OFF LORING AVENUE - MARION MANOR - BUILDING INSPECTION __ /yra r� o h fh��o�
��
, .
o ni;
BUILDING DEPT
F JAN 27 1 5s PH '77
fgitg of Salem, fae-qud{usidis RECEIVED
epartncent of Public Pocks CITY OF SALEM,MASS.
QDne Salem Green
ANTHONY V. FLETCHER, R.P.E. RICHARD P. SWENSON, C,E
CITY ENGINEER Assistant Engineer
January 26, 1977
Robert Charles Associates
35 Saratoga Street
East Boston, MA. 02128
RE : Sewer Connection
50,000 GPD
Gentlemen :
The Division of Water Pollution Control has approved
application by the City, in your behalf, of sewage discharge
at the rate of 50, 000 gallons per day .
You may apply, at your discretion, for a sewer permit
for this quantity, or portion thereof, at the City Engineer ' s
Office, One Salem Green, Salem, MA .
Very truly yours ,
A. V . Fletcher, P .E .
City Engineer
AVF/cc
Copy: John Powers , Building Inspector
Armand Beauregard , Street Dept.
VMLLIAM F. ABBOTT
JOSEPH F. DOYLE
JOHN M.GRAY,SR.
ARTHUR E. LABRECQUE
JANE T. LUNDREGAN
DONALD E. EAMES -
EMERY P. TANCH
August 12, 1976
Atty. Peter Merry
Asst. City Solicitor
15 Derby Square RE: Loring Hills Developers Trust
Salem, MA 01970 vs. Salem Board of Appeals
Dear Mr. Merry:
As per your request concerning the above matter, I have contacted
the members of the Salem Board of Appeals.
William Abbott, Donald Eames, John Cray, Arthur LaBrecque and Jane T.
Lundregan have all agreed that the Salem Board of Appeals should
appeal the decision of Judge Hallisey in the case of Loring Hills
Developers Trust vs. the Salem Board of Appeals, Superior Court
#3422.
Yours truly,
Car.. p
cretary, Salem Board o.7 Appeals
JTL:tc
-o, Hearing - June 30, 1975
v
RECEIV II �7 Pri2� r 't5 � IiE #Ss
(, ��Y ; � f� ED
Au c 151
ii �� '7urD of ,u,� l
PETITION OF L R GLLS DEVELOPER TRUST RE. CONSTRUCTION OF A 250 UNIT
Bi7�tTtlTAICz {NO[yTy�I{ j 1,LAMON MANOR OFF LORING AVENUE.
.V:LL1A/A F. AB-OTT SALEM. MASS.
JOSEPH F. DOYLE -
,'OHN M. GRAY,5R-
A'THUR E. LABRECOUE
Jane T. Lundregan
Donald E. Eames
c:a E].Y F. TAN.C. Decision on appeal by Loring Hills Developer Trust from the decision of the
Building Inspector refusing the issuance of a building permit for the construction of
a 250 unit building including therapy facilities and a swimming pool, said development
known as Marion Manor and located off Loring Avenue. (R-3 Residential Multi-family).
Chairman John M. Gray, Sr. opened the meeting with members Jane T. Lundregan,
William Abbott, and Donald Eames present. Hearing on this petition was held on
June 30, 1975 pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the Petitioner, Board Members,
CAbutters, Abutters to Abutters and others, and notice was duly published in the
'•; Salem Evening News advising of this Public Hearing.
Attorney Michael Kelly represented the Petitioner. The Petitioner appealed the
decision of the Building Inspector who refused to issue a building permit because
the proposed building did not comply with:
1. The height and density regulations applicable to the project. In an R-3
Zone the maximum height of buildings is presently 50 feet and the present maximum
number of stories is four. Prior to the Zoning change of July 1974, the maximum height
was '200 feet and the maximum number of stories was twenty.
2. Article 7 of the Building Code. �a«v9 vJ
3. No sewer permit.
Petitioner stated in his application that the actions of the Building Inspector
in refusing the building permit for the project was incorrest as a matter of law for
/ reasons number 1 and 3. Petitioner further stated that the plans for the building
t now comply with Article 7 of t1?e Code. The Petitioner presented a brief to support
its contention that the changes in the Zoning Ordinance of Salem, relative to height
and density does not affect the project known as Marion Manor.
