The URL can be used to link to this page

7 CROMBIE STREET- CROMBIE STREET CHURCH DRB SIGN PERMIT DRBSIGN PERMIT Crombie Street Church 7 Crombie Street I SALEM REDEVELOP*SENT AUTHORITY 8 • DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SIGN APPLICATION Applicant Name qua )In 1P t'tlA Name Tel. i Date of Application Location of Building 7 Y'DMrIL't� Number Street } Owner of Building C.ve.� �rlY �1+ 2 e� G Os.,e Yrs ? f KYfa� ��YyG�• Sign Designer Name Designer Sign Type (Check more than one if necessary) Wall Temporary_ Protecting_ Banner_ Window Mechanical moving_ Historic Bldg. sign Other Sign Illumination Internal_ Bare Bulb_ Indirect Other None Submission Requirements: All items must be received two (2) days prior to meeting. (Please check) 1. Detailed scale plan of sign 2. . Color samples 3. Letter type .} 4. Method of attachment 3e1 t� =3G�j�l 5. Method of lighting_ -17 4A 6. Location of sign on building: Drawing_ Polaroid 7. Fee Technically conforms S.R.A. staff ' Approval recommended IjLl qOY6)- D.R.B. member Date approved ;, .,. � ` � � �` , i t V!d 1� r�r.� a•s' � Fl r�] 14:,� !i �lr ..T f 4l l -�•��r" a„ M�' t � ww i n i� .. .fir ��. .`� '��c:c ,,,�, �.. �"\ :, �� , rs, L(m4'^fMh Y f . nr g r4rr��'��r�e ibrtrvr+}yy +FHSb +'n. �r k, s A 81rc� Nil R•� � kRa rl`� � i f1r �$. M1 µ rlt s niY NrC h.l �h vi✓ i'L [yil Jrr rsl qq ,V n ✓ A G iL.S sa...., �'.t �.T. h �X �«* ��+ 'II �'Yi ♦,' �� 1 it � i s � "i i r �e r- ,.,, •;,� a.,,a, r� ICC ly °�", m{.u:"+t i N 1 q ' .. n { L p44.. - [ t 1e jI OM11L L it _un:aY. ..w - - k l.Lv 3'✓•` ' 01 tr t �' p S F•T� • d �L� r '1�•1`��.JJ'�J�+J�V��a�{p � � �z' �-�x� ' u '� �Trx�f)? �'�% ° -... , .+ f:nY� y {f}•�, - ® y x : s i l 3>< (r^ytt��Y5 �� ,5 y,1 1', 1 • fi ';i ^ r � 4 a '� .s� 1 �.r, f �._v i pkGl { � � �'.dir,.* 47vs V4 ar baa+.xxti F+,r+r i 6 AI Yv+1"C4-: L }�j ..Si.. VyG �'tn oL4 ''• f $ �'y F • � .' � Spa �dy eFF ID x ` 0Lt,TREAGN �OMYnu,ni-F� 1M20.�I5,: I u4bol" b 3o '?, fridaAk 6:30 P- `Cli So�wola� Nooh 2y Hou.R SHELr&R rVR HoMele% hien_ Women '7L/4 —0.S*00 r .�. .-... a' . s..�-.. ..� ..n.:..r.A.r^ -..- .w.+...• --•J...✓.x u nynu...v. en.s:. n.axa evY.q`.�_..r r� ....rv- n.: .rvWrt'.v.r. v. .v a.. ...n. v,.. _...,... _ ..a _ ..._.._.._.� . . . . .,_. . u WORSHIP Sr9n 2n x 2-v sllrolo�� loon A.M. Ckrics+,ow EoAkza;kovi Sw�ota w is Aim. � n %o(,k SEt2UiG�. `.v firCdaj -)roo P.M. 745 — 119..1 IN a. y9i�{ -6" ss > f �;• J, -s s+µ� S`1+ywyr•J= q''y v r r 4 �R1 ,4„ r,� ve.. �j•] V a y kF .tK a ( { [ n` y� } hA-.✓4j. �4#� .tl* f� 4r � J1{'* � 1lP �t A vii ' ` "''wi'i+� wS,WwL"C s££.or>.It£f+=SAY$m'LMwWSFalMblp�RevwwMpyl�f.if6nwnrFrz'P041pttmw+.. n w6rW vy ry W% e.s.qk e T itv FI >fr t FA{�f fx fr5,.- i iy r?—I a.Jtrf r r �Ilt},. �,nY C p@f t,+•` '' ��—� 1 F j 1 uLLd e�)iR�}inaPe�(6i(Vu rlTl� >S I"�.'i� m A;.' +eco x,'i v # t ^ f{,�1T'•, uw ' � `�H(,}ljw v MtF91� "r7a'i'i `�>•k tl '��'{ ,�J'� v t s�l j ' S KI Y i r r3µµyu Jifaatlliv yq� 5��:.tti� r.,tl s»a ) f �i,�n i¢<,,fl��t�I'�f��('vu.�a.iv7t1A&arIQ �:u�i a1 u�tf Nt i tdrimv6tw s+utJl� thy$J,• QK A 4 vl 'n�,r sJ, 19 '❑� i!r ) r� Y ' J��+'v1H dy Pj2'J�.Y y'� tn^S.tY`Ili-� ,k" f I i t�4 k t j W DAr"J :�l s ),ir Y 11{, G,• 'f�J`6a~ yJ x +,r t r-' �r-`�`a+ N. a p, x ' rr �+ r•.. u�,'? s tt t t h {� 3'�,sr � a�3d+ . P t « : r, f i ti J 'PIL Ir } 51 74 Zr• Lr; E . n ZS Jr �,I b a e s`7a ar tt�i�{n >�ik'Gwn,4ri d¢' 1T. "t =: rf a4% n�L �.+«v ii iL + 1 ><1 cYr^.R - l n a Ai� ✓ irtrFx" �.� f d� � t V t i of ,. � Y�U't# ° rr )i —c �M 4`4: IV, ��a�` 7 P{;�t' m ' a o t } t• �r Rrtg eP 3 5x* 3 5 ?' ' �'r1Stirl , Ne rtv ��4 ..(1l ,. ty"� .` 6, a$ 4 t ti v; �rFe � P 4r [ Jd� f f ) r� .11 t,A tit. er, {1 x - �i ` 11 i fP tli7 ri x { 1 Y t} x + fir^ t +� 41.J.{ t � < 'it )f rt ;11 jrsi ai v a`F,,'i.arrP.Jt'c - 4 .�• n 4 1 a ) s+ �iYJ - i tl {,yrr " :xLF �2uh Y a. sr : rat Lu..th.Ln.� It ,• r •��7t'f6M$ >� q ywy�.'rr i Yj z 1 k" 1 Y j - + "y+ W�4 �+ �, � '� � "�sfY 0 Tii k,}.h In utr)�f'J � .VMaN � tvut .r� r~xw - �t �S• r' �. �; Ilk S u 7E? ^r. DgVDLOP? '.;T A- TSO-^,I T1. DESIGN R VIE BO=-I SIGN k?PLIC/.TIO:: Applicant name 1.1 � 013� S�Y'C' 1.�7 'U`��' oLCA��'✓w`''+"'^' 'f�'�— 112. --- Tel . :�ama - 21 Date of Application Ll //O Location of Building —7 CirO !' L2 N'umbe. Street N,ner of Buildi�png_ CF (9"� �J2 SNeX e CD 1�� 6✓�e " u_ � Sign Designer � ru.�� ee� Name Designer Sign Type (Check/ more than one if necessary) Rall X Temporary_ Protecting_ Banner__ Window Mechanical moving_ Historic Bldg. sign Others-A—Z&A� 740 Sign Illumination Internal_ Bare Bulb Indirect Other None � 5uunissIon Re uirements: All items must be received two (2) days prior to -- — meeting. (Please check) / 1. Detailed scale plan of sign SGgz�- �3 NX 33G 2. Color samples a'/�CGc ow al� c 42 3 . Letter type ^ 4. 'method of attachment ss Sue. v�c X y 5. Method of lighting 6. Location of sign on building: Drawing` Polaroid 7. Fee^___` Technically cor,fora _ TT_�e S.R.A. staff Approval recommended- D.R.B-. member Date approved �CROMOIE ST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST tYWRII millt 111111 Mail tY1t 111{11111 mi 1115&1 HIIIIWITH fit- taTWO l S 1d[I[tt YlY-YIY[Y t1YA III IY 14445011 ASO r .1 I� a � y w G 7 •• '� ' � ��' � _��" -_ � �� ii` �� DESIGN t.='ilt:: B0-3J S=Gi ar.IC: TO'.: lJ C7+K �l2 Sf(ee_ -CiuIf ',a-!e r.pnilCaL :�ae -- — -:caMe ---- ----- / -- -- Tel. Date „f Aoplication �lo Location of BuildingCroh L2i S',ree� - - - - -� -------- ----- -- --------= — - Number Street C»-ner of Building C r-07" L Ie ske.P i� Sign Designer kprc- V�- lru � Name Des igner Sion Type (Check more than one if necessary) Wally Temporary— -_ Protecting___ Banner_ Window Mechanical noving Historic Bldg. sign_ Other_ GtG��C _ 7'0 Sign Illumination InternalBare. Bulb _ Indirect_ _ Other__-___,_ None _ 6�..on:ission Recuirenents: kil i.te:ns crust be received two (2) days prier to ---- ------ ----- meeting (Please check) N (. // N 1. Detailed scale p;-an of sign — SQ ZR_ � 3 x 33 x 3(y -h - — 2. Color saepiec aC�c oo cJ c. CL4 3. Letter type iC,7(Y'Gli GUJ�'� 3 G 2 y/ Q•C,c-O'L h 4 . 'method of attachment -�Ti C61Pz,/-2aj_ -Au Z X y 5. Ne-thad of lighting au!z 6. Location of sign on building: Draving _ -_ Polarci.d %. Fee ----------- Technically ccnforra _ S.R.A. sta. Approval recur e^ced _- -----.__.___-- D.R.B. Date approved ----------_-_.._....--- .t=� `■ G IA _ i ,y the Crombie Street Congregational Church SALEM , MASSACHUSETTS 4 ORDER OF WORSHIP March 30, 1952 10:45 .A.iii. { Prelude, "0 God be merciful to me Bach Call to Worship Hymn of Praise 194, "Fairest Lord Jesus" Prayer of Repentance (Seated) i4ost holy and merciful Father, we thy way- ward children do make humble confession of our shortcomings and our sin. All we, like sheep, have gone astray and have turned every one to his own way. Vie have lived too much to ourselves and not unto thee. Vie have not loved our brethren as we ought, nor faith- fully followed our Master in unselfish ser- vice. But wilt thou pardon all our offences. Create within us a clean heart, 0 God, and renew a right spirit within us. May we go on our way with gladness, assured of thy com- passion; and forgetting the things which are behind, may we reach forth unto those things which are before ; pressing toward the mark of our high calling in Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen. Silent Prayer Words of :assurance Our Lord' s Prayer. Anthem, "U Saviour of the Vvorld" Goss Responsive Reading 67, Page 596 Gloria Patri Scripture, Philippians 2:1-13 Solo, "The Holy City" :dams Mrs. wlary Violet, Soprano -The Morning Prayer Hymn of Preparation 162, "Beneath the cross of Jesus" Sermon, "Portraits of Jesus. IV. ..s Drawn by Paul" i= Offertory, ",A song without words" Lemare Presentation of Gifts Hymn of Dedication 199, "0 for a thousand tongues to sing" Benediction (Seated) Moments of Silence s TODAY' S SCHEDULE 9 :30 Church School 10 :45 iviorning Vvorship (broadcast over , VVE5X) Nursery in the Richardson House 3:15 Aembers of the Pilgrim Youth Fellow- ship will leave from the church to go to Maple St. Church, Danvers, for the Lenten Rally of the Essex South P. Y.F. 7:30 Union Lenten Service at Tabernacle Church. Guest preacher, Dr. r'illen E. Claxton, minister,, Broadway Temple - r Aashington Heights iviethodist Churchs New York City. THE. CaMV S tiCTIVIi'IES iv1uNI1(.Y 7:00 P. vi. Boy Scouts -TUESD�aY 2:15 P. ivi. 1dr. Smith will speak before the tiuomen' s ��ssociation of Tabernacle Church. WEDNE,'.DA.Y 7 :30 �..ivi. Chapel Service for high school youth at Grace Church 7:15 P.M. Choir Rehearsal FRIDS'.Y 6:30 P..vi. Couples ' Club Catered Dinner and Talent Show. Don' t iuIiss Itl .; R&AINDER Through your generosity all of our shut-ins are remembered with 'flowers on Easter. If you wish to contribute, please speak to ,Miss Grace Hood today or early this week. ;ATTENTION DE4XUNS Mr. Smith would like to meet briefly with the Deacons after this mornings service. WILLIAM EDWARD .SMITH, Minister { 9 CROMBIE STREET Telephone 1121 1 WILFRID W. BROUILLETTE. Choirmaster-Organist 1 HAROLD PAULINc Senior Deacon ROY WENTWORTH " Head Usher JAMES B.MAC PHERSON . . Custodian Telephone 0815-R L wRENCa E: LEE - .. Moderator MISS,CHARLOTTE HOOD Clerk W: KEITH-BUTLER Chairman, Standing Committee MRs. CL'ARA B. ST. CLAIR Treasurer MISS SARAH A. LEONARD.. .Collector of Weekly Offerings ARTHUR W. LEAVITT Superintendent, Church School WOMEN'S AAASSOCIATION Joint Meeting the Second Tuesday Unit'A ' FirsrMonday . .. Unit B Third Tuesday Unit C- .Third'Tuesday MEN'S CLUB Third Friday COUPLE'S CLUB Fourth Thursday PILGRIM YOUTH FELLOWSHIP Sunday Evenings, 6:30-8:30 YOUNG ADULT COUNCIL City-wide program held the last Sunday of each month in one of our Protestant churches f f ;.r � d ea 0 H 13 H rn t+7 H t AUC-01 -97 11. 30 FROM ID: PACE 2 - COO p� COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT - - -- .- CIVIL ACTIONS NO. 91-2352-A and NO. 92-0688-A HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. V. SALEM REDEVELOKvJEN T AUTHORITY and HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. V. STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD, et al. FINp1N(7S Rin INGS and ORDER FOR 1IIDGMENT These two cases, tried together before the Court without a jury, involve the future of a simple, old house at 18 Crombie Street in the Heart of the historic City of Salem, Massachusetts. The plaintiff, the house's present owner, believing it to be hazardous and beyond repair, wants to proceed with its demolition. The City of Salem, acting through its Redevelopment Authority, with encouragement from its Historical 4UG-01 -97 11 30 FROM: 1D. _. PAGE 3 Z Commission, wants the house preserved as a part of a Crombie Street historical district. The City's Building Inspector refuses to issue an order that the house be demolished; and the State Building Code Appeals Board supports that decision. The action against the Redevelopment Authority (the "SRA") is, for the most part, in the nature of certiorari. The plaintiff ("Holyoke Square") charges that the SRA's decision was in excess of its authority, unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary and capricious, and otherwise contrary to law. The claim involving the State Building Code Appeals Board (the "Appeals Board") and the Salem Building inspector (the "Inspector") is an appeal pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, sec. 14 from the decision of the Appeals Board supporting the Inspector, although it also raises certiorari issues and requests declaratory judgment relating to the supremacy of the determination of the Inspector over that of the SRA. FI NDINO LE&U Holyoke Square, Inc. is a Massachusetts curpuratiuu duing business at Holyoke Square in Salem, Massachusetts. Holyoke Square is controlled by the Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company, a long-time, respected corporate citizen of Salem. The house at 18 Crombie Street is located at and on the northeast corner of a parking lot across Norman Street from Holyoke Mutual's principal place of business. Both the house and the parking lot are owned by Holyoke Square. AUG-01 -97 11 : 30 FROM, ID: PAGE 9 3 The Salem Redevelopment Authority is a public authority corporate and politic, organized under the General Laws of Massachusetts. Crotnbie Street is located within the Heritage Plaza West Urban Renewal Plan promulgated by the SRA and, thus, both the street and the house at number 18 are, for certain purposes, within the regulatory jurisdiction of the SRA. The State Building Code Appeals Board is an administrative agency within the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety. The Appeals Board is empowered by law to make regulations and to conduct adjudicatory proceedings relative to the interpretation of the State Building Code and related laws. The house at 18 Crombie Street is not located in any official historic district of the City of Salem such as those provided for in G.L. c. 40C; nor is the house a designated National Historic Register property under 16 U.S.C. sec. 470, et seq. Crombie Street itself, however, is part of a National Register designated federal historic district, and 18 Crombie Street is considered part of the Crombie Street Historic District (the "District"). The National Register designation came about as a result of a 1979 request by the SRA to the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The request was granted on September 16, 1983, five years before Holyoke Square purchased the property at 18 Crombie Street. The Crombie Street Historic District is composed of the eight remaining buildings of this downtown residential enclave. The District includes a cross-section of residential buildings from various periods of `� '��`�"� ��"e�FJ a�� _ U`T�C vn�,roS� r✓lt5v�,,`� �'�� a � ;� AUC-01-97 11 : 31 FROM: ID- PACE 5 4 development, along with a church originally built as a theater. The boundaries of the District include the six buildings that face Crombie Street - including number 18 - and two buildings at the west end of Barton Square, adjacent to Crombie Street on the west. Crombie Street was laid out in 1805 by Benjamin Crombie, proprietor of the "Sign of the Ship," a tavern that stood on Essex Street, east of his new street. Between 1805 and 1815, Crombie sold four house lots behind his tavern, as well as narrow strips of frontage on the street to other landholders to the west. Only two of the houses standing today were built before Crombie sold the remaining property in 1819. The District, however, was still shown intact on the 1851 map of Salem. As the only surviving downtown residential group from the early 19th century, the houses on Crombie Street are said by the Massachusetts Historical Commission to provide important information . about the character of the City of Salem at that time. All the buildings directly abut the sidewalk, suggesting high density, but placement on the lots is irregular, creating a rural atmosphere. Wood is the dominant building material, although the church and one house -- called the Bowker House -- are brick, as is the Prince Hvuse that predates Crombic's activity. While the architectural quality within the District is said to be variable, three buildings clustered at its north end are all considered individually noteworthy. The Crombie Street Church, built as a theater in 1828, is the architectural highlight of the District. it is described as having monumental relieving arches on its facade that define its AUG-01 -97 11 . 31 FROM, ID, PACE 6 5 composition and suggest. the Federal style, but the panelled detailing of the broad piers separating these arches, along with a pair of quadrant windows in the gable and wide corner pilasters, are suggested to introduce a newer Greek Revival influence. Neighboring the church stands the substantial Bowker House, built in the Federal style around 1810. it was "modernized" in 1860 by overlaid brimstone trimmings. The hybrid design of Bowker House is considered very successful, reinforcing the central importance of this house to the District. The Pierson House, facing Barton Square, is called an unusually graceful vernacular Italianate residence, typical of the residences that lined Barton Square in the mid-19th century. The house at 18 Crombie Street is a bit of an onion in a petunia patch. It is a quite small, two-story, gambrel-roofed, Georgian house, the origins of which are unknown. The Douse is believed to Have been moved to the site in 1830 by James Bott. The end wall faces Crombie Street and contains three six-over-six windows, vertically aligned and centered on the wood-shingled wall. A narrow, simple framed doorway that crowds die right corner is believed to have been added when the house was moved to the site. A massive central chimney is readily visible from the street. A small ell with a shallow pitched roof extends to the left, set back fifteen feet from the front wall. The house at 18 Crombie Street is perhaps most historically useful as an example of how simple working people lived at the time. AUG-01 -97 11 . 32 FROM, TO, PACE 7 6 There is little evidence that persons of note ever resided there) That latter point, to this Court, however, is of no moment. History benefits from an understanding of how everyone existed, not just the rich or famous. No persons "of note" are identified as having greeted the Mayflower when she landed at Provincetown, or later at Plymouth, bull history certainly has been well served by knowing how and where those truly native Americans lived. Holyoke Square purchased 18 Crombie Street from the Naumkeg Trust Company, the latter acting as Trustee of the Frances H. Wendt Realty Trust, on February 16, 1988. The purchase price was $169,000. At the time of Holyoke Square's purchase, immediately adjacent to 18 Crombie Street on the south was, and still is, a parking lot, bounded by Crombie Street on the west and Norman Street on the south, owned by Holyoke Square. In the midst of the parking lot, on the east side, is a facility described as an auto laundry. Across Crombie Street from the parking lot is a small strip mall including a White Hen Pantry convenience store. Very little is left in the area making 11p the Crombie Street District in light of the many past changes approved by the SRA in and around the neighborhood. Those changes have included: demolition of a building at the corner of Essex and Washington Streets, leaving a vacant lot known as Lappin Park; demolition of a cafe and a diner on Norman Street, next to a Dunkin' Donuts, and construction of multi-level The SRA offered some evidence that William B. Pike resided at 18 Crombie Street from 1,853 through his death in April. 1876. Mr. Pike was Collector of Ports for Salem and Beverly throughout President Buchanan's administration and is said to have been close friends of Nathaniel Hawthorne andPresident Pierce. The title history from 1806, after the date of Crombie's purchase, describes suhsequent uwnera as: a merchant, a trader, a saddler, a chaise maker, a painter, a weigher and gauger, a physician, a carpenter. a widow, and a telephone answering service operator. L AUC-01 -97 11 : 32 FROM, 10. FACE B 7 residential housing in their place; demolition of a gasoline service station at the corner of Crombie and Norman Streets, and subsequent construction of a" small strip' mall and parking lot; renovation of the old Salem Theater, on Essex Street, and demolition of the buildings next door; and demolition of the buildings on the corner of Essex and Crombie Streets, and subsequent use of the land as a parking lot. After purchasing 18 Crombie Street, Holyoke Square explored possible uses by . it for the building. Included in its ideas were use as a conference center or as office space, however, consultation with experts in the building construction business quickly led Holyoke Square to the conclusion that the repairs that would be necessary to make the building useable were economically unfea§ible. One source suggested that the building had a fair market value of $154,600 but would require the expenditure of an additional $113,100 to make the necessary repairs before the building would be habitable. Other cost estimates were even higher. In September, 1990, Holyoke Square received a report from DeMarco/Jarek Partnership, architects and engineers in Salem with particular expertise in renovating and evaluating old and historic buildings. The DeMarco/Jarek report catalogued numerous deficiencies found at 18 Crombie Street. Included were: serious problems with the roof; marginal condition, at best, of the principal chimney; peeling paint and rotting conditions on the exterior walls; electrical entrance cables in poor condition and rotting service cables; collapsing brick and block foundations on the front and left sides; wooden gutters rotting, and copper gutters improperly spaced too close to all fascias; downspouts in AUG-01 -97 11 . 33 FROM, ID, PAGE 9 8 marginal condition; improperly sloped grading around the foundation; rear stairs rotting; thresholds rotting; all windows in poor condition; entry, doors not square; flashing around doors and windows in poor condition; foundation walls collapsing; evidence of insect damage; unlevel floors; loosened plaster throughout; electrical outlets in poor condition and limited in number; chimney flues in need of lining; sagging floors and ceilings; all plumbing in need of replacement; insulation in poor condition; and heating, plumbing, water and eletrical systems inoperative. Holyoke Square also presented evidence by Nucci Vine Associates, structural engineers, to the effect that the building is tilting over at the rate of 1/4" to 1/2" per year. Nucci ,Vine Associates opined that conditions of the foundation require reconstruction and repair to insure a safe and stable foundation structure prior to any occupancy of the house. R. Eric Rutnpf, of Rutnpf & Associates, who originally advised the inspector, testified that the structure falls substantially short of satisfying the generally safe and acceptable requirements of the Massachusetts State Building Code. The Court, with counsel and their experts, took a view of the premises at the time of the trial in April, 1997. In the course of the visit, concern was expressed that the upstairs flooring might not be able to support the weight of the visitors. The observations by the Court's untrained eye confirmed, in essentially all respects, the findings in the reports and testimony of Holyoke Square's experts. AUG-01 -97 11 . 33 FROM: ID: FACE 10 9 After concluding that demolition was its preferred alternative to attempting the extensive repairs neccessary at 18 Crombie Street, Holyoke Square, on May 28, 1991, appeared before the SRA, and a hearing was held on its application for permission to remove the building. Holyoke Square argued that it was too costly to renovate the property and that its plan was to create additional parking spaces for employees and ultimately landbank for future development. The SRA voted 4 to 1 to deny the application. Earlier, on April 12, 1991, the Salem Historical Commission voted against the demolition of 18 Crombie Street because of the Commission's belief that the property was an historically significant building within the District. The SRA's vote was premised on its consideration of the historical significance of the property, its view of the structural soundness of the building, and its general opposition to landbanking with no immediate plans for redevelopment. By letter dated August 5, 1991, Holyoke Square's architects formally notified the Inspector that "the building located at 18 Crombie Street is in a state of disrepair and if not corrected will pose a hazard to the well-being of pedestrians in the area." The architects' letter concluded with a recommendation "that your department conduct an immediate inspection of its own, and then issue an order to the Owner to remove the structure or make it safe, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143, Sec. 6." On August 18, 1991, the Inspector and Holyoke Square's architect made an inspection of 18 Crombic Street. Shortly thereafter, on August 29, 1991, the Inspector declined to issue an order to Holyoke Square to remove the structure or make it safe. The Inspector concluded AUC-01 -97 11 * 34 FROM, 1D, PAGE 11 10 that, "although this single family house has a number of problems, it has not deteriorated to the point of being a hazard to the public safety and welfare, and to order its demolition at this time would be premature." Holyoke Square appealed the Inspector's decision to the Appeals Board, and an adjudicatory hearing was held on February 11, 1992. At the hearing Holyoke Square presented the reports of its experts concerning the condition of the house. On June 3, 1992, the Appeals Board issued a decision denying Holyoke Square's appeal and affirming the decision of the Inspector, Since the decisions noted above, nothing has been done to the property at 18 Crombie Street by Holyoke. Square other than boarding up the windows and blocking its entrance. Thus, the deterioration that comes with time moves inexorably, albeit slowly, forward. g�n nac;s OF L-ASC The Court, in making its rulings of law, will treat the two cases in the chronological order of their filing, which mirrors their evolution in the process. The Salem Redeyrlopment Aulliori v Case ,This case involves issues surrounding the propriety of the action by the SRA, in May of 1991, when it voted to deny Holyoke Square's AUG-01 -97 11 . 34 FROM, ID, PAGE 12 I1 application for permission to demolish the building at 18 Crombie Street. The SRA is a public authority organized pursuant to C.L. c." 121B, secs. 4, 9 and I1. As such, it developed die Heritage Plaza West Urban Renewal Plan in the City of Salem for the purpose of establishing standards and controls for the redevelopment and renewal of properties within its boundaries. The house at 18 Crombie Street is wholly within the boundaries of Heritage Plaza West. The legislative purpose of G.L. c. 121B is to promote sound community growth. Bosto ►n Redevelopment Authority v, Charles River Park "C" Company, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 777,, 783 (1986). Included among the powers of the SRA within the Heritage Plaza West area is the oversight of demolition and removal of buildings and improvements. See G.L. c. 1218, sec. 46(b). This case principally is an action in the nature of certiorari under G.L. c. 249, sec. 4, It lies only where the petitioner, here Holyoke Square, has exhausted all administrative remedies. Carney v. Springfield, 403 Mass. 604, 605 (1988). In a certiorari case a court will correct only a substantial crror of law, evidenced by the record, which adversely affects the material rights of the plaintiff. jd. In doing so, the Court may only rectify those errors of law "which have resulted in manifest injustice to the plaintiff or which have adversely affected the real interests of the general public." Id. AUG-01 -97 11 : 35 FROM: ID: PAGE IS 1 . Holyoke Square argues, and the Court agrees, that the scope of judicial review in an action in the nature of certiorari is whether there was substantial evidence to support the SRA's decision, citing Boston Edison Co. -v. Boston Redevelopment Authority, 374 Mass. 37, 47-54 (1977). See also Doherty v. Retirement Board of Medford, 425 Mass. 130, 135 (1997); Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks v. Planning Board of Lawrence, 403 Mass. 531, 539-543 (1988). "Substantial evidence" is such evidence "as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Jordan Marsh Co. v. Labor Relations Commission, 316 Mass. 748, 756 (1944). Under the substantial evidence test, however, a reviewing court is not empowered to make a " novo determination of the facts, to make credibility choices, or to draw different inferences from the facts found by the agency. Doherty v. Retircment Board_of Medford, supra, 425 Mass. at 135. "When the contention is made that an agency has acted arbitrarily or capriciously, or that the agency had abused its discretion, . . . , the aggrieved party making the contention is fundamentally charging that the agency's decision for one reason or another is unreasonable." Cella, Adminisaalive Law dud Practice, 40 M.P.S. sec. 1574. Although it is a close issue, this Court cannot, and does not, find that as a matter of law there was insufficient evidence in May of 1991 to support the SRA's decision or that it was abitrary or capricious in its conclusion to AUG-01 -97 11 = 35 FROM, ID, PAGE 14 13 deny the application to demolish the property at 18 Crombie Street.2 Although not part of a c. 40C historic district, it cannot be said that there wasn't ample evidence of historical interest in the property. Further, the Inspector had not then, nor has he now, found the property to be so dangerous as to order it demolished or repaired, Additionally, Holyoke Square's lack of a plan for the site, other than expanding a parking lot and landbanking, cannot be overlooked. Holyoke Square also poses the possibility that the SRA's action has the effect of an administrative taking of the 18 Crombie Street property because it prevents the preferred use thereof by its owner. The Supreme Judicial Court spoke on this subject just days ago. Its decision in Daddario v. Cape Cod Commission, 425 Mass. 411 (1997) provides the answer to why there is no administrative taking here. It said that [t]his court has repeatedly recognized that government regulations "may deprive an owner of a beneficial property use -- even the most beneficial such use -- without rendering the regulation an unconstitutional taking." . . . "Land use planning is not an all-or-nothing proposition. A government entity is not required to permit a landowner to develop property to [the] full extent he might desire or be charged with an unconstitutional taking of the property." . . That an alternative, permissible use might be less profitable is not determinative. Id. at 416-417 2 Holyoke Square contends, among other things, and the then Chair of the SRA seems to have conceded, that in voting to deny the application, the SRA applied a different standard of rcasonablunces to Holyoke Square's request because it was a corporation rather than an individual. The Chair admitted that the SRA felt that it would have a right to expect Holyoke Square to expend more money on restoration of the house then it would expect of an individual owner, 'Mis attitude by the SRA is to he enndemnrd. All citizens, rich and poor, corporate or individupl, come before the government with equal standing and are entitled by our Constitutions, State and Federal. to equal treatment. This Court will tolerate nothing less. Having stated its position, however, the Court still finds sufficient evidence to support the SRA's decision and concludes that its determination was not unduly affected by its improper assumption that it could expect more from a corporation than an individual. AUG-01 -97 11„ 36 FROM, ID: PAGE 15 _ 14 The Case aeainst the Building lnspcctor and - — - the Statf, -Building Code Appeals—Bawd The challenge to the decision of the State Building Code Appeals Board is governed by G.L. c. 30A, sec. 14. The Court is required to give due weight to the expertise, technical competence and specialized knowledge of the agency, as well as the discretionary authority conferred upon it. G,L. c. 30A, sec. 14(7). Similar to the law applicable to the certiorari claim, the Court may not make a & novo determination of the facts or draw different inferences than the agency. Vasnourak Lid. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, 401 Mass. 347, 351 (1987) Nor may it substitute its judgment for that of the board. Southern Worcester Regional School District v. labor Relations Commission, 386 Mass. 414, 420-421 (1982). "In the absence of clear error, the interpretation an administrative body gives to its own rule is entitled to deference.” Purity_Supreme. Inc. v. Attorney General, 380 Mass. 762, 782 (1980). In challenging the Appeals Board's decision, Holyoke Square has the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the Appeals Board's ruling, faith Assembly of rod v. State Building Code Commission, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 333, 335 (1981), and the Court must apply all rational presumptions in favor of the validity of the administrative action. Lone v. Commissiona of Public Safety, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 61, 65 ( 1988). The Appeals Board's decision is subject to reversal only if it is based on an error of law, is unsupported by substantial evidence, or is abitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in AUG-01 -97 11 . 37 FROM, to. PAGE 16 15 accordance with law. Cella, Administrative Law and Practice, 40 M.P.S. sec. 1567, Holyoke Square contends that the Appeals Board, and the Inspector, both committed legal error when they concluded that the building at 18 Crombie Street had to be in imminent danger of collapse, and it was not, although all parties had acknowledged the building's deteriorating condition. Holyoke Square points out, correctly, that the statute, G.L. c. 143, sec. 6, does not require that a building be in an "imminent" danger of collapse before the local Building Inspector should issue a demolition or repair order.3 See, "., $ibeiro v. Town of Granby., 395 Mass. 608, 612 (1985). The pertinent language of G.L. c. 143, sec. 6 reads: The local inspector, immediately upon being informed by report or otherwise that a building . . . in that city or town is dangerous to life or limb or that any building in that city or town is unused, uninhabited or abandoned, and open to the weather, shall inspect the same; and he shall forthwith in writing notify the owner, . . . , to remove it or make it safe if it apyears to him to be dangerous, or to make it secure if it is unused, uninhabited or abandoned or open to the weather. . . . (Emphasis added). This case is unusual in that the owner, Holyoke Square, is seeking to have the Inspector directed to order it to demolish its own building. The more usual course is for an owner to resist and appeal from such an order. No cases suggesting when the Inspector must order a building to be demolished have been brought to the attention of the Court, or found The fact that 18 Crombie Street was not in imminent danger of collapse in August of 1991 is borne out by the fact that it is still standing as of the date of these findings and rulings in July of 1997, despite no preservative action by its owner in the meantime. AUG-01 -97 11 . 37 FROM, ID, PAGE 17 16 by it. Nor do there seem to be any appellate decisions on the meaning of when a building is "dangerous" as that word is used in G.L. c. 143, sec. 6. WebAter's Third New International Dictionary defines "dangerous" as "exposing to danger: involving risk: demanding caution or care as extremely unsafe: HAZARDOUS, PERILOUS." The Oxford Eng ish Dictionary posits: "Fraught with danger or risk; causing or occasioning danger; perilous, hazardous, risky, unsafe." A vessel is considered dangerous or unseaworthy when it is unfit for its intended purpose. EBtA v. A R V Fishing, Inc., 887 F. Supp. 26 (D. Mass. 1995). On the other hand, a fire-eating act in a hotel was found not "abnormally dangerous," Thori 101 v. Marriott Coro., 880 F. Supp. 74 (D. Mass. 1995), while a shopping cart with a broken wheel in a supermarket was. Cronin v. I.Q.A. Foodliner, 55 Mass. App. Dec. 158 (1974). The point is that what is "dangerous" has varied meanings in different contexts. Certainly, 18 Crombie Street today, at least in its interior, is unfit for its intended purpose, and it undoubtedly was in August of 1991. Its exterior also is desperately in need of corrective work. The Court cannot, however, say that it is now, or was then, "dangerous" to the public in general, as opposed to occupants of the building. This is not because the Court has no view on the subject, but rather because it is the determination by the Inspector, not the Court, that is under review. The Court, on the evidence presented, including its own view of the property in 1997, cannot rule that the Inspector abused his important discretion in concluding, with his special expertise, that 18 Crombic 1O PACE 19 AUG-01 -97 11 . 39 FROM, 17 Street was not dangerous "to the well-being of pedestrians in the area," to use the words chosen by Holyoke Square's architects, in 1991. See, e.g., n. 3 WRQ. The matter-before the Inspector was not, after all, whether to issue a certificate of occupancy. Nor can the Court conclude that the Appeals Board was wrong in affirming the Inspector's conclusion. There was "substantial evidence," as that phrase is employed in the appellate decisions, to support the declination to issue a demolish or repair order. Insofar as Holyoke Square seeks relief under the certiorari statute, its claim fails because certorari is only available to correct errors of law that are not otherwise reviewable. See nen v. SYdU&ftCW, &UM, 403 Mass. at 605. Holyoke Square's c. 30A appeal was the appropriate course to follow. See, e.g., She V. State Buildin? code Anneals Board, 20 Mass. App, Ct. 271, 272 (1985). Certiorari does not lie here. Holyoke Square also seeks a declaratory judgment to the effect that a demolish or repair order by the Inspector cannot be overruled or countermanded by the SRA. This may well be the law in the context of an order under G.L. c. 143, sea 6. The Court's previous statement notwithstanding however, the issue on which the declaration is sought has not been shown to be die subject of a dispute between the SRA and the Inspector. Certainly, no such controversy is presently before the Court. See G.L. c. 231A, sec. 1. "Declaratory judgment, . . . , 'is a vehicle for resolving actual, not hypothetical, controversies.'" Boolo�ald- v Sun^ ^� Cn11rt Department of the Trig Co r , 421 Mass. 502, 504 j (1995). Thus, the hands of the next judge to hear this issue, when and if AUC-01 -97 11 X39 FROM, 10, PAGE 19 18 it ever arises, or the hands of this Court if it is that next judge, should not be tied by this non-disposition of the issue today. No declaratory - - — - judgment - shall be -rendered. ORDER EQRJWQMENIS V In case number 91-2352-A judgment shall be entered for the defendant dismissing all counts of the complaint. in case number 92-0688-A judgment shall be entered for the defendants dismissing all counts of the complaint,4 Allan van Gestel Justice of the Superior Court DATED: July 30, 1997 4 The Court is well aware, and regrets, that the foregoing disposition of these two cases does little to resolve the underlying issue of the fate of the building at 18 Crombie Street in Salem. The City seeks to preserve the building for historical purposes, but has declined to take it by eminent domain or even establish the area as an historic district under G.L. c. 40C. The City seems to hope that it can -- unfairly in the Court's view -- force Holyoke Square to do the public's work, at Holyoke Square's private expense, and repair and restore the building. Holyoke Square, which presumably bought the building with its oyes wide open, cannot be forced to make repairs and can, if it chooses, continue to allow the building to deteriorate until sueh time as the Building Inspector must do more than look the other way and issue a demolish or repair order under G.L. c. 143, sec. 6. Neither Holyoke Square nor the citizens of Salem have gained much from this seemingly endless legal odyssey. But the Court can do no more -- and should do no more -- than decide the issues brought before it as the law dictates. r --- -- .HOLYOKE SQUARE,. .INC. ........ _...................plaintiff V. SALEMREDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Defendant&) JUDGMENT ON ALL COUNTS This action came on for (trial) (rbc ftgs before the court, van oestel, , J. presiding, and the issues having been duly (tried) 469ard) and findings having been duly rendered, It is ORasRm and An)tmoro: QtutcllKA"m Ktigxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxsmeeossarxafxthe >"*"Omxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxhax�Ksoi*cxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx )GNMXDW*tiACcdtw* RgtamlxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxkRARWAIM*k$xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xaixptvutdod��yxMuNfntto�Mtt>�7t�ok�watterot.) (that the plaintiff Holyoke Square, Inc. take nothing, that the action be dismissed on the merits, and that the defendant Salem Redevelopment Authorityreeover of the plaintiff Holyoke Square, Inc, its his costs of action.) Dated at Peabody Massachusetts, this 30th day of July , 19 97., 1 � . '/' ............ M clerk MRCP fwm 32 7-74-5000 0 AUC-01 -97 11 39 FROM, IDS PACE 21 r_ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION - - —— No. 92-688B HOLYOKE SQUARE,, INC: Plaintiff) ............................... .. ...... ..... V. STATE BUILDIN.G.,CODE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL... ............ Defendants) ,UDCMENT ALL COUNTS This action came on for (trial) l(7alirtg) before the court, van Cestel , J. presiding, and the issues having been duly (tried)xpbs8) and findings having been duly rendered, It is tlwn''wm o+,.i Ao,,n . �4Agfcowfutwgxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxye#m uexofxdN dWRxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=x7tiurxMmt%kExxxxxxxYxYxxxxxxxxx, -- .r ., (that the plaintiff a Holyoke Square. Inc. tale. .,etLteg. !b-• W- �a,e.. be d1smlrsed on the merits, and that the defendants State bldg. COCia Appeala Rd. . raao.sr of the et al plaintiff Holyoke Square, Inc. their ft costs of action.) Dated at Peabody , Massaobusett , this 30th day July 18 97 . I' Fin / / I di As ani Clerk MaC► Form 32 7-7/-3000 D DEPOSITION SUBPOENA: DUCES TECUM FORM 494 DS HOBBS & WARRENINC. WITH OFFICERS RETURN OF SERVICE REVISED 7.7.74 Cnnmmnnmrttlt4 of ttssttrl tsri#s Essex Superior , aB• Court Holyoke Square, Inc. 92688A Docket No. Plaintiff(a) M. R. C. P. The State Building Code Appeals Rule 30(a) &-- Rule 45 Board, The Salpm Rprh-uplopmPnf- Authority, and William Defendant(a) 11 Munroe as he is the Building TTX Inspector of the City of Salem TO: KEEPER OF THE RECORDS c/o Ellen Debinski, Salem Redevelopment Authority, One Salem Green, Salem, MA Greetings: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED in the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in accordance with the provisions of Rule 45 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure to appear and testify on behalf of Holyoke Square, Inc. before a Notary Public of the Commonwealth, at the office of Attorney William J. Lundregan No 81 Washington _ Street, in the City of Salem on the. twenty-first day of April 19 95 at Nine o'clock A. P'l., and 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 any and all records with reference to the Salem Redevelopment Authority and the City of Salem Designer Review Board with reference to Heritage Plaza West, Salem, MA (including but not limited to minutes, notes & plans ) . Hereof fail not as you will answer your default under the pains and penalties in the law in that behalf made and provided William J. Lundregan, Esq. Dated March 23 19 95 '48t1rnVaf9'hington Street Address ot¢ry Public Salem, MA 01 970 Nly Com on expires 7/26 15 96 City or Toon ?Yi- 38"8B' -Strike out the words "And you are further required to bring with you" unless the subpoena is to require the Production of Documents or tangible things, in which case production of document or tangible things should be designated in the space provided. 