Loading...
70 SUMMER STREET - ZBA (3) 70 Summer St. (R-2) Steven & Patricia Hamphill _ 2 e MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN 6 LEONARD F. FEM!NO CITY SOLICITOR n unr�, ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR 93 WASHINGTON STREET 93 WASHINGTON STREET and and 81 'WASHINGTON STREET CITY OF SALEM ONE BROADWAY SALEM, PSA 01970 MASSACHUSETTS BEVERLY, MA 01915 745-4311 745-4311 744-3363 921.1990 Please Reply to 61 Washington Street Please Reply to One Broadway November 26 1986 Board of Appeals City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re : Priscilla L. Hemphill , et al vs James B. Hacker, et als Essex Superior Court #86-2150 Gentlemen : Please be advised that this office filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the above matter on behalf of the Board. You might recall that one of the central issues in the plaintiff ' s appeal in this matter was their conten- tion that they were entitled to a construction grant of a variance due to the failure of the Board to file it ' s de- cision within 14 days of the vote to deny the requested var- iance . It was the position of this office and that of Board Member James M. Fleming that so long as the Board "acts" within 75 days of filing a petition, there can be no con- struction grant even though the decision is not filed within 14 days of making it, provided it is filed within the 14-day interval following the expiration of the 75 day period : In the instant case, the decision was filed within 14 days of the 75 day period. Accordingly, the Superior Court has granted my Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and the Board has prevailed on the issue of the timeliness of the filing of the decision: All that will be litigated at trial is whether or not the plaintiffs can prove the three prerequisites ( i . e . , special circumstances , hardship, without substantial detriment, etc. ) entitling them to a variance . I am enclosing copies of the decision along with copies of my pleadings for your records . Ve-ryruly yours � ' chael E. O' Brien ity Solicitor - MEO/jp Enclosures COI'MINEALTH OF .1,DSSACHUSETTS Department Of The Trial Court Essex, ss, Superior Court No. 86-215o Priscilla L. Hemphill, at al va. James B. Hacker, at a.ls DECISION ON DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PART LAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT This motion for partial, summary judgment relates to that part of G.L. c, 40 A s. 15 that reads ; " . , , Failure of the Board to act within seventy-five days shall be deemed to be the grant of relief . . .." From the :defendants '. affidavit it appears the board acted (its oral vote to deny) -on. July 23, 1986, sixty-eight (68 ) days after the plaintiffst petition was filed with the Board on May 16, 1986._ . The plaintiffs. have not filed any counter affidavit. ,The filing of the decision within 14 days is directory and indicates the start of, appeal "rights under s.17. In this case . the decision was filed 20 'days after t a board act3:1. Therefore partial summary Judgment is entered in favor of the defendants in that no !'constructive" grant resulted,. Ju t ce of the Superior Cour ju� Entered; November. 20, 1986, ; i i I i C01*10M EALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Department Of The Trial Court Essex, ss. Superior Court No. '86-2150 Priscilla L. Hemphill, at al i vs. . i James B. Hacker, at .als PARTIAL SUMMARY. JUDGMENT (MASS. R. CIV, P. 56 ) i This action came to be heard before the Court, Forte, J. presiding, upn the motion of the defendants James B., Hacker, at alsi', n for summary judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 56, the parties ' having been heard, the Court finds thatthere is no genuine- Issue ' as to material fact, and .that tha defendants are - entitled to a partial judgment as a, matter of law. It is hereby Ordered; i partial summary'. judgment in favor of the defendants