Loading...
14-16 PEARL STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION Certificate No: 740-2004 Building Permit No.: 740-2004 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City of Salem Building Electrical Mechanical Permits This is to Certify that the RESIDENCE located at -------------------- w------- ------------------- Dwelling Ty-p-e 14-16 PEARL STREET in the CITY OF SALEM ----------- ------------------------------ -- ---------------------------- ----------------- - -- - --------------------- -- Address Town/City Name IS HEREBY GRANTED A PERMANENT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 14-16 PEARL STREET UNIT B This permit is granted in conformity with the Statutes and ordinances relating thereto,and expires unless sooner suspended or revoked. Expiration Date -------------------_-_----------------------------------- --_-._..---------- Issued On:Tue Nov 15,2005 ------------- - - - ---------------------------------------.._.._. GeoTMS®2007 Des Laurens Municipal Solutions,Inc. ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------. Certificate No: 740-2004 Building Permit No.: 740-2004 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City of Salem Building Electrical Mechanical Permits This is to Certify that the RESIDENCE located at Dwelling Type 14-16 PEARL STREET in the CITY OF SALEM - ----------------------------------------- --- --- - -- ----------- -- - ------------------- Address Town/City Name IS HEREBY GRANTED A PERMANENT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 14-16 PEARL STREET UNIT B This permit is granted in conformity with the Statutes and ordinances relating thereto, and expires unless sooner suspended or revoked. Expiration Date ---------------------------------__---.--....._...._.-.-.--...-........._. Issued On: Tue Nov 15,2005 GeoTMS®2007 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions,Inc. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Certificate No: 740-2004 Building Permit No.: 740-2004 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City of Salem Building Electrical Mechanical Permits This is to Certify that the RESIDENCE located at Dwelling Type 14-16 PEARL STREET in the CITY OF SALEM - ------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Address TowrVCity Name IS HEREBY GRANTED A PERMANENT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 14-16 PEARL STREET UNIT A This permit is granted in conformity with the Statutes and ordinances relating thereto, and expires --- - -- unless sooner suspended or revoked. Expiration Date ._-_._-.._.--.-..._._------_ Issued On: Tue Nov 15,2005 ------------- ----- - - --- ------ -------- ... — GeoTMS®2007 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions,Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------- Certificate No: 740-2004 Building Permit No.: 740-2004 i Commonwealth of Massachusetts City of Salem Building Electrical Mechanical Permits This is to Certify that the RESIDENCE located at ----------------------------------------------------- Dwelling Type 14-16 PEARL STREET in the CITY OF SALEM Address Town/City Name IS HEREBY GRANTED A PERMANENT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 14-16 PEARL STREET UNIT A This permit is granted in conformity with the Statutes and ordinances relating thereto,and expires unless sooner suspended or revoked. Expiration Date -------------------------------------------- Issued On: Tue Nov 15,2005 ------------------------------ -- - ----- ---------------- GeoTMS®2007 Des Leaders Municipal Solutions,Inc. -----------------------------------------------------------------------�--- 0 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT o' q� 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR AWB SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 380 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 July 20, 2005 Peterson/LaChance Realty Advisors 100 Lonifer Hill Drive Suite 206 Danvers, Ma. 01923 ATT: William LaChance RE: Zoning letter City Map 36-Lot 509 Dear Bill: It is my opinion that this lot does not have frontage on the public street sufficient to consider the lot buildable. The lot is currently being taxed as unbuildable. If you have any questions, please contact me directly. Sincerely, Thomas St. Pierre Zoning Enforcement Officer CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF aA I� a BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK' CE A 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR S. SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740.9846 I M/ STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. 1009 Noy — ' P 2 Sa MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDREW GOLDMAN REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14-16 PEARL STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on October 20, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen Chairman,Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair ,, Edward Moriarty and Steven Pinto Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting and Administrative Appeal seeking to appeal the issuance of a building permit for the.property located at 14-16 Pearl Street R-2. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence and after reviewing the plans at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner is Andrew Goldman, a neighbor and abutter of the parcel of land located at 14-16 Pearl Street in an R-2 zone. 2. Mr. Goldman is aggrieved by the issuance of a building permit issued by the Building Commissioner, W. Thomas St. Pierre, for the construction of a two family dwelling, at said locus. 3. Said building permit was issued on March 14, 2004 and is attached hereto Exhibit 1. 4. Said appeal of the issuance of said permit was timely filed with the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals, on or about August 12, 2004, by Mr. Goldman, with other neighbors listed as neighbors, and/or abutters, and/or parties in interest. 