1� Salem BOARD OF DIRECTORS Redevelopment loan Boudreau Barbara Cleary William Guenther Authority Paul L:Heureux William E. Luster E ftw DireMr August 5, 1993 Mr. Douglas Ryder Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company Holyoke Square Salem, MA 01970 Subject: 18 Crombie Street/Demolition of fence and rear yard Dear Mr. Ryder: I am writing in regard to the recent construction that took place at 18 Crombie Street, specifically the removal of the fence and construction of additional parking spaces in the side and rear yards. As you know, this property is located in a Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA) Urban Renewal District (Heritage Plaza West). This distinction requires that property owners receive approval from the SRA prior to performing any exterior renovations. Neither Holyoke Mutual Insurance, nor the contractor who completed the work, applied for or received any approvals to construct the exterior parking spaces. Furthermore, since there is a court case pending in regard to the SRA's decision to deny demolition of this building, it seems likely that Holyoke had some awareness of the SRA's role in this project. I respectfully request that you or your representative contact me immediately in order to discuss how Holyoke Mutual plans to remedy this situation. �Sincerely, p William Luster Executive Director cc: William Lundregan Robert Ledoux, City Solicitor Salem Historical Commission K:�SRARyder.ltr One Salem Green • Salem. Massachusetts 01970 • (508) 745-9595. Ext. 311 • Fax 15081 744-5918 �� .. MAH 16 1995 da Dear 5 neweDnaen LOOPL CITY OF SALEM • MASSACHUSETTS ROBERT A. LEDOUX Legal Department LEONARD F. FEMINO City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant City solicitor 508-745,M .Salem, Massachusetts 01970 soaW-tsso March 14, 1995 Mr. William Luster City Planner City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 RE: Holyoke Square, Inc. Civil Action No. 92-680A Dear Bill: Enclosed herewith please find a Trial Notice in the above-mentioned matter. Please call me with any questions you may have. Very truly yours, Leonard F. Fe Assistant City Solicitor LFF/lmp Enclosure I i COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERInOR COURT f.s.. Plaintiff( ) V°' rvP` e dant GCi 7e.-c�a�c.�w•-� i "AIX TRIAL NOTICE , U3 : THE ABOVE ENTITLED CASE IS BEING CALLED FOR TRIAL AT THE ESSEX SUPERIOR COURT, c 34 FEDERAL ST. , SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS, IN THE "A" SESSION, ON, 1995, AT 4p'6 () 4.141 , i 1 COUNSEL SHALL BRING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH THEM, IF NOT ALREADY SUBMITTED I AT THE TIME OF THE PRE—TRIAL CONFERENCE OR CONCILIATION: I. JOINT TRIAL MEMO; 2. LIST OF WITNESSES; 3. LIST OF EXHIBITS; 4. ANY PRE—TRIAL STIPULATIONS PLEASE CONTACT THE SESSION CLERK PRIOR TO THE TRIAL DATE, AS TO TRIAL STATUS, , AND ALSO NOTIFY THE COURT PROMPTLY OF ANY SETTLEMENTS. 508 741-0200 4 ext. 223 or 225 � • �- �, A.A. �oraDrr CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS ROBERT A. LEDOUX Legal Department LEONARD F. FEMINO City solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant city Solicitor 50&74Salem, Massachusetts 01970 50aW49so March 14, 1995 Mr. William Luster City Planner "COVED. City of Salem A9� � One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 MAR 16 1995 RE: Holyoke Mutual Fire Insurance sabu.". ""` ` .U19Pa, v. Salem Redevelopment Authority Civil Action No. 91-2352 Dear Bill: Enclosed herewith please find a copy of a Trial Notice for the above-mentioned matter scheduled for April 3, 1995. Please call me at your convenience to discuss this matter. I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, LeonardF�Femino Assistant City Solicitor LFF/lmp Enclosure t l I COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. - %SUPERIOR COURT NO. 9/-a_3 J�Z r f i. r i Plaintiff("s) VK, . .�. Defendant(s) /� 1 i TRIAL. NOTICE f" A THE ABOVE ENTITLED CASE IS BEING CALLED FOR TRIAL AT THE ESSEX SUPERIOR COURT, F 34 FEDERAL ST. , SALEM, ?tASSACHUSETTS, IN THE "A" SESSION, n 1995, AT f 9. no 9li COUNSEL SHALL BRING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH THEM, IF NOT ALREADY SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE OR CONCILIATION: 1. JOINT TRIAL KENO; 2. LIST OF WITNESSES; 3. LIST OF EXHIBITS; 4. ANY PRE-TRIAL STIPULATIONS i PLEASE CONTACT THE SESSION CLERK PRIOR TO THE TRIAL DATE, AS TO TRIAL STATUS, AND ALSO NOTIFY THE COURT PROMPTLY OF ANY SETTLEMENTS. I 508 741-0200 ext. 223 or 225 ( � GvQ� �L� �� ,�P_ � c�"' ��„ , � � �ALE� -[I77O77CAL C71MlSS7O - M�N�TES wovember 7 , �f90 � regu| ar mee�� of t�e S�lem His�crical �ommi*s�a� *as he� � Green . 5a1em. �� 7c a�tenAasce were ��airman Kar��s, F-11- -7 ramMrCoot ` MrCarr . MrDedcl , �rHedstrom ° and �sGuv ) 1an chrc| ey ` 7im �choo\ ey. �j�na Cohen and Craiq Barrcws a�p� ie� for a CerL��icate of NcArr E� 1caoi! 7ty �or ence reri.airsapp| icatio� �s a �oniincation from MrCarr mnticrej tc acoraprlicsn as �ubm�tte� �r �lam secon�ed the mction4ll were �n I, C.- an" sc motion c�.rried . � Ir � mree' B/ ancn Pas�owski appl �ed fcr a Cartifica�e of �on- ApPlicabi| ity for t�e strippine of three sides of c� aubcar� | in the front �n--j two sldes, recl =board �n red cec!*r and | --=1r-,t This is a contin�atio� �~om Dctcber 17 , meeting �here wa= a e visit curdUcLed cr- Oc�cber 24. 1?�O in srdyr to isualize �hs extent of ihe work and the huildin�� exin--. details^ MrCarr noted that the front wall was b uilt out about �wo inches from the basemen� Plane. � Chairman Harris stated that the clapboards were cct sri9ioa} � clapbcards. Mr^ Carr sugqested �hat �he cwner era�icate the wi�bow on the s'n�e front to � eave the appearance that it- is a later architectural addition . Mr . Pierce stated tha' he was not sure �hat it is a 1ater addition . � � Mr. Carr wade a mot,ion to approve �he ap01icaticn as submitteJ wi�h t�ie pxception o1 the 7-irst flcor E--- -in and fcr the sills 1'7, watch . There was no second . Mr.. Carr stateH �ha, he 6oes not want �c aporove any��in� that has not been �rplied for and motioped to aporcve t�e recIapbrardin,-- as submitieli subject to beinn four inches �c weather smooth side ou+ and with the recommendation that �he store front be treated by either closing sp of the window or enlar,:iin9 the window and making other changes that would highlight the store front , Such changes woul -H require the owner �c file an app licati-In fcr a Certificate of Appropriateness. The motiona/ so includes that i-he sills be 4 lstf eceJsiir- molJinp . cne band aalIinq ansome shakee on ont of ting are to �e replaced *ith ce�ar �nd al | owed weatherTr.m is to be refastene,J , scraaped an o-, painteJ snd staio*d whiteThe mera} ral� on � �he re--,r oorc.- will channe to wooc! and wJll have a Ilters � 'Iredel inquired iear 71crc1. is 0reesure �reated r�e contractor �ar ��e Pro�ec/ replie� in pe�a�ive and st�te� that iL was Kr!. �hairman Harr�� ske� if here was ccy :thyr ooith tr reilin9 7he ccntractor stathat every(hinn in the rear was rotted . �rDedel s�ated that the porch rai� will have �a be ender � Certi�icate of Appropriateness . Mr. Oedel motioned to approve the, Certificate of Non- � � A?p1, icability with the exception of the rear porch , provijing �hat reshin4lin9 and repairs are nct more than ten �prcent Of the total surface area and to deny a Certificate ofNo^-A»olicabUity for Lherorchrail . �rSlam secrnled �he motion . Al | were in favor snd so 'he 'no ion carried . � 4n application f,.r a --ert4f4cat2 Of Aporopriateness to chan9e � �aint cc7ors was r�wo by t 1-1e appl1cant 4 Andover S!leei� joe) and Walfer Carcn apliecl fcCertificate of , �ovem��r �ocropria7ene�s fur fence reo! �cemesi a� � An�aver Stree� rhe aoo� ic�tjon is �a reo� ace ��* �ence on i�e wes�er` y �order wit� � ttree �oci c»azn l �� ence �u run aaaroximate� y sixtv �ee� a! on� tbe � enn�� of tbe �ro;ertv MrSlaa mot�ane� tc ��rcv� �:� ��P� ica�io� �� submitte� �rC�rr seconded t�e moiicn �cr t�e c�rpose cf �iscus�ion only in the ho�es t�a� i� wz� � �si� Mr �law stated that ihe prn�lem ^as �ha� the commission �oes nc� a� low ain r,t: fencs� , �t �� nct in the nuide| ines and �he aoprcpria�e tti�p is �c oisrcve e acconr S� am fur��er state� �ha� it may �e an impemen� over wire bu� nei�her ma�eria| �s aopro�ria�e ° �rCarr stated that the commissiop cannot ap�rove fcr �n e�nhteent sntury �o�se a ma�eri�� hat did nor exist in ihe ��:�een�h cen�ury �r �ede! st�t�d iha� ��e Carons can net �n a�prcori�1e �ence th�i `s not 'ery sx�ensiv� 4� l were oPpose� an� sc t�y aEic) ication was �sn�ed h� = -et � �c\ yoke Sqvare ` [nccrr:orated ed for 4 Naiver -4- Dc fDe? � Ord�nance for demCDliticn he at 18 Crcmbie ��reet A'. torpey William Lunureoac of 81 -]ashinnton Si-ree� rsCresented the Ho! vcke ��surance f'omran; and rresented Lhe commission wii-t no remarks . R,- . Lendrenan sta1ed -hat t!his is not just an ssue of an old house, and Lhat th� commissi�n has to take into �ccoynt the sit T-aiicn cf Holyoqle. e,d that the house is not histcric�i �rLenuregan fel � the character of ihe ne1nhborhood will nci be effected frcm the house beinn isken down �rundrecian stared tha� �dyoke Drovideost not a) 1 employee marking on site and �hey have been purchasinn real estate since 1850 on that r1ock 'o build their existinc� bsi) ding . The comoany nwns � real estate on Summer , Norman , and Gedney Streets a7!ri they � also own Joe'=- Laundry ano part ci the block where 13 C rombie � Street 18 Crombie Street is part of a strategic long -erm p\ an . He went on io read an or�er from Lhe City of �alem from 1975 and rendered that statement tc Chairman Harris as oart of the records . The order commendeb Hc| ycke for Prcvidinq parl inc� on site. Mr. L:ndregan stated that , at that time, land was deeded to the c'-ty by Holyrke in order to round of; streei- corners. Mr. Lundregan went on to state '-hat Crcmbie Street was --ought primarily beca�se it aby+ts | | what thev already own and the purPose is tc buy as much � property as they can for corporate exo*nsion . The seconc5 reason was to use the -Iui4din9 as a ccrporate meetinn center, �owpver, �t was determined that 'o brinq the beilding up tu code *nd a mee-in-- canLer would cost aPproximately � � ^ . ' � Novemuer 7 . �9�� a�e 4 ��95.��000MrLucnrygan s�ated ihat Hc� yoke wil � nat put ��2O - $194 .O0OOO �n�o �he �ouse �o reh�bili�a�e �t , �f t�ey � are no� al � zwed ts deso� ishT�e �rice s� the �ro�erty *as � � � � :neconcm�cal �e fsrther st��s� ��s� �hs proccsa� �s tc �ear �own �he �ocse �eca�se �olyoke ns on doin« nc��in� wi�h � the house i� �hey are not a- lowed to tear �icn*e' ane` at Hvlyvke's expense to which � �� »ark an� �ecrea�ion DePartmen1 Lto�oht tc �e a noc� i�e�, �u� since �he cnntract went �c the Ga�las . �hey were vct in+eres�s� Ho7yoks hss spent cne and � cne-�a! f ye�rs �ryinn to fin� a soiution has nc� ccme up wi�h anvt�in: that �� e�sab� s �riecser�an went pn �o ° ��s�e ��a� 1he hcuse was �nhab��ahlo and �t �s not economical the �cese �ue tr the mar�et �ein� �uwn an� 1�s �ouse � in ��s present condiLian �oc� j �el � f:r a�out �100`0OC3O io ��OO� an� ��at the ho�se :eebs a�u�� $�20.O�O0� tc � 3 0 wort� of recairs �oMr �sn�regar s�a�sH zo t�� hcuse or leave �i as �� ow. �carded Fr? and at scme int �n 1ime s�me citv � �gencv wi� l crier them the wi1l � � �o� sei ! �ecause thev want ��e iand "IrinquireH 1Ap1 dh the l �n� once �he house was t�rn �cwn Mrunuerpan stared Lhat 41 sin9le 1evel p2ring 1O woud �e ccnstrucd Mr . -11am sed ere were a,,y other olan- for the loL tesdes a Par[ iny ot . �Ir. LL indreqao renlieJ in L',e nenative. �Ir. Ccoi askeJ how many �arkin9 space iwill provide '4r _undreg an reclied eJ9hvie lve 4rch��ec4s . Ron Jarek and Charles DeMarco of the �e�erco/ 'arek P�riner�hio of rickering Wharf . 2alem, ve a aresentation the conditian o� the huildin: at 18 Crombieet ccwplete with E,ic1-ery �oar�s 11rJarek anMreMarcs went throunh the history of the \c�s� frcm tte �7�h centur-. They s�ateJ the house is -Df a ncrmal gambrel roof ` and that there were fifteen owners � to the hcuse, and there were no unusual character4sts abm/' � �he n, thai warrant it being sperial Mrqa,,e a presentation concernino the neinhborhrod which he fel ' �ad nct changed since it was builMr � De,Oarcc stated that it is not residential zoninn but � ?ran�thereU in and essentially a n_nn-confr,min9 LIse . Mr. 71eMarcc s'ated that there are prnh\ems with the hOuse. The size c� the livinn room in the hcLIse is 22, 1E'. The housp is rcoed and found tc) be "n A. creek ` and the foundation has | � s�if�oc end w�ter has been leang into the basemenor � yearL4e further stated that there is an additicn the kitchen whi.-h is tasica1y h�,lding the house together in the � rear of e b"ildinn and would �ake around t7 br�nhe IL:7, up to h�bitable standards- Shinpies have 'r .ens''_: __ 'Llan:_;L!t =+"`. - 5_ '=•r -hown . ilh . eITl3.h rel t * ehd = !'lags _ a= r., de, le.! at theIb- li -F _mE ..=r. t'r: -Ti7, ._, -Ep a1, Y.=. l4rdvmans Vzre o_ .h -.:.ip - '-_ _- _t-_rit-B 7._ -_: -:7nrridLlte T_7 the •I. ._ter } I' .k!Ing the "Ir '_artier r _I-I:j.l.re•d rf rharl E= DeM�rcr ab OL,t the - al barb r the usE contributed `7 '1-- M r h Mr. .emar c_ dti"lat ' he , ar!:. t iLlea ;.J ; d :'Int tE+•'S-t1m riE':ghborllood wh. _S r _ -:7mm . __.. a.nq re-.ident i. l slh rl..11lar'ro added r.eTir wnllld .Ot 71a.4e tLl e ne,_c;hborh-nd le=- residential -._ = par-l:-;Q int . "Ir Op-del inrLiireo a- fn how lnnq thle partnership has been working on the project . Mr . _are4: r=r:lled they have been working c:.n. +he rlrn_leri- tar -,.. ITlonths- Mr, nedei inQLtired of Mr. LLl.ndreaan a.=_ to who had been the architect- before )_lemarco/-TarE4:. . Mr. LUndregan Stated that thev ..ad Martel =:7neft Design Incorporats•d when they were considering mhospitality :-enter. i1r . ._;l aIn nqlli i red 1-i a, :bill! r -•.-+.I_11d =rl4r , .._ n_I_U=.e me a -_oidErn-e. Mr , Ja.rek: r-mo lied in the a.f4irina.t and -tat ed that they Mr . Slam inauirad a=_ to when they `Lad = raidsrEd the house for a. mectinq center, whether the rehabilitation costs were based on residential nr State commercial :-ode=_ . Mr. Iare4:: stated that it would have been State codes. Mr. =lam a=_.ked if thmse were more re=_tricti✓e than re=sidential . Mr. ,Jare4:: replied in the affirmative. Mr. Carr inquired as to how long the house haE been owned by Holyoke and how Ionia it has been I_Inoccimied . Mr. Lundregar, stated that they have owned ,t since- i976 and it has remained :_lnoccLlpied -_ince then . Mr. Carr- inruirsd -_= to why they wanted to demolish the -lou=_e , was it _scause 'hey did not want tc =_pand the money on fixinq it . 7F- 77 -F rI 1 7 t F L I- - --1 1IT,C,v e on= 1 t -I I 33f lir 4 9-1 u i tq-ci -1 i ij e 7i= I I - qr 7 f-r Mir 7 -L;rclt h rma,. 1 T] P In ji +r71n n D c:_rr-:ci r a t 7 1 1 -1 t =t v =k.4 there --ri but w w 1 d "I v e to come bef ore the ;I---r th—'t q--,rcv:;] 41 Mr . LL r-1 Is i--: I I E- I o the hjuse WOU! J --Fit r ob 1 E-!T-S for t Ll i p• r u n rn a n F eu, in Mr . L'ertI =ta'Lp--� +he 1-: =t-,bl rAna l-t OU .t T-f tai::of 7- O4 T' C r',[& on mr-i a r, t= t l.t Nil be I i ay.. F, n i e r:e E ncj2.t iOri vj-n;i I -r irrih e. rC a r t .T,,T,e r ��,Ct a--!�e d tr, 7� -rJ thc- hc-Li-�e i mi 7 wa 4� D n e + c:,rin Harri= tj pur7na=e, h Feer I F,5.0 P,- ,r,d t Fj r--b 1 c-lm_ W DUI d have een [::rt nvin `hen '=ha telt at Drno;:;.ry _L!r:h a=-ed the hili 1 r!iino into a Dark r,a I It Mr . lundregAn W_s i--,Llaht F-ITI3rl it abLit= Hol voke ar,. ^ - 7�� ot buy Jnvc� �ao� � C�vi� Pe� � s��sr �f �� ronbis ��rey� s�a�ed that � orincica� ��ner i� �he rei:h�ornnnd is �p/ �c�e an� he roc� s � �ke ��e ' ��tsn s�� ac ��s �s rot u c�urc 'ocm ��*v are re�nntcrs ��u �hat ihe coroorats e,ecu�i�e� srould �e ��e cnes tc �pswer t�e �e��tbcrs cues�icns �� Pe� l �ti�r �e� � �r� yoke'� s�ratenic olan i� �c� �or �ar� inn latsMrPe� ` etier �erz�er s�a�ed t�at vn� un po� buv � :ouse �ur $`69,0O0OO �n� � e� �t just si� {cr vsars *rPells��er fel � �r �yder , �he �resi�entwoei � nct surchase a build��e where he wo�l � nct �i� t�� hea� on t�e ° dcorways �rLun�reqan s�ate� that a� t^e time t�e hause was »c�chase� ' �r�nk Sior' was �h� c�*si�e�t of ��e company *rLendre�an s�ated tha� s�rat�vic�lly �olyoke wan�s to use �� lan� anc �hst t�ere is �o a| s�s o+her ��an � �arkin� lo� +her� nay be �p Lwe�c`' ,pars �s�e�tirvwa� i o� An�rew �tree� �nou�red es �c ��e optian �� ion« terw ! eas�nn nf ��e �ouss �c i�e �cuse can rena�n �rLundreqan f samecne dd | ive in �he �cesa � thsy wo"l � �� ace.' wit� t�e san* probiemsThe �oi� �inr asbesiasanJ le*u. uaindid reeearch it , bLif �r � Lun�reyan statec it woslJ have iabili+ ies and was not � sasi�le �r �arr aske� if a � ease *et ossi:le Mrge�e� sta�e� Lha� his aw� ccapany has pu~chase� lan� hsuse on -he: ) at and nut fcr �he � asi � ss�en �ears end thedtr �te �uture �r ��n�re9an ��ated �ha� ii x�� c�r��in) y a reasona:� e ��e��ion �s ask but / is��l �ty on ��e � andlor^ is excessi�e anJtenanz �� ths � a��lor� cannc� w��ve �h� possibili�y c� � s�� c�ir� not the rand the liabil itv �r �un�regas etated ihal i' wa� to costly to �e� sad man t ;eel that lonr-term � eesinq haeen adequateresearched and would wan� �o check if a l iabili�y on iead � 7aint ir, 7,'ybe cf Cheetnut Stree. f Holyoke �s ) cokino for p�.rking spaces . to cansider the back cf t�e J. if-,:1 �rLupdrenan sLat�� that ot be use; as a parkin? � ct bu+ hahe cowQany ar,reed withe city when ey byilding 1--tat thpy wculd creserve the 4'rea as open spacs � MrCoct asked i; �hei im�� ie� �hat the corpor*ts ife �� co� is being threatened y c d :n| tear dcwn d�nq MrLundre�*n re�� e� �� ths ne�a�ive and s�ated t�at �c� ynke �s arecarino fcr fetere nee�s MrCarr aske� if ��e cerrent aar�ing cn tts si1s �s � � Onvancer 7 , 1000 loge t Wool it E *oo) avEea ars thirty ?c !:"tv cRrking spIce= �Ir" 17Tu17ed that i ; thSy VIon on 7*Meraji79 tan to caryln: smacas that it �cuid still leave , Osficn c� �oaces �r �indreqan rewind in af�irys�ive MrCarr stan& that no way tt- srinVaE were cut an at aneie wowlJ indicate ttat t?e wal - ms been | eanlnq mr a 1onn time. mrDe�arco stated that the -cundat i:n is crumnlinn and � � cannot .:0101nd much nore op tte oreseni 4enbaoion and will ° become a Public | iability � nrnisrce inru:red as to how nary scuare ;set are in t;-= i �� s� �� c�f�cc buzldi�n � � W . Lurdreran replied scoroximately K,Oon souare feet hut vas nci completely 7er001 � "r. »isrcs 1skW Ms . St:row*" ' . o^o is cs the Board o� 4pcea| s , xhat is the toning rpouirements -or a heildinq for � oarkiny if Hoycke ;as 47 excess cf what : E reouireb by code. � Ms . Wriwalt statey t7at one would have to finure it nct � Mr . Lundre9an stated that the comoany is ncw prrvidinc more saaces that the code receires ant that this matter has bepn � aaprcacheo since they built the building . � Mr . Pierce stated that he wanted a number as to now many emcicvee, Holvoke has , soeare Vooiaqe. Peonle who visit -Pe husineEs , etc . , and Y the need ex7707 ior more parking operas vsrseE requirements. Mr . Luncregan stated that graphics have Peen dcne and it � comes back to the thirty to 04ty parking spaceF . � or , Pierce asked Y Holyoke Pit an economic ana| ysis to epend "Oat kind of money per parkinn space at 18 Crombie. 'r. Luncregan stated took it was irre! evant , and they want its ; anf . He wrther stated 'tat fimancia) =sideratiors �s "ent or se} l are unacceptabls, on they are vcrcea into the ccsn oar soace due to lone term goals . Mr . nerce stated that they have no economical viable proof "or pirkin9 spaces . � Mr . Pelletier asked if using the city sidewalk space for Rccess would continue. Or , Lyndre1an stated they would not use the sidewalk at A � Crombis ?treat aoare udo8xtJoe's and the sidewalk will not belowered. Mr. Lundrc0aostated prcvim use had been aPprrved by the city. Mr, Pslletipr asked what the plane were for the ! arge tree that gives ambience to the lot . � � Attornsy Lznbrepan stated the initial design is without the Ores cut he excects the will ask to Isavy it there . Mr . Pe) ! etier asked if Holyoke was in the Gerber's building ,efcre the fire.Attorney Lundrenan ePlied in ihe �f�irma��e mr . ?y' ' etier incuired as to if We tui' d:ng xas gone is HE -[1 4.- I 1- [if TI 73 L, o- III III ILI > ILI Eli Cr Ell III ij L_ I-I III rri 'ti I L. I to fit lit Ili -0 �1 4-E 01 Eli 01 _r_ 4�1 III 3F:. Ill L, X si or. at 1 :1 o. X. C. > C., Ili 0 Ell J17. X_ JD III or Ili Ill Or Or Ell I I I I - ii lit -1 11 E.- _1 ..- L .., :11 T1 Eli 11 1-1 Or 11 Ili a +l i-, Ill Tl Or 12) 41 n li 7L] I- c LEE Ill ,I I I .,I Or it 11; 1-1 11 :-1 1- 0 Ill __1 Ili fL_ rf lTi - CI 4-P 0 111 M C Or 0. 1.11 .1 It I.- I I I I -I It, I I lit L_, III X.I ILL 4j +I ITF I:r- ID Ill S. I-P 71 Z �I c Ill C, IIJ 'Al 1.. 1- 1, ii LE ri, for HE If li fit Ill Eli 1-1 -TE 7i lrl III - CIL L IT 4-' 11 1- Ill 1 1,11 rJ l II, I I -j -1 Jj lit M, 4-E tl� L, I T- 1_. lit _I 0.1 1 oil 0 c A I- 4_1 4� Ell 1 0, I_ Or LE (if L I �I 0 i:�, 11 ELL i n Ll. L_ Y.. ITT III Ti It 1-.1 1- L' I Ill " M or F, If III Jr- ill Or Ili Or :i -TE Ili too p To 3 c Or c Ili 111 4 1 Ill 17 ill _1 m a HE to I i Or T- no ME .1- L Ell I, i. It -To C 11, Ill .1 A-, 11 TH C 171 ELL 4,; ill TI D ?� _0 ELI Iq L_ of _ lit IT; Eli !.., 1I , -i, I-, LEE ELL Or l 4-- I� ELL P Li �.l c Ell 11 l _ Ll IT$ IV 1. 11, 1 1 1-: A -1-1 Or ELI I ::I _. I-, 1 1-1 Lot or, T_. -:i 11 1 �p " ill Ili I III I 1 1- lit 1:1 (:i 1 11, L, 4 (11 It, .-. L -1 P Ol 11, U. -I I L-I Or or Ill I.- G. I-I Ili or 151 Ili 91 T� for :1 4-E III p )l --1 11 _1 4. IT -__ lf, ill I- - Or 17 4-E 11 4' Ili 4-' = J_ Ti To Or Or C, 11 -LI I u -I -r-I ILL IT! .?I 1 .1.1 1-1 11, 3 17 1-1 it 11, -3 4-1 4-1 Ul Cl f1.1 +I L 4-1 ID > FI I:: Tj 1.1 1 T Eli tj it, 111 11, 1.- c ho� ri 4-' Ir Or t- T-, G 5, Ili If it >1 TO C Wi �T ELI n 1 Ell I1 !_ C 4-' 1- X.1 Oro Eli I-i I- TO ELTI 41 _171 Ili lit Or Ill 4-1 CI 91 �J Ill I �r .-- Ell LI A- .1 IT, 1-' F. Z; Ill, ELL ll Or 1- 4 1 1 T -171 �o I I 4.r A 0 cl TO 1: 17 r Ill _j 4 1 Or n c ILL IN j E I I I!'. 4-1 F, Ii. lit of I., ELI C_. !L_ :j I-T ,-i T IT! -To ILI ID Ili Or X_' LI 3 W ill 1-1 L 3 L, I I If I-I I I I-, lit T1 L_ -1: l:! Or c IN c lit I-I U -, Eli L I-i 4�1 7 G IL. 17E Or 0 .1 lit 7j l, 1F Or Or ID 11-1 11, Ii 1'. 1 1 1 E` 11 ID i- F j �I 17, s r= 71 4-- 1- r- .1 1- -- 4-1 - Or I-) ll Or Of J..! L Tl 0 Il CI Ill 171 Ell Eli Ill -1 1-1 Or 4-E 11-1 lit MI C L Ill fit J: Cr 11; 1, ill To Ill .1 1 1 - LiL 4-' , r:I ill ELI -1 1: 1 Ot I- or, Ill 111 Or -1-r To r I I: Or Ill I, L IT 1 H -I 1"1 IT lit a I_-_ L_ 4 1 2L Or Ib Or -I lit III A-1 OR ZI Ill 1-1 0, 0 ill I1 I- r It, Ill "I I.r .!I I I _I:: 4�p lit 1: 4-' �' C IT$ or To 4 17. Or D n ill Ili Ill L Or ELI 1 11 L. .I I -,I r 11, _I- L, To To JI Or TI HE XI 4,' Ell L LJ L_ 3 Of fL) --I Ill I > T .11 C 4-' L I- L_ Ol IJ P-1 il I- lit Or J- cl i_-j Y- I I C. _C Ell -to Eli :ii Or -1 L'i CJ .4.1 1 1 4 1 111 4 L_ -1-I E-I 1� Or HE A Ili z L_ J_. or, fit 1 4-' Cl L.. 4,.4 lit r Ili OH - To I I E ;Ei I I Ili I- ELI -I I I Ul �i r Eli Ili 11 L. III Ili X: 0 a Or u I L, c I Li 3 Ill -1 lit IJ., 1-� It; .1_ -I +i 1-1 1 J_ i: IT, 4-1 Ill - ELL Or f-I -11 C 3 >-1 11 - lit ELL 'Ti lit - -1"I I:� F" F1 1-1 1.' ET; lit I it I: 11 Ti lit ill e T.1 _E_I Cl CIL _,_1 c 17; It 41. Lit CL I Ili 0 L., X. 1-1 IT, 1-1 r, I I Tr Ill 1- 11 IL 6 -1, 11 L� _0 G -I Or 2: '-,l 4-' �; ILI til 0 (11 111 cl r Ill 4- 0 CI 1p 1 !-I 1 1 L, 1i - - . -I -I - Go -1 1 '- __ -I - -1-1 •. 1 4-1 a) ill fit LL -1 4 j 1 0 4, 1 L 4 M1 C -1 3 TO 4 cl I I I ID 11 ELI . 11 f-I 1-1 Ill T 4 1 CI Ill Ili U f 1 17 111 l_ Ell l E-I ILI [If Ill 11 11 0 4. lit Or Do "s r I I r1 C. +_ ,, f- I. -, E- I- MI ;To - Or I 111 3 1 1 L, c L_ Ell Or 111 .1 IT Ii at U_ L. LL� Or Ill III rill .- �I -❑I IN .11 Ell .-I V. 01 �i III . 3 IT LI it ED Ill 4-' 111 '1 -To Ili 4, (A - ELI C4 1 1 W p- I It l'. j- I ji W .4 1 1-1 ]1 4 1 Ell I ]t, JI 11 L, If 0 lit c- Eli IT Ill ILL Oi ELL X: III bi .3, L, or !- .,I L, -L. III 4 'I .-F 4.1 :J 1 HE ri L "I ,if jj� L, L I. III U, 4T -I_ oil - .,I -,'l To D Or .4-r IT, Co. 1-1 fit Ili L lt� Of A lit 4-1 4-' 3. 11 Eli �l . L. L -L 0, 1- -1.' Ill _. it. 11, 1 4-' 1 i IT ILI L' I-I ill �1 171 if -0 11 jf� If Z. _. LEE ill L, +l +1 c :j F; cy P If I.1 it ILI -I Ill III III It; HE 11 Ill Il. 0 11 Of I-I It Or .1 Tj Ill -I C I P L:� Eli 0 E 1!E C. � lip I'll .,I n -1 4-1 • f To L_ Ill j Or A -L. C �o To CI 01 L ILL J,-, 11 ICE IJ t- It I III 1 1 I 11 t-I Z: 1, - a, -1 I L, 11 -- Go Ill Cl A-1 X 4.1 ELI c Z_ I- �o 0 E of. I lop I 7� III --I- m L I-] Ili Or (J C. Or 4-1 4.' It or Ili 1-1 C 1- 0 11) LIP 1� T-1 j ELI T, c Or cl 1I L. .1 1-1 ill G: I: T-1 Ell no C, I -I C C-P X U or Ill 11 -1.1 17 _1 A-' 0 1-1 4-E X Or Or it-1 IT, 0 at Or 4-' Or on E'l Or I-I ,-1 1 or; 0 11, E, To 01 Too 11 ILL Ti Or ll I I Of 0 1 1 .. Ill Ell a- $ ID Or a, C, . r Ili I;; j 111 U 11, lit r-. I'1. 111 5- C o..- It, HE �Lo J A- C 4-- 4-- HE Or 12 i 17 ELI :_ :, 1-1 4, Ill I Of 1I 1 111 Ill IL G To .1- S.- Of 1 1 1 1 LEE 1-1 4_. _ 111 1 1 C: tj -11 -, . ,, . -TI �p L lit �I LL I- L_ c HE 1 4 Or I ll� Ill Ili 'I' L `_ Ill 4_1 D 11 Li- 11, C 1-1 1- C 1_1 Of 7l Ill - fit _F Eli ELL ,. U, HE I Eli 11 41 0. .1, Ell, I I _ I- I if .1 Eli _E I i It -"i .1.1 T-1 -1 11, .1-• 1-1 or. Ill Ill - 1z .1-1 41, 1 Ill III c ill c E_ LI lit LEE 1.. f.-I c 11 111 Ol :I fil __1 -::r " I� j Ill -E I_-I I I-I U CI HE Fr' I Ell 4-1 C X_ ill III If 4-' 0 Or Or IL III o, to l:: III C"1 I_ Ell C. Ti C il Ill 1,11 C1 4-1 Or LI "1 0- ED LEE L c c J-, I_ Eli 111 1,1 :1 11 Ti 11 Ill 1 C, - L_ C, ILI Eli U a U 1-f ::1 L l` 17 1_1 Or 11 L_ c Or c ::; " Ell zj Li a, E, I T; C I- I lit 6 1.. , 1-1 --1 -- -c IL il CI L. Ili L. 7t, f-- --I L_ C 0 ILI L C 0 1-1 C (r) I I 7i +, c IT cl L - L, at - if C, 0 ELL Cl C, L_ c L. I off P; I: .,1 -1 1 t-, 7 TI T I 1 11 li L, Ti or; � or. J-. I- I I I= ri Eli fir F_ 1-1 HE '+, C Eli 0 1-1 Y, '71 F 4-' j III I-I IT IT 0, 1!; TIT lit u. 1. 111 111 lit 4 qI 11 4 1 -ri Tl L C It, Ill 1.11 ;It I i Il] I c 'I If, III 1 7- 1-1 L- 11, w ITT 11 CIT I- t. I:, 11 4-' LIT Ut - lit E f-I I it L Ill Ili X C. Ij I'1 .11 Ill lit III r. E I-T Ill IT -j it Ill -1-1 Ill 4 1 lit Ill lit I I LIT C III I It, ITT I-I C-1 - .,I Ill Ill lit L, Iti ill I -T-. IT. -4 IT ICI I- L.-. Ill 111 1 1 ji I LI lo 1-1 lit TIT 11 'F --1 3 r T lit IT, I Ill 1 11, i,1 -.1 ` �I- I -I Ill ITT C- ❑ at ,,I lit IT, �l I - .1 Ill il I I - I-I tit -V! -,`� I-, L ID E +! ' j, I-, Fit - a, LIT - 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ili 11; 1 1 Ill I T- lit 411 a, I T-I IT I I.- u,-L- lit D I ILI Ili I, lit TIT F It, w , lit Ill 11 "1 -1-, 1- 4-1 1 l I, t T, I lit 4 1 -r Ili .1. 1 T' Ill a, Il .1 4-' w 11 It, Ill it 1 4-1 A 1 4 1 : -1 1 1 T I- L -I Ill I C 111 +' 1 IT 11 71 -If Ill UI ID 4 It 1 11 11 1[ i1. I ITT A-' -I I I C -I C, LL I T -'1 0 4-1 10 0- I F I Ill fit ... I I IT! I I I ill III I I If -4 - 4.1 01 yl I -- .-I 111 3 C li, .1. 1. 1 I:_ T .I.' j - - C Ii- Ill 1 1 4 -1 E - 17L 11, I,: I (.I ILI -1. �:l Tit 1 1. 1-1 3 ill L E lit C, C -1 1.!1 Ili ILI ill Ij T., r- cl > T-I 0 11 1- 1 i D L L 1-I IT A- CI Ill at at c Q il. 1 11 1--, ITT I-] lit III Ill '-,. 4-- T I jF - .- UI -I tit -T-T Ili - L Ili Ill III III A.r LIT T; I .-I , 4�1 D Ill ILI I I I III Ill Ill i lit 11 L III I 1 -1 4T III if 1.1 Ili 7 . III III C Cl L, 10 c .Ti1Ill 11.1 1i! YJ -1-1 1 "[I -1 Ili TIT IT I= c t-I 4 L. - x [I I Hl V. 11 41 LI lit 1 4-- cl IT 11 ii, I- -, 1! 11 - t-I � QI 4' !, r P I I Ili lit :-I TIT TIT i-- '-T if jii; 11 111 Ili I D -_I T- - 3 Iiii - ITT I I > Ill -I Ti lit "i I I I= L fit I I L. 17 -C Ill -IL� u ILL tit 4-- ill L Ill L. fit 1, D 7 Ili I'l 1111 4-' T-I L }l 41 +- L at II Irl 7- it. Y'i Of ill [I lit T, -ci f) IT !fl 3-- T-, of I1 01 at ]-I I-E Ill at Ill 7. c IL- ID I- Ill .1 1 El -4! ,I M TIT '.. I- ITT ILI -IT if tit -I It- ITT Ill It 0 -I.. I I tit Q Ill T. -j lit IJ 1-1 1-1 1-. ILI ti., J--- lit al -1 Ill CL, II: 'r. 1 I= 0 1:1 1:.: .I I- lit U TI ` I-:, 4-- I-1 it, 11,1 111 4-T Ill 1-, -1.1 4-' lit 4-- -T - 11 1 0 1 7, 0 - > lit ILI -I_. Cl I. '-1 .•-r .-- IT it c 1- 11. tit Ill - 41 -1: n -I; � ill at 'it L lz: .1; T: _; "f l-' It - i:: Ill 11 1 1 J- k. X- -1-- -1 4 fi;; 17 Lt c7A 11 X: a �Tf I] n in if .- I I lit t- :I tit I-I Ill 11 -'1 1 1 LI ITT -I ll� -1 11" 1-1 c Pi- Z- -! I: 17 - �l' tit L I I l It' 1-1 V- I. 111 Ill ,- .,-I IT- ITT I I JZJI 4,- 1 1- lit C III Cl if it I I- It I 1 -11, -T 1 .1, 1, 0 -1. T-I C I I C Iffif -T- r 1 3 of lif cl I I I; Ill I I A TIT Ill Ill I., Ill L, 7-, Ill 1-1-1 lit I 1 1-. in ." - 1-1 11 a, Ill - W LIT -1 111 -1 1 It FI T '-4 1- 1- it. 0; Ill 11, 1-� 1.1 1 1 -Ti 1-1 Ill 7 lit 1-' 4 11, 1 1 1-- 1 4 1 T. J-7 0 I. 11, .- 4-' 1-t 4-' 1, 1,11 ill • 4-1 E 4-- L- III 4-T 171 1.11 .1, Tj !- ]- I- .- at f I-I IT I'll -I I I 1:1 TIT 1:1 '-- 'Ti I I 4-r IT; > E C .1� Y- -1- 11. ITT Ill -: f-i iri :r S- li I-, 1 1: 10 Ll Ili 'it I I f-I I 1 Ill 1-1 Ill Ill M, cl I-i IT 1- 4 1 -- 131 lit -1 4- ii Cl , if ill 111 Ill 1-1 HI 11 - at Tit - I T TO TJ -1 4-- TIT J- I Lit Ill +T rf Ili l- +1 A-' M, 1-1 c li� I-t :.. IT I Ill I (. I TZ, r f- f- it; -i 'I lit id 1:: 1-1 1_1 lit i I -4- C, - lit IL 4-1 Ill III +t +l K- Ill Ill ff- E Ul kit at I I .f: . - ' Ill I I T TIT 11 III III Cl- IT I L Ill tit a, LI - I lit I I - 1,11 Ill if -1. at +-. Ill _-I, ". Ill C M C. L r, IT L, I . .,I Ill I I I I fit I- If -1 :,-1 Ili C Ill Ill Ill C- F, --K -4 C +I 3 111 lit 1.1 T l I I =i j- 0 4,1 1 ql I I I Iir- CL I r J 1-1 .1 1 V III L- -4 1 Ili it 17 C L Lk ti TO 1 7 f.- I lit Ill lit TIT -1 11 D lit: :J L , TIT C: tit - 1-1 -1 it I It III ri -I .I-: -LT. . .1 -1. 1-1 i- - 1 1-1 1-1 , - 1-1 E Q. `- LI- c Ill L, I-- -I -I c I-I it, -n in -I It 1, 1 1 1 1 Of I_[ I I :- �a -I E, III -L, lit kit lit qi ITT L L. U. 'I 1 1-1 1-I ,- T, - Ili 1.r II II I I (-- 4 1 ri C7 -111 1-, 1 1 -Ti ill E I UI - Ill ITT r11 Q.A-- Ill lit .1; lit TIT C, 11' Ti tit III I= L- it; Ill T11 13 J., I- Ii c I it ITT 'IT "I ill T- 11; [7 T� : I- lit Z 1-- 1-1 ill -- -It 0 -- ITT J:: Z -C L C ,1 4-T M a, 01 't I I 1 1:1 fit I.1 1- 1- Li I-E I 1 7 L" -T -I Lit -, Z -I- :� I I 7i 4, 171 - M TIT Ill 0- 71 ' � � �= rierce stste� t�s� i� woui � h�/s �een ccmmo� to exPec� �� norsMrPiyrce ��*� �hat �is ioaressi�n is ��a� txe �cxse �aJ �een mcve� tc t�� t� �hen i� nou! � �ave n�ne �n�er some restcr�cion at the �ime o� �he movs �e �� at � "enovaLi�ns *cel � he aa�� 325 ��e �asic s�e� � coe� � � ore�a�e, an� ev�senc� �ee� ir �cors ' trim and �oxing o� �cs� ° shcw t�at ��e uody n� i�e iouse cou� � he �ated �730 to �7BO w�ic� ccnfirm� �as� �istcrzc's ��inion o� c �77 . The � �trucisre anse�rs �c r�a �c �e scun� ` an� he sas seen �cuses �ha� are su�s�antia) � y wcrse ��e� are habit�b� s �n M~ rie,ce's cpin on t�s �oess uas not rec�� as much �s ��s �rc�itec�s m��e �no t�at t�ers is pz *vi-ience ihet the �ouse �� co��y�n� �c reck , ano i� �s not �eterior�te� � �evond wha� �� a� ~eac�s� ys�rs sarl �er �rPiarc� sta�� hat �e saw cn| y �wo small ereas c� ro� �s t�e �ills an� saw pinor hr ick spallinsT�* s�reciur� i� h�� cp�nicn i� �ot snsound anayress vrih a� ) findinqs cf t�e �rchit*c� hire� by Ho` yoke Mr �lam ��ree� w1i� �r � Piercy� The flccrs are sound the s are s�ruc�ur�! � y scun� an� batter thn mos� c� �er �cmesH ad -na hundred 4ndl seven�y-five vear� o� �rac�a� seitl �n7 and that rting is nct a ccndit�cn �� rcve ��e *�r�cture to ;e :nsafs or � � s�sc�nd � nr [arr stated that he was amazed w�th the charm a�� tenees of �he ir�erior an� ��te� tha� �hi� hs�se �� voreb� e comp�risan �� tm cuses hat have qonoer "ec�ir or ��,er �tree� ;e �e� � ��e house wa� in acrdinari cco shaQe and essenain �ac� !r [�rr state� that thy cei� ��: �sen� s�owe� oo e�zdence cf �u� or water iamaye excec1 fcr the cne area in ihe arc,-!i�ec� 's victure, Mr . C*rr, stated that the outside old brick patio � and landscapinc; shcws tF�e hcuse ad ieen �aken csre cf he � rrev1oys owner, � -lrCledel stated th� was pc� nn the site vas4t but � s�ateJ that H71yoke'- said +-he fr*me ccu! � withstasdanotho^ 100 years and as:ed w',at is the current founda'ion conditic� Ar . Pierce sta�edl iid i'r,c� � � founda!-_,n with ev7ce:ce nf 7'anite.HrPierce fel � that the hoyee was mcved �here uas �ossibly �n �he �D0OsHe went on to say tha+ the con�itior, of the brick is remar�:able ao�,' ta/ t�ere are ns majcr cracks, sett| ement or fissures. Rr Pierce fno evidence � corn�r �s s� ippinq �is coin�cn is �hat if t�e fnun�atians are cuL of �� um �� *uul � no� bctter him because they wouo be sLruct�r�lly unscvndgne or two inches is not surorising for the age cf t�y hpus�. He sts�e� thaL �te br�ck �s ori:inal b�t doe� nc� �now if thathe or(yinal foendation rman Harris sted that the ccndi itn of the house i� alot better than she lad expected and the tasement was | o I i I-I- LF IF-a I I rr IF I F :I- I I I f, I T. I 1- 1 1 -IF I I F., I :Lr I I A n ) !1, ::, I i _r !if I it 'I I 'Li FI :I I ILI l I , n a 0 :x n Fit 1 It, L' Itx q, 1 I, 1 -1 I 1 1- a Ill IT I,!I. It IT k I 1 In IF kit IF TTI I I In I I F .-1 71 lit IT -1 .1 Ll F-t Ij .11 IT !i r _F I IF TI Lt 1. Ill it, lit M FILL 1 1 1 lit Ll ill in T u I !a ill - LF I I :, !� if :1 1. 1 ... I I 'i :, F !IF I I -I Ill I- I IF Li IT I' D I D .1. 111 !,1 1 :- __ ::f _F I I, - ,. I t 'l if I D --I ". 1:1 F-I �I I I 1 11, IF -- it I p 71 1 F In f,: Ll IT :D -i -F F -r 1, 3 in i It it, it, A in w K D ILL -r I t- L:_ I_ ILI it, Ill 11, ill 1:1 1 1 l,F I I- If i� .I all I 'i I I L, lil 10 M - A I Q 0 & a w 0 in 0 in - s 10 .4 1 FIF IF, f:L iA lit -1 1- ILI 1-1 I- r I I In !11 -F IF !D _1 . 1- il It -1 t-I Ill lit u ITT I v, :-: 3 Z • 13 Ill T) f_F In I D IT, - -t cl -i ILI I� ill F cl IF Ill IF 1 9 11 - 0 a - ", m Ill it �i -4 j .,I I,I I IT i- s .- , I D in Cr ill .0 :0 A n a F-F "I -_ _-) It ID 17 H f7 5 1-1 1 1 1 F Ill F:1 + __; I F VI 111 -1 Ill 1:1 It IF. !IF LLI In I: I, () -, -. T7 Ili - a in I [I a "T A. Ill In :1 IF If !11 Ill I-, ]. IF ill Fl. !IF ILI I I I n IJ I V In ILI D 0 - F-F -1- :j I L --t o. A. IV Ill E. F Ll In IF .-1 .1. l !b it] C) in nu Cr in 9 D 11, In L. -I al .11 D < I-i - il It. III _F I I Ill ILL __I 1 1 lit ill -I It .0 Ill -, [I, U - . 1-1 -1 - _r I 171L. IJ I if, 0 It 71 L15 -1 'if in I F IA -I -IF :1 1 1-[ 12 IF 10 ill lit 0 Fj Ill _j 11 ii, ILI F FLI t- . I!. -- Ill 'it Ill `, In ill IF IN B ILL I CL U Z A Lit a 0 0 1 ry M ill LIT " Ili --T fil .11 7 :. Cl --.v F I 1_1 - CI -t- Cl_ A IF It I F :-I F I lit IG IT 1-1 0 1, CI -F I F :r I Ill _7F I la Ill 'b Ill 0 0 lF� it -_I II Cr ,I L, I 1 .1 �: E In W I n. P-11 Ill qF D IP •I -a Ill 3 ' I 'l rt- J lit it 41 1 IV 1 11) U. -IF I h Cr - ill in 0 M in j F It :1 ITT 0 1111 ill 11 1 IF In at r ill -t :T In :IF -F :-i- In, .i it 'I M :1 1 .-1 E in I IT I ILL ll -3 F-F F-F I IT l t I, I, 7F Tj !_ — 3 Ll F . ID .1 :: I it 0 III it :(I I If 11 1 ILL Ili I P 111 ,a In v ITT Fit Lir ILL -F In LT 1-1 -IF F III l-F 0 tit x !l Cr LIT .-I- I. 1:, 71 _F _LI !-I -1, 71L I-, _71 Ill Ill ll I I IP --r z FF (I I-t Ill -I ILI ILI it! A _r lit !I _r j-F ILI a j cr 1:1 tit IT Cl it I I IJ:f 11 IV ILI Ill - ILI 71 in OF In lj� I j In r T-F if I� :_I -_I In I Tt III L_r 7 1 _Lr 9 H m 0 Q 0 0 4. A 7 in in In 0 w Ill In it 11 Z, • 1-1 .1 H I f, ft ,, :.1 ill I- I D T_ .1. Cl ILI 1. :1 in ILL -- it -1 1-1 Ill !11 •IT FL In I J IF 11 l 7F 1 -1 in -_T Il F, ITT fit Ill LET L� If' t 1j ITT 0 C, IT -_ . I I IF I I 0 � _T I, It, 1-1 - U. CL I I IV 3 171 .-1- L:1 j .- 0 J 'if I 1 :1 Ill 1-1 -- D TI I I C I IF IT If, I I I n Ft I� In __T 3 IF ILL In _T In 1-, -1 I'1 !If I-. L't. I Tj In I Ill I I f I I Ill Ili IT --T 71 Ill Ill i D D I_ 1 J1 Ill --I ITI In _T -_r IT' _J 1 ILI a r ILL -- 1 11r lu f HI rl, I -I L TV M n Z a n 3 M M n In IT 7 ILI 11 F-F FU IT 'I Pl ll lit 1) U In IT, 1• 11, IF f1t 1-1 AF ;14 Ill in w B m a ill 0 in D 0 0 0 th w 0 1-1 7 Cl 14 CI I- .:1 I Fit -,I if III :r __I J in In 7, .-F D n I I I 0 I_-r 7T F, 1_1 FIT -F -1 ILI 1:1 - 0 In " 'I F, ill -1 1 t ;l :F 1 1 iin I(, 11 1 1- Fit I I IG IT) _r F. j-1- W L.1 11.1 In I" -1 -1 1 1 !it 3 F L 1 1 111 l •,, 11 I., D I I I I -71 D -1 D 1-1 17 D 0 A IT ", 0 11 1-1 -r I . v Q 0 F in 0 ::1 Ill Ill if, ill 111 11, ':L I Lit k: I- I� J III - 1 ILI IT III In f-t 7 It IG C, l-F I, it -D IG Lit- In F` !IF Ill -.I ILI, it T, 7. If, IT lb in 11 N IT :7 Fil .4 IT 13 0 11: in C L In ill If, 1 ril Cr Lt. .1 V T I IL Ill It �_l �T - 13 IT, < It In -1- - ILI I U _1 -1: 1:1 r F� 0 a "I !i IT -11 1 1- In I I I ILL -I] F.1 -I _ I _31 Tl In 1:1 LIT In Cl ILL 0 CL I'. fit �L 'i L11 n 3 in ILI I I !- ILI -1 ill 1-1 F'; _1 If IT Ill �': Ill IG H Tit LI ID 11 in -I Cl 0 7, '1 m I E 11- In in �IF U IS in I A 0 D - 0 0 D If 3 .1 ID D 1.11 1 tit ill in D D FIT A JoD 1:1 in n. :1 D 'I Ill Ili " it Cl I'! Li F: - I, Ill .•. 0 C, ,, — — C, -j I,- j Ll I, -_I 7 ill Ill ;If ill _T. 1-1 .1 !TI I L _3 !it 1-1 1 Ill ITT -F Fil F-t V. F-F ., rt in < -1 -F tit La In ILL 1- It _7 lit IT I I If r !, lII _r f I -I Il Ill Ili D ILL 2: IT 1-4 fl) _F Cl D -F fit ill IF Ili -V. 1 1 1 1-, Ili ::r I I lit I in 1: ITT ly n 1-0 'D IT] F-F I I-L %,T Ly - I— :E Ll Ili D lit 71 '1 • IT, 7n - i --I I LI ILI I < 1- a In ID 11 IT C, fit it ill In Ill 1_1 . 1.�. lit ill I Cj "I I I I F I �.t 4. a In 3 1:1 LZI. z u 71 !it I* i-F 7 1— --1 Ill ji ILL IT Ill lit U IF 11 Ill I Ll YY Cl -t, 0 To -1 1]) -it a IS ill 0 111 OF 11 -1 .-1 :z - �r I IT i- :I x.. I ::c 7 — I in 1-, 3- It 9 1-1 -3 1-1 2: F-F Ill ill -it LIT 1-1 FIT if, If I 1 71 ill lit .1 TV 9 IT, n. -1- 11 7 0 +. -7 _1 CI 1-1 ILL IF Ill 1- 1:1 .11 It, I Ill Hit ILI .,I ill Il.. I l :r 1 1 ,a �: it f-I T 1-t iT - Ill -1 1.3 11 -3 Elm III -: 0- -1 0 7 ill 0 T, Fit J I 1 11, I F. -1 III !'I 'I 1-1 0 Ill 5 -1 111 in IT FILL l - �: In -D. - In In D I !it I:; It IF, ;if I I : I. I IF 1- 1, 11 0 71 F� F- lit l ILI < ll $11 Ill l I - -F I I tit .-I- Q, I t --- - :� lit If, I I F 1 0 J It :F Ill 71 0 1-1 in Cl tit IF IP ITT z I ry 1 T ill 0 1-1 !11 In 14 In !,it 1- Ill it Cl !-I 1 11. 1 - Cl I-I rt ILI . .-I J, Il In I'. In FIT -i I I I, I�I. I I U in _5 F F�: I I I. -t In I In !it + 0 -IT It -1 F IF, Ill :I -F F tit I �l IF In tit -1 Ill ID j -IF lit I, T InILI 111 ILL .1 in IT _711t1 ,t I, _5 Fit ILI I F -I I-, 'I' :a 1:1 i Ill !,I - CrIF 0 X Ll I in a to . , ' � commis�ion on �he ooin�� hat ��ev nad �� r��v �aue cuncerninn ��s �cus� an� t�at ��sris� �cwn a bu�� i�o on i�e Regier s�l nt usn� tc anu � �h�t �xe u*ole �l �� sxoul � �e rs�hou�� bau� �r �edstrop �olyoxe ehoul � con��er mnrs �oiions to oreserve �n� ma�be reihin� Joe's Auts Launory �~ �e�strom state� i� Hclyoke's alans ch�nye �n 15-29 vears^ s�d ay save �o roc�e �28. t�ev canno� �rinQ �he �u7�7 bs�k Cha�rman �arr�s �tate� t�at the �cusssin�i� icant 1:ut her �dea� wi� l bs ttr�n�t abo:t . such �s lan; tera � ease7he build�nq issue �n� how �ew parking s�aces are e� �y t�arinq �own t�is ° buil �ing is sci wortihe ri7 ed �ha� �he �ayor is iD=r inn no C. oark�nn c� �he stree� between Ge�nev �n� Ncrman Stree�s wc� voul � a) ) �w �cr extr� par�in� anu �� ow the ��i� �i�� o �e Perserve� an� Gedrey �s �eine ccns�de"e� for narrcwinn �rLe��r�an s�a�ej �hat �� wa� a �inner issue thsn �his e ci � �cyss and �cy� � � �ky rocm �or oysim �etween ��e Ho� yok� und the conmis�ion an� ��ats� ��at �tey will aee+ ccmmission ry me Mr �arr T,r, oneninary recommenba�ion �5ainst issuino a �emo! iticn cerm1 � 8rPierce seconded the mction, 1 m +-avor �»� so r�e � aotion carried . Mrierce made a motion to ser copies cf � ai \ ) s,�yrs received coscer�inr �� Crombie ��ree� to �he �R� and rsquest that the ccmmisszon be notified of any neetirns sa that the H.e rea c ��eir recnr�s mrCarr sercnded he monwere iavor and sh � mco� c�rrieJ mr �ichae! Tcmsho �pp� 1ed fnr � Cer�ific��e o� Aoorcoria�eness tor the repa'r cf three sections of roof wii`- charcca| =ay shin�1es at ? Cambri��e �ireet MrOede�l motioned to ai3prove the applicatipn as submitted . Mr . Pierce seconded the motion . All were ;n favor and so the mcticn carrieJ . 12�� Et2eet John Mars applied for a Certificate cf Ap?ropreness for the installq.tion of a 2 foot by ? foct slgn at 135 Derby � Stree� � Mr. Marks s�ated that he wnold ) ite approval fcr �he cclnr scheme as Oresented in the oicture and the design as per plans �rov�ded , The si�n wi7i be ten i---tabave t�e sidewali MrCarr moned t D a?prcve ths applicat�o, as --bmitted for � CI L T_i r[i IJ III Ill rl Ti L Z S.. nl L 1 fl L. r1 Ill Tirn +� G I� +' .•-' - C! tj u1 i! 11! o a_1 1 +1ul •l_ U C I -L1 u•. l Ill �:: o a-' QI or. I: tJ rri [I rl rti +1 tL +' L C L� I: q� Ill J.I C: Ill Ar +' ..� +[ 1 ..... •+. I qi ::+. Tl ..+ }J - L In 11 L Ri l! F I- .I-: IT t.l H. II,I 1: .I 'H _ u � it ' 1-, 111 [11 - I. IY T nl In III t!i C 1 1 {. L- III -fr In In I_I lit f_1 + J �. •.♦ In rl nl 1 •. :'i h : IJ III �.' I': d rG a. C 'q. .-+ ? ❑ - 111 L. E ,w ,ti 111 1_ -•-r „I L: ;T: lC d III t •-F I_ 77 Ti ':-• '•-+ J_ i L. L It in C. .. IIJ "- :J -i-: •.r 'ri C -1 5_ 11, 111 Ili +' IJ 11 qi -F-' C. ! (11 +'.. ., :-J •fl I J_ J- -: ..:: C rr Y 1-1 .--- +' C rl_ rr,. 17 Il- L a, ii L UI - 111 t - [J I:: i i - In Ili •a 1 11 U 1_: L 17 v [:. S �' I 1-1 fit ( I J.: qJ Il rl -.a Tl IL tJ ul "1 L LL. l: T rl L! Ci . . I::. 'I'i +- - 1:1 IJ In i' 1 a� - 16 [1 0 J_ 111 rt S. 111 LI C : 1.' C1 1 1 O 01 rC. 'ri 1= C C1 O. C1 tii tG �. CI I_I J.: qi rri LI 1 In n, 1 1 ILL 1:i! 'Tr i. C .L Ali 1.' _Jr) f:. •i- -1-: 1u +' -> .•-+ 111 ul rti .moi L n1 C +1 ni at til L. ,H O 1 111 +' O u1 • C -+ L L E • ZJ E L. IJ CJ_ 0 L a! 111 ri '+- L +1 Cl 3 m a! L O (1 F G T lit I_� 1 lJ u ,1 a 1. L:i l J ll rrl 'n +' TJ I_ .+ n1 - ri +' G. 1- 'ri -+ .. IJ! -1..' 1_) C. ui ❑I El ILL n1 1-1 S_ rl ill 3 LI- In L. S.; 1 1 -Ti -• nl CJ i 1 J 1 Ill S. +' a-J S. p qi :Y, 'Y 10. Ill -1.' �T• rG 1' L.1 n1 111 L f L [:: - Ir I-, :. C: 1 7J 1L - 'Y 111 111 11 :'i ❑1 -U ti' +.' IJ 1'1 ...' 1J 1 11. 10 qi a-: III C `t L �.. n 'ti 1: :1 -la - IT L.I T (I II I U. I-1 Ill 1 L. � Ll, Ill a! 0 I Cl a! _• -r- Ili 11 lil Ill ill - 111 G, 1 It F. J 1 1 I- Ili .c Ill IT. 1 It I rfi '. f ,C II 111 lil Ll C1 U L L E 1 i C a! C Ill III Cr: 'Ti n1 L7 UI n1 L : 1'i 1u 1I 1 L.J LI 11 11 n r I t J-' CJ S.. I_1 1.1. Ili [: '.. 'It +' OI •+� Ill 1.1 n1 it. I C:. Ili <L CI ' r J_ N I l C1 C 41 L u 11i - ) I'I� (I; ['I 1-1 •: Tl! C T [l. n :-I lu O I L] i. 11 Ill 1 ll a' +' ni I_I L TJ G- L: In M, - r. 1, -i C, I I rG In l 1:1 ill !11 "1"1 1 +' IC LJ c Ill 11 O lu - 1]I 1_1 J] +I p •+ h T_I 'L1 F +' :1 [I 1 : In (:: rlt [II [f1 1 JI: Ill -I-' 1n :I I I rJ'J - C S. �._ L +' li1 .'+ n 'Tl n1 01 UJ 11 1:: {_ r❑ ,1-' a.• ni 1: In -1 !! [I _:,I [' 1I S.. +' I I' 11I Ill ++ In Cl 1Ti 111 III LI. -I L, [ at I'1 1 +! 1_I 1-J I- S_ nl rl T ll .+ .1-' I n1 +I I I l, fl 7 F._ -+ r [I 111 1-' I I +I "[l TIt j L F III 111 n l_" 4i =i L: ITi a + L J +' J- G G 1 1 1 1 :II 'r 1, _ I] 1 I C 111 W 11i a t tP • E ! 1 1 ! Lt lu 1J rl r1 - L IJ r h- II 1_ 1 p1 CJ 1L [II la 1u X11 J r la l'I L,I 111 1;1 Ip 1.1 L' .1 til A.-: +' _1 In L, a a.'. 1 Il I: a + ( T 111 7 IJ llit nl 111 .' CL 4-' rf 171 ! C ' rt Ib I_l U LI L 'I ll E L C nl i _i III + •" rf L 111 11 II •I T I E L: 1 in T. F- I I Ill I In Ili lA nl L nl In ll L at Y: L In 111 a-' III + C lI IL1"1 J 1 11. + lJ UI 01 TI r 1= + t: lil iI TJ +1 In u L C +' 3 3 Y nl Irl j n 11 In 111 11 I fl Ili 11 11 _.1 �. 1y. T1 ,�. C L [ n 1 i- 1 n al 1Tj IJ 1r (l at 3 p 11 1 In ql L 1' tJ:i 1 .L' L 1u L C 1U 1r: Ill i. 1I1 J.: 1.: r r 11 UI ll U1 C 11 L! S.. 171 1 l I 1 ( i III rri '" 111 '1 I-' It 1"1 I I J! nl L. I11 ��1 111 171 ! L- 1u -. 