22 KOSCIUSKO STREET - ZBA x
i
N , `
0 0
(i
Y L
> '
I
Y .r-
o ro
Y �
N
N 3 '
t
U DATE OF HEARING
PETITIONER
LOCATION
;2,2
MOTION: TO GRANT SECOND
TO DENY SECOND
TO RE-HEAR SECOND
LEAVE TO WITHDRAW SECOND
TO CONTINUE SECOND
ROLL CALL PRESENT GRANT DENY WITHDRAW RE-HEAR CONTINUE
RICHARD BENCAL
JOSEPH CORRENTI
RIGHAW,'FEBONIO '
EDWARD LUZINSKI
MARY JANE STIRGWOLT
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
JOHN GR'ADY
ARTHUR LABRECOUE
CONDITIONS:
r T' (f it>7 of zc1Pm, � ttss�ztljusPtts
board of rAu{rett! IAId Zt
O J G3 v
;iiy
DECISION ON THE REMANDED PETITION OF W. DAVID CROSBY FOR
VARIANCES FOR 22 KOSCIUSKO ST. (R-2)
A hearing was held on this petition January 16, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman, Edward Luzinski , Joseph Correnti ,
Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt.
The petitioner, through his Counsel , Attorney George Vallis, requested the
Board grant him Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. The request for Variances
to allow construction of a single family dwelling was originally heard March 15,
1989 and denied by the Board of Appeal . The petitioner appealed the Board's
decision and the Court subsequently remanded the case back to the Board for
hearing. A motion granting the petitioner's request for withdrawal having been
made and duly seconded, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, in favor of
the motion, petition is WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
WITHDRAWN
b
Edward Luzinski , a airman
Gita of "ttlem, � HttsstttllusPtts
39oara of c��ezil J4112i 631
r -
FILF
:i T Y ;
DECISION ON THE REMANDED PETITION OF W. DAVID CROSBY FOR
VARIANCES FOR 22 KOSCIUSKO ST. (R-2)
A hearing was held on this petition January 16, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman, Edward Luzinski , Joseph Correnti ,
Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt.
The petitioner, through his Counsel , Attorney George Vallis, requested the
Board grant him Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. The request for Variances
to allow construction of a single family dwelling was originally heard March 15,
1989 and denied by the Board of Appeal . The petitioner appealed the Board's
decision and the Court subsequently remanded the case back to the Board for
hearing. A motion granting the petitioner's request for withdrawal having been
made and duly seconded, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, in favor of
the motion, petition is WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
WITHDRAWN
Edward Luzins i , aChairman
Chi of -"ittlem, Tttssad usetts
f 33nttra of peal
Ja
c � A zip
FI L F'�
ru �J
%(iY !
DECISION ON THE REMANDED PETITION OF W. DAVID CROSBY FOR
VARIANCES FOR 22 KOSCIUSKO ST. (R-2)
A hearing was held on this petition January 16, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman, Edward Luzinski , Joseph Correnti ,
Richard Febonio and Mary Jane Stirgwolt.
The petitioner, through his Counsel , Attorney George Vallis, requested the
Board grant him Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. The request for Variances
to allow construction of a single family dwelling was originally heard March 15,
1989 and denied by the Board of Appeal . The petitioner appealed the Board's
decision and the Court subsequently remanded the case back to the Board for
hearing. A motion granting the petitioner's request for withdrawal having been
made and duly seconded, the Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, in favor of
the motionetition is WITHDRAWN p D WN WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
WITHDRAWN
Edward Luznnski , aChairman
�,cuuwyb'
k'r:blfYF.T"
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
KEVIN T.DALY Legal Department LEONARD F FEMINO
City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor
508-745-0500 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 508-921-1990
December 31, 1990
Mr. Richard Bencal, Chairman o CO
Salem Board of Appealc n
City of Salem < L 70
One Salem Green C3 o
Salem, MA 01970 cc
T11
r r
in re: W. David Crosby m
r
Dear Mr. Bencal:
vC7
Enclosed herewith please find a copy of a
stipulation entered into in the Superior Court regarding the
above-mentioned matter. Would you kindly place this matter
on the agenda at the next available meeting. Would you also
schedule an executive session for the same night so that I
can discuss this matter with the full board.
As you can see from the enclosed document, the
above-mentioned matter has been concluded with a favorable
result for the city.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions
or comments prior to the meeting. I look forward to hearing
from you.
Very truly yours,
Leonard F. Femino
LFF/sbh
Enclosure
A55,4C K U StT'T 5
T(lcoole-r
Socge o(� C0010T �t
►Pot i�T 0,4j
CIty 0 SAL('M ! n
C4e5 �O-/Q
(7t, 0,-,/d o+
,lel i > C(c l S 'C" $UtAi
CIO) Aces V/c4e5
� s oAa W '� ��-H(;kw0
/����RIW �•��V'`�` 'v v— V�'C4 NJdY �' �lW/NL'
I
r,urn'O1A.�
yr `
6�runrac.�
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
KEVIN T.DALY Legal Department LEONARD F FEMINO
City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor
508-745-0500 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 508-921-1990
November 28, 1990
Salem Board of Appeals
Attn: Brenda
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
in re: W. David Crosby vs. James Fleming, et. al.
Civil Action No. 89-983
Dear Brenda:
Enclosed herewith please find a trial notice
regarding the above-mentioned matter. As you can see from
the notice, a trial date has been scheduled for December 11,
1990. Would you kindly forward a copy of this notice to the
members of the board and have the chairman contact me at his
earliest convenience to discuss this matter.
Very truly yours,
1
Leonard F. Femino
LFF/sbh
Enclosure
Dear Members of the Board:
I am simply enclosing the above communique as there was no enclosure,
I spoke with Lenny and he assured me it was not important. The important thing
is the trial date, December 11th and for the Chairman to contact him. Happy
Holidays.
0
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
KEVIN T. DALY Legal Department LEONARD F. FEMINO
City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor
508-745-0500 Salem. Massachusetts 01970 508-921'1890
June 25, 1990
Mr. Richard Bencal
Chairman
Salem Board of Appeal
19 Goodell Street
Salem, MA 01970
in re: W. David Crosby vs. Salem Board of Appeal
Civil Action No. 89-983
Dear Richard:
Please take note of the fact that the above case
has been set for trial on July 23 , 1990. Would you kindly
contact me about one week before the trial date so that we
may prepare for the trial.
Would you also inform the other members of the
Board as of same.
If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me.
Ve truly yours?
