reams of egress shall be-exempt 10133 Access: Access to the stair shall be from from the ten-foot(3048 mm)ftre separation every story and shall be by way of a vestibule or by distance requirement. way of an open exterior balcony. The minimum 1014.12.2 Protection: Exterior exit=its shall be dimension of the•vestibuic shall not be less than the separated from t interior of the building by required width of the corridor leading to the vestibule but shall. walls with a 5:eresistanee rating of not less than . l not have a width of less than 44 one hour, with fixed or self-closing opening inches(1118 mm)and shall act have a length of less than 72 inches(1829 tam)in the direction of � protectives a required is 780 CMR 1014.11. travel. e This protection shall extend vertically from a point ten fee (3048 mm) above the topmost 1015A Construction: The mwkeproojenclasure landing or the roof line,whicheveris lower,down SW be seprated from t remainder of the building tet ground,and shall sidende horizontally ten by not less than a two-hour Smesistaoa rated Jure feet(3048 mm)from eachh sside of the stairway. Openings within the horizontal tea-foot (3048 Separ°dart assemblywithout opening other than the tam)extension of the protected walls beygnd the mearx of egrext doors. The vestibule shall stairway shall be equipped with fixed %.hour ba tion the rtairway by not less than a opening Few="assemblies. two-hour freradsom a rated Jbe separation E Occupancies, coco ctW inaccordance with t tireiair anopen exterior balcony shall ce 1. Occuupamaes other thou those in Use Group R-1 or R-2,in buildings that are two stories or requirements for floor eonswetion less above grade where the level of exit discharge is the fust story above grade. 1013.4.1 Doorelaers: All doors in a smok p not 2. Separation from the interior oft building enclasure shall be self-closing or shall be is not required where the exterior stairway is aummadccloaing by actuation of a stroke served by an exterior exit access balcony that detector installed at the floor side enhance to the connects two remote exterior stairways or saokeproof enclosure in accordance with other approved exits,with a perimeter which is 780 CMR 716.5. The actuation of the smoke not less than 50% open- To be considered detector on any door shall activate the closing SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS fAALEKZON=ORMANCB1 Art.Vm.17.10°` ` "'the 'disfigurement of the]and,-with a The building area of such building or strum. maximum allowabli"ilops of twetify (20) tare, exeltuling garages, shall net crossed percent.In case of topsoil removal,the arm we 11,):percent-of the lot ansa or one hun r shall be.seeded and maintained until plea dred,tweaty,4120)quare feet„wbio}levar is "oaver•is well establia" Thar measures greater.atld sball qct ba located closer than Shad be lakes peogreesive)1r as the nae of - las U0) filet to agy.atbes*landing on the each poet for removal or quarrying is alis• same let or Say abutting W. continued and shall not be podponW mW final abandonment of the entire operation. gee. 7-!. lE et In tars disoriote. (b) a The board of appeals may impoa whatever. When a district boundary line divides a let of to accomplish the purposes dbo ji record at the time such line is adopted, the regu- lations to accomplish the purpesea 5eiein stated, } and requir ementa:in addition to those for d n lea restricted portion of such lot } stated above. shall be cond4at as condi• abates extend not'more than thirty(90) fest into flans Oro gaahk .. hiss 6onfids' p;'dst t Wdft p leamthat res teed die Sed 7-7L Vldbility at intesaeoda" �ck In order to provide unobstructed visibility at Sea ML Swdasimg poolsa intersections, no aim fence.wall.hedge or other (s) General.��used for awimmi structure or planting:of more than three(3) reefng or bathing above the established street grade shall be erected, shall be.in conformity with the requirements of r placed or.maintained within the triii ulai area this ordinanrr, provided, however, theis regula- formed by the intersecting street. limen and a tions shall not be applicable to any,aygh pool lea straight line joining said.streat lin" at points than twenty-four(24)inches deep or having a sur- wbicb ares twenty-Qv* (25):fes dWu3 bate the face area lase than two hundred fifty(260 quare point of interaction; measured along said estreat fear.Po purposeaefthiaordinaaas psobaredaw lines. shied as private swimming pools or public swim. ming pools. Sea 7 6. Atxesitory tiuildMgaand'atrmctueea. (b) Classificotwn of pools• Any pool intended to be used for swimming. �Acoessory buildings and structures,such as ga primarily ng.for the use only rages and tool shads. shell,be.-sW*d to tits fol- of the occuOal)ts of q 0ne0 or two-family dwelling lowing regulations: - and their guests shall be designated as a private (1)-No accessory building or structure shall be pO01, Primaei;y for swimming. Any pool which is - looked within'any aired"!Font ardor= not a privets pool as defined above shall be clam. 7eq y sified as a public pool. € within any side yard'of a dormer lot a (2) No accessory building or structure shall be (c) Permits.-}located nearer than ten(10)feet ts the pain (1) No swimming pool subject to the previsions A cipal 1biildi4. unless such accessory of this ordinance shall be constructed, in. - buildingoratiucture is ittached to the prin. stalled, enlarged or altered until a sw(m- cipal building. . ming pool permit line been obtained from the (3), No unattached accessory building or drue- Lupeceoe of buildings cure shall:be located nearer than five (b) (2) The application for the permit for a pool feet to any side lot line (side-lots in this shell be accompanied by two(2)copies of a ' in.stanee refer,to a projected'W1t starting plot plan showing the location of the pool from thi"fro ►t lot line, terminating at the and its relation to property lines and other ieai lot line parallel fIva (51 feet from the structures upon the lot and names of abuts side)r five (5) f6k*i6 the rear lot line. ton of adjoining property, one (1) copy of 33 I 03/03/06 11: 51 SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE: v5 . 5n INCIDENT REPORT TTYR035 -7: shift: B date:-X07%20%05�WEDNESDAY org/: --------------------- -------- ------------------------------------------------- ********** C 423 MUTUAL AID **rcv*cl: 15 : 08 * 2 BENTLEY ST apt: 001 SF SAL 423 42: 417283 * ASSIST BUILDING INSPECTOR 11 * ID # : 1090 63 - Invo: MOUSTAKIS, LINDA J 029-30-941 2 BENTLEY SALEM,MA 3nvo: OSGOOD, NICHOLAS M 024-64-74: 4 BENTLEY SALEM,MA - *** UNIT (S) *** 21 * SAL P PTL T PELL 63 - r> 15 : 08 d> 15 : 08 a> 15 : 08 c> 15 : 17 k> h> *** COMMENTS *** 21 SAL 15 : 08 :43 CD-423-ASSIST BUILDING INSPECTOR 63 - 21 SAL 15 : 17 :49 REPORT TAKEN 63 - 21 SAL THE ABOVE PARTY MR OSGOOD ENTERED THE POLICE STATION TO 134- 21 SAL POST A BOND IN ORDER TO ACCESS HIS NEIGHBORS PROPERTY AT 134- 21 SAL 2 BENTLEY. THE BOND WAS NOT POSTED, INSTEAD, THIS OFFICER 134- 21 SAL WENT DOWN TO SPEAK WITH MS MOUSTAKIS. SHE WAS NOT AT HOME. 134- 21 SAL MR OSGOOD WAS ADVISED THAT IF HE DECIDED TO WORK ON THE 134- 21 SAL ROOF, I WOULD SHUT HIM DOWN UPON A COMPLAINT. ON THE ABOVE 134- 21 SAL TIME I WAS DISPATCHED TO 2 BENTLEY TO MEET THE BUILDING 134- 21 SAL INSPECTOR, ON ILLEGAL ROOFING. 134- 21 SAL UPON MY ARRIVAL I WAS INFORMED BY TOM STPIERRE THAT THE 134- 21 SAL PARTY DID NOT HAVE A PERMIT AND THAT HE DID NOT STOP WHEN 134-: 21 SAL TOLD TO DO SO BY MR STPIERRE. I ORDERED THE WORKERS TO 134- 21 SAL STOP AND REMOVE THE ITEMS FROM HER PROPERTY. BOTH PARTIES 134- 21 SAL ADVISED TO SEEK SATISFACTION IN COURT. 134- =1MIR.� 8eurdi O tltiee P.O. Box 3005 Salem, MA 01970 --------------------g-------------- officer' s signature date 03/03/06 11 : 51 SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE: v5 . 5n INCIDENT REPORT TTYR035 -7 shift: B date: 07/22/05 FRIDAY org/ ---------------------------------------- ----- -------------------------------- ********** C 950 WORK PERMITS **rav*cl 10 : 05 * 4 'BENTLEY, ST apt: 003 1 SAL 950 95 *ibr: 1 : 451 417468 * DISPUTE OVER WORK ON ROOF 11 * ID #: 1095 138 Rept: MOUSTAKIS, LINDA J 029-30-94 2 BENTLEY SALEM,MA Invo: OSGOOD, NICHOLAS M 024-64-74 4 BENTLEY SALEM,MA *** UNITS) *** DTL SAL P PTL F RYAN 138- r> 10 : 05 d> a> C> k> h> *** COMMENTS *** DTL SAL ON 07/22/05 AT 0745 I, OFFICER RYAN, WAS ASSIGNED A DETAIL 138- DTL SAL AT 4 BENTLEY STREET FOR NICHOLAS OSGOOD DURING CONSTRUCTION 138- DTL SAL ON THE ROOF AT THAT LOCATION. MOUSTAKIS STATED THAT OSGOOD 138= DTL SAL DIDN'T HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT TO WORK ON THE ROOF. THE 138- DTL SAL BUILDING INSPECTOR, ST. PIERRE, WAS CONTACTED AND HE STATED 138- DTL SAL THAT HE HAD THE APPLICATION ON HIS DESK BUT IT WASN'T 138- DTL SAL APPROVED. I HAD OSGOOD STOP WORK ON THE ROOF IMMEDIATELY 138 DTL SAL AND ADVISED MOUSTAKIS TO CALL IF HE STARTS WORK ON THE ROOF 138- DTL SAL BEFORE THE PERMIT IS APPROVED. ST. PIERRE STATED THAT 138- DTL SAL OSGOOD DID HAVE A VALID PERMIT TO WORK ON THE BACK DECK. 138- DTL SAL SGT. PRECZEWSKI WAS ADVISED OF THE SITUATION WHEN HE ARRIVED 138- DTL SAL ON SCENE. I CLEARED THE DETAIL AT 0945 . 