Loading...
7 MALL STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION (� 7 Mall St. 4 1 ' CITY OF SALEM PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT KInIov.RLEY DRISCOI�I, MAN OR 130 WAS]n NcroN Si R1 r� S,�i.en�,OL�ss�u msr.rrs 01970 Tzsl.:978-745-9595 4 PAS:978-740-9846 REQUIRED INSPECTION PROPERTY ADDRESS 7 MALL STREET Wendi L. Goldsmith 7 Mall Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms. Goldsmith; The above referenced property has come to the attention of this department for the following reason(s): A report has been made to this office that there is an illegal Rooming House use at this property. For this reason an inspection must be conducted by our inspection team to assure compliance with the code and city ordinance. Under the provisions of 780 CMR, Section 115.6, the State Building Code, access to this property must be granted for the purposes of this inspection. Please call this office upon receipt of this letter to schedule this required inspection. If this property has rental units, these tenants must be notified in advance of this inspection, so that access to these spaces may also be accomplished. This inspection must be completed on or before, May 29, 2008; failure to respond to this notification will be construed as non- compliance, and as such an Administrative Search Warrant will be sought, so as to allow the lawful inspection of this property. If you have any further questions regarding this letter, please call this office at(978) 745- 9595, extension 5643. Si erely, �5y4 seph E. Barbeau, Jr. Assistant Building Inspector/ Local Inspector CC: file, Health Dept., Fire Prevention, Mayor's Office, Councilor Sosnoski Certificate No: 569-2004 Building Permit No.: 569-2004 f Commonwealth of Massachusetts City of Salem j Building Electrical Mechanical Permits This is to Certify that the RESIDENCE located at Dwelling Type .. -. 0007 MALL STREET in the CITY OF SALEM Address TownXily Narne IS HEREBY GRANTED A PERMANENT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 7 MALL STREET This permit is granted in conformity with the Statutes and ordinances relating thereto,and expires .... .-_... . ._ ._ ,., unless sooner suspended or revoked. Expiration Date Issued On: Wed May 6,2009 G. , GeoTMSO 2809 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions,Inc. ���-- ... --- - - Building J Certificate No: 569-2004 Commonwealth of Massachusetts ermit No.__569 2004 City of Salem Building Electrical Mechanical Permits This is to Certify that the RESIDENCE located at Dwelling Type 0007 MALL STREET in the CITY OF SALEM Address TowrVCity Name IS HEREBY GRANTED A PERMANENT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 7 MALL STREET This permit is granted in conformity,with the Statutes and ordinances relating thereto,and expiresunless sooner suspended or revoked. Expiration Date Issued On: Wed May 6,2009 GecTMS®2009 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions,Inc. -- - — -- ---------- -- -- -- - - --- --- --- .....-.......... -- --- �_ _.-..___......_.....--------- ................................. ......... 0007 MALL STREET 569-2004 cIS#: 18928 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Map: 135 Block: CITY OF SALEM Lot: 0131 Category: 434 Residential: additi Permit# 569-2004 BUILDING PERMIT Project# JS-2004-000860 Est.Cost: $100,000.00 Fee Charged: $605.00 Balance Due: $.00 PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO: Const. Class: Contractor: License: Expires: Use Group: MDB Construction CONSTRUCTIO SUPERVISOR-023113 Lot Size(sq. ft.): 1947.132 Owner: GOLDSMITH,WENDI Zoning: R2 Units Gained: Applicant., MDB Construction Units Lost: AT. 0007 MALL STREET Dig Safe#: ISSUED ON. 21-Ian-2004 AMENDED ON. EXPIRES ON. 21-Jul-2004 TO PERFORM THE FOLLOWING WORK.- 569-2004 ORK:569-2004 CONSTRUCT 12'X 12'ROOM ADDITION PER BOA/COURT DECISION&RAISE HOME. TJS POST THIS CARD SO IT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET Electric Gas Plumbing Buildirnz Underground: Underground: Underground: Excavation: Service: Meter: Footings: Rough: Rough: Rough: Foundation: Final: Final: Final: Rough Frame: Fireplace/Chimney: D.P.W. Fire Health Insulation: Meter: Oil: Final: House# Smoke: Water: Alarm: Assessor Treasury: Sewer: Sprinklers: Final: ,THIS PERMIT MAY BE REVOKED BY THE CITY OF SALEM UPON VIOLATION OF ANY OF ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS. Signature: Fee Type: Receipt No: Date Paid: Check No: Amount: BUILDING - REC-2004-000915 16-Jan-04 8291 $605.00 Geri CMS®2009 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions,Inc. L CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 C2 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. "TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 C:) N u cr. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THEODORE&c SHIRLEY ANGELAKIS 'n REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MALL STREET R-2 v cr A hearing on this petition was held on October 19,2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto, Robin Stein and Bonnie Belair. