The URL can be used to link to this page

165 OCEAN AVENUE - BUILDING INSPECTION SEP S SO M�Jl #�U September 5, 1988 _ CIT` _'' " D YOFSO,i.ck . ;ASS. Dear Mr. Munroe: This is regarding a Board of Appeals decision on the petition of Robert Maguire, Trustee of the 165 Ocean Avenue Trust Variance for 2 Lawrence Street A/K/A 165 Ocean Avenue. The petition for the above variance was denied before it was appealed to the Superior Court in Peabody, Ma. . The court sent the petition back to the Salem Appeals Board stating the property was buildable and that the Apppeals Board should reconsider the petition. On reconsidering the petition the Salem Board of Appeals approved the petition with a provision on parking and that a six (6) foot stockade fence be erected between the rear of the property at 163-165 Ocean Ave. and the property at 4 Lawrence Street, Salem. Construction of 163,0165 Ocean Avenue began in 1987 and was completed in early 1988. The property was hottopped for parking but the rear of the house was never finished or landscaped and the fence was not erected. The property at 163,165 Ocean Avenue is now occupied and evidently sold to the party living there. I have hesitated to complain for the failure of the Trust to finish the lanscaping and the fence feeling that it would be done soon. I now find that the occupants of 163 165 Ocean Avenue have had no success with their complaints to the Trustee, Robert Maguire. I requestyour help in getting the rear of the property be landscaped and that the fence be erected. I do request that prior to the fence being put up that the material, rocks and general debris be removed from my property. Thanking you for your cooperation of the above# I remain, Very truly your Warren F. Lovely 4 Lawrence Street Salem, Ma. 01970 744/3427 e COMMOITiTEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Department Of The Trial Court Essex, ss, � 1S-Up;'�ior Court C'JT ' p,,145 15b-402 Robert M. Maguire, Trust .- vs. PZAW James H:a.oker, e SUMMARY JUDGMENT (!,ZASS. R. CIV, P. 56 ) This action came to be heard before the Court, Flannery, J. presiding, upon the motion of the plaintiff Robert M. Maguire, Trustee for summary judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 561 the parties having been heard, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that the plaintiff Robert M. Maguire, Trustee is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law It is Ordered that ; the plaintiff is entitled to a variance from the pertinent setback requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Of course, nothing herein shall 6e construed to limit the Board's 8. lb authority reasonably to "impose conditions, safeguards and limit- ations" on the use of the property. The Clerk-Magistrate of the Court is directed to mail an attested copy of this judgment within thirty days from the date hereof, to the City Clerk, Building Inspector, and Board of Appeals, -respectively of the City of Salem. Dated at Peabody, Massachusetts, this 27th day of August, 1986. DomT PTr.-T_ --.. oeaurr nsst eK Assistant Clerk !I COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION No. 86-402 ROBERT M. MAGUIRE, TRUSTEE, ) Plaintiff ) Vs. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER . JAMES, HACKER, ET AL, ) Defendants ) ) Proceeding under M. G.''L._ c. 40A, §17, the plaintiff seeks summary judgment that, contrary to'the decision of the Salem Board of Appeals , he. is entitled to a variance from the setback require- ments of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. . The plaintiff's application was denied by the Board in January of 1986 and again in July of 1986 , by a two to two vote, after a hearing following a remand by this court. The facts are that the plaintiff owns a buildable lot that is a rectangle, and in order to actually make a permitted use of it he needs a "substantial hardship"variance pursuant!.tos,§10:..6f c. 40`A. It is undisputed that the lot can accommodate a propos= tionate rectangular two-family house, but unless it is to be paper thin ;or a vertical tube, . there will have to be setback relief along the front and back of the longer sides . The question prem sented, therefore, to paraphrase the statute, is whether, owing to circumstances relating to the shape of the land and especially I affecting it, literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance will involve substantial hardship to the plaintiff, and whether a variance can be granted without nullifying the intent and purpose of zoning or causing other harm to the public good. Summary judgment may be entered only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the materials of record show that the moving party is entitled to prevail on the law. Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(c) . The defendants initially opposed summary judg- ment in this court on the ground that there were disputed issues of. fact (Memorandum of June 11, 1986) , Whether that is still their, position, following the post-remand public hearing on- July 16, 1986 , was not made clear at the August 7 hearing on the pres- ent motion.. . res-ent' motion.. . However, summmary judgment is appropriate because, while the conclusions to be drawn are disputed, the material facts and circumstances themselves are not. First, because of the shape of the property, literal appli- cation of the ordinance would effectively preclude the plaintiff's concededly permissible proposed use of it. That inevitable and undisputed preclusion constitutes a substantial hardship within the meaning of o.- 40A, S10. It is true that lesser uses of this property would also be permissible (it is now a three-stall garage) , but to permit only such uses would nullify the hardship exception. Section 10 is designed to facilitate permitted uses of unusual property , it is not intended to authorize boards or neigh- bors. to refine zoning requirements or vary them ad hoc.. Second, whether a variance "may be' granted .without su4stan- ` tial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or 2 - substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordi- nance" is partly a question of fact, but all of the components or elements of the ultimate conclusion - the materialsubsidiary facts - are of record and undisputed. The proposed use of the property is entirely consistent with the heterogeneous residential neighborhood. There will be no detriment to the public good and no nullification or derogation of the intent or purpose of the by-law. For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff is entitlted to a variance from the pertinent setback requirements of the Salem. Zoning Ordinance. Of course-„ nothing herein shall be construed to limit the..Board' s X10 authority reasonably to ".impose condi- tions, safeguards and limitations” on the use of the property. So ordered. Dated: 6144 f 2- 4/ 096 Harold Flannery stice of the Superior Court i The. plaintiff also moves , pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 53 (sic) and Superior Court Rule 18, for an award of costs resulting from the matter not being taken up at the first Board of Appeals meeting following the remand. The motion is denied. 3 - Ci-ii is DRUCAS ,BU 1 LL;N'I DEPT, ATTORNEY AT LAW ONE CHURCH STREET SALL\l. \1188A('P11 Sl-'TTS 01970 SEP G Q LIO GiS-I '86 84C-1167 JLI fRFrUL-''7'UCtjODE J617 CITY OF Si,LETL f4�A§§. September 3 , 1986 Michael E. OpBrien, Esq. 81 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Re : Maguire v. Hacker, et al . C.A. No. 86-402 Dear Mr. O'Brien: Please be advised that pursuant to the Memorandum and Order from Judge Flannery, after discussing the matter with the Clerk, Donald E. Nutting, and reviewing the Court docket, the variance has been granted as a Judgment of the Court. The variance was granted for the plan that was submitted and it is the Court ' s position that if the owners attempt to use the property for anything other than the appropriate uses as designated under the zoning statute for a parcel of land in an R2 district, the Board has the right to reasonably "impose conditions, safeguards and limitations" on any use not included in the definition of an R2 district. I have spoken with the Building Inspector, Mr. Monroe, yesterday and he has taken the position that my client is not entitled to a building permit until this matter goes back before the Board