5. Mr. Goldman presented a lengthy,detailed and documented presentation requesting, by way of Appeal, that the building permit issued by the Building Commissioner be reversed. 6. Mr. Goldman. identified the controlling provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance governing the issuance of said,permit, as Article V, Section 5-2, Subsection (b), wherein the following are permitted uses in said tow-family residential district: Subparagraph 2; "Two-family dwellings, detached or attached". 7. According to Mr. Goldman and several other neighbors and abutters in opposition to the issuance of said building permit, the only issue before the Building Commissioner, and therefore, before the Board of Appeals, was whether or not the proposed two-family dwelling, as constructed, was consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for two-family dwellings to be constructed in R-2 zoning districts. CITY OF IAJM, k1 CLERIC'S CE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANDREW GOLDMAN REQUESTING AN NOY - I P 215 9 ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14-16 PEARL STREET R-2 page two 8. Mr. Goldman and others argued that the two houses, on the ground currently, with two separate foundations,connected by the deck inquired by the Building Commissioner, was not the equivalent of the two-family unit provided for, as of right,in the Salem Zoning Ordinance,Article V,Use Regulations,relative to R-2 Districts. 9. Mr. Goldman suggested by way of colorful metaphor, that two separate structures with two separate foundations was no more a two-family house than a pair of pair of shoes connected by a shoelace was one shoe. 10. Mr. Goldman, and several other neighbors speaking in opposition to the issuance of the building permit and in favor or revocation of the Permit by action of the Board, noted that at all times their zoning/use concerns had been made known to and were noted by the developers. Therefore, the developers were certainly on notice that they were building"at risk" in the summer and fall of 2004, and that he direct abutters and neighbors intended to pursue their legal rights at the Board of Appeals, if not thereafter, to overturn the issuance of said building permit by the Building Commissioner,Thomas St. Pierre. 11. In particular, Andrew Goldman, and Mr. and Mrs. Paul&Gloria Ward, testified that they were directly impacted by these structures, which they perceived as not in non-compliance with Salem Use Regulations for R-2 Districts. 12. According to Mr. Goldman,Mr. &Mrs. Ward, and others, the developers in question took down trees, broke water mains, obstructed abutters' views and damaged abutting neighbors' retaining walls in pursuit of this so-called two family dwelling unit (s). 13. Mr. Goldman also suggested that to uphold the issuance of the building permit by the Building Commissioner in this instance, would violate the intent and purpose of the R-2 Salem Zoning District, which is to control density. 14. According to Mr. Goldman,density would not be controlled, but in fact, would go unchecked in this and in similar circumstances in other R-2 lots, if developments such as this were proceed, as of right, and unchecked, leaking to the possibility of increased development on undersized lots, with the further possibility of subsequent variances allowing further alterations to the use of said premises of smaller apartments or smaller condominium units. 15. The developers/owners of the premises are Mr. Robert Hamel and Mr. Keith Nadeau of Salem. They were represented by Attorney William Quinn of 222 Essex Street in Salem Massachusetts. 16. Attorney Quinn urged the Board of Appeals to uphold it Building Commissioner and the issuance of said building permit, under the facts,circumstances and relevant Zoning Ordinance Provisions in question. CICLERI( DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANDREW GOLDMAN REQUESTING AN IMNOV - 1 P ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14-16 PEARL STREET R-2 page three 17. According to Attorney Quinn, no Zoning Ordinance is perfect. Certainly the Salem Zoning Ordinance is an example of imperfection as it relates to all matters zoning, including Use Regulations. 18. Attorney Quinn acknowledged that the appeal of the building permit by Mr. Goldman, et al, was timely, and that Mr. Goldman had standing to challenge the issuance of the building permit in question, and that this clients did build at their own risk, under the circumstances. 19. Attorney Quinn further represented that his clients were going to complete construction, sell the project as condominiums with a common driveway, with a common deck, with a foundation and a roof,meeting all of the requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in general, and in particular, Article V, Section 5-2, Subsection (b), indicating that the following uses, as of right, in two-family Residential districts, include two-family dwellings detached or attached. I CONCLUDSIONS OF LAW 20. The two-family buildings in question are attached by the deck, roof and } foundation,required by the building permit, and if not attached, are certainly, 'detached or attached", within the meaning of the Ordinance. / 21. The developers' project should be allowed to proceed to completion. 22. Attorney Quinn,in his presentation, emphasized that no relief from any of the Articles of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in terms of use or dimension, were required. No special permit was required under the Salem Zoning Ordinance. No site plan review was required, given the limited scope of the project. 23. The only permit required related to the Conservation Commission Certificate of Conditions, which was complied with and which approval was obtained from the Conservation Commission. 24. Any problems with the project's construction were the responsibility of the developers' general contractor, and/or subcontractors,and the problems relating to water pressure, water pipes,and/or retaining wall damage were timely cured, according to Attorney Quinn, at contractor's sole cost and responsibility. 