The URL can be used to link to this page

31-33 MARLBOROUGH ROAD - SEE FILE 35 - BUILDING INSPECTION 31-33 MAR?.ROROUGH ROAD — tY� C E °S t, = -r:° s.E.i, '��''i=-'i� '`•�' !�-�I� r O� SALEM, MA BOARD OF APPEAL f � CLERK'S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREE'.3RC FLOOR SALEM. MA 01970 '✓' ✓�' TEL. (978) 745-9595 9g�f��1F FAX (978) 740-9846 ,2001 FEB 20 P STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. 5: 05 MAYOR DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CARLOS & MARY CORRIEA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 31 MARLBOROUGH ROAD R-1 A hearing on this petition was held February 19, 2003 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Nicholas Helides, Stephen Harris and Joan Boudreau. 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. The petitioner is requesting Variance from rear yard setback to construct an 18 x 22 addition for the property located at 31 Marlborough Road located in an R-1 zone. The Variances, which have been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this 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 the 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: 1. The petitioner appeared and represented himself at the hearing. 2. Plans were shown showing the proposed addition. 3. Petitioner seeks a relief from the rear yard setback. 4. Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor of the petition. 5. There was no opposition to this petition. SALEM, MA CLERK'S OFFICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF CARLOS & MARY CORRIEA REQUESTIN, VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 31 MARLBOROUGH ROAD[§§ fEB 20 P 5. 05 page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, 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. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 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 statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. All construction shall be done as per plans submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. VARIANCE GRANTED FEBRUARY 19, 2003 NicholasHelides Board of Appeal • CITY OF SALEM, [r! A5SACF4USET'1 S PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT OF THIS DECISION HA,,.)M tLI ,L��!efdt* � �LAf�f�ING BOARD AND l— TY CLERK TEL. (978) 745-9595 EXT. 380 .11, i6FAX (978) 740-9846 . STANLEY J. Us6Re_$I,fDW this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the MAYoMassachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 day 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 certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is 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 owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal - 0 m �o NVi<o O D CD r- -a n. m� O y v- s _ _ _ -� _ � � I� \� , _� _ - (fit of 19rttlem. mttssar4usetts Publir Propertg Department Nuilbing i9epartment (One Dalem (6reen 508-745-9595 Ext. 380 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer May 14, 1996 Thomas Donovan 31 Marlborough Road Salem, Mass . 01970 RE : 31 Marlborough Road Dear Mr. Donovan: This office has received a complaint concerning the above mentioned property. It appears that you have installed a glass slider at the rear of the house without obtaining a building permit . Please contact this office upon receipt of this letter so proper permits and inspections can be completed per Massachusetts State Building Codes . Failure to comply could result in legal action being taken against you. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Sincerely Leo E. Tremblay Inspector of Buildings LET: scm cc: David Shea Councillor O'Leary, Ward 4 - - - - - - - _ � �� ' � s/� �/s� ; ` (situ of *alem, massac4usetts Public Propertg Department Nuilbing Department (One Salem (6reen 500-745-9595 Ext. 300 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer May 14, 1996 Thomas Donovan 31 Marlborough Road Salem, Mass. 01970 RE : 31 Marlborough Road Dear Mr . Donovan: This office has received a complaint concerning the above mentioned property. It appears that you have installed a glass slider at the rear of the house without obtaining a building permit. Please contact this office upon receipt of this letter so proper permits and inspections can be completed per Massachusetts State Building Codes . Failure to comply could result in legal action being taken against you. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Leo E. Tremblay Inspector of Buildings LET: scm cc: David Shea Councillor O' Leary, Ward 4 I# tw n � C13. � t I I PROPOSED HOUSE AT3/ MARLBOROUGH ROAD { SALEM, MA { PREPARED FOR OWNER LEO KILEY z DD3U-1 I o ®� suaieet to 4;; val by Y other autburity having jurieaiction. tj CETY of SALEM,MASS. Ftx>•; vrrrri suxE BY PLAFt4 ARE APAOVfD SOLELY FOR IDENrFGkr4mOi TYPE AND LOCATION OF FIRE PROTECTAON DEVIML ALL VIII PROTECTION DEVICES ARE SUSJECT TO A FIWILT TAND INSPECTION,FOR COFAPLEtOMPLI' ANd WITH THE FIRE CODE. Ii i I" Vt- 0 ".1 .� tt��, ¢ ?i F '/'U .-.. e. ..„ 4 fi•".`.:e 10, R C� FOUNDATION PLAN 30' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 10, 15 I I I I � J I SLAB ON GRADE 2'-6'' r I I 02"&�e a CRAWL SPACE �t3` gWz GO i z F I ' TAI` a» rtR � f <rt r OR i '...., 0 3 ' 1 1, O 30' _ S'-11 3i 4„ FIRST FLOOR PLAN � 6'-7 112- 11 f� D—� iw 0 11'-4 1/2" 3' i_AUNDRY U NOTESi _8 3 1. ALL INTERIOR DOORS ARE 2/6X6/8 0 ^� 7'-8 1/2 \/ 00 UNLESS NOTED DINING + ( / 00 uJ o 15' / m 10' I 2 6 c' I- r C- 6 121 1 2 2X8'S AB❑VET 7 1.,'-7 3/4" ;I LIVING Q 10, ArPROVBD .) Se Wwt to approval W any o*bl 0 a:Lt2tiDrityhaviniJ °�' °° •E: cM. of SALEM,MASS• ,. �Y) il FmPREVENTION BUREAU .K 4 �- 4'-4" 4'-4" sT ' P4ll�i ARE APPROVED SOLELY FOR IDENTIFlCATIOM OF TYPL AND LOCATION OF FIRE PROTECTION DEVIM. 0.. FNiALIT T AND EImsPECTIONDEVICES FOR COMPLM DOMPU• ANCE MITH THE ME CODE. j L...f Cl) r 0 C r: r'1 .. _ (..L'r•� � ii�.�� .—� `spa -'.A e a i r � ..� :� -.:a.,�. .. ......... _ :h`t. �f: s ... '�„'.r� ,..,,Y•a ys+p*..+a s.�� Y,.•c ,n-.'y„`4�tL�c. �47�'a'+4 � 'es„F"t� 'c .- - n -- 30' -.. SECOND FLOOR f r 5'-11 3/ -j 4'-10 3/4- C) 5'-8 3 4" °) O -5 lie' NOTES: �. �\ 9'-2 1/2" 1. ALL INT, DOORS ARE 2/6X6/8 UNLESS NOTED e/4 ' iii 2. ALL BEDROOM WIND❑WS .; � 10'-0 3/4' TO MEET FIRE EGRESS REQS,�A i 4'-10" 4'-10" 16' lr-'Xid tiAbLt VtNt 0 0 01 RIGHT ELEVATION 0 0 c. VINYL SIDING 0 APPROVED &*Ject to approval by my other uri�olft- 0 authority baying i cf.ry of SALEM, MASS. FM PREVENTION BUREAU :Ow 0 BY IF PLANS ARE APPROVED SOLELY FDR IDENTIFICATION OF ------ TYPE AND LOCATION OF FIRE PROTECTION DEVICE. All FIRf PROTECTION DEVICES ARE SUBJECT TO A CJ FIRALTEST AND INSPECTION,FOR COMPLM"pLt • A*Ci WITH THE FIRE COOL 0 ........... 0 WOOD STEPS WITH RAILS TO GRADEE -., ; :A,:_ .. : ry a. ... �r e . . _ � t v-,.. . _ �e ..:,: w r.,a. f 3 t1 ON q 6D i K i, RT, Yy v: 3: 12X18 GABLE VENTS- LEFT SIDE ELEVATI❑N C� 4 CONT, VENTED SOFFIT ` `-) t r 1 FTN. r,RAT)F -� — � �«< {§ 6 � \ . � . � p \y \> � .\ . .. . .. , , � --- - � �m! ��. v. y: . \ s© , . . . ,.v . �'✓. ifj � ..:� * ...+..; ..x s^.,., .�„s�,,-x.�. "sig X31 ti r� L' . i >' 2X10 RIDGE / FRAMING PLAN (1 '2 5-11/16' 1 fil FIELD CHECK THIS DIMENSION 'j 15' 2X4'S 16' O.C. 1' EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE INSULATION {J V kr �� F l - ^ d rD IL gt (� 2X10'S 16O.C. 4' CONC. SLAB MIN. 5' CLEAR FILL WITH 2' CRUSHED STONE HMECHANIAL ROOM WITH 2" OF 3/'4' STONE ON TOP EXISTING BEDROCK FOOTINGS ON LEDGE OR 4' BELOW GRADE 4' CONC. SLAB /J FIN. GRADE FRONT C 1 i I ! 2X8 CEILING J ❑ IST R - 30 EIB , INSULATI ❑ N 2 2X8 ' S } TYPICAL WALL SECTI ❑ N Ave 7 / 16 " ❑ , StB , t 2 2X4 SILL R - 13 INSULAT ❑ N 3 / 4 " T + G PLYWOOD t = � t . Lit CA T i'1 N, i �C�- DATE ISSUE 7 PERMIT TO Ivo .� fit, it 01 R y."a.. , r�- �r,� ,, „n•, ' - — - - - _ I , � . , ' ..� �, -��; *'''� �' ` t, .;,t.,.;;,t''; ,: .� �� `��; 4 's' K a}y� ;:# _ .,�i", �'/I� +. r '=-`_.";Q _ p AP(I;a,a;ja 4+�.ti; :�i! � �aR`7ttl '•a p�c�: ,� � '�i�: ��'�'�+" •�Jw 9.�1 `"`` �f lit. �°"'... . ��- .z+' ��;:� 4r �. .�� y c s t _, � � .:� V�� I ` � �. .; � �� `. 6 0 � �. r� �,^ � ;• .�j��•�f��' �:. 41 y � �. � 1 R' s _ s� ��- b��! � � �� fl •� � C1'l �.' - - _ __ _ . _ , > /f/ . , - # . 2 ,��\ \ . �y \) . % « » ��d< �d��- �\\� ; 2�� : �t# c��! `»« � \ �� ¥ ® ^ «�a \ � f �� ° -��: � �dT �/. � . , � ®:�ƒ�> f � � � ��/\ � � . � y . . 2 2 C A J T 1� i - III - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _. _ .{. �� ._1 ;. �, � tia 3 , .: ._ �, � �_ . f - "�" . . t � t .� �- �� rt1`! � ' f t (JyM'� "� 7\ � • . � ,.. :' �. � -ri' `i�-'- a ,t ,�,;! • # , � . -.. � �. . . g � , .. M1 } � :t�..��i ..♦ P .. . � �� ' � K � f ''�.0 L r R, n n� _ r #i ' . _: . _, ;: .;.'� ,. '' r i ;r:,��-,�� r�.. •� X14 F€�//i�' �, d"'a,� C,. �Y� '� �. •rr 3tr��Ifx�� a, �! r,: ♦ �i•=�t�f�i��ri J� tN f� r ,Z � F.�lr4• tli;�.,i d. ,.•J.. P i�.l..�v�tfj,}.r. .F rM -'�.� 'x ✓ .' ,r' • li---- - -_ - _ ND "�f City of Salem ��y Ward VA ov 914 HJJ'_��ril +4cuoRc - errr of snr (=r'APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO BUILD ADDITION, MAKE ALTERATIONS OR NEW CONSTRUCTION IMPORTANT-Applicant to complete all items in sections:I, It, /it, IV, and IX. I. AT(LOCATION) 31 I-IAeZ�t O2 A tdG i� R c�� ZONING STRICT LOCATION (NO.) (STREET) OF BETWEEN �✓SSO j r w/r AND (CROSS STREET) (CROSS STREET) BUILDING „ll '' LOT SUBDIVISION LOT BLOCK SIZE 11. TYPE AND COST OF BUILDING -All applicants complete Parts A -D A. TYPE IMPROVEMENT D. PROPOSED USE-FOR"DEMOLITION”USE MOST RECENT USE 1 New building ResldenHal Nonresidential 2 E] Addition(If residential,enter number of new 12 One family 18 ❑ Amusement,recreational (rousing units added,it any,in part D, 13) 19 [:] Chruch,other religious 13 ❑ Two or more family-Enter number - 3 ❑ Alteration(See 2 above) of units....................................................... 20 ❑ Industrial 21 ❑ Parking garage 4 ❑ Repair replacement 14 ❑ Transient hotel,motel,or dormitory- 22 ❑ Service station,repair garage Enter number of units ........................... 5 ❑ Wrecking(if muMlamily residential,enter number 23 ❑ Hospital,institutional of units in building in Part D,13) 15 ❑ Garage 24 E] Office,bank,professional 6 ❑ Moving(relocation) 16 ❑ Carport 25 ❑ Public utility 26 E] School,library,other educational 7 ❑ Foundation only 17 ❑ Other-Specify 27 ❑ Storm,mercantile B.OWNEgSHIP 28 ❑ Tanks,towers _ 8 Private(individual,corporation,nonprofit 2 institution,eta) 9 ❑ Other-Specify 9 ❑ Public(Federal,State,or local government C.COST (Omit cents) Nonresidential-Describe in detail proposed use of buildings,e.g.,food processing plant, machine shop,laundry building at hospital,elementary school,secondary school,college, P parochial school,parking garage for department store,rental office building,office building 10. Cost of improvement ......................................................... $ SJ 000 at industrial plant.If use of existing building is being changed,enter proposed use. To be installed but not included in the above cost d D'� a. Electrical........................................................................... 57 b. Plumbing.................... ................... , . t)�Q c. Heating,air conditioning............................................. d. Other(elevator,etc.)..................................................... 11. TOTAL COST OF IMPROVEMENT $ OOCYQ- - III. SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDING -For new buildings and additions, complete Parts E-L;demolition, complete only Parts J& M,all others skip to IV E. PRINCIPAL TYPE OF FRAME F. PRINCIPAL TYPE OF HEATING FUEL G. TYPE O SEWAGE DISPOSAL I. TYPE OF MECHANICAL 30 ❑ asonry(wall bearing) 35 [71 Gas 40 Lr'7✓Public or private company Will there be central air 31 Ld Wood frame 36 Eroil 41 [-] Private(septic tank,etc.) conditioning? 32 ❑ Structural steel 37 ❑ Electricity 44 ❑ Yes 45 B No 33 ❑ Reinforced concrete 38 ❑ Coal H. TYPE OF ATER SUPPLY Will there by an elevator? 34 ❑ Other-Specify 39 ❑ Other-Specify 42 Public or private company 46 ❑ Yes 47 43 ❑ Private(well,cistern) J.'4ONS 2 M. DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES: 48.. Number of stories . ... es ................. ....................................... 49. Total square feet of floor area, f all floors,Oared on exterior oval from Historical Commission been received dimensions .............. . /O ..S.G. ....... Has Approval any structure over fifty(50)years? Yes_ No- 50. 50. Total land area,sq.fl.. ............... �/� Dig Safe Number K.NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES Pest Control: 51. Enclosed ............................................................................. zHAVE THE FOLLOWING UTILITIES BEEN DISCONNECTED? 52. Outdoors.................................._........................................ Yes No L RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ONLY Water 53. Enclosed .......................................... ....................... `—/' Electric: - - Gas: 54. Number of Full........................................... / Sewer: bathrooms DOCUMENTATION FOR THE ABOVE MUST BE ATTACHED Partial..................................... BEFORE A PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED. IV. COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: Historic District? Yes_ No / (If yes, please enclose documentation from Hist. Com.) Conservation Area? Yes_ No_!'