LEonard F. Femino
LFF/sbh
oil a 3 09 M '88
(fitg of '$ttlPm, 4Hassar4uefft
3' rr Gl7Y CL F.0 5,,. .'d 1858
%s F �varb of (4pral
Rt'r,C,m�.uJ"
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W. DAVID CROSBY FOR VARIANCES
AT 22 KOSCIUSKO STREET (R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 1989 with the following Board
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; John
Nutting, Secretary; Messrs. Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the hearing was
sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published
in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40
The Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variances from lot size,
density, setbacks and frontage to allow construction of a single family dwelling
in this R-2 zone.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings or structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at
the hearing, and after viewing the plans submitted, makes the following
findings of fact:
1 . Several letters, as well as a petition, were submitted in opposition;
2. Several neighbors, abutters and others spoke in opposition;
3. The Detitioner was previously denied by this Board on June 25, 1973;
4. The parking plan submitted would eliminate parking on the street;
5. The parcel of land is in the new proposed boundary of the National
Park Service;
6. The building that previously existed on this lot was razed by the
City of Salem due to hazardous conditions caused by fire;
7. The proposed plan would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF W. DAVID CROSBY FOR VARIANCES
AT 22 KOSCIUSKO STREET, SALEM
page two
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 1 - 4 (Mr. Fleming voted in favor)
against the granting of the requested variance. Having failed to carry the
required four favorable votes, the Variance is denied.
DENIED
l
Richard A.Bencal, Tice Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FUM THIS DE''ISION, it AW. SHALL DE MADE PJ RSU.AYT TO SECTION 17 CF THE 'L ...
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 503, AND SHALL EE Fi L`D W!THIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE Or ;ILiYG
OF THIS CEMION IN THE OFFICE CF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSA7iT TO "A:i3. ^:'.PCL ":;S ^"^P-ER US, SiCTi:N ll. THE V.AWNCE
GRAN{ED HEREIN. SHALL NJi E FELT UNTIL A COPi OF THE7E 1 E .....
FICATI:.,I CF THE CITY CLERK 1.',A, 2C GAYS HAVE -LA.'S-11 '.ii) NO APP.'41 HA3 F: 3.
OR THAT. IF SUCI: AN APPEAL HAS OEE.`i FILE THAT IT Hr,3 EEE:! D:.; MED GR 9c:I:ES
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED 6f 1 THE :�A::E JF THE C'i;.i E.,
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
MINUTES FOR THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - March 15, 1989
Present: Messrs. , Bencal , Fleming, Luzinski , Nutting and Strout
22 Kosciusko ST. - W. David Crosby
Sitting on this petition is James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Vice
Chairman, John Nutting, Secretary, Edward Luzinski and Peter Strout. Notice of
this petition was duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on March 1 and 8,
1989. Petitioners, abutters and other interested persons were notified of the
hearing by mail .
Petitioner is requesting Variances from lot size, density, setbacks and frontage
to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr.
Nutting read the application, and a letter from the Fire Department which stated
they had no objections subject to certain conditions. (on file) Other corres-
pondence: Salem Historic Commission, Historic Salem Incorporated, A.B. Popek ,
27 Daniels St. ; Toby Moira Leith, 27 Daniels St. ; Laurie Cabot, 27 Daniels St. ;
Margaret Fucillo, 25 Daniels St. ; Lisa Jean McElrath, 27 Daniels St. ; Denise
Redmond, 14 Kosciusko St. ; Jay Chapin, 16 Kosciusko St. ; Gary Dillon, 14 Kosciusko
St. ; Robert Sauvin, 20 Kosciusko St. ; Dennis Helmar 20 Kosciusko St. ; Nancy
Cromwell , 20 Kosciusko St. ; Marcia Bentman, 6 Kosciusko St. ; Robert Shapiro;
1 Daniels St. Ct. , a petition signed by forty three (43) neighbors and abutters;
all opposed and all on file.
Attorney George Vallis, One Church St. , Salem, represented the petitioner, stated
the petitioner was not a resident of Salem, did not have very many friends in
Salem but he is a property owner and he should be afforded rights as a property
owner. Would like to give you a bit of history of this particular piece of
property and I would like to at the end show you that theres been a grave mis-
carriage of justice on the part of my client throughout the time he has owned the
property since 1970. The original building that has been on here was built about
60 or 70 years ago and to the best of my recollection was occupied by the polish
socialist club, not a communist but a social club. Property was sold in 1970 to
Mr Crosby, the petitioner here, but unfortunately as soon as he purchased the
property and needless to say, prior to the time he bought the property the property
was in disrepair and he bouqht this with the intention of doing it over and making
a single family out of it. There was some dispute over the title after he bought
the property, apparently some of the members of the polish club felt that the
ones who signed the deed were'nt authorized to sign it, so it went into litigation
for two years, took two years before Mr. Crosby actually obtained clear title to
the property. Mr. Fleming: land Court? Mr. Vallis: I don't know, probably
in Superior may in land court. Mr. Fleming: but there was a judgement? Mr.
Vallis: there was a judgement in 1972 which stated the deed he received was a
proper deed and he was the actual owner of the property. Shortly after that,
he went to the building inspector asking for a building permit to convert the
building into a ,single family house. For the life of me, I don't understand why
the building inspector at the time told him that a variance was required.
Mr. Crosby is a law abiding citizen, does what the people tell him to, the
building inspector told him to get a variance, he felt he had to get a variance,
he was represented by Counsel and I do have a copy of the decision. Mr. Fleming:
we do too. Mr. Vallis: needless to say the variance was denied and it was denied
for, we really don 't know, read the decision and I can truthfully say and I can
say without any reservations that he did not have to get a variance, he should have
been granted a building permit because the building was there, it was in existance.
2)
22 Kosciusko St. - Continued
It was there, it was an existing building, an existing nonconforming building and
he was going to use it, its an R-2 district, he wanted to use it for a single
family house. The use was there, every thing was there but he was told to go to
the Board of Appeal which leaves me to believe, and I read between the lines,
because I 've got the whole history of this , that there was a concerted effort by
whoever, politicians, number of people, to prevent this person from building and
using this property for what he had the right to use it for. Next step was. Mr.
Strout: excuse me, was he going to tear the building down? Mr. Vallis: no, just
going to restore the building, remodel it and the plans he submitted, I don 't
have them, the Board of Appeal has them, back in 1972, they would show that all
he was going to do was remodel the place. Mr. Fleming: it's a long time ago
but appearing in opposition to the petition was one Councillor George Nowak .