1 t ❑: + -F' L1 Li t q I:J 1 fU .0 J U +' 1.I u1 1n I1. ul •.F- l'1 .ti C i IL L nl M me, +. u1 ! rl •.• I -i l U- 11 r ill J .-' 111 -r i 11 L n ill 1 1 r t =• 171 i 1 J! Ci -. 1ill- = 1-i VI r J-' +' C F a 1 -I LI. 1- I 11 J 111 1.1 11 11 ❑ r 1-jl 11. L ❑ 11 11 ❑. UI L L I_I lU nl n G " Ill 1 1 T ❑ S 1 11 il! a '1 - P 1.- G.'t 01 (1 1 1 1 Titi •} + L - J- 7, . li r J7 1 L.) _ f. f. r �.I I �- 'I S' .I I, 1 � 111 Y -�-1� I L n 3 3 1." I [1 u - 11 •♦ r'1. �. 4.• QI II 1 J 1- L: y r.: {:. -1 III Cl J! ll Ill i F I r! --: (. •.F .II ]1 + t_ x -I-I 1,0 ;_ Cl 1[i _.l CI L Fi +' LI :11 II II: J Il .a. I:1 -:Ci +' d .J -•-1 Lf fl i-' li J-_ 1-1 Ill U 111 -? q' 'i- 0 T_l 1 +1 01 = LI Ill -1 1 +.1 S .: Ill L 'r QI C i J_t ll :T, _-' 1.:. .il I:;1 ria J-' '•+ T] 111 1-! CI 71 „y l_1 +! yp Ll F_- L 111 '_ 111 G + 4 _ 1: F I:-: Li r' 111 111 11! Ili It' ❑ y C 5 :1i Ili I-I qi P. lit 111 Ri C +' "'� -1 TI Ir 1 1:: -IJ w -C) 1: 11i i i_i ul -i cJ 1.7 L E C -•-' TI d CI y 'I;l 1 S - I.J 1 f 1]I T) F I]1 -i I III 1 1 _ W tl 'i III Ill '-I C Ill f Q: A Ili J 11 LI i! UI QI +! Ill [1 J:1 p IJI 111 a- J[ 111 It I_, IL' lL fl 111 17 UI ::T IL II LI Il -1 IP ITT C Ill .1] ITT 1.1 �-- J.! j- 'i] 1! J-' Ili I Ill F; _f 0l"1 L 111 •-' S c fl -IC T' 1:1 Ili IJ Ti 1 111 J- +-' IT, :i CI +� It, ILI 1'IIl,l f +' +.: J-: CI 3 +' L f_1 T IA +1 O C U 'Tl '- -•' IT .ICI 11! f G I:: CI. 1/1 111 QI y +' QI i! CJ -1-1 T-1 111 z r- lit IlI -r[ 0 1 111 +.: -F (:': ill .� J.' QI 1:I1. �::. 1.= I71 .1-! i- 'i. G• tit Tl 'rJ = C s.. L Ill ,> _ .1.- '+. J-' J C F ill -a Ill +' ..: 'Ti l: C 111 '+ CI lli LIT ❑ II T: LI C: - 1 rt: .11 C! `: +' if tit fl y -F. -+ rtl L :.'. OF T +' 11 111 7 •-1 C - I] III 11 I= In 1 ^•. J::: 1_l Ili n' L". lC Iu .+ C T: _ C. C nl lu 1= nl ID :1i Ill -I +! 3 111 13 > +1 QI G' - 111 1. t! K +1 L L 11 -1 1 1 11: :.- I IU -I. t-: TI C, S ..: at •-� 3 lit-I C Il -i 1= J- J_ ill 111 111 QI CI „y : LITL fr L L QI .-1 ' ^. '�I C: r) °' .CI Ill +! QI +1 QI F Ll L. +A 2 L QI tll tTJ L In 1 - u. T1 u.1 S[ J l r u 1:': •:-i « i[ -t.: + -I] E a -- 41 L C1 v. Ir F t !: I_ C E Qt TJ -1 C .O J. ! at • p 1_l m F C F_ t N ft tl: 3 -' [1 v- i. ILI 'Ti O C Q1 °-' 1_ (_I a " T. -n r QI IT L illC- S_ IL I_1 +1 E +. I +1 L 1 •- L- 1-I Ill E I- -Cl C �. E itI - i- -, 1-' 11 y a1 11 IL rr u1 +1 '-I I'llul ii L n r_ a lr Qi I I 1 III II 11 A:. I] [1 _ H C: r n:1 -�' [I JC: IL +1 j F r_ T_I L ul :-t- 'ti +-1 in .-- +- Il 1. rL I. .,. 1( u1 f_: I t_ LEy: !n1 +.-: IL C L u ni :i. CI Ifi lit1-' if > _ L-I. ^ +, +1 p r_: 11 L: IJ '-<: x o Irl u r a QI of Sl QI 111 lu IT 1':I Ill 4-. Li 11, it. - Ill 11 o W UI 1,: Tl Of IJ Ill U +I r Ir J_ L IT 4`i f-.: .i I_I +! rl n1 o TI C FITE F_- LT: .-1 1_ -`l j: Tt UI +1 I I f IT ]; .+ F. 1- -L: : 'IT LI J' i- f_I 11 F:: I] E t].I w - C 1[i fli +I 11J 111 rti Il 1J I l: -IJ E7 rii T1 1 � 1] -x 1: -L: S. C1 %1 J. S_ 'ti it 1 ni QI r +1 I: ti I'I lti Ili 1 -. 111 f5 Ill +1 I.' Iii 1 II; UI Y p -1-! !-L UI I! ry 1.: r +J 3 Ill RI C E +1 .0 f- rti .-- F- I :'I 111 5 .. ITT .-- U {i ni .+ s ui n !:_. L 1.1 + QI [1. - T! L QI Ill !,,.. 1.. tl1 T. 1.1 •.I -I 1 _.. _ C: Ill 'CI -1! QI �'. r L: S- J_ L Ill � + F J:: rl .!-I •.1.. PI rii I" LI - Il' 1 1 .I:: 111 111 III t - I._ QI I' +! -T_' _I:I 'fl Jj Cl 11.I +I C I'1 I_I -r -! 1 t' III rL I Ill 4, J.: .Ji y r-I 1_I m + .•.I -f= -' -C T +' tll 11 111 n IO I:1 rill ;-•. IE 1n -r.' Il �: -1 1 5_ 111 j Ili lr1 1-1 L Ill Ill n1 f-' A` :3. Fit Ill �•+ (.. C C1 J! Cl I I t1 IT I rI Ia 11 L_ a '- 1: +I -1.' .-- '�' OF 3 -f.[ J L I rift C[ .- u.+' LI- rI +! 1{I n ;' I'1 'rii L'. a I_I -•-I 1 II! +' +1 IT = O 0 1-1 +-' 11 l_ QI T ,-� y ❑ -i 11. 1 l_ 111 lY 1]I +' 1.: Ili i 1 : L-1 •+ 1.1 "I 1 lli I:i L.. I,! 'r1 LI r( T1 +. rill [ ill .-, Ili ll QI 111 +! 'T] !-I 11 y 111 !1 Ili A - fI_I E L 1-1 -I if 111 T� 111 ill l>_ •" O S. J 1 L I[ 11 LI L- fit 11i I.! 4. 1. 111 J.1 TI -1 I 111 11 O' +-1 L r,I O } '.i Ili L1 ria 41 I A CTI Ili +1 T IL T1 I.1 I_ -.. li :L! (, 'T:I !' fa "'J :-.- III IL L1 1[i F [i 3 �:: �' C1 3 J-' _ C. IJI II1 y L >. TI r1 Ill tif ?.. Ili I 11! 111 1.I LT. Ill +.I III ill - 1 l 111 -1[ rL 1-. T IL f 1 S, y C. lr Ill n 0'1 'Y p =. TI qi T IL 1J 4-1 T. - -CI li _1 L .1 Ill '1_1 0 N 1J +I L Ill TI UI L Ili Il _ T_ ITT III -4. 1-' 1 i .r! IF Ill -1. CI f. I-- I. _ - $ ' i 1 11 l_ - rti n -LI l to ? S- r_ it. +I L C 3 y TI C pl Il [L - ' E L .Ti ... i L. : QI QI +1 D 11 r 'ITI ❑ +! pl QI Ili i rS L f-I it lu ql p L 'Zi .1 q. 'rl 1. Q: C �, +' ' Cl j-. C tit L .L IT 11 I Ii :u .: ITTT nI III W r I IllZ lu U +! L - QI p T] 171 C l' +.! -C S, 11i _I ~ F Cl +' L q: L F_ IL .a.I 1 1' 7T: I-. I1 t lJ 1-1 II' IJ, 1p c S- LI -- 1-t r 111 LJ C: lit L1 171 n Ir S UI 1'i : 1- Ill 111 - C1. I:I r +.' :I 1= - +I N ill i. S Tl I f 11,1 UI +1 N C C: 11) I_1 1-1 J QI C (1 TI lCt I Il •1 : 1 - L 1, C 11 Tl f L T QI F 111 Ill 'F QI (, Tl -.+ Ill • C[ T-1 QI S a f C f. [ 1;1 I:I 1-1 1 - c T1 ill 11 1 1 lu 11 C: I If IL. L: 1 1 � I U .y'+1 C. i1 L Ii. C. +' T1 o j > f_I l .-1 1r L til !T l- L 1 !:- tit J. Il C1. Rl F- . I_1 ...I 11 1 !.. •+ II IJ •Ti 'U .-! O C. Ill p IJ- C. UI QI Tl f: +! +-1 uT L L S. 11 L QI QI !:. ni Ill m I:::: 1 I 11. 1::: L QI d: I y-. Ili I [J f IT o TOI 1 1 !r :.1 [:1 -ClI + IT LI frit L +1 QI Q1 LL L 171 41 I:J 111 '- _L Ii I1: +• riS i! 1_ .1 ILI .0 C, •`� c- +1 n C F- [J Ill IL S.. L 7-y- L +1 41 JJ 1:1 QI II ill -1- 111 .n - a.• IF L. r 17! 1:1 tr1 ❑. 111 - - 1- y-I E 111 IL 11 -1 lit +' L - , ,t S- TI! QI L QI • C, a i +I • lil Irl -❑ .-. i. I. -1 uI 1 -IC: f1 L. 1: Cl L- ❑. 1::. - S L ip -. c n Ili L L L -1 •1- i. ii rti rti Ir., y: L III L O C Ir -. i. I-1, ;'C; X. I..• �•.: •.t I 1 1-1 l-' lI'i I-.I .rii J! �... 1-- '_ -L: '^• il' F_ `: 1• .`^ '1i Ui 1-!. 1:' fit `•_. 4' .- G T, ",� J-! 11. 111 1r T 0 � � � � 5�r��ra �nv Rober� �a��r �ressnce� an aap� icati��n ^or � x��h b� ac: =sc�a� � as �xistisnrtp �on| icants crepose tc �o �!2 of �ne roof th�s yp inin� 1/2 next year ° MrCarr mat�cned tc a�0rove the ae:l �c�i�cn ss su�mitted �r -m seconre- �he mn�is� 4� l were �p favor an� sa tt� m ��esen� �o rycus�� t�at trs rops�� ta�e ec�io� wi�h ~e;ar� to �he ssws vsndi�q mac|��rp �nstalled at FeHer�� Beck�ord ��reyt ��e Salem Eveninn News staie� to Cha�rman �arr�s thai ��ey cooIT, ithe machine it is s freedrm of s�)eech issee C�*�rman �arr�� s�ate� �hat she �elt 4- =lip sye �nH tciass �iet�ric says thaL �he c�amiss�on has jer�diciian ��rou9h court cases seiilsd � �i.ornev Genere� � *rC�rr ��aisd ��a� the ppws has ��sta� le� t�e mac�ine xiL�cut ��s ccmaies�cn '� appr�^*l �r [arr moiianeJ �c send a le�t�r in t�e ao1 �tes� terms as ccssib� � s�atinp ��a� tha ccmmissior �ate� the posi�ion iha� ��ev have jurisdicticn aver ve�din� a�c��nes� �ha� �efcre a must� k � � \ eac�ineisinstai � e� o »vr�uao oo,io� �oyro,� o e er � Car�ifica�e cf Appropriateness . �a.`d�hip or Non- Ap�� icabi� it�. ��at they it mus�- aprlly fcr and receive a � cer�ificsta in��llins a vendare anJ that they resove � existin: imachine for-�with � MrP�erce as�ed i� tte ccmmission xnuld allow a vendinq �evice �� be ine�a� � ed if an approcriste �evice was �esiqne� � Chairman Hsrriit nas �ossible tha� ��e news �ould research and f �n� a �is|or��al | y apPropriate an� �,i�able so7uticn � � �rPierce seconded Carrr ��d ss ihp mntion c�rrie� �r �ierce s�gpes�e� � time f~am� for removal �rCarr rePltust �e -4 -1 t � meetinqrDeC.p1 moticneLI f aPprcve the yinutesMrseccndeH thp- motionAll were in fa�or znd so the mrticn ed . 7 7 M-r mi 2:� c,,-n 4a,,.t r. ._u �.Om= iMii - r.,nar, 44rrl= =UOqezted thtl :;uv ---1 %; th-,f ! E.v mlust reviewing Ms 51 1 r c i ,cd ttar I-rorty --Ltc-tE-:e --rrm.i s 1 -m wi rrj,-L,,Dc- .lur'her -.ct Ori . I I U Fa. for ',n= 44orL 7MI= %rjrmq,. mb=r 7=1 + 1 7' �ml �7 U L Ypkb 745-6596 .� STRUCTURAL REPORT 1N OF yAs 18 CROMBIE STREET r ROBERT M. RUMPF & ASSOCIATES SALEM, MA.SSACUSETTS �� - ROBERT CGs March 18 1991o M. ` CONSULTING ENGINEERS Q RF 101 DERBY STREET .0 p Nos. 6%Q SALEM. MASS.01970 �QR, g TEPA 4"4/ NAI.S'QNAI. STRUCTURAL REVIEW OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING Submitted to: Salem Planning Department One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 INTRODUCTION This report is confined to the present structural condition of the above-referenced buildings gener 41 de--criptions of repairs and construction are listed with associated approximate costs. Observations and recommendations are drawn from the following: * site visit and visual inspection of the existing building interior. * review of the OVERVIEW STUDY prepared by Demarco/Jarek Partnership, Architects and Planners, dated September 1990. * prior experience with similar building types and typical construction procedures for structural rehabili- tation. While we generally agree with the Demarco/Jarek report, we have addressed only the structural aspects of the building: foundation, framing, and related components. Remedies to structural problems are discussed later; included in our repair estimate is a line item which covers the cost of cutting and patching required for the structural improvements only. Anticipated renovation costs which are not warranted by the structural condition of the referenced building are considered - and presented - by others. EXISTING CONDITIONS We find that the condition of the superstructure of the original building and the addition is acceptable to good with the exception of the sills and various aspects of the first floor framing (as discussed in the Architects- report) . e ]45-6596 STRUCTURAL REPORT 'A OF Nfss 18 CROMBIE STREET 3 ROBER7 ROBERT M. RUMPF & ASSOCIATES SALEM, MASSACUSETTS RUtt��PF CONSULTING ENGINEERS March 18. 1991 Ni 101 DERBY STREET .p Q WQ 32 SALEM.MASS.01970 ��f. �S TEP 4 lny�. S�ONAL C'� The condition of the back porch is such that it should be be torn down entirely. The original building has a very severe lean to one side which we partly attribute to the way it was built and added to, but mostly to problems with the foundation. The condition of the foundation is fair to poor and likely to further deteriorate due to disintegration of its brick masonry components. In additions savara settlement at two corners and at the chimney supports has occurred while lateral movement of some of the walls las evident (consistent with the description in the Architects' report) , RECOMMENDATIONS Pursuant to the above description of observed structural problems, we recommend the following corrective measures: * Shore superstructure and replace building sills entirely. budget $ 6, 280. 00 * Jack-up the superstructure where required to level position to properly facilitate resting sills on a new foundation. Some improvement in the presently excessive leaning of the building may result from this operation. budget 1 $ 4, 860. 00 K Provide miscellaneous first floor framing reinforcing, connections, and supports. Repair chimney foundation. budget $ 970. 00 ]45-6596 �tN OF Mid STRUCTURAL REPORT 18 CROIIBIE STREET �� ROBERT , ROBERT M. RUMPF & ASSOCIATES SALEM, XA.SSACUSETTSc M. RUMgF- n CONSULTING ENGINEERS March 18, 1991 MR 2 101 DERBY STREET fir. ✓5 Y 6P `.r4. SALE M.MAS 5.019]0 s/ONAL * Remove porch completely and replace rear access with new stairs from exterior grade to first floor. budget $ 710. 00 * Remove existing concrete floor and replace with a new reinforced slab on vapor barrier with construction joints on suitable, compacted gravel base, Install sump pit with pump to prevent damage from possible future flooding csonditinn§i, budget $ 3, 230. 00 * Remove the existing foundation and excavate the perimeter to allow installation of new cast- in-place concrete foundation walls and footings; dampproof foundation exterior. Include code- required vents or windows. budget $ 7, 130. 00 * Provide improved interior access to basement: install new stairs and rails. Provide new exterior bulkhead, bulkhead stairs, and weatherproof doors for exterior access. budget $ 1, 670. 00 * Remove all unused piping, wiring, conduits, miscellaneous obstructions, etc. , in basement. Clean and treat areas exposed to moisture or adjacent rot. budget $ 480. 00 74'6596 STRUCTURAL REPORT 0 oa 18 CROMBIE STREET o�1� ROBER ROBERT M. RUMPF & ASSOCIATES SALEM, MASSACUSETTS i M��y111. CONSULTING ENGINEERS March 18, 1991 v NRU 32 W' 101 DERBY STREET AliQ SALEM. MASS.01970 �OR,F /STEP �•i•�V W ssIONAL Cut and patch as necessary for disturbed areas, caused by these specified structural improvements, to match original or adjacent exposed construction: interior and exterior, budget $ 960. 00 Also, although not absolutely required structurally, we naQommand that the addition be torn down in its entirety and properly rebuilt. In doing so, this structure would contribute to the stability of the original building while following an improved architectural design. CONCLUSION The above-listed observations and subsequently devised recommendations are rendered to show the reasonable minimum requirements to adequately rehabilitate the structure and allow architectural and related utility improvements to follow. While the superstructure needs work as specified to be restored to level and near-plumb condition, the general intent of the Engineer is to require a new, structurally sound foundation and in doing so, achieve the additional benefit of a clean, dry, and usable basement. 745-6596 I STRUCTURAL REPORT 18 CRORBIR STREET ROBERT M. RUMPF & ASSOCIATES SALEX, NASSACUSETTS CONSULTING ENGINEERS Aarch 18, 1991 101 OERRY STREET SALEM. MASS.01970 Mr. William Luster Salem Planning Department One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mr. Luster: Enclosed herewithlease find our report port on the structural condition of the above-referenced building per your request, E4ame report outlines the remedial construction necessary to prevent further deterioration of the structure and assure greater safety to its occupants. If you require additional information relevant to this matter - or our services in another project - please advise. Respectfully submitted, Robert M. Rumpf, P. -��-�6< � � C �� c� �� 9�� Y T A \.-. V Salem Redevelopment 44-6900 Authority ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 7444580 d TO FjA Board Members FROM: William E . Luster, Project Administrator RE: 18 Crombie Street - Proposed Demolition DATE: May 28, 1991 ^� As we have previously discussed, Holyoke Insurance Company, owners of a house located at 18 Crombie Street, have presented plans to the Authority for the proposed demolition of the building, located within the Heritage Plaza West Urban Renewal Area. In addition to its designation as a property within the Urban Renewal District, the building is located within the Crombie Street National Register District, which was established in 1983 and contains 7 structures , all of which are still standing. As you will recall, the Redevelopment Authority authorized the retention of a structural engineer to review the engineering report, prepared by Holyoke (DeMarco/Jarek) , on the structural integrity of the building and cost estimates to bring the building up to code. In general, Mr Rumpf ' s report stated that the building is structurally sound, but requires foundation, carpentry, electrical and plumbing improvements to bring the building in compliance with safety, health and building codes . City building inspectors have completed a work write-up and estimates for the code items . This estimate totals $22 ,200 . In addition, Mr. Rumpf recommended certain corrective measures to improve the structural integrity of the building. His estimates total $26,290. The combined total estimate for bringing this building in compliance with safety, health and building codes is $48,400. This cost is much lower than the estimate by Demarco/Jarek. It is important to note, however, that in no case does Holyoke plan to complete necessary work to allow the building to be inhabited either residentially or commercially, therefore, the cost estimates in either case become irrelevant. t i P i A yYy delIV I A s you are well aware, the Authority is charged with the responsibility of design control within the Heritage Plaza East and West Urban Renewal areas . To undertake such responsibility we must look to the Heritage Plaza East and West Urban Renewal Plans to guide us in our deliberations. Over the past weeks, I have reviewed the Urban Renewal .Plan for information relating to demolition of structures . While there is no information specifically regarding demolitlorAkthe plan states the following as Urban Renewal Plan Obiectives " . . .preservation and restora on istoric and architectural values associated with structures and areas within the Project Area; . . . " " . . .preservation and restoration of historic and architectural values associated with buildings and land areas within the Project Area, including exterior treatment and structural stabilization of properties; . . . " " . . .to create, through the development and application of appropriate urban design criteria, a central city urban environment sympathetic to an conducive of the preservation and enhancement of historic and architectural values associated with land areas and buildings within the Project Area. . . " There have been comments throughout this process that this somewhat non-descript structure is not worthy of this lengthy and extended debate. However, it is important to point out that the historic fabric of a City cannot be maintained by simply preserving the buildings which contain tremendous architectural and historic significance, a concerted effort must also be made to retain , buildings such as 18 Crombie Street, which exist between the pre- eminent examples of period architecture, but which also tell the story of historic Salem. � National Register designation should not be taken lightly. The process which the City went through to obtain this designation was a long one and was supported by evidence which proves that this district has historic significance . Without such significance a National Register designation would not have been approved by the National Register in Washington, D.C. Because of the small number of structures (7) in the district, it can be argued that each structure carries a higher degree of importance than a single structure in a larger district. Based on the content and intent of the Heritage Plaza West Urban Renewal Plan and the fact that the building is one of only seven structures in the Crombie Street National Register District, thereby serving as one of the remaining few examples of a wood frame residential structure within the downtown, I recommend that the Board not approve this request for demolition at this time. � r : 1 4 J G�J� I The overall goal of the SRA is to pursue, tie redevelopment of the Central Business District. In order to meet that goal, it is imperative that demolition be quickly followed with redevelopment. Land-banking for future redevelopment is a dangerous precedent which can encourage demolition of integral structure to be undertaken and vacant lots to remain for years on end. ibm\esd/crombie MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD ON MAY 28 , 1991 On Tuesday, May 28 , 1991 , board members of the Salem Redevelopment Authority met in open session for their regular meeting at One Salem Green, Salem, MA at 4 : 30 p.m. Chairman Joan Boudreau called the meeting to order . On roll call, the following members answered present: Joan Boudreau, Roland Pinault , Paul L 'Heureux and William Guenther . BILLS Mr . Luster presented the following bill for the Board ' s approval : 1. Group Insurance Commission $715. 00 Estimated Bill ( 4/1/91-6/30/91) Roland Pinault made a motion to approve the bill as presented. Mr . Guenther seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken, all were in favor , motion so carried. Let the record show Peter Fetchko joined the meeting at this time. DISCUSSION/NEW BUSINESS Buonaiuto Capitalization Loan Mr . Luster explained to the Board that the loan request from Mr . Michael Buonaiuto of Totstop Inc. is being reviewed. Several questions have arisen regarding the financial feasibility of this project . Mr . Luster stated at this time that he was not optimistic that the Board would be able grant his loan for the entire amount requested ( $80, 000) . A final loan package with a loan amount and terms and conditions will be presented for the Board' s review at the next meeting. Thibodeau Capitalization Loan Mr . Luster informed the Board that Mr . Lawrence Thibodeau of Lonnie ' s Place has approached the SRA regarding a $20,000 Capitalization Loan for roof repairs at his place of business located at 103 Lafayette Street . The SRA staff will be discussing this request with Mr . Thibodeau over the next month. Hopefully, before the next meeting, each member will have an opportunity to drive by the site and view the building. We will discuss this loan request in greater detail at the next meeting. 18 Crombie Street - Proposed Demolition At this time Chairman Boudreau informed the audience that this meeting is not a public hearing, however , the Board is interested in the viewpoints of the parties present . The Board will allow representatives from the Holyoke Insurance Company and representatives in opposition to the demolition to speak . Project Administrator William Luster stated to the Board that Holyoke ' s proposal to demolish the house located at 18 Crombie and replace it with a parking lot was presented at a previous SRA meeting and then it proceeded to the Design Review Board (DRB) . The DRB felt that the demolition of this house was a policy issue which should be decided solely by the SRA. At that time, the SRA authorized the retention of Robert Rumpf Associates to review the structural engineering study performed by Demarco/Jarek for Holyoke. The Planning Department also prepared a cost estimate of the funds necessary to make this building liveable. Please note that the Demarco/Jarek cost estimates are higher than those of the City' s. Mr . Luster stated that it is important to note that Holyoke has stated that if they are not allowed to tear the house down they will not spend any money to maintain or rehabilitate it, so this issue is irrelevant. Mr . Luster continued that the SRA has received a large quantity of mail regarding this issue. Five letters from area businesses have been received in favor of the demolition, a letter from the residents of 16 Crombie Street which stated that they have no objections to this demolition, two letters have been received taking no position on the demolition, but attest to Holyoke ' s contributions to the community. The Board has received 127 letters from residents stating their opposition to the demolition of the building. Mr. Luster went onto state that in his memo regarding 18 Crombie Street he cited several quotes from the SRA' s Urban Renewal Plan and how they relate to this Board ' s responsibility for preservation, restoration and development within their boundaries. The community has been very involved in this issue, since Holyoke approached the Salem Historical Commission, through the DRB process and this evening. He went on to state that this house is located within a National Register District. It comprises one of seven structures in the district. It is important to point out the detrimental effects which could occur if this building is demolished. This building contributes to the City' s entire historic fabric. The SRA' s objective to redevelop the downtown cannot be achieved by allowing the demolition of a building without putting something in its place. Holyoke has not presented any long term development plans for this area. They are landbanking. 2 If the Board allows the demolition of this building without plans for another permanent structure, they are setting a dangerous precedent for future demolitions and vacant lots to remain undeveloped for several years. He went on to state that the SRA and the City recognize Holyoke ' s value to the community, and if Holyoke appears before the Board with redevelopment plans for expansion, then the SRA could review this proposal in a different manner . Chairman Boudreau thanked Mr . Luster for his presentation and for all the research he provided to the Board members relevant to this issue. Mr . Lundregan stated that this issue has been heard at one public hearing and he asked that this Board not be persuaded by previous deliberations and approach this issue and make a decision based on the information presented this evening. In this vein, Attorney Lundregan - asked that Mr . Guenther recuse himself from the discussion and vote on this issue, stating that as President of Historic Salem Mr . Guenther submitted a letter dated September 4, 1989 in opposition to this demolition. He went on to state that Mr . Guenther has already prejudged this issue and would not listen objectively to this evenings presentation. Mr . Lundregan also stated that he had asked Ms. Anne Farnam, a DRB member , to recuse herself from a previous DRB meeting, as she was also publicly. opposed to this demolition. Ms. Farnam had accommodated this request . Mr . Luster informed the SRA that he has researched this issue by speaking with the State Ethics Commission. The SRA has received a letter from Mr . Steven Pierce from EOCD, which was submitted for the record, permitting Mr . Guenther to participate in this discussion. Mr . Luster stated that it was very gracious of Ms. Farnam to recuse herself from the DRB meeting, but she was probably surprised by Mr. Lundregan' s request and recused herself based on a lack of knowledge on this issue. Mr . Pinault asked when this letter from EOCD was received. Mr . Guenther responded that the letter was received today. He went on to state that the Ethics Commission rules directly relate to financial conflict. There is no financial conflict between himself and the demolition. Mr . Guenther also stated that he sits on this Board with an open mind regarding this project, and went on to state that there are circumstances in which he would consider approving this demolition. 3 Mr . Lundregan stated that Holyoke is a corporate citizen, and it deserves the right to come before a municipal Board that does not have members who speak out publicly and privately against our proposal . Mr . Lundregan felt that Mr . Guenther would not give this proposal fair consideration, and stated that Mr . Guenther had written a two page letter against the proposed demolition. Mr . Lundregan went on to state that this has been only the second time in public life that he has raised a conflict of interest issue. He also stated that he did not think Ms. Farnam was surprised at his request . He felt she was fair-minded and he was impressed with her actions. Mr . Luster stated that EOCD is basically the parent organization of the SRA, they have given us their guidance on this issue, and we feel comfortable with their decision. Mr . Guenther added that EOCD has been aware of this particular issue since he was nominated as the State ' s appointee to the SRA. He continued that since that time, he has refrained from an active role at Historic Salem. Mr . Lundregan stated that he is asking that this be a fair hearing, and that no individual prejudge this issue. He asked that the Board listen to the presentations this evenings and then decide how to vote on the issue. Chairman Boudreau stated that since EOCD, the Board ' s governing authority, has sent us documentation that Mr . Guenther ' s discussing and voting on this issue does not present a conflict, this Board in its entirety ( 5 members) will vote on this issue. At this time, Mr . Lundregan began his formal presentation. He stated that if the City wanted to save this house, they could have taken it by eminent domain. This issue is much more complex than whether or not Holyoke should be allowed to tear this house down. Holyoke has tried to cooperate with the City regarding this issue, and understands that the City is under pressure from a post card campaign which was initiated to try to save this house. Mr. Lundregan asked that letters such as the one from Eastern Bank be considered. Business people took time to write letters expressing their support for Holyoke, they did not simply sign their name to a postcard. Attorney Lundregan went on to state that Holyoke has been in business in Salem since 1850. The City has a good business climate in which to thrive, and Holyoke has been a good corporate citizen, employing approximately 200 people of which 100 live in Salem. Holyoke has tried to provide enough on-site parking for all of their employees and customers. 4 He cited that another issue to consider is the actual condition of the house. At considerable expense to Holyoke, professionals have inspected the entire building and reported what is unsafe or in need of repair , methods of renovation, and if these repairs would be economically feasible. Attorney Lundregan informed the Board that Holyoke has been buying land for decades. In the 1950 ' s Holyoke decided to build a corporate headquarters and were able to do this in Salem. They constructed the building taking into consideration the surrounding neighborhoods. In fact, Holyoke allowed a substantial tree to remain on the property near the residential side of the building and provided private parking under the building. A copy of a City Council citation was submitted for the record. The citation stated what good corporate citizens Holyoke had been during this construction process. All of these things show the credibility of Holyoke and its commitment to Salem. He questioned the Board as to whether or not all of the civic accomplishments that Holyoke has achieved in the past were to no avail . He stated that the City has bought land in this area. Specifically, where the White Hen Pantry is located. Holyoke currently owns the land where Joe ' s Auto Laundry is located. Attorney Lundregan stated that Holyoke ' s purchase of property in close proximity to their headquarters is not unlike the Peabody Museum purchasing available properties which surround their main building. Salem Hospital has also purchased property to provide for its expansion in the future. Mr . Lundregan stated that when this property was first purchased, Holyoke had intended to rehabilitate the building and use it for a Sales Training Center . Holyoke paid $169, 000 for the building and estimated rehabilitation costs associated with the center were $194, 000. Total renovation costs for this small piece of property would have been approximately $364,000 . An economic decision was made not to expend further funds to rehabilitate this building. Mr . Lundregan contended that this property has no historic value and that this neighborhood, due to the City' s action to allow a homeless shelter on the street and the SRA' s action to demolish buildings and . erect the White Hen Pantry, has little historic value. Attorney Lundregan summarized that Holyoke would not consider the City' s response to delay or disallow demolition of this property a reasonable decision. Messrs. Demarco and Jarek will present detailed findings of their report which outlines the deteriorated condition of this building. Mr. Lundregan also stated that he has not seen the actual Rumpf report commissioned by the SRA, but has only heard what was paraphrased by Mr . Luster . 5 Mr . Lundregan informed the SRA that Holyoke has explored other alternatives over the 1 1/2 years it has owned the site, such as donating the building to Pioneer Village, the House of Seven Gables and the Park and Recreation Commission. Holyoke has offered to pay for moving the building to another location, but no one has any interest in this proposal . The building is presently appraised at $110, 000 . Holyoke would have to disclose to a potential buyer that it would cost between $113, 000 and $194,000 to rehabilitate the building . It would cost more to rehabilitate the building than to buy it . However , we do not want to sell the house, we want the land. Attorney Lundregan stated that Holyoke is not willing to expend any more funds on this house. If they do not get permission to tear it down, they will board it up and it will probably fall victim to vandals and further deterioration. At some point the City will probably order us to tear it down because of the health and safety hazards it would present. Mr . Lundregan stated that he understands the policies and concerns of Historic Salem and the Historic District, but Holyoke has to make a decision based on finances and economics. Attorney Lundregan asked that the Board consider what Holyoke represents to the City, the current condition of the house, the options that have been explored and what actions the SRA has taken in the past . This is not a neighborhood of great historic significance and the previous SRA actions were not unjustified, and prove this point . If we are allowed to demolish this building, we will be able provide parking for our employees. Mr . Lundregan stated that Holyoke is landbanking, and that they have no future development plans for this property. He stated that Holyoke will not be back before this Board for at least three years with redevelopment plans. Holyoke is open to any changes, additions, or deletions to the proposed parking plan. At this time, Mr . Charles Demarco, hired by Holyoke to research the historic nature of the building and provide structural information pertaining to the building, made his presentation. Mr . Demarco reported that Crombie Street was originally settled on a river bed and is approximately 160 years old. The house has a brick foundation and the house is listing and has settled. Pictures were shown outlining the major problem areas. There is approximately $30,000 worth of structural work that needs to be performed to the chimney. There are approximately 28 State code deficiencies existing in the building with an estimated repair cost of $113, 000 . 6 This house is located in a business zone, it is currently a non- conforming use. The City ' s Building Inspector has indicated that since this is a business zone, there are special regulations and materials with specific fire ratings which have to placed on the building, which could mean the sides have to be removed and replaced, etc. There are substantial rotting problems in various parts of the house. There are carpenter ants located in the rear porch and addition. Estimated costs of $30, 000 to stabilize the foundation were submitted. There are several light and ventilation requirements which could result in the replacement of the existing windows with bigger areas . Mr . Demarco explained that the proposed use for this parcel is to construct a parking area that meets the City ' s requirements as far as space sizes and landscaping requirements. Currently, the proposal calls for the construction of eight parking spaces. Regardingthehistoric nature of the building, Mr . Demarco hired a consultant to do this research. He has reported that no one of historic nature has lived in this house, and there have been fifteen different families who have lived in this house. Chairman Boudreau asked why there is such a disparity between cost estimates. Mr . Demarco replied that the cost estimates provided are in different categories. One estimate is to make the building into a conference center and guest apartment . There are specific code requirements which add up to $194, 000 . The $113, 000 figure was arrived upon to bring the house up to code to sell. $30, 000 of that figure has to do with structural repair . Mr . Luster informed the Board that Mr . Rumpf reported that the building is structurally sound and that the foundation work to improve the building would be estimated between $25,000-$26, 000 and code work to the building exclusive of the foundation work is estimated to be between $20, 00-$25,000. The disparity between Mr. Demarco and Mr. Rumpf ' s figures occur because he is incurring expenses regarding items that the City would not order him to perform. Mr . Luster also stated that if the addition to the building is not structurally sound, it should be taken down . The City Inspectors would not make the owners take out windows and change ceiling heights as Mr. Demarco suggests and adds into his rehabilitation totals. The City is very comfortable with its rehabilitation cost estimate of $48,000-$50,000. Mr. Lundregan replied that the Rumpf report seems to corroborate what Holyoke ' s architects have found. Mr . Rumpf states that the rehabilitation would cost a minimum of $50, 000. Mr. Demarco added that there needs to be repair work to the gutters, insulation of the ventilation systems, repairs to allow the fireplaces to be operational, and replacement of rot on several trim boards. There is a fair amount of work to be done is several different areas. 7 Mr . Demarco went on to state that there is a question of asbestos removal, repairing mechanical systems , and removing lead paint . Mr . Luster agreed that there is work that needs to be done on the building, but the major issue is that we disagree with the numbers presented by Holyoke. He went on to state, however , that the issue of cost is irrelevant because Holyoke does not intend to spend any money on the building. Mr . Lundregan stated that $50 ,000 does not even begin to address the work which needs to be done to the building. Mr . Demarco added that the foundation is not stable, however , the frame is salvageable. He stated the foundation is probably still moving. He reiterated his belief that this is not an historic house - it is just an old house. Mr . Guenther interjected that this is a historic house, as it is part of a National Register District . This house was purchased in 1988-89 . The designation was made in 1983 . Holyoke was aware of this designation when they purchased the property. Mr . Lundregan stated that this designation is a Federal designation and holds no significance or restrictions as to what an owner can do to the building. Mr . Guenther stated that as part of the SRA' s objectives we must take into account this designation. Chairman Boudreau agreed that this is a prestigious designation, and we should take it into account when making our decision. Mr . Guenther stated that the Demolition Delay Ordinance, which is monitored by the Salem Historic Commission, was enacted to preserve and protect all buildings over 50 years old, not only the houses of the rich and famous. One criteria to consider when preserving a house is if anyone of historical significance lived or visited it, however, it is not the only criteria. At this time Mr . Stanley Smith, former SRA treasurer and currently Executive Director of Historic Boston Incorporated, spoke in opposition to this demolition citing that Heritage Plaza West (HPW) , the City urban renewal plan, was created as a preservation plan to give the City power to control just this kind of issue. In fact, Mr. Smith stated that at the time, the SRA initiated and financed the survey work which resulted in the designation of Crombie Street as a National Register District. He went on to state that Heritage Plaza East (HPE) was not written as a preservation plan, and he felt its urban renewal results were disastrous. He stated demolition should only be considered after all other alternatives have been exhaustively pursued. 8 He cited that Historic Boston has just involved itself in renovation of an historic building with a rehabilitation cost of $10 million. The 18 Crombie Street building would not even qualify for Historic Boston funding, because it is not in that bad of a condition. He stated that tonight ' s decision should not be made because of Holyoke ' s threats to let the building fall down or their business or political stance in the community. There are ways for Holyoke to receive Secretary of the Interior Tax Credits - approximately 20% of the total value of the rehabilitation costs - if they would repair the building. Mr . Don Carlton from the Society of War and Culture stated his opposition to the demolition. He stated that he has contacted Holyoke with an interest to buy the building. He also stated that he has researched the history of the building, and found that the structure is approximately 220 years old. It was built in the 1770 ' s. The building was moved from Chestnut Street to its current location on Crombie Street. He also stated that a previous owner of the house is said to be a confidant of Nathaniel Hawthorne' s. Mr . Carlton stated that he sent a letter to Mr . Ryder explaining the Society and their interest in this building. He stated that in regards to building codes, he felt that the variances could be granted so that the 17th Century architecture could be preserved and still allow the building to be liveable. He went on to stated that he tried to contact Mr . Ryder by telephone, and Mr . Ryder hung up on him. Mr . Pinault asked Chairman Boudreau to limit the amount of audience participation, since this is not a public hearing. Chairman Boudreau agreed and called upon Mr . John Carr, Vice Chairman of the Salem Historical Commission to be the last speaker . Mr . Carr urged the Board to reconsider their position and allow other people to speak . He submitted a letter from the Historic Commission. He went on to state the Mr. Lundregan appeared before the Salem Historical Commission as required by the Demolition Delay Ordinance. The Commission went on a one hour site visit of the property, members in attendance included two architects and a contractor . The members agreed, and were actually amazed, at the soundness of the building. Holyoke ' s request to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance was denied. The Commission disagrees with Mr. Lundregan' s statement that this is not historic. Crombie Street , and this building in its location, are significant as expressed by the Federal government ' s National Register Designation. This is a very difficult designation to receive, and this building is considered of central importance to the District. He went on to state that if all requests to tear down buildings were approved, half of downtown would be a parking lot . He asked the Board to consider the information submitted by the Historical Commission and other letters received in opposition to this demolition when making their decision. 