in that no "constructive" grant resulted. Date November 20p 1986.. Assistant Clerk II i I COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS . SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION No. 86-1250 PRISCILLA L. HEMPHILL, ET. AL. , PLAINTIFFS VS SUBSTITUTEDMOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT JAMES B. HACKER, ET. ALS . , DEFENDANTS Now come tide above-named defendants and , pursuant to Rule 56 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure and Superior Court Rule 9,, moves that this Honorable Court grant the said defendants Partial Summary Judgment rela- tive to the allegations impiicit . in paragraphs #3 , #4 and #5 of plaintiff ' s Complaint that the plaintiffs are entitled to a constructive grant of a variance because the defendants did not make and file a decision on plaintiff ' s petition for a variance in a timely manner pursuant to the time require- ments of Massachusetts General , Laws , Chapter 40A, Section 15 . Board of Zoning Appeals City of Salem By. the r attorney : L_ chael E. 0' rien City Solicitor 81 Washington Street Salem, Mass . 01970 Telephone ( 617 ) 744-3363 COMMONWEALTIir OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS . SUPERIOR. COURT CIVIL .ACTION NO. - 86-2150 PRISCILLA L. HEMPHILL; ET. AL.', PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF VS DEFENDANTS MOTION JAMES B. HACKER; FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ET. ALS. , DEFENDANTS The defendants submit this brief in support of their Motion for Partial Summary. Judgment. I , STATEMENT OF THE. ISSUE' 1 , whether or not 11 the defendant Salem Board of Zoning Appeals made and filed its decision relative to the plaintiffs , petition for the, granting .of var- iances in a timely manner pursuant to the .provisions of Massachusetts General Laws , Chapter 40A, Section 15 II . ARGUMENT,' On May 16 ;. 1986 , the plaintiffs filed a petition for granting of variances with the Board of Zoning Ap- peals , City. of Salem. . On July 231 1966 ; the Board .of Zoning Appeals , voted orally, at a public hearing held sixty-eight ( 68 ) days after the filing of the petition, to deny the variances requested: The written decision of the Board of Zoning .Ap- peals, assigning reasons for the denial , was filed with the -City 'Clerk; , City of Salem, on August 12 , twenty ( 20 ).' days after the oral decisiOh. and "1986 , eighty-eight .(88 ) days after the filing of the. pe tition for variances .. Both of the above- actions of the Board of Zon ons ing Appeals meet the requirements Chapter Section of Massachusetts General Laws , Chap 15 , as enuniciaated in O' Kane v. Board of Appeals of Hingham, 478 NE 2d 902 ( 1985 ) , a copy of which is appended hereto. III . CONCLUSION The defendants are entitled to the Partial Sum- mary Judgment requested in their accompanying Motion of Same , for the reasons set forth above . Board of Zoning Appeals City of .Salem By th ' r attorney: Michael E. O' Brien City Solicitor 81 Washington Street Salem, Mass . 01970 Telephone. ( 617 ) 744-3363 Attachment i 1: 962 Mass. 478 NORTH EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES that because the precise effect on a jury of 20 Mass.App. 162 the particular happening could. not be. as- Ida C. O'KANE 4t sessed, prejudice must be assumed to the _ v: point of justifying the undoing of-a convic• `. .. ' BOARD OF APPEALS OF IHh'GI1AM. j Lion'otherwise well founded. Although the . decision no doubt-followed from a delicate Appeals Court.of Massachusetts, scruple on the.part of the judge, it was not Plymouth. ! realistic: - in all likelihood - the prejudice Argued Feb. 4, 1985. - jr would be nil, and certainly not such as-to` -- _ impeach the stability ofa criminal'judg- Decided June 3, 1985. ment. Nor could .the judge's decision be defended as lying somewhere at the edge Applicant for zoning variance chal- of discretion Cf. Woodward v Leavitt, lenged decision of town board of appeals. 