RECEIV pTifu of cliPm, e i uti It E S
� p�,s AUG 25 i t 4s Ah '15 Paurb of �f pal
CITY CLEnt\'s OFFICE
WILLIAM P. 1.890TT DECISION SAAEACKAS igOR PAGE TWO
JOSEPH E. DOYLE
JOHN M. GRAY, SR ,
ARTHUR E. LABRECOUE
Jane T. Lundergan
Donald E. Eames
EMERY P. TANCH,
The following evidence was orally presented at the hearing. Attorney Kelly
stated that an application for a building permit was filed with the Building Inspector
in May, 1974. The Zoning Ordinance was amended as regards height and density in
July 1974. Attorney Kelly contended that the Building Inspector had 30 days to
make a decision regarding said permit in accordance with the new Building Code,
and that he failed to do so. He further contended that the Zoning Amendment of
July, 1974 was incorrectly passed, because such passage did not occur within 90
days of the public hearing. Atty. Kelly argued that the preliminary sub-division
plan filed with the Planning Board in 1970 protected said land from any Zoning
Changes for 7 years. A perimeter plan was filed in October 1973 and Attorney Kelly.
argued that this protects the land for one year.
Councillor Boulay appeared in opposition.. He stated that the major objection is
the fact that there is no sewerage permit. He stated that the Council believes that
they acted in sufficient .time on the Zoning change. He stated that they were rejected
for the sub-division plan by the Planning Board. Also appearing in opposition was
Robert Blenkhorn of the Salem Board of Health on the grounds of inadequate. sewerage.
Mrs, Roland Dion, abuttor was opposed: 1. Because of the low water pressure in the
area at this time; 2. Traffic; 3. The need for open land for the children of Salem.
Ruth Rubenstein appeared in opposition and stated that even though they have been denied
( by the Planning Board, they are already placing ads in the local newspapers advertising
for tenants. Mr, Frank Ruberstein stated that these petitioners tied in their Loring
9
Towers project without the benefit of sewer permits. Stanley McDermett of the Salem
Planning Board appeared in opposition and stated that this company only filed a Form A
for condominiums, that the 1st and 2nd preliminary plans were disapproved and that the
RECEIVED ' C '
uarb of yeal
AUG Z� !► 43AM '75
L
._�
ECISION - MARION MANOR - PAGE THREE
WILLIAM P. Ae=O, CITY CL-:'r S OFFICE
JOSEPH P. DOYLE SALEM. MASS.
. JOHN M. GRAY, SR. -
ARTHUR E. LASRECOUE
Jane T. Lundergan
Donald E. Eames
EMERY P. TANCH
developers said they had no definitative plan for the site in April, 1975. Mr.
Blenkhorn further stated that priority should be given to the new Salem Long Term
Care Facility. Mr. Kelly, in favor, stated that the question is just a matter of
law, the. Building Inspector should have issued the permit. Water Pollution is a
State permit and not in the jurisdiction of the Appeal Board.
Councillor Boulay, in opposition stated that the Board should endorse the
decision of the Building Inspector. Hearing closed.
The Board voted unanimously to deny Petitioner's appeal and to uphold the
decision of the Building Inspector demying the issuance of the building permit.
The Petitioner did not request a variance from the density requirements applicable
to the Marion Manor project and did not submit any evidence of hardship to support
such a request.
The Petitioner, instead asked the Board to decide the legal issue of whether
or not the Zoning amendments passed by the Salem City Council in July of 1974 apply to
the Marion Manor Project. The issue .involves several questions of fact and law
including the validity of the amendments themselves. The Board felt that it was
beyond their powers to decide such legal issues and such questions of fact. Therefore,
since the validity of said zoning amendments has not been denied by any authority the
Board voted to uphold the Building Inspector's denial of said permit on the basis of
said density requirements. The Board feels that it is not the correct forum to decide
the other issues presented by the Petitioner regarding the delay in the Building
Inspector's handling of said permit and the failure of the Petitioner to receive a
sewer permit from the state.
SALEM BOARD OF APPEALS
ON Bill
BUtLDtND DEPT
3 Titu of flassadl its dts
''q�. • y " RFRry7t{ueni of �iublir �1lnrls
H.
W' 711 I4
RALPH W. TEDFORD RECEIVED
CITY ENGINEER CITY IF SALEM,MASS
April 1, 1974
Mr. Daniel O'Brien
Inspector of Buildings
5 Broad Street
Salem, Mass.