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from frontage and lot size requirements to acquire a 113 square foot portion of land from the property located at 7 Mall Street to be given to 9 Mall Street located in an R-2 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, upon a finding Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building Or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings, and structure involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners.. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of this district of the purpose of the Ordinance The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: I. The property located at 9 Mall Street is an irregularly shaped lot and the owners believed that they owned this portion of land and had landscaped this portion. 2. The property owner at 7 Mal Street has agreed to give this piece of land to the owners of 9 Mall Street. In doing so, the property owner increases the non-conformity of the lot at 7 Mall Street which necessitates the need for the requested variances. 3. Attorney Sally Calhom appeared and represented the petitioners. 4. There was no opposition to this petition. ♦ r DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THEODORE & SHIRLEY ANGELAKIS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MALL STREET R-2 page two On the basis of the above finding of fact, the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petition. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and Without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant the Variances requested, subject to the following conditions; 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Variance Granted onnie Be fair October 19, 2005 Board of Appeal n co' r �T c' o2� ati r 3 i A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that,if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal N n D r om C-) 70 c: N ujC D oM N n` N D Cr COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSEffS APPEALS COURT CLERK'S OFFICE 1500 New COURT HOUSE BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02.108 (617) 725-8106 March 28, 2002 MAP. Nicholas J. Decoulos, Esquire Decoulos & Decoulos 248 Andover Street Peabody, MA 01960 RE: No . 1999-P-1963 PHILIP WALES VS. ROBERT SOLOMON & another NOTICE OF DOCKET ENTRY Please take note that on March 28, 2002 , the following entry was made on the docket of the above-referenced case : , MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: " . . .On December 7 , 2001, Solomon filed a motion to dismiss . . . on the grounds that Wales no longer had standing. . .By order dated January 2, 2002 . . . this Court directed. . . if no substitution. . .made. . . the appeal would be dismissed. . .That period has elapsed. . .Accordingly, Solomon's motion to dismiss is allowed. The appeal is dismissed. . .because it has become moot . " (Laurence, Dreben, & Trainor, JJ. ) *Notice/Attest/Image . Very truly yours, The Clerk' s Office Dated: March 28, 2002 To: Jacqueline Voss Lees, Esquire William J. Lundregan, III, Esquire Essex Superior Court Nicholas J. .Decoulos, Esquire COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT 99-P-1963 PHILIP WALES vs . ROBERT SOLOMON & another. ' MEMORANDUM AND ORDER !'l ,iinriff Philip Wales appealed a judgmcnt of the Superior Court affirming a special permit grant by the City of Salem Board of Appeal to his neighbor, the defendant Robert Solomon. During the pendency of this appeal, Wales conveyed his property to Kevin O' Brien. On December 7, 2001, Solomon filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that Wales no longer had standing as an aggrieved party. By order dated January 2, 2002, a panel of this Court directed that if no substitution of parties were made within thirty days, the appeal would be dismissed as moot . 2 That period has elapsed without substitution of parties . Accordingly, Solomon ' s motion to dismiss is allowed. The appeal Clty of Salem Board of Appeal . The order further provided that if such substitution were made, the case would be remanded to the Superior Court for an evidentiary hearing and findings as to whether O' Brien is an aggrieved party within the meaning of G. L . c . 40A, § 17 . is dismissed, not on the merits, 'but because it has become moot . Appeal dismissed. By the Court (Laurence, DDre�ben, Trainor, JJ. ) , Clerk 7 Entered: March 28, 2002 2 w fllitu of "'63ttlem, {` usBadjusEtts oQ Paarb of �ufreul X 29 314 + c�tr of L DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT SOLOMON,REQUESTING A O(ERK'SOFfiCFSS SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MALL STREET A hearing on this petition was held April 15, 1998 and continued until June 17, 1998 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward and Ronald Harrison. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the addition of a second story on an existing single story addition and address the questions of the Honorable Nancy Merrick, Justice Essex Superior Court (Court Order 10/31/97) . The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4 , grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be, granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Petitioner seeks a special permit to build a second story addition onto an existing nonconformin structure at 7 Mall Street in Salem to be used for residential purposes. 