138 Salem Police Oeparmmemt Records gMdoe Map 95son70 officer' s signature date 03/03/06 11 : 51 SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE: v5 . 5n INCIDENT REPORT TTYR035 shift : B date: 09/21/05 WEDNESDAY or( ********** C 145 DISTURBANCE-NEIGHBORS **rcv*< 08 : 08 * 2 BENTLEY ST apt : 001 SF SAL 145 423056 * DISPUTE OVER WORK BEING DONE 11 * ID # : 1090 lit Invo: MOUSTAKIS, LINDA J 029-30-! 2 BENTLEY SALEM,MA *** UNIT(S) *** 21 * SAL P PTL T PELL lit r> 08 : 08 d> 08 : 08 a> c> 08 : 51 k> h> *** COMMENTS *** 21 SAL 08 : 08 : 09 CD-145-DISPUTE OVER WORK BEING DONE 11E 21 SAL 08 : 51: 05 CLEAR. REPORT TAKEN. 59 21 SAL THE ABOVE PROPERTY OWNER, MOUSTAKIS, REQUESTED POLICE 134 21 SAL ASSISTANCE DUE TO HER NEIGHBOR PLACING A PLASTIC COVER 134 21 SAL OVER HER VEHICLE. THE NEIGHBOR, WHO IS PAINTING HIS HOUSE, 134 21 SAL ENTERED HER PROPERTY AND COVERED THE VEHCILE WITHOUT 134 21 SAL PERMISSION. THE PAINTER AT 4 BENTLEY WAS ADVISED TO POST 134 21 SAL A BOND IN ORDER TO ENTER HER PROPERTY. CAPT CALLAHAN 134 21 SAL APPROVED THE POSTING OF THE BOND. CLEAR. 134 21 SAL OSGOOD PAINTING 134 21 SAL PO BOX 1111 13� 21 SAL MARBLEHEAD, MA 134 Reoht P.O.Bac 3005 Salem,MA 01970 ----------------------------------- --------------- officer' s signature date r y - Tache Reall Estate ' 208 DERBY STREET SALEM,MA 01970 OFFICE:(978)745.2004 • FAX:(978)745-0450 Listing Broker Office Phone It _,�j � � - q-• .� � �-���"'" Home Phone p ., ( Address 4 Bentley Street,Unit 1,Salem Price 244,900 Directions Essex Street to Bentley Street Style Condo Ld Area 3432 House Sz s e 145 Rooms 15 Liv Area 1000+/- Color yellow s Stories 1 Bdrms 1-2 Mbrm Size Fence yes f FLOOR PLAN B 1 2 3 Foundation fieldstone Roof rubber 3 t Living Room X S.Pump no Basement full/storage Dining Room X Exterior clapboard Insulation fiberglass Kitchen X I Stm Wad replacement I Floors hardwood T Family Room Dom HW electric Own/Rent Bedrooms X Heat FHA Fuel gas Bathrooms X Cost est Gallons Shower X I I Wiring 100 amp CB Plumbing mixed Porch/Deck Gas yes Water city -Fireplace X Pool no Sewer city Office Area X Garage I no I Driveway 2 car deeded Pass. arrared ZonlO R2 Stove as Fan no W/D no Hk U es Book 1 13304 Ref. I ne D/W no Disp no A/C I no I Pae 1 572 Assessment Taxes r Remarks: Assoc. Fee Great 1-2 bedroom unit offering hardwood floors,exposed beams,fireplace,patio and 2 car deeded parking. Very f flexible floor plan,great closet space. Close to town,train,dining,beaches and more! Taxes,assessment and condo fee to be determined. CONSUMER INFORMATION: Massachusetts Board of Registration of Real Estate Brokers and Salespersons requires Mandatory Agency Disclosure/Agency Relationship.Whether you are the buyer or the seller you can choose to have the advise, assistance and representation of your own agent. Do not assume that a broker is acting on your behalf unless you have contracted with that broker to represent you prior to viewing any property.Types of Agency Representation Include Seller's Agent,Buyer's Agent and Disclosed Dual Agent. Except es may be otheWas noted,specifications with regard to the property described above were provided solely by the sellers)without verification thereof by broker(s)and,therefore,brokerls)accepts no responsibility for the accuracy thereof.Offering is subject to prior sale,price change,or withdrawal without notice. Note:Foreclosure Properties Only:The Seller,their agents and sub-agents,assume no liability for errors or omissions in this property listing or advertising or promo- , tonal matements and materiels.Although Information has been obtained from sources deemed reliable,the Seller,their agents and sub-agents,make no guarantee LENDER �- as to the accuracy of the informetbn herein contained or in any other listing or advertising materiel.The property is to be sold'as b'-'where W. ... ......c .m r s a.$r p c > ' r Tache Real Estate r lilltl�rll!! ' „� ,� nq 208 DERBY STREET SALEM,MA 01970 n ,r ✓` OFFICE:(978)745-2004 FAX:(978)745-0450 . Listing Broker • M r^ R� � ~�,•r, � ,..- • Office Phone k - _� - m Home Phone N - M �• m E Address 4 Bentely Street,Unit 2,Salem Price 239,900 Directions Essex Street to Bentley Street style Condo Ld Area 3432 House Sz f Age 147 Rooms 1 5 Liv Area 1000+/_ Color Yellow Stories 1 Bdrms 2 Mbrm Size Fence yes FLOOR PLAN B 1 2 1 3 Foundation fieldstone Roof rubber Living Room X S.Pump no Basement full - -Dining Room Exterior clapboard Insulation blown-m' Kitchen X Stm Wnd replacement Floors hardwood j Family Room Dom HW electric Own/Rent Bedrooms 2 Heat FHA Fuel oil Bathrooms X Cost est Gallons Shower X Wiring 100 strip CB Plumbiniz Porch/Deck Gas yes Water mixed Fireplace X Pool no Sewer city t Office X I Gars a no Driveway 2 car deeded Poss. arranged ZoningR2 Stove ' Fan no W/D no Hk U es Book 13304 f Ret • D/W no Disp no A/C no I Pae 1572 Assessment Taxes r -Remarks: Assoc.Fee Two bedroom close to town,train,beaches and more! Very flexible floor plan,private yard area,2 car deeded parking and much more! '$2000.00 credit for appliances. 3 Taxes,assessment and condo fee to be determined, ak CONSUMER INFORMATION: Massachusetts Board of Registration of Real Estate Brokers and Salespersons requires Mandatory Agency Disclosure/Agency Relationship.Whether you are the buyer or the seller you can choose to have the advise,assistance and representation of your own agent. Do not assume that a broker is acting on your behalf unless you have contracted with that broker to represent you prior to viewing any property.Types of Agency Representation Include Seller's Agent,Buyer's Agent and Disclosed Dual Agent. Except as may be otherwise noted,Specifications with regard to the property described above were provided Soley by the seller(s)wi8aut verification thereof by broker($)and,therefore,broker(s)accepts no responsibility for the acwracy thereof.Offering is subject to prior sale,price change,or withdrawal whhout notice. Note:Foreclosure Properties On The Seller,their agents and aub-a enb,assume no liability for more or omisslons in thispropertylistin or acinnisi or roma ' m Al 9 9 otY 9 n9 P Clonal steternsme end materials.Although Infomretion has been obtained from eauroes deemed reliable,the Sellar,their agents and sub-agents,make no guaremee LENDER as to the accuracy of the informmian herein contained or in any other listing or advertising materiel.The property is to be soil%a is'.'where Is'. Voter List 1960 - 4 - Richard Audrey Doran, Florence 1961 - 4 - Richard, Audrey Doran, Florence 1962 - 4 - Richard,Audrey Vacant 1963 - 4 - Lassiter, Edward & Anna Wilson, William & Faye 1964 - 4 - Call, Douglas & Susan Wilson, Wm. & Faye 1965 - 4 - Call, Douglas & Susan Jalbert, Doris, & Ronald 1966 - 4 - Borowski, Helen Lassiter, Edward & Anna 1967 - 4 - Borowski, Helen Hanson, Jack Lassiter, Ed. &Anna 1968 - 4 - Lassiter, E. & A. Borowski, Helen 1969 - 4 - Lassiter, E. &A. City Directory List 1960 - 4 - Doran, Florence 1961 - 4 - Doran, Florence 1962 - 4 - 1963 - 4 - Wilson, William 1964 - 4 - Call, Douglas Wilson, William Vacant 1965 - 4 - Call, Douglas Jalbert, Ronald 1966 - 4 - Borowski, Helen Lassiter, Edward 1967 - 4 - Borowski, Helen Lassiter, Edward 1968 - 4 - Borowski, Helen Lassiter, Edward 1969 - 4 - LeBel, Andrew Lassiter, Edward Buckley, Diana IV� i ate!° �.4 �., ksI Sol '��1 •-'4 Y< I _ __ r J Y l�' r 'D D �•O r t kr 1 , 1 s 0. �1 t v 0 1 ♦ O Jen .t. ��� ♦ \:♦ • Iii \� vl 1, \ ��" Jr • ®.' ,D Ali ♦ ♦ III♦b4J`�J J\ \Ij,. �, ,�. 1 1 ��1 ` � • ^ III �. X11 m ui.. A , 7 b. •'�!i fk0" y s rY� �� �.��OJ� •. i� ....IP tie ♦ir �"" ♦n � �•b� b���l a` ✓v, �:t'.��F+i<�. �,J:� �>i�p. ,�i- 1D0.. � i 1� .3 ♦a�,. r-�, r •.