Dear Sir:
It is the opinion of this office that no further
building permits should be issued that would require connec-
tions to existing sewers. The suspension of building permits
should be continued until the Division of Water Pollution Con-
trol releases its directive of November 30, 1973, or grants
conditional approvals for entry into the sewer. Application
for releases are being made, and pending.
Very truly yours,
Q
mh "�ICIT-g EN INE�E
c.c.Mayor
L.
I
�Al1tI18AttYltPFII�� A� {�F113,�tIf�1t13P�6
SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
No. 6277
LORING HILIS DEVELOPERS TRUST Plaintiff(s)
V.
JOHN PCK.4ERS� BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE CITY Defendant(s)
OF SALEM
SUMMONS AND ORDER OF NOTICE
To the above-named Defendant: John Pa-Ters, Building Inspector of The City of Salem. '
Michael D. Kelly
You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon Robert M. Mardirosian & Associates
plaintiff's attorney, whose address is 375 Mount Auburn St. , iiatertorm Mass. , an answer to
the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons upon
you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail 'do so, judgment by default will be taken against you
for the relief demanded in the complaint. You are also required to file your answer to the complaint in
the office of the Clerk of this court at Boston either before service upon plaintiff's attorney or within a
reasonable time thereafter.
Unless otherwise provided by Rule 13(a), your answer must state as a counterclaim any claim which
Y
you may have against the plaintiff which arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject -
matter of the plaintiff's claim'or you will thereafter be barred from making such claim in any other
action.
WE ALSO NOTIFY YOU that application has been made in said action as appears in the i
for the s e com lPtioriliof.glean�s
complaint, for a preliminary injunctio anA that a he rm�upon guch app cats n w e eld at the court
house at said Boston in the first session without jury of our said court on Tuesday the
sixth day of Mau A.D. 19-15, at ten o'clock A.M.,
at which you may appear and show cause why such application should not be granted.
Witness, WALTER H. McLAUGHLIN, Esquire, at Boston, the twenty-fourth day of
April in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seventy-five. -
1; TRUE COPY ATTEST. `
Assistant C eik.
NOTES. DEPUTY SHERIFF
1.This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. - -
2.When more than one defendant is involved,the names of all defendants should appear in the caption. If a separate summons is
used for each defendant, each should be addressed to the particular defendant
FORM CIV. P.-2-9-74-2W
PROOF OF-SERVICE OF PROCESS
I hereby certify and return that on 19_, I served a copy of the within
summons and order of notice, together with a copy of the complaint in this action, upon the within
named defendant, in the following manner (See Mass. R. Civ. P. 4 (d) (1-5):
Dated: 19_.
N.B. TO PROCESS SERVER: -
PLEASE PLACE DATE YOU MAKE SERVICE ON DEFENDANT IN
THIS BOX ON THE ORIGINAL AND ON COPY SERVED ON DEFENDANT.
191s7 �
m
W
i' O Ucl
.I x V F
N U W Z
Q p d w _ W
-�l mUz ' wz
o w a: H
qv x P4 0
' � P4a 0 0 w .
P4 z
CQ N1 A O z
a •
C F
m
z rVp
a
a xa 0 a
O
p �+
CIO
U Gr
it
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, SS: SUPERIOR COURT
LORING HILLS DEVELOPERS TRUST
V.
k
JOHN POWERS, BUILDING INSPECTOR.
OF THE CITY OF SALEM
COMPLAINT.
1. Plaintiff, Loring Hills Developers, TrusIt is a duly
formed Trust with a usual place of business at 35 Saratoga Street,
East Boston, Massachusetts, owns approximately 85yacres of land
which abuts a private way known as Loring `Hills Avenue and a
public way known as Loring Avenue.
2: Defendant, John Powers is the Building Inspector of the
City of Salem. ez + s
3. Plaintiff, is desirous of ,building a 250 unit-apartment
building on its land,' said building'is referred:to as "Marion Manor" .
4. On or about May, 30, -1974 plaintiff filed,+ a building permit '
application with the 'Building Department for "Marion Manor" . . The
building permit application was filed'An-behalf of °Loring by
Loring's architect. A
5. A116the required plans, specifications and other required
documents .of the Building Department conform in .all respects to
the applicable Building Code° and Zoning Ordinances of the City of
Salem.