25. Attorney Quinn pointed out that upon completion,the premises will be sold as , two (2) condominiums, with a common driveway, and a common deck; a form of conveyance consistent with two-family dwellings, detached or attached. 26. The revocation of the permit at this time would clearly create economic hardship on the developers, and would also cast an unnecessary shadow of doubt on the professionalism and credibility of the Building Commissioner. 27. City Councilor Sosnowski spoke in favor of overturning the Building Commissioner's issuance of a permit,noting that this project was consistent with the bill of goods that this neighborhood had been sold in conjunction with the Bridge Street Bypass Road, and should not stand. Said circumstances, if true and accurate, are unfortunate, but not grounds to reverse the permit in issue herein. s crCLECREK'SAIV4,E A IM NOY - I p 2 5 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANDREW GOLDMAN REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1416 PEARL STREET R-2 page four 28. Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre defended succinctly, accurately and lawfully his issuance of the building permit,noting that, pursuant to Salem Use Regulation Article V,Subsection 5-2(b),the premises in question were buildable, as of right, as a two-family dwelling,detached or attached. 29. Mr. St. Pierre indicated that he thought long and hard about the issuance of the permit,met will all interested parties,including developers, abutters and neighbors, and the Planning Department,and issued the permit carefully, reluctantly,but with legal certainty that the developers had a right to construct a two-family home exactly in the manner requested, and in the only manner permitted by the building plans and the building permit in issue, involving a two. family dwelling with an attached deck, including a roof and a foundation for said deck. 30. Zoning Board of Appeals Chairperson and Attorney,Nina Cohen, stated that the photographs of the site development showed that the owners designed and built two single family homes on two separate foundations, with separate entrances, separate dwelling spaces, separate heating and electric systems. The abutters' testimony that the modular houses as built contained no common structural features (such as a common wall,floor or roof) was believable and germane to the issue of whether the structures that were built conformed to the Ordinance definition of"two-family dwellings, attached or detached".The developers' representation that these two properties,joined by a covered deck that would be built at a later time to connect the homes, would be marketed as a condominium did not,in her opinion, allow the project to be deemed as a"two-family home, attached or detached"for zoning purposes. Where the Building Commissioner erred in interpreting the terms of the Ordinance, the Board of Appeals may vote to overturn the issuance of the building permit. 31. Zoning Board of Appeals Member and Attorney Bonnie Belair,referenced the terms of the Zoning Ordinance allowing two-family dwellings as of right in R-2 Districts, whether detached or attached, and spoke of the grave concern that any action of the Board in reversing the issuance of the building permit would have on the developers who had proceeded in good faith with dire diligence to construction of the property in question, pursuant to the building permit and the Zoning Ordinance, as interpreted lawfully and in good faith by the Building Commissioner. 32. Zoning Board of Appeals Member, Edward Moriarty,Jr. also spoke in favor of Upholding the issuance of the building permit and in rejecting the Petitioner's Request to reverse same. Mr. Moriarty suggested that, although the Board of Appeals had the authority to overturn the issuance of a building permit, said CITY Qf q CLERK �� DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANDREW GOLDMAN REQUESTINGNOV - 1 p 2 Sq ADMINSITRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14-16 AAV PEARL STREET R-2 page five authority should be exercised most sparingly and judiciously,and only in circumstances where the Building Commissioner's actions were arbitrary and capricious, beyond the scope of his authority,clearly contrary to law, and/or where there was credible evidence the Commissioner acted dishonestly, rendered an opinion under undue influence, or otherwise acted in bad faith. 33. In these circumstances, given the relevant provisions of the Ordinance, the Board finds that the Building Commissioner acted neither arbitrarily nor capriciously,nor beyond the scope of his authority in lawfully issuing the building permit in question. 34. The Zoning Board of Appeals further specifically finds, as a matter of law, that the Building Commissioner's interpretation of Article V,Section 5-2, Subsection (b), does lawfully permit the issuance of a building permit for a two-family dwelling, detached or attached,is otherwise not contrary to law, and that said permit was issued by the Commissioner honestly, after due deliberation, in good faith, pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance terms and conditions. Therefore,base on the fact and on evidence presented,the Board make a motion to uphold Building Commissioners' Thomas St. Pierre issuing of a building permit for the premises at 14-16 Pearl Street with a vote of 1 in favor and 4 to deny the petitioners appeal. ADMINISTRATIVE RULING DENIED October 20,2004 ward Moriarty,MembeG#r� Board of Appeal \ CITYCLERK t". NOV I P ? 