107 Mass 453 460 (1871); Commonwealth .The Superior Court,Plymouth County,Guy IJ) v. Royster, 15 Mass App• 970 971 446 Volterra J., held that board constructively N.E2d 1078 (1983). The result did not .granted applicant's variance by failing to square with decisions in cases, -file written decision in timely manner, and of casual invasions of juryrooms and was board appealed., The Appeals Court, Kap- If sn .miles .apart from',the better known -situs lan'.;Ja held ;that understatute providing Lions of the communication of consegpen•• that�Tailure;of board t6-aet..within 75.day6 tial nonrecord facts to jurors,'. or of jurors "of application would constitute constructive undertaking surreptitious. private views-of` 'grant of relief and directing board to file the scenes of actions We can say'.on .the!'.. written notice of decision within 14 days, record beyond a reasonable doubt that no : "board, after '.making decision within 75 . }- prejudice or.material tendency toward pre)'- days, could effectively file written decision udice was shown. See Fidler, 377 Mass. atsnore than 14 days after decision as long as 201, 385 N.E.2d 513. AScordingly,.the or.:' it filed decision within 14 days after expiry der allowing a new trial is vacated and the :: tion of the 75 days. conviction is reinstated. Judgment reversed. So ordered L.Zoning and Planning x-361 Under M.G.L.A. c. 40A, § -15, govern- " - ing hearings by board of appeals in zoning W ' o-Tit,.uvnssrsghcases, board must decide case within 75- S days after date of commencement of .pro- ceeding. 2. Zoning and Planning 18-542 r Under M.G.L.A. c. 40A, § 15, govern- ing hearings by board of a G -� Commonwealth v. Hunt, 392 Mas 3. See United States v Lubrano, 529 F.2d .633, 4. .Set s 28 .:r 638 (2d Cir.1975); UnitedS[atet'v Luciano, 734 37-43.465 N.E.2d 1195(1984); United.Staie+ ea F.2d 68, 71 (1st Cir.1984); Hams V. Common. rel. Owen v. McMann, 435 F.2d 813, 8I5, 818- wealth, 315.S,W.2d 630. 653 (1958); State v. 819 (2d Cir.1970), etrt,denled•.402'US.906 91 t { Bgfla,:51 NJSuper. 218.238-239, 143 A-2d 833 S.Ct. 1373,28 LEd.2d 646(1971).. CL Common- (1958); 'State V. Billups, 301 N.C. 607, 616--617, wealth s.Tavares,385 Mau. 140, ISS t56, 430 272 S.E.2d 842 (1981); Drummer v: State; 366 -N.E2d 1198 (1962). ~Yi P.2d 20.25-26(Wyo.1961); with which coinpare Turner v. Louisiana;379 U.S. 466, 474, 85 S.Ct. 'S. See Harrington V. Woreerter, Leicester -6 Y 546,SSO, 13 !_Ed.2d 424{1965}; United Stattt.0 - Spencer St. Ry., 157 Mass 579.582-583.72 NY- Freeman• 634 F.2d 1267. 1269-1270 (10th Cir. 955 (1893). Cf. Commonwealth v. janm. 15 Mass.App. 692, 694-696, 448 N.E2d 400 1980). - � a b Lk ' rI.. ,. Y x O'KANE Y. BOARD OF APPEALS OF HINGHAM Mass. 963 F.,> cite a 478 N:E1d 42(M...:App- 1983) Y ' cases, board's decision, made 41 days after. in the office of Hingharn's town clerk. The .4 application and filed in:writing 76" days defendant board- of appeals conducted a s alter application, denying application for public.hearing or the application on August variance was effective,. notwithstanding ' .16, 1983, forty-one days after the-applica- provision in statute that failure to act with- tion, s „i on the same day the board voted. # - in 75 days of application would constitute . '(orally) to deny it. The written decision of grant of relief sought and directing that - the board, assigning reasons, was filed in written decision be filed within 14 days. .the town clerk's office on September 20,' •� 3. Zoning and Planning 2-361 . 