6. The defendant conferred in June of 1974 with plaintiff's
architect and determined that the plans conformed in all respects
with the -applicable Building Code and Zoning Ordinanees ' of the City `
of Salem.
M1
7. Plaintiffhas, failed from May ,30, 1974 until the present
to take any action on• the',Building Permit Application submitted
by "Loring'
S. Pursuant to the Building Code and- erdifiances of the City of
Salem, it is theoff pial duty of the,Building Inspector to grant
building permits when a building permit application conforms to the
T
applicable Building Code'. and' Zoning OrdinaRne'es. �
9. Plaintiff has incurred great expense in ,preparation of plans,
y
specifications and other expenses, and is suffering and will continue
to suffer irreparable injury by the unreasonable delay of the .Building
Inspector.
10. The,Building Inspector has ' issued1other Building Permits ;
and Occupancy Permits since- May 3`0, • 1974.,on 'applications -filed by
other parties subsequent' to, this date. +f.
11." There"'has been no .inequitable ;,conduct on the part of ,'the
plaintiff. ,
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that;
1. The court issue a Preliminary Injunction enjoining the de-
' fendant from refusing to issue a Building Permit to plaintiff.
2. The court issue a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining
the defendant from issuing any Building Permits or Occupancy Permits
- _2_ .
to other parties until the defendant issues a Building Permit to
the plaintiff.
3. The court upon a hearing issue a Preliminary. Injunction
enjoining the defendant from issuing other Building Permits or
Occupancy Permits until the defendant issues a Building Permit to .
the plaintiff.
4. The court issue a short Order of Notice requiring the de-
fendant to complete his pleadings on or before May 6, 1975..
5. The court order the trial of the action on its merits to
be consolidated with the hearing for a preliminary Injunction.
, . 6. The court in the alternative order a speedy trial on the
merits of plaintiff' s claim. .
7. The court order -,whateverait deems 'meet, ,just- and equitable.
LORING. HILLS DEVELOPERS TRUST
Y
�.
BY THEIR.ATTORNEY,°
ROBERT mLkN,MARDIROSIAN A ASSOCIATES
MICHAEL D. KELLY
375 Mount Auburn ..Street
Watertown, Massachusetts 02172
.924-2424
Y
}
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, SS: SUPERIOR COURT
LORING HILLS DEVELOPERS TRUST
V.
JOHN POWERS, BUILDING INSPECTOR
OF THE CITY OF SALEM
COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff;. Loring Hills Developers 'Frust is a duly '
formed Trust with a usual place of business at 35 Saratoga Street,
East Boston, Massachu9etta, owns approximately 95 acres of land
which abuts a private .way known as Loring Hills Avenue an,%
public way known as Loring Avenue.
� f
2. Defendant, John Powers is the Building Inspector of 'the
City of Salem.
3. Plaintiff is desirous of building a 250 unit apartment
building on its land, said building is,referred to as "Marion Manor" .
4. On or about May .30, 1974 plaintiff filed a building permit-.
application with the Building Department for "Marion Manor" . - The
building permit application "was filed on behal£4of Loring by '
Loring's architect.
5. All the required plans, specifications and other 'required
documents of the Building Department conform in .all respects to
the applicable Building, Code and Toning :Ordinances of the City of
Salem,
6. The defendant conferred in.June of 1974 with plaintiff's
architect and determined that .the plans conformed in all respects
with the applicable Building Code and Zoning,,Ordinances' of the City'
of Salem.
7. Plaintiff has failed from May 30, :1974 until the present
to take any action on the Building Permit Application submitted
by. "Loring".
S. Pursuant to the Building Code and Ordinances of the City of,
Salem, it is the offioial-duty of. the Building inspector to grant .
building permits -when --a building�permit,application conforms to the
applicable Building Code and Zoning Ordinances.
9. Plaintiff has ,incuried great expense in ,.pr2paration of plans;
specifications and other expenses, and is suffering and will continue
to suffer irreparable-injury by the unreasonable delay of the Building .
Inspector. -
10. The Building Inspector has issued other Building Permits
and Occupancy Permits since may 30, 1974 on applications filed by
other parties subsequent to this date.
A
11. There has 'been no inequitable ,conduct on the part of the
plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that;
1. The court issue a Preliminary Injunction enjoining the de-
fendant ;from refusing to issue a .Building Permit to plaintiff.