51 A COPYOF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED W M 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 unit a copy of the decision bearing the Certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed an 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. { 32.10 �— 0 \ It16 Dons ne p Buns / LOT A 14 r / 16,570± SF. / / 12 1 77 pTION OF POSSIBLE S \ CONTRAC R TO DETERMWE L pl CROSSING SITE NO OORDINATE REL TIO ER THE CYfY OF SALEM. \AS N SARY WITH Be, 4 6 ROOF N /9 D, S ' II REOIAXGE AREA y13 A N n PROP ATER D E-ONE 2010 PA KAG GRINDER PUMP 1T Po RIVERFRONT BOUNDARY t pppppSFD `—�: e e i z ^ �1 1-1/4 F C_E_5EWER__FM © FFDFE�L ANG I I 11 400±RECHARGE AREA DRAIEWAY I I 'B' O WI PROP WATER SER OE Cay'. xo I m on I• I / 1 B \ � Q I. 12 142. ouiUNE�OzF-FOyM =ROPOSED SILT PENCE 05 Z 1 7 mo l01 RIVERSIDE REALTY TRUST w1V 00 100 FT.BUFFER ZONE BOUNDARY Ao oe Y \ LOT B I Mey 02 04 00: 27p MnRTHR mncINNIS 9?0-374-0719 p. 2 I MID im Em ,,.,PaM37 I i ® fi `; u May 02 04 OG: 27p MRRTHA MRGINNI9 970-074-0719 p. 1 1 i �� L _Ikl� ELL i Nay 02 04 00: 27p NFRTrin NRCINNIS 970--374-0719 p. 3 i I a.a r em. m pq r� CAPErm 1 SPEC. NUMBER: i .o�emm sanao[ _ OS-202 1 - euaDER: s� Boa ® ® PAAE ® LLIJ @ 00 ® ® r PIANS PREPARED FOR --_-SPCC LEFT END ELEVATION ;IEVA➢ONS FRONT ELEVATION —� NOR: u1.OEMORS spy K PIM!0!IE OGEE CUIIRACI/!E M FULL KWRR%N OF If &a➢FA. DATE —, _ 71003 LLII ® ® DRANK BY: MM IITCHECKED BYrm : 1o�cwm atrtnaam LID ® ® 8 REN90NS DATES ns w ecLLU — RIGHT END ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1 B'=1'-D' SHEET 90. g / d. CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS `Iffy OF .`� BOARD OF APPEAL CLERX'$ 6 A 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR J � (t SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978) 745-9595 n� FAX (978) 740-9846 1004 NOV — P STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. r sa MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANDREW GOLDMAN REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT,14-16 PEARL ;STREET R-2 A hearing on this petition was held on October 20, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair ,, Edward Moriarty and Steven Pinto Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting and Administrative Appeal seeking to appeal the issuance of a building permit for the property located at 14-16 Pearl Street R-2. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence and after reviewing the plans at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner is Andrew Goldman, a neighbor and abutter of the parcel of land located at 14-16 Pearl Street in an R-2 zone. 2. Mr. Goldman is aggrieved by the issuance of a building permit issued by the Building Commissioner, Mr. Thomas St. Pierre, for the construction of a two family dwelling, at said locus. 3. Said building permit was issued on March 14, 2004 and is attached hereto Exhibit 1. 4. Said appeal of the issuance of said permit was timely filed with the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals, on or about August 12, 2004, by Mr. Goldman, with other neighbors listed as neighbors, and/or abutters, and/or parties in interest. 5. Mr. Goldman presented a lengthy, detailed and documented presentation requesting, by way of Appeal, that the building permit issued by the Building Commissioner be reversed. 6. Mr. Goldman. identified the controlling provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance governing the issuance of said, permit, as Article V, Section 5-2, Subsection (b), wherein the following are permitted uses in said tow-family residential district: Subparagraph 2; "Two-family dwellings, detached or attached". 7. According to Mr. Goldman and several other neighbors and abutters in opposition to the issuance of said building permit, the only issue before the Building Commissioner, and therefore, before the Board of Appeals, was whether or not the proposed two-family dwelling, as constructed, was consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for two-family dwellings to be constructed in R-2 zoning districts. CITY OF SAL���; MA CLERK'S 8AMICE DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANDREW GOLDMAN REQUESTING A44 NOV - I P 2 59 ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14-16 PEARL STREET R-2 page two 8. Mr. Goldman and others argued that the two houses, on the ground currently, with two separate foundations, connected by the deck required by the Building Commissioner, was not the equivalent of the two-family unit provided for, as of right, in the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Use Regulations, relative to R-2 Districts. 9. Mr. Goldman suggested by way of colorful metaphor, that two separate structures with two separate foundations was no more a two-family house than a pair of pair of shoes connected by a shoelace was one shoe. 10. Mr. Goldman, and several other neighbors speaking in opposition to the issuance of the building permit and in favor or revocation of the Permit by action of the Board, noted that at all times their zoning/use concerns had been made known to and were noted by the developers. Therefore, the developers were certainly on notice that they were building"at risk" in the summer and fall of 2004, and that he direct abutters and neighbors intended to pursue their legal rights at the Board of Appeals, if not thereafter, to overturn the issuance of said building permit by the Building Commissioner, Thomas St. Pierre. 11. In particular, Andrew Goldman, and Mr. and Mrs. Paul &Gloria Ward, testified that they were directly impacted by these structures, which they perceived as not in non-compliance with Salem Use Regulations for R-2 Districts. 12. According to Mr. Goldman, Mr. &Mrs. Ward, and others, the developers in question took down trees, broke water mains, obstructed abutters' views and damaged abutting neighbors' retaining walls in pursuit of this so-called two family dwelling unit (s). 13. Mr. Goldman also suggested that to uphold the issuance of the building permit by the Building Commissioner in this instance, would violate the intent and purpose of the R-2 Salem Zoning District, which is to control density. 14. According to Mr. Goldman, density would not be controlled, but in fact, would go unchecked in this and in similar circumstances in other R-2 lots, if developments such as this were proceed, as of right, and unchecked, leaking to the possibility of increased development on undersized lots, with the further possibility of subsequent variances allowing further alterations to the use of said premises of smaller apartments or smaller condominium units. 