2. Petitioner's request has twice been appealed and twice remanded to this Board. After it was initially heard by the Board on May 18, 1994 and June 15, 1994, an appeal of the Board's decision was filed in Superior Court, captioned Philip Wales v. Wendi Goldsmith et als. , C.A. NO. 94-1653. On remand, petitioner's request was granted in a Zoning Board decision dated May 17, 1996. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT SOLOMON REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MALL STREET page two 3. An appeal was taken from the May 17, 1996 decision, caption J/18 19 3 Iy Pi, bales V. Robert Solomon, et al .s, C.A. No 96-1142. eOF present t hearcasesOin ctober 31, nnce with a Superior Court �&K'S OF F 4. Petitioner purchased the property at 7 Mall in 1992. The residence at the time of the purchase comprised a main two-story building and attached one-story ell, used as an auxillary entrance. S. The building and auxillary structure at 7 hall Street is a nonconforming structure within the meaning of the Salem Zoning Ordinance because it pre-existed the enactment of the ordinance and would not meet the requirements of the current Law if it were to be constructed today. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and may be granted in harmony with the neighborhood. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the Special Permit requested. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED June 20 , 1998 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED 'KITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if anv, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title (Cit" of 1&jlem, flassarilusetts 3; �9 �Bvnra of (AV 27 hi '96 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT_SOLOMAN REQUESTING A SPECIAL;,`' ' PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATEVAT 7 MALL STREET'-(R-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 15, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Joseph Ywuc and Arthur LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a second floor on an existing single story dwelling for the property located at 7 Mall Street. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner had been previously heard before the Board at hearings on May 18, 1994 and June 15, 1994. An appeal of the Board's decision was subsequently filed in Superior Court and captioned Philip Wales v. Wendi Goldsmith st als. ' Civil Action No. 94-1653. The matter is now before the Board on remand as a result of an Agreement for Judgment executed by the parties and an Order entered in the Superior Court action. 2. Petitioner purchased the property in 1992, and currently resides at the property. 3. Petitioner intends to use the proposed addition for residential DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT SOLOMAN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MALL STREET (R-2) my 17 space for a growing family. 4. Petitioner stated that there would be no business conducted at the 7 Mall Street address. 5. The proposed second story addition would be built on an existing 12'x12' structure. 6. The existing 121x12' addition has been in existence for at least 10 years. 7. Petitioner stated there would be no windows on either the first or second floor of the proposed new addition facing the property owned by Philip P. Wales at 16 Williams Street. Petitioner further advised that it was the intention to follow the now existing roof line of the main structure for the proposed addition and that a sunlight would be installed on the roof. 8. Petitioner further stated that despite the fact that the property is not within a historic district there is a willingness to submit the plans t the Historic Commission for review and comment 9. Pam, Shirley and Theodore Angelakis, 9 Mall Street, submitted a letter in support of the Petition. 10. Nancy Farrett, 5 Mall Street submitted a letter in support of the petition. 11. Joseph and Elizabeth Palamara, 6 Mall Street appeared and expressed their support for the Petition. 12. Peter Farrrell, 5 Mall Street, appeared and spoke in favor of the Petition. Mr. Farrell felt the proposed addition would improve the neighborhood and would be another example of the Petitioner's effort to upgrade the property and area. 13. Philip P. Wales, 16 Williams Street, an abutter, and his counsel, Dan Casey, appeared and opposed the Petition. 14. Mr. Wales expressed a concern that the proposed addition would "box" in his yard and effect the view from his property. 15. Mr. Wales submitted a letter dated May 15, 1996 setting forth his opposition to the Petition. 16. A letter dated April 17, 1995 from Gail M. Sdos, 16 Williams St. was submitted in opposition to the Petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and may be granted in harmony with the neighborhood. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: r �a, • DECISION OF THE P771TION OF ROBERT SOLOMAN REOUESTIiSG A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MALL STREET (R-2 ) . page three 1. Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statutg,� l ordinances, codes and regulations. 27 Fll 'Oj .