of Appeal . I believe that his interpretation of the Decision is incorrect, especially in light of my conversation with Mr. Nutting and a literal reading of the Memorandum and Order of Judge Flannery. One must read the entire last paragraph of the Memorandum and Order which states that the Plaintiff is entitled to a variance from the setback requirement and that that is Ordered by the Court. Accordingly, I would ask that you write a letter to Mr. Monroe instructing him to grant the building permit, unless you disagree with the position that I have taken herein and accordingly, I would request that if you do, you first speak with Mr. Nutting and then contact me so that we might discuss this matter at your earliest possible convenience. Ver yours, Chris Drucas CD/dkm cc: Mr. Monroe, Building Inspector ✓ Mr. Robert M. Maguire cowik BOARD OF ASSESSORS { `,' S 1? � 93 WASHINGTON STREET,CITY HALL,SALEM,MA H S 7T$01970 617 744-0660 3 * x JAN 16 II 32 APS "85 REGEPIE 0 January 18, 1985 CITY OF SALEIAJIASS. Mr. Richard T. McIntosh Inspector of Buildings One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Re: 2 Lawrence St. - 165 Ocean Ave. Dear Mr. McIntosh: Please be advised that my notification of address change on the pro- perty in question, dated November 15, 1984, resulted from a conver- sation with Mr. Robert Maguire, the proposed developer. Mr. Maguire requested the address change on the basis that the main entrance to the dwelling was to be located on Lawrence Street, As you indicated in a telephone conversation with me on January 11, Mr. Maguire has submitted plans for a duplex structure with entrances facing Ocean Avenue. This would defeat the public safety considerations on which the original address change was based. If a building permit is issued using these plans, I will insist that the original address change be rescinded, and that the two units be assigned the addresses of 163 and 165 Ocean Avenue. Please notify me of your action in this matter. Very truly yours, Peter M. Caron Assessor PMC:mjg cc: Kenneth B. Cahill, Postmaster Acting Chief Robert Crowley, Fire Department Margaret R. Hagerty, Principal Clerk, Water Dept. Josephine R. Fusco, City Clerk Engineering Dept., City of Salem Mr. Robert Maguire, 81 Fort Ave., Salem a liTtJ IIfcIjPlit� cT55ciLLiSPfI�+ •`,��i�t�,�`� LILI3T P }I1friPTCt William H. Munroe One Salem Green 745-0213 1 July 12, 1985 Mr. Robert Maguire 81 Fort Avenue Salem, MA 01970 RE: 2 Lawrence St./165 Ocean Ave. Dear Mr. Maguire: Please be advised that your application for a Building Permit to erect a two (2) family dwelling at 2 Lawrence St./165 Ocean Ave. must be denied due to the fact that the plot plan submitted for the proposed building does not satisfy the setback requirements of Section VI, Table I, entitled residential density regulations of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Please be advised of your right to request relief from the Zoning Ordinance through the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeal Sincerely, s William H. Munroe Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer WHM:bms cc: City Clerk City Solicitor LOT / 38 fi 03 124 . 3 ' LL 0 IQ: 2 z --�� i LOT /35 LOT / 39 68 1 - 0 .. �- 30. I ' 5,720 ± 5F cv PROPOSED DUPLEX o z DWELLING to W co 1 .J o I r , 1 W 130 ' ' 2 ) 3/4 " COPPER OCEAN -- WATER SERVICE < 5 SANITARY SEWER W CONNECTION I S — — W w 6 WATER —� SMH O S 8 S 8" SANITARY S SEWER INV. 9. 20 FLOW AVENUE PROPOSED SITE PLAN OF LAM? LOCATED IN SALEIa. MASS. PREPARED BY ZONE - R- 2 RESIDENTIAL TWO FAMILY F/4srjFR# LAIM SURVEY' ASSOCIXTES, INC. LOT AREA 135 SF iCHRI 7 MI-WF . MEL LO PL.. aS�. LOT COVERAGE 35 °(° FRONTAGE loo 40 LOWELL ST. PEABODY, MASS. FROSIDE YARD AD D lo' SCALE 110' MAY I, 1985 REAR YARD 30' DEED REFERENCE BK 7443 PG 273 0 10 20 40 60 80 F 5T 2 /..n..al.�a...I,r.�..yr..�rt. �..A. 32. ..��• ) �. .�_i�1�i\I��.�r�e�.