15. The developers/owners of the premises are Mr. Robert Hamel and Mr. Keith Nadeau of Salem. They were represented by Attorney William Quinn of 222 Essex Street in Salem Massachusetts. 16. Attorney Quinn urged the Board of Appeals to uphold it Building Commissioner and the issuance of said building permit, under the facts, circumstances and relevant Zoning Ordinance Provisions in question. CITY OF JA l, CLERK' P.1 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANDREW GOLDMAN REQUESTING AN 1904 NOV - I P ; ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14-16 PEARL STREET R-2 page three 17. According to Attorney Quinn, no Zoning Ordinance is perfect. Certainly the Salem Zoning Ordinance is an example of imperfection as it relates to all matters zoning, including Use Regulations. 18. Attorney Quinn acknowledged that the appeal of the building permit by Mr. Goldman, et al, was timely, and that Mr. Goldman had standing to challenge the issuance of the building permit in question, and that this clients did build at their own risk, under the circumstances. 19. Attorney Quinn further represented that his clients were going to complete construction, sell the project as condominiums with a common driveway, with a common deck, with a foundation and a roof, meeting all of the requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in general, and in particular, Article V, Section 5-2, Subsection (b),indicating that the following uses, as of right, in two-family Residential districts, include two-family dwellings detached or attached. CONCLUDSIONS OF LAW 20. The two-family buildings in question are attached by the deck, roof and foundation, required by the building permit, and if not attached, are certainly, "detached or attached", within the meaning of the Ordinance. 21. The developers' project should be allowed to proceed to completion. 22. Attorney Quinn, in his presentation, emphasized that no relief from any of the Articles of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in terms of use or dimension, were required. No special permit was required under the Salem Zoning Ordinance. No site plan review was required, given the limited scope of the project. 23. The only permit required related to the Conservation Commission Certificate of Conditions, which was complied with and which approval was obtained from the Conservation Commission. 24. Any problems with the project's construction were the responsibility of the developers' general contractor, and/or subcontractors, and the problems relating to water pressure, water pipes, and/or retaining wall damage were timely cured, according to Attorney Quinn, at contractor's sole cost and responsibility. 25. Attorney Quinn pointed out that upon completion, the premises will be sold as two (2) condominiums, with a common driveway, and a common deck; a form of conveyance consistent with two-family dwellings, detached or attached. 26. The revocation of the permit at this time would clearly create economic hardship on the developers, and would also cast an unnecessary shadow of doubt on the professionalism and credibility of the Building Commissioner. 27. City Councilor Sosnowski spoke in favor of overturning the Building Commissioner's issuance of a permit, noting that this project was consistent with the bill of goods that this neighborhood had been sold in conjunction with the Bridge Street Bypass Road, and should not stand. Said circumstances, if true and accurate, are unfortunate, but not grounds to reverse the permit in issue herein. CITY OF SALEM..MA CLERK'S eirriet 1114 NOY - I P 2. 59 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANDREW GOLDMAN REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14-16 PEARL STREET R-2 page four 28. Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre defended succinctly, accurately and lawfully his issuance of the building permit, noting that, pursuant to Salem Use Regulation Article V, Subsection 5-2 (b), the premises in question were buildable, as of right, as a two-family dwelling, detached or attached. 29. Mr. St. Pierre indicated that he thought long and hard about the issuance of the permit, met will all interested parties, including developers, abutters and neighbors, and the Planning Department, and issued the permit carefully, reluctantly, but with legal certainty that the developers had a right to construct a two-family home exactly in the manner requested, and in the only manner permitted by the building plans and the building permit in issue, involving a two family dwelling with an attached deck, including a roof and a foundation for said deck. 30. Zoning Board of Appeals Chairperson and Attorney, Nina Cohen, stated that the photographs of the site development showed that the owners designed and built two single family homes on two separate foundations, with separate entrances, separate dwelling spaces, separate heating and electric systems. The abutters' testimony that the modular houses as built contained no common structural features (such as a common wall, floor or roof) was believable and germane to the issue of whether the structures that were built conformed to the Ordinance definition of"two-family dwellings, attached or detached". The developers' representation that these two properties,joined by a covered deck that would be built at a later time to connect the homes, would be marketed as a condominium did not, in her opinion, allow the project to be deemed as a"two-family home, attached or detached"for zoning purposes. Where the Building Commissioner erred in interpreting the terms of the Ordinance, the Board of Appeals may vote to overturn the issuance of the building permit. 