1983, thirty-five days after the oral decision and'seventy-aiz days after the application. ,:: Under M.G.L.A. c. 40A,§.15, providing , that failure of board of appeals to act in O'1{ahe took her "appeal" to the Superior ✓ -,zoning case within 75 day's of, commence-. :Court under G.L, a 40A, § 17, on October 3- - 5;: 1983, twenty days- within the allowed. �. ment of case constitutes grant of relief�� tY dY f sought, in order to avoid constructive grant Upon stipulated facts, in substance.as just Y of relief, board need not file" written deer "narrated, a judge of the Superior Court" a Y Psion within 75 days; rather,- as long"as ruled; agreeing with the plaintiff, that the o decision is made withirl 75 days, filing. of 'variance mustbeheld to.have'been."con d Written'decision may effectively be made structively" granted because of.the failure... - _ r ' within 14—day interval following expiration' of the board to file its written decision in g of the 75 days. - the town clerk's office within fourteen days a - - following"its action in rendering the oral e adecision. The board appeals-to this court. Chester A-Janiak, Bostoni for-defendant. We reverse. t' 'Douglas A. Randall, Quincy, for plaintiff. . 5 [3-3) The judge argued, plausibly, that \ •'4 ° `' Before GREANEY, CJ:, and KAPLAN - the:four teenday provision was "mandato- a and BROWN,JJ. ry"," but the later opinion in Zuckerman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Greenfield, 394 KAPLAN, Justice. Mass. 663, 665-667, 477 N.E2d 13.2 (1985), i. a The notoriously confused,text of G.L. c. establishes the contrary the provision is ( � -40A,, § 15, fifth par., as appearing in SL "directory." Hence, in Zuckerman, where - '" 1975,-0. 808, § 3 (set out in the margin I) the appropriate. writing was filed more r !s presents yet an difficulty, and we than fourteen days following decision, but seek to find the more satisfactory solution. within the seventy-five days after applies- 5' F On July-,.6, 1983, the plaintiff Ida C.' tion,' a "constructive" grant of the applies- O'Kane filed her application for a variance tion was averted and an appeal of the deci- .F` - F fY' 1. `All hwrings of the board of appeals shall be shall be-e public record; and notice of the / 1, . open to the public The decision or the.board decision shall be mailed forthwith to the yeti- �_ it - shall be made within seventy-five days after the Honer,applicant or appellan4 to the parties In ? , date of the filing of an appeal; application or - Interest designated in secllon eleven, and to- `�,� petition except in regard to special permits, as - every person present at the hearing who re- provided-for in section nine of'"this.chapter. - quested that notice be sent to him and stated the 4 Failure by the board to act within"said seventy- address to which such notice was to be sent. s a five days shall be deemed to the grant of the Each notice shall,apeeify that appeals, if any, ) relief,.application or petition sought, subject.to "shall b<'made pursuant to section seventeen and - Y -an applicable.judicial eppeal.as provided for In shall be,filed within twenty days after the.date y this chapter: The board shall cause to be made ' of filing of such notice In the office of city or 1 a detailed rgcord of Its proceedings: indicating :town clerk.' f _4t the vote of each member upon each question,or - i ;if absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact," 'L .It Is setiled that the board must decide within and setting forth clearly the reason'or reasons.. - t - - the seventy-five days Set Rinaudc s'Zoning s _ s for its decision and its official actions,.copiu �;of App<eG o/Plymouth. 383 Mau.885, 421 of all of which shall be filed within fouriecn .N.E1d-.439 (1981). 1 Y days in the office of the city or town clerk and . 4771781M ;e 4 T :t - t' ' I 964 Miss. 478 NORTH ,EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES sion to the Superior Court, had it been G.L. c: 40A, § 9, as appearing in St. 1975, c. s ailure ... to take timely taken, could reach the substance. . 