�� ss S: '��J,y(< e 0 C O 1 . � . �r s r� '�.n• Grwl � _ymy� f _ � 6 3 CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT BOARD OF. HEALTH- -9 North Street -^ Salem,Massachusetts 01970 508-741-180 . March 16;+1994°;^-_� Leo_Trembfay, Building'Inspector One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Sir: While conducting inspections at 4 Bentley Streeet,owned by Ann Stunzi, 4 Commerical Street, Marblehead, MA 01945, in accordance with State Sanitary Code,Chapter 11, 105 CMR 410.000 "Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation",the following was noted: This-is a three family dwelling. There is no 2nd means of egress for the occupied third floor apartment. This department has no record of a Certificate of Fitness being issued for this apartment at any ,time We are requesting your assistance and determination in this matter. Thank you. FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH VIR IA MOUSTAKIS ACTING HEALTH AGENT VM1mp cc: Fire Prevention k CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR N8 SALEM, .MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 380 MAYOR FAX: 978.740-9846 ( November 22, 2005 f E t Nicholas Osgood 4 Bentley Street Unit#3 l Salem, Ma. 01970 RE: Building Permit#1006-05 Dear Mr. Osgood: r This Department issued for your property building permit number 1006-05 to construct a second means of egress stairs from your third floor unit. 4 At the time of issuance, this Department told you that the stair was exempt from zoning regulations because it is a required egress. Unfortunately, this Department has not been able to find any language allowing this egress to be exempt from zoning. The side setback for open decks and stairs is 5 feet. You are directed to correct this zoning violation within 60 days upon receipt of this notice. Your right to appeal is to the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals. If you wish to discuss this matter, please contact me directly Sincerely, Thomas St. Pierre Zoning Enforcement Officer cc: Kate Sullivan,Mayors Office Elizabeth Rennard, Assistant Solicitor DATE OF PERMIT PERMIT No. OWNER . LOCATION 4 Bentley Street - 8/13/84 X395 Paul Stuntz -' STRUCTURE - MATERIAL DIMENSIONS No..OF STORIES NO/.O�F FAMILIESI WARD COST I T�.y !1 2 $ 1,500 Dwelling BUILDER - - i F Strip and reroof,remove dormers where necessary,replace with newer windows. f Determined to p a 1 three (3) family dulling as per the Zoning Enforcement w k Officer: LEO E. TA 1 DATE # 2/27/97 #97-97 Renovate 3rd fl. . as per plans: new bath & replace walls. est. 7000. f (Owner: Nicholas Osgood). J.J.J. 4 Certificate of Occupancy issued 5/15/97 by M.M.M. for permit U 97-97 5 0004 BENTLEY STREET GIs#: 9485 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUS Map 35 Bock: -- CITY OF SALEM Lot: 10376 _ Category: IREPARMEPLACE Permit# 1006-05 BUILDING PERMIT Project# JS-2005-1278 Est.Cost: $17,000.00 Fee Charged: $107.00 Balance Due: Is.00 PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO: Const. Class: Contractor: License: Use Group: DECK MASTERS Lot Size(sq. fQ:`(3432 1 Zoning: R2 Owner. OSGOOD NICHOLAS M Units Gained: Applicant: DECK MASTERS Units Lost: AT: 0004 BENTLEY STREET Dig Safe#: J ISSUED OAW,23-May-2005�-r. ---AMENDED ON: EXPIRES ON. 23-Nov TO PERFORM THE FOLLOWING WORK: 1006-05 BUILD 2ND EGRESS STAIRS JB POST THIS CARD SO IT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET Electric Gas Plumbine Buildine Underground: Underground: Underground: Excavation: Service: Meter: Footings: Rough: Rough: Rough: Foundation: Final: Final: Final: Rough Frame: Fireplace/Cllnmey: D.P.W. Fire Health Insulation: Meter: Oil: Final: [louse# Smoke: - Water: Alarm: Treasury: Sewer: Sprinklers: THIS PERMIT MAY BE REVOKED BY THE CITY OF SALEM UPON VIOLATION OF ANY OF RULES AND REGULATIONS. Signature: Fee Type: Receipt No: Date Paid: Check No: Amount: BUILDING REC-2005-001542 23-May-05 2335 $107.00 GcoTMS®2006 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions,Inc. 03/03/06 11: 51 SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE: v5 . 5n INCIDENT REPORT TTYR035 -7: shift: B date`;:_07/20/05, WEDNESDAY org/: ********** C 423 MUTUAL AID **rcv*cl: 15 : 08 * 2 BENTLEY ST apt: 001 SF SAL 423 42: 417283 * ASSIST BUILDING INSPECTOR 11 * ID #: 1090 63 - Invo: MOUSTAKIS, LINDA J 029-30-941 2 BENTLEY SALEM,MA Invo: OSGOOD, NICHOLAS M 024-64-74: 4 BENTLEY SALEM,MA *** UNITS),*** 21 * SAL P PTL T PELL 63 -1 r> 15 : 08 d> 15 : 08 a> 15 : 08 c> 15 : 17 k> h> *** COMMENTS *** 21 SAL 15 : 08 :43 CD-423-ASSIST BUILDING INSPECTOR 63 - 21 SAL 15 : 17 :49 REPORT TAKEN 63 21 SAL THE ABOVE PARTY MR OSGOOD ENTERED THE POLICE STATION TO 134- 21 SAL POST A BOND IN ORDER TO ACCESS HIS NEIGHBORS PROPERTY AT 134- 21 SAL 2 BENTLEY. THE BOND WAS NOT POSTED, INSTEAD, THIS OFFICER 134- 21 SAL WENT DOWN TO SPEAK WITH MS MOUSTAKIS . SHE WAS NOT AT HOME. 134- 21 SAL MR OSGOOD WAS ADVISED THAT IF HE DECIDED TO WORK ON THE 134- 21 SAL' ROOF, I WOULD SHUT HIM DOWN UPON A COMPLAINT. ON THE ABOVE 134- 21 SAL TIME I WAS DISPATCHED TO 2 BENTLEY TO MEET THE BUILDING 134- 21 SAL INSPECTOR, ON ILLEGAL ROOFING. 134- 21 SAL UPON MY ARRIVAL I WAS INFORMED BY TOM STPIERRE THAT THE 134- 21 SAL PARTY DID NOT HAVE A PERMIT AND THAT HE DID NOT STOP WHEN 134- 21 SAL TOLD TO DO SO BY MR STPIERRE. I ORDERED THE WORKERS TO 134- 21 SAL STOP AND REMOVE THE ITEMS FROM HER PROPERTY. BOTH PARTIES 134- 21 SAL ADVISED TO SEEK SATISFACTION IN COURT. 134- slim P" 34-slimP" Reeoroi 0101sloe P.O. Box 3005 Salem, MA 01970 --------------------g-------------- officer' s signature date 03/03/06 11 : 51 SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE: v5 . 5n INCIDENT REPORT TTYR035 shift: B dater 07%22/OS, FRIDAY or(. ********** C 950 WORK PERMITS **rcv*c 10 : 05 * 4 BENTLEY ST apt: 003 1 SAL 950 *ibr: 1 : 451 417468 * DISPUTE OVER WORK ON ROOF 11 * ID #: 1095 131 Rept : MOUSTAKIS, LINDA J 029-30-1. 2 BENTLEY SALEM,MA Invo: OSGOOD, NICHOLAS M 024-64-' 4 BENTLEY SALEM,MA *** UNIT ($) *** DTL SAL P PTL F RYAN 131 r> 10 : 05 d> a> c> k> h> *** COMMENTS *** DTL SAL ON 07/22/05 AT 0745 I, OFFICER RYAN, WAS ASSIGNED A DETAIL 131 DTL SAL AT 4 BENTLEY STREET FOR NICHOLAS OSGOOD DURING CONSTRUCTION 131 DTL SAL ON THE ROOF AT THAT LOCATION. MOUSTAKIS STATED THAT OSGOOD 131 DTL SAL DIDN' T HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT TO WORK ON THE ROOF. THE 131 DTL SAL BUILDING INSPECTOR, ST. PIERRE, WAS CONTACTED AND HE STATED 131 DTL SAL THAT HE HAD THE APPLICATION ON HIS DESK BUT IT WASN'T 131 DTL SAL APPROVED. I HAD OSGOOD STOP WORK ON THE ROOF IMMEDIATELY 131 DTL SAL AND ADVISED MOUSTAKIS TO CALL IF HE STARTS WORK ON THE ROOF 131 DTL SAL BEFORE THE PERMIT IS APPROVED. ST. PIERRE STATED THAT 131 DTL SAL OSGOOD DID HAVE A VALID PERMIT TO WORK ON THE BACK DECK. 131 DTL SAL SGT. PRECZEWSKI WAS ADVISED OF THE SITUATION WHEN HE ARRIVED 131 DTL SAL ON SCENE. I CLEARED THE DETAIL AT 0945 . 131 Salem Police Department peoords OM8104 BOX 305 MA OWO -- ------- -------------------------- --------------- officer' s signature date 03/03/06 11 : 51 SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE: 1 v5 . 5n INCIDENT REPORT TTYR035 -719 shift : B date :C09%21%05 WEDNESDAY org/1st ********** C 145 DISTURBANCE-NEIGHBORS **rcv*clr* 08 : 08 * 2 BENTLEY ST apt: 001 SF SAL 145 145 423056 * DISPUTE OVER WORK BEING DONE 11 * ID # : 1090 118-719 Invo: MOUSTAKIS, LINDA J 029-30-9405 2 BENTLEY SALEM,MA *** UNIT (S) *** 21 * SAL P PTL T PELL 118-59 r> 08 : 08 d> 08 : 08 a> c> 08 : 51 k> h> *** COMMENTS *** 21 SAL 08 : 08 : 09 CD-145-DISPUTE OVER WORK BEING DONE 118- 21 SAL 08 : 51 : 05 CLEAR. REPORT TAKEN. 59 - 21 SAL THE ABOVE PROPERTY OWNER, MOUSTAKIS, REQUESTED POLICE 134- 21 SAL ASSISTANCE DUE TO HER NEIGHBOR PLACING A PLASTIC COVER 134- 21 SAL OVER HER VEHICLE. THE NEIGHBOR, WHO IS PAINTING HIS HOUSE, 134- 21 SAL ENTERED HER PROPERTY AND COVERED THE VEHCILE WITHOUT 134- 21 SAL PERMISSION. THE PAINTER AT 4 BENTLEY WAS ADVISED TO POST 134- 21 SAL A BOND IN ORDER TO ENTER HER PROPERTY. CAPT CALLAHAN 134- 21 SAL APPROVED THE POSTING OF THE BOND. CLEAR. 