Mr. Vallis: that's right, George led the fight. Now, that put Mr. Crosby in sort
of a catch 22 position, caught between a rock and a hard place. He had a building,
he was told he couldn 't a building permit, the Board of Health now, Mr. Fleming:
did he appeal the denial ? Mr. Vallis : no, the Board of health at this point in
time, because the building was in tough shape, it needed work, and it was vacant,
vandalism was, there was a lot of vandalism on the property, the Board of Health
decided the building should be torn down and they issued an order that the building
should be torn down, 1976. Mr. Luzinski : believe there was a fire there, that
was the reason. Mr. Vallis: no there was no fire at the time. The fire came
after. Mr. Fleming: we are taking Mr. Vallis at his word that in 1976 because of
the condition of the building, without a fire, the Board of Health said tear it
down. Mr. Vallis: Mr. Crosby, at that time, through his attorney, obtained a
preliminary injuntion in court preventing the building from being razed. This is
the strange situation, he was allowed, also, at that time, a building permit to
restore exterior of the building, providing he got permission from the Historic
Commission, which he did. Mr. Fleming: it says he got a Certificate of Appro-
priateness from the Salem Historical Commission and he got two building permits
in 1976. Mr. Vallis: displayed pictures to the Board of the building after
he restored the exterior. Put all new siding, shored up the windows to prevent
anyone from going inside, but at the time he was not allowed to put the building
into use as a residential piece of property. He was given a building permit to
help restore the building so it wouldn't be vandalized and further, and when I
say he was in a catch 22 position, I think you can appreciate what position he
was in. He had the Council of the Ward saying he was doing nothing to restore
the property, Councillor of the Ward at the time was in a campaign to tear down
a number of buildings in and around Derby St. , he was successful with some but not
with others. Now, on or about 1980 the abutting property was converted into a
condominium, thats the large two family dwelling that was converted by Andrew
Hingston, shortly, at that time there was a series of fires that bedeviled this
building. One fire after another and it was stopped and finally it go to the
point where this is the appearance of the building after the fires. Showed
pictures to the Board members. You can see from the appearance of the building
that there wasn 't severe damage. Mr. Fleming: was there insurance on this at all?
Mr. Vallis: No. That was in 1980. When I talk about a concerted effort to
railroad an individual , this is a perfect example, I would even go so far as to
call it organized collusion against Mr. Crosby. It seems that the last fire
that happened, shortly after that, there was an order by the council to raze the
building. That was in July of 1980. In July of 1980, the vote to tear the
building down came on a Thursday, the attorney who was representing Mr. Crosby at
the time went to court of a Friday, in fact, the order was to tear the building
down the following Monday, James Peterson, Esq. , went to Superior Court on the
Friday afternoon, there wasn 't a judge around, he couldn't get a restraining
3)
22 Kosciusko St. - continued
order, he intended to go to Newburyport, I spoke to Mr. Peterson about it, he said
that Monday morning he was going to be there as quickly as possible, he notified
everybody that he was going to. Now, the building inspector at the time was
told by the Chairman of the Historic District Commission that he did not have the
authority to tear the building down. He'd have to get permission from the
Historic Commission. Mr. Fleming: did we have the demolition ordinance at that
time? Mr. Vallis: sure, this is 1980. Mr. Fleming: is the Ordinance that old?
we have an ordinance that requires someone to go to the Historic Commission if
you are tearing a building down in Salem so that they can say there is no
Historic significance before you tear it down. That existed in 1980? Mr. Vallis:
it did. Mr. Fleming: I thought that was newer than that. Mr. Vallis: Let me
back up a little bit, this is in Court, the case was filed in 1980 and now it's
coming up for trial . The evidence that will be submitted is. Mr. Fleming: what
you are saying is that Ordinance existed and it was not complied with and then on
the Monday in July Mr. Vallis : no, on Saturday morning, the City came in and
tore the building down and if that isn't railroading and if that is not some kind
of collusion, I don 't know what it is. It upsets me when things like this happen.
I was reading an article not too long ago about a fine upstanding individual who
was arrested for making a phone call stating that there was going to be a bombing,
they arrested the man because the person who made the phone call admitted who he
was. They arrested him, put him in jail , didn 't give the guy a chance to be
heard, finally got his day in court, didn't even get an apology, all I can remember
the man saying, I can 't imagine living in Nazi Germany and being treated like this.
Now, I can almost compare the story to Mr. Crosby, Mr. Crosby was really bambozzled
The man was doing what he had to do. Mr. Nutting: was that past history of that
you are telling us, should that be prevelent to our decision today? Yes, absolutel
Mr. Nutting: because your saying that somebody treated this man unfairly. Mr.
Vallis: all I am asking is that this board treat him fairly. Mr. Fleming: I
think we have take the historical context of what existed there and what went on.
Whether we think that the City acted improper or not. Mr. Vallis : those are
my allegations and if the case ever comes to court and its marked up for trial
it' ll be proven or disproven because the people who were parties to this will
be asked to testify. Mr. Fleming: who's parties to this? Mr. Vallis: the City
of Salem, the City of Salem is being sued for improperly tearing down the building.
I 'm not privy to that case, I 'm not representing him on that, Mr. Peterson is.
Mr. Nutting; I think I may have voted for tearing this building down. Mr.
Fleming: I was thinking I might have too, but I think it was before me. Mr.
Vallis: I have a feeling how the Board might vote on this, I 'm just asking the
Board look at this matter and look at it as objectively as they possible can.
Knowing full well that Mr. Crosby is not resident of Salem, doesn't vote in Salem,
pays a lot of taxes in Salem, owns a lot of real estate in Salem. I couldn't
help but read some of the letters that have been submitted initially, they talk
about what a small parcel of land we have, well we have a survey here that shows
it as containing 2422 sq.ft. Mr. Fleming: I think they got the 1800 from the
Assessors office. Mr. Vallis: right. I 'd like to show you the assessors map,
all the members have copies. It does contain 2422 sq.ft. in spite of what this
says. Mr. Fleming: we will accept that. Mr. Vallis : well , you accept it
because because we have a registered surveyors map. Needless to say that Mr.
Crosby also owns the flats, of course you can 't build on it but as far as actual
ownership of land, he owns in access of 20,000 sq. ft. of land. Mr. Fleming:
there has been litigation that as far as zoning purposes that flats be considered
as part and parcel of the lot. How do you determine the 20,000 sq. ft. of flats.
Mr. Vallis: if you want to hear about it we have an appraiser here who's made
a study of it. Mr. Fleming: yes, we would like to hear, but not right now.
4)
22 Kosciusko St. - continued
Mr. Vallis: but that 's not even the issue, I don 't want to cloud the issue.