31. Zoning Board of Appeals Member and Attorney Bonnie Belair, referenced the terms of the Zoning Ordinance allowing two-family dwellings as of right in R-2 Districts, whether detached or attached, and spoke of the grave concern that any action of the Board in reversing the issuance of the building permit would have on the developers who had proceeded in good faith with due diligence to construction of the property in question, pursuant to the building permit and the Zoning Ordinance, as interpreted lawfully and in good faith by the Building Commissioner. 32. Zoning Board of Appeals Member,Edward Moriarty,Jr. also spoke in favor of Upholding the issuance of the building permit and in rejecting the Petitioner's Request to reverse same. Mr. Moriarty suggested that, although the Board of Appeals had the authority to overtum the issuance of a building permit, said CITY OF CLERX SAt ryC' DECISION OF THE PETITION OF ANDREW GOLDMAN REQUESTING ANU NOV - I P 2. 5q ADMINSITRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14-16 PEARL STREET R-2 page five authority should be exercised most sparingly and judiciously, and only in circumstances where the Building Commissioner's actions were arbitrary and capricious, beyond the scope of his authority,clearly contrary to law, and/or where there was credible evidence the Commissioner acted dishonestly, rendered an opinion under undue influence, or otherwise acted in bad faith. 33. In these circumstances, given the relevant provisions of the Ordinance, the Board finds that the Building Commissioner acted neither arbitrarily nor capriciously, nor beyond the scope of his authority in lawfully issuing the building permit in question. 34. The Zoning Board of Appeals further specifically finds, as a matter of law, that the Building Commissioner's interpretation of Article V, Section 5-2, Subsection (b), does lawfully permit the issuance of a building permit for a two-family dwelling, detached or attached, is otherwise not contrary to law, and that said permit was issued by the Commissioner honestly, after due deliberation, in good faith, pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance terms and conditions. Therefore, base on the fact and on evidence presented, the Board make a motion to uphold Building Commissioners' Thomas St. Pierre issuing of a building permit for the premises at 14-16 Pearl Street with a vote of 1 in favor and 4 to deny the petitioners appeal. ADMINISTRATIVE RULING DENIED October 20, 2004 l ard Moriarty, Mern Board of Appeal � cA CITY OF4z L,A CWi €Ri('S 1994. Nov - I. P 22 Sq A COPYOF 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 unit a copy of the decision bearing the Certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed an 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. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: `y Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-361 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions Provided by DEP HY Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. General Information Important: When filling From: out forms on Salem the computer, Conservation Commission use only the tab key to This.issuance if for(check one): move your cursor-do ® Order of Conditions not use the return key. ❑ Amended Order of Conditions VQ To: Applicant: Property Owner(if different from applicant): Cousins Realty Trust, Keith A. Nadeau & Robert Same R. Hamel Trustees Name Name 11 Green Lawn Avenue Mailing Address Mailing Address Salem MA 01970 City/Town State Zip Code Cityrrown State Zip Code _ 1. Project Location: Lot A-Pearl Street Salem Street Address City/rown Map 36 Lot 0087 Assessors Map/Plat Number Parcel/Lot Number 2. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for: Essex South 21260 316 County Book Page NA Certificate(if registered land) 3. Dates: December 23, 2003 February 12, 2004 February 12, 2004 Date Notice of Intent Filed Date Public Hearing Closed Date of Issuance 4. Final Approved Plans and Other Documents (attach additional plan references as needed): Site Development Permit Plan of Land Located in Salem, Mass. Prepared by Eastern Revised Feb. Land Survey Associates, Inc. See Special Condition Number 44 10 2004 5. Final Plans and Documents Signed and Stamped by: Christopher R. Mello, PLS, and Clayton A. Morin, Civil Name 6. Total Fee: $1575.00 (tram Appendix B:Wetland Fee Transmittal Form) WPA Fa 5 Page 7 of Rev.02000 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-361 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions Pro`kW by DEP Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Findings Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: Following the review of the above-referenced Notice of Intent and based on the information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing, this Commission finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act.Check all that apply: ❑ Public Water Supply ❑ Land Containing Shellfish ® Prevention of Pollution ❑ Private Water Supply ❑ Fisheries ❑ Protection of Wildlife Habitat ® Groundwater Supply ❑ Storm Damage Prevention ® Flood Control Furthermore,this Commission hereby finds the project,as proposed,is:(check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to: ® the following conditions which are necessary, in accordance with the performance standards set forth in the wetlands regulations, to protect those interests checked above.This Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above,the following General Conditions, and any other special conditions attached to this Order.To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent,these conditions shall control. Denied because: ❑ the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards set forth in the wetland regulations to protect those interests checked above.Therefore,work on this project may not go forward unless and until a new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to protect these interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site, the work, or the effect of the work on the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act. Therefore,work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Act's interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the specific information which is lacking and why it is necessary is attached to this Order as per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). General Conditions (only applicable to approved projects) 1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. 