_� (If yes, please enclose Order of Conditions) Has Fire Prevention approved and stamped plans or applications? Yes_t�_ No Is property located in the S.R.A. district? Yes_ No Comply with Zoning? Yes_�./_ No (If no,enclose Board of Appeal decision) Is lot grandfathered? Yesz No_ (If yes, submit documentation/if no,submit Board of Appeal decision) If new construction, has the proper Routing Slip been enclosed? Yes_vn�_ No Is Architectural Access Board approval required? Yes_ No (If yes, submit documentation) Massachusetts State Contractor License# 6S7e31 Salem License# 1� Home Improvement Contractor# c%(a Ci - Homeowners Exempt form (if applicable) Yes_ No CONSTRUCTION TO BE COMMENCED WITHIN SIX (6) MONTHS OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT S If an extension is necessary, please submit CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE COMPLETED BY: ��qS in writing to the Inspector of Buildings. V. IDENTIFICATION • To be completed by all applicants Name Mailing address-Number,street,co,and state ZIP Coda Tel.No. LLD J �L Cf Owner or Lessee i�L/l g� / 7 z. �LTDi✓ 3 $ s7 P�✓/.Jo- Contractor / 4 q LBenserNo. 3. Architect or Engineer I hereby Certify that the proposed work is authorized by the owner of record and that I have been authorized by the owner to make this application as his authorized agenta0a agentwe agree to conform to all applicable laws of this jurisdiction. Signature of applica " Address Application date DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE VI. VALIDATION Building FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY' Permit number Building /J/) ✓� Use Group Permit issued 19 Fire Grading Building ,.A�y ,. O9 Permit Fee $ Live Loading Certificate of Occupancy $ Approvoccupancy Load ed b Drain Tile $ Plan Review Fee $ �— ITLE NOTES AND Data •(For department use) PERMIT TO BE MAILED TO: DATE MAILED: Construction to be started by: Completed by: VI ZONING PLAN EXAMINERS NOTES DISTRICT USE FRONT YARD SIDE YARD SIDE YARD REAR YARD NOTES SITE OR PLOT PLAN -For Applicant Use oN p y, pv DATE(MM/DDfro `II�tCAT. OF IN URAN 11/01/94 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION B.K. McCarthy Ins . Agcy. Inc . ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE 106 Lynn Street HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR y ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Peabody, MA 019605795 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE COMPANY AAetna Life & Casualty, CID INSURED COMPANY Hamilton Builders DBA B Milton R. Hamilton & Jeff Hamilton COMPANY c 338 Grapevine Road Wenham, MA 01984 COMPANY cou€I €s THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES.LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BV PAID CLAIMS. CO TYPEOF INSURANCE POLICYNUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE'POLICY EXPIRATION LIMITS LTR DATE(MM/DD/YQ DATC(MMjOD/YY) A GENERAL LIABILITY MP0024179956TWF 06/08/94 06/08`95 GENERAL AGGREGATE x600 OOO X OMMERCIALGENERALLIABIU PRODUCTS-COMP/OPAGG $60O 000 CLAIMSMADEOCCUR PERSONAL&ADV INJURY 530000 WNER'S&CONTRACTOR'S PROT rEACH OCCURRENCE s300, 000 ' FIRE DAMAGE(Any one fire 1$300 000 MEDEXP(Nny one person) $5 000 A AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY FJO023659518TCA 11/20/93 11/20/94 ANY AUTO COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ ALL OW NED AUTOS iBOOILYINJURV 5250 000 X SCHEDULEDAUTOS '(Per per son) H IR ED AUTOS .BOD I LY INJ U RY NON-OWN ED AUTOS (Per accident) $5001 000 PROPERTY DAMAGE $100 , 000 GARAGE LIABILITY (AUTO ONLY-EAACCIOENT $ Ir ANVAUTO - OTHERTHA N OO A UTNLY: EACHACCIDENT $ AGGREGATE $ EXCESS LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ UMBRELLA FORM (AGGREGATE $ OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM $ WORKERS COMPENSATION AND STATUTORY LIMITS EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY EACHACCIDENT $ THEPROPRIETOR/ INCL DISEASE-POLICYLIMIT Is PARTNERS/EXECUTIVE JHOTFFERSARE: EXCL DISEASE-EACH EMPLOYEE $ R DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS C€ATIFI,CAT€ CANCELLATION:; City ANY OFTHE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE City of Salem, Hall EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF,THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL Building Inspector _l_Q___DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TOTH E CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, Salem, MA 01970 BUT FAILURE TO MAIL UC NO CE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIALILITY DF ANY KIND THE OMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPO ESENTATIVES- AUTHOflIZE RE E 'T IVE ACOR D25 Bi8931:1 of 1 8532APD "se ACogpCfTtP47pATlSNt ': E COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS y y DEPAR-1N31VT OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS 600 WASHINGTON STREET ames. 3amcoer, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02111 --nom ss+one• ssion � //r/�\ W^O�RK/^(E/RS' CO�jMPPENSATIION INSURANCE AFFIDAVIT I, I a (I icenseei permi tree) with a principal place of business/residence at: (City/State/Zip) do hereby certify, under the pains and penalties of perjury, that: J I am an employer providing the following workers' compensation coverage for my employees working on this job. Insurance Company Policy Number (�l am a sole proprietor and have no one working for me. [ J I am a sole proprietor, general contmaor or homeowner (circle one) and have hired the contractors lined below who have the following workers' compensation insurance policies: Name of Contractor Insurance Company/Policy Number Name of Contractor Insurance Company/Policy Number Name of Contractor Insurance Company/Policy Number [] I am a homeowner performing all the work myself. NOTE: Please be aware that wbile homeowners who employ persons to do maintenance,construction or repair work on a dwelling of not more than three units in which the homeowner also resides or on the grounds appurtenant thereto are not generally considered to be employers under the Workers' Compensation Act(GL C. 152,sect. 1(5)),application by a homeowner for a license or permit may evidence the legal status of an employer under the Workers' Compensation Act I understand that a copy of this statement will be forwarded to the Department of Industrial Accidents' Office of Insurance for coverage venieuion and that failure to secure coverage as required under Section 25A of MGL 152 can lead to the imposition of criminal penalties consisting of a fine of up to $1500.00 and/or imprisonment of up to one year and civil penalties in the form of a Stop Work Order and a fine of$100.00 a damst me. �s Signed this ay day of ��"+A.K&, Liccnseei Permittee Licensor/Permiaor a ✓J 6 eom mowweaa 0 v %,ich Dukakis G Govee rnor Kentaro TsutsumtG�oelow, ..r�cmaaiaaur7 02108 Chairman 16171 7'_^.-3B Charles J. Dineno Adminutntor MEMORANDUM TO: All Buildine Departmcntsi5tate 8uildine Inspectors FROM: Charles J. Dinauo. Administrator DATE: October 31. 1988 SUBJECT. MCI. Nn, S54, Added Ry e594, S9 of the Acts of 1997 The above-mentioned statute requires that dcbns resulting from the demolition. rcnovauon. rehabilitation or other alteration of a budding or structure be disposed of in a properiv licensed solid waste disposal faciltty as defined by MGL cl ll. S150A and that buildinc permits or licenses are to radiate-the location of the facility at which the said debris is to he disposed. THIS REOUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO NEW CONSTRUCTION. In order to simnitfv the protest and to provide umformttv. we arc attaching a copy of a lorm-whieh von can either reproduce and use as it is since the completed form will be attached to the of lice tvpyof batwing permits or licenses: or rcproducc it on your Icticrhad. In ase of municipal,commercial.industrial.or multf•umt housing construction, the contractor may not know the dumpster subcontractor at the time of the budding permit application. In such cues. the attached copy Of an Affidavit an be used. The complete law is contained in the November issue of CODEWORD which will he madcd to von in the nest two weeks. If you should have any question. please let us know. CJD1km AFFIDAVIT' As a result of the provisions of MGL c 40, S54, I acknowledge that as a condition of Building Permit Number all debris resulting from the construction activity governed by this Building Permit shall be disposed of in a properly licensed solid waste disposal facility, as defined by MGL c 111, S 150A. I certify that I will notify the Building Official by (Two months maximum) of the location of the solid waste disposal facility where the debris resulting from the said construction activity shall be disposed of, and I shall submit the appropriate form for attachment to the Building Permit. Date Signature of Permit Applicant (Print or type the following information) Name of Permit Applicant Firm Name, if any Address In accordance with the provisions of MGL c 40, S 54, a condition of Building Permit Number is that the debris resulting from this work shall be disposed of in a properly licensed solid waste disposal facility as defined by MGL c 111, S 150A. The debris will be disposed of in: Gc'2 z.o (Location of Facility) Signature of Permit Applicant Date x "THU of �5ttlem, ��rlassuchuszifS R ® 1.1 ' INLIP REVIEW AND PASS ON AS INDICATED LOCATION: c31 /'l FI iPL/v01Q00G-lf- R� DATE /i /l k y APPLICANT: 4o let le INSERT 6ATE WHEN PASSING ON Assessor Date ' CONTACT PERS Peter Caron 2 OF AgTMFNT, Fire Department Capt. Turner or Insp. LaPointe 3 Department of Public Services C Director 4 DEPARTMENT: Water Department CONTACT PERSON: Margaret Haaerty/HelenJiadosz 5 DFP ARTMFNTi Planning Dept. rnNTArT PERSON- Beth Debsk i 6 DEPARTMENT: City Clerk ( if involving new streets ) CONTACT PERSON- 7 DEPARTMENT: EI.F7CiRIC DEPT. PAUL TU7r= 8 DEPARTMENT: CONTACT PERSON: RETURN TO ��VQoVW b��c`1 �opoo� D�VoQ��4o�a �OQo Professional Land Surveyors 8 Civil Engineers ESSEX SURVEY SERVICE. 1958 - 1986 OSBORN PALMER 1911 - 1970 BRADFORD & WEED 1885 - 1972 PLOT PLAN OF LAND LOCATED IN S'ALFMj MASS, Q o r�� 0° L sg7o� s> 50 \N�a \P �N 6 tiG Lo +G2 s' o 16'3 is,a it,,y IL-7142L l30/Zoci's IzOAD Beep �N OF fd lyj� s9 ,!� CH T- SCALE: SCALE: / '= o' -/1. M DATE: 31 �'�� C�C�STE� p� REFERENCE: pct BK PG 7)-7g hriC s.tophel- HIM � pLS 31317 (Lc-c //SoZg) 104 LOWELL STREET PEABODY, MASS.01960 (5081531-8121 ftZity ofttlem, � u� ckr�z�etts 3 _ $Eottra of �A eul Ory 4 MAR -6 P 4 a 0 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD D. ANDERSON Vit . -Fi: F Q1�1STIi G REVIEW OF THE DECISION _OF_THE ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER REGARDING THE UNDERSIZE LOT AT 4 31_MARLBOROUGH ROAD (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held December 7, 1994 and was continued on January 18,1995 and February 15, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Arthur Labreque, Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. 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 located at 35 Marlborough Road, was requesting enforcement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and revocation of a building permit issued by the Building Inspector for the property located at 31 Marlborough Road for the reason that the 31 Marlborough Road lot was undersized and that the Building Inspector erred when he held the lot to be "grandfathered" for the now existing lot size requirements. The relief which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. The lot known and numbered as 31 Marlborough Road does not meet the minimum lot size of 15,000 square as now required in a R-1 zone; and 2. The 31 Marlborough Road lot is not "grandfathered" from application of the now existing minimum lot size requirement, and as a consequence thereof is not a building lot without a variance from said lot size restrictions. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 31 MARLBOROUGH ROAD 1. By deed dated November 23, 1970, Lionel J. Bouchard and Louise Bouchard acquired title to the lot at 31 Marlborough Road. 2. By deed dated January 13, 1987, Louise Bouchard conveyed title to the 31 Marlborough Road property to Robert Bouchard, Trustee of the Marlborough Street Realty Trust. 3. On September 30 1994, Robert Bouchard, Trustee conveved the 31 Marlborough Road property to its current owner, the Trapper Realty Trust. 35 MARLBOROUGH ROAD 4 . The property known as 35 Marlborough Road was acquired on February 9, 1965 by Loinel J. and Louise Bouchard. 5. Loinel Bouchard died on August 8, 1972, and by operation thereof Louise Bouchard became sole owner of the 35 Marlborough Road property. I By deed dated November 13, 1986, Robert M. Bouchard acquired title to DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RICHARD D. ANDERSON REQUESTING REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER REGARDING THE UNDERSIZE LOT AT 31 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (R-1) r C-I, page two 35 Marlborough Road property. •95 MAR -6 p 4 :1 7 . On July 7 1994, Robert M. Bouchard conveyed the 35 Marlborough Road property to its current owners, Richard and Cheri Anderson. 8. 35 Marlborough Road is reflected as Parcel 73 orfgATs�ssors�, and 31 Marlborough Road is reflected as Parcel 71 on sa18-Assessors 'Map 8 9. 35 Marlborough Road and 31 Marlborough Road are adjoining lots. 10. 35 Marlborough Road and 31 Marlborough Road were held in common owner- ship commencing on November 30, 1970 by Lionel J. and Louise Bouchard. 11. 31 Marlborough Road is a lot of approximately 5064 square feet. 12. 35 Marlborough Road is a lot of approximately 13,873 square feet. 13. In 1977, the Salem Zoning Ordinance was changed. Said zoning change increased the minimum lot size from a minimum of 7000 square feet to 14 . Lionel and Louise Bouchard resided in a house situated on the property at 35 Marlborough Road. As of this date, Richard and Cheri Anderson reside in the house situated on the 35 Marlborough Road property. 15. In reliance upon a letter dated July 11, 1984 written by Mr. Macintosh, former Building Inspector of the City of Salem, holding that the lot was known as 31 Marlborough Road was a "grandfathered" lot, Leo E. Tremblay, the Zoning Enforcement Officer, issued an opinion letter dated July 13, 1993 stating that the said 31 Marlborough Road property was a "grandfathered" lot, and was therefore a building lot even though said lot did not meet the now existing minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. 