2... The court issue a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining
the defendant from issuing any Building Permits or Occupancy Permits
-2-
AQW . "
to other parties until the defendant issues a Building Permit to
the plaintiff.
3. The court upon a hearing issue. a Preliminary Injunction
enjoining the defendant from issuing other Building Permits or
Occupancy Permits until the defendant issues a Building Permit to
the plaintiff.
4. The court issue a short Order of Notice .requiring the de-
fendant to- complete-his pleadings on or before May 6, 1975.
5. The court order the trial,lof'the actiori' on its merits to
be consolidated; with the hearing for a preliminary Injunction.
. 6. The court in the alternative order a speedy.' trial on the
merits .of plaintiffs claim.
7. The court order whatever it deems meet, just and equitable.
LORING, HILLS DEVELOPERS TRUST
BY THEIR ATTORNEY
r ROBERT M. MARDIROSIAN & ASSOCIATES .
BY
MICHAEL D. KELLY
375 Mount Auburn Street
Watertown, Massachusetts 02172
924-2424
i
LORING TOWERS ASSOCIATES ^' 6i'7 e
35 SARATOGA STREET
BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02128
TEL..(617) 5684360 APR Z5 8 s4 dH '15
CITY OF S I1�E0
.IdASS.
April 22 , 1975
Mr. John Powers
Building Inspector
93 Washington Street
Salem, Mass .
Dear Mr. Powers:
A sewer connection permit presently exists for
Loring Hills Avenue, a private way, which was granted by the
City of Salem to Loring Hills Associates (the predecessors
` in interest of Loring Hills Developers Trust) .
The connection was approved on May 15 , 1970 , and
was capable of servicing approximately 3,000 apartment units .
Since we have a connection for sewer and water
services available to service our land, we request that you
issue forthwith the building permit for Marion Manor. Marion
Manor is authorized by Loring Hills Developers Trust to use
the sewer connection of Loring Hills Avenue.
Your immediate response to our request is appre-
ciated. °
Very truly yo s
Loring H• is Op Tr t
f
CTY-
f
S
farles F. Quig
Trustee, Loring Hille Developers
Trust
r
i
r
1
Olitu of �$ttipm, fflassar4uutfs
�A ..� y '. .f x �al�ajtt �TII�JE1Cf� �P}aMa•}tiaatPltt
''s�'4,,a-'? �litl�ttt$ �P�JFLYfI:tPTC�
�oi�n �. �3ofoers
S �rott� �freef
745-ll213 ,
May 130 1973
Mr. Htaradaat Dirtet:maa
is fhillips AVanae
Swmaspscottt MA 01907 RBt 1 gg_JI
Dash sit:
You are hereby VAtifiad that ywr application for a W14 1"
Permit dated t+tsy 89, 1974 1s hortby depth for the following
spooifia reaMot.
L The proposed building desortbod In your applisstiou
fol ptaaoit date not *omply with the ZonA.ns Oxdiumwe
of the City of Wom In that it specifies a height of
010-4" and the MSXWM psrmi.ssable batgbit wadatt the
Zoning Oedimtmaoor is 43'+0", and the density as shoft „
on said plan is groater than the allowed density in the
Zoning 9tdinanca,
24 The pinna sathmittod art not in samglliaaca w'it& tba
barna ltls of, lxassochusttts state 8ni141" Coda in
that submitted delta foal loading dons not manforO with
Artitls 7 Of the soda.
3. Theta is no seer peramit issu" to re$ma to this
proposed structure and no buildirmg pelt %my be island
until a valid issued swerr poxm t leas been issued as
prterideed by the State sanitary Code and the Salem Code
Of tats.
As you areswaat# you may appeal from this deetoxminatiarta to the
Zoning Bosw of Appeals at the City of slam and to the state
Building Coda ,Appeals Hoard.
Tows sinceralys
Inapemtor o &ti ings
J1sBt tm
em: Polar Mer17
FARLEY, SERAFINI & FARLEY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
126 WASHINGTON STREET December 7 1967
JAMES E.FARLEY SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 '
JOHN R.SERAFINI
RICHARD P. FARLEY TELEPHONE 744-0212
Superintendent of Public Property
Cit y Hal l
Salem, Massachusetts
Re: HILTON LAND
LOCATED REAR OF LORING AVENUE, SALEM
NEAR SWAMPSCOTT LINE
Dear Sir :
The City of Salem has had in tax title some thirty-eight
acres of landlocked property formerly owned by one Hilton. This
parcel has no access to any highway, and is located in the rear
of Loring Avenue near the Swampscott line .
