1 NAPLES ROAD - BUILDING JACKET 1 NAPLES ROAD
�rHmealQ �0.ECVC([p a
UPC 10330 4a
No. 153L
HASTINGS. MN
y`.�OyU1Tg9�' CITY OF SALEM
y LEGAL DEPARTMENT
�'7MlN86�
93 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEId,MASSA6NSEr15 01970
TEL-978-745-9595♦FAx:978-744-1279
K(b®ERLEY DRISCOLL EuzAa mi RENNARD,ESQ. RowN STEIN,ESQ.
MAYOR CITY SOLICITOR ASST.CCIY SOLICITOR
1 0 C
February 10,2012 s.ufats
Joseph O'Keefe
Salem City Council
City Hall
Salem,Massachusetts
Dear Councillor O'Keefe:
Recently, you asked this office to confirm that the definition of"family"and the
opinion of former City Solicitor John Keenan(attached)remained unchanged and
supported by the Solicitor's office.
I have reviewed Attorney Keenan's opinion and the definition of"family"in our
current zoning ordinance which states that a family does not constitute a group of three or
morc who are not within some degree of kinship. I find that this definition has remained
unchanged and the Solicitor's office upholds the opinion of Attorney Keenan.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
s�
El' Renard
}
f
JOHN D.KEENAN CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETT JAMES Q. GILBERT
city Solicitor LEGAL DEPARTMENT A65151an1 city Solicitor
222 Essex Street 93 WASHINGTON STREET 15 Front Street
Salem. MA 01970 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 Salem, MA 01970
70. (976)7414453 Tel: (978) 744.9800
=a,: 1976)740-0072 Fax. (976)744-7660
'c mad laLeenanlawOaol.com Email gilberl0salemlawyeir3.n
January 12, 2001
Osgood Park Neighborhood Association
Phil Pelletier, President
Savoy Road
Salem,
C �7
Salem, Massachusetts 01970 O IUP'-'_J V
RE: 1-3 Naples Road
Dear Mr. Pelletier:
Ward Seven Councilor Joseph O'Keefe has asked me to follow up with you
regarding the alleged zoning violations at the above captioned property. As you
know, the issue regarding too many tenants at this property has been a concern
for some time now. Both the legal and building departments have been working
to correct this situation.
Previously, there had been five tenants residing on-one side of the property -
whlch was clearly in violation of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The building-I
department did seek a complaint in Salem District Court. An agreement AS
reached that would allow the landlord to honor the remaining lease he had so
long as any new lease would be for no more than three tenants. The reasojn for
this agreement was that up until most recently the Salem.Zoning Ordinarlc� was
interpreted and enforced as allowing for three unrelated individuals to reside in a
single dwelling unit.
At the request of Councilor O'Keefe and the Osgood Park Association, thisiofflce
further reviewed the existing definition and enforcement of "family" and "dwielling"
and determined that in fact our zoning allowed for only two unrelated individuals
and that such a definition could withstand constitutional scrutiny regarding
privacy and freedom of association issues. See Villacl@ of Belle Terre y.
Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 2 (1974). '
i
In that case, the Supreme Court upheld a municipal zoning ordinance that deringd
"family" as "one or more persons related by blood, adoption, or marriage, living and
cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, exclusive of household servants. A
number of persons but not exceeding two (2) living and cooking together as a single
housekeeping unit though not related by blood, adoption, or marriage shall be deemed
to constitute a family." Not surprisingly, the Belle Terre provision was drafted/onacted
J Y
` t
I
T,
Page Two of Two
January 12, 2001 - .-
Mr. Phillip Pelletier
RE: 1-3 Naples Road
The owner of the property Mr. George Bresnahan,who also resides there, did
comply with initial request to limit to only three'tenants: I did speak with him last
week to confirm this to be the case. He does readilyadmtt that there are
presently three people living on that side who are not related in any fashion. 1 did
inform him of the revised interpretation of the zoning ordinance and new
enforcement policy. The building inspector's office has also advised him of
same.
Mr. Bresnahan informs me that he has three professional,'nonstudent, tenants
there with a lease through July 2001 (July 2000 it was red6ced from 5 to 3 at the
city's request). He has asked if there is any way a compromise could be reached
as the city begins implementation of the two-tenant rule. Although I believe the
city is properly within its authority to pursue this violation at this time, 1 also
believe it may be.reasonable to allow either one of the tenants or all of them time
to seek alternative housing—and at the very latest start the next lease period
with only two unrelated tenants.
t
In the big picture, I do believe this new enforcement will help alleviate density
issues in neighborhoods such as-yours; howeverat the same time it Is going to
have a severe impact on housing citywide, We will also be working now to
educate landlords regarding this policy change.