16. On November 2, 1994, the Building Inspector issued a Building Permit for 31 Marlborough Road, and thereafter construction began on the property with the pouring of a concrete foundation. 17. Mr. James Gemma, 36 Marlborough Road, opposed construction of the lot known as 31 Marlborough Road. 18. Mr. Roger Legend, 64 Marlborough Road, opposed construction of the lot known as 31 Marlborough Road. 19. Mr. Michael Dennedy, 4 Orleans Avenue, opposed construction of the lot known as 31 Marlborugh Road. 20. Councillor Leonard O'Leary, Ward 4, opposed construction of the lot known as 31 Marlborough Road. 21. Richard and Cheri Anderson, 35 Marlborough Road, opposed construction of the lot known as 31 Marlborough Road. 22. A letter dated February 2, 1995 from Robert Ledoux, City Solicitor to Stephen Touchette, Chairman, Board of Appeals, was made part of the record. 23. A legal memorandum on behalf of Thomas Donovan, Trustee of the Trapper Realty Trust was submitted as requested by the Board, and was made part of the record. No such memorandum was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The lots known as 31 Marlborough Road and 35 Marlborough Road respectively merged in common ownership as of November 30, 1970. 2. As of the date of the 1977 Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Salem, both of the lots known as 31 Marlborough Road and 35 Marlborough Road respectively were non-conforming lots in as much as L DECISION OF THE PETITION OF RICHARD D. ANDERSON REQUESTING REVIEW7OF;7HE< DECISION OF THE ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER REGARDING THE UNDERSIZE LGT 'AT 31 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (R-1) page three '95 MAR -6 P 4 :10 the new Zoning Ordinance required a minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. feet. 3. As of the date of the 1977 Amendment to the Zoning OrdinGf�7c,6 'fs&-'�tH' O' ICE City of Salem, the lots known as 31 Marlborough Road and 35SYdrlborough Road were held in common ownership; said lots having been held in common ownership since November 30, 1970. b . By virtue of the doctrine of merger, the lot known as 31 Marlborough Road is not a "grandfathered" lot, and is therefore an undersized lot, requiring a variance in order to build upon it. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 in favor of the motion to grant the Petition of Richard D. Anderson seeking enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance finding that the Zoning Enforcement officer erred in deciding that the lot known as 31 Marlborough Road was a "grandfathered" lot and therefore erred in issuing the Building Permit for said property on said basis, and the Board hereby orders the Building Permit for said property on said basis, and the Board hereby orders the Building Inspector to not approve the permit to build as filed. Petition Granted February 15, 1995 Gary M. Barrett BoardBoard 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 the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter LOA, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. =ursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter LOA, 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 of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner' s Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal Tits? of *Ulrm. MABSAt4usctts Public Propertp i3epartment Nuilbing Department (One 6alem (5reen 508-745-9595 F-xt. 300 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer March 15, 1995 Mr. Leo Kiley 6 Pig Rock Lane Marblehead, Mass. 01945 RE: 31 Marlborough Road Dear Mr. Kiley: On March 14, 1995 an inspection of the foundation was conducted at the above mentioned property. The following problems were found: 1. A crack down the south wall from top to bottom all the way through. 2. A crack across the top of the southwest corner. 3. A crack down the southeast corner through the wall from top to bottom. The above problems must be corrected before any of the building is to be preformed or letter from a structural engineer detailing the corrections will suffice. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, J n J. enings Local Building Inspector JJJ: scm (IitiJ of _'-stzlem, � ussttuius #ts 3 oq�� M � `�Dttrd Of `��elll '9T5 MAR -6 P 4 :1 C' DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS M. DONOVAN, TRUSTEE OFclH" 7R1IPPERI, FICE REALTY TRUST FOR A VARIANCE FROM LOT SIZE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT +31 MARLBOROUGH-ROADa(R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held February 15, 1995 with the following Board members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Arthur Labreque, Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen and Albert Hill. 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 located at 31 Marlborough Road, was requesting a Variance from lot size requirements for the property located at 31 Marlborough Road. The relief which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this Board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other land, buildings, or structures in the same district. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable refuel may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. On September 30, 1994, Robert Bouchard, Trustee, conveved the 31 Marlborough Road property to its current owner and petitioner, Thomas M. Donovan, Trustee of the Trapper Realty Trust. 2. 31 Marlborough Road is a lot of approximately 5064 square feet. 3 . In 1977, the Salem Zoning Ordinance was changed. Said zoning change increased the minimum lot size from a minimum of 7,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet in an R-1 district. 4. In reliance upon a letter dated July 11, 1984, written by Mr. MacIntosh, former Building Inspector for the City of Salem, holding that the lot known as 31 Marlborough Road was a "grandfathered" lot, Leo Tremblay, the Zoning Enforcement Officer, issued an opinion letter dated July 13, 1993, stating that said 31 Marlborough Road property was a " grandfathered" lot . and was therefore a buildable lot even though said lot did not meet the now existing minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. feet . 5 . In reliance upon the opinion letter dated July 13, 1993, stating that the 31 Marlborough Road property was a buildable lot, the petitioner purchased said property. 6. On November 2, 1994, the Building Inspector issued a Building Permit l DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS ii. DONOVAN. TRUSTEE OF THE TRAPPER REALTY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM LOT SIZE FOR THE PROWT�'• OC TE AT 31 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (R-1) l� I10 d '�() page two C) I Y ! F'" [,, rirE for 31 Marlborough Road, and thereafter construction began property with the pouring of a concrete foundation. - 7. Subsequent to commencement of construction, Richard Anderson, 35 Marlborough Road, filed a petition with the Board of Appeal seeking enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance and revocation of the building permit issued for the 31 Marlborough Road property ofn the basis that the Building Inspector erred in holding that the 31 Marlborough Road property was a "grandfathered"lot and therefore not subject to the now existing 15,000 square foot minimum lot size. The Board granted the petition and ordered the building permit not be approved. 3. The 31 Marlborough Road property is a unique triangular shaped lot with a sloping terrain. Because of its unique shape, the property has two frontages- one on Marlborough Road and one on Michael Road. 9. With the exception of lot size, the now proposed construction meets all other side and front setback and frontage requirements for an R-1 district. 10. On or about April 27, 1994, the previous owner of the 31 Marlborough property petitioned for a variance from setback requirements which petition was denied by this Board. At the time of said hearing, the immediate abutter, Cheri Anderson, 35 Marlborough Road, opposed the requested variance in part based on the then proposed construction proximity to her property line. Although opposed to the present request for a variance, Mrs. Anderson's in as much as setback requirements will be met, but rather in based on the lot size of the 31 Marlborough Road property. 11. Councillor Leonard O'Leary, Ward 4, opposed construction on the lot known as 31 Marlborough Road. 12. Mr. James Gemma, 36 Marlborough Road, opposed construction on the lot known as 31 Marlborough Road. 13. Richard and Cheri Anderson, 35 Marlborough Road, opposed construction on the lot known as 31 Marlborough Road. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. The request relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted four (4 ) in favor, one (1) Ms. Cohen, in opposition to the motion to grant the petition for the requested for the variance with 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 pians and dimensions submitted. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS M. DONOVAN, TRUSTEE OF THE TRAPPER REALLY TRUST REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY AT 31 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (R-1) '95 MAR —6 P+ P page three C;i. C E 3 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department re$ki$v'6 to'smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4 . Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. �. Proper street numbering shall be meet. 6. Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Variance Granted February 15, 1995 Gary M. Barrett Board of Appeal, Member A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal co�mr� I#U o tt1Em, ttssttr �ts2f# "Ec�w�t� �1Ii111iIT$ �P�.TMT#xtPY[# Richard T. McIntosh One Salem Green 745-0213 July 11 , 1984 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN : RE : Lot #73 Assessors Map #8 The above referenced lot is determined to be a nonconforming lot in that it has at least 5 , 000 Sq . Ft . and 50 Ft . of frontage and may be built on in accordance with the current Zoning Ordinance . Very truly yours , Richard T . McIntosh Zoning Enforcement Officer RTM: bms of ift1Em, tt �ttcl�us�tts Public PropertU i3epartment +Nuilhing 19epartment tine *alew t6reen 508-745-9595 Ext. 300 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer July 13, 1993 Julie Tache 221 Derby St. Salem, MA 01970 REa,.3luMarlborough Rd.�� Map 8 Lot 74— Dear Julie: This is to verify our telephone conversation of July 8, 1993 regarding the above referenced property. Said property is a grandfathered lot and may be considered buildable, however, any structure placed on this lot must conform to all setback requirements as per the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. If I can be of any further assistance, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Leo E. Tremblay Zoning Enforcement Officer LET:bs cc: Councillor O'Leary, Ward 4 \31Mrlbrh\ ., '�'''r�'°� {�itU of �ttlem. ^�HusstttlrusPtts -Bour3 of .AV}iettl eq C"' of DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT BOUCHARD FOR A VARIANCE CI ``kF S 0, "�CFSS AT-31`MARLBOROUGH ROAD '�(R-1) A hearing on this petition was held April 27, 1994 with the following Board Members present: Stephen Touchette, Chairman; Gary Barrett, Nina Cohen and Associate Member Arthur Labrecque. 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 Variance from front yard setback to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this single family district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The petitioner and counsel were advised that there were only four (4) Board members present and it would take a unanimous voted to grant their request. They were given an opportunity to continue this petition until the following week or to withdraw without — prejudice and return at a later date. 2. Councillor O'Leary, Ward 4, spoke in favor of the petition. 3. The immediate abutter, Cheri Anderson, 35 Marlborough Road, spoke in opposition. She represented to the Board that she had purchased the property from the petitioners and that they were told the property had been denied a variance. Also expressed her concern regarding the closeness of the proposed dwelling to her home. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT BOUCHARD FOR VARIANCE AT 31 MARLBOROUGH ROAD, SALEM page two 4. There is no record on file indicating there has ever been any Board of Appeal action on this property. 5. A letter from the Zoning Enforcement Officer, Leo E. Tremblay, grandfathering this property was read into the record. 6. The parcel in question is a corner lot thus having two front yard setbacks to meet. 7. The 26'x 36' single family dwelling proposed by the petitioner will encroach to within six (6) feet of both Marlborough Road and Michael Road. 8. The petitioner to failed demonstrate or to meet the burden of proof relative to legal hardship. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted three (3) in favor one (1), Ms. Cohen, in opposition to the motion to grant, having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED July 20, 1994 Gary M. Barrett, Vice Chairman Board of Appeal T� z Kw rna :n CO y L DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ROBERT BOUCHARD FOR VARIANCE AT 31 MARLBOROUGH ROAD, SALEM page 3 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 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 PASSED 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 OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL n c n..c n0 •� 7;rn I� m� � t 1 .CO T r BOARD OF ASSESSORS — 93 WASHINGTON STREET,CITY HALL,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970-3595 (508)745-9595 Ext.261 (508)744-2069 Fax December 8, 1994 Leo Tremblay Zoning Enforcement Officer One Salem Green Salem MA 01970 Re: 31-33 & 35 Marlborough Road (Parcels #08-0074&#08-0073) Dear Leo: Pursuant to your request of this date, I have reviewed the records at the Land Court office at the Essex South District Registry. of Deeds related to the above two parcels. The ownership history of each parcel is as follows: 35 Marlborough Road (Parcel#08-0073) Acquired in 1957 by Gerry W. &Frances Bessom (Cert. 27059, Doc. 84426) Acquired February 9, 1965, by Lionel J. &Louise J. Bouchard (Cert. 34875, Doc. 133963) Lionel deceased August 8, 1972, Louise becomes sole owner (Doc. 221400) Acquired November 11, 1986, by Robert M. Bouchard (Cert. 56487, Doc. 218059) Acquired July 7, 1994 by Richard D. &Cheryl A. Anderson (Cert. 64692, Doc. 300462) 31-33 Marlborough Road (Parcel #08-0073) Acquired November 11, 1928, by Guiseppe Guerriero (Cert. 8x61, Doc. 21484) Acquired February 26, 1971, by Giovanni & Antonio Guerriero (Cert. 41115, Doc. 137794) Acquired February 26, 1971, by Lionel J. &Louise J. Bouchard (Cert. 41116, Doc. 137795) Lionel deceased August 8, 1972, Louise becomes sole owner(Doc. 221400) Acquired January 12, 1987, by Marborough Road Realty Trust,Robert M. Bouchard Trustee (Cert. 56796, Doc. 221401) Acquired September 30, 1994,by Trapper Realty Trust, Thomas M. Donovan Trustee (Cert. 64960, Doc. 302810) Based on this information, the two parcels were held in common ownership for nearly sixteen years over the period of February 26, 1971, to November 11, 1986. For the period of February 26, 1971, to August 8, 1972, the common ownership was held by Lionel and Louise Bouchard. Subsequent to Lionel's death on August 8, 1972, the common ownership was held by Louise Bouchard until the transfer of 35 Marlborough Road on November 11, 1986. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. ,,V - Y Y s, Peter M. Caron Chairman j v "I §5.3 5. Vested Rights Vested R Purchasers of real estate are entitled to rely on the applicable iuning tl zoning ordinances or by-laws in determining the uses which ge, . . r, may be made of the parcel they are buying and of other parcels The in the same neighborhood. For many persons,particularly those pN.rtershii purchasing houses, this is the largest single investment of their dfath lives. It is important that such purchasers be able to determine with reasonable accuracy, before making that investment, just Ic what the applicable zoning ordinances and by-laws are, and. (aJny 3: regist I c :. what uses they permit or prohibit. registen The two freezes authorized by§6, ¶4 will be discussed in turn, of any zis situat below. a zonin} frontage of such i. §5.3.1 Lots Held in Separate Ownership such re( in owne The first sentence of Mass. Gen. L. ch. 40A, §6, ¶4, states: This statt Any increase in area, frontage, width, yard, or depth require- i 5,000 squ: ments of a zoning ordinance or by-law shall not apply to a lot Furtl for single- and two-family residential use which at the time of which de recording or endorsement, whichever occurs sooner, was not lawfully It held in common ownership with any adjoining land,' con- that any s formed to then-existing requirements and had less than the pro- comply w posed requirement but at least five thousand square feet of area time of re and fifty feet of frontage.3 The This paragraph is commonly referred to as the-"grandfather" 1975 Mas!ment of C clause of the statute. The Supreme Judicial Court has held that that were this provision "is concerned with protecting a once valid lot reiterated from being rendered unbuildable for residential purposes, as- °Sturf ning Bd. of %ts,that meet only at a single point,in the fashion of similarly colored Board of Ap squares on a checkerboard,are not deemed"adjoining"lots for the purposes v. Board of of this section. Sturges v. Town of Chilmark, 380 Mass. 246, 260-261 (1980). grandfather Cf. Clarke v. Board of Appeals of Nahant, 338 Mass. 473, 477-478 (1959) standard lo, (suggesting lots sharing a 13-foot boundary line did adjoin in this context). IDefir 'The way on which the lot has 50 feet of frontage need not exist on - vision Conh the ground. See Leblanc v. Board of Appeals of Danvers, 32 Mass. App. Ct. L. ch. 41, §f 760, 764 (1992). - °DCA i 196 I tl i. Vested Rights [ 5. Vested Rights e applicable pt suming the lot meets modest minimum area . . . and front- uses which age . . . requirements.114 ,they parcels The grandfathering provision for lots held in separate ularly those ownership has its origins in 1958 Mass. Acts 492. The first lent of their grandfather clause for residential lots froze o determine stment, just [ajny lot lawfully laid out by plan or deed duly recorded or vs are, and registered . . . that complies, at the time of such recording or registering, with any minimum area and frontage requirements of any zoning ordinance or by-law in effect . . . where the land issed in turn, is situated . . . notwithstanding the adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance or by-law . . . imposing minimum area and frontage requirements in excess of the area or frontage, or both, of such lot . . . provided that . . . at the time of adoption of such requirements or increased requirements such lot was held in ownership separate from that of adjoining land. j6, 44, states: This statute also introduced the minimum requirements of )th require- 5,000 square feet of lot area and 50 feet of frontage. ply to a lot Further clarification was provided in 1961 Mass. Acts 435, the time of which detailed the types of plans under which lots could be ,r, was not lawfully laid out.'The amendment also added the requirement land,' con- that any structure to be located on the grandfathered lot must ian the pro- comply with the setback requirements, if any, in effect at the feet of area time of recording or endorsement. The`current'version "of'the-sentence-was-intraduced`in ;randfather" (1975 Mass. Acts 808, the Zoning Act. However, the Depart j' ment of Community Affairs urged the adoption of two clauses ias held thatI ,tfici6 t hat were not included in the al`statute. First, the draft rice valid lot reiterated that any structure on the lot must compwith ex--� ly )urposes, as- I - 'Sturges v. Town of Chilmark, 380 Mass. 246, 261 (1980). See also Plan- ning Bd. of Norwell v. Serena, 27 Mass. App. CL 689, 690 (1989); Lee v. imilarly colored Board of Appeals of Harwich, 11 Mass. App. Cf. 148, 154(1981);Giovannucci 3r the purposes v. Board of Appeals of Plainville, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 239, 242 (1976) (The 260-261 (1980). grandfather provision "has as its purpose . . . to freeze and minimize sub- 477-478 (1959) standard lots."). n this context). 'Definitive plans, pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. ch. 41, §81U of the Subdi- �d not exist on j vision Control Act,and approval-not-required plans,pursuant to Mass. Gen. Mass. App. Ct. L. ch. 41, §81P, were specified as appropriate. 6DCA Report at 89-90. 197 5. Vested Rights Vested R isting setback-rules..,� Second, the draft included a provision thlat teutpted I lots in separate ownership at the time of a zoning change, acent 1, would lose their protection if "subsequently held in common `stated i ownership.'— fn commc In Adamowicz v. Town of Ipswich,? the Supreme Judicial , zonin) Court interpreted most of the key provisions of the first sen- a dimer tence of Mass. Gen. L. ch. 40A, §6, % After explaining the ce.1112 purpose of the provision and noting its ambiguities, the court tly apt held that the crucial inquiry for grandfathering purposes is the 'Acts 808. "status of the lot immediately prior.to the zoning change" that `gutted in fb, rendered the lot nonconforming.s The court concluded that _• Holding tl very limit alot does meet the statutory requirements;if the-most recentunder ext in's� als ment of record'prior to a restrictive zoning change reveals . that the lot was separately owned, even though a previously r ecorcied'subdivision plan may reveal that the lot was at-one 1224 h time part of land held in common owners-hip. general rule of a total gi #Of course, the lot must also have at least 5_,000 square feet in question wi [area and 50 feet of frontage— "�" by-law." Be In Willardv. B rao d of Appeals of Orleans,10 the appeals court 104(1978). noted that "[t]here is nothingon the face of the fourth para- (1965); Gera p ,..(1982);Heal graph to suggest that it was intended to apply to anything but 290(1979). vacant land." This conclusion is entirely consistent with the adjacent an rl legislative history of the provision, including the DCA Report, a far cry fm which states that the predecessor version of this provision in +. result. the old Zoning Enabling Act was addressed to "undeveloped `ren ' to avoid or. f lots" and "lots on which construction has not yet com of Norwell menced."ll Nantucket p; Table 5-1 is a synopsis of all appellate level decisions (and (1983). In L a few Land Court decisions) in which a landowner has at- court reasol achieved in to the nono '395 Mass. 757 (1985). See also Sieber v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the area an. Wellfleet, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 985 (1983). 131n l e Id. at 762-763. (1965),the c 'The most recent instrument of record may be either a plan as set forth 338 Mass. 4 under the Subdivision Control Act or a deed. ous amends 1025 Mass. App. Ct. 15, 18 (1987). 14See "See DCA Report at 36-37. �� Harwich. 1. 198 , s I 5. Vested Rights 5. Vested Rights §5.3.1 athatrovision ' ' ' "` . p tempted'to preserve the indrvldrial identity,of twos ori m e zoning change adjacent lots. Tlie general rule discernible from these decisions Meld in common is stated in Seltzer v. Board of Appeals of Orleans: "adjacent;lots in common ownership will normally be treated as a single lot upreme Judicial for zoning purposes so as to minimize nonconformities with of the first sen- the dimensional requirements of the zoning by-law or ordi- r explaining the nance."12 Note that the Seltzer general rule has been consis- uities, the court tently applied, before and after the enactment of 1975 Mass. purposes is the Acts 808. Of the 15 appellate level decisions, eleven have re- ng change" that sulted in merger of the adjacent lots. Of the four decisions )ncluded that holding that merger need not occur, one has been labeled a very limited precedent 13 and two of the decisions were decided he most recent under extremely liberal local by-laws granting generous ex- change reveals emptions to landowners.14 f h a previously lot was at one 1224 Mass. App. Ct. 521, 522(1987). Another routine statement'of the general rule is that the inquiry"ignores the manner in which the components of a total given area have been assembled and concentrates mstead�on the )0 square feet in question whether the sum of the components meets the requiiemerif of the by-law." Becket v. Building inspector of Marblehead, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 96, he appeals court 104(1978). See also Vassalotti v. Board of Appeals of Sudbury, 348 Mass. 658 he fourth para- (1965); Girard v. Board of Appeals of Easton, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 334, 335 the fourth thin but (1982); Heald v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Greenfield, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 286, anything 290(1979). These cases involved a landowner who wanted to merge several lsistent with the adjacent and nonconforming smaller lots into a single buildable lot. This is :he DCA Report, a far cry from the Vetter line, in which the landowner is trying to avoid this this provision in result. o "undeveloped Several other decisions point out that a landowner has an obligation p to avoid or minimize the creation of a nonconformity. See. e.g., Planning Bd. j s not yet com- of Norwell v. Serena, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 689, 691 (1989); Planning Bd. of Nantucket v. Board of Appeals of Nantucket, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 733, 737 el decisions (and (1983). In DiCicco v. Berwick, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 312, 314 (1989), the appeals idowner has at- court reasoned, "Conformity to the requirements of the zoning ordinance is achieved in such a case by treating the ostensibly conforming lot as servient to the nonconforming lot to the extent necessary to achieve compliance with Bd. of Appeals of the area and frontage requirements of the zoning ordinance." "In Vassalotti v. Board of Appeals of Sudburv, 348 Mass. 658, 661 (1965),the court termed the decision in Clarke v. Board of Appeals of Nahant, ier a plan as set forth 338 Mass. 473(1959), as justified under"an unusual by-law and an ambigu- ous amendment." 14See Seltzer, 24 Mass. App. Ct. at 524; Lee v. Board of Appeals of Harwich, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 148, 154 (1981). 199 5. Vested Rights Vested I I Nonetheless, the key word in the Seltzer pronouncement g c is "normally." Not every set of adjacent lots is "automatically" t to treated as a single lot for zoning purposes. In Carciofi v. Board separatel of Appeal of Billerica,15 the appeals court reviewed a textbook ahe statu exemption. In 1951, plaintiff acquired a lot that met area and Gula frontage requirements then in effect. In 1953, plaintiff acquired 'te an i an adjoining conforming lot with another person, as tenant in Fink common. Thus, when the zoning for the district in which both attempt lots were located was changed-in 1956;-the-lots-.were not held Thus, th EP in common,ownershipThereafter, in 1959—owneshiofthe on 1 adjoining lots was nominally placed in common hands.16 The -.Li ruled, apparently using the Adamowicz ratio- - ±t`"Chet Hale,that the key inquiry was the status of theme in 1956, ecowner when they were rendered nonconforming:Their separate own- w. Owne. ership at that time preserved their status as separate-building r,two ac of the Tots;despite the fact that they later came into common owner- Mr. Y [ship in some rough sense. A few Land Court decisions follow " contig C2same line of-reasoning.17-•----- If adjoining lots are-preserved using the Adamowicz test or The cou a more libeial'local regulation, the court may further explore ' be rewa whether the owner has an intent to keep the lots separate.ls Several decisions highlight factors for the court to consider. 