134- 21 SAL OSGOOD PAINTING 134- 21 SAL PO BOX 1111 134- 21 SAL MARBLEHEAD, MA 134- Rim*ohww P.O.Box 3005 Salem,MA 01970 officer' s signature date Thomas St.Piene Building Inspector Salem, MA. 01970 Dear Sir, I am writing this letter to request the revocation of Permit 1006-05 for a staircase and deck at 4 Bentley St., Salem, Ma.01970. The permit allows the staircase to be built only two feet two and one-half inches from my property and fence line and is an invasion of my privacy and a devaluation of my property. It is also in violation of the state building code 780 CMR, 1014.12.1 which states that staircases and other structures shall be ten feet away from the property lines. I request an answer in writing that there is another law that contradicts this code. Thank you, Linda J. Moustakis ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Pae ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec 12=1.".State.iiuilding-aod1b adopted. For the purpose of regulating the construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, demolition, remc inspection, classification and definition of any building or structure; the use and/or occupancy of all build' and structures and parts thereof; the establishment of fees as outlined in this article; and the standard requirements for materials to be used,that certain code known as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts S Building Code, made by the authority of chapter 802 of the Acts of 1972 and as subsequently amended, bi the whole thereof and except as such additions are set forth in section 12-2, is adopted and incorporates fully as if set out at length in this section. A copy of such code is on file in the office of the city clerk. (Code 1973, § 7-1) i i j f i 1 i J i c r. "go CMR;:ST.ATE_.BQARD O_F.$UILllING'REGUI:ATION"ND STANDARDS MEANS OF EGRESS r approximately five feet (1524 mm) above the o 0 peq the opening shall be a minimum of 50/o floor landing in a position which is readily visible of the height of the enclosing wall,with the top w when the doors are in the open and closed of the openings not less than seven feet(2134 positions. mm)above the top of the balcony. 3. Separation from the interior of the building 1014.12 Exterior Asinvays: Exterior srabwaya is not required for an exterior stairway located shall have openings on at least one side facing an in a building or structure that is permitted to outer court,yard or public way. The openings shall have unenclosed interior exit stairways in have an aggregate width of not less than 2o°/n of the accordance with 780 CMR 1014.11. stairway perimeter and an aggregate area on each level of not less than IrA of the total perimeter,wall 780 CMR 1015.0 SMOKEPROOF airs of each level. In other than occupancies in Use ENCLOSURES Group R-3,treads,•pia m=and landings which are Part of exterior stairways in climates subject to snow 1015.1 General: A smakeproof enclomm sball or ice shall be protected to prevent accumulation of consist of an enclosed interior exit stairway that same. Exterior stairways shall not be accepted as an conforms to 780 CMR 1014.0 and an outside exit in the following cases: balcony or a ventilated vestibule meeting the I. Occupancies in Use Groups I-2 and I-3 in ante of 780 CMR 1015.0. Where access to buildings that exceed four stories or 50 feet the roof is required by 780 CMR 1027.0,such access (15240 mm)in height. shall be from the smokepmof enclosure whew a 2. Floors that exceed live stories or 65 feet makeproofenclosw is tegtdnd. ( 8mm) in height above the level of exit 1015.2 Where required: In buildings having a height of 70 feet above the grade plane,at two one 1011.12.1 Locadon:-Extaie'restrstairweysshall'. exit stairwell shall be protected by a smokeproof ' not project beyond the sneer lot line.-Exterior. enclosure serving all floor levels. In buildings fstairways shall be located at least ten Lot having exit stairwells more than 30 fat below the . ' (3048 mm)-from at}jacent lot lines and from other level of esu discharge at least one exit stairwell jjbuUbW on the samriot unless openingsia:strdt shall be protected by a smokeproof enclosure. g-bnihdlaps-are,protected'by w'/.hour•opening_ serving all floor levels located below the level ofexit r7ptotativea • discharge. f-Exception: Noncombustible,- Marius Exception: Occupancies in Use Group 1-2. L"stat ways constituting act more than 50%of the,required-nem'of egress shall beci mpt„ 1013.3.Access: Access to the stair shall be from r-from-tlnn ten-foot-(3048 nun)fn aepamtian every story and shall be by way of a vestibule or by ;jilsiance requirement.- way of an open exterior balcony. The minimum 1014.122 Proteedon: Exterior exit stairs shall be dimeutaton of the vestibule shall not be less than the separated from the interior of the building by required width of the corri�r leading to the not vestibule b walla with a 5rerosisrance rating of not less than but shall have a width of leu than 44 one hour, with fixed or selt'.eloaing opening inches(1118 mm)and shall not have a length of less then protectives as required in 780 CMR 1014.11. tmvvel�inches(1829 mm)in the direction of egress This protection shall extend vertically from a Point can Ext (3048 mm) above the topmost 1015A Construction: The smoArproof enclosure landing �or the rociffins,whichava,is lower,down tgrmmd, and shall extend horizonuall ten ceding y shall be separated from the remainder of the feet(3048 mm)from each side of the stairway. by not leu than a two-hour fireresistaaca rated,Jire Openings within the horiwntal ten-fon (3048separation assembly withtnnopeempother than the mm)extension of the protected wails beygnd the Frau°regress doors. The vestibule shall stairway shall be equipped with fixed %.hour be separated fiom the stairway by not less than a opening protectiVe assemblies. two-hour fireresistanee rated Are saparation Exceptions: awn* The open extedor balcony shall be I. Occtrpancim other than those in Use Group COIIstructed in accordance with the firarmemoce R-1 or R-2,in buildings that are two stories or 1211119 requirements for floor construction leu above glade when the level of exit 4rcharge is the first story above grade. 1015.4.1 Door closers: All doors in asmokeproof 2. Separation fmat the interior of the building endostar shall be self-closing or shall be is not required when the exterior stairway is automatic-closing by mentation of a smoke served by an exterior exit access balcony that detector installed at the floor side entrance to the connects two Monte exterior stairways or smokeproof enclosure in accordance with ad=approved exits,with a perimeter which is 780 CMR 716.5. The actuation of the smoke not less than 500/a open To be considered detector on any door shall activate the closing SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS LSUUZONDMORDIMANCE Art.VU,17.10 .. _....�:.,.-..- a .= _•. .-., duce the d4NC remgnt of the band, with a Thtbuildin�area d inch building or struo maximum allowable"slope of twenty (20i ture.-excluding garages,, shalt net execed peramt.In can of topaad removal,the West ori 111 pesceaL of the.lat artu.;oc ana:hune shall be seeded and maintainned until plant dred'two►tk-OC11.squtlt%fsst,wLi0hav"er caver`is well nubile" Then meames fir'";anRls6d >totbloeatpjclosei than shall be taken progressively as the use of ftapc(101 !(toss o. otlne each part for removal or quarrying is die so"lot,oii -qp the continued and shall nat be postponed until -artyr,abuEting,loR: X final abandonment of the entire operation. See. 7A. TAI In two dishieta (5) The board of appeals may impose whatever WLerr}distriot liar divide a let of ad+iitioial i equiii '!t'd n` iji Vii' to accomplish the purposes heieln e_caisuited, record at the time such line is adop6ed, the regu. and web requirements;in addition to those lations for the Ion restricted portion of such lot stated above, shall be coneidse�!as Dont((• sha extend not'more then thirl* (90) feet into portion.provided that the lot � , the lest restricted der tricL See. 7.1. Visibility at intersections. In order to provide unobstructed visi'b'ility at Sea 7.10. 8svlmsing pooh. intersections, no sig;, fence..walL,hoop or other structure or planting of more than three(3)(ret (ad Genend.Poole used for swimming or bathing above the estabUsbed street grade shall be erected. shall be in conformity with the requirements of placed or maintained within the triangular area thia ordinance; provided, however, their regula- formed by the intersecting street. lines and a tions shall trot be applicable to any aucb ped suless straight liar joining-said,stews I1nu a< points than twenty-four(24)inches deep or Having a r- wbieh era twenty-five (25).feet distarO.froty the face ares ler than two hundred liR,►(2691 square point of intersection, measured along said cirri feet.Par purpona of this ordinance pools am clam. linea sifted as private swimming pools or public swim- ming pools. ' Sea=74..Accessoeybuiidinge:andstruetueee. (b) C(cssi Ikotion of gook. Any pool intended to AoDcssory buildings and,structures,such as ga. - be used prlmar* far swimming for tlm use only rages and tool sheds, shall be subject to the fol, of the oa upa;ts of,;Dna or two-fam(ly dwelling lowing regulations: and their guests shall be designated as a private (1No accessory building or structure shill be Pool, Primarily for swimming. Any pool which is ,, not a private pool se defined above shall be claw r fixated:within=any