9 Chairman Boudreau thanked the audience for their input . At this time each Board member commented on the evening ' s proceedings. Roland Pinault stated that he is aware that Holyoke is planning to landbank this property, and that people of some importance have formally lived in this building, but he stated that he does not feel Holyoke can do much more, they have offered it to other organizations and no one would take it . He also referenced the Alive with History Brochure and stated that Crombie Street is not listed as a historic place for visitors . Mr . Fetchko stated that he is aware of Holyoke ' s contribution to the City, but he feels the issue is clear and the community and various historical societies have spoken up in opposition to this demolition. He also stated that Holyoke has not presented a real long-term development proposal for the site. Mr . L'Heureux stated that when Holyoke bought this building, they were aware this was in a National Register District and should have known they would have problems trying to receive permission to demolish this building. Our SRA objectives in this area charge us with preservation of structures such as this one. Mr . Guenther stated that this Board has an opportunity to enforce the fact that "preservation is good business" and a very important part of Salem' s total character . He also stated that some of Mr . Lundregan ' s arguments could be accepted if a more substantial, long-term proposal was presented. He felt the construction of parking spaces does not justify demolishing this building. At this time, Chairman Board entertained a motion to allow or disallow this demolition. Mr . Pinault made a motion to grant permission to Holyoke to tear down the building located at 18 Crombie Street. There was no second. Paul L'Heureux made a motion to deny Holyoke ' s request for demolition of the structure located at 18 Crombie Street. Peter Fetchko seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. Joan Boudreau, Peter Fetchko, Paul L'Heureux and William Guenther were in favor of the motion. Roland Pinault was opposed. Motion so carried. Demolition Denied. l 10 � A T•; .: _ sA,(e -0&a,,d1 o RVal� and J a��" William F. Weld ✓�wc �0 � Jta',"� of4'0e C. SQ(&44zW&n �" - Room /j0� FOR STATE USE ONLY 0vl /yamoaLuae(fa 0208 617) 727-3200 Fee Rcc'd: ii Check No. Rcc'e [3r: STATE ItUHA NG CODE AI'PL',l S BOARD APPEAL APPLICATION FORA DATE: DOCKET NUMBER: The undersi-pned herchy appcak to the Stale hoard of Rnildin;; Regulations and Standards from the decision of the: lWilding Official from the Citp(YwKX oF. Salem, Massachusetts Board or Appeals from lite Cihflown of: _ Other Municipal Apencr/OlTicial entitled: State A-ency/Official entitled: OTHER: Dated: October 4 , 19 91 , having been aggrieved by such (Check Appropriate Space) % Interpretation Order Requirement Direction X Failure to Act Other - Explain SuhjecC (Submit a hrief statement or reasons and principal points upon which the application, appeal or petition is hased) Al.l.APPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF THE CODE MUST RE LISTED The Owner of the building at 18 Crombie Street , Salem, MA requested the Buil ing nspec or on ugus pursuant to M G L Ch 143 Sec . 6 (See attached letter) . The Widing, Inspgect�r i1�s ected the builM PZg on AuYc�Wg$ 118, 1991 and i not tccu an or a _ourcvant to .G.L. Ch. I43 , SeC . 6 _(See attache letter . State hrie(ly desired relief: The decision of the Building Inspector should be overruled and the owner should a ordered o remove or ma a structure safe pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143 , Sec. b. APPELLANT: Holyoke Square, Inc. ADDRESS FOR SERVICE: Holyoke Square, Inc . , c/o William J. Lundregan, Esq. 81 Washington Street , Salem, MA 01970 ( 508) 741-3888 TelephoneNo. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY INVOLVED: LH «Crombie Street, Salem,.. MA_; 0197Q ' APPELLANT'S CONNECTION TO PROPERTY INVOLVED: Owner APPLAPLC-1/90 OTI _62 tv i"�,.,.�•.•"'• Jae —hoax `, ad4l x,gr :lf.CCI"&ko-nd 2, �CO/M41UK06 William F. Weld ,� natVC J(,��& ln)riT.e A Governor cite �� ;T[" _ _6&O a '/30�, Kentaro Tsutsumi G oe(o�c. ./l uaelY6 ovay Chairman (617) 727-33(x) SERVICE NOTICE . Charles J. Dinezio DOCKET NUN111ER: Administrator I, William J. Lundregan as Attorney for the Appel Iant/Petitioner Holyoke Square, Inc. in an appeal Filed with the State Building Code Appeals hoard on October 4 , 1991 IIEREBY SWEAR UNDERTHE PAINS AND PENAIXII•:S 01' [1-AU URYTHAT IN ACCORDANCE o1TTll TIIE PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY •)Illi STATE BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS AND SECTION 121.2.1 OF)•111•: STATE BUILDING CODE, I SERVED OR CAUSED TO BE SERVED, A COPT' OF THIS APPEAL APPLICATION ON THE FOLLOWING PERSON(S) IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON/AGENCY SERVED M6TIIOD OF SERVICE DATE OF SERVICE 4di l i m Munroe } a Last and Usual October 4 , 1991 Bu> ldina Inspector City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 S/ ;pnn' : AI'1 ELLAN PEfIT10 ' On the 4th Day or October 19 91 , PERSONALLY APPEAREDI � BEFORE METiIEABOVE NANIED William J. Lundregan, Esq. ( C` (Type or Pring 11¢ Name or arc Appellant) 1 7-- f AND ACKNOWLEDGED AND SWORE THE ABOVE STATES EN TS TO BE TRUE. � NOTARY PUBLIC Anne M. Poor 11/2/95 SERVNOTE.1/90 CON1NIISSION EXPIRES Ctp at aiem, asnd ugettg :Pubtir i3ropertp !Department Tguilbing department one £salem ¢gran 745-9595 ext. 380 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer August 29, 1991 Charles A. DeMarco, A.I .A. DeMarco and Jarek Partnersnip Pickering Wharf 223 Derby Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: 18 Crombie St. , Salem Dear Mr. DeMarco: In response to your request and accompanied by David Harris, Assistant Building Inspector, Attorney William Lundregan and you, I made an inspection of the above referenced property on August 18, 1991 to determine the structural stability of the building located on the site. Considering the fact that the structure is about one hundred sixty ( 160) years old I found it to be in reasonably good condition. The frame of the structure was in extremely good condition with the exception of a couple of areas of the sill plate which showed some water damage and carpenter ant infestation. I was surprised to find the foundation wall was red brick rather than stone indicating the foundation may be much newer than the house. The foundation has some areas that are in need of repair but there was no sign of there being stress enough to cause failure. The electrical, heating and plumbing should be upgraded to meet the needs of todays appliances. It is my opinion that, although this single family house has a number of problems, it has not deteriorated to the point of being a hazard to the public safety and welfare, and to order it demolished at this time would be premature. Sincerely, e�� i iam ., Mun Inspector of Buildings WHM:bms cc: William Lundregan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM J. LUNDREGAN JANE T. LUNDREGAN THE KINSMAN BUILDING 81 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 , TELEPHONE(508)741-3888 • FACSIMILE(508) 745-3607 a January 2, 1991 William Luster, City Planner City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Bill: I thought I would just give you a copy of the enclosed letter so that you could see how important the city' s attitude towards businesses is. If you would like to share this with the Mayor, please feel free to do so. If you have any questions with reference to this matter, please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours; /14-iv I WILLIAM J. LUNDREGAN WJL/amp Enclosure ®r E C1g _ WHITTIER PARTNERS L c 1 11y90 COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES 301 EDGEWATER PLACE WAKEFIELD,MASSACHUSETTS 01880-FAX 617-24&3756•TEL.617-246-7400 ESTABLISHED 1900 December 17, 1990 ' 1 /�T1J(•/� V Mr. Douglas Ryder President 9' Holyoke Mutual Fire Ins. - 39 Norman Street Salem, MA 01970 /+ Dear Mr. Ryder: t When I read the article.last month in the Salem Evening News about the trouble you're having with demolition of the little house on Crombie Street I decided to ty one last time to get you to condsider relocating to One Essex Center Drive. Here's the case for relocation: r' • Salem's traffic is not going to get any bett&Lffour company needs a branch there but do you want your ea quarters in an obsolete building nobody even notices any more? • If you buy One Essex Center Drive you can occupy only as much space as you need and make the Seller (Bank of New England) take the balance of the space as your tenant. • With a location on Route 128 and your name on the side of the building. you ought to be able to significantly improve your image, reputation, and ultimately market share, in the North Shore. You'll never achieve this kind of image if you stay holed up across from the Texaco station on Norman Street. • The Seller will give you a mortgage. You could build a second building on e 9.0 acre site some future date, in which Holyoke Mutual could be the sole occupant; an w ich would also be right on Route 128. Then you could sell the One Essex Center Drive Building and get all your money back with a strong return on investment and a major capital gain. i CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS- 155 FEDERAL STREET•BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02110-TEL.617482-6000 V Mr. Douglas Ryder December 17, 1990 Page Two The region's 2 biggest H.M.O.'s flank One Essex Center Drive and there are both • Sears and Firestone car care centers right near by. There are all kinds of options for locating your claims inspections personnel, including a covered drive-up canopy already t� in place. You could even have daycare on site! If the low price .( .$5.0 - 6.0 million) and unbeatable location tempt you to reconsider buying this fine.property,please.give me a call and I'll set up a showing on a.discrete basis maintaining whatever level of confidentiality is required. I'll look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, wCcVy—� � Warren W. Bowes WWB/Pah 4 Fcrw C � SALEM -� ✓ CITY O 1�T SA L L M 4 ' In City Council,._ January 9 19 75 Ordered: WHEREAS: the Holyoke mutual Fire Insurance Company of Salem recently undertook the construction of additional office space now nearing completion, and WHEREAS: the Holyoke chose to build in Salem, rather than move to Route 128, and WHEREAS : the Company chose to build within its structure some 120 parking spaces, thereby, relieving the surrounding neighborhood of excessive curb parking, and, WHEREAS : these 120 spaces cost the company some $800,000.00, some $6,600.00 per car space, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Salem, that, the Holyoke Mutual Fire P Insurance Company is hereby commended for its high sense of civic duty and responsibil- ity and this Council extends the gratitude of the people of Salem to the Holyoke Mutual Fire Insurance Company for its continued faith in the future of the City of Salem. In City Council January ry 9, 1975. _ — Adopted Approved by the. Mayor on January 13, 1975 v HE11t::N M. CORTI N, ATCGST: CITY CLERK (Actin?) CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILLIAM E.LUSTER ONE SALEM GREEN CITY PLANNER 01970 (508)745-9595,EXT.311 FAX#(508)744-5918 April 9, 1991 Douglas Ryder President Holyoke Insurance Company Holyoke Square Salem, MA 01970 Re: 18 Crombie Street Dear Mr. Ryder: I would like to request that Holyoke Insurance Company allow the City of Salem Planning Department to enter the property at 18 Crombie Street in order to complete our evaluation of the building. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Scerel , uster Ci y Pla er M16WP 2. Town SSION 2� +- oston Street r ant to:y5 2 Name on 1" Original Use F74 3 'th the side) Present Use y Present Owner 1851A _ tionDate` i Style- n hornet lySource of Date i wn/City Architect � +_ ` _ rte; Deteriorated Moved Altered �/1*"` f nJ51W5 C ;TI-� IMPORTANCE of site to area: Great Little None . SITE endangered by O ( 7-,I� (• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4. DESCRIPTION r FOUNDATION/BASEMENT: High Regular Low Material: WALL COVER: Wood AU l.} .�•%.. L T_hl� Brick Stone Other STORIES: 102 3 4 CHIMNEYS: 1 !2 3 4 ,Center End Cluster Elaborate Irregular ATTACHMENTS: Wings./ill 'Shed Dependency (-I Simple/Complex PORCHES: 1 2 3 4 Portico Balcony Recessed ROOF: Ridge G mbr Flat Hip Mansard Tower Cupola Dormer windows Balustrade Grillwork FACADE: Gable End:" Front Side Symmetrical/Asymmetrical Simple/Complex Ornament Entrance: Front/Side Centered Double Features:C.N "1.'. Windows: Spacing!Regular/Irregular� Identical Varied lC' Corners: Plain Pilasters Quoins Obscured OUTBUILDINGS LANDSCAPING - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - 5. indicate� location of structure on map below 6. Footage of structure from street Q �. : �� art. ,, � /- -_fi Property has 33 / feet frontage on street �. { ! Recorder r NOV 196T. .i s.t.L� ayu .j�c2 For /.l�� -aPhoto F- -05 ZS r/ 1.. . NOTE. Recorder should obtain written permission from Commission or sponsoring organi- zation before using his form. (See Reverse Side) FORM - MHCB - IOM-6-66-943017 f( f FORA B - BUILDING In area no. Form no. .lL1SSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION i 26 452 Office of the Secretary, State House, Boston - - - - - - - - - - _ - 1. Town Salem Address 18 Crombie Street Name Present use Residential 2. Photo (3x3" or 3x5") ' Staple to left sift of form Photo number )1'2-7 Present owner i Description: ite c. 1770 - Source Observation J le Georgian 4 chitect IP j terior wall fabric Wood buildings (describe) 11 her features n:3r tered Entry Date Moved 1830 Date 5. Lot size. 1,800 sq. ft. one acre or less Over one acre Approximate frontage 33 ft. Approximate distance of building from street Adjacent '6. Recorded by A- CrLrV Organization Salem Redeveloprtpnt Authority Date November 1979 (over) )OM-5-77 7. Original owner (if known) Original use Residential Subsequent uses (if any) and dates 8. Themes (check as many as applicable) Aboriginal Conservation Recreation Agricultural Education Religion Architectural Exploration/ Science/ The Arts settlement invention Commerce Industry Social/ Communication Military humanitarian Community development Political Transportation 9. Historical significance (include explanation of themes checked above) 1 r 10. Bibliography and/or references (such as local histories, deeds, assessor's records, early maps, etc.) Essex County Register of Deeds 18 Crombie Street The Salem Redevelopment Authority has received letters in favor of demolition from the following: OJack Donovan, Holyoke Board of Directors, J. Donovan Associates, Inc. Paul Lyons, Bergeron Company, Inc. Joseph Palamara, Joe's Auto Laundry Gerald McCarthy, Gerald McCarthy Insurance Agency, Inc. Robert Studley, North Shore Chamber of Commerce The Salem Historical Commission has received letters stating they have no 0 objections to demolition from the following: Mr. & Mrs. James Bennett, 16 Crombie St. The Salem Redevelopment Authority has received letters taking no position, but attesting to Holyoke's contributions to the community from the following: N John Bitner, Boys and Girls Club of Greater Salem Richard Stafford, Salem Y.M.C.A. 7 4� 18 Crombie Street The Salem Redevelopment Authority has received letters in opposition of demolition from the following: M. Jeanne Ahern Elizabeth Allen, Brookhouse, 180 Derby St. Blake & Nina Anderson, 5 Chestnut St. Lance Arlander Kathleen Ward Atchason, 26 Winter St. Carole & David Barry, 53 Raymond Rd. Sue & Charlie Bean, 19 Fowler Street _ Mildred Berman, Salem State College Robert Beery, 26 Walter St. Barbara Beyer, 70 Washington St. Rose Bilodeau Yolande Bickerton, 5 Oakview Ave. Erwin E. Bishop Ronald Bourgeault, 694 Lafayette Rd., Hampton, NH Mary Bourne, 5 Chestnut St. David & Eleanor Brewster Maria & Michael Buckley, 21 Flint St. Phoebe & Francis Burnham, 26 Dearborn Street Abby Burns, 15 Chestnut St. Jim & Diane Burns, 32 Beach Ave James F. Callahan Margaret & Andrew Calkins Edward W. Carberg John & Carol Carr, 7 River St. B. Lisabeth Chute Marcia M. Cini Christine Connolly, 346 Essex St. Joyce Cook John V. Cunney Jr. Sally Dee, 10 Essex St. Anthony F. DiCroce, 40 Chestnut St. Ralph & Judith Doering Timothy Doggett William & Miriam Donaldson, 46 Dearborn St. Catherine Draper B. Dube Pat Durkee, 2 Andover St. Arthur Errion, 359 Essex St. Marc & Eileen Fisher Jerold & Regina Flynn John Forbes; 40 Summer St. Robert Fraser, 452 Lafayete St. Lynn Frothingham, 8 Hamilton St. William A. Gauvin, 117 Federal St. Marjorie S. Giles, 35 Warren St. Catherine Gill; 1 Daniels St. Mary Todd Glaser, 114 Bridge St. William E. Goddard, 110-108 Federal St. Suzanne Gentiluomo, 12 Porter St. William Graham, Beautiful Things, 127 Essex St. Hope & T. McLean Griffin, 14 Beckford St. Joan Griffin, 105 Federal St. Steven Gregory, 141 Federal St. Douglas Haley, 190 Salem St., Swampscott Annie Harris, Salem Historical Commission (2) James Harrison, 69 Summer St. Rebecca B. Haskell Gordon Hayes Carol Hedstrom, 126 Federal St. Don Hodgman, 373 Essex St. Shelby Hypes Mrs. William E. Johnson, 5 Kimball St., Marblehead Alice & Dolores Jordan Bessie Karanikolas, 111 Broadway Karen Keefe Peter J. Kempthorne, 7 Botts Ct. Dean & Betsy Lahikainen, 80 Federal St. Marcia Lambert 58 Ocean Ave. Raymond Lavender, 56 Appleton St. Michael & Karen Lehman, 1 Holly St. Roland L'Heureux Samuel Likens Selina F. Little, 120 Federal St. Leslie P. Limon Betty & Dick Lutts Jane Lyness Tori MacMillan Timothy Malik, 6 Harrington Ct. Susan Mason, 31 Warren St. Staley & Beth McDermet John A. Morris, 105 Federal St. Kathryn Moulison, 17 Cambridge St. Frank O'Donnell Lynn Mundy Richard Oedel Joel Ohringer, 12 Porter St. Tom & Nancy Oliva Dick & Diane Pabich, The Salem Inn Michael E. Pelletier, 31 Ravena Ave. Gary Peterson Mark Petit B. W. Phillips Juditch Picciotta Daniel & Tracy Pierce Dr. & Mrs. Richard Pohl Gerald Porter Rosamond & Alfred Putnam, 27 Broad St. Anita: Read David E. Riley Mary M. Ritchie, 32 Lawrence St. Ruth R. Ropes Gunther Rudenberg Vicki Jo Sandstead, Regional Director, National Trust for Historic Preservation William C. Sano, 35 Daniels St. Betsye Sargent Oliver Sargent William Sargent Marjorie Satinsky Russ Slam Minerva C. Shreve, 8 Broad St. Christina Smith, 20 Winter St. Jody Smith Stanley Smith, Historic Boston, Inc. Mrs. Philip Horton Smith Mary Jane Stirgwolt Joan M. Sweeney Steve Thomas, 14 Broad St. Pollyanne Tierney Jean L. Towne, 20 Savoy Rd., S. Hamilton Mildred Weiss Ellen C. Welch H. Butler Weston Randall & Loretta Wieting, 14 Buchanan Rd. Prescott & Sheila Wintersteen, 6 Broad St. Kelly S. Wyke, 4 Federal Ct. Susan Wood, 69 Summer St. plus 2 illegible names & I "concerned citizen' The Salem Historical Commission has received letters in opposition to demolition from the following: B. Dube, 4 Chestnut St. (2) Donna Lee Caramello, 10 Crombie St. Anne Farnam, Essex Institute Elsa Fitzgerald, Massachusetts Historic Commission William Guenther, Historic Salem, Inc. Alan Schwartz, Architectural Conservation Trust Judith Wolfe, 24 Norman St., Unit 310 The Mayor's Office has received letters in opposition to demolition from the following: J. Michael Sullivan, 13 Linden St. Nina Cohen, 22 Chestnut St. The Salem Redevelopment Authority has received letters regarding alternate uses from the following: Peter LaChapelle, Pioneer Village Restoration Campaign Donald Carleton, Society for the Study of War & Culture Amended 5/28/91 - M10WP _ Z The North Shore 6 Chamber of Commerce, Inc. 5 Cherry Hill Drive SLIne 100 Danvers, Massachusetts 01923-439; (508)774-8365 Fax: (508)774-3418 ' F t. U 4 1991 ohlIL r m 8 e eoexn January 31, 1991 liohc,t rt hl.studlev lit?h^ru Bonk ' (( Y DEPL Px ,e esu ,.r liLl\I �'-�J{jj� R"b,D C.brndiord With y,",0 b nt Gnune,n' r,l,rol,lxsu^' Ms. Joan Boudreau D OMA I-Short Fi,h,,,,P,,al,cis,I Salem Redevelopment Authority T"L^'°"I'" One Salem Green 13arrc A.Sullivan - mlhmi,sDn„k, Salem ECONOMIC DIi y11UP11W r Massachusetts 01970 lames D.Wiltshire Trniionu Mdt,f,,, 61511i51 Dcvn.oP'"t.T Dear Ms. Boudreau: David n.Ca nGi (nl,;tirhl vine,,shopru,g CO. L°nl,r^"rMlAlel As Chairman of the 1,200 member North Shore Chamber of WiImn,I-linti rn,ri,1p,inn i>mt,", Commerce, I am writing to urge you to support the request of Pusuc RI LA nos Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company to remove the house (owned by Daniel It.hlrDuupall mhDal,�t,nn..ncinre, Holyoke) at 18 Crombie Street. MIMBfPS111P Dtv,iOP111:1T Chester h.Alarcus Robert rh ,is Senmhes As you know, Holyoke is one of the oldest and largest Robert A.Becker firms in Salem. The Company has always been a good citizen and PaRkMN,,.r:"yh,...i contributor to Salem. During these difficult economic times, it Ivyhl.Collins is of extreme importance that all sectors of the City work EA.sh•n,ns G. Stephen J.cnnnnoy lv together. Anything you can do to help Holyoke Mutual Insurance C 11 BnUh, Company will be greatly appreciated. I:.L.C hi•snutt I` Ami[1,,,1W.R.lir„n' santnnt R_Ulein Gmnl1'1 rn6vl Sincerely, Cala I'.Fnarson i ,rt obFiutncinl srrritr R obert H.Panningt` l /T B,rordu llr,pihJ Peter Fetchk,, Robert H. Studley Pealwdu Am I'm of snlrn, John L.Fo,, Chairman Ba,irrk,wc. RHS-132 Alice B.Crum Grilt6l P.D,on S,I'il,I John P.Kinney F,sex Cn1u OR N,-w,DgA'is John F.Lawrence,Jr. Inxnrrna�Cn.,Jur. Wendv W.Lull linglr Associate's John W.Mac Lcan Dm„ers HMW John 1: Mnure Parker BrefA,n Julia L.Rubid,au Brte,h ,,, l lank ouglas C Rvdcr loluok,MiD, lu,uruumCo LI.S. Dr.Richard F tV,1m E,dinlli Colh;y, Pie North Shore Chamber of Commerce is dedicated to slurping public policy and events so that decisions by business and government result in a better North Shore. r1he Society for the Study of War and Culture, Inc. 17 Grapevine mad,, Wenham, MA 01984 ?ef.• (508)468-3928 Wednesday, 27 March 1991 Mr. William Luster BOARD OF DIRF,cloRs Salem Planning Department John Brewer' 1 Salem Green Director,Center for Salem, MA 01970 17th and 18th Century Studies, UCLA Donald C. Carleton, Jr. Chairman of the Board Dear Mr. Luster: and President of the Society Enclosed is a copy of the letter we sent to Mr. Douglas Sylvia R. Frey* Ryder in reference to 18 Crombie Street on Monday, 18 Professor of History, + Newcomb College, March. As you know, we drafted the letter on the advice Tulane University of Mr. William Gunther. I think you will find the tone of Peter Harrington* the letter straightforward, cordial and certainly n o t Curator,Anne S.K. Brown Military confrontational. Collection, Brown University In that letter, I stated that a representative of the Society Patrice L.-R. Higonnet* would make a follow-up call on Friday 22 March. Mr. elet Professor of French History, + +Ryder was it turned out on vacation all last week, so I Fr Harvard University waited until 8:10 this (Wednesday) morning to call him. Catherine A.Lawrence The following sypnopsis of our conversation accurately Vice-President and conveys its tenor. It should by no means, however, be Treasurer of the Society considered a literal transcription, either in its wording or David C.Nolan in its precise order. Clerk of the Society Simon schama* Up Harvard University on reaching Mr. Ryder, I identified myself, and asked if j Professor History, he had received our letter. He replied that the Holyoke Company was not interested in talking with us, and then Christopher S. Wood* hung up. I called back, and said that I would appreciate it Society of Fellows, Harvard University if he would let me ask a few questions before he hung up 'H., ,*ry Dirtctm again. Mr. Ryder then said that Holyoke was engaged in an ongoing process with the City of Salem. The matter, he said, was between Holyoke Mutual and the City. If I had any comments about 18 Crombie, he pointed out, I should bring them up at the appropriate hearings. I stated that we had already spoken with a number of "key players" about 18 Crombie, and considered ourselves fairly well informed about the situation. I believed, I mentioned, that there was a good chance the demolition permit application would be denied. I suggested that were this to happen, any further action would be within the Company's hands and not part of the hearing process. I then asked whether, if the S.R.A. ruled against demolition, Holyoke would be willing to negotiate some sort of mutually beneficial solution with us. Mr. Ryder replied that I obviously did not know what was really going on. If I did, he said, I would be well aware that in the event that Holyoke could not get a permit, the company had every intention of taking the city to court. At that junciure, seeing that our conversation had reached an impasse, I thanked him for speaking with me and hung up. I understand that the Robert Rumpf Associates report has just come out. We would be very interested in seeing it. I assume you will be scheduling a hearing relatively soon. I would greatly appreciate it if you could notify us by either sending a notice or by calling the Society at the number listed on our letterhead. If you get the answering machine, please leave a message with the information. In closing, I want you to know that we will continue to try to remain on a cordial footing with the Holyoke Company. Nonetheless, our desire to be courteous and fairminded should not obscure the fact that we believe 18 Crombie Street must be saved. The case for its preservation rests not only on its intrinsic historic value, but on the indisputable fact that its removal will seriously undermine the architectural and social cohesion of the entire neighborhood. We realize that you and your colleagues must be under a great deal of pressure from both the Holyoke Company and its opponents. Your situation must be very trying at times, and we appreciate your willingness to deal with us. Sincerely yours, Donald C. Carleton, Jr., Chairman Enclosures: Ryder Letter (2 pp.) cc. Ms. Joan Boudreau, Mr. Frank Montesi 'Ihe Society for the Study of War and Culture, Inc. 17 Grapevine Rgad, Wenhamr MA 01984 T (508)468-3928 18 March 1991 BOARD OFD>REcToRs Mr. Douglas C. Ryder President, John Brewer* The Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company Director,Center fw Square Hol oke S 17A and 18th Century Y Q Studies, UCLA Salem, MA 01970 Donald C. Carleton, Jr. Cham of the Board and President of the Society Dear Mr. Ryder: Sylvia R. Frey Professor of History, I am writing on behalf of the Society for the Newcomb College, Study of War and Culture, Inc., a recently rdane University organized nonprofit scholarly foundation. I wish to Peter Harrington* express the Society's interest in purchasing the 18 Curator,Anne S.K. Brown Mairerrs property. Crombie Street Collection, Brown University The Society is dedicated to studying the military Patrice L.-R. oet• history of early modern .Europe and its colonies and Goe/u Professor r ooff , French History, the effects of the military experience on the art, Harvard University music, literature, and politics of these societies. Our Catherine A.Lawrence aim is to foster an interdisciplinary approach to Vice-President and military history. We are seeking to purchase and rreasurerofthe Society restore an eighteenth-century dwelling in Salem to David C.Nolan house our headquarters. This headquarters building Clerk of the Society will contain our Offices and Library and provide Simon scha,na• storage space for the equipment used in our planned Professor of History, Harvard University living history program, the Lewisburg Grenadiers Interpretative History Project. The Society's Christopher oci Society of S. Wood* plans are more fully discussed in the enclosed Society of Fellows, Harvard University prospectus. •Hoomvy Dneewr We are currently looking at a number of candidates for our headquarters building, but we find 18 Crombie Street particularly intruiguing. Its compact size, central location and great architectural interest, along with its historical associations (a friend of Nathaniel Hawthorne lived in the house during the 1850s) make it very attractive to the Society. We understand that the Holyoke Company has a demolition permit for 18 Crombie Street pending with the City of Salem. We would like to purchase the property, and are willing to pay an equitable price for it. We hope that, in light of this offer, you will reconsider your current plans for the building. If the Holyoke Company takes an interest in this proposal, we will need to view the interior of 18 Crombie Street in order to assess its condition and its suitability for our needs. We would then hire Preservation Technology Associates, a leading Boston historic preservation consulting firm, to survey the building and to write restoration guidelines with estimated project costs. Their report on 18 Crombie Street would form the nucleus of our building acquisition and restoration grant proposals. The Society is receiving comprehensive assistance in all its fundraising efforts from the Harvard University Development Office and we are optimistic that we could raise the necessary funds by mid-summer. We would like to meet with you and other representatives of the Holyoke Company to discuss our proposal more fully. To that end, an Officer of the Society will contact you on Friday. I look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely yours, OoAfi�t� Donald C. Carleton, Jr., Chairman Enclosures: Society Prospectus, 2 pp. December 21, 1990 Ms. Joan Boudreau RECEIVED Chair Salem Redevelopment Authority DEC 24 1990 One Salem Green ; Salem, MA 01970 $ALEW9 PLANNING DEPT. Dear Joan: A year ago I accepted a position on the Board of Directors of the Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company. I accepted this directorship because of the long history that Holyoke has in serving the City of Salem. As Director of Public Relations and Development at Salem Hospital I saw first-hand, over a long period of years, Holyoke' s commitment exercised on behalf of the Hospital and its growth. I watched, too, as the Holyoke supported the Boys & Girls Club, the YMCA of Salem, and virtually every worthwhile charitable organization/ gift-seeking institution in the City. Now the Holyoke is petitioning the City to allow for the demolition of the house at 18 Crombie Street in Salem. That request should be granted. Holyoke has given this matter due consideration, and heard from every special interest group in the City. It is clear that the decision to demolish the house on the premises is the appropriate one. Please give your support to the demolition of the house at 18 Crombie Street. I know that you agree that the City of Salem and its officials must continue to be sensitive to the reeds of the business community, and that the City must continue to recognize, by its actions, the vital contribution that business makes to the economic well-being of the City and its citizens. The City can never be insensitive to the needs of business. If I can provide additional information or insights necessary to your decision, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes for the holiday season. Sincerely, �La k Donovan Pr sident *AAv� v Profcstiional Puud Riusiu�;Cousultlwis f)nc Ucrb� Squ:u-c, Sulo n, U;1 UIJ70 (508)744-85.58 BERGERON COMPANY, INC, 47 CANAL STREET, SALEM, MA 01970 (508) 744-4317 FAX(508) 745-9879 Decemlaer 24 , 1990 Ms. Joan Boudreau Chair Salem Redevelopment Authority One Salem Green Salem, Ma. 01970 Re: 18 Crombie St . Salem, Ma. 01970 Dear Ms . Boudreau: Regarding the recent application by Holyoke Square , Inc. for demolition of the premises at 18 Crombie St . , Salem, Ma. , I am writing to you as (President of Bergeron Co. and Salem Welded Products Co. ) to ask you and your board to support this application. The Holyoke , headquartered in Salem, Ma. , is one of the City 's largest employers , and as you are well aware, a major taxpayer. Since its *incorporation over 125 years ago, Holyoke has consistently made a commitment to the growth and welfare of the City of Salem and has quietly expressed its generosity on numerous occasions to the Charitable Organizations located in the City of Salem. Everything that Holyoke has done since its incorporation has been with the best long terminterests of the City of Salem in mind. I , therefore, urge you and your Board to approve Holyoke 's application. Your approval will indicate to the Salem Business Community that the City and its officials are sensitive to the needs of the business community and that the City recognizes the vital contribution that the businesses make to the economic well being of the City. The business community and the City of Salem must develop an atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation and the business community needs to know that the City will consider their needs when making decisions affecting their economic stability and growth . If you should wish to discuss this matter with me further, please do not hesitate to call me. Very, truly yoursl Paul J. Myons President PJL/psb cc: Hon. Neil Harrington JOE'S AUTO LAUNDRY 38 NORMAN STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (508) 744-1116 December 21, 1990 Ms. Joan Boudreau Chair Salem Redevelopment Authority One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 , RE: 18 Crombie Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Ms. Boudreau: Regarding the recent application by Holyoke Square, Inc. for demolition of the premises at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts, I am writing to you as President of Joe's Auto Laundry to ask you and your board to support this application. The Holyoke, headquartered in Salem, Massachusetts, is one of the City's largest employers, and as you are well aware, a major taxpayer. Since its incorporation over 125 years ago, Holyoke has consistently made a commitment to the growth and welfare of the City of Salem and has quietly expressed its generosity on numerous occasions to the Charitable Organizations located in the City of Salem. Everything that Holyoke has done since its incorporation has been with the best long term interests of the City of Salem in mind. 1, therefore, urge you and your Board to approve Holyoke's application. Your approval will indicate to the Salem Business Community that the City and its officials are sensitive to the needs of the business community and that the City recognizes the vital contribution that the businesses make to the economic well being of the City. The business community and the City of Salem must develop an atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation and the business community needs to know that the City will consider their needs when making decisions affecting their economic stability and growth. If you should wish to discuss this matter with me further, please do not hesitate to call me. Very trul yours, / Joso A. Palamara cc: Hon. Neil Harrington 'v GERALD T. McCARTHY Insurance Agency, Inc. F s.; •<.x P.O. Box 839 • 92 NORTH STREET I SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 — 508.744-6433 FAX 508-744-3575 January 14 , 1991 Ms . Joan Boudreau Chairwoman Salem Redevelopment Authority One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 RE : 18 Crombie Street Salem , Massachusetts 01970 Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am writing to you as President of Gerald T . McCarthy Insurance Agency , Inc . to ask you and your board to support the application of Holyoke Square , Inc . for demolition of the premises at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts . As you are well aware , Holyoke is a major corporation with its headquarters in Salem , Massachusetts . It is one of the city ' s largest employers and a major taxpayer . , Since its incorporation over 125 years ago , Holyoke has consistently made a commitment to the growth and welfare of the City of Salem and has quietly s ex resed its generosity on numerous occasions to the Charitable Organizations P f Salem . Everything that Holyoke has done since its located in the Cit o S o Y Y 9 Y incorp oration has been with the best long term interests of the City of Salem in mind . 1 , therefore , urge you and your Board to approve Holyoke ' s application . Your approval will indicate to the Salem Business Community that the City and its officials are sensitive to the needs of the business community and that the City recognizes the vital contribution that the businesses make to the economic well being of the City . The business community and the City of Salem must develop an atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation and the business community needs to know that the City will consider their needs when making dexisions affecting their economic stability and growth . If you should wish to discuss this matter with me further , please do not hesitate to call me . Very truly yours , Gerald T . McCarthy President: Gerald T . McCarthy Ins Agency , Inc . cc : Hon . Neil Harrington MR. and MRS. James H. Bennett Jn . Sixteen Caomb.i.e Street Satem, Massachusetts 01970 23 September 1990 Salem Historical Commission One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 To Whom It May Concern : Re{ erence is made to yours notice Uor a public hearing on the Holyoke ,quare, Inc . il1vr. pros qty located at 18 Cro,mb .e Stp.n t Sat9_I^ MA coyr - cern.ing a waiver o5 demolition decay ordinance scheduled, bor Wednesday evening , 3 October 1990 at 7 : 30 P . M . at One Salem Green . I am sorry to say that we w tt be unable to attend this meeting . As .the only abutters to this property , we have no objections to .the de- moti..t.i.on ob .the dwelling . We have lived at this address bon over homy years and were very 6r.iendly with .the 6ormer owner , Mrs . Frances Wendt . She .toad us that she tried to have .the house declared historic , but was told it had been moved Brom Chestnut Street and was part og a stable or carriage house . As I say we have no objections to the removal o6 the dwelling and tree, but we do want the Sence continued to the 4.i.dewa2k and maybe o. .tree or two planted along the property tine to replace the existing tree that will be removed . + As .it stands now, the dwetk.i.ng .is beginning to become an eyesore . The present owners ane doing nothing to the property . The benee .is constantly being damaged as is my own . 1'n other words , we have no objections to the rer-iioval oij thi,5 dw elfin rom the property at 18 Crombie Street - ti erety T e Bennetts cc : Holyoke Joe 's Auto Laundry Fife December 21, 1990 _'i ✓..e T. Joan Boudreau, Chairman Salem Redevelopment Authority One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms. Boudreau: As President of the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Salem, I am writing to you to attest to the genuine concern and commitment to the youth of Salem, the Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company has demonstrated by its involvement with the Boys and Girls Club. Holyoke's generous contributions of time as well as money to the club's capital campaign played a key roll in making the move to our new facility possible. Now instead of serving 20 or 30 boys each day in our old building, we serve 200 - 300 boys and girls each day in our beautiful new facility on Hawthorne Boulevard. Without the support of Holyoke and a few other good corporate citizens in the city of Salem, this move would have been impossible. I trust this information will be useful to you in more fully appreciating the important roll that Holyoke plays in the Salem community. Sincerely, )John W. Bitner Senior Vice President JWB/saa cc: Neil Harrington, Mayor Douglas Ryder, President RECEIVE® FEB 041991 February 1 , 1991 S-ALL %hI PLANNING DEPT. o Joan Boudreau, Chairperson Salem Redevelopment Authority 1 Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Members of the Authority, The Salem Y.M.C .A. has been an established member of the Salem community since 1854 . During that period of time it has seen a lot of businesses come and go within the Salem business community. One company which has been particularly Qsupportive of the Y.M.C.A. ' s mission to serve the needs of Salem' s residents over this time is the Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company. Whether the need has been for a scholarship to enable a child to participate in a program, for a conscientious officer or employee to serve voluntarily on the Board of Directors , or for a capital contribution to allow the Y.M.C.A. to expand its facilities to better serve the community, the Holyoke has always stood ready to quietly and reliably contribute from its resources . The Y.M.C.A. initiated a major capital fundraising in 1989 in order to construct a natatorium and fitness facility to better serve the Salem community and to expand its day-care facilities . The Holyoke was one of the first to give its support and made a substantial financial commitment to this project . The Y.M.C .A. Board of Directors is aware of the difficult decision now pending before the Authority with regard to the building at Crombie Street . We take no position on this matter, but only wish you the wisdom of Solomon. We did want to bring to your attention however the fact that the Y.M.C.A. has been a beneficiary of the Holyoke' s civic generosity over a lengthy period of time and we believe the community has been enriched thereby. Very truly yours , Q Richard W. Stafford President YMCAHOLY/TXTRWS SALEM YMCA One Sewall Street Salem, Mass.01970 Telephone: (508) 744-0368 (508) 744-0351 SALEM YMCA- PIONEERS IN YOUTH WORK YOUR GIFTS AND BEQUESTS WILL BE YOUR INVESTMENT IN YOUTH Nina V. Cohen 22 Chestnut Street DecemberM17,01970 1990 0! E C EI V E The Honorable Neil Harrington City Hall DEC 19 1990 Salem, MA 01970 V SkLN PLANNINs EpT Dear Neil: / ltcrl. I understand that in the next few weeks the Salem Redevelopment Authority will decide whether to allow the owners of a 220-year old house on Crombie Street to tear it down to make room for a parking lot. Given our increasing reliance on tourism, it's surprising that the issue should even be before the SRA. After all, how many tourists will come to Salem to see 8 asphalt parking spaces and a shrubbery? As you know, until the 1970s the area around the Crombie Street house was lined with 17th and 18th-century homes, including the birthplace of Samuel McIntyre. Federal archivists deemed the 7 remaining houses significant enough to warrant recognition in the National Register of Historic Places, and a small but viable neighborhood exists there. The owner has an economic interest in proving otherwise. If Holyoke Mutual is unable to function without additional parking, why can't they be persuaded to use alternative available space? If additional office space is needed -- and Holyoke Mutual denies that it is -- the company surely could use some of the vacant space elsewhere in the downtown. As taxpayer dollars are put to use developing uses for Salem's historic resources, the City of Salem should demonstrate its commitment to protecting and preserving its remaining historic structures. About a week ago, I sent a letter to Historic Salem members, describing the SRA's coming decision on 18 Crombie Street. Already several have approached me to thank me for alerting them, and it appears to be an issue that will be followed. I urge you to take a strong stand against the demolition of the 18 Crombie Street property., Yours truly, 44b/�-A Nina V. Cohen c > jam �e� � 1ly91 cGUr�..i PLMt'R1HG DEPT. 21 Flint Street Salem, MA 01970 February 8, 1991 Joan Boudreau Chairwoman Salem Redevelopment Authority. One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 RE: 18 Crombie Street Dear Ms. Boudreau: We add our voices to those of other outraged Salem citizens protesting Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company' s plan to tear down the historic home at 18 Crombie Street. It is incumbent on the Authority, as well as the present City administration, to let Holyoke know that while Salem and its residents value its economic contribution, we fully expect all local businesses to be respectful of Salem' s rich history. Moreover, Holyoke' s refusal to be forthcoming' about its true reasons for this demolition adds insult to injury. We look forward to having this matter resolved in a public forum. Sincerely, Maria and Michael Buckley xc: Mayor Neil Harrington Douglas Ryder �•I3IiCSi11 IO i 1StOi2C pi" SC' 1 on flit C4 December 4, 1990 Salem Redevelopment Authority One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Sirs: It has come to the attention of the National Trust for Historic Preservation that you have been presented with a proposal to demolish the house at 18 Crombie Street in Salem. The Northeast Regional Office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation would like to take this opportunity to express its concern over this proposal. The National Trust was chartered by Congress in 1949 to promote the historic preservation policy of the United States and to provide advice and assistance on preservation issues. The Northeast Regional Office represents the programs of the National Trust to the New England states and New York. The seventeenth century house at 18 Crombie Street is one of seven structures located in the Crombie Street National Register Historic District. The District is of national significance in that it is one of the last residential districts of the 1800s which survives in downtown,Salem. We feel that the destruction of this historic site would irreparably alter the fabric of this national register district. Accordingly, we urge you to deny permission to demolish the house at 18 Crombie Street, and encourage you to discuss alternatives to demolition of this historic site with the property owner. Sin 1 , lS(Ycki Jo Sandstead Regional Director Northeast Regional Office National Office: 4.5 SChool 8ucct, Fourth Fluor 1785 i%1essad1osetts AVcnuc, N.W Boston, iNlass. 