20v First, the mere reference to multiple lots on a deed does not `(1953). suffice to preserve the lots designated therein.19 Second, the 21N �> 291 (1975 1522 Mass. App. Ct. 926 (1986). 131 (1972 16Carciofi caused the first lot to be conveyed to himself and his wife as Seltzers tenants by the entirety. The other tenant in common of the second lot con- '.- 23Cveyed his half-interest to Carciofi and his wife. Thus, as to the second lot, 243(1971 one-half was held by Carciofi and his wife as tenants by the entirety, and 246 the other half was held by Carciofi individually. Interestingly, the court con- cluded that such ownership never constituted "common ownership." Id. at - (1985). F 927. Zoning I USee, e.g., Silun v. Morris, Misc. Case No. 143836(Land Ct. 1991); Cf. in Soren Bobrowski v. Board of Appeals of Beverly, Misc. Case No. 153543(Land Ct. 1 1992). (1981). S t "Seltzer, 24 Mass. App. Ct. at 523-524. - common '9 Lindsay v. Board of Appeals of Milton, 362 Mass. 126, 131 (1972). See stip. 111 also Heald v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Greenfield, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 286, - transfen 289-290 (1979). transpat 202 i 4_ 5. Vested Rights §5.3.1 , walling or fencing of the adjoining lots may be evidence of an intent to keep the lots separate.20 Third, the fact that the lot is separately assessed is a factor to be considered in determining the status of the lots.21 Fourth, the placement of structures, particularly where the structures straddle the lot line, may indi- cate an intent to separate or merge the lots. Finally, the court "has not favored manipulations which attempt to preserve nonstandard lots for building purposes."23 Thus, the court has rejected attempts to "checkerboard" prop- erty on the eve of a zoning amendment. .;i"8- "Checkerboarding" refers to a practice by which a large land- owner divides his property into single lots held by "straws." Ownership of the property is then divided so as to avoid having two adjacent lots held by one person. Employing the graphics of the checkerboard, Mr. X holds all the black squares, while Mr. Y holds all the red ones, and neither "owner" holds two contiguous squares.24 The court has indicated that such "sham coveyances" will not be rewarded with grandfathering.75 For example, in Planning 20Vetter v. Zoning Bd. of Appeal of Attleboro, 330 Mass. 628, 630 (1953). "Heald v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Greenfield, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 286, 291 (1979). See also Lindsay v. Board of Appeals of Milton, 362 Mass. 126, 131 (1972); Clarke v. Board of Appeals of Nahant, 338 Mass. 473, 477(1959); Seltzer, 24 Mass. App. Ct. at 523-524. 'z Seltzer, 24 Mass. App. Ct. at 523. 23Giovannucci v. Board of Appeals of Plainville, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 239, 243 (1976). 24Baldiga v. Board of Appeals of Uxbridge, 395 Mass. 829, 834 n.4 (1985). Apparently, Checkerboarding was permissible under §5A of the old Zoning Enabling Act, unless the local regulation contained a prohibition, as in Sorenti v. Board of Appeals of Wellesley, 345 Mass. 348 (1963). "Lee v. Board of Appeals of Harwich, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 148, 151-153 (1981). The court pierced transfers involving three lots originally held in common by a husband and wife. The first lot was kept in common owner- ship. The second was transferred to the husband alone> and the other was transferred to the wife alone. The court held that these transfers were "a transparently ineffective attempt to defeat the lot combination provisions." 203 Section 6. Pre-existing Non-conforming Uses, Structures and Lots Exemption for Except as hereinafter provided, a zoning.ordinance:or _by- Structure and Use law shall not apply to structures or uses Iawf�6„0 n__ Lawfully Begun or existence or lawfully begun, or to a building or-special in Existence permit issued before the first publication of--notice of the public hearing on such ordinance or by-law required Exemption for by section five, but shall apply to any change-or-sub- Building or Special stantial extension of such use, to a building or special Permit Issued Before permit issued after the first notice of said public hearing, First Notice of to any reconstruction, extension or structural change of Public Hearing such structure and to any alteration of a structure begun after the first notice of said public hearing to provide j for its use for a substantially different purpose or for the same purpose in a substantially different manner or to a substantially greater extent except where alteration, reconstruction, extension or structural change to a single I or two-family residential structure does not increase the Pre-existing Non- nonconforming nature of said structure. Pre-existing non- conforming Structures conforming structures or uses may be extended or altered, or Uses May be provided, that no such extension or alteration shall be Extended, Changed permitted unless there is a finding by the permit granting or Altered After authority or by the special permit granting authority a. Finding by designated by ordinance or by-law that such change, T, Granting Authority extension or alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. This section shall not apply to billboards, signs and other advertising devices subject to the provisions of sections twenty-nine through thirty-three, inclusive, of chapter ninety-three, and to chapter ninety- three D. Ordinance or By-law A zoning ordinance or by-law shall provide that construction Shall Provide that or operations under a building or special permit shall Building or Special conform to any subsequent amendment of the ordinance or Permit Shall Conform by-law unless the use or construction is commenced within if Not Commenced a period of not more than six months after the issuance of Within a Period of the permit and in cases involving construction, unless Not More Than 6 such construction is continued through to completion as Months continuously and expeditiously as is reasonable. Regulating of A zoning ordinance or by-law may define and regulate non- Nonconforming conforming uses and structures abandoned or not used for Uses After z Years a period of two years or more. -single Lot.. Any increase in area, frontage, width, yard, or depth Exemption for requirements of a zoning ordinance or by-law shall not Single and apply to a lot for single and two-family residential use Two-Family Use which at the time of recording or endorsement, whichever occurs sooner was not held in common ownership with any adjoining land, conformed to then existing requirements 6-1 3 . and had less than the proposed requirement but at least five thousand square feet ^f area and fifty feet of common Lot frontage. Any increase it area, frontage, width,. yard Exemption for or depth requirement of a zoning ordinance or by-law single and shall not apply for a period of five years from its two Family Use effective date or for five years after January first, nineteen hundred and seventy-six, whichever is later, to.. a lot for single and two family residential use, provided the plan for such lot was recorded or endorsed and such lot was held in common ownership with any adjoining land and conformed to the existing zoning requirements as of January first, nineteen hundred and seventy-six, and had less area, frontage, width, yard or depth requirements than the newly effective zoning requirements but contained at least seven thousand five hundred square feet of area and seventy-five feet of frontage, and provided that said five year period does not commence prior to January first, nineteen hundred and seventy-six, and provided further that the Provisions of this sentence shall not apply to more than three of such adjoining lots held in common ownership. The provisions of this paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit a lot being built upon, if at the time of the building, buildinn upon such lot is not prohibited by the zoning ordinances or by-laws in effect in a city or town. Definitive plan If a definitive plan, or a Preliminary plan followed Exemption within seven months by a definitive plan, is submitted to a planning board for approval under the subdivision control law, and written notice of such submission has , been niven to the city or town clerk before the Land Governed effective date of ordinance or by-law, the land shown by zoning in on such plan shall be governed by the applicable Effect at Time provisions of the zoning ordinance or by-law, if any, of submission in effect at the time of the first such submission while such plan or Plans are being processed under the Plans submitted subdivision control law, and, if such definitive plan After 12/31/76 or an amendment thereof is finally approved, for eight s Year Exemption years from the date of the endorsement of such approval , except in the case where such plan was submitted or Plans submitted submitted and approved before January first, nineteen Prior to 1/1/76 hundred and seventy-six, for seven years from the date 7 Year Exemption of the endorsement of such approval . Whether such period is eight years or seven years, it shall be Moratorium extended by a period equal to the time which a city or town Affecting imposes or has imposed upon it by a state, a federal agency Subdivision or a court, a moratorium on construction, the issuance of Plans permits or utility connections. 6-2 2/11/86 Acquired January 12, 1987, by Marborough Road Realty Trust,Robert M. Bouchard Trustee (Cert. 56796, Doc. 221401) Acquired September 30, 1994, by Trapper Realty Trust,Thomas M. Donovan Trustee (Cert. 64960, Doc. 302810) Based on this information, the two parcels were held in common ownership for nearly sixteen years over the period of February 26, 1971, to November 11, 1986. For the period of February 26, 1971, to August 8, 1972, the common ownership was held by Lionel and Louise Bouchard. Subsequent to Lionel's death on August 8, 1972, the common ownership was held by Louise Bouchard until the transfer of 35 Marlborough Road on November 11, 1986. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Very J i Peter M. Caron Chairman �CONDIT ' BOARD OF ASSESSORS 93 WASHINGTON STREET,CITY HALL,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970-3595 (508)745.9595 Ext.261 (508)744-2069 Fax December 8, 1994 Leo Tremblay Zoning Enforcement Officer One Salem Green Salem MA 01970 Re: 31-33 & 35 Marlborough Road (Parcels#08-0074 & #08-0073) Dear Leo: Pursuant to your request of this date, I have reviewed the records at the Land Court office at the Essex South District Registry of Deeds related to the above two parcels. The ownership history of each parcel is as follows: 35 Marlborough Road (Parcel#08-0073) Acquired in 1957 by Gerry W. &Frances Bessom (Cert. 27059, Doc. 84426) Acquired February 9, 1965, by Lionel J. & Louise J. Bouchard (Cert. 34875, Doc. 133963) Lionel deceased August 8, 1972, Louise becomes sole owner(Doc. 221400) Acquired November 11, 1986, by Robert M. Bouchard (Cert. 56487, Doc. 218059) Acquired July 7, 1994 by Richard D. & Cheryl A. Anderson (Cert. 64692, Doc. 300462) 31-33 Marlborough Road (Parcel #08-0073) Acquired November 11, 1928, by Guiseppe Guerriero (Cert. 8[61, Doc. 21484) Acquired February 26. 1971, by Giovanni& Antonio Guerriero (Cert. 41115, Doc. 137794) Acquired February 26, 1971, by Lionel J. &Louise J. Bouchard (Cert. 41116, Doc. 137795) Lionel deceased August 8, 1972, Louise becomes sole owner (Doc. 221400) BLODGETT&DONOVAN ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW TENCHESTNUTSTREET PEABODY,MASSACHUSETTS 01960 TEL:(508)532-5800 FAX(508)531-0406 JONATHAN W.BLODGETT OFCOUNSEL: THOMASM.DONOVAN JOHN E.MURPHY,JR. KATHLEEN M.WCAFFREY December 8, 1994 Mr. Leo Tremblay Building Inspector City of Salem 1 Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 RE: 35 Marlboro Road, Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Tremblay: Please be advised that this office represents the owners of 31 Marlboro Road, Salem, Massachusetts. It has come to our attention that the property at 35 Marlboro Road, Salem, Massachusetts, our direct abutter, lacks sufficient frontage and area to conform to the zoning requirements for the district within which it lies. As such, request is hereby made to you to revoke the occupancy permit for that property. I would appreciate it if you could notify me of your decision on this matter at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, BLODGE DONOVAN T omas M. Donovan TMD/acp (TMD 1 s.c/AniUTremblay.S am) §5.3 5. Vested Rights ,..Vested F Purchasers of real estate are entitled to rely on the applicable sinning tl zoning ordinances or by-laws in determining the uses which age . . . r( may be made of the parcel they are buying and of other parcels :;°^` The in the same neighborhood. For many persons, particularly those ownershit hpurchasing houses, this is the largest single investment of their 'andfath V lives. It is important that such purchasers be able to determine ' with reasonable accuracy, before making that investment, just what the applicable zoning ordinances and by-laws are, and la]ny lc 'I Iregister(what uses they permit or prohibit. ,:'.registeri The two freezes authorized by§6, ¶4 will be discussed in turn, T: of any z i, below. is situat a zonin) frontage of such §5.3.1 Lots Held in Separate Ownership such rec in owne The first sentence of Mass. Gen. L. ch. 40A, §6, $4, states: h'y � tThis statt j Any increase in area, frontage, width, yard, or depth 7e,gllrire- 5;000 squ: ments of a zoning ordinance or by-law shall nota 1 to a lot Furtl for single- and two-family residential use which at he time of r which de° recording or endorsement, whichever occurs sooner, was not lawfully It 11 held in common ownership with any adjoining land,' con- that any s formed to then-existing requirements and had less than the pro- comply w posed requirement but at least five thousand square feet of area time of re and fifty feet of frontage.' The This paragraph is commonly referred to as the "grandfather" 1975 Mas: p Iof C that clause of the statute. The Supreme Judicial Court has held that that were this provision "is concerned with protecting a once valid lot reiterated from being rendered unbuildable for residential purposes, as- 4SturF ning Bd. of ' %ts•that meet only at a single point,in the fashion of similarly colored - Board of Ap ' squares on a checkerboard,are not deemed"adjoining"lots for the purposes v. Board of of this section. Sturges v. Town of Chilmark, 380 Mass. 246, 260-261 (1980). grandfather Cf. Clarke v. Board of Appeals of Nahant, 338 Mass. 473, 477-478 (1959) standard lot (suggesting lots sharing a 13-foot boundary line did adjoin in this context). 