required;hontyaed'or sifted as a public pool, within any side yard of a corner IDR (2)-No accessory building or structure:ahall be (e) Permits. lastedneararthaetari(lo)tmtto:thepriw (1) No swimming pool subject to theprovisiona eor�cipal,briiidinx,-unit".sucb:accessory of ilei(ordinance shall be constructed, in. buildingorstnwtiitelsattwWtotheprin stalled, enlarged altered until a swim. r cc)pal_building. t ming pool permit has been obtained from (( ) No unattached amcessorybuddiug.or dzue. the inspector of buildings cure shalf,fie.located,nearer,then fiW(5) ' l2) The application for the permit for a pad -_feet'to any side:lot.,line:(side.,lofs,in,this. shall be accompanied by two(2)copies of a instancerefer`to s projected'flne starting plot plan showing the location of the pool &ri the front lot line, termbnatieg at the and its relation to property linea and other tear lot line parallel R4t5) flet from-the structures upon the lot and names of abut, T,eide)_or,frve *'feerfiom the rear,tot line. tors of adjoining property, one (1) copy of 33 Voter List 1960 - 4 - Richard Audrey Doran, Florence 1961 - 4 - Richard, Audrey Doran, Florence 1962 - 4 - Richard, Audrey Vacant 1963 - 4'- Lassiter, Edward &Anna Wilson, William & Faye 1964 - 4 - Call, Douglas & Susan Wilson, Wm. & Faye 1965 - 4 - Call, Douglas & Susan Jalbert, Doris, & Ronald 1966 - 4 - . Borowski, Helen Lassiter, Edward &Anna 1967 - 4 - Borowski, Helen Hanson, Jack Lassiter, Ed. & Anna 1968 - 4 - Lassiter, E. &A. Borowski, Helen 1969 - 4 - Lassiter, E. &A. City Directory List 1960 - 4 - Doran, Florence 1961 - 4 - Doran, Florence 1962 - 4 - 1963 - 4 - Wilson, William 1964 - 4 - Call, Douglas Wilson, William Vacant 1965 - 4 - Call, Douglas Jalbert, Ronald 1966 - 4 - Borowski, Helen Lassiter, Edward 1967 - 4 - Borowski, Helen Lassiter, Edward 1968 - 4 - Borowski, Helen Lassiter, Edward 1969 - 4 - LeBel,Andrew Lassiter, Edward Buckley, Diana e�*.CUMN,� ottlEllt, r�SS�SCLI�P## f Public Propertg Pepurtutent '''•,taMM6� p" Puilliug Department William H. Munroe One Salem Green 745-0213 November•20, 1985 Mr. Steven D. White 30 Commercial Street Marblehead,.MA OY945 RE: 4 Bentley Street, Salem, MA Dear Mr. White, - As per your request this office has researched record's available on your property located at 4 Bentley Street with, the following findings. The building has been occupied as a three (3) family dwelling prior to 1965 and this use has continued to date. It is located in a residential two (2) family zone and is there for a LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE of land. This letter is in noway meant to confirm .that .the. property does or does not conform`to all current:Building,.`Fire, Electrical, Plumbing or Gas.Codes. Sincerely, William.H.;Munroe. -Inspector of Buildings Zoning Officer WHM/jdg Y .„ TRU of ftem. Mttssar4usPttB Ilublic 11raptag Department Guilaing Department tone dalem aieeen 500.745-9595 Ext. 388 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer iftvember„12 `1993 Four Bentley St. Realty Trust Anne Cardy 4 Commercial St. Marblehead, MA 01945 RE: 4 Bentley St. , Salem Dear Ms. Cardy: This office has learned you are trying to rent a third floor apartment at the above reference address. The records:in�'this,-depaitmeni show this ;property to'be"a"two ,family dwelling_in'a- Residential-Two'Family District;, ;[(R=2); . To allow use as more than two family would-require a ,varianceJrom the„City„of.,jSp1em Zoning Board _4_ppeal. Y If you need any further information do not hesitate to contact this department. Sincerely, (Leos E. .Tremblay,, Zoning Enforcement' fficer LET:bms cc: Councillor Nowak, Ward 1 of *81m. AUSSUC4USMS 1publit f ruptag Department $utlbing Separtmeat Dae Oakm Queen 508-745-9595 Eat. 380 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer November 29, 1991 Four Bentley St. Rlty. Trust Anne Cardy 4 Commercial Street Marblehead, MA 01945 RE: 4 Bentley St. , Salem Dear Ms. Cardy: ,We•havevbeen informed. that you have rented a third floor apartmenv ate the above referenced property. You-were- told by this department in a letter dated: November- l2, 1993 that you could not have a third unit there, that this property, according to our records, is only a two family dwelling: and,it would require Board of Appeal action to increase the use. You have evidently chose to jgnore•my letter. You are hereby ordered to cease and desist all illegal use of the property and to contact this office upon receipt of this notice to advise use of your intentions. Failure to comply will result. in• the- appropriate. legal-. action being taken. Sincerely, Leo- E. Tremblay Zoning Enforcement Officer LET:bms Certified Mail #P 921 991 557 /4bntly/ Bliii_D! D DEPT. I& � � 2 36 rV "y3 CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMEI BOARD OF HEALTH RECEIVED > r� 9 North Street E pa,,-1,.o S. ROBERT E. BLENKHORN Salem, Massachusetts 01970 CIT OF ��� '( � HEALTH AGENT 509-741-1900 December--',6 :1993 Four Bently Street Trust Anne Carey Stunzi Trustee, Paul Starnzi 4 Ome ercial Street Marblehead, Ma 01945 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Stunzi: On 12/6/93, we received a phone call from your tenant Mrs. True, apartment #2 at 4 Bently Street in Salem. She stated that a portion of the ceiling in the living roan had collapsed as the result of water damage from the apartment on,theAthtrdvfloor. (See our De effber 3, 1993 Inspection Report citing this violation) . Subsequently, a phone call was placed to you notifying you of this arra the message was left on an answering machine. i0ntl2/7/93" Building Inspector Teo^.Tranblay„notified us that he had been in carkaet with you and that you are in the process of correcting the source of the leaking Far making all structural arra ceiling repairs necessary. Our records indicate that m�Certificate ofFitness:was-ever issuedXor,any., of`the:epaztrnents~at.that address., which,constitutes a violation-of Cita of Salem'Code of.:0idinances, Article XIII and violation of State Sanitary Code, Chapter II, 105`CMR 410.000 'Y-di-nin m Standards of Fitness for Human Hatitation. 40rr.tJune-1,,`1992, a notice was sent to you regarding the rental of•Apartanent-R-but you did-not-respond— Be advised that Certificates of Fitness (in effect since 1988) must be obtained for all apartirents. .• Contact this office at your earliest convenience to arrange the same for apartments 1 and 3. A Certificate inspecti and reinspection will be conducted by V. Moustakis. (Apt. #2) . Enclosed is paperwork regarding the above ordinance, plus applications for all apartsrents. Your prompt response is appreciated to resolve the existing Certificate of Fitness violations. FOR TfE BMW OF HEALTH REPLY T0: ROBERT E. BLEWHOW, C.H.O. VIRGINIA M7USTAXIS Health Agent Sanitarian fAtL-S DATE OF PERMIT PERMIT No. OWNER LOCATION L%13/84.J #395 Paul Stuntz I 4 Bentley Street ��y'�r STRUCTURE MATERIAL DIMENSIONS No.OF STORIES OF FAMILIES WARD COST Dwellin IN*. ' 2 I $ 1,500 g BUILDER Strip and reroof,remove dowmers where necessary,replace with newer windows. Determined to a 1 three (3) family dwelling as per the Zoning Enforcement Officer: LEO E. TR AY DATE 2/27/97 1197-97 Renovate 3rd fl. t. as per plans: new bath & replace wa1ls.J.JtJ.7000. 47. (Owner: Nicholas Osgood). Certificate of Occupancy issued 5/15/97 by M.M.M. for permit 11 97-97 i c t 4a a� CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT �- BOARD OF HEALTH 9North Street .- Salem, Massachusetts 01970 508-741.-180 -March 16, 1994 Leo Tremblay, Building Inspector One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Sir: While conducting inspections at 4 Bentley Streeet, owned by Ann Stunzi, 4 Commerical Street, Marblehead, MA 01945, in accordance with State Sanitary Code, Chapter 11, 105 CMR 410.000 "Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation°,the following was noted: ,This:is a three family dwelling. There is no 2nd means of egress for the occupied third floor apartment: This department has no record of a Certificate of Fitness being issued for this apartment at any time. We are requesting your assistance and determination in this matter. Thank.you. FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH VIR IA MOUSTAKIS ACTING HEALTH AGENT VWmp cc: Fire Prevention r Titg of *a1em. msssar4usetts Public Propertg 19epartment Nuilbing Eepurtment (One #stem (green 508-745-9595 Ext. 380 Leo E. Tremblay- Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer -March-18, 1994... Four Bentley St. Realty Trust Anne Curry, Tr. 4 Commercial St. Marblehead, MA 01945 RE: 4 Bentley St. Dear Ms. Curry: I have .received a complaint from the City of Salem Health Department regarding the second means of egress at the above referenced property. -I conducted an inspection of the property today, March 18, .1994 and found the egress from the third floor apartment had been totally blocked up with wood panels. This a violations of the Massachusetts.