02108 Washington, D.C. 20036 X6171 523-0855 (2021 673-4000 5 Kimball Street Marblehead, MA 01945 December 14, 1990 Ms. Joan Boudreau Chairman, Salem Redevelopment Authority One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 DEC 17 INO Dear Ms. Boudreau: LI��. I am writing to strongly protest the demolition of 18 Crombie St. as proposed by the Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company. I write as a person who has looked at Salem closely for over thirty-eight years. My husband' s office (practicing orthopedic surgery) was located there for thirty-five years. I have worked in Salem for the past seven years. In the years before that I volunteered as a guide at the Essex Institute: I may have talked with you some years ago following the pub- lication by the Essex Institute of a paper I had written regarding the architectural significance of some of the Victorian houses on Lafayette St. I only go into this bit of background to let you know that this is no off the cuff response to the question of the treat- ment of 18 Crombie St. A day or two ago I walked Crombie St. to honestly evaluate the effect of the proposed demolition. That house is a thread by which the character of the Crombie area hangs together as a view of old Salem. To demolish it is to tilt the view to a barren parking lot void -with two vacant lots and video, fast food corner already there. Anyone who is in Salem regularly recognizes the large number of tourists. They come for one reason only. That is to walk in an atmosphere that reflects early New England and early United States. The loss of 18 Crombie St. would severely under- mine the feeling of old Salem that one finds in that area. If I can be of any assistance to you in trying to arrive at a decision regarding this proposal please contact me. My telephone is 617 631 1173 . I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Douglas Ryder, President Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company and to the Board of Directors of Historic Salem Inc. / Sinc F rely, O"Yv M . William E. Johnson Pioneer Village Restoration Campaign 19 Union St.:, Salem, Massachusetts 01971 30 , _ > : I V E Salem a � December 10, 1990 ° Ms. Jean Boudreau Chair, Salem Redevelopment Authority One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms. Boudreau: Pioneer Village - Salem in 1630 would like to transform the house located at 18 Crombie Street into a year-round resource to be used as a classroom facility and residence. Under the title "Francis Story Memorial House", some of the required restoration funds may be obtained through Salem's preservation community and the Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company. Pioneer Village has an effective operating season from June through October 31st. With the addition of the house, educational programs could be conducted from September through June using the facility in place of the Village itself, at which there are no amenities available for off season occupancy. Additionally, the house would provide valuable reception, meeting and training space for the Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company. Thank you for your consideration and interest in this proposal. Sincerely, Peter D. LaChapelle cc: William J. Lundregan K. David Goss �CU.\UITI FATS 9C��•?. Salem Historical Commission ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM.MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (617)745-9595. EXT. 311 April 12, 1991 FINAL RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEMOLITION PERMIT William Munroe Director of Public Property City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 RE : 18 Crombie Street Dear Mr. Munroe: As per Part II , Chapter 2 , Article XV, Divison 2 , Section 2-394 (demolition Delay ) of the Code of Ordinances, the Salem Historical Commission hereby submits this written recommendation regarding the demolition of 18 Crombie Street . The Salem Historical Commission is opposed to the granting of a demolition permit for 18 Crombie Street due to the property being a historically significant building within the Crombie Street National Register District . Sincerely, Annie C.. Harris Chairman cc : Holyoke Square, Inc . nom. RECOVER MAR 2 0 1992 CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS SUN PLANNER UK 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 March 18, 1992 Mr. William Munroe Building Inspector City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 RE: Holyoke Square Inc. Dear Bill: Enclosed herewith please find Discovery filed in the above-mentioned matter. Would you kindly have someone in your office prepare responses and collect the documents requested for my review. Please call with your questions or comments. Very truly yours, Leonard F. Femino LFF/gsw Enclosure cc: William Luster, City Planner j' COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS a i ESSEX, ss. ( SUPERIOR COURT !� CIVIL ACTION f NO. J$'t a2,n }itr ° nr 4a. :•z#'',4 x' `xW} �'vY.*y:,- V . �"k v�" '.,j'�"' y ., "kNT }. MY'y f. HOLYORE.; SQUARE,4 NC ,r, rPlazntif f`fY • I Yp Yq'P 4 j W'°` J Ti "�i �J a` 'S '{`5 s'fr i{ ♦ x'�yis h s'iF na .rx yyt, rs ri. ;e6 f MF N r. ,x aS xifK 7 {C Yp v$ fis"mJx 'KWj `w)�#?yv`�AY eti ,� a .rt�, t.. -SP`sZ,'7�riJpvr .� G , i+l. s 1E 3, SFJ _r3 t yi} 3taE ai x y 1 r 41 F r .+`1". �y �sy F% a .r"J'lCA>if ttYJ�'t'� "`� `:,H. M 1�, �G 4,... t'$ i .: $ F H .4 TAT QODE APPEALS ) s r c ABOARD":THE SALEM REDEUEI OPMENT �% z^x( w P.IITfiORITY,�zand�WILLIAMMUNROE, sy ) 3 � n .: ashessthe,RBu`ildii � Inspectorx "rhf ,#�~ ma• vt UN ,ya +.x `'" y�'�$'c� .J+"I y r � ril�ax N a. T c* 5 S .u� ; �&, p �f ? �+ ` J I,: .iWILLI�AM rJLUNDREGAN,' phereby;.certi�fy that-I'�servedz .g ^n" »" x "Tk � hi! "..�, .✓JS ey i , F4E }'�,.}^ ,•. ....copies of _ '.'s, 1. Plaintiff's'-.First "` Interrogatories to Defendant, William Munroe, 2. Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents by Defendant William Munroe; and 3 . Certificate of Service by enclosing,_the., same with -. the Summons and Complaint for Sheriff's service upon all of the named Defendants. Signed under penalty of perjury. W liam J un regan, Esq 81 Wash' ton Street Suite 37 Salem, MA 01970 (508) 741-3888 � 9 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL . ACTION NO. 4 F IHOLYOKE 'S U 1 AREx F Q , INC „Plaintiff .: 2(- aVS ,-.'.4 f� tA•y, 2 by} e t n {p s,,t+ THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS. �x ; BOARD',' THE,SALEMOEREDEVELOPMENT MF z AUTHORITY sand>° ) . R yWILLIAM`=NROE, t as hers thetrBu2lding Inspector' X r , Of the' C1ty ofS�,S31P.1¢��u a Fi`G SAN S $ -) Partie8 1. Plaintiff, HOLYORE SQIIARE, INC. , is a"Massachu`"setts' Corporation `doing 'business within this Commonwealthand having a usual place of, ,business at Holyoke Square, Salem, Essex County",Massachusetts. 2. Defendant, ' THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD, is an administrative agency within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety, organized pursuant toh}M.G.L. Ch. 143, Sec. 100, empowered to make regulations or to conduct adjudicatory proceedings relative to the interpretation and enforcement of the State Building Code, and having a usual place of business at One Ashburton Place, Room 1301, Boston, �Suffolk County, Massachusetts. 3 . Defendant, SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, is a public authority corporate and politic, organized under the Massachusetts General Laws, with the ability to sue and be 1 p sued, and having a usual place of business at one Essex Green, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts. 4. The Defendant, WILLIAM MUNROE; is the BUILDING INSPECTOR of . the City of. Salem, with an office -at One.:,-Salem --Green ;Salem; Essounty,AMassachusetts k liw!,, rf c 7w3^ .fi ckS+e.. SA *f.. i F 5;?s3F '�•"k Fi 16i `' Cc k' "F8Ct8 5. Plaintiffis the owner of the real estateJ,,% = numbered as 18 <<ftrombie Street Salem . '�)Issex y Massachusetts. 6. On orabout July ;3,'. T990 the Plaintiff .commissioned the DeMarko/Jarek {Partnership, , Professional Architects, 'to inspect the ; said Crombie 'Street property in corder to determine whether the" building thereon was reasonably $safe" for use and occupancy; and the . said Architects did inspect the said property, as requested, on or about the said .date. 7. By letter dated August 5, 1991 the Plaintiff's architects formally notified the Defendant BUILDING INSPECTOR that, "the building located at 18 Crombie Street is in a state of disrepair and if not corrected will pose a hazard to the well-being of pedestrians in the area. " The said letter concluded . with a recommendation, "that your department conduct an immediate inspection of its own, and then issue an order to the Owner to remove the structure or make it safe, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143 .. Sec. 6." 8. On or about August 18, 1991 the Defendant BUILDING INSPECTOR made an inspection of the said Crombie Street property. 2 9. By decision dated August 29, 1991 the Defendant BUILDING INSPECTOR failed, neglected and refused to issue an order to the Owner to remove the structure or make it safe. 10: The Plaintiff is in agreement with its architects that - the . said Crombie Street buildingF isin a stateof disrepair and if not corrected=^still ,pose `:a hazard to the well-being of pedestrians ;in the` area 11. The Plaintiff is informed, and does believe, that repair of the said building is economically unfeasible. 12. The Plaintiff is ready _and . willing to remove ;the present, `unsafe building: b 13. However, the said property is '- located within the jurisdiction of the Defendant , REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, .and said AUTHORITY has refused to authorize the removal of the said building. 14. The Defendant BUILDING INSPECTOR is the chief administrative and enforcement officer of the Building Code within the City of Salem and the Defendant REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY is without authority to over-rule a decision of the BUILDING INSPECTOR regarding enforcement of the Building Code. 15. Accordingly, on or about October 4, 1991 the Plaintiff timely appealed the said Decision of the Defendant BUILDING INSPECTOR to the Defendant STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD. 16. On or about February 11, 1992 an adjudicatory hearing was held before the Defendant APPEALS BOARD on the 3 Plaintiff's said appeal. 17. Then and there, the Defendant APPEALS BOARD issued a decision DENYING the Plaintiff's Appeal and AFFIRMING the aforementioned Decision of the Defendant BUILDING INSPECTOR. Count One: Appeal Under Administrative Procedures Act 18. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and here re- alleges paragraphs 1 through 17, ',supra. 19. This is an Appeal of the .Defendant APPEALS BOARD's decision, and is brought pursuant .to M.G.L. Ch. 30A, Sec. 14. 20. The said decision exceeded the ' authority of the Defendant APPEALS BOARD, was based upon error of law, : was i made upon unlawful procedure, was unsupported by substantial evidence, was contrary to the evidence presented, and was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Court will: (a) Grant this appeal; (b) Review the said decision of the Defendant APPEALS BOARD; (c) Reverse the said decision of the Defendant APPEALS BOARD; (d) Order the Defendant APPEALS BOARD to instruct the Defendant BUILDING INSPECTOR to issue an order to the Plaintiff to remove the subject building or make it safe, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143 , Sec. 6; and (e) Award the Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be appropriate. 4 9 count Two: certiorari 21. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and here re- alleges paragraphs 1 through 17, supra. 22.. This is a Complaint for Certiorari, seeking judicial review e,of&,the Defendant .APPEALS BOARD's decision, and - i's brought'`pursuant to *M.G.L. Ch. 249, Sec: 4 23 ';The said decision exceeded . , the . authority of the Al Defendant' ' APPEALS BOARD, was based upon .:error of : :law, awas made. upon unlawful procedure, was unsupported`YYby ?substantial evidence; was'' contrary to the evidence presented, an 'was s arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretiop sand,'otherwise not in accordance with law. - � '"6�bY WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this'"Court^will: (a) Grant, certiorari; (b);_Review, the said decision of the Defendant APPEALS BOARD; (c) Reverse the said decision of the Defendant APPEALS BOARD; (d) Order the Defendant APPEALS BOARD to instruct the Defendant BUILDING INSPECTOR to issue an order to the Plaintiff to remove the subject building or make it safe, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143, Sec. 6; and (e) Award the Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be appropriate. 5 Count Three: Enforcement of the Building Code 24 . Plaintiff incorporates by reference and here re- alleges paragraphs 1 through 17, supra. 25. This is a Complaint in equity seeking judicial enforcement of the ,Building Code, and is. brought pursuant to M.G.Li: Ch. 143, Seca 57. 26. The Plaintiff is a party aggrieved by the failure of the Defendant BUILDING INSPECTOR and .the Defendant APPEALS BOARD to enforce the applicable provisions of the Building Code. 27. Thee said failure to enforce the Building Code exceeded the authority of the Defendants, was ' based upon error of law, was made upon unlawful procedure, was unsupported by substantial evidence, was contrary to the evidence presented, and was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the said unlawful acts or refusals to act, the Plaintiff is exposed to potential liability to any person or persons who may be injured if and when the subject property collapses. 29. The Plaintiff is without an adequate remedy in law. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Court will issue an Order to the Defendant BUILDING INSPECTOR directing him to enforce the Building Code and issue an order to the Plaintiff to remove the subject building or make it safe, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143 , Sec. 6; and award the Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be appropriate. 6 Count Four: Declaratory Judgment 30. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and here re- alleges paragraphs 1 through 17, supra. 31. This is an action for declaratory relief -and is SX brought pursuant to,,�M4G.L. Ch ,,,,?33A. All persons interested ; herein have been made parties hereto and duly served . with. 2 process. ' Ire,r. 32. The Plaintiff avers that the Defendant REDEVELOPMENT t '. AUTHORITY is without authority to over-rule a decision,sof,.the . BUILDING ,INSPECTOR regarding enforcement _of the ;Building .? Code. a X 33. The • Plaintiff avers that in the event tiiisgcourt awards Plaintiff the relief requested under Counts' One, Two . and/or Three hereof, with the result that the Defendant BUILDING INSPECTOR - issues a "remove or make safe" order pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143, Sec. 6, the Defendant REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY will be without authority to countermand or otherwise interfere with the execution of such order. 34. A genuine dispute regarding the matters set forth in paragraphs 32 and 33, supra, exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendant REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Court will issue a Judgment declaring; that the Defendant REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY is without authority to countermand or otherwise interfere with the execution by the Plaintiff of a "remove or make safe" order issued pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143 ; Sec. 6, 7 .i . and awarding the Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be appropriate. HOLYOKE SQUARE, C. , By I s At orne , .` Wil am J: Lundrega ;.. 81 ashington Str x� S ite 37 Salem, MA , 01970 xx � (508) 741-3888 ) y J. y k� A h r�* 8 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. -----------------------------------) HOLYOKE SQUARE, ;,INC. Plaintiff�,• VS. ) THE STATE BUILDING 'CODE APPEALS BOARD, THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT._ AUTHORITY, and WILLIAM.�MUNROE, ) Px as he is the Btiilding 'Inspector. of the City of',' Salem, 3` ) ..Defendants }, . .,, ------ PLAINTIFF'B ,FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION .OF DOCUMENTSaBY DEFENDANT, WILLIAM MUNROE ` ; Pursuant to Mass. R: Civ. P. 34 the Defendant' is hereby required to produce copies of the following documents at the officer of Plaintiffs' Counsel within forty-five (45) . days of receipt hereof. NOTE: Notwithstanding their use �of "all, " "any and all" and/or other, all-inclusive designations, the following Requests shall be deemed .to exclude from their scope materials privileged by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, and the privilege afforded to materials compiled by or at the behest of Counsel in anticipation of litigation. A. Any and all correspondence, memoranda, - notes, records, reports, studies,and/or other documents of any kind and nature whatsoever, by whomever authored, for whatever purpose(s) , to whomever addressed, and by whomever received, excepting herefrom only matter privileged by the 1 3 . Please state whether or not you received a letter dated August 5, 1991, written by the DeMarko/Jarek Partnership. Professional Architects, concerning the building located at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts. For your reference, a copy of said letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. 4. If the answer to no. 3 is in the affirmative, please state the following information: (a) The date on which you received the said letter; and (b) Whether or not you reviewed the contents of said letter prior to making any inspection of the said building in August of 1991. 5. Please state whether or not you made an inspection of the said Crombie Street building on or about August 18, 1991. 6. If the answer to no. 5 is in the affirmative, please identify and describe in full and complete detail each and every finding made by you as a result of said inspection which contradicts or otherwise differs with any findings or statements made by the DeMarko/Jarek Partnership in their aforesaid letter of August 5, 1991. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such dispute, please identify: (a) The specific finding or statement made by DeMarko/Jarek with which you differ; (b) Your own specific finding which differs from that made by DeMarko/Jarek; and 2 (c) The reasons, in full and complete detail, why you believe DeMarko/Jarek is in error on the contested point. 7. Please state whether or not you have previously seen a copy of a Structural Report on the said Crombie Street building dated March 18, 1991, authored by Robert M. Rumpf, Professional Engineer. For your reference, a copy of said Report is annexed hereto as Exhibit B. 8. If the answer to no. 7 is in the affirmative, please state the following information: (a) The date on which you received the said Report; and (b) Whether or not you reviewed the contents of said letter prior to making any inspection of the said building in August of 1991. 9. Please identify and describe in full and complete detail each and every finding made by you as a result of your own inspection of the subject Crombie Street building which contradicts or otherwise differs with any findings or statements made in the said Rumpf Report. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such dispute, please identify: (a) The specific finding or statement made by the Rumpf Report with which you differ; (b) Your own specific finding which differs from that made by Rumpf; and (c) The reasons, in full and complete detail, why you believe Rumpf is in error on the contested point. 3 r 10. Please state whether or not you have previously seen the Estimate of Repair Work written by the DeMarko/Jarek Partnership, Professional Architects, concerning the building located at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit C. 11. If the answer to no. 10 is in the affirmative, please state the following information: (a) The date on which you received the said Estimate; and (b) Whether or not you reviewed the contents of said Estimate prior to making any inspection of the said building in August of 1991. 12 . Whether or not you have previously reviewed the said Estimate of Repair Work, please identify and describe in full and complete detail each and every finding made by you as a result of said inspection which contradicts or otherwise differs with any findings or statements made by the DeMarko/Jarek Partnership in their aforesaid Estimate. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such dispute, please identify: (a) The specific finding or statement made by DeMarko/Jarek with which you differ; (b) Your own specific finding which differs from that made by DeMarko/Jarek; and (c) The reasons, in full and complete detail, why you believe DeMarko/Jarek is in error on the contested point. 4 13 . Please state whether or not you have previously seen the Estimate of Repair Work written by Jeffrey R. Martel, of Martel Designer-Craftsman, Inc. , concerning the building located at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit D. 14. If the answer to no. 10 is in the affirmative, please state the following information: (a) The date on which you received the said Estimate; and (b) Whether or not you reviewed the contents of said Estimate prior to making any inspection of the said building in August of 1991. 15. Whether or not you have previously reviewed the said Estimate of Repair Work, please identify and describe in full and complete detail each and every finding made by you as a result of said inspection which contradicts or otherwise differs with any findings or statements made by Martel in his aforesaid Estimate. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such dispute, please identify: (a) The specific finding or statement made by Martel with which you differ; (b) Your own specific finding which differs from that made by Martel; and (c) The reasons, in full and complete detail, why you believe Martel is in error on the contested point. 5 16. Please set forth in full and complete detail a statement of any and all facts known to you that support your professional opinion that the subject Crombie Street building does not qualify for condemnation and/or does not pose a safety hazard to persons and property in the vicinity thereof. 17 . Based upon your aforesaid inspection of the subject Crombie Street property, and the findings that you made as a result thereof, does the said building presently qualify for an occupancy permit? 18 . If the answer to no. 17 is in the negative, please set forth in full and complete detail an itemization, with respective estimated costs, of the work that needs to be performed upon the subject property in order to qualify said property for an occupancy permit. 19 . Please set forth an itemization of all removal and/or demolition projects permitted within the "Crombie Street National Historic Register District" from January, 1970 to date hereof. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such project, please identify: (a) The date on which the project was approved; (b) The building(s) and use(es) which was/were removed and/or destroyed, and the alleged historic significance thereof; and (c) The building(s) and use(s) which succeeded that/those which was/were removed and/or destroyed. 6 20. Please set forth an itemization of all removal and/or demolition projects permitted within the "Heritage Plaza West Urban Renewal Plan" from January, 1970 to date hereof. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such project, please identify: (a) The date on which the project was approved; (b) The building(s) and use(es) which was/were removed and/or destroyed, and the alleged historic significance thereof; and (c) The building(s) and use(s) which succeeded that/those which was/were removed and/or destroyed. 21. Please itemize and summarize all of the evidence which you submitted to The State Building Code Appeals Board at the Board's hearing on or about February 11, 1992 . 22 . Please identify, by name, address, occupation of profession, and business or professional address, each person known or believed to have knowledge of facts relevant to this case. 23 . Please identify, by name, address, occupation of profession, and business or professional address, each witness whom this Defendant intends to call to testify at the trial of this case. 24 . Please identify, by name, address, occupation of profession, and business or professional address, each expert witness whom this Defendant intends to call to testify at the trial of this case; and with respect to each such expert, please state: 7 a the subject matter on which the expert is expected ( ) 7 P P to testify; (b) the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; and (c) a summary of the grounds for each expected opinion. HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , By Its Att rney 1 ff Lundrega , Esq. 8 ashington Strawt S ite 37 Salem, MA 01970 (508) 741-3888 8 f COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. -----------------------------------) J.HOLYOKE' SQUARE, INC.°'; Plaintiff a:; THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS. '' ) BOARD,`_ THE'''SALEM REDEVELOPMENT, i' AUTHORITY, and WILLIAM MUNROE,f ) , as,he is the Building Inspector ' of the City of Salem, c ' ) Defendants'`, --------------------------- --�----) r ' PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES ' TO DEFENDANT' WILLIAM .MIINROE # Pursuant to Mass. R.Civ.P. 33., the Defendant, WILLIAM MUNROE, Building Inspector of the City of Salem, is hereby required to answer the following interrogatories within the time provided by rule. NOTE: Notwithstanding their use of "all, " "any and all" and/or other, all-inclusive designations, the following Interrogatories shall be deemed to exclude from their scope materials privileged by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, and the privilege afforded to materials compiled by or at the behest of Counsel in anticipation of litigation. 1. Please state' your name, address, occupation and business address. 2 . Please state the name, address, occupation and business address of each and every person consulted for information used answering these interrogatories. 1 3 . Please state whether or not you received a letter dated August 5, 1991, written by the DeMarko/Jarek Partnership. Professional Architects, concerning the building located at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts. For your reference, a copy of said letter;is annexed hereto as Exhibit . A. 4 . If the answer to no. . 3 is in the affirmative, please , state the following information: (a) The date on which you received the said letter; and (b) Whether or not you reviewed the contents of said letter prior to making any inspection of the said building in August of 1991. 5. Please state whether or not you made an inspection of the said Crombie Street building on or about August 18, 1991. 6. If the answer to no. 5 is in the affirmative, please identify and describe in full and complete detail each and every finding made by you as a result of said inspection which contradicts or otherwise differs with any findings or statements made by the DeMarko/Jarek Partnership in their aforesaid letter of August 5, 1991. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such dispute, please identify: (a) The specific finding or statement made by DeMarko/Jarek with which you differ; (b) Your own specific finding which differs from that made by DeMarko/Jarek; and 2 (c) The reasons, in full and complete detail, why you believe DeMarko/Jarek is in error on the contested point. 7. Please state whether or not you have previously seen a copy of a Structural Report on the said Crombie Street building dated .March 18, 1991, authored3by ,Robert M. Rumpf, Professional Engineer. For your reference„ a' copy of said Report is annexed hereto as Exhibit B. 8. If the. answer to no. 7 is in the affsrmative, please state the following information: (a) The date on which you received the said`Report; and (b) Whether or not you reviewed the )contents of said letter prior to making any inspection of the S-aid.`building in August of 1991. 9. Please identify and describe in full and complete detail each and every finding made by you as a result of your own inspection of the subject Crombie Street building which contradicts or otherwise differs with any findings or statements made in the said Rumpf Report. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such dispute, please identify: (a) The specific finding or statement made by the Rumpf Report with which you differ; (b) Your own specific finding which differs from that made by Rumpf; and (c) The reasons, in full and complete detail, why you believe Rumpf is in error on the contested point. 3 10. Please state whether or not you have previously seen the Estimate of Repair Work written by the DeMarko/Jarek Partnership, Professional Architects, concerning the building located at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts, a copy of which ,is annexed hereto as Exhibit. -C..,: 11. If the answer to no. 10 is in the affirmative, please state the following information: ,. (a) The date on which you received the said Estimate; and (b) Whether or not you reviewed the :contents of said Estimate prior to making any inspection of the said building in August of 1991. 12 . Whether or not you have previously reviewed the said Estimate of Repair Work, please identify and describe in full and complete detail each and every finding made by you as a result of said inspection which contradicts or otherwise differs with any findings or statements made by the DeMarko/Jarek Partnership in their aforesaid Estimate. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such dispute, please identify: (a) The specific finding or statement made by DeMarko/Jarek with which you differ; (b) Your own specific finding which differs from that made by DeMarko/Jarek; and (c) The reasons, in full and complete detail, why you believe DeMarko/Jarek is in error on the contested point. 4 13 . Please state whether or not you have previously seen the Estimate of Repair Work written by Jeffrey R. Martel, of Martel Designer-Craftsman, Inc. , concerning the building located at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts, a copy of which .is annexed hereto as Exhibit D. 14. If the answer to no. 10 is in the affirmative, please state the following information: (a) The date on which you received the said Estimate; and (b) Whether or not you reviewed the contents of- said Estimate prior 'to : making any inspection of the said building . in August of 1991. 15. Whether or not you have previously reviewed the said Estimate of Repair Work, please identify and describe in full and complete detail each and every finding made by you as a result of said inspection which contradicts or otherwise differs with any findings or statements made by Martel in his aforesaid Estimate. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such dispute, please identify: (a) The specific finding or statement made by Martel with which you differ; (b) Your own specific finding which differs from that made by Martel; and (c) The reasons, in full and complete detail, why you believe Martel is in error on the contested point. 5 16. Please set forth in full and complete detail a statement of any and all facts known to you that support your professional opinion that the subject Crombie Street building does not qualify for condemnation and/or does not pose a safety , hazard. ",to persons and property in the : vicinity thereof. 17. Based upon your aforesaid inspection of -the subject Crombie Street property, and the findings that ,you made as a result thereof,` does the said building presently qualify for an occupancy permit? _ 18. If the answer to no. 17 is in the negative, please set forth in .full and complete detail an •aitemization, with respective estimated costs, of the work that ,-needs to be performed upon the subject property in order to qualify said property for an occupancy permit. 19. Please set forth an itemization of all removal and/or demolition projects permitted within the "Crombie Street National Historic Register District" from January, 1970 to date hereof. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such project, please identify: (a) The date on which the project was approved; (b) The building(s) and use(es) which was/were removed and/or destroyed, and the alleged historic significance thereof; and (c) The building(s) and use(s) which succeeded that/those which was/were removed and/or destroyed. 6 20. Please set forth an itemization of all removal and/or demolition projects permitted within the "Heritage Plaza West Urban Renewal Plan" from January, 1970 to date hereof. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such project, please identify: , (a) The date on which the project was approved; . (b) The building(s) and . use(es) which was/were removed and/or destroyed, .and the alleged historic significance thereof; and (c) The building(s) and . use(s) which succeeded that/those which was/were removed and/or destroyed. 21. Please itemize and summarize all of the evidence which you submitted to The State Building Code Appeals Board at the Board's hearing on or about February 11, 1992. 22 . Please identify, by name, address, occupation of profession, and business or professional address, each person known or believed to have knowledge of facts relevant to this case. 23 . Please identify, by name, address, occupation of profession, and business or professional address, each witness whom this Defendant intends to call to testify at the trial of this case. 24. Please identify, by name, address, occupation of profession, and business or professional address, each expert witness whom this Defendant intends to call to testify at the trial of this case; and with respect to each such expert, please state: 7 (a) the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; (b) the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; and (c) a summary of the grounds for each expected opinion. HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , By Its Att rney i Lundreg Esq. 8ashington Stravt S ite 37 Salem, MA 01970 (508) 741-3888 8 For,. C CITY OF SALEM A In City Council,__ January 9 --- --- --------19 75 - - - -- Ordered: WHEREAS: the Holyoke Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Salem recently undertook the construction of additional office space now nearing completion, and WHEREAS: the Holyoke chose to build in Salem, rather than move to Route 128, and WHEREAS: the Company chose to build within its structure some 120 parking spaces, thereby, relieving the surrounding neighborhood of excessive curb parking, and, WHEREAS : these 120 spaces cost the company some $800,000,00, some $6,600,00 per car space, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Salem, that, the Holyoke Mutual Fire Insurance Company is hereby commended for its high sense of civic duty and responsibil- ity and this Council extends the gratitude of the people of Salem to the Holyoke Mutual Fire Insurance Company for its continued faith in the future of the City of Salem. In City Council January 9 197.5 Adopted Approved by the Mayor on January 13, 1975 IIELcN N. COIiCTI 'N, AIT GST: CITY CLERK (Acting) 18171 9458598 ROBERT M. RUMPF & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING-STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 101 1 ,..l STR&F.T PIERRE RUMPF SAi...,MAss.01990 Hilstorc een incorporated 7 CAMBRIDGE STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 / PHONE (508) 745-0799 April 20, 1989 Mr. Douglas Ryder Vice President Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company Holyoke Square Salem, MA 01970 Dear Doug: Annie Harris and I very much appreciated the warm hospitality provided by you and Pat Grieco at your offices in February. I walked down Crombie Street the other day and reviewed again the property in question. I thought I would express our position for the record. I understand the business quandary you face with 18 Crombie Street. However, on behalf of the Board of Directors of Historic Salem and the Design Advisory Committee to the Board, I want to reiterate Historic Salem's steadfast opposition to demolition or removal of the building. As we discussed, our position is based on the importance of each structure in the small Crombie Street National Register district to the integrity of the district. The original National Register filing recognized this issue explicitly. The fact that others before us may have erred in allowing structures to be razed only creates a greater burden to preserve what remains today. Eacn element of Salem's remaining historic fabric must be viewed as part of the whole; not as a single, seemingly insignificant architectural design. In this light, 18 Crombie Street is important. National Register designation does not provide legal protection for a structure. It does recognize the significance of a building and a neighborhood. Holyoke Mutual has been a member and consistent supporter over the years of Historic Salem, the Essex Institute (of which I know you are a leading board member) and other institutions devoted to the preservation of Salem' s unique character and history. Although the choices � bstofic Clem incorporated 7 CAMBRIDGE STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 / PHONE (508) 745-0799 Mr. Douglas Ryder April 20, 1989 Page 2 become more difficult when they involve one's own institution, I would not expect Holyoke Mutual's vision to change in its backyard. Any plans to remove or demolish 18 Crombie Street would require approval by the Salem Redevelopment Authority. I am hopeful from our conversation that you will not find it necessary to ask for that approval. I trust that Holyoke Mutual will set an example for Salem's corporate community by helping to preserve the character that is so important to Salem's appeal and its economic well-being. ':hank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, William H. Guenther President WHG:ag cc: Historic Salem membership 98030103 SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY E � 7t 9d DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ' Application for Design Approval - OTHER THAN SIGNS 1. Date of Application November 1 , 1990 2. Location of Building 18 Crombie Street Number and Street Proposed work impacts upon _Derby Square Historic area, Museum area, _Essex Mall, North residential area, _Peripheral_ area, _Significant historic bldg. (Itemize) Does not impact on any of the above items . 3. Owner Holyoke Mutual Insurance Co . of .Salem- (508) 744=6123 Name Telephone Number Hol.yoke . Square , Salem, MA 01970 =__-. Address 4. Architect*/Engineer*/ Other DeMarco/Jarek Partnership _ Name 223 Derby Street , Salem., MA 01970 (508) 744-4141" - Address Telephone Number 5. Type of,Improvement New construction Alteration X Demolition Site work _Addition - —:- - - _. Other: X Change of use Energy conservatioi 6. Reason for Request' _Security Change of image.. X Safety _Change.of business Other 7: Level of Approval Requested %Concept _Schematic des��a � Final design _Field decision. Applicant must"attach 3 copies of all schematic submissions (or is the case of originals, models, or mock ups, the original. and two photos of the submission) 24 hours prior to the regularly scheduled DRB meeting to SRA staff (.Do not.write below. this line) - Number of DRB members in attendance The vote was unanimous_ Yes No DRB recommended action: _Approval as submitted ?co action, advisory only Resubmit to DRB _\o action, inadequate submission Approval subject to the following- DRB comments are attached. * A licensed professional architect or engineer is required for all construction other than ordinary repairs (p. 71 S.B.C_) or perforsed on a.building less than 35,000 cu. ft. enclosed space. **If, in the applicant's view, the change is of significant economic importance, information including financial figures where applicable should be supplied on a separate attached sheet which will allow the Board to evaluate the proposal intelligently. t� Sail 11 I III f iiiii � �. s R7 � H0 N.,IAR 23 1991 SERAFINI, SERAFINI AND DARLING y ATTORNEYS AT LAW VAL5.1 PLARKIE1 G DEPT. 63 FEDERAL STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 JOHN R. SERAFINI, SR. TELEPHONE JOHN R. SERAFINI,JR. 508-744-0212 JOHN E. DARLING 617-581-2743 WENDY L. THAYER TELECOPIER JOSEPH P. COLONNA 506-741-4683 March 27, 1991 Ms. Beth Debski Planning Department City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 RE: Deborah Wetmore 18 Crombie Street Dear Ms. Debski: We represent Mrs. Wetmore, who owns the property shown on the enclosed plan. We are prepared to accept the house located at 18 Crombie Street, if it is going to be torn down. In order to do that we will have to divide the property into two lots. Could you please look the enclosed over, speak with Bill, and see what we need other than a variance. The lot size is okay in each case. The problem will be frontage, because it would be frontage on a proposed driveway. Your thoughts will be appreciated. Sincerely, 1% � 1 ~c� JOHN R. SERAFINI, SR. JRS,SR. /ln enclosure . . � / L ; s 1 � Y ��-�e � . d ��-d-� ��-�� i •C L(iG•Kh - New !NGS 1 { } 1 e' �-•___d__-- -x_..._ - _•Wa.