- 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dim@hsagns` `"FESS submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a Building Permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 7. Petitioner, in accord with his agreement to do so, shall submit the plans for the proposed addition to the Historic Commission for review and comment as to the exterior finishes so they will be in harmonv with the existing neighborhood. 8. There shall not be any windows installed on the 1st or 2nd floor of the proposed new addition on the vertical wall facing the property owned by Philip P. Wales at 16 Williams Street. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED MAY 15, 1996 Gary Barrett Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal a CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS WILLIAM J. LUNDREGAN Legal Department - JOHN D. KEENAN City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor at Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 15 Church Street Tel:978-741-3888 Tel:978-744-8500 Fax:978-741-8110 Fax:978-744-0111 February 26, 1998 Law Office of Carl D. Goodman DECOULOS & DECOULOS Jaqueline Voss Lees, Esq. Nicholas J. Decoulos, Esq. 17 Front Street 248 Andover Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970-3707 Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 RE: Philip Wales v. Robert Solomon and Bd. of Auoeals Essex Superior Court: Docket 96-1142-B Remand to Board Dear Attorneys Lees and Decoulos: The above captioned matter has been brought to my attention. I have inquired of the Clerk of the Board of Appeals if this has been placed on the board's schedule. It appears that it has not. Judge Merrick's Decision (October 31, 1997) directs the Board to determine whether the existing 12' x 12' structure is nonconforming within the Salem Zoning Ordinance? Specifically, Judge Merrick asks the Board the following questions: ♦ When was the structure in question built? ♦ At the time the structure was built, did it comply with the zoning law? ♦ If the structure did comply with the Zoning Ordinance at the time it was built, but.for the failure to obtain a building permit, is it a nonconforming structure in the judgment of the Board? Page Two of Two February 26, 1998 Attorneys Lees & Decoulos RE: Remand to Board ♦ If the structure did comply, but for the permit, do the facts in this limited case, including that the current owners (petitioners for the special permit) are without fault in failure to obtain the permit, warrant a finding by the Board that the structure is nonconforming? The clerk has suggested that this matter be placed on the agenda for the Wednesday, April 15, 1998, meeting of the Board of Appeals. If this date is agreeable to both of you, you should file an application with the clerk requesting a hearing consistent with Judge Merrick's decision. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Do not hesitate to call with any questions. Very best regards, % I l L�'— I D. Keenan, Esq. Jdk/kjm CC. Salem Board of Appeals 12_ Law Offices DECOULOS & DECOULOS 248 Andover Street Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 Telephone (978) 532-1020 Nicholas J.Decoulos James N. Decoulos January 22 , 1998 William J. Lundregan, City Solicitor 81 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Re ; rhilip Wales Vs . Robert Solomon and the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem Essex Superior Court No. 96-1142-B Dear Mr. Lundregan: My recent telephone call was in reference to the above-entitled matter which was tried at the Superior Court and an order was entered by Judge Merrick, which is self- explanatory. Will you please advise me how you want to have the Board of Appeals conduct its business in regard to the remand order. I am sending a copy of this letter to the Board of Appeals and to the plaintiff' s attorney, Jacqueline Voss Lees . I trust that I will hear from either you or the Board of Appeals . Very truly yours, 1 .. DECOULOS & DECOULOS �v Nicholas J. Decoulos NJD:aw CC ; Salem Board of Appeals Jacqueline Voss Lees, Esq. . , v I COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS' ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO: 96-1142-B PHILIP WALES, Plaintiff vs. ROBERT SOLOMON and GARY BARRETT, NINA COHEN, ALBERT HILL, JOSEPH YWUK and ARTHUR LEBRECQUE, as they constitute the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, Defendants U1 DGMENT OF DECISION (October 31, 1997) This matter came on for hearing before the Court, Merrick, 1., presiding on an appeal by the plaintiff,, Philip Wales, from a decision by the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals to ;rant a special permit. After review of the records, the Court hereby REM,-U DS the matter to the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals for further hearing, findings and rulings in accordance with the Order of Merrick, J. dated October 31, 1997. Dated at Peabody, Massachusetts this 3 I th day of October, 1997. Deputy . ssista t C. f, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS !f ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO: 96-1142-B PHILIP WALES, Plaintiff vs. ROBERT SOLOMON and GARY BARRETT, NINA COHEN, ALBERT HILL, JOSEPH YWUK and ARTHUR LEBRECQUE, as they constitute the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, Defendants ORDER This