'Defin !� 'The way on which the lot has 50 feet of frontage need not exist on vision Contr 'I. the ground. See Leblanc v. Board of Appeals of Danvers, 32 Mass. App. Ct. L. ch. 41, §f 760, 764(1992). 1DCA II. i , 196 5. Vested Rights 5. Vested Rights §5.3.1 ie applicable M suming the lot meets modest minimum area . . . and front- uses which age . . . requirements."4 otherarcels P - The grandfathering provision for lots held in separate cularly those ownership has its origins in 1958 Mass. Acts 492. The first nent of their grandfather clause for residential lots froze 'o determine ` stment, just ws are, and [ajny lot lawfully laid out by plan or deed duly recorded or registered . . . that complies, at the time of such recording or registering, with any minimum area and frontage requirements issed in turn, of any zoning ordinance or by-law in effect . . . where the land is situated . . . notwithstanding the adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance or by-law . . . imposing minimum area and j frontage requirements in excess of the area or frontage, or both, of such lot . . . provided that . . . at the time of adoption of such requirements or increased requirements such lot was held in ownership separate from that of adjoining land. g6, ¶4, states: This statute.also.introduced the_minimum,requirements of oth require- '5W0—square—feet oflot_ areaand 50 feet of frontage. 4� ,ply to a lot Farther clarification was provtded m 1961'Mass. Acts 435, the time of which detailed the types of plansunder which lots could be er, was not lawfully laid out.5 The amendment also added the requirement €' land,' con- — that_ny structure to be located on the grandfathered lot must h pan the pro- comply with'the setback requirements, if.any, in effect at the feet of area time of recording or endorsement. f The current version of the sentence,was'introduced in ;randfather" 19751]Vlass-Acts 808 the Zoning Act. However, the Depart- ment � has held that ment of Community,Affairs urged the adoption—e of two clauses that were not included in the final statute.' First, the draft nce valid lot )urposes, as- - reiterated-that any structure on the lot--must comply with ex- - ; 'Sturges v. Town of Chilmark, 380 Mass. 246, 261 (1980). See also Plan- ning Bd. of Norwell v. Serena, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 689, 690 (1989); Lee v. itnilarly colored j Board of Appeals of Harwich, 11 Mass.App. Ct. 148, 154(1981);Giovannucci or the purposes I v. Board of Appeals of Plainville, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 239, 242'(1976) (The 260-261 (1980). grandfather provision "has as its purpose . . . to freeze and minimize sub- 477-478 (1959) standard lots."). n this context). 'Definitive plans, pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. ch. 41, §81U of the Subdi- 2d not exist on It" vision Control Act,and approval-not-required plans, pursuant to Mass. Gen. (ass. App. Ct. " L. ch. 41, §81P, were specified as appropriate. y . 'DCA Report at 89-90. 197 a, 5. Vested Rights Vested R isting setback rules. Second,the draft included a provision that t tpted i lot�s'in,separate ownership at the'time—of"a`zoilinchange adjacenth would lose their protection if "subsequently held`in common 'stated i ownership. — n commc _eIn'Adamowicz v. Town:of'Igswich,7-:the-Supreme Judicial fo�:zonin) Court interpreted most of the key provisions of the-first sen- the dimer to nce of Mass. Gen.L.-ch. 40A,-§6;¶4r After explaining the Ce•"1z purpose of the provision and noting_its_ambiguifiey, the court tend apI Xi held`that the crucial'inquiry for grandfathering purposes is the Acts 808. "status of the lot immediately prior to the zoning change" that 4 salted in rendered the-lot nonconforminga— The-court concluded that holding t] — - _ rery limit a lot does meet the statutory requirements if the most recent under ext instrument of record9 prior to a restrictive zoning change reveals emptions t that the lot was separately owned, even though a previously li recorded subdivision plan may reveal that the lot was at oner 1124 N time art of land held in common ownership.p p' �general rule of a total gi Of course, the lot must also have at least 5,000 square feet in question wt area and 50 feet of frontage. by-law." Be In Willard v. Board of Appeals of Orleans,10 the appeals court `104(1978). noted that "[t]here is nothing on the face of the fourth para- (1965); Gera. (1982);Heal graph to suggest that it was intended to apply to anything but -.290(1979) vacant land." This conclusion is entirely consistent with the =adjacent ani legislative history of the provision, including the DCA Report, x a far cry fro, which states that the predecessor version of this provision in result the old Zoning Enabling Act was addressed to "undeveloped Severa '-��. to avoid or r lots" and "lots on which construction has not yet com- of Norwell d mence . „u ` Nantucket Table 5-1 is a synopsis of all appellate level decisions (and ' (1983). In D j a few Land Court decisions) in which a landowner has at- court reason achieved in to the nonce 7395 Mass. 757 (1985). See also Sieber v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the area anc Wellfleet, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 985 (1983). 13In V BId. at 762-763. (1965),the o 9The most recent instrument of record may be either a plan as set forth 338 Mass. 4: - under the Subdivision Control Act or a deed. �„ ous amendr 1025 Mass. App. Ct. 15, 18 (1987). 14 See t "See DCA Report at 36-37. Harwich, 11 I ' 198 i.. 5. Vested Rights 5. vested Rights §5.3.1 d a provision that tempted to preserve the individual identity of two or more a zoning change adjacent lots. The general rule discernible from these decisions held in common is stated in Seltzer v. Board of Appeals of Orleans: "adjacent lots in common ownership will normally be treated as a single lot Supreme Judicial for zoning purposes so as to minimize nonconformities with of the first sen- the dimensional requirements of the zoning by-law or ordi- -r explaining the nance."" Note that the Seltzer general rule has been consis- guities, the court tently applied, before and after the enactment of 1975 Mass. g purposes is the Acts 808. Of the 15 appellate level decisions, eleven have re- ing change" that sulted in merger of the adjacent lots. Of the four decisions :oncluded that holding that merger need not occur, one has been labeled a very limited precedent13 and two of the decisions were decided the most recent under extremely liberal local by-laws granting generous ex- change reveals emptions to landowners.14 gh a previously lot was at one 1224 Mass. App. Ct. 521, 522 (1987). Another routine statement of the general rule is that the inquiry"ignores the manner in which the components of a total given area have been assembled and concentrates instead on the I 100 square feet in question whether the sum of the components meets the requirements of the ' by-law." Becket v. Building Inspector of Marblehead, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 96, the appeals court 104(1978). See also Vassalotti v. Board of Appeals of Sudbury, 348 Mass. 658 (1965); Girard v. Board of Appeals of Easton, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 334, 335 the fourth para- (1982); Heald v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Greenfield, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 286, to anything but 290 (1979). These cases involved a landowner who wanted to merge several isistent with the adjacent and nonconforming smaller lots into a single buildable lot. This is the DCA Report, a far cry from the Vetter line, in which the landowner is trying to avoid this this provision in result. to "undeveloped Several other decisions point out that a landowner has an obligation to avoid or minimize the creation of a nonconformity. See, e.g., Planning Bd. i is not yet Com- of Norwell v. Serena, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 689, 691 (1989); Planning Bd. of Nantucket v. Board of Appeals of Nantucket, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 733, 737 el decisions (and (1983). In DiCicco v. Berwick, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 312, 314 (1989), the appeals ndowner has at- court reasoned, "Conformity to the requirements of the zoning ordinance is achieved in such a case by treating the ostensibly conforming lot as servient to the nonconforming lot to the extent necessary to achieve compliance with g Bd. of Appeals of the area and frontage requirements of the zoning ordinance." 13In Vassalotti v. Board of Appeals of Sudbury, 348 Mass. 658, 661 (1965),the court termed the decision in Clarke v.Board of Appeals of Nahant, her a plan as set forth 338 Mass. 473 (1959), as justified under"an unusual by-taw and an ambigu- ous amendment." 14See Seltzer, 24 Mass. App. Ct. at 524; Lee v. Board of Appeals of Harwich, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 148, 154 (1981). 199 �r i »£ *5. Vested Rights $pYested] 1 Nonethel�, the key word in the Seltzer pronouncement .a1 g c is "normally.' Not every set'of adjacent lots is "automaticall tent to treated as a single lot for zoning purposes`. In Carciofi v. Boardparatel of Appeal of Billerica," the appeals court reviewed {a textbook the. statu exemption. In 1951, plaintiff acquired a lot thatimet area and particular frontage requirements then in effect. In'1953, plaintiff acquired pte an it an adjoining-conforming lot withranotlier person, as tenant in Fine y common. Thus, when the zoning for the district in which both attempt lots were located was changed in 1956, the lots were not held Thus, th in common ownership. Thereafter, in 1959, ownership of-the- * 'ertY on t adjoining lots'was nominall placed in common hands.16 The *„- Appeals Court ruled, apparently using the Adamowicz ratio-r "Checl nale, that the key inquiry was the status of the lots in 1956, %owner when they were rendered nonconforming. Their separate own : . Ownei ershfo at that time preserved their status as separate building o otic lots, despite the fact thaac t they later came into common owner- ship in some rough sense. A few Land Court decisions follow Y a- contigs the same line of reasoning. —If adjoining lots are preserved using{the Adamowicz test or The cou= a more liberal local regulation, the court further explore 'be rewa whether the owner has an intent to keep the lots se arate.18 Several decisions highlight factors for the court to consider. zu First, the mere reference to multiple lots on a deed does not <<a . vt e suffice to preserve the lots designated therein.19 Second, the X 1- 21 Ht 1 p291 (1979) 1122 Mass. App. Ct.926 (1986). 131 (1972) 16Carciofi caused the first lot to be conveyed to himself and his wife as M ,;' Seltzer, 24 tenants by the entirety. The other tenant in common of the second lot con- '2 Se veyed his half-interest to Carciofi and his wife. Thus, as to the second lot, s'4 2'G' one-half was held by Carciofi and his wife as tenants by the entirety, and ,,"g 243(1976 the other half was held by Carciofi individually. Interestingly, the court con- - 24BE t eluded that such ownership never constituted "common ownership." Id. at ,. (1985). A, 927. x-... -' Zoning E 17 See, e.g., Silun v. Morris, Mise. Case No. 143836(Land Ct. 1991); Cf. in Sorent. Bobrowski v. Board of Appeals of Beverly, Misc. Case No. 153543(Land Ct. ssL` 1992). (1981). Tl 18Seltzer, 24 Mass. App. Ct. at 523-524. <- common 19 Lindsay v. Board of Appeals of Milton, 362 Mass. 126, 131 (1972). See ship. The also Heald v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Greenfield, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 286, - - -aa'- transferre 289-290 (1979). transpare p. { 202 I. 5. Vested Rights §5.3.1 I t , i walling or fencing of the adjoining lots may be evidence of an intent to keep the lots separate.20 Third, the fact that the lot is I separately assessed is a factor to be considered in determining I' the status of the lots.21 Fourth, the placementlof structures, particularly where the structures straddle the lot line, may indi- cate an intent to separate or merge the lots.22 I Finally, the court "has not favored manipulations,which attempt to preserve nonstandard lots for building purpos6S, 123 Thus, the court has rejected attempts to "checkerboard" prop- «.c j erty on the eve of a zoning amendment. "Checkerboarding,' refers to a practice by;which a large land- d` owner divides his property into single lots held by "straws." Ownership of the property is then divided so as to avoid,having g`ya4 two adjacent lots held by one person. Employing'the graphics t of the checkerboard, Mr. X holds all the black squares, while Mr. Y holds all the red ones, and neither "owner"`holds two contiguous squares.24 • A;. a t The court has indicated that such "sham coveyances" will not be rewarded with grandfathering.21 For example, in Planning 2OVetter v. Zoning Bel. of Appeal of Attleboro, 330 Mass. 628, 630 (1953). 