I would like to thank you and the association for bringing this to our attention. I ?"
look forward to hearing from you to discuss this matter:' i;
Very best regards, '
J D. Keenan,
C Solicitor
cc. Peter Strout, Bldg. Insp. -
Joseph O'Keefe, Ward Seven Councilor ;
George Bresnahan
primarily to control student incursion from the nearby Stony Brook campus of the State i
University of New York.
I
Cs9ccd Park%ek§dx l x00 ASSCC1atim
22 Savor Road
Salem, MA 019170
December4,2000
Joseph A.O'Keefe
Ward Seven Councilor
28 Surrey Road
Salem, MA 01970 Re: 1 Naples Road
Dear Mr.O'Keefe:
It has been a pleasure meeting with you these past few months concerning several ongoing issues,
which affect the residents of Wand Seven in general and those of the Osgood Park Neighborhood Association
in particular. I am writing you today in order to confirm the conversation we had last month that I should be
expecting a letter from the City of Salem Building Department,which would verify that the Zoning Ordinance
violation at 1 Naples Road has been rectified to the satisfaction of the Zoning Enforcement Officer for the City
of Salem,Peter Strout.
It has been well over three weeks now and I am wondering if there has been a breakdown in the
notification process. Or,is it possible that the investigation by the Building Department has discovered that the
violation still exists? If the latter is true,I would like to referto your letter dated September2l,2000 to the City
Sofiator,John Keenan. Has Mr.Keenan made any response to you or advised you if any judicial action has
been initiated?
As the current President of the Association,it is my duty to preside at all meetings,including those of
our Board of Directors,which meets quarterly. I updated the Boa(d,regarding the subject property,at our last
meeting back in the fall. Our winter meeting will be in a few weeks and I would kindly request a definitive
response from the appropriate authorities by that time. If this timetable is unacceptable,please feel free to
contact me at your earliest convenience with a reasonable expectation of when I may receive notification.
1 want to assure you how much my constituents greatly appreciate the time and effort that you have
put into this matter as well as those of the City of Salem Building Department. I am confident that through
these laborious efforts and understandable due process that the subject property will be in compliance and
that a formal notification will be forthcoming.
Sincerely,
v
Phil Pelletier
President;Osgood Park Neighborhood Association
Cc: Stanley Usovicz,Mayor
John Keenan, City Solicitor
Peter Strout,Zoning Enforcement Officer
Frank DiPaolo, Local Building Inspector
APPLICATION ADULT ^yUMBERj - 'T 'al Court'of Massachusetts
FOR COMPLAINT ❑ JUVENILE �{ - !` rict Court Department
❑ ARREST HEARING ❑ SUMMONS ❑ WARRA T COURT DIVISION
The within named complainant requests that a'complaint issue against the within Salem District Court
named defendant, charging said defendant with the offense(s)listed below. gg Washington street
DATE OF APPLICATION DATE OF OFFENSE PLACE:OF OFFENSE
11__/a 7c1 ' U -� !�j 3 Salem, MA.01970
NAME OF COMPLAINANT
NO. OFFENSE G.L. Ch. and Seo
ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE OF COMPLAINANT y , t A *[C ,`- 2
F .�•.; 2.
NAME,ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE OF DEFENDANT `
3.
_V14Ar&_5 __/f-a�- - -----
f
e.
COURT USE I A hearing upon this complaint application ATE FHE�ING TIMEOFHEARING C SE
ONLY-----* will be held at the above court address on } i 1 ll
CASE PARTICULARS —'BE SPECIFIC
NAME OF VICTIM DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY VALUE OR PROPERTY TYPE OF CON ROLLED
NO. Owner of property, Goods stolen,what Over or under SUBSTANCE OR WEAPON
person assaulted,etc. destroyed,etc. $250. Marijuana,gun,etc.
1
2
3
4
OTHER REMARKS:
x
SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT
DEFENDANT IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION — Complete data below if known.
DATEOF BIRTH PLACE OF BIRTH SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER RACE HEIGHT WEIGHT EYES HAIR
OCCUPATION EMPLOYER/SCHOOL MOTHER'S NAME(MAIDEN) FATHER'S NAME
C')
O
3
r
n.
z
n
z
-H
N
C)
a
1
DC-CR2(3/88)