�,.may. FIELD COPY CITY OF SALEM BUILDING i SALEM, 6IASSACHUSETTS 01970 PERMIT DATE March 20 19 88 PERMIT NO. 120-88 APPLICANT Gilbert G. HiPlev ADDRESS bfi5 Oce All AyP_tTn'.t EIRII (o onv a s LICENSE' IN0.1 (STREET' NUMBER OF FINTF. PERMIT TUInSt_a17_ ^JOO h^"^ I STORY PT'1R.t�,Tl\T(= DWELLING UNITS ITrpE Pp OVEMCNiI IPPOPOSED USE' ZONING E:: 165 Ocean Avenue. Nard # DISTRICT R-2 ,No.) STREET' ICpOSSiREE iI AND ICPO55 STREET) ` LOT SUBDIVISION LOT BLOCK SIZE BUILDING IS TO BE FT. WIDE FT. LONG By FT. IN HEIGHT AND SHALL CONFORM IN CONSTRUCTION TO TYPE USE GROUP BASEMENT WALLS OR FOUNDATION ITvpEI REMARKS: Tnntnl l Tonred AREA DR Inspected and Approved by datE TimATED COSTS 2.('00.00 FEEM'T S_ 15.00 VOLUME gCV81P 5OUARE FEEEE-TI OWNER Gilbert G. ley� AnnREss 165 Ocean aGa , Tay"em.14A. ` laspector cBuildings J.S. INSPECTION RECORD DATE NOTE PROGRESS - CRITICISMS AND REMARKS iNJEECTOR (fitU of �ttjem, : I s �zt�{lts�t Public PropPr#g PPpttrtmPnt Richard T. McIntosh One Salem Green 745-0213 February 28,1984 Re: 165 Ocean Avenue a/k/a Lot 175 on TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Map 24, 5962 sq.ft. The above lot is determined to be a buildable lot, under the provisions of Chapter 40A MGL (The Zoning Act) Section 6. The lot has been in existence since before 1965 and conformed to the existing Zoning Ordinance. Richard T. McIntosh-_ - RTM:mo's Zoning Enforcement Officer I BOARD OF ASSESSORS RRsA I' ;NG QUA p p 93 WASHINGTON STREET. CITY HALL. SALEM.MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (617) 744-0660 5 � y 2t 9 u.5 A1i 'fla RCCE:Im November 15, 1984 CITY OF SALMMASS• Mrs. Josephine R. Fusco City Clerk City of Salem Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mrs. Fusco: Please be advised that the parcel of land currently listed as #165 Ocean Avenue (Assessors' Parcel 24-0175) has had its street address changed to #2 Lawrence Street, and that the proposed dwelling to be erected on the parcel shall be known as #2 Lawrence Street. Very truly yours, Peter M. Caron Assessor PMC:mjg cc: Kenneth B. Cahill, Postmaster Acting Chief Robert Crowley, Fire Department Margaret R. Hagerty, Principal Clerk, Water Dept. A,-Richard T. McIntosh, Insp. of Bldgs. Engineering Dept. , City of Salem Mr. Robert Maguire, 81 Fort Ave., Salem CHRIS. DRUCAS r.. ATTORNEY AT LAW - ONE CHURCH STREET SALEM. MASSACHi1SETJkJPyJR�0 9 I6A&1 M f8q AREA CODE 617 I RECEIVED745-0500 #84C-1167 CITYOFSALEp4 MASS. November 16, 1984 Mr. Richard Macintosh Building Inspector City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 RE : Application for Building Permit at 2 Lawrence Street, formerly 165 Ocean Avenue Dear Mr. MacIntosh: Please be advised that this office represents Robert M. Maguire, Trustee of the 165 Ocean Avenue Realty Trust the present owner of the lot located at 2 Lawrence Street, formerly 165 Ocean Avenue in Salem. As I advised you in our telephone conversation, my client purchased the said parcel of land from Quentin Eaton and Mary Ann Eaton, the heirs of Richard H. Perley. Mr. Perley who died in January of 1982 owned the said parcel of land from May 15 , 1923 until his death. Thereafter the Eaton's by devise owned the property from January 22 , 1982 until June 22 , 1984 when my client purchased said parcel. With reference to the proposed application for building permit .the question has arisen as to ownership of the abutting lots since 1955 as the parcel in question is non-conforming with reference to area. I have enclosed for your information a photocopy of the plan of the original subdivision recorded in Book 1001 at the end in the Essex South District Registry of Deeds showing the lot as number 139 and the abutting lots as 135 and 138 . Number 4 Lawrence Street which is lot #138 on said plan has been owned by Warren F. and Louise C. Lovely, Husband and Wife as Tenants by the Entirety, since August 19 , .1952 to the present. Lot #135 on said plan known as 167 Ocean Avenue has been owned by Charles and Gertrude Scialdone, Husband and Wife .as Tenants by the Entirety since May 9 , 1947. It clearly shows that prior to any Zoning Ordinances in the City of Salem, this parcel has been owned separately and distinctly from any adjoining parcel and, therefore, may be built on under the Zoning Ordinances that are applicable. Mr. Richard MacIntosh Building Inspector November 16 , 1984 Page 2 If you have any questions or comments or need any further information with reference to this , please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest possible convenience. It is my understanding that once we verify this information as well as establish the address of the parcel as 2 Lawrence Street, which I believe has already been accomplished, you would issue a building permit to my client. ery tr yours, ris s CD/kmm cc: Robert M. Maguire Enclosure I �� , �� ; • � � �� X041 � ._ /s eo C/ � 1�iQQ �uN It O SO S CO s 0 gs �+ /3p / 30 k S04 9 v O SO SO �Ig `SO /Ila .0 oll o O , /q0 i Ch1 � OR �. C 14 lk We t i O nl' . i , myacS* P-607 167 064 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) WS`etI'M . Maguire S'81ff arF 8cr t A v e . alsem; [�IPc�e1970 Postage S Cediied Fee 2 . 00 Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt showing to whom and Dale Delivered N ami Return Receipt showing to whom, Date.and Address of Delivery _ m TOTAL Postage and Fees 5 2 . () O Postmark or Date E 0 LL N d STICK POSTAGE STAMPS TO ARTICLE TO COVER FIRST CLASS POSTAGE, CERTIFIED MAIL FEE,AND CHARGES FOR ANY SELECTED OPTIONAL SERVICES.(see front) 1. If you want this recelpt postmarked,stick the gummed stub to the right of the return address leaving the receipt attached and present the article at a post office service window or hand It to your rural carrier. (no extra charge) 2. If you do not want this receipt postmarked,stick the gummed stub to the right of the return address of the article,date,detach and retaln the receipt,and mall the article. 3. It you want a return receipt,write the certified mall number and your name and address on a return receipt card,Form 3811,and attach It to the front of the article by means of the gummed ends If space per- mits.Otherwise,affix to back of article.Endorse front of article RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED adjacent to the number. 4. It you want delivery restricted to the addressee,or to an authorized agent of the addressee,endorse RESTRICTED DELIVERY an the front of the article. 5. Enter fees for the services requested In the appropriate spaces an the front of this receipt.It return receipt Is requested,check the applicable blocks In Item 1 of Form 3811. w 6. Save this receipt and present it if you make inquiry. SENDER:Completa/7tems 1 and 2 when additional services are desired,and complete items 3 and 4. ut your address in the"RETURN TO"space on the reverse side.Failure to do this will prevent this card from being returned to you.The return recei t fee will rovide ou the name of the person delivered to and the date of delive .For additions es the ollowing services are avaliable.Consult postmaster for fees and check box(es)for additional service(s)requested. 1. ❑ Show to whom delivered,date,and addressee's address. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery. 3.Article Addressed to: 4.Article Number J .M. Maguire P 607 167 064 81 Fort Ave . Type of Service: Salem,MA . Registered ❑ Insured a Certified ❑ COD /KA `C Express Mail Always obtain signature of addressee or R.A_ agent and DATE DELIVERED. 5.Signat — re C3� 8.Addressee's Address(ONLY if X p, requested and fee pard) 6.Signat re—Agent ( � � X �l 7.Date of Delivery S V PS Form 3811,Feb.1986 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE OFFICIAL BUSINESS SENDER INSTRUCTIONS r P'"' Print your name,address,and ZIP Code 1• p ... --�... in the space below. •Complete items 1,2,3,and 4 on the r ero fre. U.S.MAIL—" •Atts',j tront of article if space permits,otherwise affix to back of article. e Endorse article"Return Receipt PENALTY FOR PRIVATE Requested"adjacent to number. USE,s300 RETURN � Print Sender's name,address,and ZIP Code in the space below. TO James Santo/Bldg . Dept . One Salem green / Salem,MA . 01970 Citp of *afem, ;fflaggacbugettg Vubk Propertp Department ` "➢��Ir11NE �3uitbing Department One *alem 0ireen 745-9595 ext. 380 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer September 9 , 1988 Robert M . Maguire 81 Fort Avenue Salem, MA . 01970 RE : f6'3- 165 Ocean Avenue Dear Mr . Maguire , Our office has received complaints on the above listed property , that all conditions set by the Board of Appeal have Y not been met , Condition 111 of attached letter . Unless this condition is complied with , we will have to revoke the Certificate of Occupancy for both units 11163 and 165 Ocean Avenue , Salem , MA . t a Tou have fourteen days to comply with this order from re- ceipt of this letter . Sincerely , 2yY t —. James D . Santo JDS/eaf enc : copy .. 