-State .Building CodeSection 3401.10.1 Means of Egress. You are hereby requested to contact this office immediately upon receipt of this letter in order to correct this situation. Failure to comply will result in the appropriate legal action being taken. Sincerely, n Leo "E. Tremblay Inspector of Buildings LET:bms cc: Councillor Ahmed \4bntly\ J . if � ij of t*ttlem, MttnnttrllusEtts Public PropertV Department tiluilbing Department (One t3sirm (6rern 508-745-9595 Ext. 300 Leo"E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer L .March. 28,_ 1994 Four Bentley St. Realty Trust Anne Curry, Trustee 4 Commercial Street Marblehead, A 01945 RE: 4 Bentley Street Dear Ms. Curry: Thank you very much for your prompt response to the notice dated March 18, 1994 regarding second means of egress from the third floor of the above referenced property. I appreciate your taking immediate action to correct said violations. This office will notify all the appropriate departments and the Ward Councillor that this situation has been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. Sincerely, -.7' Leo E. Tremblay Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer LET:bms cc: Councillor Ahmed, Ward 1 John H. Carr, Jr.,Esq. 9 North Street Salem, MA 01970 Phone: 978-825-0060 Fax: 978-825-0068 April 19, 2006 By Hand Members Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 120 Washington Street Salem,MA 01970 RE: 4 Bentley Street, Salem, MA—Application for Variance and Special Permit Dear Members: I represent Ms. Linda Moustakis of 2 Bentley Street, Salem,MA 01970 in opposing the March 24,2006 petition of Nicholas Osgood for a variance and special permit to ratify the already-built third floor deck and catwalk, and 3-story exterior staircase at the rear of 4 Bentley Street, Salem, MA. Regretfully,prior plans prevent me from being present at the April 19, 2006 hearing of the Board on said application. Ms. Moustakis will be testifying in person at the hearing regarding how allowance of Mr. Osgood's petition will substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of her property, especially her privacy,and how difficult Mr. Osgood has been to deal with. I will be addressing in this letter Ms. Moustakis' purely legal objections to the petition. There are two distinct aspects to Mr. Osgood's petition: the 3-story staircase which has already been built approximately 2 1/2 feet from Ms Moustakis' side lot line at 2 Bentley Street,which requires a variance, and the deck and catwalk which has already been built on the roof of the 2-story el overlooking Ms. Moustakis' backyard,which(apparently) requires a special permit. The rear el at the 4 Bentley Street property is located directly on the shared property line with 2 Bentley Street. According to Section 7.7 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance the minimum required setback for the exterior staircase is five feet if the structure is deemed to be attached to the main dwelling,and ten feet if unattached. The staircase, as built, is three stories tall,has two landings, is built approximately two feet away from the rear wall of the el, and apart from a purely functional attachment where the top step intersects with the catwalk located on 1 the roof of the two-story el, is entirely free-standing and self-supporting. Since such attachment is minimal at best, and is non-structural,we contend that the spirit if not letter of Section 7.7 is best served by enforcement of the 10 foot setback. To do otherwise is to glorify form over substance. But that is not our primary legal objection by any means. The stated basis for Mr. Osgood's variance application is hardship. In the fourth paragraph of page one of his March 24, 2006 letter attached to his petition he clearly and succinctly states the basis for his alleged hardship as follows: "The hardship in this case was created because the inspectors thought that the egress requirement superseded the setback requirement." In point of fact,this is not a legally-recognized hardship at all, as it is well-settled Massachusetts law that a municipality can not be bound by the mistakes of its municipal employees, and that said mistakes can not be used as a basis for circumventing zoning requirements. Mr. Osgood may or may not have been acting in good faith in building the 3-story exterior staircase in reliance on the building permit mistakenly issued by the assistant building inspector,but that does not detract from or supercede the protections afforded Ms. Moustakis by the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Whether the 5 foot setback is applicable, or the 10 foot setback,in either case the staircase as built violates both, since it was built approximately 2 1/2 feet from Ms. Moustakis' property line for each of its 3 stories. As such, since the staircase was built by Mr. Osgood, the claimed hardship is entirely self-created,and thus, is not recognizable as a basis for a hardship variance as a matter of law. (In defense of the assistant building inspector, if the clarity and completeness of Mr. Osgood's application for a building permit was anything like his current petition for a variance and special permit,I can well understand how a mistake could have been made, given how incomplete and gratuitously muddied his present petition is.) Clearly the catwalk, deck, and 3-story exterior staircase are all driven by the lack of an independent second means of egress from the purported third floor unit in the attic of 4 BentleyStreet which continues to be owned b Mr. Osgood,who previously converted Y g to separate condominiums which he subsequently the fust and second floors m p eq y sold. Both are now owned by separate owners. Since 4 Bentley Street is located in an R-2 district, Mr. Osgood claims that the third floor unit is a grandfathered non—conforming use, or put another way,that it was legally pre- existing as of the date of enactment of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in 1965, and that it has been continuously operated as such ever since. But, for the reasons hereinafter set forth, our investigations reveal that the third floor unit is not a legal dwelling unit at all. Thus,what Mr. Osgood is applying for is a second 2 y means of egress for a unit that is not even legal to begin with. By contrast, if the attic were consolidated with the second floor unit,which already has two separate interior means of egress,there would be absolutely no need for the monstrous exterior staircase that has already been built. Since it was Mr. Osgood who created and sold off the second floor condominium,this is another reason why Mr. Osgood is solely responsible for his own present predicament. Ms. Moustakis' family has owned 2 Bentley Street since her grandfather purchased the property in 1925. She herself began living there in 1945 when her aunt owned the property. Her immediate family moved out in 1958,but she continued to frequently visit relatives there until she inherited the property from her aunt in 1996. She has owned and resided at 2 Bentley Street full time ever since. As such,Ms. Moustakis is well aware of the occupancy history of 4 Bentley Street,both from the standpoint of her own personal knowledge,and from people she knows who formerly lived there and are currently available to testify. This first-hand knowledge is buttressed by the City Voting Lists and the City Directories separately published each year for a period well before and after the enactment of the current Zoning Ordinance in 1965, each of which lists the then occupants of 4 Bentley Street as follows: Voting Lists City Directory 1960 Richard Audrey Florence Doran Florence Doran 1961 Richard Audrey Florence Doran Florence Doran 1962 Richard Audrey Directory Missing Vacant 1963 Edward&Anna Lassiter William Wilson William&Faye Wilson 1964 Douglas& Susan Call Douglas Call William& Faye Wilson William Wilson 1965 Douglas& Susan Call Douglas Call Doris&Ronald Jalbert Ronald Jalbert 1966 Helen Borowski Helen Borowski Edward&Anna Lassiter Edward Lassiter 3 Bear in mind that under Massachusetts Law the burden of proof is not on those challenging the validity of an alleged legally-grandfathered non-conforming use, but of those asserting