There's more interesting things that should be pointed out. Number 1
Mr. Fleming: why are you back here asking for a variance? Mr. Vallis: well ,
we don ' t have the frontage, supposed to have a minimum of 50 feet frontage and
we don 't. Mr. Fleming: don 't you come under a 50% demolished exception.
Mr. Vallis: no, the City of Salem has an ordinance that says if a building is
more than 50% demolished, you have to start from scratch. Mr. Fleming: your
problem then is frontage, if we accepted the flats you 'd have the proper area.
Mr.Vallis: the reason I submitted copies of the Assessors maps is to show you
that on all of Kosciusko and Daniels St. , the whole area around there, most of
the lots contain less sq. footage than the property in question. People say this
is not suitable to build on. What makes Derby St. attractive, at least to me,
are the small winding streets and the small houses on them. These types do not
belong in a development. I submit the whole ordinance is screwed up because it
requires same amount of sq. footage in a built up area like Derby St. as they
would up on Marlborough Rd. which doesn 't make sense. If you look at the map
you' ll see there are lots that contain 2300, 1060 , 2000 sq. ft. etc. they are
all over the place. We're not asking a lot, asking for single family to be built
not a two family, it' s in an R-2 district and I venture to say that a good many
houses are two family and multi-family in the area. Some mention in the letters
that by allowing the house to be built on this property your going to deny public
access to the Maritime Park . I don't know where they even feel they've got access.
This lot has been vacant for a number of years and people use it for parking, I
notice one of the letters stated we don 't enough parking as it is and we're going
to lose some more parking spaces. A man has a right to use his property. To
oppose because people can 't use it to satisfy themselves, they can 't park on it,
they can't walk out there, they can't get to the public beach that' s run by the
Maritime Park. These arguments are not worth of comment. Nevertheless that's the
type of objection you get. What your going to hear tonight, we don't need a
house there, its going to block our view,, well , the man has a right to use this
property. A building was there prior to the time people bought their land, before
those condominiums went up. A number of these houses in the area have had to
come to the Board for Variances. They get their variances and they object to
somebody getting what he should be getting. Asking for nothing elaborate, modest
home, single family. (displayed rendering of the style of house to be built)
Would have to go to historic commission before building for their approval . Do
not have building plans. Stress the importance of a mans rights to do what he's
entitled to do. These rights have been flagrantly taken away from him. In
court right now, has taken 9 years to come up for hearing. Mr. Fleming: you
have an expert relative to the computation of the flats. Mr. Davis: I have
done considerable amount of research, I talked to Essex Survey, they don't exist
anymore, can't even find their files right now, but people who are familiar with
it are on the second floor of the main there, when that survey map was done, the
standards of• survey did not require the surveyor to make a title search or a deed
abstract, they just went out and measured. Mr. Fleming: are you talking about
the assessors map. Mr. Vallis: this plan here which was prepared by Robert
Bowman, used to be Essex Survey. Mr. Davis. If they were doing this today they
would have done more research. Mr. Fleming: the date on this is December 23,
1988. Mr. Davis: I haven't seen that particular one. Mr. Bencal : , come up front
and look at it then. Mr. Fleming: this is stamped by a registered surveyor, Mr.
Bowman and its dated December 23, 1988. Could you tell me how your computing
the mud flats as they relate to this land and how you get that computation.
5)
22 Kosciusko St. - continued
Whats the figure? What amount of mud flat is attributal to Mr. Crosby' s land?
Mr. David: his total land area is approximately the width of the lot out to the
mid low water point of the mud flats, I 'm suggesting in the write up that I did
that that is an approximation of the area, I did not get out and measure it. Mr.
Fleming: what does that come to? Mr. Davis : Also, according to the research the
park department did in combination with Essex Institue and Peabody Museum the
owners of wharfs and docks were given the right to the water that wasn 't ever
flats. Now, going on to your question, approxmately 330 feet times 50 was added
to the high ground. 16500. I don't propose to say whether or not the Salem
Ordinance allows use of mud flats in calculations for building. Mr. Fleming: I 'm
saying the courts of this commonwealth and addressed this problem and said for the
purposes of zoning mud flats are part and parcel of the area to be considered in
density regulations of local zoning ordinances. Mr. Davis: I suspected same so
what I did was, I researched the deed back until I could the description of the
deed read it back to a history of what was on the end of that street at that locus.
Place called Tuckers Wharf was the name of the actual locus before. Mr. Fleming:
you found language in preceding deeds relative to that and therefore it's your
determination that in addition to the 2422 sq. ft. as measured by 12/23/88 survey,
an addition 16,500 sq. ft. of mud flats would be dedicated to the property.
No one appeared in favor.
In opposition: Councillor Nowak: I appreciate your giving me time to speak for
my constituents. Lets start with hardship, is there a hardship? Mr. Crosby knew
when he bought the club the size of the property, the parking, I just don't see
the parking. Where they are putting parkign would eliminate two parking spaces,
possibly three. The way the parking is there they would have to have curb cut and
would eliminate three. Parking is a problem. Mr. Fleming: may I point out, Mr.
Nowak, he is not here for parking variance, he has not asked for parking relief.
He's asking for front, side and rear yard setbacks only. Mr. Nowak: We did tear
down that building because we had fires in it, many complaints, no alternatives but
to tear that building down because of the problems.. If we had another fire we
could have lost part of Derby St. , Daniels St. etc. and I as the Councillor worked
along with the building inspector and the fire department to do whatever we could.
We had no cooperation from Mr. Crosby. I wish you would consider the neighbors,
consider the neighborhood, we know that is a postage stamp piece of property and
if this is granted you will never see a house there because that will be sold for
a substantial amount of more money to the National Park Service. We know they
want it, they want to buy it. If you give him the okay on this the price will go
up.
Nancy Cromwell , 20 Kosciusko St. - Natalie Norton, 18 Kosciusko: would like to
speak together. We are pretty much representing the Tucker Wharf Condominium
Association and we're the most immediate abutters. I think you are aware by the
numberof petitions that there are forty three people which represents most of the
neighborhood that are not in favor of an edifice being built on this particular
piece of property. In addition, the two main abutters, who are Nancy and myself
are not in favor. Though we can feel some empathy for Mr. Crosby situation we
are not responsible for it and neither is the city of Salem. We are in fact the
new folks, we weren't even around when it was the Polish Socialist club. A lot
has changed in the neighborhood since then. Although we are in empathy with his
court case, we are not responsible for it and we should not be swayed by the fact
that he is in court. What we are concerned about is the Zoning Variance.