808, § 3, states that "(fJ . I; -The present case is a variant on Zucker- - final-action upon an application for a ape- Ya man. Here the. writing was fled more - cial permit within ... ninety days following the date of public hearing shall be deemed than fourteen days after the.decsion„and cation.. And . to be a grant of the permit applied for.” seventy-six days after-the appli so we have the question, posed but not . Of these cited cases the court goes on to answered in Zuckerman, whether filing say, "where statute requires final -action seventy. within ninety days, decision must be-made must at all events occur within tbe.seven y Y a ° five days, or may be effectively made with- and filed within that period of time".(em- : y X (em- phasis in ori inal 4 Section 15 stands in in a fourteen-day interval following the,ex' P g )• - i piration.of the seventy-five days. As indi contrast to § 91 It does not speak of final cared in Zuckerman, at 665, 477 N.E.2d.. action within the seventy-five days but of a 132, these appear to be the only common- the board acting (i.e., deciding) within that sensical alternatives; and we think the lat- period, and then having a further period ter position accommodates -better- to the for filing. text and scheme of § 15, such as they are.' Judgment reversed. In the second sentence, the "(f]ailure..by i the board to act within said' seventy-five p rin.UKltASR'IM i days" refers to "the decision of;the board". i mentioned in the preceding sentence;, aid ' .�— the "within fourteen days of the third , sI , sentence, being directory allows not less tI G I than that period after the decision is made i for memorializing and.filing it. :Suppose 4 20 Mass.App.921 decision on the seventy-fifth day,' it would \Ross H. HIGGINS- be hard to deny that the board had afur- ther v fourteen days in which .to file .it t �- ' That terminus, we think, should apply.even . CITY .617 SPRINGFIE where the decision was made at an earlier : Appeals CouF of.Massae usetts, �point in .the period of seventy-five days. Ha prier. --in Zuckerman, at 666 n. 2, 477 N E.2d Argued Mar h 2 1984. 132, the court said, "We express no view on - e .• 'f' I the situation where' the board makes .its Decided Jun 1985. i decision within seventy-five days but files -" its decision within fourteen days after the seventy-five day period has elapsed " The . Landowner brou$ht ac 'on seeking to front court then, after the.sign "Cf, cites two recover,money pe id to city as ondition of i s. a .. r ,�: R• special-permit cases where the ..tatnte,. age charge impo G y y ' ^T court'under dissenting). Comb are Cullen v. Bui ing lnapee J. In tact the appeal'to Superior Co. § 17 was not timely taken In Zuekermdn-(al ter of Atrlebo�oughl and eomme.67th reoo in 66770, 477 N.E.2d'IJ2). eats o it urd, 1 - - Casatanta v. zoning Bd. of App 1 l - u•y ,.;I •' 4. In that precise situation, where.decision Is on 377 Mass. 67, 69-70, 384 N.E.2d 1218 1979). the seventy-fifth day, no more than fourteen days would be allowed for filing. Otherwise the S. Building.Impector of Attleboro v. Atdetbore " ptocess could be protracted Ioderinitdy, as'was. Landfill l Inc 384 Mass. 109 110-111, �12J possible under the predecessor'statute It was a N.E.2d .1009 (1981); Elder Care Servs.; .Inc.\s'. - to Zoning`Bd of Appeals of Nfngha+ir, 17 Nass.Ap - clear purpose of the enactment of§ o ...avoid s any such,perpetual"cloud.' See Capone J.Zon• - 480, 481 , 459 N.E.2d 832 (198<). ing Bd. of Appeals of Fitchburg, 389.Maas:617,., 623,. 51 N.E.2d 1141 (1983),-quoting from Noe -'i v. Board of App of Hingham,'13.Mass-App. 6. Se< the extended analysis 5'au ra. 9 in the Build- ti 103, Irl, 130 N.E.2d:853. (1982) (Dreben; J., inganSpecror ease, P kyi ''Y n r' v (1�itV of �alem, � ttssttc�usett� 3 _ An IZ 3 vti PH 185 Pnarb of �pprill •�T. FILE !4 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN AND PATRICIA HII4PHIqIfPR 114.MASS. A VARIANCES FOR 70 SURER STREET. A public hearing on this petition was held on July 23, 1986 with the Board Members present: , James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. Bencal, Fleming; 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 the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. The petitioners, represented by Mr. Steven Hemphill, requested a Variance to convert an existing four (4) family building located at 70 Sumner St. to a six (6) family dwelling. Additionally, the the petitioners sought a variance from the requirements of Section VII C, relative to off-street parking. The premises in question is located in an R-2 District. 