2. The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws,or regulations. WPA Fp 5 Page 2 oft Rev.02000 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-361 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions Provided by DEP Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Findings (cont.) 4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: a, the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act;or b. the time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years, but less than five years,from the date of issuance. If this Order is intended to be valid for more than three years, the extension date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth as a special condition in this Order. 5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. 6. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill.Any fill shall contain no trash, refuse, rubbish,or debris, including but not limited to lumber, bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper,cardboard, pipe,tires,ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles,or parts of any of the foregoing. 7. This Order is not final until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed,or if such an appeal has been taken, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. 8. No work shall be undertaken until the Order has become final and then has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located,within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of the registered land, the Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is done.The recording information shall be submitted to this Conservation Commission on the form at the end of this Order, which form must be stamped by the Registry of Deeds, prior to the commencement of work. 9. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less then two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection" (or,"MA DEP"j "File Number 64-361 10. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to issue a Superseding Order, the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before DEP. 11. Upon completion of the work described herein,the applicant shall submit a Request for Certificate of Compliance (WPA Form 8A)to the Conservation Commission. 12. The work shall conform to the plans and special conditions referenced in this order. 13. Any change to the plans identified in Condition#12 above shall require the applicant to inquire of the Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. 14. The Agent or members of the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection shall have the right to enter and inspect the area subject to this Order at reasonable hours to evaluate compliance with the conditions stated in this Order,and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Conservation Commission or Department for that evaluation. Pape J of I WPA Foam 5 Pe .mm Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-361 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions Provided by DEP ' Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Findings (cont.) 15. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control of the property subject to this Order,and to any contractor or other person performing work conditioned by this Order. 16. Prior to the start of work, and if the project involves work adjacent to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, the boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or flagging. Once in place,the wetland boundary markers shall be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Conservation Commission. 17. All sedimentation barriers shall be maintained in good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means.At no time shall sediments be deposited in a wetland or water body. During construction, the applicant or his/her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accumulated sediments as needed.The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur at the site and shall also immediately notify the Conservation Commission,which reserves the right to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention controls it may deem necessary. Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order. Special Conditions (use additional paper, if necessary): See Attached Special Conditions Findings as to municipal bylaw or ordinance Furthermore, the Salem hereby finds (check one that applies): Conservation Commission ❑ that the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the standards set forth in a municipal ordinance or bylaw specifically: Name Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to meet these standards, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. ❑ that the following additional conditions are necessary to comply with a municipal ordinance or bylaw, specifically: Name Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw The Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the said additional conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the following conditions modifv or differ from the plans. soecifications. or other or000sals submitted with the Notice of Intent. WPA Fpm 5 Pape 6 d 7 Rev.02M Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number. l = 4< Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions Pm�dedbyDEP Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Findings (cont.) Additional conditions relating to municipal ordinance or bylaw: This Order is valid for three years, unless otherwise specified as a special condition pursuant to General Conditions#4,from the date of issuance. cbo .a• t,z Zo Dti Date This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission.The Order must be mailed by certified mail (return receipt requested)or hand delivered to the applicant.A copy also must be mailed or hand delivered at the same time to the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office (see Appen ix A)and the properly wner(if different from applicant). Signature . On \&`M Of Feb Day Month and Year before me personally appeared (Voy. to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and ackn le ed that_he/sh execut d the same as his/her free act and deed. 0ch -S Notary Public My Commission This Order is issued to the applicant as follows: byhand delivery on [/PBA by certified mail, return receipt requested, on � 2^1 c o .