such validity. Our position is that the third floor unit at 4 Bentley Street is not a legally-grandfathered unit for the reasons set forth above, and thus, Mr. Osgood lacks the standing to even seek his within variance and special permit. But even if the third floor unit were legally- grandfathered,we contend that Mr. Osgood's application for a variance concerning the 3- story exterior staircase should be denied because(a)there is no legally recognized hardship and(b)granting his petition would substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and Building Code. As Ms. Moustakis' photographs will clearly demonstrate, both ordinances were designed to protect property owners such as Ms. Moustakis from the kind of 3-story monstrosity that has been built at the very edge of her property line. Regarding Mr. Osgood's application for a special permit to ratify the third story deck and catwalk, I would respectfully point out the following: a. That unlike the 3-story exterior staircase,Mr. Osgood did not obtain a building permit prior to building same, and thus,even that mistaken use of hardship does not apply; b. That a deck on the roof of the 2-story el exceeds the needs of a second means of egress in any event, and represents a gross invasion of privacy for each of the surrounding property owners in this densely built historic neighborhood, including Ms. Moustakis; and C. That the deck and catwalk are both inextricably part of the same second means of egress system as the 3-story exterior staircase, and since a hardship can not be legally granted to permit the staircase, Mr. Osgood's petition for his special permit concerning the deck and catwalk should be denied as well. I am dictating this letter over the phone to my secretary from Charlestown, South Carolina. A primary reason why Charlestown is as beautiful as it is is its strict zoning enforcement, which includes the earliest historic design controls in the nation, dating back to the early 1930's. Salem is no less significant historically or architecturally. Like Charlestown a major reason for its success is the quality and vitality of its neighborhoods. Ms. Moustakis cares deeply for her property and has always taken pains to maintain both her house and grounds to the highest possible standards. She also cares deeply for the neighborhood, and would hate to see an adverse precedent created that 4 would allow the proliferation of these kinds of exterior staircases and decks. Indeed, the question boils down to simply this: would you want such a 3-story staircase built within inches of your property line, especially if it were not allowed under the Zoning and Building Codes. Ms. Moustakis and I urge you in the strongest possible terms to deny both aspects of Mr. Osgood's petition. Very truly yours, -josh -tA. Qw-r, 3r. John H. Carr, Jr. m� Cc. Ms. Linda Moustakis-By Hand 5 05/26/2006 11:20 FAI 978 825 0068 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , ESQ, ID004 ' x.�o. �� OwtV of $ttleni, Assar4usrtts 3 Igublic 3propertg Pepurfirwnt +�1g1ltlliri� PjJMrtriTeY[t awm�� William H. Munroe One Salem Green 745-0213 November 20, 1995 Mr. Steven D. White 30 Commercial Street Marblehead, MA 01945 RE: 4 Bentley Street, Salem, MA Dear Mr. White, As per your request this office has researched record' s available on your property located at 4 Bentley Street with, the following findings. The building has been occupied as a three (3) family dwelling prior to 1965 and this use has continued to date. It is located in a residential two (2) family zone and is there for a LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE of land. This letter is in noway meant to confirm that the property does or does not conform to all current Building, Fire, Electrical, Plumbing or Gas Codes. Sincerely, oeleoevlwom4-�� William H. Munroe . Inspector of Buildings zoning officer WHM/jdg Cnitg of 1*81 m, +fitossac4usefts public f ropert{i Department $uilbing Department one fides Green 508-745-8585 >EIL 380 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer November 12, 1993 Four Bentley St. Realty Trust Anne Cardy 4 Commercial St. Marblehead, MA 01945 RE: 4 Bentley St. , Salem Dear Ms. Cardy: This office has learned you are trying to rent a third floor apartment at the above reference address. The records in this department show this (R-2) . To allowtusefasimoreily wthanntwonfamilyiwouldal Two req requirely District to be a variance from (R-2) the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appe41. if you need any further information do not hesitate to contact this department. Sincerely, :-/ n Leo E. Tremblay Zoning Enforcement fficer LET:bms cc: Councillor Nowak, Ward 1 (�titg of bolt . Aussar4usetto N Public frupatp Eepartmettt $udbing Departmcat Dar *d= liars 500.745-9599 Ern. 300 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer November 29, 1993 Four Bentley St. Rlty. Trust Anne Cardy 4 Commercial Street Marblehead, MA 01945 RE: 4 Bentley St. , Salem Dear Ms. Cardy: We have been informed that you have rented a third floor apartment at the above referenced property. You were told by this department in a letter dated November 12, 1993 that you could not have a third unit there, that this property, according to our records, is only a two family dwelling and it would require Board of Appeal action to increase the use. You have evidently chose to ignore my letter. You are hereby ordered to cease and desist all illegal use of the property and to contact this office upon receipt of this notice to advise use of your intentions. Failure to comply will result in the appropriate legal action being taken. Sincerely, Leo E. Tremblay Zoning Enforcement Officer LET:bms Certified Mail QIP 921 991 557 /4bntly/ Cnitg of 001jem, MOSSUc4usttts public jovertg Ocpartmeut suilbing Ecpurtment moll "M arca 500-745-9505 E IL 300 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement officer November 12, 1993 Four Bentley St. Realty Trust Anne Cardy 4 Commercial St. Marblehead, MA 01945 RE: 4 Bentley St., Salem Dear Ms. Cardy: This office has learned you are trying to rent athird floor arttmieent at the above reference address. The records in t dr p department showDistrict property to be a two family dwelling in a Residential Two Y (R_2) To allow use as more than two family would require a variance from the city of Salem Zoning Board of you Appe&1. If y need Y ed an further information do not hesitate to contact this department. Sincerely, 4" Leo E. Tremblay Zoning Enforcement fficer LET:bms cc: Councillor Nowak, Ward 1 (�itg of *stem. Massachusetts pubik 'Frupertq Department $nilhing Department Out *d= GRO 508.745.2595 Ext. 390 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer November 29, 1993 Four Bentley St. Rlty. Trust Anne Cardy 4 Commercial Street Marblehead, MA 01945 RE: 4 Bentley St. , Salem Dear Ms. Cardy: We have bean informed that you have rented a third floor apartment at the above referenced property. You were told by this department in a letter dated November 12, 1993 that you could not have a third unit there, that this property, according to records,our is only increasa the famuseily dwelling and it would require Board of Appear actin You have evidently chose to ignore my letter. You are hereby ordered to cease and desist all illegal use of the property and to contact this office upon receipt of this notice to advise use of your intentions. Failure to comply will result in the appropriate legal action being taken. Sincerely Leo E. Tremblay Zoning Enforcement Officer LET:bms Certified Mail #P 921 991 557 /4bntly/ (litg of *a1em, massar4usetts a it Public Propertg Department Guilbing Department (Put *aim Bum 500-745-9595 Ext. 300 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer November 29, 1993 Four Bentley St. Rlty. Trust Anne .Cardy 4 Commercial Street Marblehead, MA 01945 RE: 4 Bentley St. , Salem Dear Ms. Cardy: We have been informed that you have rented a third floor apartment at the above referenced property. You were told by this department in a letter.dated November 12, 1993 that you could not have a third unit there, that this property, according to our records, is only a two family dwelling and it would require Board of Appeal action to increase the use. You have evidently chose to ignore my letter. You are hereby ordered to cease and desist all illegal use of the property and:to contact this office upon receipt of this notice to advise use of your intentions. Failure to comply will result in the appropriate legal action being taken. Sincerely, )U'� -` Leo E. Tremblay Zoning Enforcement