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; W b. literal enforcement of the provisions of Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner's; and C. the desired relief may be granted without substantial derogating from the intent of the district or the purposes of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: . 1. There is substantial opposition to the conversion of the building to a six (6) family dwelling, such opposition being expressed by both abuttors and residents of the neighborhood in general. 2. The neighborhood is quite dense, and there already exists a substantial lack of off-street parking. Additionally, Sumner St. in that vicinity, has heavy motor vehicular traffic. 3. The petitioners have failed to show to the Board that the required substantial hardship exists. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF STEVEN AND PATRICIA HEZTHILL FOR A VARIANCES fOR 70 SILMER STREET. On the basis of .the above finds of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted, unanimously, 7 - 0, against granting the Variances requested. DENIED aures M. Fleming �� Member Board of Appd'al A;PEAL FROM THIS DECISION, I- A0. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTICPJ 17 OF THE idnSS. EIdE ;E.L LA:AS, CHAPTER 808, A.IJD SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS F.PiER THE DATE OF FILING OECISiON IN THE OTFIDE OF THE CITY CLERK. - F ANI IO ia5 CE ERAS A JS ~♦AF'FR SOS `CII�N 11 iF VfRIh"CE OdI cPEr rl C� R:^IT F ,ED r� F_ir,. Si'.; L J' T5:'.E EFFECT UNTIL A COP OF TN ELfF, !, IF THE CITY C '�LER. Ii,AJ LO DAMS H.A'E E 'p = .] UT APPE .L HAS BEET' FIS-D, _ H;YT. IF SUL'H Nlt AFPEA.L H-.S 3EEf7 FELE. TKAI IT-'••"S DIS'..'ISSED OR DENIED IS RECOPL'ED If: THE SB'JTH ESSEX RE:IITR1' CF DEEDS i,ND IP:DEXED UNDER THE NA,IE OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. "" `_ "^"ANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHARIER 'NYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING ' OF THIS DECISION I!J._ THE PL'RSA.NT TO MASS. r�R SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL I. .; THE CERT- FICATION OF THE CITY CLER.. - ":>' F11 ED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL FL;S L..... _ ._ .. RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REIGISTR', CF .. . _.... _ ""4R OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O'rVNER'S CERTIFICATE OF 7I i'E. -- BOARD.OF APPEAL 1/ Jul; 15, 1986 n 8 Endicott Street Realty Trust Rosemarie S_ inazola, Trustee To .,;,om it may Concern: This is to Certify that 1 have rented ' - grace_ tSt __ hen � Priscilla KPsthi1i for use of Tenants of 70 Summer Street Salem, Mass . Rosemarie Spinazola. 4 GAO Ks fo,o��v�rs���r X2;l�4/219u 0 S C/G�✓/cam' — � II - u ' -- - - ;i I -- i �� - -- I- - -- - I� - -�- I II - - �� '� I II 'I - - - �I � - 'I ,i �i -. _ __ � � �; i ;; ._._ ;, _ 1 ,, el 6 547 -?- 1--e i O / 7� .. , , n. r M1 1 i T ` ' ' � � �c j � t 1 r f r l James M. Harrison 69 Summer St. Salem, MA. 01970-3045 MAT.'�k;°.'.,�EseS� Fz"qe • ,,, ,.c b;' . .?'.. . .<o . .,.:? .e.:E:m Board of Appeals City of Salem Salem, MA. 01970 To whom it may concern, I fully support the renovations proposed by 'Steven and Pricilla Hemphill for the property located at 70 Summer St . Salem, MA. Their proposal to construct two one bedroom apartments and renew the exterior of the building will enhance the neighborhood and improve the continuity of the neighborhood. ?a Jamesrrison nr v MORTGAGE INSPECTION 1 BAY STATE SURVEYING SERVICE INC. ,234 CABOTT 1 BEVERLY" MA r. . .