matter came before the Court for a hearing on the City of Salem's Zoning Board of AppeaI's (ZBA) decision to grant a special permit. For the reasons set forth below, this Court remands the matter to the ZBA for further hearing and consideration of the following areas of inquiry. After review of the facts and applicable law, the record is not clear as to whether or not the existing 12' x 12' structure is a non-conforming structure. It appears from a brief review of the exhibits and trial testimony that the existing structure may well have complied with the zoning by-laws but for the issuance of a building permit. For example, according to exhibits presented at trial, it appears that the property met setback requirements at Ieast in 1986 (Exhibit 3). The ZBA should attempt to ascertain if the 2 existing structure is non-conforming i.e. does it fall within the definitions of Sec. 3-1 and 3-4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinances. Specifically, the ZBA should make findings as to whether the structure complied with the zoning law at the time it was built (which will obviously require the ZBA to determine a time frame within which it finds the structure was built). In considering this application fora special permit, the ZBA should continue to be mindful - as it has already been - of the general intent and purpose of its zoning ordinance provisions. Articles III through VIII set forth the substantive law which govern this special permit petition. The method by which those substantive zoning requirements is enforced is set forth in Article IX, entitled "Administration". This includes the requirement of obtaining building permit. It would appear from a reading of the entire City of Salem Zoning Ordinances that the requirement of a building permit is a procedural mechanism to ensure compliance with the body of zoning ordinances contained in Articles III through VIII. Prior to this Court addressing this issue, however, this Court ought to defer to the ZBA to consider the question, if in its view it is appropriate. That is, the ZBA should make appropriate findings of fact and consider the following question (if the facts permit): where the existing structure met all existing zoning requirements but for the failure of a predecessor owner of the property to comply with the procedural requirement of obtaining a building permit, is it a non-conforming stricture in the judgment of the ZBA? Put another way, if a predecessor had applied for !ar f3J. 3 a building permit when the structure was first built, would the permit have issued? If this is the case, do the facts in this limited instance, including the fact that the current property owners are without fault in the failure to obtain a building permit for the existing structure, warrant a finding by the ZBA that the structure is in fact non- conforming. Therefore, the matter is herebv REMANDED to the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals for further hearing, findings and rulings pursuant to this ORDER. Nancv Me ' ck Justice of the Superior Court Dated: October 3, 1997 Robert A. Ledoux, ESQ. Leo, Please circulate the enclosed among the members of the Board of Appeals. Thanks. Bah� ? COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO: 96-1142-B PHILIP WALES, Plaintiff vs. ROBERT SOLOMON and GARY BARRETT, NINA COHEN, ALBERT HILL, JOSEPH YWUK and ARTHUR LEBRECQUE, as they constitute the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, Defendants JUDGMENT OF DECISION (October 31, 1997) This matter came on for hearing before the Court, Merrick, J., presiding on an appeal by the plaintiff, Philip Wales, from a decision by the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a special permit. After review of the records, the Court hereby REMANDS the matter to the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals for further hearing, findings and rulings in accordance with the Order of Merrick, J. dated October 31, 1997. Dated at Peabody, Massachusetts this 31th day of October, 1997. Deputyssista t , t COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO: 96-1142-B PHILIP WALES, Plaintiff VS. ROBERT SOLOMON and GARY BARRETT, NINA COHEN, ALBERT HILL, JOSEPH YWUI< and ARTHUR LEBRECQUE, as they constitute the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, Defendants ORDER This matter came before the Court for a hearing on the City of Salem's Zoning Board of Appeal's (ZBA) decision to grant a special permit. For the reasons set forth below, this Court remands the matter to the ZBA for further hearing and consideration of the following areas of inquiry. After review of the facts and applicable law, the record is not clear as to whether or not the existing 12' x 12' structure is a non-conforming structure. It appears from a brief review of the exhibits and trial testimony that the existing structure may well have complied with the zoning by-laws but for the issuance of a building permit. For example, according to exhibits presented at trial, it appears that the property met setback requirements at least in 1986 (Exhibit 3). The ZBA should attempt to ascertain if the a 2 existing structure is non-conforming i.e. does it fall within the definitions of Sec. 8-1 and 