21 Heald v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Greenfield, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 286, 291 (1979). See also Lindsay v. Board of Appeals of Milton, 362 Mass. 126, 131 (1972); Clarke v. Board of Appeals of Nahant, 338 Mass. 473, 477(1959); Seltzer, 24 Mass. App. Ct. at 523-524. uSeltzer, 24 Mass. App. Ct. at 523. 23Giovannucci v. Board of Appeals of Plainville, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 239, 243 (1976). 24Baldiga v. Board of Appeals of Uxbridge, 395 Mass. 829, 834 n.4 (1985). Apparently, checkerboarding was permissible under §5A of the old Zoning Enabling Act, unless the local regulation contained a prohibition, as in Sorenti v. Board of Appeals of Wellesley, 345 Mass. 348 (1963). 2s Lee v. Board of Appeals of Harwich, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 148, 151-153 (1981). The court pierced transfers involving three lots originally held in common by a husband and wife. The first lot was kept in common owner- ship. The second was transferred to the husband alone, and the other was transferred to the wife alone. The court held that these transfers were "a I transparently ineffective attempt to defeat the lot combination provisions." 203 Section 6. Pre-existing Non-conforming Uses, Structures and Lots Exemption for Except as hereinafter provi•d_ed", a zoning ordipance or by- Structure and Use law shall not apply to structures or-.uses. law-RA n ,� Lawfully Begun or existence or lawfully begun,-'or to a building or special in Existence permit issued before the first publication of-notice of the public hearing on such ordinance or by-law required Exemption for by section five, but shall"apply to any change>or,-sub- Building or Special stantial extension of such use, to a building or special Permit Issued Before permit issued after the first notice of said public hearing, First Notice of to any reconstruction, extension or structural change of Public Hearing such structure and to any alteration of a structure begun after the first notice of said public hearing to provide for its use for a substantially different purpose or for the same purpose in a substantially different 'manner or to a substantially greater extent except where alteration, reconstruction, extension or structural change to a single or two-family residential structure does not increase the Pre-existing Non- nonconforming nature of said structure. Pre-existing non- conforming Structures conforming structures or uses may be extended or altered, or Uses May be provided, that no such extension or alteration shall be Extended, Changed permitted unless there is a finding by the permit granting or Altered After authority or by the special permit granting authority Finding by designated by ordinance or by-law that such change, Granting Authority extension or alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the f neighborhood. This section shall not apply to billboards , signs and other advertising devices subject .to the provisions of sections twenty-nine through thirty-three, inclusive, of chapter ninety-three, and to chapter ninety- three D. Ordinance or By-law A zoning ordinance or by-law shall provide that construction Shall Provide that or operations under a building or special permit shall Building or Special conform to any subsequent amendment of the ordinance or Permit Shall Conform by-law unless the use or construction is commenced within if Not Commenced a period of not more than six months after the issuance of Within a Period of the permit and in cases involving construction, unless Not More Than 6 such construction is continued through to completion as Months continuously and expeditiously as is reasonable. Regulating of A zoning ordinance or by-law may define and regulate non- Nonconforming conforming uses and structures abandoned or not used for Uses After 2 Years a period of two years or more. Single Lot Any increase in area,frontage, width,y d,or depth, Exemption for �regvrrements:o-f-a-zoning ordinance or by-law shall not Single and apply to a lot for single and two-family residential use i Two-Family�use,.J whi-ch=at the time of recording or endorsement, whichever occurs sooner was not held in common ownership with any !I adjoining land, conformed to then existing requirements 6-1 • and-had less-than the proposed requirement but at least, Kf_ive_thousand:souare feet ^f area and fifty feet of common Lot Lfrontage:` Any increase in area, frontage, width, yard irement of a zoning ordinance or by-law Exemption for or depth reou single and shall not apply for a period of five years from its swo Family use effective date or for five years after January first te'nineteen hundred and seventy-six, whichever is later, to ra lot for-single and two family residential use, provided, the plan for such lot was recorded or endorsed and such lot 'was held in common ownership with any adjoining land and- conformed to the existing zoning requirements as ofrJanuary first, nineteen hundred and seventy-six, and had less area, frontage, width, yard or depth reouirements than the newly effective zoning requirements but contained at least seven; thousand five hundred square feet of area and seventy-five feet of frontage, and provided that said five year period does not commence prior to January first, nineteen hundred and'-seventy-six, and provided further that the provisions of this sentence shall not apply to more than three of such adjoining lots held in common ownership. The provisions of this paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit a lot being built upon, if at the time of the building, buildiha upon such lot is not prohibited by the zoning ordinances or by-laws in effect in a city or town. 4 Definitive Plan If a definitive Plan, or a preliminary plan followed Exemption within seven months, by a definitive plan, is submitted to a planning board for approval under the subdivision control law, and written notice of such submission has been liven to the city or town clerk before the Land Governed effective date of ordinance or by-law, the land shown . by zoning in on such plan shall be governed by the applicable Effect at Time provisions of the zoning ordinance or by-law, if any, of submission in effect at the time of the first such submission while such plan or plans are being processed under the Plans Submitted subdivision control law, and, if such definitive plan After 12/31/76 or an amendment thereof is finally approved, for eight 8 Year Exemption years from the date of the endorsement of such approval , except in the case where such plan was submitted or Plans Submitted submitted and approved before January first, nineteen Prior to 1/1/76 hundred and seventy-six, for seven years from the date 7 Year Exemption of the endorsement of such approval . Whether such period is eight years or seven years, it shall be Moratorium extended by a period equal to the time which a city or town Affecting imposes or has imposed upon it by a state, a federal agency subdivision or a court, a moratorium on«co�nstruction,. the.issuance of Plans permits or utility connections. p ' 6_2 ',*,4 2/1+11/86 r x a-o-'uc�'i ptr a r ,e .v.•eF�^s syy9A 'fr s•+s„ rrwic-, w-,y�1 a. , " x4^*sF s x ",*e3 A'+„'rx`°- ,'f" r�ri s # • m, "` °s' a& -;- "fi ss`z"k'.. P1 � aN-� �� s.xl�+5 i �w"si a.�J sd� �� tl, 'fhas m'� Ss�?�a t`� ��'�"3�+IM rrr � �.�a'S y�{. •s r ..'`��w�+k I 1 ^�'. 2,{: S;ai..n r,,. �k 1 � .+ ry :. .sa R( F � i �§ '. _ ;:q �„ •; t-C''' 4r¢ '�.*} �yfi r�aj`'� -a4c x "�� ^f Ar� � f S i r ,��'rP ��t i'yytPw � §y}"L*�' '�44}�'g'�d� �i'd �v 2��:yyx s Aw„:,+, 3' �R �'; `Y '°�'# i•� p-.� 5 0 lr a d •y er. fafi ,�g -x�t y �� t>i W b�''}..; �x ��nd �>e � T �E� c UU II ass s�Yt L •� M,-'"�-c e`, r 1. a s- vkr 4•.� Aa 44 �rxy� �. di„'rg'##Ik�i�y`* ♦'• ss�'�'r2S�` '+4 �C. .+.�, ,a. . � yc,,.;.-,. rt,.tS' a T a�;* h; "c r"r Y `fr � r °eb.`15 'lyd�., L av'r+.e;H L^+F�aw"n•� �p ar; �'"+ x �. o n i ��£ � v x a rv1N f''e��'7`.N•p,.a>'a'Y�1”�yvb ,Y"#"4(r` t r k`Y� 5gy�yNare i i� .4 gMp�;"S tr 4� �5 � �� 2� >F LT tC 1 • ' S. • _ a 5y , x 7 as z, 5 , �>_ e e • a t s T, F�a r fit.., Y""�' �• qty i�. • •• • �,�� ' �-3a�' +ms�ss vp' •s >°` ININE � s m y R *, • s • • R v^*rx qq yy'{� {{ .:• j'_f 5 �• �• ak • ' �9JiTif)y.'4W �{pTW 'C4Y J 8 1* °, Ili& ti•! t...,: 3 g ,.e� ik'4F e 1 41 4a 5 pf >t . it 1!� fir. t• �L} f 1 der; OF t�K IF arq 1.+. Yw tia ai i5 p 1 3s^ F ax r - 34 ✓ +c.,"'IyF eek °'4tI F4 pi �}y;'y��"�, t.W+ }i�'� k e P ��t• �^ i# a .�' �sv �yr t - � ��r 4 .� s } qis '`"`�� S �p F i t i w'= ,y +e i 5v mi�., "a*i>a��nx t F � ', r ° .: � t s' r Fyfi{' • ' � � wrl 4 x1 w � a � _ I a � � t�� *• I � tr r { 5 "fix f � rz � wx ay, r„ r• ' M f r. " ., wo. _axfr_��-'w vt .._ _��• ,.. �4 §4� •.,.._va+ri�,r4. .ud 'ti� .9J{rt d� s�W —,�agm.r "k 1 P� (Eertiftrate of L71 No. 27058 a From Transfer Certificate No. 7582 , (; Originally Registered arch 6, 1928 in II' Registration Book 27 Page 7091 for theI I ! Southern Registry District of Essex County, t Car 41E, IU YU f�et$ifq that Edith C. LaBelle, married to Irving A. LaBelle, of Lynn and m ,riedatoaAlfredo) okozanol nski,eFlorencerTamborine ini,'marrieddtooRichaidLWgeTamboriniBo ndaE el'yn H n, married to Gilbert h j Swampscott tnhb County of Essex and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 3 yy each of one undivided sixth part, are the owners in fee simple Of that certain parcel of land situate in Salem in the County of Essex and said Commonwealth, bounded and described as follows: 4 EASTERLY T ERLY by Marlborough Street one hundred eighteen and 40/100 (118.40) feet; - l SOUTHEASTERLY�y lot 61, as slh wn on plan hereinafter mentioned, one hundred six and 74/100 _ j 1 l q r06-74}'Feet;�1 s ' SOUTHWESTERLY by Mussolini Road one hundred five and 56/100 (105.56) feet; and ' F NORTHWESTERLY by lots 64 and 65, as shown on said plan, two hundred three and 96/100` (203.9,6 feet. All of said boundaries are determined by the Court to be located as shown upon plan numbered c 11802-B, drawn by Thomas A. - aPProved by the Court, filed�iplthe nLand vRegistration Office, alcol2, 1928' as modified and F r w is filed with Certificate of Title #7179 in said Registry, and the above described 1 copy of a portion of which ,, a h- shown as lots #62 and 63, sheet 2, on last mentioned plan, and is i r IlY' {f r- 'IFt p { J 4� ( qk a II. , � / �v- And it is further certified that saidi d�Iander the operation an provisions Y j•N of Chapter 185 of the General Laws, and that the title of said Edith C. LaBelle, Carmella Cavallaro, Catherine Legere, Mary)' Bokozanski, Florence Tamborini and Evelyn Hahn, y to said land is registered under said Chapter, subject, however, to any of,the encumbrances mentioned in Section ' 41; forty-six of said Chapter, which may be subsisting, afld stt��e w WITNEss, JOHN E. FENTON, Esquire, Judge of the Land Court, at Salem, in said County of Essex, .E {. the third. day of December in the year nineteen hundred and fifty seven at 2 o'clock and 57 minutes in the a ft er noon. Attest, with the Seal of said Court, _ ..'......... .. ..... , m Acting- sisutne Recorder. �- i 111:0111% 1 LA. I MIR �}.. _ (9i#V IIfttlPm, ftt�sttcl�lis2## •. '. f . jJuhlir 11rnpertg Department �Ruilaing Pepttrtrcenf Richard I. McIntosh One Salem Green 745-0213 July 11 , 1984 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN : RE : Lot #73 Assessors Map #8 The above referenced lot is determined to be a nonconforming lot in that it has at least 5 , 000 Sq . Ft . and 50 Ft . of frontage and may be built on in accordance with the current Zoning Ordinance . Very truly yours , l ' '-' Richard T . McIntosh Zoning Enforcement Officer RTM: bms d00^ 140�y`y�a i 61 o w � 6 1I11pR iGy�q� v� y�^v�� V• L( 60 LOCUS PLAN N. T.S, r� 10� 70 go O 3�0 oSED � 4, 9 PRO6 � '� G Oa G'�1� fl�6 36 c� y •o Q , O NOTE• �C' /) LOCUS /S_SNOW.V.AS -GDT 73? o {ASSESSOR MAP_�8 �. _ ��7 2� ZON%ALG OIS-T_iP/CT.(.P-1!�� s oj `k m for eejeR tin9 Shree cop th a or to theIs \01 io\l,c W e News. \40M\l Boer B 1 E Transfer Certificate ®f Titte. No. 41.116 ;prom Transfer Certificate No. 41115 , Originally Registered March 6 1928 , in J " stration Book 29 Page 7091 for the Southern Registry District of Essex County. Tbt5 ig to @Certitp that Lionel J. Bouchard and Louise J. Bouchard, his wife, i Salem In the Countyf Essex oand Commonwealth of Massachusetts, �. assisted=6o are the owners In fee simple as tenants by the entirety, y 44 that certain parcel of land situate in Salem �la the County of Essex and said Commonwealth, bounded and described as follows: 1 gp TERLY by Marlborough Street one hundred thirty and 13/100 (130,13) feet; SOUTHWESTERLY by Mussolini Road one hundred sixteen (116) feet; and NORTHWESTERLY by lot 62, as shown on plan hereinafter mentioned, one hundred six and 74/100 (106,74) feet, All of said boundaries are determined by the Court to be located as shown or ,a plan numbered 11802-B, drawn by Thomas A. Appleton, Civil Engineer, dated April 12, 1928, as modified and approved by the Court, filed in the Land Registration Office a co of a g� copy portion of which T1s filed with Certificate of Title #7179 in said Registry, and the above described land is sh as lot 061, sheet 2, on last mentioned plan, 744 110 f ` , i { I iY And it is further certified that said land Is under the operation and provisions of Chapter 185 of the General III � Lsws, and that the title of said Lionel J. Bouchard and Louise J. Bouchard to said land is registered under said Chapter, subject, however, to any of the encumbrances mentioned in Section �I fonysix of said Chapter, which may be subsisting, and lave© ,� i JOSEPH B. SILVERIO, ASSOCIATE f Wrrums, ExEW'6M�WIIETTMM, Esquire/Judge of the Land Court, at Salem, in said County of Essex, I i ,the! second day of June in the year nineteen hundred � and seventy one at 8 o'clock and 00 minutes in the fore noon. f Attest, with the Seal of said Court, I i 1 � Acting-Assistant R corder. °Fd I�•T"A�14�.