My client , Mr. Herman Brettman of Swampscott, has acquired
ownership of the property surrounding this thirty-eight acre par-
cel. He has plans for the development of the property that he has
acquired.
Mr. Brettman would like to purchase the City' s title to
this property so that this area could be included within his over-
all plans for the development of this site.
Needless to say, this is one way of taking unproductive land
and putting it back onto the tax rolls, thus returning a benefit to
the City. There is no question tba t no use of this property can be
made by any other person that would return any benefits to the City
as, without access, it would have no value for building purposes.
I therefore respectfully suggest that my client be allowed
to purchase the interest of the City in this land for the sum of
six thousand ($6,000 .00) dollars.
As you know, the acquisition of the City' s interest by Mr.
Brettman would not give him clear title in that he would have to
proceed in the Land Court to either register or confirm his title
to this property which, of course, would entail more expense from
his standpoint.
If this offer is acceptable, my client would be pleased to
complete this transaction as soon as possible.
Very truly,
AEG John R. Serafini; Esquire
i
t Robert G.Venne•President and Vice Chalrmarr� `
Hobert Charles Engineering lssociales, Inc.
35 Saratoga Street,Boston.Massachusetts 02128•(61])569-4360
' C ti Alf Salem, f asearfluse##s
r�gs0 � Devaltment of J�uhlic Wnrhs
IMM
RALPH W. TEDFORD
CITY ENGINEER
April 11, 1974
Mr. Daniel O'Brien.
Building Inspector
5 Broad Street
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Mr. O'Brien:
To confirm our recent conversation concerning the proposed Handicapped
Housing off of Loring Avenue I wish to point out some of the shortcomings and
lack of information to your office at this time.
1. The site plan must be a preliminary sketch as it does not show or
dimension the property line, sewer, water, drainage, or the treat-
ment of adjacent property in regards to any of these items.
2. The drainage from this property is now of great concern to meas a
large portion must drain through existing facilities which are inade-
quate to properly drain the site. A properly engineered drain
analysis must be prepared covering the presently proposed and
future land development of the area. The drain analysis should
include the impact of this new runoff to existing drainage areas
which are off site, and the developer must acquire all off site
drainage easements and must assume all costs for installing new
drains.
3. The present Loring Hills apartments have not been approved to
discharge sewage into the Salem system so I would not consider
any new or proposed discharges until the present situation is
made more favorable.
4. The area of the proposed Handicapped Housing could possibly be
considered classified as wet lands.
Very truly yy�ouirs,
ALPH W. TEDFO
City Engineer
RW T/mlr
II �C�Piti� ?ISSfTtLtSP �
Public Pxopex#g Pepttr#men#
� puilDing Aeltttr#men#
John P. 11oloCrs
September 17, 1974
Atty. William J. Tinti
City Solicitor
70 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. Tinti:
EnclogWAT',V"lease find a copy"6Ta letter from Charles F. "
Quigley; "requesting an opinion" as to the present status
of the proposed Marion Manor.
Very truly yours,
JOHN H. POWERS
c
BUILDING DEPT LORING TOWERS ASSOCIATES
35 SARATOGA STREET
✓^ Alps, BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02128
SrGT V Q 11 AM ,74 TEL. (61]) 568.4360
RECEIVED
CITY OF SALEM,MASS.
September 10 , 1974
Mr. John Powers
Building Inspector
City Hall
Salem, Mass .
Dear Mr. Powers : Re: Marion Manor
I am not quite sure to whom this inquiry should be ad-
dressed since the position of the Building Inspector in
the City of Salem seems to be in limbo; however, our firm
must have answers in regard to certain questions , and I
feel you are the only person to whom I can speak.
We want to know the present status of the building plans
which were filed with the City of Salem Building Department
in May. We would like to know whether or not a building per-
mit will be issued on those drawings which include 10 story
buildings . In the event that a sewer permit is issued, this
question is put to you: Because of the recent decision re .
zoning procedures in the City of Salem, can this affect our
recent request for the building permit. Can you clarify
our status .
I realize this is a legal question, but it is my understand-
ing we must address ourselves to you in order then to have
your inquiry forwarded to the proper legal counsel in the City.