8-4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinances. Specifically, the ZBA should make findings as to whether the structure complied with the zoning law at the time it was built (which will obviously require the ZBA to determine a time frame within which it finds the structure was built). In considering this application fora special permit, the ZBA should continue to be mindful - as it has already been - of the general intent and purpose of its zoning ordinance provisions. Articles III through VIII set forth the substantive law which govern this special permit petition. The method by which those substantive zoning requirements is enforced is set forth in Article IX, entitled "Administration". This includes the requirement of obtaining building permit. It would appear from a reading of the entire City of Salem Zoning Ordinances that the requirement of a building permit is a procedural mechanism to ensure compliance with the body of zoning ordinances contained in Articles III through VIII. Prior to this Court addressing this issue, however, this Court ought to defer to the ZBA to consider the question, if in its view it is appropriate. That is, the ZBA should make appropriate findings of fact and consider the following question (if the facts permit): where the existing structure met all existing zoning requirements but for the failure of a predecessor owner of the property to comply with the procedural requirement of obtaining a building permit, is it a non-conforming structure in the judgment of the ZBA? Put another way, if a predecessor had applied for 3 a building permit when the structure was first built, would the permit have issued? If this is the case, do the facts in this limited instance, including the fact that the current property owners are without fault in the failure to obtain a building permit for the existing structure, warrant a finding by the ZBA that the structure is in fact non- conforming. Therefore, the matter is hereby REMANDED to the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals for further hearing, findings and rulings pursuant to this ORDER. Nancv Me cic u Justice of the Superior Court Dated: October ,3/ , 1997 APPEALVJune+5, 1996 LAW OFFICE OF CARL D. GOODMAN 17 FRONT STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970-3707 CARL D. GOODMAN (508) 745-6006 JACQUELINE Voss LEES- 'Abo.umauam Co. t June 5, 1996 Ms. Deborah E. Burkinshaw f_ City Clerk _ `f City Hall P4 Salem, MA 01970 HAND DELIVERED `"o L.:" RE: Wales v. Solomon et al Dear Ms. Burkinshaw: Enclosed please find copy of Complaint and Civil Action Cover Sheet which have been filed this day in the Superior Court. Very t yours, CARL D. G ODMAN I nal t.UUIL UIRI CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT / 2 Essex Division It 01P PLAINTIFFS) ff NDANT ) Philip Wales 0 ert olomon, Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen et. al. ATTORNEY(S)FIRM NAME.ADDRESS AND TEL.) ATTORNEY(S)(it known) Carl D. Goodman, Esq. 17 Front Street Board of BarcbJ&TeeAA# (I 99 JiiPbd)745-6006 201720 ORIGIN CODE AND TRACK DESIGNATION Place an ® in one box only: 1. F01 Originat Complaint (] 4. F04 District Ct. Appeal c231, s. 97 (X) 0 2. F02 Removal to Sup. Ct. c231, s. 104 (F) [1 5. F05 Reactivated after Rescript; Relief from 3. F03 Retransfer to Sup. Ct. c231, s. 102C (X) judgment/order (Mass. R Civ. P. 60 (X) 116. E10 Summary process appeal (X) TYPE OF ACTION AND TRACK DESIGNATION (See Reverse Side) CODE NO. TYPE OF ACTION (specify) TRACK IS THIS A JURY CASE? 02-- Zoning Appeal (F ) ❑ Yes NO 1. PLEASE GIVE A CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE FACTS: (Required in ALL Types of Actions) This is an appeal of a Salem Zoning Board of Appeals decision. c a 2. IN A CONTRACT ACTION (CODE A) OR A TORT ACTION (CODE B) STATE, WITH PARTICULARITY,-- MONEY DAMAGES WHICH WOULD WARRANT A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT RECOVERY -" WOULD EXCEED $25,000: -; Money damages are not sought 3. PLEASE IDENTIFY, BY CASE NUMBER, NAME AND DIVISION, ANY RELATED ACTION PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT. 10 SIGNATURE OF ATTO OF R PLAINTIFFGATE 6/5/96 DISPOSITION RECENED A. Judgment Entered B. No Judgment Entered 6Y: 0 1. Before jury trial or non-jury hearing 6.Transferred to District DATE ❑ 2. During jury trial or non-jury hearing Court under G.L. c.231, DISPOSITION ENTERED ❑ 3. After jury verdict s.102C. 0 4. After court finding Disposition Date BY: ❑ 5. After post trial motion DATE: OCAJ 6-mic 0058/88 CLERK MAGISTRATE'S COPY COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPT. OF THE TRIAL COURT CIVIL ACTION No. ******************************* ci� tigL * PHILIP WALES, Plaintiff * -V- ROBERT SOLOMON, and * COMPLAINT 1 = GARY BARRETT, NINA COHEN, ALBERT HILL, JOSEPH YWUK and ARTHUR LEBRECQUE, as * L+ n they constitute the * -� Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, Defendants * ******************************* 1. Plaintiff, Philip Wales, is an individual who resides at 16 Williams Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts. 2. Defendant, Robert Solomon, is an individual who resides at 7 Mall Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts. 3. Defendant, Gary Barrett, a member