We are concerned because he is asking for a variance on side, density, frontage
and setbacks, what else is there, What about having a zoning board if anyone
can up and ask for a variance. If we have small land, there must have been
6)
22 Kosciusko St. - continued
variances in the past, but this variance is in a very precarious position, he
claims to have 2400 sq. ft. of property, he pays taxes on 1800, I don't know who
handles the back taxes on 600 sq.ft. of land. If you look at what it will do
as far as impact on the neighborhood, I believe the letters with that, this is
an historic area, we abut the national park, we have a favorable situation with
the national park, we don 't want anything to upset this. We are bothered by
overcrowding, in the summer we have tourist looking in the window, have parking
problem, and adding another house, and I know we aren't supposed to say it, but
it does impact the parking on the street so we have to consider this. We have
a number of elderly and they are members of the neighborhood we should consider
them. I may have more to say but while I catch my breath maybe Nancy would like
to speak. Nancy Comwell : have not seen the plans, how close to our property?
6 feet. He'd be right on top of us. (checked the plans). We've heard the
the case relative to hardship. The condominium trust offered him 10,000 dollars
for that land, it was a verbal offer, never accepted or negotiated. So, there
have been opportunities for him to do something with the land. I do hope you
take the initiative of the 43 neighbors , I do hope you do take the wished of the
abutters of this property, this has been in front of you on several times, I am
actually wondering why it is here again. It seems you always do the variance, you
always turn down the variance. Mr. Fleming: I believe its only been here once
before. Ms. Cromwell : three times. Gentleman from the audience: Jay Chapin's
letter wasn't read, he was one of the original owners of the property and he
stated that it was brought up three time. Mr. Fleming: I have a card her, that
shows, a copy of a card that is maintained in the building department that lists
trips to this Board and it doesn't show anything but one trip. Gentleman: would
there have to be a decision for it to show on the card. Mr. Bencal : yes.
Ms. Cromwell : we offer this for your consideration, you know there is opposition,
we feel sympathy for Mr. Crosby but we are not responsible and I hope that you
do not view the past for reason to grant this variance. Mr. Fleming; the one
question Mr. Vallis brings up and its the last paragraph of this petition is, if
we don't allow him to build a single family on his property, what can he use it
for? That's whats called a classic case of hardship. Councillor Nowak: donating
it to the park service is something he could write off on his taxes I think.
That would be a great thing for the City of Salem and I 'm sure the neighbors would
appreciate that kind of offer. Peter LaChappelle, Chief of Visitor Services at
Salem Maritime National Historic Site. That parcel of land is in the proposed
boundary of the site and its been between the lands office and Mr. Crosby and we
have that authorized to be part of our boundary. Being that it is the only open
spot, if he's sell it to us. Mr. Fleming: you don't have the power of eminent
domain. Mr. LaChappelle: no we don't. The service has authorized purchase, we
are waiting for congress to come forth with the money. Don't know the figure.
It is between the Land office and the Regional office right now. It is proposed,
it is in the legislation that extends the boundary of the park. Its the only
open space within that area that gives a view from than angle, when is vital to
our theme. The thing that Mr. Davis was talking about, I think thats taken a
little historically out of context. The idea of the land where the wharves were
when the grants were made were for the continuous use as wharves and those were
grants given by the King. That was an incentive as was Winter Island, Derby
Wharf. Once they were gone, I don't know what land rights remained. The Beach
area is not controlled by the National Parks, it is controlled by the City. The
Park Service is stronly opposed to this variance and would like to acquire this
for open space, one of the last in the area.
7)
22 Kosciusko St. - continued
W. David Crosby: would like to say, the Park Service in 1981 did make an
appraisal of the property, just before the fire, that was about 55,000, never
made an offer, as soon as the fire and the building was torn down they decided
they didn't want it now because all they wanted to do is tear the building down
and have an open space and as soon as it was torn down then they had no more use
for it until they heard that I was coming in for an appeal to build another
building. Now, all of a sudden, last week and appraised it again, now they
want it. Mr. LaChappelle: the reason is the appropriation is finally coming.
Mr. Crosby: they didn 't want it for nine years, it was an open space. Mr.
LaChappelle: they didn 't have the money. Mr. Fleming: what you are saying Mr.
Crosby, is that although the park service expresses interest now, they expressed
interest in 1980 twice in the vicinity of an appraisal of about 50,000 dollars
they didn't make you an offer once the fire was, in the last 8, 9 years. Mr.
Crosby: they never made an offer, they had an appraisal done. Mr. Fleming:
once the fire happened that shut off the process, they haven 't come to you at
all since that time. Mr. Crosby: no, even then they didn't make an offer, they
had an appraisal done, I saw the appraisal , a few weeks after that the fire was
and it was torn down and they dropped it.
Councillor Leonard O'Leary: this property, I am familiar with, I grew up in
the area and I believe we had legislation in the City Council from the Ward 7
councillor, something about water rights don ' t count for building, land assessment.
I think there was an Ordinance and they can't, I believe. Mr. Fleming: I can
only speak from my own experience with the Superior Court and the Appeals court
that in a case in Marblehead, that I am particularly aware of, that the Appeals
Court said the mud flats must be counted, out the what they call the average
mean low water mark. Mr. O'Leary: in that area, I believe, and I remember when
the club was there, and parking was horrendous. Would be better off as open
space. We need open space in the city. Robert Sawin, 20 Kosciusko St. , Mr.
Vallis was very smooth in his presentation, I am almost convinced Mr. Crosby
should build a house there. He was denied once before, no one seems to know
why. Mr. Fleming: the decision is silent to it, nobody can interpret what
happened in 1973, the decision does not really give a reason for denial . Mr.
Sawin: there was no appeal on that, can someone answer that, why not? The
Court case that 's coming up, I don't quite understand that. Mr. Fleming: the
facts are just the damages relative to the destruction of the property I imagine,
against the City of Salem Mr. Sawin: they way it was explained, we ought to
have a lot of sympathy for Mr. Crosby, that the City was all tied in in collusion
which I 'm finding difficult to accept, theres no proof at all . It was laid out
nicely, felt sorry him for a couple of minutes, but I don't see anything there
at all . The mud flats, believe the surveys said 16,500 sq. ft. is the total
square footage of this lot now Mr. Fleming: ng he said of the mud flats, then
plus the footage of the lot. Mr. Sawin: every one seems a little grey as far
as the mud flats, are they taxable. Mr. Fleming: some cities, don 't think Salem.
Mr. Sawin: Can 't see using this to argue the case and not pay taxes on it.
Would like that looked into. Councillor Bates: agree with Councillor Nowak.