----=�--•• _ __ ____ �•Ir LDtG.?t2 t� v t�irf` j GrtY {Zputr�t' ►Y_ 1�t - — KV-4 -PLxKKi�Jct )h 'LY r- DeMarco/Jarek i � IJ L �- - Xr:rr ,aRFCii-1 Partnership Architects -- __ . - . l's-xlili 111L�t"'vSFA• 223 Derby St., Salem/ Ma - S Project Title: Sheet Title: . I�t.aA1.10 Scab: IQ's i1�. Sheet No: '--_"------ - Dra-�1 BY:44V I� 11111 -'�'- Job No: I S DQE � JEMM REA�ty tR�ST � 8 RESERVED FOR REGISTRY USE N/F I � (j) o 30 I o \ N/F PHILIP E. FORSBERG, JR. v S86 46 17'E 10/.56' � o ReIOCOt%on of house from /8 Crombie St. Q N/F MARGARET TULLOCH i 32, SM'rN, JR, LOT 2 0 YtL,E AREA=/5,0WSF. 3 N/F I- N/F ARTHUR BELL h � ? Future Parkin . ` 9 Areo i N B6°49'QO"W ' i 99.35' i URgO� o h 3 MAY G• 6 G o r o g e M N/F VINCENT S CAPRIO, ET AL NiF h �� Z o N76 39 , 715 Existing paved oreo Q i; 3 m LOT I y ' N/F JAMES O'SHEA, JR. J'(�N �_" a .rte i N85028'50 OE F PEtER c• 5 "' AREA = /8,7858F e:-. .13 -M NI z . ' "W 41.04' SB7°l2 =W h Q Q J Ck MING F� o `� s x pNA� "' c NIF R o c o Z F- N OG o� F N �a 00. �ZB_ X06 �'A U? C1 o � C RAL PROPERTY REFERENCES EOE Essex abunty Registry of Deeds C Book 9322, Pg. 080 Book 2903, Ftg 031 Book 8524, RJ 414 Book 38CO, Pg.312 Approval under the Subdivision Control Law Book 2838, Pg. 25 not required: — Book 2015, Pg 609 Book 7115, Fq 529 Salem Rdnning Board.- Date. oard.Date. SUBDIVISION OF LAND c/IN �� SALE�.�, IWAS7J. I certify that this plan has been prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Registers of Deeds of the SCALE: I" = 30' JAN.28, 1991 Commonwealth of Massachusetts. WENDELL H. MASON PROFLAND SURVEYOR 122 ESSEX ST BEVERLY, MA 01915 0 x 40 60 80 /00 420 140 160 1 -,r-- le .- - �d_.nf-`-v-._--"-'�,,•�-o-,�-OWE �y ir..'�i...ti..�•--, _-r � � _, --� -- _.. . ._ .,_�. � r / .- . _ .. ----zt--�- Tr "-__ -- -- - -- �J /��- ___._. - -_ , �� J� ._ __ ..`J/ Y` Y __ _ . . . .__. .. • ric �1St0 SARM incorporated 7 CAMBRIDGE STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 / PHONE (508) 745-0799 April 20, 1989 Mr. Douglas Ryder Vice President Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company Holyoke Square Salem, MA 01970 Dear Doug: Annie Harris and I very much appreciated the warm hospitality provided by you and Pat Grieco at your offices in February. I walked down Crombie Street the other day and reviewed again the property in question. I thought I would express our position for the record. I understand the business quandary you face with 18 Crombie Street. However, on behalf of the Board of Directors of Historic Salem and the Design Advisory Committee to the Board, I want to reiterate Historic Salem's steadfast opposition to demolition or removal of the building. As we discussed, our position is based on the importance of each structure in the small Crombie Street National Register district to the integrity of the district. The original National Register filing recognized this issue explicitly. The fact that others before us may have erred in allowing structures to be razed only creates a greater burden to preserve what remains today. Each element of Salem's remaining historic fabric must be viewed as part of the whole; not as a single, seemingly insignificant architectural design. In this light, 18 Crombie Street is important. National Register designation does not provide legal protection for a structure. It does recognize the significance of a building and a neighborhood. Holyoke Mutual has been a member and consistent supporter over the years of Historic Salem, the Essex Institute (of which I know you are a leading board member) and other institutions devoted to the preservation of Salem' s unique character and history. Although the choices filistofic SARCI incorporated 7 CAMBRIDGE STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 / PHONE (508) 745-0799 Mr. Douglas Ryder April 20, 1989 Page 2 become more difficult when they involve one's own institution, I would not expect Holyoke Mutual's vision to change in its backyard. Any plans to remove or demolish 18 Crombie Street would require approval by the Salem Redevelopment Authority. I am hopeful from our conversation that you will not find it necessary to ask for that approval. I trust that Holyoke Mutual will set an example for Salem's corporate community by helping to preserve the character that is so important to Salem's appeal and its economic well-being. Thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, William H. Guenther President WHG:ag cc: Historic Salem membership 98030103 Architectural Conservation Trust (ACT) For Massachusetts RECD IVEL) � November 6, 1990 NOV S�L 8 19% fM P�AApiVI�►6 pfPT Annie C. Harris, Chair Salem Historical Commission One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Ms. Harris: On behalf of the Architectural Conservation Trust (ACT) for Massachusetts, a statewide non-profit preservation organization, I would like to express our concern.regarding the proposed demolition of the historic house located at 18 Crombie Street. ACT was established in 1976 to guide the preservation and development of buildings and sites of historical and architectural significance. By creating long term project stability through the adaptive re-use process, ACT contributes to the economic vitality of the Commonwealth's communities. The inclusion of 18 Crombie Street in the Crombie Street National Register Historic District is evidence of its historical significance. The fact that the dwelling is one of only seven structures in the last remaining 1800's residential district in downtown Salem only serves to increase its significance. In addition,18 Crombie Street is included in ACT's Endangered Historic Properties List. Therefore,ACT strongly urges you to deny the waiver of demolition delay;and further,to consider and thoroughly investigate any alternatives to demolition that may yield economic benefit to both the property owner and community. Sincerely, Alan G. Schwartz Executive Direct Old City Hall, 45 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 523.8678 ACT for Massachusetts is a state-wide nonprofit developer of historic buildings. Through adaptive use of architecturally significant structures. ACT stimulates community revitalization and economic growth. Contributions of real estate to the Trust are tax deductible. I Annie C. Harris November 6,1990 Page 2 cc: Mayor Neil J. Harrington City of Salem Joan Boudreau,Chair Salem Redevelopment Authority Mr. Pat Greco Holyoke Insurance Company 'Design Review Board City of Salem Elsa Fitzgerald, Acting Director Massachusetts Historical Commission H B1 HISTORIC 3 School Street A PreseiRevolving Fond Boston,MA 02108 affiliated withth the BOSTON 617/227-4679 � Boston landmarks Commission INCORPORATED Telecopier:617/742-7431 November 13 , 1990 441 90 1319 Ms. Joan Boudreau pin,,,/ aRnTE Chair �/ Salem Redevelopment Authority x,77 ®tpf 14 Tedesco Pond `p�. Marblehead, MA 01945 I Re: Proposal to demolish the historic house at 18 Crombie Street Dear Joan, I am writing you as a Salem resident (4 Pickering Street) of 17 years, as the head of a private, charitable organization that provides technical assistance, makes loans, and gives grants to preserve endangered historic buildings in Boston, and as a friend who cherishes the many hours of hard work we spent together as members of the Salem Redevelopment Authority. One of the courageous and innovative accomplishments of which we can be proud from our work in the late 1970 ' s was the creation of the Salem Heritage West Urban Renewal Plan. In contrast to the urban renewal concepts of the 1960 's which sought to impose highway cloverleafs and suburban shopping malls upon the historic core of American cities under the banner of "eliminating blight" , our Heritage Plaza West plan--borrowing from the second Heritage Plaza East Plan--gives extraordinary emphasis to historic preservation. More specifically that plan says in pages 1-4: "The Authority . . . declares that it is in the best interest of the City and the general welfare of its people [to carry out this plan] . . . in order to achieve the following . objectives: . . . [and to undertake activities including programs such as] . . . preservation and restoration of historic architectural values associated with structures and areas within the Project area . . . and to accomplish, through preservation and enhancement of a continuum of uses, architectural ..character and qualities, and urban form symbolic of the historic. process of growth and change . . . " At that time, we were';also very concerned with encouraging the development of housing in the downtown. You will recall that shortly before establishing Heritage Plaza November 13 1990 Ms. Boudreau , Page 2 West, we had engaged MIT planner Phillip Herr to give us ideas on how to re-introduce home ownership in downtown Salem. "There were few analogous examples, " he said. We defied the experts and created the housing across from the Bessie Monroe House and the First Universalist Church. As we all know, housing is one of the most successful urban renewal activities in Salem. It has sustained and renewed life in the downtown as effectively, if not more so, as commercial development. And it keeps the downtown alive and peopled even when commercial establishments are closed. The courageous part of creating Heritage Plaza West was that this urban renewal plan did not come with categoric HUD grants to carry it out. We conceived of the plan as a framework of regulatory controls and urban visions which would provide the basis for a series of innovative initiatives. "Proposed renewal actions within the Project Area shall consist primarily of the creation of incentives for the encouragement of rehabilitation of properties . historic and architectural preservation and the application of clearance . . . only as a last resort" (Page 4 of the Plan) . The Plan's effectiveness depends upon the Authority' s entrepreneurial and persuasive zeal. It equips the SRA and the City with the regulatory tools to shape nearly all of Salem's downtown and civic core. The Authority has only to seize opportunities--such as grants, when available, or requests from property owners to changes uses--to encourage preservation and revitalization of our city. The Plan is in effect for 40 years, has not been amended to my knowledge, and can be renewed for an additional 40 years to help conserve and renew the benefits it has brought about. You will also recall that about simultaneously with the creation of the Heritage Plaza West Plan, the Authority engaged Alison Crump to complete the systematic inventory of historic structures throughout the central business district. This eventually led to the creation of the Crombie Street National Register District at a time when the academic rigors of nominations and the assessment of significance had become substantially more demanding than ten years before. The proposed demolition of the house at 18 Crombie Street is so far outside the intents and purposes of your Heritage Plaza West Plan that there is little reason for you I Ms. Boudreau November 13 , 1990 Page 3 to have to -consider it at all. It makes as much sense to tear down this house as it did to put four lane highway through the oriental garden of the Peabody Museum, as Salem's 1960 's urban renewal plan proposed. However, since this has already become a sort of public controversy, I would offer the following observations: Housing: Is it not bad public policy for the SRA to consider allowing the demolition of perfectly sound housing within 50 feet of residences the SRA worked hard to have built on Crombie Street in a scale compatible with the adjacent historic houses? Is it not socially irresponsible to demolish perfectly sound housing within shadow of the Crombie Street shelter which exists, in part, because of the shortage of housing in Massachusetts? Condition: From the perspective of architectural significance, 18 Crombie Street would clearly qualify for an Historic Boston loan or grant. But from the point of view of physical condition, 18 Crombie Street would not come even near the threshold of eligibility, because this structure is in as sound physical condition as my 1949 house. If you have serious doubts about the condition of the structure, I suggest the Authority engage one of Salem' s nationally recognized preservation architects: Staley McDermet, who won a national award for his work on the Joshua Ward House, or David McLaren Hart, who is project conservator for Boston's Central Artery project. Needs of the Holyoke Insurance Company: Has this company described its ultimate needs or objectives to the SRA, or the City Planning department? Is the demolition of '18 Crombie Street the only way Holyoke can meet the needs it has identified? Options for the SRA: If you would wish to play a more pro-active role than just saying "no" to the demolition of a sound historic Ms. Boudreau November 13, 1990 Page 4 house, -why not offer to help Holyoke get out of its present position by offering to accept an option to purchase the building for a reasonable price? Then the Authority could undertake the task of seeking a qualified purchaser who would maintain and occupy the structure. Urban fabric, like most of life, is mostly the sum of many small decisions. What more responsible role can each of us play than to preserve the future by conserving what is valuable and irreplaceable from our past? Well situated historic houses offer hundreds of options to keep life in their neighborhood for generations to come. Proliferations of parking lots in the core of cities are usually the harbingers that the spirit of a city is leaving town or has already been lost. Sincerely, i Stanley M. mith Executive Director cc's: Peter Fetchko, SRA Member and Peabody Museum Director The Honorable Neil J. Harrington, Mayor of Salem Annie C. Harris, Chair, Salem Historical Commission Pat Greco, Holyoke Insurance Company William Guenther, President, Historic Salem Incorporated William Luster, Salem Planning Department Roland Pineau, SRA Member Editor, Salem Evening News File: Sracrom.sms . . . . i9Sp Ffuy w L , COMMONWE-4LL3'rl OF IV1t155ACHLiSETTS i, ESSEX ss SUPERIOR COURT CP41L ACTION I No. 91-2352 -----•------•-•----------------- ------------) I ) HOLYOKE SQUARE, +NC., Plattttiff ) ) VS. ) ) SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ) Defendant ) ----------- --------- ---------------------) I� FLAINTIFVS FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENMANT, SAIF_N1 REDaF.LOPM.ENT AUTHORrl*Y INTERROGATORY #i: jPlease state rize name, ddres , acc'upation and business address of the � PC-Son(s) aiLtvzring these L.terogato[ies on behalf of the Deierdant AUTHORITY. II IA. William Luster City planner Salem Redevelopment Aut'lotit}', Protect Administrator i One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 INTERROGATORY #2: Please state the name, address, o;cupation and business address of each and r info oration used answeting these interrogatories. every person consulted fo� 2A. None. INTERROGATORY #3: Please state whether or not the SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORT"', nr 11 any agent, rmployec of servam ther--of, made art -inspection of the build' 3 it Crombie Street, Salem, NI,assachusetts ptior to ccrducting its May 2F I on Plaintiffs application for pertnission to remove the said building. 3A. Yes. IIINTERROGATORY #4: If the answer to no. 3 is iz the affirmative, please set forth in fullest detail �I the observations and findings made as a result to said inspection. Include in the IIanswer hereto the identities of all persons involved in the said inspection. III 4A. Indi^riduais involved in iutspection of 18 Crombie Street: James .k-rnstrong, Salem Planning Department �I Margaget O'Brien, Salem Planning Department Kim Lord, Salem Planning Department William Beaulieu, City of Salem Clerk of the Works I David Harris, Salem Building Department William Munroe, Salem Building Inspector (Deceased), Observations: An old house in relatively good condition considering its age. I A typical house in the City of Salem. i The building itself appeared to be structurally sound, although the foundation was in need of repair and the back porch was in poor condition. Electrical and plumbing systems were in need of updating. INTERROGATORY #5: Please state whether or not you have previously seen a copy of a Structural �I Report on the said Crombie Street building dated March 18, 1991, authored by Robert M. R,uinpf' Professional Engineer. For your reference, a copy of said Report is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. 5A. Yes. INTERROGATORY #6: If the answer to no. S is in the affirmative, please state the following IIinformation: i� (a) i'ne date cn which you received the said Report; and (b) Wherher or not you reAewed the contents of said letter prior to or at the time of the said May28, 1991 Bearing. 6A. (a) Do not rerremb-_r exact date. i� (b) Date of review was pr or to meeting. II INTERROGATORY #7: if the answer to no. 5 is in the aff=atwe, please identify and describe in full and complete decal each and ;.very finding made by you as a result of your own nspection or t tP ub)e t Cron Street building, and/or of the May 28, 1991 heating,which contradic-s _.r other .'ise differs with any findings or statements made in the said Rumpf Reporr. In answeiing Acis ilterrogatory, with respect to each such dispute, please identify: (a) The specific ;miring or statement made by the Rumpf Report with which you differ; l (b) Your own specific finding which differs from that made by Rumpf; and (c) The reasons, '1 fall and complete detail, why you believe Rumpf is in error on the contested point. 7A. We are is agreement with Rumpf report. INTERROGATORY #8: Please state wheth--r or not s ou have previously seen a copy of an Estimate 'I of Repair ',Mork written by Jeffrey R. Martel, of Martel Designer-Craftsman, Inc., concerning the said Crom-cie Street Building, For your reference, a copy of said Report is annexed hereto as Exhibit B. n.. Yes. .RROGATORY #9: If the answer to t:I. n is in the affirmative, please state the following information: (a) The date on which you received the said Report; and (b) Whether or not you reviewed the contents of said letter prior to or at the rime of the said May 26, 1991 hearing. 9A. Do not remember. INTERROGATORY #10: if the answer to no. 8 is in the affu-cttative, please identify and describe in full �I turd complete detail each and every f.rdutg made by you as a result of your own inspection of The subject Crombie Street building, and/or of the May 28, 1991 i (� haring, w'nich: cntradicts or other.�ise J Lrfe.s.�rith e ny findings or statements made in the said estimate. rn answ zing this interrcgasor'v, with respect to each such i �I dispute, please identify: (a) The specific finding t - ase mcni *Wade by 14artel with which you differ; �I (D) fou.r ov.ti sp clir 5Z. :_,1g V .dch differs om that made by Martel; and reason , in fu'i and comm-1 to dotal, why you believe Martel is in lil error on the contested point. 10A. We are in agreeme.rit with Martel report. INTERROGATORY #11: please set forth in fill -nd complete detail a statement of any and all reasons, j� and any and alt = deuce adduced in support thereof, relied upon by the SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUT;iOAiTY in sul p-rt of:ts May 28, !991 decision to deny the Plaintiffs appucation for permission to remove or demolish the building at 18 Crombie Street. 11A. Low cost to rehabilitate builduig. The objecctves of the SRA Urban Renewal Plan promote preservation and i restoration of historic properties. IIThe fact that the b Tiding is part of a Nasional Register designation is of great importance and promotes the concept of restoration, rather that demolition. The owners do not have a pian for redeveloping the site but rather have �. decided to demolish it based on its structural integrity. Our investigation shows I' that the building is structurally sound. INTERROGATORY #12: please set forth an itemiznrion cf all removal and/or demolition projects permitted within t::e "Crombie Street National Historic Register District" from January, 19''0 to date hereof. in answering tlis interrogatory, with respect to each such project, please identify: (a) The date on which the projecr was approved; I (b) The buildings) and use(es) which was/were removed and/or destroy_d, and the alleged historic significance thereof; and (c) The buildings) and use(s) wlich succeeded that/those which was/were removed and/or destroyed. 12A. Objection. "rid inter ogatcn' is overly broad, Lague and ambiguous. INTERROGATORY #13 I. � Please Set f.'1ru`l a . ?i"fi'ZatTC::i v`- 311 _eTT'C.Ja.I a`ld,";r demolition projects I permitted within the " n -tetage Plaza West Urban Rene;'al p -aZ" from January, 1970 �I to date hereof. in answering this ir,.en'ogatory, with respect to each such project, please identify: (a) The date on wlvch the protect was approved; I ' (b) he G,ti1aC. -,� .<.) and ;iSet teS) which `hlas;"were removed and/or !I destroyed, and the ahezed ldstoric sigrL,can e thereof; and (c) The buiidL*ig(s) aiid ia'S(.(S) v+t:iCf SllCCEP.ded Chai/'.'.^.OSe which was/were removed and/or destroyed. II13A. Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. i INTERROGATORY x#14: Please idendf,,.', by name, address, occupation of profession, and business or professional address, earn person kwn or believed to have knowledge of facts iw relevant to this case. 14A. See interrogator,, - 4 above. Reserving the right to suppietnert this response as additional information is made known to me. INTERROGATORY #15: Please identify, by name, address, occupation of profession, and business or iprofessional address, each vAtness whorn this Defendant intends to call to testify at the trial of this case. 115A. See tnterrogatc_y -04 above. Reserving the e^_ght to supplement this response as additional information is made ltnocm to me. INTERROGATORY r#16: Please identify, by name, address, occupation of profession, and business or II professional address, east expert wicress whom this Defendant intends to call to �I testify at the mai of this case; and with respect to each expert, please state: (a) Tale sub ect matter on �N'nich the expert is expected to testify; (b) the substance of the Facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; and '� (c) .A sumrra>y oi` t e grol r_d9 for each --x_1 ected opinion. :t�.�i. �i412F' { t t _� � �+•yse2;2?io rhi� `7 �"� -LU s1 ?)!:_'LT:?rlL thus response a later time Qign a 1. e_ m a as an ;lenw..ies ,_. u y this _ day ol August, 1992 i William Luster 1� iks to objections: Leonard F. Femino i I r COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 91-2352 HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , Plaintiff VS. SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Defendant ) ----------------------------------- PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO DEPENDANT, SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Pursuant to Mass. R.Civ.P. 33, the Defendant, SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, is hereby required to answer the following interrogatories within the time provided by rule. NOTE: Notwithstanding their use of "all," "any and all" and/or other, all-inclusive designations, the following Interrogatories shall be deemed to exclude from their scope materials privileged by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, and the privilege afforded to materials compiled by or at the behest of Counsel in anticipation of litigation. • 1. Please state the name, address, occupation •and business address of the person(s) answering these interrogatories on behalf of the Defendant AUTHORITY. 2 . Please state the name, address, occupation and business address of each and every person consulted for information used answering these interrogatories. 1 3 . Please state whether or not the SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, or any agent, employee or servant thereof, made an inspection of the building at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts prior to conducting its May 28, 1991 hearing on Plaintiff 's application for permission to remove the said building. 4. If the answer to no. 3 is in the affirmative, please set forth in fullest detail the observations and findings made as a result of said inspection. Include in the answer hereto the identities of all persons involved in the said inspection. ' 5. Please state whether or not you have previously seen a copy of a Structural Report on the said Crombie Street building dated March 18, 1991, authored by Robert M. Rumpf, Professional Engineer. For your reference, a copy of said Report is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. 6. If the answer to no. 5 is in the affirmative, please state the following information: (a) The date on which you received the said Report; and (b) Whether or not you reviewed the contents of said letter prior to or at the time of the said May 28, 1991 hearing. 7 . If the answer to no. 5 is in the affirmative, please identify and describe in .full and complete detail each and every finding made by you as a result of your own inspection of the subject Crombie Street building, and/or of the May 28, 1991 hearing, which contradicts or otherwise differs with any 2 findings or statements made in the said Rumpf Report. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such dispute, please identify: (a) The specific finding or statement made by the Rumpf Report with which you differ; (b) Your own specific finding which differs from that made by Rumpf; and (c) The reasons, in full and complete detail, why you believe Rumpf is in error on the contested point. S. Please state whether or not you have previously seen a copy of an' Estimate of Repair Work written by Jeffrey R. Martel, of Martel Designer-Craftsman, Inc. , concerning the said Crombie Street Building. For your reference, a copy of said Report is annexed hereto as Exhibit B. 9. If the answer to no. 8 is in the affirmative, please state the following information: (a) The date on which you received the said Report; and (b) Whether or not you reviewed the contents of said letter prior to or at the time of the said May 28, 1991 hearing. 10. If the answer to no. 8 is in the affirmative, please identify and describe in full and complete detail each and every finding made by you as a result of your own inspection of the subject Crombie Street building, and/or of the May 28, 1991 hearing, which contradicts or otherwise differs with any findings or statements made in the said Estimate. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such 3 dispute, please identify: (a) The specific finding or statement made by Martel with which you differ; (b) Your own specific finding which differs from that made by Martel; and (c) The reasons, in full and complete detail, why you believe Martel is in error on the contested point. 11. Please set forth in full and complete detail a statement of any and all reasons, and any and all evidence adduced in support therof, relied upon by the SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY in support of its May 28, 1991 decision to deny the Plaintiff's application for permission to remove or demolish the building at 18 Crombie Street. 12 . Please set forth an itemization of all removal and/or demolition projects permitted within the "Crombie Street National Historic Register District" from January, 1970 to date hereof. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such project, please identify: (a) The date on which the project was approved; (b) The buildings) and use(es) which was/were removed and/or destroyed, and the alleged historic significance thereof; and (c) The building(s) and use(s) which succeeded that/those which was/were removed and/or destroyed. 13 . Please set forth an itemization of all removal and/or demolition projects permitted within the "Heritage Plaza West Urban Renewal Plan" from January, 1970 to date 4 hereof. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such project, please identify: (a) The date on which the project was approved; (b) The building(s) and use(es) which was/were removed and/or destroyed, : and the alleged historic , significance thereof; and • (c) The building(s) and use(s) which succeeded that/those which was/were removed and/or destroyed.. 14. Please identify, by name, address, occupation of profession, and business or professional address, each person known or believed to have knowledge of facts relevant to this case. 15. Please identify, by name, address, occupation of profession, and business or professional address, each witness whom this Defendant intends to call to testify at the trial of this case. 16. Please identify, by name, address, occupation of profession, and business or professional address, each expert witness whom this Defendant intends to call to testify at the trial of this case; and with respect to each such expert, please state: (a) the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; (b) the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; and (c) a summary of the grounds for each expected opinion. 5 RECEIVED SALEM PLANNING DEPT, z Ko ty�y v _ -a -�'''-�---- -�r-/-��"` 7 �° - -- �� _—�Yrrs:–fir - —_— - — •-'r-�-"_raj- t_. DONNA LEE CARAMELLO 10 CROMBIE STREET SALEM, MA 01970 17 �/�vvn r `r ILL i 24 Norman Street, Unit 310 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 October 3 , 1990 i2-J 11 ' Jr Ms. Jane Guy, Clerk Salem Historical Commission One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: 18 Crombie Street Salem, Massachusetts Dear Ms . Guy: This letter is written in response to your Notice of Hearing concerning a waiver of the demolition delay ordinance regarding the above described property which is scheduled for this evening at 7 :30 P.M. I. am unable to attend the , hearing but would request that you make known to the Commission my strong opposition to the waiver. It is. my understanding that the property is over twos hundred years old and that it- is one of seven remaining:_ ._ properties which constitute the Crombie Street National .. Register District. The idea of the destruction of such a.,. property is appalling. Surely there are alternatives to such a final act. This community needs as much time as it, can get to see that something can be done to save this. historical. property. Therefore, as a property owner Salem, a neighbor to the property in question and as au: concerned citizen, I strongly oppose the granting of the;,. waiver. Sincerely, Judith A. Wolfe I' �tCtIV E� J.Mlchael 5ullIvan SALEM V 11111% BUT. 13 Linden St. Salem Massachusetts 01970 Mr.Neil Harrington Mayor City of Salem Salem Town Hall Salem Massachusetts 01970 November 10, 1990 Re: Proposed demolition of house on Crombie Street Dear Mayor, Based on an article in the November 8, 1990 edition of the Salem News, I have become aware of the debate over the above mentioned property. I t would be a significant blow to the character of the neighborhood if the Board of Appeals allows the owner to demolish this property. Please pass on my concern with this proposed demolition to the Board of Appeals. This portion of Salem has a great deal of potential. This building could be used for so many other uses which would contribute to that potential. A parking lot will only tarnish the reputation of the Hoyloke Mutual Insurance Company as well as hasten the decline of a wonderful part of town. Yours Very Truely, r � Michael Sullivan cc: William J. Lundregan, Holyoke Mutal Insurance Company Annie C.Harris, Salem Historic Commission 1 DeMarco • Jarek Partnership Architects J & Planners _.; .. _ C SS. 7 Auou=_.t i9Y1 i1141arri Micnrne Y!iii ding +"c.pe Ctor lit_u '"ail Vne Salem Green Saierr:, MA �J1''? RE: iS Crombi9 otrcet Dear Mr. Munroe: We are writing to you pursuant to M. G.L. Ch. 143. Sec. S in order to a.porise uou of the fart that the buildino located at 18 Crombie Street is in a state of disrepair and if not corrected will pose a hazard to the well-being of pedestrians in the area. r' On Julu 3, 1990, we inspected the said building at the invitation of its current Owner. the Holuoke Mutual Fire Insurance Companu. A copy of our report is annexed hereto for your information. In summary form, our firms findings include the following: Roof The roof appears to be 18+ years old. The lower rear portion was incorrectly flashed to the abutting wall of the house. The lower left gabel roof valleys should have been ( but were not ) lined with metal . The absence of an adequate attic ventilation system requires the installation of a continuous soffit and ridge vent system, in order to reduce excessive attic humidity. There is evidence of a pre-existing ice damming problem. The rear plumbing vent has been installed on the outside wall and does not meet the building code. Chimney One ( 1 ) of the two (2) chimneus is in marginal condition, at best. All of its flashings have deteriorated. The chimney cap is in need of rebuilding and all the flues need to be lined. Exterior Walls -------------- The exterior walls, fascias, soffits and trim are all wood and are in marginal condition. The cedar shingle siding is in marginal condition and is cupping and splitting on most sides of the building. Paint has been peeling from all wood surfaces. The fascias, soffits and all of the corner boards are in rotted condition. The electrical entrance cables are in poor condition, Pickering Wharf • 223 Derby Street • Salem, Massachusetts 01970 0 5081744-4141 ;Sr. -Milia m '".unr M_ +?a;P Llst '_991 o I L a ^� race _ CITY 01' .:...__.'.1I-:aSS. service cables entering the ";ou.se are rottino. "',est signif,ca.ntlu. the brier-: and block: foundations on the front and _eft =ides of the ouildino are --o11apsino= Dr-ai -age The cutter=_- are in Poor condition. The wooden qu.tters .are rotten and the c000er gutters should be f. but are not ? spaced away from all fascias. The downspouts are in maroinal condition. Grading around the foundation does not slope away, thus causing water to gond. Grounds The rear wooden stairs are rotting. The rear brick patio is in marginal condition. Of major concern is the wood porch structure including, but not limited to, the roof, rafters, corner post, and porch deckinq. Floor joists and decking have been severely damaoed bu wood rot and wood boring insects. Doors and Windows ----------------- All of the windows are in poor condition. Their thresholds are rotting. The entru doors are not square. All flashing around windows and door heads are in poor condition. The window sashes are loose in their casinos. The entire bulkhead is unsafe. Easement The brick walls are in poor condition, and the right and rear foundation walls are collapsing. On the front and right sides, the sills are in poor condition, evidencing rot and insect damage. The right side floor joists have been damaged by wood boring insects. The brick support posts are in poor condition and are deteriorating. Kitchen The general structure of the kitchen is not squared and the floor is not level . Electrical circuits are very limited. The walls, ceiling, floor and electrical outlets are all in marginal condition. Mr. William Munroe auaust , P91 (;,;r ' Daae - . J. tiailwaus and -ntries The rear stairwell is marainal. The plastar finish an the .-ront stairwellhas loosened. Living, Room (Front ) ------------------- The ceiling sags. due to settling of the foundation. The hardwood floor similariu is not level . Electrical outlets are in marginal to Poor condition. and are limited. The windows are marginal due to excessive peeling of Paint. The doors are marginal and are not square. The fireplace is marainal and in need of flue lining. Dining_Room The walls, ceilino and floor are all marginal . The ceiling sags and the structure has settled to the left. Outlets and fixtures are limited and in poor condition. The fireplace is marginal and in need of a flue lining. Closed-In_Porch_ iRear_Right ) The floor and the ceiling sag. The outlets and fixtures are inoperative and limited. Bedroom - Second Floor Front ---------------------------- The walls and ceiling are in marginal condition. The plaster is cracking and the ceiling is sagging. The floor is marginal and is not level. There are no electrical outlets, fixtures or switches. The door is not square. The fireplace is marginal and the flue needs to be lined. Bedroom - Second Floor Rear --------------------------- The walls and the ceiling are in marginal condition. The plaster is cracking. The doors and windows are in marginal condition. The fireplace is in poor condition; the hearth needs rebuilding and the flue needs lining. Bedroom - Third Floor Front --------------------------- Same comments as Second Floor Rear Bedroom. sUILDPj DEP T Mr '.-?iiliam s•1 rroe 1 IUG i 5 F1 Liq iist 99 _ CII I Cid.....__. Daflhr•^_.oms The bathrooms are located on the second and t-hird floor,; neither one of =hem .s operative. :attic The insulation and ventilation sustems are in ocor condition. The chimneys and flues are in marQina.l condition. The left chimney i_ in need of repair, and there is evidence of leak:ina at the chimney flashings. The roof is in need of soffit and ridge ventinq. Utilities The heating, plumbing, water and electrical systems are currently inoperative. It is our opinion that the foundations at IS Crombie Street are in danger of collapsing and that, therefore, it poses a health and safety hazard to persons within its vicinitu. Indeed. were it not for the addition of the porch and corner rooms (which are them- selves now failinq ) it is probable that the main frame would already have toppled. Clearly, this property is a candidate for condemnation. It is our recommendation that your Department conduct an immediate inspection of its own, and then issue an order to the Owner to remove the structure or make it safe, pursuant to M. G.L. Ch. 143, Sec. b. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us. Very truly yours, DeMarco/Jarek Parti rship t; Charles A. DeMarco, A. I.A. Aonald F. a ek A. I.A. CAD:pl Enclosure cc: William Lundregan, Esq. Douglas Ryder, Pres. essex R�cEI V hiffitute Eo 19�132 Essex Street Salem, MA 01970 _(�� (508) 744-3390 �+ PV ANI �Qr November 7, 1990 Mr. Pat Greco Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company Holyoke Square Salem, MA 01970 Dear Pat: As president of the Essex Institute, an organization that has been preserving the history of the local region since 1821, I am distressed to hear of Holyoke's intention to demolish the early house at 18 Crombie Street. This house is at. integral and important part of the downtown National Register District which provides the only present indication of the intimate residential character of this once large area. it is important to preserve what remains of the area, not only as a reminder of the past, but as a commitment to the future viability of Salem as a small city, where people can live and work within easy distance and the quality of life is enhanced by architect- urally significant surroundings. Salem has established national standards of excellence in the relationship between historic preservation and downtown business dev- elopment. The demolition. of 18 Crombie Street, which provides an important visual cornerstone for the entire neighborhood, would under- mine civic and private efforts of the last twenty-five years to make the most of Salem's unique historic qualities. I urge you to reconsider Holyoke's priorities in relationship to this building and the community of Salem. The demolition of an historically significant building, and the further invasion of black topped land for parking of eight employee vehicles, provides a very small return from almost any way it is looked at: economically, socially, or environmentally. `S'r co;7cer, a>n;er:e, r::.amunie:ue Essex Counr; piston. Mr. Pat Greco -2- November 7, 1990 On behalf of the Essex Institute and its many Salem constitutents who are interested inthe productive relationship between its past, present and future, I express strong disapproval and concern about the demolition of 18 Crombie Street and I urge you not to go forward with your plans. Sincerely, Anne Farnam President CC: Douglas Ryder Joan Boudreau Mayor Neil J. Harrington Annie C. Harris Design Review Board/W. Luster i �Historc skleEwporated P.O. BOX 865 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 / PHONE (508) 745-0799 November 1, 1993 P-12CE1VED Mr. Douglas Ryder, President NOV 0 2 1993 Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company Holyoke Square SaIGM Vki atnflq Uept. Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Ryder: This letter will reconfirm the commitment of Historic Salem, Inc. to oppose the demolition of the house at 18 Crombie St., Salem. We are in receipt of a letter from Mr. William Luster, Executive Director of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, dated August 15, 1993, requesting that you reply to him regarding the destruction of fences and the construction of additional parking spaces in the side and rear yards. We have not received any correspondence from you concerning a remedy to this situation. I would like to remind you that over 200 letters from our membership were sent to the Salem Redevelopment Authority in the fall of 1991 concerning your plans to demolish this property. We are mindful that Holyoke Insurance Co. was once the owner of Samuel McIntire's home on Summer St. which the company destroyed to expand its headquarters. We are concerned that 18 Crombie St. does not fall fate to such reckless disregard for the city's historic heritage. It appears that through benign neglect, 18 Crombie St. may be the next target for your destruction. We would like you to assure our membership of over 600 that this is in fact not your intent. We await your reply. Sincerely, F�-L-c�..� l l • l�rX3-��.I �lbhn H. Casey President cc: Attorney William Lundregan Robert Ledoux, City Solicitor Richard oedel, Salem Historical Commission William Luster, Salem Redevelopment Authority .; i Salem Historicai �".'*cmmissicn ONE SALEM GREEN. SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 November 20, 1990 Joan Boudreau, Chairman Salem Redevelopment Authority 14 Tedesco Pond Marblehead, MA 01945 RE: 18 Crombie Street Dear Joan : On Wednesday, November 7 , 1990 the Salem Historical Commission unanimously voted in opposition to the granting of a permit for demolition for 18 Crombie Street as proposed by Holyoke Square Inc . through its representative William J. Lundregan, Esq. This denial to waive the City of Salem' s Demolition Delay Ordinance was a result of public testimony provided at the hearing, letters received regarding the application, a site visit that was conducted by members of the Commission and the fact that the building is located in a National Register District . At the public hearing, the architects for Holyoke provided their opinion as to the structural soundness of the building. However, based on their site visit, the Commission members had a strong difference of opinion from the findings of Holyoke ' s architects . Enclosed please find copies of the letters that the Commission received regarding the proposed demolition. We. respectfully request that these be made part of the records of the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA) and be read to the members of the Board when the demolition proposal is reviewed. The Commission will also forward copies of the minutes of the public hearing as soon as they are finalized. The Salem Historical Commission also wishes to be present when Holyoke Insurance presents their proposal for demolition . We would appreciate the opportunity to provide historical background and structural information on the building through either a presentation by the Commission or a joint public hearing with both Boards . Thank you for your consideration. S ' cerely, ie C . Harris Chairman ?