and Chairman of the Board of Appeals for the City of Salem, Massachusetts (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), is an individual who resides at 7 Patton Road, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts. Gar Office of Carl D. Goodman 17 Front Street Salem, MA 01970 (508)745-6006 1 4. Defendant, Nina Cohen, a member of the Board of Appeals for the City of Salem, Massachusetts (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), is an individual who resides at 22 Chestnut Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts. 5. Defendant, Albert Hill, a member of the Board of Appeals for the City of Salem, Massachusetts (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), is an individual who resides at 4 Larkin Lane, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts. 6. Defendant, Joseph Ywuk, a member of the Board of Appeals for the City of Salem, Massachusetts (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board"), is an individual who resides at 86 Ord Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts. 7. Defendant, Arthur LeBrecque, a member of the Board of Appeals for the City of Salem, Massachusetts (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), is an individual who resides at I 1 Hazel Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts. 8. The defendants, Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Joseph Ywuk and Arthur LeBrecque, are all of the members and associate members of the Board of Appeals for the City of Salem(said defendants shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as "the Board"). 9. This action is an appeal brought pursuant to G.L. Chapter 40A, §17 for judicial review of a decision of the Board, which decision was filed with the City Clerk for the City of Salem on May 17, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Decision"). A certified copy of the Decision is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" and hereby incorporated herein. 10. Plaintiff is a person aggrieved within the meaning of G.L. Chapter 40A, §17 by the Decision of the Board in granting a Special Permit to defendant, Robert Solomon, as to real property located at 7 Mall Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts (hereinafter referred to as"the Locus"), 11. On or about April 3, 1996, the defendant, Robert Solomon, filed a petition with the Board seeking a special permit to allow construction of a second story on an existing single story addition. 12. Thereafter, a hearing was held on May 15, 1996. La. Office of Carl D. Goodman 17 Front Street Salem, NA 01970 (508)795-6006 2 13. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board voted to grant a Special Permit as requested by the defendant, Robert Solomon. 14. The Decision of the Board exceeds the authority of said Board. 15. The findings set forth in the Decision and the reasons for the findings set forth in the Decision are insufficient in law to warrant the granting of the Special Permit. 16. The Decision is unwarranted and beyond the authority of the Board as it is contrary to the provisions of G.L. 40A and the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Salem as the Decision allows the expansion of an illegal structure and is otherwise contrary to law. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands that this Honorable Court: 1. After hearing, determine the facts, and upon the facts so determined, annul the Decision of the Board on the grounds that said Decision exceeds the authority of said Board; and, 2. Grant such other and further relief as may be appropriate. Dated: June 5, 1996 PHILIP WALES, Plaintiff By his attorney: CARL D. GOODMAN, ESQ. 17 Front Street Salem, MA 01970 Telephone: (508) 745-6006 BBO #201720 Law Office of Carl D. Goodman 17 Front Street Salem, MA 01970 (508)745-6006 3 of 51em, fflassarljusettz �Bvarb of �u{tPul NAY I ! L; i iz JO DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT SOLOMAN REQUESTING A SPECIA.14";; PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MALL STREET (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held May 15, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman, Nina Cohen, Albert Hill, Joseph Ywuc and Arthur LeBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a second floor on an existing single story dwelling for the property located at 7 Mall Street. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding. 4nything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner had been .previously heard before the Board at hearings on May 18, 1994 and June 15, 1994. An appeal of the Board's decision was subsequently filed in Superior Court and captioned Philip Wales v. Wendi Goldsmith st als. ' Civil Action No. 94-1653. The matter is now before the Board on remand as a result of an Agreement for Judgment executed by the parties and an Order entered in the Superior Court action. 2. Petitioner purchased the property in 1992, and currently resides at the property. 3. Petitioner intends to use the proposed addition for residential DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT SOLOMAN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MALL STREET (R-2) page two Huy 17 j 2^ i �J space for a growing family. C;r 4. Petitioner stated that there would be no business cond'u'cted'at;; "'''' the 7 Mall Street address. 