If you would kindly send this inquiry to the City . Solicitor' s
office , we would then undoubtedly receive an opinion which
would clear the matters up for us , and enable us to go forth
with the proposed development subject tb-our sewer permit is-
suance.
Very truly yours
CFQ:mh Charles F. Quigley
General Partner
0�r� Ctu of Salem, 'Mttssar4usetts
public Property Vepartnterd
's w.l�° pudding �epttrtrtex�t
John F. 1-3OtIIEIB
S Prozib p*frrrt
7454213
May 13, 1975
Mr. Herman Brettman
18 Phillips Avenue
Swampscott, MA 01907 RE: Marion Manor
Dear Sir:
You are hereby notified that your application for a building
permit dated May 29, 1974 is hereby denied for the following
specific reasons:
1. The proposed building described in your application
for permit does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Salem in that it specifies a height of
81'-4" and the maximum permissable height under the
Zoning Ordinance is 45'-0", and the density as shown
on said plan is greater than the allowed density in the
Zoning Ordinance.
2. The plans submitted are not in compliance with the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Building Code in
that submitted data for loading does not conform with
Article 7 of the code.
3. There is no sewer permit issued in regard to this
proposed structure and no building permit may be issued
until a valid issued sewer permit has been issued as
provided by the State Sanitary Code and the Salem Code
of Ordinances.
As you are aware, you may appeal from this determination to the
Zoning Board of Appeals of'the City of Salem and to the State
Building Code Appeals Board.
Yours sincerely,
Inspector of Buildings
JBP:tc
cc: Peter Merry
LORING TOWERS ASSOCIATES
35 SARATOGA STREET
} BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02128
TEL. (617) 569-4360
May 23, 1975
Mr. John P. Powers
Building Inspector
93 Washington Street
Salem, Mass .
Dear Sir: Re: Marion Manor
As a result of the meeting held at your office be-
tween you and your assistant and our consulting engineer,
Tom Arthur, and myself, we reviewed the items specifically
brought up at that meeting, i
Item #1. 30" Guard Rail. We agree to locate a
30" pipe rail around the perimeter of the flat roofs . --i-This
pipe rail railing will be located approximately 4 ' inside
the outside perimeter of the building, and is shown on the
enclosed Addendum #1 dated May 22.
Item #2 . Apartment Door Closures are hereby added
by Addendum #1 as indicated.
Item #3. As per Code, fire division walls will ex-
tend through the roofs of the town house construction as in-
dicated on Addendum #1 herein enclosed.
Item #4. A clarification is made to drawing X-2
which may be made a part of the plan and is included herein
as part of Addendum #1.
Item #5 . As per your request, I am also submitting
the design calculations for the building by Engineers Design
Group. Accordingly, the indicated loadings on Structural
Drawing S-1 have been updated to conform to the State Building
Code dated 1975 and are hereby made a part of the documents
and will be treated as a part of Addendum #1. You may make
this drawing a part of your file documents.
If there are any other questions concerning this
development, please do not hesitate to contac S .
Very ruly s
arles F. uigle
CFQ:mh Managing General Partner
Encl.
r'
Id
engineers design group, inc.
292 MAIN ST. • CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 02142 • Tel. 492-0100
THOMAS E. ARTHUR
LUIGI R. DiNAPOLI
May 23 , 1975
Robert Charles. Assoc .
35 Saratoga Street
East Boston, Mass .
Attn : Charles Quigley
Re : Marion Manor
Salem, Mass.
Gentlemen:
Enclosed please find calculations and revised drawing
S-1 on the above project .
The scheduled loads on this drawing have been revised
to comply with the Present State Building Code of the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts , specifically Article VII . The cal-
culations will show that although they were done before the
State Building Code became effective , the design and materials
will meet current requirements .
Very truly yours ,
ENGINEERS DESIGN ROUP INC .
Bernard Doherty
BD/jm.
J' . '_EJ
engineers design groor, ime.
292 MAIN ST. • CAMBRIDGE. MASS. 02142 • Tel. 492-0100
THOMAS E. ARTHUR
LUIGI R. DiNAPOLI
May 22 , 1975
Robert Charles Assoc .
35 Sarratoga Street
East Boston, Mass.
Attn : Charles Quigley
Re : Marion Manor, Salem, Mass .
—Gentlemen:
We checked the new loading conditions as outlined in
the new State Building Code under which all buildings have
to conform.