�nIn S Y- c P -CIAIN Salem Historical Commission ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 May 26, 1991 By Hand Chairman Joan Boudreau Salem Redevelopment Authority c/o Salem Planning Department One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Re: 18 Crombie Street, Salem, MA Dear Ms. Boudreau: We are writing this letter to voice our vehement and unanimous opposition to the application of the Holyoke Insurance Company for permission to demolish the house at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts. To put this letter in context, in the approximate 19 years that the Salem Historical Commission has been in existence, we cannot think of a single preservation issue which we feel more deeply about, or one which has more symbolic importance for the future direction of the City of Salem. As the other municipal Board charged with preserving Salem's unique built environment, we urge you in the strongest possible terms to deny said application. Eighteen Crombie Street is an excellent example of a late 18th century/ early 19th century center-chimney wooden frame dwelling, whose period detail (floors, wainscotting, mantles, cornice moldings etc.) are remarkably intact, and whose basic structural integrity (as the recent engineering study shows) is quite curable. But more than that it plays a critical role in making Crombie Street one of the last vestiges of the kind of densely packed 18th and 19th century residential neighborhoods which use to predominate throughout the downtown, most of which are now gone. One has only to look at old photographs of Margin, Norman, Charter, Liberty, Brown, Rust, Ash, and lower Federal Streets to get a sense of how the periphery of Salem's downtown has changed over the years, and how much of Salem's unique character has been lost in the process. It was precisely because Crombie Street represents a rare fragment of Salem's early residential downtown that in 1983 the street was included on the r i Chairman Joan Boudreau 2 May 26, 1991 National Register of Historic Places as the Crombie Street National Register District, which had the strong support of both the then SRA and our Commission. As part of that process, the United States Department of the Interior deemed 18 Crombie Street to be "of central importance to [the] district." Both designations should end once and for all any question as to the importance of this particular building, or of the street. Consisting of only 7 structures, the Crombie Street District is the smallest and most fragile of Salem's National Register Districts. That is why the issue is not one of saving the building by moving it, but one of preserving the building in its current location. Since the building is only one of two period buildings on that side of the street, its removal (whether by demolition or moving) would seriously undermine the integrity of the district as a whole, particularly if it were replaced by a parking lot, as the plans call for. It would be one thing if there were an immediate and compelling need to replace the existing 18 Crombie Street, but having carefully considered all of the arguments offered in support of the application, we believe no compelling reason exists. Certainly, if we have learned anything in the last 25 years, it is that you do not tear down period buildings, particularly those on the National Register, simply to create 8 parking spaces, particularly where there are other options available. What makes Salem special and unique is not our parking lots, but our unique built environment. Eighteen Crombie Street in particular, and Crombie , Street in general, makes an important contribution to that environment. Again we urge you in the strongest possible terms to deny the application. Sincerely, Salem Historical Commision Annie C. Harris, Chairman John H. Carr, Jr. Vice Chairman Richard Oedell Russell Slam Daniel Pierce Walter H. Cook Roger Hedstrom Kevin Stanton, Alternate L 7 i 9 A'i' i � A are a �atrracaI LJMMIC Wn ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ._, ,.=5-9595. EXT. 1 1 October 15, 1990 Nancy Coolidge , Director SPNEA 141 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02114 Dear Ms . Coolidge : The Salem Historical Commission is requesting your support in its efforts to prevent the demolition of the house at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, MA. This house is one of seven structures located in the Crombie Street National Register Historic District and is rated as being of "central importance to (the ] district" (National Register nomination form) . This National Register District is the last surviving 1800 ' s residential district in downtown Salem and provides an important glimpse of the City at that time . All of the other Central Business District structures have been cleared to make way for large commercial structures such as the U.S . Post Office and the Holyoke Insurance Company which are out of character and scale with the original city fabric . Permission to demolish 18 Crombie Street requires the approval from two Salem boards . The process is as follows : 1. Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance by the Salem Historical Commission ; Denial of this waiver only delays demolition for six months : Holyoke Insurance Company intends to file an application to waive the City of Salem' s Demolition Delay Ordinance . They plan to demolish the structure in order to expand their parking area. It has been estimated that approximately 8 to 10 cars could be accomodated on the new lot . The application to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance is expected to be heard by the Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, November 7, 1990 . Our meetings begin at 7 : 30 and are held at One Salem Green ( 2nd floor conference room) . We are encouraging all interested parties to attend. The r applicant has made it clear through its Attorney William Lundregan that, in its opinion , "the house itself has no historical value; it is just an old house" (minutes of the meeting of the Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority held on May 29 , 1990 ) . At the present time , the Commisison has been unsuccessful in persuading them otherwise. Assuming an unanimous vote to deny the application, the Commission will have less than six months to try to prevent demolition. without tremendous public pressure , it is unlikely that the Commission will be able to persuade Holyoke Insurance Company not to demolish the house. 2 . Permission to demolish by the Salem Redevelopment - Authority ( SRA) ; denial by the SRA is binding and permanent: Coincidently with their application to the Salem Historical Commission, Holyoke Insurance Company must also receive demolition permission from the SRA which has jurisdiction over all downtown development. The SRA is the only board in the City with the authority to deny the request for demolition. If they chose to deny the application, Holyoke will not be issued a demolition permit. Last May, Holyoke presented their proposal to the SRA. The SRA referred the matter to their subsidiary committee, the Design Review Board (DRB) . It is our understanding that the DRB will be reviewing this issue at one of its next meetings ; after which, it will be referred back to the SRA during late October or early November. As the minutes of the SRA meeting of May 29 reflect, the members of the SRA Board see this as "a difficult issue. . . (with) several concerns" (minutes of the Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, May 29, 1990 ) . The SRA members are often in the difficult position of trying to balance the historic interests of the City with the needs of the City' s major employers such as Holyoke Insurance. The interest of the both groups sometimes do not seem compatible. However, in this case, the Salem Historical Commission believes that there are other ways to solve the parking problem and accomodate Holyoke ' s needs. The Salem Historical Commission urges you to support us in our efforts to prevent the demolition of this property . Any letters you send in opposition to the proposed demolition are greatly appreciated. It is our hope that you will write to the persons on the attached list urging them not to demolish or permit the demolition of 18 Crombie Street. At the present time, the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the Architectural Conservation Trust for Massachusetts have placed this building on their respective Endangered Properties Lists . They agree that the destruction of this property endangers this important National Register District and could set a precedent for the future destruction of other important historic districts in Salem. The Commission also appreciates any other efforts that you can offer and encourages you to attend our November 7 meeting. The SRA and its subsidiary group, the Design Review Board, will also be meeting on this issue in the very near future . Telephone calls , petitions and other methods for alerting Holyoke Insurance and the SRA to the inappropriateness of demolishing a National Register property would be helpful . Thank you for your attention to this matter . S ' cerely, W eb�- THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Annie C . Harris Chairman L �*- Saoem A"IsioriCaii `„jI'I'96'I'I szion ONE SALEM GREE°I. SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ,517) 7»5-9595. ERT. 3; ! October 11, 1990 Chairman Joan Boudreau Salem Redevelopment Authority c/o Salem Planning Department One Salem Green Salem. MA Dear Chairman Boudreau, The Salem Historical Commission is extremely concerned about Holyoke Insurance Company's proposal to demolish the house at 18 Crombie Street. We have reviewed the minutes of the SRA meeting of May 29, 1990 where Attorney William Lundgregan and Mr. Pat Greco appeared before the SRA to present their plans for the demolition of the building. There are several points in Attorney Lundregan's presentation which appear to be inaccurate. Apparently he stated that "the house...has no historic value" and that "redevelopment in the immediate area has greatly reduced the historic significance of this street". In actual fact, when the Crombie Street National Register District was created, this house was determined to be of "central importance to (the) district" (United States Department of the Interior. National Register of Historic Places Inventory). Furthermore, this district was created after most of the redevelopment had already occurred in the area and all of the buildings in this National Register District are still standing. The district is still as historically significant now as it was when it was formed ten years ago. While we are sympathetic to Holyoke's need to create additional parking, there appear to be other means for achieving this end which do not necessitate the distruction of this historic property. To demolish this house to build 8 or 10 parking spaces appears to be extreme. The Salem Historical Commission requests the opportunity discuss this proposal with your board when you next meet with Holyoke and their attorney. It seems to us that bringing the different groups together for a discussion could be beneficial to all. Sincerely, / a 0 (1 Annie C. Harris Chairman Salem Historical Commission CC. William Luster, Director of City Planning,CIty of Salem William Guenther, Chairman, Historic Salem Incorporated t, ON A Sawn H isroricaj �.jmmission !JE SALE%1 (3REEN. SALErl. (,I AS S.ACHIiSETTS 01910 ,617 715-9595. L,%T. :3 1 1 February 10, 1992 State Board of Building Regulations and Standards McCormack State Office Building One Ashburton Place - Room 1301 Boston, MA 02108 Dear Sirs/Madams : The Salem Historical Commission is writing with regard to the appeal by Holyoke Square, Inc. for 18 Crombie Street in Salem, KA. The appellant requests that a decision of the Inspector of Buildings for the City of Salem be overruled and that the owner should be ordered to remove or make the structure safe pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 143, Sec. 6 . . In September, 1990, Holyoke Square, Inc. requested a waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance from the Salem Historical Commission in order to demolish 18 Crombie Street. The purpose of the proposed demolition was to create a parking lot and to "landbank" the site for future use. To facilitate our decision, members of the Salem Historical Commission, including a licensed architect, an architectural designer, an historian and a contractor specializing in the restoration of historic properties, inspected 18 Crombie Street. The Commission found that building was in relatively sound condition with no significant deflection in the floors, walls or ceilings. The Commission found that the house was not racked as much as the estimate of DeMarco-Jarek Partnership, Holyoke's architect, and the Commission found that there was no evidence that the house in continuing to rack. The Commission also found that the gradual settling and modest racking of a house of this age is not a condition to prove the structure to be unsafe. Ceiling beams of the house show no evidence of bug or water damage except for one small area. The house framing was in excellent condition. The brick foundation showed no major cracks, settlement or fissures and there was no evidence that any corner is slipping. The foundations may be out of plumb one or two inches, which is not surprising for the age of the house, but they did not appear to be unsound. There was one small area of sill rot. There was evidence that the house was moved to this location and, therefore, the foundations may be newer than the rest of the house. There was no musty smell to the house, indicating that there has been no sepage of water into the basement. 18 Crombie Street is one of seven properties located i y within the Crombie Street National Register District (which is the only surviving downtown residential district from the early 19th century) . Based on these findings, the Commission voted not to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance. The Commission' s final recommendation was in opposition to the granting of a demolition permit for this historically significant building. In May, 1991, the Salem Redevelopment Authority, within whose jurisdiction 16 Crombie Street resides, voted to deny Holyoke's request for demolition. Holyoke has since filed an appeal of this decision with Superior Court. The City of Salem proudly contains a myriad of historic homes - many of which are in greater disrepair than 18 Crombie Street. To allow the demolition of this property, as being a hazard to the public safety and welfare, would be to suggest that several hundred homes in Salem should be leveled. The Salem Historical Commission is in complete agreement with Salem's Inspector of Buildings ' letter of August 29, 1991 to Charles DeMarco. We sincerely hope that the State Board of Building Regulations and Standards will deny the appeal of Holyoke Square, Inc. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, �SE HISTOR C COMMISSION John H. Carr, Jr. Vice Chairman St'r TS Iy Q o r X711 I SS X QeQ September 25, 1990 °ryz On Wealth to Annie Harris Chairperson Salem Historical Commission One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms. Harris: It has recently been brought to the attention of the Massachusetts Historical Commission that the property at 18 Crombie Street in Salem is threatened with demolition. This house, built c. 1770, is a contributing element in the Crombie Street Historic District which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Crombie Street Historic District is extremely important as Salem's only surviving downtown residential group from the early 19th century. The demolition of 18 Crombie Street, the oldest structure within the district, would be detrimental to the character of this rare residential enclave. The Massachusetts Historical Commission strongly supports the efforts of the Salem Historical Commission to preserve this property, and encourages the Salem Historical Commission to implement the provisions of the city's demolition delay ordinance to develop alternatives to demolition. The staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission are willing to consult with the property owner to discuss alternatives for the building's preservation. Please let us know if the Massachusetts Historical Commission can be of assistance in preserving this important historic resource. Sincerely, Elsa Fitzgerald J Acting Executive Director Massachusetts Historical Commission ENF/MV/kab Massachusetts Historical Commission 80 Boylston Street,Boston,Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727-8470 Office of the Secretary of State, Michael f. Connolly,Secretary a Salem® Redevelopment 44- 900 Authority ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 7444580 February 10, 1992 State Board of Building Regulations and Standards McCormack State Office Building One Ashburton Place - Room 1301 Boston, MA 02108 RE: Holyoke Square Inc. 18 Crombie Street Dear Sirs/Madams: I am writing concerning the appeal of Holyoke Square, Inc. , which requests that the State Board of Building Regulations and Standards reverse a decision of William Munroe, Salem's Inspector of Buildings, for the dwelling at 18 Crombie Street. Holyoke has gone through various local processes in attempt to demolish the building in question. In November, 1990, the Salem Historical Commission denied Holyoke' s request to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance. In April, 1991, the Salem Historical Commission' s final recommendation was in opposition to the granting of a demolition permit. In May, 1991, the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA) denied Holyoke's request for demolition of 18 Crombie Street. An appeal of the SRA's decision by Holyoke is currently pending in Superior Court. Prior to the SRA' s decision, the City of Salem contracted Robert M. Rumpf & Associates to provide an independent structural condition report of the property. The report recommended that only the back porch of the building be torn down and provided reasonable minimal requirements to adequately rehabilitate the structure. The report concluded that the building was not a hazard to public safety and welfare. It is my opinion that Holyoke is not appealing the decision of Salem's Inspector of Buildings out of concern for public safety and welfare, but is attempting to use the State Building Code appeals process as a means of fulfilling their own independent objectives. I urge you to uphold the fi ings of Mr. Munroe and to deny the appeal of Holyoke Square, I cer y i ster Proje t Administrator ._ i. ,5k�n 1 rated ECEIVEI:-i- -TA 7 CAB RIDGE STREET DEC 1 3 1990 SALEM, MAS�WHUSET�SS 01970 j c�- ,�� SALEM PLANNING DEPT. } Ms . Joan Boudreau Sl 1A ° Chair , Salem Redevelopment Authority One Salem Green Q � N ;u ::TCD Salem , MA 01970 F CT D m H CD O W (n �p O. C7 a F� � po�� • -9 N (D H 1< 1< cg o T 0 0- o c p �.s.a,�s—l�tp P6Q yr7a/l ca �• 0 clID ID ID `F H (D 1 nn --3 Lnn N (D c P (n C1 N ( 0 (D m O rt 0 Q C LO F !�! rt 0" rt 0 0 ev � rt Cl CD � rt Typed as written: �Q 0 m �� zT C1 o o. to RE: Saving on of Salem's early and really worthwhile small houses and neighborhoo s now . � remaining. D c • H 0 1_ I am a close friend of Mrs. Wendts and know what a worthwhile house #18 Crombie J ' :7 (0n a ft Street is. If getting rid of the house comes to pass I certainly hope the Holyoke' �- m will be enough interested in old Salem to at least donate the house so that it can N � o g moved rather than destroyed. I lived in the old 1790 "Doyle House" on Summer Street 0 (D ~ y y C: �. and was evicted so the Holyoke could destroy that and S. McIntire's house next to (D it along with 3 others on Summer Street about 1959. Please try to save Crombie y Street or at least 1118! Sincerely Marjorie S. Giles 35 Warren Street Salem (even tax deductible might interest the Holyoke if they gave the house to a historical , IUEh_� IC-190 Dear , Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : i1 � � I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the propas-v the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue is before you. "^ is before you. C 2+ rs Shdok On/41 o 7 � a� r [s I £ f -(- of s- -/-h 4-4- c� t f 4 �e J •i. 1 A.S .-f- /' £S l of C/,'a•i el./ -s 1-f"f f 't / �j'L-G-'_G�/ ��.tz.t.t� %�/ e�6y��. ?-Gr"< /1 5 I t' 130 r�faC r n J Q w 1-le u/., L e d M i✓�v'G 4! , ✓ d. 1 Ul — a, d n£a+�dna Rf .✓+cr- 1J:s�l:-;..} , .vt cwt arras o� �/�-a.f:R- L�. , ..,.-.Fr 'f--- ..�.. .11L� -�,[._�-Z�i..�• X1.3 /va�nt� £ost�s"C��-hW f�oJ', dthvl:f-,d� �r Signed ,- Sined ,Z, )�s -• ,dam- Seftn F Sauk - 120 fedadStreet Sa(em, MA 01970 C�� / ,•.*.iia- ..ia, .- Dear Ms . Boudreau : ci 1r lfp; Dear Ms . Boudreau: ,t I I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue SRA to deny permission .to demolish when the issue is laefore you . is before you . `J V� 'Y Signed , WfrA Signed , d1a;x2� /W '-�'�i � � � � � rV fe la1 RECEN EL) oq Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : Ai Fr,� e 1 •., X46 �!r I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the`-'=prn'posal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue is before you. is before you . L675, ( , \n - u .C. O'Lb'�l � M1.O.��.h.c• c (�t ,.f,C �O. z <SfLc.a- � ��61-�wi <,l�– Z'u'ni " ,i`Ct• .��! -�,-_.L n. , t.. ..4ti�(r ,U LC ;,.J Signed , A18Si ned > �µ _ 9 /�"-" 1, 1 _e , � i t Dear Ms . Boudreau : j Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the 1 am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you . A is before you . LL 7 s i � Signed , ��.4._�i � �� — "Signed , Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about theHT23hhpplish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge tf'e the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue is before you . is before you . ' All � �'/• ��arn� 1 �Li��-✓ice! lr )'hSc. C: )��,L�_ � � c� ; � l<' 1 ( I/Y(i1/ Al ! 11 )7 !`� -1 ��i^nN C.��1 L�.l- �.i l� C '1C.-� , i ' i�Z .'� Signed , Signed , i iqqO Dear MsDear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you . / is before you . «+.r�t...g 1 P"A/� 61Y�V4_Q� S � cs� cs,� }209 �L4vU✓�. Gin�rvH�v 7 7 -V..; 440"" Signed , Signed , Di00 Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : f` :r I am concerned about the ptbposal"Vo -demolish I am concerned about the p o q a-lrto.. emolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urg6ithe the 18 Crombie Street property , and SRA to deny permission to demolish when the is`6ue SRA to deny permission to demolish when the isgue is before you . 16 is before you . Ay9 )ChLU W lA..U/,Jf�4 xr- e rI --Hn /I A 1.40 _Q� A o kc7C 7C � � QLUu1 J�i�ga L XO ' P h�lli d 7L�� cGIo�ti r Signed , t ' Sig"ned , Mrs. Jeremiah S. Burns Chestnut St Salem, 0 Salem. MA tmet I• 424 ' 'V1' C N/ REC El V ELI 1990 Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : ( I am concerned about the 4 oSa=1�4' Brolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you . is beforeyou . Pleaio del—)1Oaf' -1Ecv— / l ✓ 1 �l<;!i t �pwr) JG�<.'Y)S �": �,/ �.�.•�j, !` � }re. � � r�:, � ` ice.. reA �f leak, C hGrar / � _ �.. � Signed , Signed , ign G�GS�1W✓St. /�l'1x'14=t-'v'r".r ".' �� /�� ,i ,�/(_� l"t/i','.�1��{'.Y � / %`/ ./' . Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : ); I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue be for y/o�u .�y is before you .,A dzl.� P ✓, �.� ` pct 7:,c�- i ned ✓� �, ��( �z Signed 9 � ' Dear Ms . Boudreau, Dear Ms . Boudreau : We read in the Evening News about Holyoke Mutual I am concerned about the proposal to demolish Insurance Company' s intent to demolish 18 Crombie the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the Street. As residents , we oppose any further SRR to den ermission to demolish when theissue destruction of historically significant properties is before you You . and ask that you not permit it. Thank you. / '-L .L Joel Ohringer & Suzanne Gentiluomo GL 12 Porter Street, Salem MA 01970 t 4e 7 Signed , • .,: .... . tee :. ,r. _ f'9 4rJ4, Dear Ms . Boudreau : —� I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the a . SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue ; afc is before you . �r - ,.t� 0 Signed , no �a`�zLin Gr9 �� Miss Elizabeth N. Allen Brookhouse 180 Derby Street _ Salem, AfA 01970 Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the I am concerned about the proposal to demolish SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue is before you . the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the —L \ SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you . . . . :.f.,•e,/�, �- " .�- 1•-ry__:.`"I': � -� / C-h'v\c � � �,�� LLv\�- t�nc • ,. •.�., :\ . i - 7 ! /�i•ti f Q.n ��' - - �-- �, CnV\\. VoJ ,H � l., if ,. [ . r 1(1,4 Signed ,(flt'i—,�.t�>"1 , �1c�� Signed � `�,l; �L,I� J�I \t 4/' J r -\ i r Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau: I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you . / isy before you . 4' ai �j -l-.c d elA <%7_s wl+c� Lid l/n,w c_ cf Signed , �� Si ned , � Dear 4. udreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue is before you. SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before yo jL n _ _ Q Signed , Signed , �CoC �✓ � G J �J L`T� 'rd i 10 S 1(7 D� L�qO DEC 1 4 1990 Dear Ms . Boudreau : l/ 1 ` � ) f r.uwugY Y►,J f �,�X.c_1 X A�f? 1 c UII am concerned about the proposal ta,emolish V-0C)�z l the 18 Crombie Street property , and I aide the SRA to degry permission to demolish when theissue is bef you . .---/- CC /7Lc f �- � gne id , Ge.z� Cra9 ' � Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal to demolish Dear Ms . Boudreau : the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the � .:,: '• I am concerned about the propo§aT to de-molish SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the is before you . SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue is before you . }-, Signed , W- Gtti„ - Q7� Signed , S oil e r-� I F: q.- _ 19990 Dear Ms . Boudreau : `Pi�FF;+ PLf!tti!la�! DEPT. Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to , demolish when the issue is before you. is before you . O �� Signed , Signed , � �. IV . --------------------- j OCQ Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concernga' �a6(i"u,, px broposal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you . is before you . 9 c 9 - - Oen• Q/a�n�nd� . : Signed, Rka%, RSigned , Yrin, pati►G,T � rr Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : C � C � i I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned Ja�lu� �� dsal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to den permission to demolish when the issue SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue Y P is before you. is before you . ( -c C G9 cvJ[�t� yyy�L✓ GL'6zf ��.XXIIA,g, VLSI ��l �i GULL 2nj� •: � n 0.4.11 n o �t,� t J i� i�a l��J ✓�-R--r tee- /* .Cy�Ce e� --Q ri 5�—LSM%AAA4 On tt �J 1 r s Signed , Signed j 17 Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about th"d propose-lrto.,Oemolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and -V ur.g�. the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue is before you . is before you . ��l^-(�/�G "-�U� 1.v0 SLU 7�t Cts✓, � `-,.�'- Cii� i .f Signed, Signed , 1 _-_- FLA[!" 116 DER Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie '' Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property % and I urge the SRA to den SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue Y PgYmission to demolish when theissue is before youA • is beff ,r you . / CL'�I � 75Ii 5' C" �� i n �C-Cl /�YIU/�—� �i4c�?UfJQ '(YwAua4 .Seng Mb Aeanrn, do k¢cpI.ke— tS�.L., 7!` t' 2-L S a C` Z,;7 et- e J �ruan (nn�acleP�-M 61 k4Ltl d AP,QP tkL PAPA ( / �JO ��C.. . .,. M� - / / 4) C y. 7C.c�� _ ! SS � � saY�e_vx.e us-Cu, cf aed ., 1�' Ae_ (� ' Gt Y- 6-A-1 , 47 �' � s Signed , Signed , 1� P. 411 r_ Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : ' I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue is before you . is before you. Of e Ur �J�n IT ICa Signed, / Signed , ._ RECEIVED 1990 Dear Ms . Boudreau : SW pUING DIPT. Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue SRA deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you . is before ore you . -(' LL.4��I� Luff Ice- Signed , c2Signed , S C� Signed , l ail e;-'� Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about theErpropo.sal.,,t,o..;Qemolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street prop'etty!, 'and� I ,,ui.g�, the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you . is before you . yV !/PO SQ Fr3� 'v U Yu=Ast Giuc -fitIs �u � 2 Urn4osi �oros1D�-�N. -� Signed , Signed , Nr SfytEM 8 gc H A-V e 't'. V �d ; Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms : Boudreau : �ft�Fz� �'t.! `•« `°� Li_F�' I am concerned about the Or'd'posal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you . is before you . , JI-- Signed, Signed 04Cr Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you. is before you Signed, / 7 =� Signed,, 11111 031"i7 - Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal -Q!'= de+mglish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I ur96IA )t the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demol7"';h when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue is before you. is before you. e ImcnL21�/-" %5i`Huj�/ �F Sf1LF7aJ /S i7S lam/ J-I t r Z-201''& 1-7�AJ RC's l3i= lei=/15�rJ Signed Signed , �ul?�Iri 6�'N9=2 ysz c�FAy�m� .sT Deer Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the y SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue �p�� is .before you . Lfz ZZ )4t Signed, e ," DEC 14 1990 Dpar Ms . Boudreau : V I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you . While I am concerned about the preservation of Salem' s historical neighborhoods , which I consider its—greatest asset, I alse regegnise that t'-- city needs viable commercial activity . I urge the SRA and 9 I' r"'., '� � the Dear Ms . Boudreau : ° try to work together to the City ' s benefit. If "• � compromise is impossible, I we -W,ve to agree that ' I am concerned about the proposal `EO demolish Holyoke be denied permission to �lemdlish 18 Crombie the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the Street. SRA to deny permission to demQlish wh,,-n ftTillssue Steve Thomas is before you . Signed ,` �, i).�ti� ; R,"/? D ar, Ms . Boudreau : ,1 i-✓. � ��( �. .. am concerned about the proposal to'-demQl,ish ' the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissui is before you . ,C L; / L L`` .��L /'/i7/'�''- •�� • �,z Signed , / N � �i%. f Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you . is before you . Signed , Signed Dear Ms . Boudreau"31rDear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the47oposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish. when the issue SRA to deny permission to demolish when the iss e is before you . is before you f� ArrJ �So� ,SuSaN Woa„ t.♦ r, SuMVVI -er2- Signed , Signed , V��fCuu�[i�lCta, l Q Si c - .7i�i� _ h-�n ; . i Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the. the 18 Crombie Street property , and I , urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue SRA to deny permission to demolish when=theissue is before you . is before you . Signed , Sig�ne� // w. Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue is before you . is before you. Signed , / Signed , C11, Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : i0p fJ I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the propdv,P, 'I-.;to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and - -q rge, the SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue SRA to deny permission to demolish when `tfleissue is before you . is before y u . 0 , Z,,' Signed , Signed , I I RECEI VEL) Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : ;' logo I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the oo��a� b�,� molish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street propertF'I1 � 11,&fe SRA to deny permission to demolish when .the issue SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue iis be ore you. s before you . i Signed , Sig ed , . 1 R DE C Dear —Mle Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : 1 4X90 J I a concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the propoSal•••to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the - the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue is before you . is before you . I Signed , Q � Signed , DEC 1 4 1990 DEC 14 1990 Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposdarl •to•sdcmo�ish he6"'•'•• the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the I am concerned about the prt�andI . ur demolish SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the is before you . SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue Y is before you . � /�i• l t ^ f1( cam`-i'-lc�it-� �i*+� ��GVonl�Pl�' ( - �- 5loAn/a/e�6N St — SG/ems 0/i7t" Signed, Signed , Dear Ms . Boudreau : ! 90 Dear Ms . Boudreau : a' / I am concerned about the pr$,�l¢ � J .ter! p , ish I am concerned about the proposal to d€�dr'� h -1�J (g��L1i. the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , an SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you . is before you. Signed , Signed , n Dear Ms . Boudreau : / ` � Dear Ms . Boudreau : ..�� I am concerned about the propo 's"IfXo_ demolish I am concerned about the,!pr'opb'salqqmolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I u the the 18 Crombie Street propeity' ' nd`"I' urg'8 "the SRA to deny permission to demolish when t �J�issue SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue is befoPE7ou . — is before you. Signed ! Signed, re • E r rr I V E Esso Dear Ms . Boudreau • Dear Ms . Boudreau : ,.e:r rr I am concerned about the proposal to deft TI sh I am concerned about the proposal to'` d�O m sh the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge fh$ i SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issA is before you . is before y u . rAf.( r ,.f Signed Signed , 1,1 Dear Ms . Boud'reau : Dear Ms. Boudreau : I am concerned -abdu ! hTProposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the I am concerned about the proposalf ,toi3oemokI SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue the 18 Crombie Street property , and' I '�f�rge` fi � is before you . SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you . Signed , �—� Signed , eel QC' Dear Ms . Boudreaua1 — Dear Ms . Boudreau : am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned -about the proposal to demolish property ,the 18 Crombie Street &nq I Ur e' eviF!" the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolisli wh fie issu SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you . is before you . tt- , e7(- S4-gned ; Si , ga'vLl�-lC'� r, MIN Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and (I;" Ogle the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish w`hen' -th-elsscie --'- �- SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you . is before you . / `l G G ! J hn A. /OS— fEJEk9(- S> �C—CAI MA 0/MO sA�L� Signed , ig ed 12/8/ 0 i9co Dear Ms . Boudreap:I�i D° r.r,.,. Dear Ms . Boudreau :,n r I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the. proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue is before you . is before you. Sv S 4-,v MAS vN Sy �Ey J1A Signed , Signed , yvo Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned abo�t .the -prb Gti"saI to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA . to deny permission to demolish when theissue is before you. is befo e you. �Q C Signed , Signed , s VEL Dear Ms . Boudreau : �2co Dear Ms . Boudreau : � 31;` I am concerned about. the- proposal to demolish I am concerned=about thepAosal to demolish the 18 Crombie 'property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street propeY��r-. Pd I urge the SRA to deny peamission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue „ is before you. is before you . 3c-5S / Z- k/}12A/V I k04/l C l3/dC)H /l}y/lY VylS � �j7U _ • r�+ is� �i�% f' . /) / '� '��; Signed , Signed , Dear Ms . Boudreau : 7 Dear Ms . Boudreau : he).r to to demolish I am concerned about the- pToposai to demolish I am concerned about. .t_: � _, the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urg e the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue is before you . is before you . Signed , ��- Si nee , 401;0904d 11.L',. RL7)EA*BER(i I a✓ r• � , _ 3 LAN!!li pit\' LAVE Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : 1-'rI I am concerned abodt'..—, . :... pid ' ' to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , aia'd:_J_ :urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue is before you. is before you . Signed , Signed , Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : <<s ' I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you . is before you . > � c / � C ]' Signed , ELkiV.%:WU 'J. Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you . is before you . TD Ob-1-\ . /V �U . l� � 6 � ' Signed , Signed , Dear Ms . Boudreau : _ ) Dear Ms . ;Boudreau : I am concerned about then plNp'sp1, "t o, demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , arid -I---up�e ,'the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when the= sue SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue is before you , is before you. 71Yw Pt Signed , Signed , LJ i , , r,_ Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : ::• - `., "": , ..�i, '! I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street proper,tyj,-•arTdVV-iy? 'r� e the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the g - h SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demo'li§h "wfien theissue is before you . is before you. i OTU'.. C"'I v AA.4t Signed , )' S gned , 10 DEC 10 .1990 Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : are �! • I am concerned about the propgslalpQr U�¢i�l�i SNE I am concerned about the proposal to. demolifg•h� the 18 Crombie Street property , aAd' 'i� ufge he the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urgeP�,) SRA to deny permission :tbto demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolishA�gjen theissue is before you . is before you. (MRS) Rosamond 1:. Putn�.:ei _r Pe r.nd Alfred F. Futnam 27 Broad Street, 8plem, Ppste a:uaeaas Signed , Signed, RM2Ltk''V, � •� � tc mt.a— 1 Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : c. I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue is before you . is before you. s LL)V\ Signed , Signed , �\q �� `� {<�+. ,, Dear Ms . Boudreau : Dear Ms . Boudreau : I am concerned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned aboutS�j ' roposa.l ;,�p demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urae the the 18 Crombie Street properr' �;'`and=tj! r, e the SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue is before you . is before "u. 9 ,egg Signed , S RECEIVED i�"i01990 Dear Ms . Boudreau Dear Ms . Boudreau: pp I am concerned about tF e��.� dpc s2�J;,y r� molish I am concerned about the proq,$g«� pLW,.t-dN'LI L the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when- heissue SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you . is before you . A � Signed, Signed , Dear Ms . Boudreau DEC j 4 �9O Dear Ms . Boudreau : demolish I a m conce rned about the proposal to demolish I am concerned about the proposal to ert and I ur e the the 18 Crombie Street property , andtP^w►i;$e the the 18 Crombie Street prop y , g SRA to deny permission to demolish when tMe`iV joe SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you. is before you . -2.��CC-c.�s�.