6y.to901ry MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN MARY P. HARRINGTON CITY SOLICITOR J'2ounavA {f 7 %S$'ggg, TAN�'{T CIQQYY SOLICITOR 93 WASHINGTON STREET Jn ( &WA'SHIN�iION STREET and CITY OF SALEM and 187 FEDERAL STREET R v;_ `$9'FEDERAL STREET SALEM, MA 01970 MASSACHUSETTS CI j Y OF Sa_c".SAllf%`1dA 01970 7454311 - 744-0350 744-3383 Please Reply to 187 Federal Street Please Reply to 59 Federal Street June 4, 1985 William H. Munroe, Building Inspector City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mr. Munroe: You have requested my opinion whether or not the minimum residential lot width requirements of Section VI of the Zoning Ordinance can be satisfied by considering the total frontage of a corner lot of land which abuts two separate streets. In my opinion, the minimum lot width requirements cannot be so satis- fied unless there is a minimum of 100 feet lot width on one of the streets. It would appear to me that the plain meaning of the words "minimum lot width" as used in the Zoning Ordinance means the distance measured along the street line from one side line of a lot to the other side line. In fact, Webster' s Dictionary defines "width." as "the measurement taken at right angles to the length" . In the case of a "corner lot" to give an interpretation which would allow the frontage on two (:2) separate streets to be used to satisfy lot width requirements would, in my opinion, be stretch- ing the ordinance beyond its intended purpose and the plain mean— ing of its language. Such an interpretation would allow lot depth to be considered in determining width. It should also be pointed out that many local zoning ordinances use the term lot frontage. I believe it is significant in the instant case that the Salem Zoning ordinance uses the term "lot width" in its language.. However, if the owner of the property in question can present me with. a judicial determination to the contrary, I will be pleased to review the same. L� er truly y , c ichael E. O'Brien City Solicitor r.�o MEO-/jp Y ccr. CitZ Clerk Enclosure No.1l2 City of Salem Ward ' �4H.COMW4- Z` X APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO BUILD ADDITION, MAKE ALTERATIONS OR NEW CONSTRUCTION IMPORTANT-Applicant to complete all items in sections:1, it, Ill, IV, and IX. X65 Qc.��&/ A✓C w &ST ZONING. I. AT(LOCATION) DISTRICT LOCATION (NO.) (STREET) OF BETWEEN AND BUILDING (CROSS STREET) (CROSS STREET) LOT SUBDIVISION LOT BLOCK SIZE 11. TYPE AND COST OF BUILDING -All applicants complete Parts A -D A. TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT D. PROPOSED USE-FOR"DEMOLITION'USE MOST RECENT USE 1 ❑ New building Res�dentlal Nonresidential 2Addition(If residential,enter number of new 12 ❑ One family 18 ❑ Amusement,recreational housing units added,if any,in part D,13) 19 ❑ Chruch,other religious 13 E] 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(b building in Presidential,enter number 23 ❑ Hospital,institutional of units in building in Part D, 13) 15 E] Garage 24 ❑ Office,bank,processional 6 ❑ Moving(relocation) 16 ❑ Carport 25 ❑ Public utility 7 ❑ Foundation only 26 ❑ School,library,other educational 17 ❑ Other-Specify 27 ❑ Stores,mercantile B.OWNERSHIP 28 ❑ Tanks,towers 8 ❑ Private(individual,corporation,nonprofit , �--P 29 ❑ Other-Specify institution,eta) _ 9 ❑ Public(Federal,Slate,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, parochial school,parking garage for department store,rental office building,office building 10. Cost of improvement ..................................................:...... $ at industrial plant If use of existing building is being changed,enter proposed use. To be installed but not included in the above cost a. Electrical........................................................................... b. Pluml5ing.......................................................................... c. Heating,air conditioning............................................. d. Other(elevator.etc.)