✓. iN. �. I )- .i.' "r t-- ---- To LOCATION SCALE I" = FT DATE .. -:,. !, .,` i.. I hereby certify that I have examined the premises and that the REFERENCE : ..!,C.'., .. ,:i.- `k:_.._.': .; =:`.1..-_. building (s) shown on this plan are located on the ground as �I I shown and that they conformed to the zoning setbacks of the -- - A_;- <_ �, . 1.`_[__G >Fj-�-L ,''�- .----_ when constructed. j NOTE This Is a Moriguge Inspection survey and not The building (s) are not located in the special flood hazard an ment survey therefore this plot plan is for zone , as defined by H.U.D mortgage nspectionpurpo i Y a �i <x ttv " A-. 0 Ii F.0 E It • 1 µ 11• � 1 .I i ' li SUM ►''� � ;, it I Fif SURVEY 1S CrPJ-,.D Of 1C taFHER.'i. it {; SI Fciv`" & TREE I\iQTt II i I ,I : I: ` 46- 1176 f T lk 19 �o W 1n ow, Corc q.,V-4 `r'ti\`\ s j g -1•o s� y }h 4�- s '��-Y ` 1��-��x,11 1, o s a s'k-�A Y- c �w �s� fid ho.v , o� y w..- �,. .. ei ^�. o „ ',L S 1"•�.�\d 0'�^�a=�mt�,.�'S o +n �'1�.� � 3Y'�1 A Y+� SKln�pe—I ti1t ...�. i11` �l �\`l ; �A C4141V�3� a b S V VV1nub1 / ph k+ 1'1 0.gi �� Yv � �`1 v -S o. Mid 11 �C � ,J,o�*-lis T��osyo�r,� f,/,ov� avo �8.7�Tios✓ /o 57 �`'``�� �sc��(ta /✓ roiUc� o�er��2s -.--)F 70 P�G?Tdt�/S O� 7ly/�2.r ��ort V lAe 7t;� 0" C. • yI v J ` 1 1n * V ofn O , R4 to-.5 T-o TaY s, w� �w 1 5 c�t1 ,, �-� 4ri.�� � 11 � T p �L�� ,GfiIG�Z ��� / 1 a 4 ITIJ J , To IJ 1 'i o2 O v,.-e-. 7..../�`�+or,..\ S�..���.e 0. �+ 1$ . O 'h '''�1l �'^�\••-� C a ^ 1 1 0 s ��,r/G 7 , ` - - 1 41 o Rk /yam G;v� al�ewL � it i I I I - S Dear Aeighborsi { T a, you know, the owners of 70 summer street have applied :for a vairarics ;toconvert the building from a four family to a six family -;`sdmA.-o. youCm be wondering :how the appeals board process -works. ` you may .also: think that you have no say as,to what happens at ;this meoting. When the appeals board meets theyask if' there is ir4Yone present' to sped_ fe---the . .eti+ion yo. .say., Then- they ask ,ff. -thereis..-anyone.-.who,.is opposed tothe petition and they listen to tYetY� 7 .. ThE' point -is that your opi=on does. count. If enough people speak up °agains t something than it' is denied. The owners of 70 summer street are asking for your permission to allO:* 'them to convert their building -into a six They do not live in the ,building, aad they unit . apartment building do not.;have to cone with the:-parking problems that'wb do. Here are some questions that have to be answered. PARKING. The owners of 70 summer street. say they have leased 6 spaces in .alot on`. endicott street. This lot belongs. to a four family house. Where are the occupants of this four family house going to park :if someone else rents these-parking spaces . I have .taken,,-.a walk. by.. this parking lot every day this week . and it appears .to be full of cars. Will the tenartt cf .70 summer street park in these spaces. If,ahere is.: an empty space in-front of your houses and its closer than the parking lot then they will probably park in front of your house and there will be nothing you can do about it,;because they, will-not be breaking any law or ordinance. DENSITY The corner. of Endicott and Summer Street is the most congested part of our neighborhood. Endicott Street has. two six unit and one: eight:'unit apartment building all with no off street parking. uriner Street has a four unit building with no parking. At '75 Summer•_street .six condimums are on there way to being completed 'All this adds up to : a very big parking problem. AISO--- What happens if the lease to. park 6 cars 'in the Endicott St. lot are not`:renewed next .year. Its your. neighborhood, Speak up now, , attend the meeting, on Wednesday July. 23 at 7100. and .be heard. There will be no second chance. If there is •. no opposition to this petition on Wednesday night- it will be allowed. If you .are not able to attend then call your Ward Councilor and make your position on this matter known to him. THE APPEALS BOARD MEETS AT ONE SALEM GREEN SECOND FLOOR.