William Lussier, 19 Kosciusko St. , opposed Sophie Lussier, 19 Kosciusko, opposed.
Bob Sousa, Customs House, would like to add something, I 've been there for 30
years and I can attest what these people have said, it was disaster, safety
hazard. Never kept up, can't feel sorry for what has happened over the years.
REBUTTAL: Attorney Vallis - Regarding Mr. Nowak 's first remark, when he bought
the property he should have known what he was buying, he did know what he was
buying, he was buying a house that he thought he could convert to a single
family, which he couldn't do. Quoting from the 1973 decision, appearing in
8)
22 Kosciusko St. - continued
opposition to the granting of the variance is City Councillor George Nowak who
expressed his opposition to the granting of this variance based on the lack of
parking. In one way, Mr. Nowak says Mr. Crosby did nothing to help his position
and thats been voiced by others. I passed photos around, these were taken right
after, and he got a permit, spent lot of money, reshingled entire building,
boarding windows, Mr. Nowaks says he did nothing with the property, he tried to
do something with the property, this is where he' s caught between a rock and a
hard place. Classic case of catch 22. Also says that if this is granted he will
sell it and make lots of money, sell it to the park service. You heard the park
service, they say they' ll buy it, but only if the variance is granted. If its
granted, the property will stay vacant and they won 't have to buy it. Parking
problem, I agree, always been parking problem there, ever since I can remember.
The problem is not being created or exacerbated by Mr. Crosby. He is showing a
single family with two legal sized parking spaces. Its been said that if he has
his parking there then the off street parking that is there will be eliminated.
Since when are people entitled to off street parking space when people come
before this Board the first thing you ask is where are you going to park. If they
can't park, usually turned down. Will not be 30 feet from rear or 10 feet from
harbor, but who cares, if its 6 ft. closer. He can't put anything on this land
but he' s told he has to continue to pay taxes on it. This building meets the
height, usage in relation to the lot. The young ladies said they offered to buy,
offered him $10,000 you all know its worth more, said when he turned that down
negotiations stopped, well , they never offered any more. Mr. Sousa said the
property has been neglected, well , it was neglected before he bought the property
he's made an honest effort to restore the property, came to the Board, was turned
down, was told he could fix the building up, which he did, but he couldn't use
the building. If you can 't use a building and its just sitting there idle, its
wide open to vandals. I don't want to hear that he neglected the property, he
didn 't have much choice. This is a classic case of hardship. Public portion
closed.
Mr. Luzinski : asked Mr. Vallis, was there a reason why he didn't come after
1973? Mr. Vallis: he's been in Court since 1980, finally coming to trial .
He's been told in the City Solicitor's office, would he withdraw the case if he
was granted a variance, he said yes, he wants to build something. Mr. Luzinski :
why not between 1973 and 1980. Mr. Fleming; one reason, in 1976 he got a
building permit, I don 't understand that at all . Mr. Vallis: the Building
Inspector at the time has more knowledge of that, Mr. Gauthier. The case was
scheduled for tomorrow but Mr. Gauthiers out of town, will be rescheduled when
he gets back. Mr. Nutting: did we hear by the opponents that the view would be
blocked. Mr. Fleming: absolutely, but view is not a consideration. Air and
light would be. Mr. Fleming asked Mr. Vallis is his client know what the build-
ing department said in 1976 when they granted a building permit #138 and #223.
Mr. Crosby: They said they were going to tear the building down, I went into
court and they said it was a danger to the children, the first attorney died,
thats why it wasn 't appealed at that time. Mr. Murphy said we would put a
guard on the property 24 hours a day as long as it took so the children wouldn't
be hurt. Then the court said all right, if he does that we won't tear it down,
we' ll give permit to make it look good, but still can ' use it, that was the
stipulation, to keep them from tearing it down, I agreed. Mr. Nowak: nothing
was done. Mr. Crosby: yes it was, spent good deal of money, did everything
they wanted, completely reshingled the building, changed all the windows around,
blocked all the cellar windows, made the building secure. Mr. Fleming: those
pictures are the result of those building permits? yes.
9)
22 Kosciusko St. - continued
Mr. Crosby: in 1972 I was remodeling and the Courts issued a stop work order
because there was a conflict about who owned the property. The building dept.
stopped me but the health dept. said you have to do something or we're going to
tear it down, thats when we went into court to stop them, heard the case, they
said okay we' ll let you fix it up if you' ll make it safe, which I did, but you
can 't use it. Mr. Fleming: that ' s my problem, I wish you or someone would tell
me why they would let you spend money, issue two permits, were they telling you
you could fix up the outside but you could live on the inside? Right. Mr.
Fleming: who was saying that to you. Mr. Crosby: the building inspector, the
superior court, they has a stipulation that this is what it would be. Mr. Vallis:
he got a stay, an injunction. Mr. Fleming: this was before the Council Order,
this was the Board of Health. Mr. Crosby: when my attorney died, he didn't get
into court to appeal it, this was a technicallity, they said the time had gone
and put out bid to tear it down. Had to go to court to stop them, thats when my
attorney said we'd put a guard on it to make it safe, couple of weeks with guard,
they said now we will let you make it child safe but you can't use, I agreed so
they wouldn 't tear it down. As far as the fire, that was many years later. Mr.
Fleming: I just don't understand them giving you a permit and not letting you
use it. Mr. Luzinski : there must have been a reason the Board denied. These
were good members. Mr. Fleming: I agree there must have been but it doesn't
say. Mr. Luzinski : I think the last sentence says it. He read from the
1973 decision. (The Board is aware that there are other buildings in the area
which have sub-standard lot sizes and are nonconforming lots with respect to
density and parking requirements, but tht the trend in the neighborhood demon-
strated by the removal of several large buildings and the creation of new parking
areas and additional open space is away from the the creation of new housing
units on extremely limited lot areas wihtout parking and yard areas. ) Mr. Fleming:
was there a lot of houses taken down? Mr. Luzinski : yes, at one time there was
no open space at all , some good size houses have been torn down. Mr. Vallis:
the unusual thing is he didn 't have to come to the board. Mr. Fleming: right,
its zoned for two family. Woman from the audience: that 's history, thats not
now. He's got a court case for that, this is totally different. Mr. Fleming:
he has a court case for the tearing down, not for that, that 's gone. Woman: but
the court case will be dropped if he' s given his variance. Mr. Fleming: no ones
told me that. Woman: he just said it. Mr. Fleming: I heard him say it but
Mr. Nowak: thats a very serious statement and we're going to follow that up.