-x..1•_7 1 / - // i �L jr i --r i Signed , Signed , 1990 Dear Ms . Boudreau : l; Dear Ms . Boudreau : rl I am concerned about the proposal 4�t'b�i'�f�olish I am concerned a60pC�� bF'; toposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge ,}he the 18 Crombie Stree�.. pr. �Tty;" and -1 urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish whP�n the issue SRA to deny permission to demolish when theissue is /be/fore you . \\ is before you . Signed , Signed , 'gel 2 n r c`Pra00 ��• Dear Ms . Boudreau : Ms . Boudreau : - ,� I am concerned abo !.!.F %e ' j"`*as�'L�'io demolish �t.._.._... ' .. .. I am concerned about the proposal to demolish the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the the 18 Crombie Street property , and I urge the SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue SRA to deny permission to demolish when the issue is before you . is before you . Sign d , /1 Signed , l / ,S14%�i>v_ - -- WILLIAM J. LUNDREGAN, ESQ. - \ 81 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 37 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS �01970 TEL: (508) '741-3888 July 14, 1992 Leonard F. Femino, Esq. ALEXANDER, FEMINO & LAURANZANO One School Street mow+^ Beverly, MA 01915 ' �9 The State Building Code Appeals Board 4 J�� ° 40� One Ashburton Place, Room 1301 Boston, MA 02108 �p I99 .V Salem Redevelopment Authority One Salem Green �® Salem, MA 01970 F�� Salem Building Inspector r One Salem Green r Salem, MA 01970 RE: Holyoke Square, Inc. vs. The State Building Code Appeals oard, et al. Civil Action No. 92-688 Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith please find: (1) Request for Default (Rule 55(a) ) Against Defendant The State Building Code Appeals Board; (2) Application for Final Judgment for Relief for Failure to Answer Interrogatories Against Defendant The State Building Code Appeals Board; (3) Motion to Compel Production - of Documents By The Defendant, The State Building Code Appeals Board; (4) Request for Default (Rule 55(a) ) Against Defendant William Munroe, Building Inspector of the City of Salem, or his successor in office; (5) Application for Final Judgment for Relief for Failure to Answer Interrogatories Against Defendant William Munroe, Building Inspector of the City of Salem, or his successor in office; 1 (6) Motion to Compel , Production of Documents By The Defendant, William Munroe, , Building inspector of the City of Salem, or his successor* inoffice;,and (7) Motion to Consolidate Cases, (8) Memorandum in Support of . Motion to Consolidate Cases; and (9) Certificate of Service If you desire to file papers in opposition to the Motions to Compel, or to the Motion to Consolidate, please forward the same to my office within ten (10) days of your receipt hereof. Thereafter, I will file said motions, together with any opposition thereto, with the Essex Superior Court, pursuant to Rule 9A. V ry)truly yours, William J. Lundregan, Esq. 2 .4 . COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 92-688 -----------------------------------) HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , Plaintiff ) VS. ) THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS ) REQUEST FOR DEFAULT BOARD, THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT (RULE 55(a) ) AUTHORITY, and WILLIAM MUNROE, ) Building Inspector of the City of Salem, Defendants ) ----------------------------------- I, William J. Lundregan. attorney for the above-named Plaintiff, state that the Summons and Complaint in this action was served upon the Defendant, The State Building Code Appeals Board, on March 3, 1992, as appears from the officer's return of service, and that the said Defendant has failed to serve a resopnsive pleading .or to otherwise defend as provided by rule. Therefore, I request that default be entered against the Defendant, The State Building Code Appeals Board, in this action. Signed this /q" day of July, 1992 under the pains and penalties of perjury. Wil iam J. Lundregan, Esq. 81 Washington Street Suite 37 Salem, MA 01970 (508) 741-3888 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 92-688 -----------------------------------) HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , Plaintiff ) Vs. ) THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS ) REQUEST FOR DEFAULT BOARD, THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT (RULE 55(a) ) AUTHORITY, and WILLIAM MUNROE, ) Building Inspector of the City of Salem, Defendants ) ----------------------------------- I, William J. Lundregan. attorney for the above-named Plaintiff, state that the Summons and Complaint in this action was served upon the Defendant, William Munroe, Building Inspector of the City of Salem, on March 3, 1992, as appears from the officer's return of service, and that the said Defendant has failed to serve a resopnsive pleading or to otherwise defend as provided by rule. Therefore, I request that default be entered against the Defendant, William Munroe, Building Inspector of the City of Salem, or his successor in office, in this action. Signed this Li� day of July, 1992 under the pains and penalties of perjury. Wil iam J. Lundregan, Esq. 81 Washington Street Suite 37 Salem, MA 01970 (508) 741-3888 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 92-688 ----------------------------) HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , Plaintiff ) VS. ) THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS ) MOTION TO COMPEL BOARD, THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AUTHORITY, and WILLIAM MUNROE, ) Building Inspector of the City of Salem, Defendants ) ----------------------------------- Holyoke Square, Inc. , Plaintiff herein, requests that this Court order the Defendant, The State Building Code Appeals Board, to produce documents in response to a Request for Production of Documents which was served upon said Defendant on or about March 24, 1992 pursuant to Rule '34 . Such documents were due on or about April 24, 1992. A copy of said Request for Production of Documents is annexed hereto. Respectfully submitted, Holkoke Square, Inc. , By I Attorney, William J. Lundregan, Esq. 81 Washington Street Suite 37 Salem, MA 01970 (508) 741-3888 i it li I d COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ASSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION t NO. -----------------------------------) HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , Plaintiff ) VS. ) THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS ) BOARD, THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, and WILLIAM MUNROE, ) as he is the Building Inspector of the City of Salem, ) Defendants ----------------------------------- PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY THE DEFENDANT, THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 34 the Defendant is hereby .required to produce copies of the following documents at the officer of Plaintiffs' Counsel within forty-five (45) days of receipt hereof. NOTE: Notwithstanding their use -of ; "all,° "any and all" and/or other, all-inclusive designations, the following Requests shall be deemed to exclude from their scope materials privileged by the attorney-client privilege, i the attorney work-product privilege, and the privilege afforded to materials compiled by or at the behest of Counsel in anticipation of litigation. A. Any and all correspondence, memoranda, notes, records, reports, studies, and/or other documents of any kind and nature whatsoever, by whomever authored, for whatever purpose(s) , to whomever addressed, and by whomever received, excepting herefrom only matter privileged by the 1 I i aforementioned privileges, that are. within the possession, a t ^ ` , :custody or control v>f the Defendant, :his agents,Cjemployees or a servants, or to which Defendant has a right of access and may w obtain by making a reasonable effort, that describe, allude to, or are otherwise relevant in any manner whatsoever to any or all of the matters itemized hereinbelow; and B. Any and all blueprints, charts, drawings, graphics, photographs, prints, sketches and/or other visual representations of any kind and nature whatsoever, by whomever authored, for whatever purpose(s) , to whomever addressed, and by whomever received, excepting herefrom only matter privileged by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges, that are within the possession, . custody or control of the Defendant, his agents, employees or servants, or to which Defendant has a right of access and may obtain by making a reasonable effort, that depict, ' describe - or illustrate in. any manner whatsoever to any or all of the matters itemized hereinbelow: 1. Any and all materials, of any nature and description - whatsoever, received from the DeMarko/JarekPartnership, Professional Architects concerning the building at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts. 2. Any and all materials, of any nature and description whatsoever, received from Robert M. Rumpf, Professional Engineer, concerning the building at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts. 2 3. Any and all materials, of any nature and description 04atsoever, received `. from ,Jeffrey R. Martel, of Martel Designer-Craftsman, Inc. concerning the building at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts. 4. Any and all materials, of any nature and description whatsoever, which relied upon by THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD in support of its February 11, 1992 decision to deny the Plaintiff's appeal concerning the building at 18 Crombie Street. 5. Any and all materials, of any nature and description whatsoever, which document or support any disagreements that you have with the findings or statements made by the DeMarko/ Jarek Partnership, which disagreements have been identified by you in your answer to interrogatory no. 6. 6. Any and all materials, of any nature and description whatsoever, which document or support any disagreements that you have with the findings or -statements made by Robert M. Rumpf, which disagreements have been identified by 'you in your answer to interrogatory no: 9. 7. Any and all materials, of any nature and description whatsoever, which document or support any disagreements that you have with the findings or statements made by Jeffrey R. Martel, which disagreements have been identified by you in your answer to interrogatory no. 12. 8. Any and all materials, of any nature and description whatsoever, which document or support your contention that the subject Crombie Street building does not qualify for 3 ' S condemnation and/or does not pose a safety hazard to persons and property ,in the vicinity thereof. �9. Any and all correspondence or 'other documents pertaining to the subject Crombie Street building which have been exchanged by, between or among: (i) you, your agents, employees or servants; and (ii) The Building Inspector of the City of Salem, or (iii) The Salem Redevelopment Authority, or (iv) the Plaintiff, its agents, employees or servants, or (v) any third person or entity, excepting herefrom only this Defendant's legal counsel. HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , By Its Attorney, y / / l V illiam regan, 81 W hington eet Salem, MA 01970 {508) 741-3888 I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ,I, :WILLIAM J. LUNDREGAN, hereby certify that on March 1992 I mailed, postage pre-paid, copies of the foregoing Request .for ,Production ,of Documents to: Signed under the pains and penalti of per i illiWVio.FlAungdorega Esq. I 4 ' I ii ,a I COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 92-688 -----------------------) HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , Plaintiff ) VS. ) THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS ) APPLICATION FOR FINAL BOARD, THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT JUDGMENT FOR RELIEF OR AUTHORITY, and WILLIAM MUNROE, ) DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO Building Inspector of the City ANSWER INTERROGATORIES of Salem, Defendants ) ----------------------------------- Holyoke Square, Inc. , Plaintiff herein, requests that Final Judgment for Relief be entered on behalf of said Plaintiff against the Defendant The State Buildign Code Appeals Board, for the reason that said Defendant has failed to file timely answers to interrogatories which were served upon said Defendant on or about March 24, 1992 pursuant to Rule 33 (a) . Such answers were due on or about May 9, 1992 . Respectfully submitted, Holkoke Square, Inc. , By It Attorney, William J. Lundregan, Esq. 81 Washington Street Suite 37 Salem, MA 01970 (508) 741-3888 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 92-688 -----------------------------------) HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , Plaintiff ) VS. ) THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS ) APPLICATION FOR FINAL BOARD, THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT JUDGMENT FOR RELIEF OR AUTHORITY, and WILLIAM MUNROE, ) DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO Building Inspector of the City ANSWER 'INTERROGATORIES of Salem, Defendants ) ----------------------------------- Holyoke Square, Inc. , Plaintiff herein, requests that Final Judgment for Relief be entered on behalf of said Plaintiff against the Defendant, William Munroe, Building Inspector of the City of Salem, or his successor in office, for the reason that said Defendant has failed to file timely answers to interrogatories which were served upon said Defendant on or about March 3, 1992 pursuant to Rule 33 (a) . Such answers were due on or about April 18, 1992. Respectfully submitted, Holkoke Square, Inc. , By It Attorney, William J. Lundregan, Esq. 81 Washington Street Suite 37 Salem, MA 01970 (508) 741-3888 X.t a COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS I"98SEX, ss. "SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 92-688 -----------------------------) i HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , Plaintiff ) VS. ) THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS ) MOTION TO COMPEL BOARD, THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AUTHORITY, and WILLIAM MUNROE, ) Building Inspector of the City of Salem, Defendants ) ----------------------------------- Holyoke Square, Inc. , Plaintiff herein, requests that this Court order the Defendant, William Munroe, Building Inspector of the City of Salem, or his successor in office, to produce documents in response to a Request for Production of Documents which was served upon said Defendant on or about March 3, 1992 pursuant to Rule 34. 'Such documents were due on or about April 18, 1992. A copy of said Request for Production of Documents is annexed hereto. Respectfully submitted, Holkoke Square, Inc. , By Its ttorney, ill am J. Lundregan, Esq. 81 Washington Street Suite 37 Salem, MA 01970 (508) 741-3888 i COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS < . .e .. ESSEXss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTIONI NO. ------ ---------------------------r. HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , Plaintiff ) VS. ) THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS ) BOARD, THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, and WILLIAM MUNROE, ) as he is the Building Inspector of the City of Salem, ) Defendants ----------------------------------- PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT, WILLIAM MUNROE Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 34 the Defendant is .hereby required to produce copies of the following documents at the officer of Plaintiffs' Counsel 'within .forty-five(45) days of receipt :hereof. NOTE: Notwithstanding :;their 'use ,-of -"all," *any and . all" :and/or other, all-inclusive designations, the following :Requests shall .be deemed .to exclude from their . scope, materials .privileged .by the ,attorney .client .privilege, : the attorney - work-product .privilege, and - the privilege _- +afforded .to materials compiled .by or at the behest of .Counsel in anticipation of litigation. A. Any . and all correspondence, - :,memoranda, notes, records, reports, studies, and/or other documents of any kind . and nature whatsoever, by whomever authored, for whatever purpose(s) , to whomever addressed, and by whomever received, excepting herefrom only matter privileged by the P g 1 a 1 aforementioned privileges, that -are , within the ; possession, cpstody pr controlof the.Defendant, his agents, employees or I'qservants, or to which Defendant has. a right of access and may II obtain by making a reasonable effort, that describe, allude to, or are otherwise relevant in any manner whatsoever to any or all of the matters itemized hereinbelow; and B. Any and all blueprints, charts, drawings, graphics, photographs, prints, sketches and/or other visual representations of any kind and nature whatsoever, by i whomever authored, for whatever purpose(s) , to whomever addressed, and by whomever received, excepting herefrom only matter privileged by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges, that are within the possession, custody or control of the Defendant, ,his agents, employees.,or .servants, or to which Defendant has a right -of access.and may, obtain by making a ' reasonable -effort,: .that depict, , ;describe ; or illustrate in any manner ,whatsoever_ to any or the :all , of e matters itemized hereinbelow: 1. .Any and all .materials, of ;any nature, and description whatsoever, :received , from the . DeMarko/Jarek .. �artnership, Professional Architects concerning the building at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts. 2. Any and all'materials, : of any nature and description whatsoever, received from Robert M. Rumpf, Professional . Engineer, concerning the building at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts. 2 I 3. Any and all materials, of any nature and description _ .whatsoever, received . •from _ Jeffrey R. Martel, eof Martel Designer-Craftsman, •Inca.. concerning the ,'s>building =at 18 r Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts. 4. Any and all materials, of any nature and description whatsoever, developed by you, your agents, employees, or servants, as a result of your August 18, 1991 inspection of the building at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts. I 5. Any and all materials, of-any nature and description I I whatsoever, developed by you, . your agents, employees, or servants, as a result of any other inspection of the building iII at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts within the past five (5) years. 6. Any and all materials, of any nature ,and ;description whatsoever, developed by . or on behalf of anyone `,other;-than yourself, as' a result -of any inspection of the building at 18 Crombie, Street, ; Salem, Massachusetts within the past five (5) years t 7 .:..:Any and all-,materials,;';of any nature .and description _ . whatsoever, which document or support any disagreements that you have with the findings or statements made by the DeMarko/ Jarek Partnership, which disagreements have been , identified by you in your answer to .interrogatory .no. 6. S. Any and .all materials, of any nature and description whatsoever, which document or support any disagreements that I ' i you have with the findings or statements made by Robert M. Rumpf, which disagreements have been identified by you in 3 I ; i I j �II your answer to interrogatory no.' 9.'.. 9. Any and all :materials,<;of any nature and,.description whatsoever, which document or support any disagreements that you have with the findings or statements made by the DeMarko/ Jarek Partnership, which disagreements have been identified by you in your answer to interrogatory no. -12. 10. Any and all materials, of any nature and description whatsoever, which document or support any disagreements that you have with the findings or statements made b� Jeffrey R. Martel, which disagreements have been identified by you in your answer to interrogatory no. 15. 11. Any and all materials, of any nature and description whatsoever, which document or support your contention that the subject .Crombie vftreet, building does ':not qualify for 'condemnation 'and/or 'does not pose a safety hazard to persons and property in the .vicinity. thereof, 12. Any and all materials, :of any nature and 4escription whatsoever, which document or support your contention that :.the subject , Crombie > Street.,building presently qualifies.:�,for ,r an occupancy permit: 13. Any and all materials, of any nature and description whatsoever, which document or support your contention that the subject Crombie Street building does notpresently qualify for an occupancy permit. 14. Any and all materials, of any nature and description whatsoever, which document or support your itemization, with respective cost estimates, in your answer to interrogatory 4 i � LI� no. 18, of the work that needs to be performed upon the subject Crombie Street building ,in order toj 'qualify ;said building for an occupancy permit 15. Any and all materials, of any nature and description whatsoever, which document or support your itemization, in your answer to interrogatory no. 19, of all removal and/od demolition projects permitted within the "Crombie Street National Historic Register District" from January, 1970 to date hereof. 16. Any and all materials, of any nature and description whatsoever, which document or support your itemization, in your answer to interrogatory no. 20, of all removal and/od I demolition projects permitted within the "Heritage Plaza West Urban Renewal Plan" from January, 1970 to date hereof. 17. Any and all materials, of any nature and description whatsoever, which you submitted to The State Building Code Appeals Board at the Board's hearing on or about February ll, 1992. IS. .Any and all correspondence or other . .documents pertaining 'to the subject Crombie Street building which have ; i been exchanged by, between or among: (i) you, your agents, employees or servants; and (ii) The State 'Building Code Appeals Board, or (iii) The Salem Redevelopment Authority, or (iv) the Plaintiff, its agents, employees or servants, or (v) any third person or entity, excepting herefrom only this Defendant's legal counsel. 5 ++pp _ � tv,4 ry aY Ydtil � .i 4 HOLYORE 'SQUARE, INC., By Its Attorn y, W Lundre Esq. Washingto Street Salem, NA 0197 (508) 741-3888 z [t y r h .f 4f T • .. s •f{ .x 31Y'r -''� i a } _ _ q ♦ . s j. r. 4 r^ � s ! t - i 1 i ' 6 II •i COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ,...ACTION NO. ----------------------------------- HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , Plaintiff ) Vs. ) THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS ) BOARD, THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, and WILLIAM MUNROE, ) as he is the Building Inspector of the City of Salem, ) Defendants ---------------------------- ------- NOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES Now comes the Plaintiff, HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , and moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 42 (a) , to consolidate the present case with that of Holyoke Square, Inc. vs. Salem Redevelopment Authority, Essex Superior Court civil action no. 91-2352 . In support hereof the Plaintiff says as follows: 1. Both actions involve the question of whether or not removal or destruction of a building located at 18 Crombie Street is necessary or appropriate. 2 . Civil Action No. 91-2352, between the Plaintiff, HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , and the Defendant, SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, is an action in the nature of certiorari seeking judicial review of a denial by the Defendant AUTHORITY of the Plaintiff's application for permission to remove or demolish the said building. 1 II 1 ' 3 . Said action presents for review the question whether under all of the circumstances the AUTHORITY's denial was: . in excess of its authority, based upon error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise unlawful. 4. The present action is between the Plaintiff and the STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD, THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and the BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE CITY OF SALEM. 5. Counts One and Two seek judicial review, under the Administrative Procedures Act or, in the alternative, by way of certiorari, of a decision of the STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD upholding the BUILDING INSPECTOR's refusal to issue a "remove or make safe" order, despite Plaintiff's claim that the building constitutes a danger to the public. 6. Said Counts One and Two present for review the question whether under all of the circumstances the APPEALS BOARD's Decision was: in excess of its authority, based upon error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise unlawful 7. Count Three seeks direct judicial enforcement of the State Building Code, and presents the question whether the refusal of the BUILDING INSPECTOR and the BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD to issue a "remove or make safe" order was, under all of the circumstances, in excess of their authority, based upon error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise unlawful. 2 vA 8. Count Four seeks declaratory relief and presents the question whether the SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY has any authority to countermand or otherwise obstruct any '"remove 'or'-`-' make safe" order that pertains to a structure that is admittedly within the jurisdiction of the REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. 9. Thus, the two (2) cases involve the same or similar parties, the same property, and similar questions of law; wherefore, time, expense and judicial economy will be conserved by deciding all relevant questions in a single proceeding. Respectfully submitted, HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , By I Attorney, William J. Lundregan, Esq. 81 Washington Street Suite 37 Salem, MA 01970 (508) 741-3888 AFFIDAVIT I, WILLIAM J. LUNDREGAN, having been duly sworn, - hereby depose and state the following: 1. I am a duly licensed Member of the Bar of •the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and I represent the Plaintiff, HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , in both of the above-referenced actions. 2. I have read the foregoing Motion to Consolidate, am familiar with the contents of same, and hereby aver that as to all matters of fact therein stated, the same are true, and as to all matters therein stated upon information and belief, I do believe the same to be trq� Sworn to and signed this / day of 1992 under the pain and penalties of perjury. I William J. Lundregan, Esq. 3 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR :COURT A a" = 'CIVIL "`*'ACTION NO. ----------------------------------- HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , Plaintiff ) VS. ) THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS ) BOARD, THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, and WILLIAM MUNROE, ) as he is the Building Inspector of the City of Salem, ) Defendants ----------------------------------- MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FACTS Plaintiff, HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 42 (a) , to consolidate the present case with that of Holyoke Square, Inca vs. Salem Redevelopment Authority, 'Essex Superior Court civil action no. 91-2352. -Both 'actions involve "the question of whether -'or not removal or destruction of a building located 'at =,18 'Crombie Street is necessary or appropriate. Both actions involve the same Plaintiff, HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , the owner of the subject property; and both actions involve the Defendant, SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, for the reason that the subject property is located within its jurisdiction. The second action also involves as parties Defendant THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD and the BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE 1 h CITY OF SALEM. Civil Action No. 91-2352, is an action in the nature of I certiorari seeking judicial review of a denial by the SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY of the Plaintiff's application for permission to remove or demolish the said building. Said action presents for review the question whether under all of the circumstances the AUTHORITY's denial was: in excess of its authority, based upon error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise unlawful. The second action is in four (4) counts. Counts One and Two seek judicial review, under the Administrative Procedures Act or, in the alternative, by way of certiorari, of a decision of the STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD upholding the BUILDING INSPECTOR's refusal to issue a "remove or make safe" order, despite Plaintiff's claim that the building constitutes a danger to the public. Said Counts One and Two present for review the question whether under all of the circumstances the APPEALS BOARD's Decision was: in excess of its authority, based upon error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise unlawful. Count Three seeks direct judicial enforcement of the State Building Code, and presents the question whether the refusal of the BUILDING INSPECTOR and the BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD to issue a "remove or make safe" order was, under all of the circumstances, in excess of their authority, 2 based upon error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or, otherwise ,unlawful. Count Four seeks declaratory relief and presents the `� question whether the SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY has any authority to countermand or otherwise obstruct any "remove or .make safe" order that pertains to a structure that is admittedly within the jurisdiction of the REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. ISSUE Where two (2) separate actions by and between the same and similar parties, and in the same Court, all involve common questions of law and fact, should the Court order them consolidated pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 42 (a) ? DISCUSSION Where two (2) separate actions by and between the same or similar parties, and in the same Court, all involve common questions of law and fact, the Court should order them consolidated pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 42 (a) . That rule provides that: When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, in the same county or different counties, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such other orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. At bar, both cases involve actions by the same Plaintiff and the same locus: 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Both involve a determination of what rights, if any, the Plaintiff has to remove or destroy a structure which, 3 Plaintiff contends, is of no practical, economic value, is presently dangerously unsafe, and cannot be rehabilitated at an economically reasonable cost. Both actions involve the SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, and while the second action involves two (2) additional defendants, there does not seem to be any practical advantage to any of the parties - or to the Court - in maintaining two (2) , simultaneous lawsuits aimed at answering, ultimately, the same question, viz. : whether the Plaintiff may or should remove or demolish the existing structure at 18 Crombie Street. Thus, the two (2) cases involve the same or similar parties, the same property, and similar questions of law; wherefore, time, expense and judicial economy will be conserved by deciding all relevant questions in a single proceeding. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that the Court will allow its Motion and consolidate these two (2) cases. HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , By Its Attorney, /WiJ. Lundregan, Esq. 81 Washington Street Suite 37 Salem, MA 01970 (508) 741-3888 4 l "? COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss "SUPERIOR COURT I CIVIL ACTION NO. 92-688 -----------------------------------) HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , Plaintiff ) Vs. ) THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BOARD, THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, and WILLIAM MUNROE, ) Building Inspector of the City of Salem, Defendants ) ----------------------------------- I, William J. Lundregan, hereby certify that on July 1992 I mailed copies of the following documents: (1) Request for Default (Rule 55(a) ) Against Defendant The State Building Code Appeals Board; (2) Application for Final Judgment for Relief for Failure to Answer Interrogatories Against Defendant The State Building Code Appeals Board; (3) Motion to Compel Production of Documents By The Defendant, The State Building Code Appeals Board; (4) Request for Default (Rule 55(a) ) Against Defendant William Munroe, Building Inspector of the City of Salem, or his successor in office; (5) Application for Final Judgment for Relief for Failure to Answer Interrogatories Against Defendant William Munroe, Building Inspector of the City of Salem, or his successor in office; (6) Motion to Compel Production of Documents By The Defendant, William Munroe, Building Inspector of the City of Salem, or his successor in office; and (7) Motion to Consolidate Cases; (8) Memorandum in Support of Motion to Consolidate Cases; and 1 ( V (9) Certificate of Service to: The State Building -Code Appeals Board, One Ashburton _ Place, Room 1301, Boston, MA 02108; The Salem Redevelopment Authority, One Salem Green, Salem, MA 01970; Office of the Building Inspector of the City of Salem, One Salem Green, Salem, MA; and Leonard F.- Femino, Assistant City Solicitor for the City of Salem, one School Street, Beverly, MA 01915. Signed this M (`day of July, 1992 under the pains and penalties of perjury. William J. Lundregan, . Esq. 81 Washington Street Suite 37 Salem, MA 01970 (508) 741-3888 I. 2 oAW1 Old,& �aa.farL, S� SCOTT HARSHBARGER 02708-7698,__., .... .... ... i� ATTORNEY GENERAL (617)727.2200 n p 977 n July 7 , 1992 '- ° -, Si Civil Clerk Essex Superior Court JUL U0 ly�� Superior Court House 34 t Salem, MAl 01970 SALEM PLANNING DEPT. Re: Holyoke Square, Inc . v State Building Code Appeals Board et al. , C.A. No. 92-688 Dear Sir or Madam: I represent the State Building Code Appeals Board, the state defendant in the above-referenced action. As its Answer, the Appeals Board encloses herewith for filing a certified copy of the administrative record. Please note that this action is an administrative appeal, pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, § 14, and is therefore limited to the administrative record. Because the Appeals Board's role in this matter was primarily to adjudicate a dispute between the other parties to this action, and because both those parties are represented before this Court, it is the Appeals Board' s intention not to appear at the trial of this matter, but to rely on the arguments presented by its co-defendant for affirmance of its decision. If I can be of any further assistance to the Court in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, -- Anthon . Penski Assistant Attorney General (617 ) 727-2200 ext. 2082 AEP:ccs Enclosure. cc: Kevin Daley, Esq. William J. Lundregan, Esq. Salem Redevelopment Authority COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT C.A. No. 92-688 Holyoke Square, Inc. , ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) State Building Code Appeals Board, ) et al. , ) Defendants. ) ANSWER Defendant State Building Code Appeals Board hereby files as its answer a certified copy of the record of the administrative proceedings, pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, § 14. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By its attorney, I hereby certify that a true copy of the above SCOTT HARSHBARGER document was served upon the attorney of A777/�/�--Y GEN T L record for ach other party by mail (by y on � �r Anthony�Penski Assistant Attorney General One Ashburton Place, Room 2019 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 617-727-2200, ext. 2082 BBO# 394000 Dated: July 7 , 1992 WILLIAM J. LUNDREGAN, ESQ. 81 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 37 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: (508) 741-3888 July 14, 1992 Civil Clerk Essex Superior Court 34 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: Holyoke Square, Inc. vs. The State Building Code Appeals Board, et al Civil Action No. 92-688 To Whom it may concern; Enclosed herewith please find: (1) Request for Default (Rule 55(a) ) Against Defendant The State Building Code Appeals Board; (2) Application for Final Judgment for Relief for Failure to Answer Interrogatories Against Defendant The State Building Code Appeals Board; (3) Request for Default (Rule 55.(a) ) Against Defendant William Munroe, Building Inspector of the City of Salem, or his successor in office; i (4) Application for Final Judgment for Relief for Failure to Answer Interrogatories Against Defendant William Munroe, Building Inspector of the City of Salem, or his successor in office; (5) Certificate of Service Kindly docket the same. Very truly yours, William J. Lundregan, Esq. cc: Leonard F. Femino, Esq. State Building Code Appeals Board Salem Redevelopment Authority Salem Building Inspector ------------------------------------------ HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , Plaintiff VS . SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Defendant ------------------------------------------ PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT, SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - RESPONSES 1 . William Luster City Planner Salem Redvelopment Authority, Project Administrator One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 2 . Len Femino, Assistant City Solicitor One School Street Beverly, MA 01915 3 . Yes . 4 . Individuals involved in inspection of 18 Crombie Street : James Armstrong, Salem Planning Department Margaret O'Brien, Salem Planning Department Kim Lord, Salem Planning Department William Beaulieu, City of Salem Clerk of the Works William Luster , City Planner David Harris, Salem Building Department Observations: An old house in relatively good condition considering its age. A typical house in the City of Salem. The building itself appeared to be structurally sound, although the foundation was in need of repair and the back porch was in poor condition. Electrical and plumbing systems were in need of updating. 5. Yes . 6 . a) March 18, 1991 b) Yes, the Rumpf Report was reviewed prior to the May 28 , 1991 hearing. 7 . (contradictions with Rumpf Report ) 8 . (have you seen the Martel estimate for repair work ) 9 . (date you received Martel report ) 10 . (contradictions with Martel report ) 11 . Low cost to rehabilitate building . The objectives of the SRA Urban Renewal Plan promote preservation and restoration of historic properties. The fact that the building is part of a National Register designation is of great importance and promotes the concept of restoration, rather than demolition. The owner ' s plan to landbank the site is not conducive to SRA redevelopment goals . 12 . ( other demolition projects in the Crombie St . District since 1970 ) 13 . ( other demolition projects in the Heritage Plaza West Urban Renewal Area from 1970 ) 14 . Salem Redevelopment Authority: Joan Boudreau, Chairman Paul L'Heureux Federal Street Assistant Treasurer Salem, MA 01970 24 Lafayette Place Salem, MA 01970 Roland Pinault, Vice Chairman 11 Horton Street William Guenther Salem, MA 01970 365 Essex Street Salem, MA 01970 Peter Fetchko, Treasurer Peabody Museum Director William Luster 42 Charter Street Project Administrator Salem, MA 01970 One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Kim Lord Staff Member One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Salem Historical Commission: Annie C. Harris, Chairperson Richard Oedel 28 Chestnut Street 6 Curtis Street Salem, MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970 John H. Carr , Jr . , Vice Chairperson Russell Slam 7 River Street 9 Forrester Street Salem, MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970 Walter H. Cook Dan Pierce 7 Chestnut Street 22 Andrew Street Salem, MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970 Roger Hedstrom Jane A. Guy, Clerk 126 Federal Street Salem Planning Dept . Salem, MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970 15 . (proposed witnesses ) 16 . (proposed expert testimony) esd/kljholyoke . lws COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 91-2352 ----------------------------------- ) HOLYOKE SQUARE, INC. , Plaintiff VS. SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Defendant ) ----------------------------------- PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTv SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Pursuant to Mass. R.Civ.P. 33, the Defendant, SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, is hereby required to answer the following interrogatories within the time provided by rule. NOTE: Notwithstanding their use of "all, " "any and all" and/or other, all-inclusive designations, the following Interrogatories shall be deemed to exclude from their scope materials privileged by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, and the privilege afforded to materials compiled by or at the behest of Counsel in anticipation of litigation. 1. Please state the name, address, occupation and business address of the person(s) answering these interrogatories on behalf of the Defendant AUTHORITY. 2 . Please state the name, address, occupation and business address of each and every person consulted for information used answering these interrogatories. 1 r' 3 . Please state whether or not the SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, or any agent, employee or servant thereof, made an inspection of the building at 18 Crombie Street, Salem, Massachusetts prior to conducting its May 28, 1991 hearing on Plaintiff's application for permission to remove the said building. 4 . If the answer to no. 3 is in the affirmative, please set forth in fullest detail the observations and findings made as a result of said inspection. Include in the answer hereto the identities of all persons involved in the said inspection. 5. Please state whether or not you have previously seen a copy of a Structural Report on the said Crombie Street building dated March 18, 1991, authored by Robert M. Rumpf, Professional Engineer. For your reference, a copy of said Report is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. 6. If the answer to no. 5 is in the affirmative, please state the following information: (a) The date on which you received the said Report; and (b) Whether or not you reviewed the contents of said letter prior to or at the time of the said May 28 , 1991 hearing. 7. If the answer to no. 5 is in the affirmative, please identify and describe in .full and complete detail each and every finding made by you as a result of your own inspection of the subject Crombie Street building, and/or of the May 28, 1991 hearing, which contradicts or otherwise differs with any 2 findings or statements made in the said Rumpf Report. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such dispute, please identify: (a) The specific finding or statement made by the Rumpf Report with which you differ; (b) Your own specific finding which differs from that made by Rumpf; and (c) The reasons, in full and complete detail, why you believe Rumpf is in error on the contested point. 8. Please state whether or not you have previously seen a copy of an Estimate of Repair Work written by Jeffrey R. Martel, of Martel Designer-Craftsman, Inc. , concerning the said Crombie Street Building. For your reference, a copy of said Report is annexed hereto as Exhibit B. 9. If the answer to no. 8 is in the affirmative, please state the following information: (a) The date on which you received the said Report; and (b) Whether or not you reviewed the contents of said letter prior to or at the time of the said May 28, 1991 hearing. 10. If the answer to no. 8 is in the affirmative, please identify and describe in full and complete detail each and every finding made by yor as a result of your own inspection of the subject Crombie Street building, and/or of the May 28, 1991 hearing, which contradicts or otherwise differs with any findings or statements made in the said Estimate. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such 3 dispute, please identify: (a) The specific finding or statement made by Martel with which you differ; (b) Your own specific finding which differs from that made by Martel; and (c) The reasons, in full and complete detail, why you believe Martel is in error on the contested point. 11. Please set forth in full and complete detail a statement of any and all reasons, and any and all evidence adduced in support therof, relied upon by the SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY in support of its May 28 , 1991 decision to deny the Plaintiff's application for permission to remove or demolish the building at 18 Crombie Street. 12 . Please set forth an itemization of all removal and/or demolition projects permitted within the "Crombie Street National Historic Register District" from January, 1970 to date hereof. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such project, please identify: (a) The date on which the project was approved; (b) The building(s) and use(es) which was/were removed and/or destroyed, and the alleged historic significance thereof; and (c) The building(s) and use(s) which succeeded that/those which was/were removed and/or destroyed. 13 . Please set forth an itemization of all removal and/or demolition projects permitted within the "Heritage Plaza West Urban Renewal Plan" from January, 1970 to date 4 hereof. In answering this interrogatory, with respect to each such project, please identify: (a) The date on which the project was approved; (b) The building(s) and use(es) which was/were removed and/or destroyed, and the alleged historic significance thereof; and (c) The building(s) and use(s) which succeeded that/those which was/were removed and/or destroyed. 14. Please identify, by name, address, occupation of profession, and business or professional address, each person known or believed to have knowledge of facts relevant to this case. 15. Please identify, by name, address, occupation of profession, and business or professional address, each witness whom this Defendant intends to call to testify at the trial of this case. 16. Please identify, by name, address, occupation of profession, and business or professional address, each expert witness whom this Defendant intends to call to testify at the trial of this case; and with respect to each such expert, please state: (a) the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; (b) the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; and (c) a summary of the grounds for each expected opinion. 5