+'li^' 'r-,�yy['S4' 5f'fLyq"tyv 'ti"',ysz`'+�" '+tom a s t ,. E 'x" '9�+.•R"kFlk.' #Mw ,k'za�.;. I K' E3,r , t I^ 3 f . 'I,& 1hE s Ya¢°af % ,y' • 1{ r `a �^. r.77 ' taq,c lk I, •- , d t iY I ,,a, Y r 1 4° .9 ,, - Y I t "t .. S "e i r?,. _.» F' ,aSk:. •'"' x :. I*. Y c"G W `+"`' c'aki.: a1' �t1114, VKt. r �.. , yak+ � «. <rt _ 4 w � § f r F y I, '.• '�' '�"�'t $� �+�a , a r3 '� � al >� ,+. 3'' -.3, >.'t ��yw,rx.{..# sys�*e•`u€ au ki a " rEr �}-, n� ¢Jr r .t '.I 4e y r � .(t � � s �. �F".., A ,} '.'K irt` ,sa,° goo -� f } 1 '�+ Yea +::a, T"E5 4r, zd cu.'. x'i" 1` �' ;c .h ..w..• � _. y,,�a t t� ma �"` mak,. �q -rth war+# "c h+lA 'tq #;f Fn✓E' *�'s v.u+ 'ySS �c^�. �wx. ,. '�v,:' r d 's F ' w tbe�'t pl `�� .HSa.` s r s+ q L, r �� '`y� +.�'� :W"f `!�! ,RKk1 �t l� r *Cr $ �`r, lin✓§, 4;�r� i m•-# rk9 F'°. Ors r I "•i. l..x "v vaL r +,y s.,,�� 4 ,j.�- .t �F�k«: � mac* . ,#�.'��. �� 9 - I S:' xx ��vt' n ,� � ykr: r � rp. v z < • e �- .,* '� -� � x Y' s q a "" a a '- „'; .� 4� � �+ s .�,. �'�y a�a .-�Fr#4'�'a,Y�.t +. T�,•�^{;�'-vk�.,•� � a' i it s ";�� c "+�"�I`�R'� rs: S �'a` r� ttt- ,.rt '{� $ I, I • .. s ,g 7" < '��y v^�'� x.,1 ;2 xT� '�• �4� � 's s»,#� ° � ✓- ¢ x �'�' ��% '�` i%T + d"A,^` d,.• ,. *`i1 "PA €� �• sc.lgaT�+"r, } ii 5S e "`y M Cy�y 4 ]li"�°u+'��P � MC NF.'�j �a4 A.�§5 yy §.1 3'�� t E r.� �. y,'. �Via H • rW' y '. • it - 1 '1 �,.SJ rpt: '� :. /' :.ri • •_ • • •.h • - �, ,^ ax �/I M �s .] . ..G .. 14 : • �.t sa r •:. e • • 1 ' r I f It v d. tt ) P�7I • _"'• - • ..• - • ' •a> • i�,e�a `7 r-,;. x t d-y '�� • a r ,fib',. :� � • Y • -_ • •� ► • _ • _ y •,d �. . _ ._.rr ,y�? s, W 4� 4`�Jr Vi}��E, _ m } 14 rh n ON „.. h, mow L y- yy�5.v a �rf ,xi,6Ar�q��+�i• ��s °ne• .�,..�'�.%'•. tM1'4'� �I l�f i} �".s'"�� Ire*.t� .£r `AI gx'nb r t & '�i r i'",1 �v > rn',t rF r �: ty a r'�' tia � #, 1�1 x♦ A"keS� �3m �'ets r IM's''�, �"` � x.x1 y y3T',r�. �, �TM '' � y� a�#` 1 § ?�, ": �.� � '�yY« "f '�l"''nMY11 "}`.M1A� ,C y�l�z t !F 4 ..: tyyR.'Y �r^'i r "�E>;xq ✓CM'' a Fa t } R.xs '� y,'m 5 2*.t sr`;) 3.� it 2''°i v.x§ie a-Yn•4 r w ke*' `' Ta E y�a.Ea .$.; >»'*,s ,' "we Iw ', d #I + . I R.i `•,�' `u k "6`< r p _ �a""w-d "�I W r�.,ES � �" r A a _cs.'f"JF' 'fit �i" >� .,. 7' ,+I t � d ' k, 3 � ) � Ri1 Fs`pp5"�� u � � -`�`'fi� F i icT.T. '4� °''.ri5 y •` { .c � iL �ywx �y '4 3Sfi '� 7;.- s��W j� x Yv-L#: * t<c� _•� �i»t,+,i}3'i;+t 9-' -".1^ c�'{ ��%Y�� k .i `& xI "'T"�'E..# ,�'4 + ♦ `rl - TS 'S ''i$, a�"3h 9 , 11Y"" �ry S` ar 4.,�'ira Y ' r.- -ny' `' � Sa'w .�.a.. { �'er ,• r �„rA )5. +c,..,..si'aia`•t��:a ,a- a "�' _�`�.krr��re.a+' cv.�.,..:.r.Gam... ...mbSiem•� ...r.... _. roaw t...rt a,w• L, a �y -7>` a'e .iue _. ¢ a , 5 ai s,�' t i 4,.�`r .} 7 }*t L 'Vkf )f'Y'�N €:f�S`1 �• �>< S� r �( a V•yi9 r: >'- &.gw'L sr f 4y�} � 'X, h"amu $k4r'$'l '14V Y4� 7„ �._.v 'fwY, 4J e r r � � h' ,r I , 51 � •.,.i } �+ �'r�'i " Y s-.- ..--.- '' ..c.-.r'•,�•- - ` � .a,�,..� .. ._• r �Yy ,, ay 8 4 1� j py�'L ' w xt'-� '.p hr, 8 M1 ' dl twa � 1RY C�x.A:.i7•wiC 'S�.t n O-n t....i.-•••=—y+'�7Wab r J 4 Y%S /'//�.�r 4 //�®Y C' 1 � A b Yar Subdivision of Lot' A shown p ,s x, on plan 11602A Sh 1a,st ,, d h 3 � Cert:of: Tit�e',No7091 South Registry District 'of Essex-tCoun`ty Filed with tv LAND SNt—SALEM `'}i y � -...�� '« e a �• .' ..+ ofa P ir- Y +a' 14� ',,u� I at '0.��'r k�� {:rll 'Scale. 0 100 feet t aninch 'April;. 12, 1928.JAI o '• d+Mr'w'. } ~s Y�,� � 1`•�I l r t {�4 a{ ��at ��weac iI; - Thomas A. epple'ton,'� Civil Engin6er: ° ..'°�.,� .�J9r : �r� � ♦ f >\ �a. � _•' ` . fr41i` wYLery ni .� 4N`.M1 �.d k17 fffl�� 21 e f'hC°Pt' r .r z ,./,'n �'k#iW Yee ..777734 k `. moi',YP' fQ 50 f,} . aul'//B7 'O6 ra #rq "'tk., - . . 5a •sv fo. ,. .�,, _ A,�i s�' 1,p{\ «,:;. 5 ';;99.NSC f;p�{ = f ' 4. { �. ' a • - .Jv) -.?1 : \ �� _IZV p r:eJ •B O,�� ..a r J} '� p}ry a �3o t •-2� ,�k'..a w t try t 1, ' ,32 �✓ 2 I.ai, �F.;(.}7ypp0 �y'><.i. 4i 1®'ff lY• 1� " ")'.' �a)�f � rfa3� r. �� . v \ .r; �� ,5� `.`ill • e:. lil � �L��r3x✓R��iR ,e 1�n -a - ,1J�'��•. A � r 11 8 _ Jia_ .30, 0•,F ��l��ht/ ro�' - ' � da � a+++�71�� 1 - z < .�` g 5ZW � � . 6 N, �•' .f�/Z � //O� ,>: • �3* ry', }dei a 1 £� E•.t � �IQr>+.�> LY,��. �'S��$A 1 H tl 3f� - /Z fp/2, e �>, A3J /z �.,t`x � �X r .. . 6/ N�br -t' 3/Y'�\ „�'r a� as+�:s. �.. \p• zA � C,) i".� �� t �I �a �b$:�-#,. � ,l pf+�1�7 , „ y: r �,{ � ��. a� e ,,,� ;�,:. ` �35 Cp✓'r Aa(� Fe' �a �$ �+(, f�i!"A h Vw 7,.-'i,� > x:i rrify.'�SS ` ' Na YT (,' *. �,• 7 (\jl `3'`_ W ' o� i c a,:..r/6rti `/6' " ry} i�w@" ! c , A r Rc 7`11 ,\ r d f t � r h1�r�`� . rl �lil s 'di"{ ha at 49 •�,a . ,i '"' ` 4T�{',��6''S � ` gm Al ��a nkarAe•a yy 4 E-; f 1W IM, O�j Csr JI. Tis '.,tp �-• �s.. �j. �� rw } �rKiy 6. � \, _ �/.�/'/ q `• ll. � •W 791 ".•�B � ...rr \ .,'. \ �W " �j \ L 'M A E{{Q a8� �� '.�-0.' tr . /e +��w• s w '�� `�� /�' . � : e "'4 c�y �a��:� ✓/1/ O �/�/O/ Y `f� �jP /fJ�'3 ` t� �� Y f �S 1 'R L�Z1r31'.!Y -k_I A(//' (`V O ?�' ' ✓• a '•• .Y 17Y";3 }�.y 'y .# U§✓ g}rt'ii 4Ve} �4 / te' �Fa 'a y'� `5 p. ✓✓ A/a/: ty �� •JQa k �i` # CQ 9 i Z .r r.'y',� ,.Y ✓r'. a'S97 'L a �' S i•C .r., �v'k`S 3 y a� em � fd � \ ,a ,%'y 4 L t' � -.. � vi �� . zM o rS "a "n�l n' 7tti a.:' j60 + '1 9 ec[ e 5 R ♦ 5JY f ,it i J s':C a „ G. a i '�) sI •,f s"�V n� �t T x't >f'9' Ks 1 Pr ,fi�`"Y. a�p a,. !.. �� . �.:"p�. jy4:1 p {y,`¢da(:' r)rQ� 4�i It" d`? ` to ry.�*"'��-��+f� 1'a�, t ,�t1-," >#2 'J\"/ ,'i, i ��'k" 4:-.^« ' �\ ••jir`a�� t�� Adr,� '�(/8' �w'9�C�y5�(J `'p,� is y'x � t { `{y' fa'.t' y(�vy o. ? 'Y k '�! �l �_ IO .r'P � �L• i � 4y J�y 't V � ' � � A� d. +h -s. '., � , CC5 7 Y � N• 11' �.• apt � .h{. .fy � -'y'� .+ rx r, ♦�fe n+\ N D �. fir. 1 C « J, v$> tOtt. +ka ',. i` 4' , o,. . � , � ♦ l t.i.'4. '�' It Z. +,i R..,....• 3 ,. CC C4 .. r `k��... �B'l' f at '.. .. > ({'d�. ,r �� .a+�i;�'t" 'til '�rS s ,�"�'k C{-s:.s4 ' r a ��ry�t1 r+. ;ty`"�u�. a, 3 t �, 3 }'+iya¢,, n 4 ✓' yF. � �' ..: w. . ✓ «L. [ ar C �h^ na +. v h� !1 t�I �#"t d 9�R�Mtm3dy iV. {yP@ • d '' �' , �� .� � �.. a+ , .t''�" )k, ,�,,ttCi l" �0_'••Qa -".zr +br t -?rrEdq € _ 8 ' ,i �:f"',•a+` '� `+yT �i".� Ta�}'4_,�ep"' 'r4a� *.+r -u' wM, h 1.1� �' + (�s�lir•'rrf� s%+ie�xy 'f„'. 1 r>r4;,'J 'rh•Y".,kts�y)j-,�,"' ) 'a' a. r r `abs} 5'h L° / a fa4' , ,!*'U t k'. t . +`s f •f' y �8 V N D &i1YVl1, x 'r•� (� r 8 .ala,..t}'.'�' o-ar�,i n � � +^a�,,�i,F s�J� Ryvr'av�� - a�� d✓";x t:'. .,r � ,n� y �.>•r��lAy�y� r� y� rt t �'1•+�'4. �6.%�'a`"s"y�` '� r rR�.�"'"fin.# �#' �°t,..r .U�'t' a 'e :y. „rd! ,��a{r�'iJ�}r}� �,.,6-e'f' u• �" -.T.,"�' t ,p�'li�T�!taa��3 K98, cf�' « 6i�ryp�C4 Na � ��i� �'N:,, AI 'I tn . a{w i Wr.•YQ dla drd al�✓`ab if��f' � w '.I 2 LE� `� ��"., ma�ti.J t ix«Nr ,Il{^ 4 r �j,: s 1 4 .."'1 �� :� d, q�y'`�✓ ."� f;« '4°9"';. tri ' 'h� k! t 9 `�xf 8 =:e 2 "Separate cerriRcates of l�t/e may be�1 ued r i it T ",Rr 1 'Copy%af part�af p/dn �t u e {Of .tAE !!U!!2pamd ;I�:IoLda 05."ShOWn J80nt c •, ` �/"' .•� "`tea's 'r /B!1 I!! '••—r W>" k •t '1' Amb 9 t a BY;tbe Coarfi< "c no tha'fo/b{ ,� t� " • * a LAND,;REG/ST �1L. 'V .r°: �5`i� �Iy �' y � �"a rM�IP :1 � 4 w :- _.,rct� N '�.{, �Ys^!,}""`��•�" ,;n d "/IP.I�/L h"/��.�! C-43 it •d'[°ep d.� v�j9� if' c:, f �� 9 '' i�rj �' {�" ta�el��f a �'y�. •. .. C� z+� y Nz n 1�{ �e «7 , b `t a ppelta t d r t . { tX , ,pa14'� t g e 'kC �r MR 1 4 r ,..f `� ''. t. 1. �r id 7* � w� � r �y ,R�,y` � � � ao-�_: 1'!�"'�'k w r - �' •rR$ h � � j r6/ !� r5/ FORM E Cer . No. 5676 transfer Tertiftrate of 0itle Doct No. 221401 From Transfer Certificate No. 41116 Originally Registered March 6, 1928 in Registration Book 29 Page 7091 for the Southern Registry District of Essex Counu. Alis is to Orrtifg that Robert M. Bouchard of, Salem in the County of Essex and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Trustee of the Marlborough Street Realty Trust, under a Declaration of Trust, dated January 13 , 1987, and filed as Document 221402 in said Registry, is the owner(s) in fee simple of that certain parcel(s) of land situate in Salem in the County of Essex and said Commonwealth of Massachusetts bounded and described as follows: EASTERLY by Marlborough Street one hundred thirty and 13/100 (130.13) feet; SOUTHWESTERLY by Mussolini Road one hundred sixteen (116) feet; and NORTHWESTERLY by lot 62, as shown on plan hereinafter mentioned, one hundred six and 74/100 (106.74) feet. All of said boundaries are determined by the Court to be located as shown upon plan numbered 11802-B, drawn by Thomas A. Appleton, Civil Engineer, dated April 12, 1928, as modified and approved by the Court, filed in the Land Registration Office, a copy of a portion of which is filed with Certificate of Title 7179 in said Registry, and the above described land is shown as lot 61, sheet 2, on last mentioned plan. a, r, 0 a g b ro m m A c. ro Y y O U m N b N E+ U N N fa E b S. ro U 7 O to And it is further certified that said land is under the operation and provisions of Chapter 185 of the General l Laws and that the title of said Robert M. Bouchard, Trustee as aforesaid A O L� to said land is registered under said Chapter, subject, however, to any of the encumbrances mentioned in Section forty-six of said Chapter, which may be subsisting, and subject also to any encumbrances appearing on the back of this Certificate. Land Court WITNESS, MARILYN M. SULLIVAN,Esquire,Chief Justice of the/ at Salem, in said County of Essex, the fifth day of February in the year nineteen hundred and eighty seven at 3 o'clock and 15 minutes in the after noon. Attest, with the Seal of said Court, JOHN L. &BRIEN, Jr., Assistant Recorder Zranzfer Certificate of Title. No. 34875 F hi a,^sfe Cerdficare No 17059 Criminally RegbterN March 6, 1928 ,m f n Book _.a Page 7091 for he Southern Registry District of Essex County. -. $hi8 i8 to (Cert ft that Lionel J. Bouchard and Louise J. Bouchard, his wife, J �I l a r 8ele;: in the County of Essex and Commonweshh of Massachusetts, p; are the owners in fee simple tenants by the entl:et4, f the certain parcel s of land situate in Salela t6 County of Essex d said Cominconwealth,bounded and described as follows I1,6X6ti� TEE 517 c i.a.l'oomug'.. °--sect (now called Marlborough Road) fifty nine and 20/100 (59 0) 4 to t cas sr nsh on plan hereinafter mentioned, one hundred six and 4/100 110[.74) d feehf IN!' u s Inl road fifty two and 78/100 (52.78) feet; and , 10. _,'as shown on said plan, one hundred fifty five and 35/100 (155.35) fUs l o ser bo da hes ate oAppleton, by the Court to be located as shown upon plan numbered 1&02 B e...n o nomas A.le Appleton, Civil Engineer, dated April 129 1928, as modified and rlpprovep p '- Court, filed in the Land Registration Office, a copy of a portion of which �E3f filet 'nit^ Ccrra;cace of Title ft7179 in said Registry, and the above described land is '$pan s to- 2, s.`:eet 2, on last mentioned plan. i tit :'usscl l^i ?pad fifty two and 78/100 (52.78) feet; yD rf -<: amd 6, as srmwn on plan hereinafter mentioned, one hundred twelve 1; (11 2) feet; ik f said !or 65 seventy seven and 48/100 (77.48) feet; Si 4 a `arcig'. F,cad (formerly Marlborough Street) ten and 80/100 (10.80) feet; i d , as sown on said plan, one hundred fifty five and 38/100 (155.38) feet"I rAll sed `;c s-e .i red hV the 1'.ourt to he located a shown upon plan numbered 418'12-,c, de, c 1 - a Sc, Surv,01ri dated January 4, 1965, as modified and o Ip - o -1--jed an Vie Land Registration Office, a copy or a portion of which i ca.e o i+tie 734875 in said Registry, and the above described land is rho 9 6f i. CANCELLED I BY DDCL:'.Z:T E2 SCh :Cala d I._ Y, And it is further certified that said land is under the operation and provisions of Chapter 185 of the General lawn and that the ride of said i,ionel J. Bouchard and Louise J. Bouchard to wid land is remi)tered under sail Chapter, subject, huwcver, to any of the encumbrances mentioned In Section +fg' I: i Julies- h J ~ i'ache AND ASSOCIATES INC. REAL ESTATE 221 DERBY STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 1(506)745-20041 FAX(508)745-0450 REALTOR cgw Titg of �tticm, Massar4usrtts Publir Property Department Nuilbing igepartment (One *stem Breen 500-745-9595 Ext. 380 Leo E. Tremblay Director of Public Property Inspector of Building Zoning Enforcement Officer July 13, 1993 Julie Tache 221 Derby St. Salem, MA 01970 RE: 31 Marlborough Rd. Map 8 Lot 74 Dear Julie: This is to verify our telephone conversation of July 8, 1993 regarding the above referenced property. Said property is a grandfathered lot and may be considered buildable, however, any structure placed on this lot must conform to all setback requirements as per the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. If I can be of any further assistance, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Leo E. Tremblay Zoning Enforcement Officer _ LET:bs cc: Councillor O'Leary, Ward 4 \31Mrlbrh\ �y -gv 4 /• '�%"- 9 9» o 3.iS s-p0" g 3 Q (Wo 199v w i 6-p0` po t 6� L6 �... -- • p �' ..O w a & "Is DOy �w Z(;996 \� Oro- - 196. A k 52£ 99££� B — tk. p004 a8 0 Ic ♦ \ )99`x • ` �.'W 7pol 4 Ld L ` \ ¢ p4 L966 ZY 8 o 6 _ m J ` 0009 JN��SS\NSN/� a 660,11 i ,d wbL L _ coi O raNpd , i� i