Mr. Fleming: we'd have to vote, no one give variance but us, nobody else can
say we' ll give them a variance, no one can order us to give him a variance.
Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the variance subject to the following conditions:
petitioner meet all requirements of the Salem Historical Commission, meet all
requirements of the Salem Fire Dept., Certifcate of Occupancy, obtain proper
number from the Assessors office, dimensions be as per plans submitted, petitioner
maintain two legal parking spaces on site for the sole use of the dwelling at
22 Kosciusko st. Mr. Strout: question on plans submitted. Mr. Vallis: that
is not the plan of the house, that is just a sample of the type house, you have
a foot print. Mr. Strout: we're supposed to have a plan, an elevation. We don't
know what your going to build. You are talking about a 14 by 39 house theres
a big difference between a 24 x 30. Mr. Vallis: I 'm sorry I submitted that
rendering, the purpose was to give you an idea of the kind .of house. Mr. Fleming:
Mr. Strout's point is you would have to show us some kind of elevation. Mr.
Vallis: I 'm not asking for any variances from elevation, if you want to
restrict us in height. Mr. Strout: we just go with condition as per plans
submitted. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted four opposed to the motion
one in favor (Mr. Fleming)
VARIANCE DENIED
.COMM WRUAM E. ABBOTT
JOSEPH E. DOYEE
of "tt4Pm, ,ffl2TSsat4 vert s JOHN M.GRAY.SR.
ARTHUR E. EABRECOUE
PDI[rb d c Ppral DONALD ROEEMAN
GDDYF CR' WARREN BAUGHN
EMERY P. TANCH
DECISION ON PETITION OF DAVID CROSBY TO CONVERT FORMER
SOCIAL CLUB STRUCTURE AT 22 KOSCIUSKO STREET TO PROVIDE
A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
This is a direct appeal -by the Petitioner, W. David Crosby, from the applic
able terms of the density regulations of the City Zoning Ordinance to reno-
vate and convert the building located at 22 Kosciusko Street , Salem, to a
single family residence. The District where 22 Kosciusko Street is located
is zoned residential two-family.
Hearing on this appeal was held on June 25, 1973, Pursuant to notices mailec
postpaid to the Petitioner, Board Members , abutters , abutters to abutters,
and others , and advertisements were duly published in the Salem Evening New;
advising of this Public Hearing.
Chairman John M. Gray, Sr. opened this meeting with Board Members Donald V.
Koleman, Arthur I.abrecque , William Abbott, and associate member Warren Baugt
present.
The Petitioner was represented by Attorney Richard P. Farley, of 126 Washint
ton Street , Salem, who presented the following evidence ;
The building has been located on the lot at 22 Kosciusko Street for over fif
(50) years and was purchased by the Petitioner, W. Davia Crosby, nearly thrE
(3) years ago . The Petitioner stated to the Board of Appeals that condition
al upon the granting of a variance he would rehabilitate the building and
convert it to a single family residence , which he would occupy. Although
purchased nearly three years ago , the Petitioner has not requested an appeal
to the applicable -terms of the Zoning Ordinance prior to this time due to
the fact that an injunction, arising out of title litigation, prohibited
the Petitioner from going forward in the renovation of the property. The
Court injunction was recently dismissed and the Petitioner now desires to
renovate the building for a single family residence if this Board grants the
Petitioner' s appeal . The lot at 22 Kosciusko Street, as shown on a plan
accompanying Petitioner' s application, shows a lot area of 2700 square feet ,
an area less than the minimum required lot area per dwelling unit, a lot
maximum
width of 50 feet , lot coverage by the building exceedsrpercentage of lot
coveragepermitted, front yard depth of 6.4 feet, side yard depth of 6 feet
and one foot , respectively, rear yard depth of 5 feet. The Petitioner state
through his counsel , Richard P. Farley, that off-street parking is available
in the neighborhood, and specifically an agreement had been made upon the
granting of this variance with the owner of the premises at 143 Derby Stree
to provide a single space for parking.
Appearing in favor of the granting of the variance was Thaddeus Wloydka, 13
Derby Street , Salem, who stated that he is the owner of 143 Derby Street an
will agree to provide a single Space for parking if this variance is grante
Mr. Wloydka also stated that he had spoken with seven people in the neighbo
hood who are not present this evening, nor have they communicated by letter
with the Board, who expressed to Mr. Wloydka objection to the granting of t
variance.
Appearing in opposition to the granting of the variance was City Councillor
George Nowak, Ward One , who expressed his opposition to the granting of thi
variance based upon the lack of parking on the parcel, the existing very
.difficult parking problem in the area and his opinion after consultation
with representatives of the National Park Service that plans for the expan-
sion of the park at Derby Wharf were being considered. Also appearing in
opposition were Richard Dylengoski , owner of the Derby Cafe, Teresa Dylen-
goski of 156 Derby Street , Amie Bousier, 10 Kosciusko Street , Alex Wardoski
39 Daniels Street , and Robert Kobuszewski , 5 Daniels Street Court.
Present and wishing to be recorded as interested citizens only were William
McKinnon and Mr. and Mrs. David Johnson, of Kosciusko Street.
A communication was received from John J. Toomey, Health Agent for the City
of Salem, concerning 22 Kosciusko Street , requesting that the Appeals Board
render an early decision in regard to this appeal and inform the Board of
Health of that decision.
The Board studied carefully the drawing submitted by the Petitioner for the
renovation of the property, the plot plan, and the record. All of the Boar(
Members were familiar with the location of the property and discussed in
detail the Petitioner' s application.
The Zoning By-Law requires a minimum lot area.-In an R-2 District of 7,000
square feet , a minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 3590 square feet , a
minimum lot width of 66 feet , a maximum lot coverage by all buildings of 35°
a minimum depth of front yard of 15 feet , a minimum width of side yard of
10 feet, and a depth of rear yard of 30 feet. The lot in question has an
area of 2700 square feet , an area less than the minimum required lot area
per dwelling unit ; a lot width of 50 feet ; more than the allowed maximum
lot coverage by the building; front yard depth of 6.4 feet , side yard depth
of 6 feet and one foot respectively; *and rear yard depth of 5 feet. In
avery dimension the existing building on the lot is in violation of the
present zoning law regarding density, front , side and rear yard setbacks
- 3 -
and additionally can not provide parking as required by the Zoning By-taw.
Although the Petitioner did not present an argument based on nonconformity,
the Board nevertheless discussed this aspect with respect to the granting
of a variance on the reliance of nonconformity. Evidence was not produced
that the building was occupied as a single family dwelling prior to the
existence of the present zoning By-law. On the contrary, it appears from
evidence introduced that the building was used for a social club for many
years , but that it has been unoccupied as such for many years .