5. The proposed second story addition would be built on an existing 121x12' structure. 6. The existing 121x12' addition has been in existence for at least 10 years. 7. Petitioner stated there would be no windows on either the first or second floor of the proposed new addition facing the property owned by Philip P. Wales at 16 Williams Street. Petitioner further advised that it was the intention to follow the now existing roof line of the main structure for the proposed addition and that a sunlight would be installed on the roof. 8. Petitioner further stated that despite the fact that the property is not within a historic district there is a willingness to submit the plans t the Historic Commission for review and comment 9. Pam, Shirley and Theodore Angelakis, 9 Mall Street, submitted a letter in support of the Petition. 10. Nancy Farrett, 5 Mall Street submitted a letter in support of the .petition. ll. Joseph and Elizabeth Palamara, 6 Mall Street appeared and expressed their support for the Petition. 12. Peter Farrrell, 5 Mall Street, appeared and spoke in favor of the Petition. Mr. Farrell felt the proposed addition would improve the neighborhood and would be another example of the Petitioner's effort to upgrade the property and area. 13. Philip P. Wales, 16 Williams Street, an abutter, and his counsel, Dan Casey, appeared and opposed the Petition. 14. Mr. Wales expressed a concern that the proposed addition would "box" in his yard and effect the view from his property. 15. Mr. Wales submitted a letter dated May 15, 1996 setting forth his opposition to the Petition. 16. A letter dated April 17, 1995 from Gail M. Sdos, 16 Williams St. was submitted in opposition to the Petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and may be granted in harmony with the neighborhood. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT SOLOMAN REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 MALL STREET (R-2) . page three 1. Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. r1f _ / 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensi6riie'A, submitted. 1 r(. SS 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner shall obtain a Building Permit prior to beginning any construction. 6. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 7. Petitioner, in accord with his agreement to do so, shall submit the plans for the proposed addition to the Historic Commission for review and comment as to the exterior finishes so they will be in harmony with the existing neighborhood. 8. There shall not be any windows installed on the 1st or 2nd floor of the proposed new addition on the vertical wall facing the property owned by Philip P. Wales at 16 Williams Street. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED MAY 15, 1996 pf CscA�) Gary Barrett Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and .no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal A TRUE COPY ATTEST CITY CLERK SALEM, MASS_ "� (Citn_ of Salem, flas5acil a is - 'j®, � � u� it oo 54 'oe - �OIIra Df peal CITY OF SAO'; " '=SS U.. SLrftK'S OF DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WENDI GOLDSMITH FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT.7_MALL STREET `(R-2) A hearing on this petition was held June 15, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Stephen O'Grady, Albert Hill, and Nina Cohen. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a second story on an existing nonconforming single story addition. Property is located in the R-2 zone. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section 8-6 and 9-4, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was no opposition to the petitioners request. 2. The petitioners need the additional space to grow as a family. 3. The proposed construction of a second level in the most feasible way to obtain additional space. 4. . Property will remain a single family. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WENDI GOLDSMITH FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 MALL STREET, SALEM page two JUL 5 I I oa CITY OF SAL_i1. Ht SS On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the eMi.EkhUecpifginted, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. The Special Permit requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants and may be granted in harmony with the neighborhood. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Mr. O'Grady opposed) to grant the Special Permit requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to starting construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. No business operations are to be allowed out of dwelling. Special Permit Granted June 15, 1994 Ste hen O'Grady, S " retary Board of appeal DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WENDI GOLDSMITH FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AT 7 MALL STREET, SALEM Page three A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of MGL Chapter 40A. , and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A. , Section 11, the Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal 2 �— c�� m o c.rt rr, m cn c o in L