..................................................... 11.TOTAL COST OF IMPROVEMENT $3 wO 111. SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF B ILDING -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 OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL I. TYPE OF MECHANICAL 1 30 ❑ mponry(wall bearing) 35 E] Gas 40 CePublic or private company Will there be central air 31 tl frame 36 ❑ Oil 41 E] Private(septic tank,etc.) conditioning? 32 ❑ Structural steel 37 ❑ Electricity 44 ❑ Yes 45 ❑ No 33 ❑ Reinforced concrete 38 ❑ Coal H. TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY Will there by an elevator? 34 ❑ Other-Specify 39 ❑ Other-Specify 42 ❑ Public or private company 46E] Yes 47 ❑ No 43 ❑ Private(well,cistern) J.DIMENSIONS M. DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES: 48. Number of stories ............................................_..._......... 49. Total square feet of Moor area all floors,based on exterior Has Approval from Historical Commission been received dimensions ....................................................................... for any structure over fifty(50)years? Yes_ No 50. Total land area sq.a....................................................... Dig Safe Number K.NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES Pest Control: 51. Enclosed.......................................................................... 52. Outdoors............................................................................. HAVE THE FOLLOWING UTILITIES BEEN DISCONNECTED?Yes No L RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ONLY Water: 53. Enclosed......_..._...._......................................................... Electric: Gas: Full................................._..._... Sewer: 54. Number of bathrooms DOCUMENTATION FOR THE ABOVE MUST BE ATTACHED Pallial"' BEFORE A PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED. IV. COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:` Historic District? Yes_ No-L (If yes, please enclose documentation from Hist. Com.) Conservation Area? Yes_ Nollie (If yes, please enclose Order of Conditions) Has Fire Prevention approved and stamped plans or applications? Yes_ No Is property located in the S.R.A. district? Yes— No Comply with Zoning? Yes_ No--N (If no,enclose Board of Appeal decision) Is lot grandfathered? Yes_ No (If yes,submit documentation/if no,submit Board of Appeal decision) If new construction,has the proper Routing Slip been enclosed? Yes_ No Is Architectural Access Board approval required? Yes_ N1io No— (If yes,submit documentation)) Massachusetts State Contractor License # Qs /0 947 Salem License # 1/1 3 Home Improvement Contractor # Homeowners Exempt form(if applicable) Yes_ No CONSTRUCTION TO BE COMMENCED WITHIN SIX (6) MONTHS OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT If an extension is necessary,please submit CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE COMPLETED BY: in writing to the Inspector of Buildings. V. IDENTIFICATION • To be completed by all applicants Name Mailing address-Number,street,city,and state ZIP Cade Tel.No. 6100er-t Hic4lcy /GS 0c4AU AVt_ i✓(,S7T SAL-CAI 01110 7f`l--2601! Owner or Lessee z. AYVO,?, . CNARGTr6 pfd Essex s a- 6€✓GAY 9Lt-zt4c� ContractorOslo � n Builder's License No. 3. /UDN4r— 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 uthorized agent and we agree to conform to all applicable laws of this jurisdiction. Sig o pylic �2�G2G'[� Addres� v / C� ZAp I �tio date Z ss s v 9 DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE VI. VALIDATION Building FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Permit number Building use Group Permit issued 19�� Fire Grading Building Permit Fee $ (z �o Oji Live Loading Certificate of Occupancy $ Approved by: Occupancy Load Drain Tile $ Kle Plan Review Fee $ O TITLE NOTES AND Data-(For department use) A--CrSS °2 µ/a.wD I f 4cc-[ 55 eL 4je C- d lc-- Du —s / a C-4/(/C v j�, C„dBL� q ' FSG fs A�<0 4// 7-H ,3u / /T GIP dreiwaTC� 1'/--Y "Dd D A"b e, c yALTGC.A -rl0 ) d r- Z'U e/e,ort P,uRT/ i/o ✓S !✓0 /-) 86.4rCIN4� ,Sl- 6e— �0r- f}NQ SfAwt G-a 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