After reviewing all of the evidence presented and considering carefully
the plan submitted by the Petitioner, the Board voted unanimously to
DENY the granting of a variance to renovate and convert the present build-
ing located at 22 Kosciusko Street , Salem, as a single family residence.
The Board additionally finds that .the variance may not be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substan-
tially derogating from the intent of the District or the intent of the
Ordinance for the reasons specified above. The Board is aware that there
are other buildings in the area which have sub-standard lot sizes and are
non-conforming lots with respect to density and parking requirements , but
that the trend in the neighborhood demonstrated by the removal of several
large buildings and the creation of new parking areas and additional open
space is away from the creation of new housing units on extremely limited
lot areas without parking and yard areas .
APPEAL DENIED.
CITY OF SALEM - - BOARD OF APPEALS,
BY
Acting) Secretary
LOCATION - �_
DATE OF PERMIT PERMIT No. OWNER
Crosby �-�`I��L�
6/29/73 I David Cary 22 Koscuisku-St. R
STRUCTURE I MATERIAL DIMENSIONS I No.OF STORIES I No.OF FAMILIESI WARD COST
BUILDER
Y
Petition to convert former social club structure- lto provide single far,
dwelling. Appeal Denied.
5/3/76 1138 Siding,close bathroom winds,pigwood winds,shutter over, cut down (2) w.
on rt, side to match rear,remove back entrance way,remove cellar winds.
stucco foundation facing water,front door, replace with (6) panel pine.
(Certificate of Appropriateness by Salem Historical Commission)
6/18/76 1223 Shingle porch and shed roof.
7/19/80 Neptune Wrecking Demolition Corp.- demolished building $ 1,995.00
yy'cuulRI
t11 m
rr
kf'41R1F
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
KEVIN T.DALY Legal Department LEONARD F FEMINO
City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor
508-745-0500 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 508-921-1990
T
December 31, 1990 - . -,
4
Mr. Richard Bencal, Chairman c3 co
Salem Board of Appeal � v
City of Salem < o
One Salem Green o o.
Salem, MA 01970 cyrn Lo 7
r un o.
in re: W. David Crosby not r -a
x�
n
Dear Mr. Bencal: n 1;
(n o
Enclosed herewith please find a copy of a
stipulation entered into in the Superior Court regarding the
above-mentioned matter. Would you kindly place this matter
on the agenda at the next available meeting. Would you also
schedule an executive session for the same night so that I
can discuss this matter with the full board.
As you can see from the enclosed document, the
above-mentioned matter has been concluded with a favorable
result for the city.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions
or comments prior to the meeting. I look forward to hearing
from you.
Very truly yours,
Ar_
Leonard F. Femino
LFF/sbh
Enclosure
_ �lJ.ld!f ����1,'(H QF JUl �55�cNclS�TTS
C-a-XT - -
_CO()R r- _3)c( T-
_
VIA
- IT7 ofid
--
- ,
( C041S ia 0c1
�CO VI)ITi
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM, MASSACH USETTS 01970
(617)745-9595, EXT.31 1
January 15, 1990
Richard Bencal , Chairman
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Chairman Bencal :
The Salem Historical Commission is in receipt of your meeting
agenda for January 16, 1991 . In this regard, please be advised
of the following:
- That 22 Kosciusko Street is located within the Derby
Street Historic District as well as the Derby
Waterfront National Register District;
- That 9 Cambridge Street is located in the McIntire
Historic District as well as the Chestnut Street
National Register District (please refer to the
letter to the Board of Appeal dated 8/22/90 ) ; and
- That, although it is not located in a local or
National Register district, 23 Becket Street was
likely built prior to 1800 . While historically
inappropriate changes have already been made to the
building (eg . picture window) , the Commission is
hopeful that any additional work completed to the
exterior of the building will be sympathetic to its
age and Federal style architecture .
Thank you for your consideration .
Sincerely,
THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Annie C . Harris
Chairman
Jhiscom8/HIS119
• � �CONOIT{JG
9� a`0c
�fCl!USE 00?
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(617)745-9595,EXT.311
January 15, 1990
Richard Bencal , Chairman
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Chairman Bencal :
The Salem Historical Commission is in receipt of your meeting
agenda for January 16, 1991 . In this regard, please be advised
of the following:
- That 22 Kosciusko Street is located within the Derby
Street Historic District as well as the Derby
Waterfront National Register District;
- That 9 Cambridge Street is located in the McIntire
Historic District as well as the Chestnut Street
National Register District (please refer to the
letter to the Board of Appeal dated 8/22/90 ) ; and
- That, although it is not located in a local or
National Register district, 23 Becket Street was
likely built prior to 1800 . While historically
inappropriate changes have already been made to the
building (eg . picture window) , the Commission is
hopeful that any additional work completed to the
exterior of the building will be sympathetic to its
age and Federal style architecture .
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
�r� /4
THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Annie C . Harris
Chairman
Jhiscom8/HIS119
SRLENi NARBU2
V� /I
Ln — C
U
j J S r
717 PKa Yo f',9fcCIAi6 w
r^ W I N d w
C o o� w
Zu—
A
r
IU z
I "
i 14
6N
C
=v �
M
M Nrc
n n -
- o
c z
V, D
O
x
v' L
� c
3
,oaa coM,yoy
yOP, Sill _
QD
n1 ^lob IP <� o
� B
3�5 31v3 � `�J 2 ��1 ;1U ' a yy ,°SOF. � 35
a 9 8 9
p
00
<
4Z A 3
N- � a 50
6
4
Z1 3g5pSo
850 150r� \� 1 \ �`a �� Z6Q
y 3 b�
X00 ,�:0 �,' by ZZ5 0� G
20
6 A.
el
4,0 Q �-eQ ?. Q
5A18 uj'61c9o� r,
ti
y9z 9
jop
� �� s 1500
A
a a
s
09 ao k�rL3 F190 ��Pr1 +� A o °r
2 d •�,�,
+
019 N� m, gp656Z6 N� y00
0 tY _dam] J J `,�P`
lop e�Ft aP`6
4A JU
6I0
�j4�n ,�• �o�j O
0
I&28yp
1L, w, s, up ''
:o ZrZ 0 p 39 o
600
0P �� _� 31j2 G�App��s\
N
393 U ?s
Id/
765,2,500 E
PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION 01
SALEM BOARD OF ASSESSORS
BY
AVIS AIRMAP INC.
0�) BROOKLINE — BRAINTREE — 1!ARTFORD