Officer LET:bms Certified Mail IIP 921 991 557 /4bntly/ Chit of 3tt1em, massac4usetts t` ia v ipublic 11ropertg Department Nuilbing Department (one *stem (Srees 508-745-9595 fit. 380 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer November 12, 1993 Four Bentley St. Realty Trust Anne Cardy 4 Commercial St. Marblehead, MA 01945 RE: 4 Bentley St. , Salem Dear Ms. Cardy: This office has learned you are trying to rent a third floor apartment at the above reference address. The records in this department show this property to be a two family dwelling in a Residential Two Family District (R-2) . To allow use as more than two family would require a variance from ._�the,City,of,Salem,Zoning„Board ofaAppeal, If you need any further information do not hesitate to contact this department. Sincerely, Leo E. Tremblay Zoning EnforcementZficer LET:bms cc: Councillor Nowak, Ward 1 - C,C-; WU THOM.SS E• - . ►h Mtn GERALD ilre PLAN CF THE RALPH 5 MARSELLA I' \STRZFMIetRI NO.28720 y FOUR BENTLEY STREET i7 o i o .tip R �v�0. ,�� C014ltJ.. MSSM 1 p4lV til LL IN SAI , MASSACHUSETTS ` NovErr+eEFt • ZOOS N ' l' •v * I F=r= ) © 20 30 1.: W O o I Q W ` Y ME7 IE KS rN ( pJI O � � d IUB Q `ter N -I� w l x xl 00 ,. _ I .., 1 _ ter 1 � f. GFQAL D LN t>. I 1 ST. A. -F C7 -j ,` •J TCERTiFY tt4A-t Tt-IiS PLAN FULL-+C' AN r-> ACCURAZEL,Y DEPICTS THE LOCA-ria P4 ^N t7 PAFLKING �- DiMSWSIOKJS oF- -T'F{16-E PUILOit-JQ AS BUiL,-T- Z1�lD 15T• N` A = CEF?TIFY -rl4ATTHi5 PLAN HAS BEdsr1 PREPAIltty jN CoMf=ORMAQCE� W;-V" -'HE RULFS AMM fdFCcVL 4k-ric3" $ ' 1 7 OF THEMA35ACt40S%:-MS FECI-S-rMS af= t>Emoy, �. A T{-lEREOy C ERTI F Y TH^-f' -rF1E PROPER-F'`t' 1.21NI' S SHOWN a . I i x I ARE THE LlN�S Dlvi�iN� EXiSTilJci c�WcRSfIyPSAND "rHW LINES OF STREETS ANG WA,CS SHOWN ARtE -THoSM OF PUBLIC STWr�-rS Oft WA`(°i9i AL.aEArrr ►ENTL,E'1P' S'T'1?EET ES t'sic iSl-4Ep 4No TWAT No N -s ps OptMS oiviSioN aF �cls-riNo'c oWN�f�sHIPS oR 1=eltt w1EW . t�1oYs AIR*& SHowl3• l� � � e.-- C.LS. Sao RL*. Boob 13lOrF,Pe4.57t G: Y U f S A L E ; CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CLEM'S OW,10E BOARD OF APPEAL , 2 QLMAR-30 P -3�.3., TO THE HOARD OF APPEALr. e Un¢qrr signed re resent that he/she is/ e the owners of a certain parcel of land located at: P Y�T1 PP C arStreet; Zoning District and said parcel is ate by Section(s) of the Massachusetts State Building Code. Plans describing the work proposed have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in accordance with Section 1X A.I of the Zoning Ordinance. The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following reason(s): �r4c'+ Awa The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeal to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the inspector of Buildings to approve the application fee permit to build as le da s the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty ore of the the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially derogating from the intent and pure Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for the following reasons: �? �k4 - LEASE PRINT Owner: OJ6-0 0 D Petitioner: Address: / NTG6Y f T, UNIT 3 Address: Tel.No� Jf}LFr�� /07 Tel. No. D/ 9 7 0 (Signature) Date: This original application roust be filed with the City Clerk. A certified copy of this petition will be returned to petitioner at the time of filing with the City Clerk, to then be filed with the Secretary of the Boar of Appeal , fo o weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeal, along with a check for adverAsing ^4 r I- . S._,made payable to the"Salem Evening News". IS TRIM March 24, 2006 City of Salem Board of Appeals 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 0 o. n= M a_ �c Nick Osgood 4 Bentley Street, Unit 3 0, o?> Salem, MA 01970 p , RE: 4 Bentley Street Egress—Hardship Variance 4 Bentley Street Deck—Special Permit There are two issues to discuss on this property; first, the set back requirements of the exterior egress were incorrectly advised, agreed and permitted by the city, and second,the building of an upper level deck that is incorporated into the exterior egress access was verbally discussed with city officials and confirmed by public notification in the Salem Evening News and has now been negated. Hardship Variance In May of 2005 my licensed General Contractor(Randy Morin) and I met with Tom St. Pierre, Building Inspector&Joe Barbeau, Assistant Inspector to review an exterior 3`d floor egress permit application, at which time I supplied the necessary plot plan,top view, and rear view of the designed egress. We discussed with the Inspectors the need to remove the existing interior egress as it traveled from the 3`d floor unit through the 2"d floor unit which was an unacceptable configuration for the building —and they agreed. A permit was issued on May 23`d, 05' to build the egress as depicted in the diagrams. We were given verbal authorization to begin digging footing holes the same day we applied for the permit; subsequently Joe Barbeau inspected the footing holes on Thursday, May 2e and stated that we could pour the concrete sonotubes. The hardship in this case was created because the inspectors thought that the egress requirement superseded the setback requirements. The neighbor beside me does not like the structure and has shown that the set back reg. in this district is 5 feet from all property lines. The structure sits as shown in the diagrams presented at the time of application and is 2 to 3 feet from each of the adjacent property lines. Special Permit While discussing the exterior egress with the Salem Building Inspectors, Randy and I pointed that with the new egress we would have to cross the rear roof span of 16'+on a diagonal (as shown in diagram)to the top of the proposed stairway landing, and that it would require us to build a framed box that would act in multiple ways; first, it would structurally tie in the upper level landing to the house, second it would support the gangway type access across the rear roof, and third it would support the required landing outside the door of the egress. Because of these multiple needs the inspectors agreed that it was suitable to build a framed box Once this was agreed we asked if we could build a deck on this boxed structure. The inWctors agreed that because the egress necessitated the box structure they did not see why a deck could not be placed there In the top view of the egress design—a proposed deck was dotted on the print to show how it would look. (Building Inspectors NOW do not agree with the Underlined Statement) The permit was issued to build an egress on May 23`d. The permit was confirmed in The Salem Evening News issued,July 28d', 05' page A2 and states "Nicholas Osgood, 4 Bentley St., deck $17,000.00. See attachment #01. Once the Egress structure and framing of the deck were completed a neighbor began to object calling the building inspector and city planner to complain. In July of 05' Joe Barbeau came to the 4 Bentley Street job asking if I could build a privacy fence on the deck beside the neighbor that has objected and I said sure—how tall would you like it? Shortly thereafter I was told by Tom St.Pierre that I could no longer have the deck and that his office did not agree to it--this is a reversal in kind to what we(Randy Morin & 1) were told at the time of initial permitting. As it turns out there is a technicality that requires "special permitting"for a roof deck on"non conforming"structures and this is a non conforming structure as the house setbacks do not conform to current regulations. Asou can an see from the top view the deck is held back some 10 from the property Imes and is on an existing roof, and it does not have any influence on the neighbor beside me. I've supplied numerous pictures of the completed structure for your review as well as pictures of my neighbors homes that have roof decks and or very high decks and you will see that they are all in close proximity as I've included part of the 4 Bentley Street home in each picture so you can see that this request is consistent with other dwellings in the neighborhood. Closing I would ask that the board of appeals approve my Hardship Variance request as the set back error was made by the City of Salem Building Department, and not my fault. I would also ask that the board of appeals grant me a Special Permit to build a roof deck as this structure is consistent with other homes that are adjacent to mine and in close proximity. Thank you for time in these matters. Si 0 o � Nick Osgood 4 Bentley Street, Unit 3 o c cn Salem, MA 01970 f m t� n UJ m� a" D