We have re-analized the structure based on this new
code , and find that it can take these additional forces .
The major item being a change in the wind force .
In the previous design of Marion Manor , sesmic forces controlled
and in fact they also control under the new State Building Code .
We hope that this letter is sufficient for your needs
and if requested we would be happy to submit to our calculations
for your review.
Very truly yours ,
GENG
NEERS DE SI
GROUP INC .
omaa •E Arthur_ P . E. '
TEA/jh
g t NECUM
496RVT FORM) 495
(Immmeal* of Massar4uatts
...SUFFOLK.......................SS. XV ,...........,JOHN POWERS; Building Inspector for
......the..Cjty
Massachusetts
............................................................. ...............................................................
..................................................................................................................................................................................................I....... Greeting.
Vou are 4trtbg mqutreb in the name Of the COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, to appear
before the..........SUPERIOR.................court.......................................................................holden al....Boston
within and for the County of......Suffolk...................................on the.....W........****....day of....OJ 'FU� '- '�fg
...........................
......
......10.:.00...........o'cloch in the.....f Q.r.e.0..................noon, and from day to day thereafter, until the action hereinafter named
is heard by said Court, to give evidence of what you hn0W relating to an action of.........00.........................................................0......
thenand there to be heard and tried between........ ........................—0.....0.............0........00.............0....0.................................................
....... ..........................00...................................000.....................plainfiff
and ........................
r................................ .................. D
..................... efendant
and you are further required to bring with you.......q1.101..C.9 issued
.......................
..........0..........00...........0......................................0...........................
............................000...........................0............ ...................................0.....................000......0...000..................................................................
.....00........0000..............00............ ...000..........0............................000.................................00...............................................................................0......
.........................................0...........................000.................0.0........................................0....................................0............0...................................
11MIlUfatl not, as you will answer your default under the pains and penalties in the low in that behalf
made and provided.
Dattb at
......Salem................................
FORM 495 HOBBS&WARREN, INC. PUBLISHERS
A TRUE COPY ATTEST.
�J
01i#g o ttlem, I�z sttcl��zsQ##
public Fxoperfg Pepttr#men#
�olrys �. �o&rers
5 �ruttD �#reef /��JlQ
September 17 , 1974 /
Atty. William J. Tinti
City Solicitor
70 Washington Street 41 _
Salem, MA 01970 I
Dear Mr. Tinti :
Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from Charles F.
Quigley, of Loring Towers Associates , requesting an opinion
as to the present status of the proposed Marion Manor.
The sequence of events are as follows :
4/1/74 - Letter from City Engineer stating no building
permits should be issued that would require
connections to existing sewers copy enclosed)
g p -Mr. O'Brien, Building Inspector retired
-Application and check filed for Marion Manor,
an 8 to 10 story building on Loring Hills Avenue.
6/15/74 Mr. Powers appointed Building Inspector - moritorium
on building permits until July 16th hearing on
sewer extentions .
(7/18/74- Second passage , over Mayor' s veto of Ordinance
limiting construction to 4 stories
/16/74 -Hearing on Sewer extentton -
8/1/74 -Notice of 30 day moratorium for appeals on sewer
exttonsions .
Ch-e//�"L G��`�-CLacGG..o,.a�•.�� �'a.¢yi. KJ'a�G.
Denial for Application for Building Permit May 12, 1975
Dear Sirs:
You are hereby notified that your application for a building permit
dated MAY Li, IJ-7¢is�hereby ,denied for the following specific reasons:
1 . The proposed building described in your application for permit
does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance, of the. City of Salem in that
81#4"
it specifies a height of 0±",* , and the maximum permissable height under
the Zoning Ordinance is ^o�2M , the density as shown on said
plan is greater than th* allowed density in the Zoning Ordinance
2 . The " " ' is-,-wvt in compliance wit t e Co nwealth
�r.� 7
of Massachusetts State Building Code in that
1 ✓✓ �l
ctow p�b.eiri Llii
3. There is no, sewer permit issued in regard to. this proposed
structure and no building permit may be issued until a valid issued sewer
permit has been issued as provided by State. Sanitary Code.--4c"
As ,you are aware, you may appeal from this determination t,thhe -
ZDIJI04 Board of Appeals of the City of Salem and to the State Building Code
Appeals Board.
Yours sincerely,
' John B. Powers
Building Inspector
CC.