�"`. Date Date Pape 5 of 7 WPA Form 5 Rev.O� Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number. Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-361 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions Provided by DEP Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 C. Appeals The applicant, the owner,any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate DEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Appendix E: Request of Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form,as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order.A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, (M.G.L.c. 131,§40)and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations (310 CMR 10.00). To the extent that the Order is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations,the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. D. Recording Information This Order of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land,the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order. In the case of registered land, this Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions. The recording information on Page 7 of Form 5 shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission listed below. Salem Conservation Commission �WPA Fa 5 Page 6 d7 RM.WOO Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: Uf Bureauof Resource Protection -Wetlands PrWPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions Provided by DEP Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 D. Recording Information (cont.) Detach on dotted line, have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to the Conservation Commission. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Salem Conservation Commission Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at: Lot A-Pearl Street 64-361 Project Location DEP File Number Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: County Book _ Page for: Property Owner and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: Book Page In accordance with the Order of Conditions issued on: Date If recorded land,the instrument number identifying this transaction is: Instrument Number If registered land,the document number identifying this transaction is: Document Number Signature of Applicant wPA Fans Pape)0r7 Salem Conservation Commission SPECIAL CONDITIONS—DEP FILE#64361 Pearl Street—Lot A, Salem,MA 1. The Conservation Agent will be notified 48 hours prior to commencement of construction activities(978-745- 9595 ext.311). Members and agents of the Salem Conservation Commission(Commission)shall have the right to enter and inspect the premises to evaluate and ensure compliance with the conditions and performance standards stated in this Order,the Notice of Intent,the referenced plans,the Act,and 310 CMR 10.00,and may require any information,measurements,photographs,observation and/or materials or may require the submittal of any data or information deemed necessary by the Commission,agent,or DEP determines that any of the work is not in compliance with this Order of Conditions. Work shall not resume until the Commission is satisfied that the work will comply,and has so notified the applicant in writing. 2. Approval of this application does not constitute compliance with any law or regulation other than MGL Chapter 131,Section 40,and Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00. 3. This Order shall apply to any successor in control or successor in interest of the property described in the Notice of Intent and accompanying plans. These obligations shall be expressed in covenants in all deeds to succeeding owners or portions of the property. 4. The form provided at the end of this Order shall be completed and stamped at the Registry of Deeds after the expiration of the 10-day appeal period and within 30 days of the issuance if no request for appeal has been filed with the Department of Environmental Protection. This form shall be returned to the Commission within 21 days of recording accordance and prior to commencement of any activities subject to the Order of Conditions. 5. Prior to any work commencing,a sign shall be displayed showing DEP file#64-361,and not placed on a living tree. 6. The term"Applicant'as used in this Order of Conditions shall refer to the owner,any successor in interest or successor in control of the property referenced in the Notice of Intent,supporting documents and this Order of Conditions. The Commission shall be notified in writing within 30 days of all transfers of title of any portion of the property that takes place prior to issuance of the Certificate of Compliance. 7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to procure all other applicable federal,state and local permits and approvals associated with this project. These permits may include but are not necessarily limited to the following: (1) Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act(P.L 92-500, 86 stat. 816),U.S.Army Corp of Engineers. (2) Water Quality Certification in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control under authority of sec. 27(5)of Chapter 21 of the Massachusetts General Laws as codified (3) Flood Plain (4) Grading Ordinance 8. If there are conflicting conditions within this Order,the stricter condition(s)shall rule. 9. All work shall he performed so as to ensure that there will be no sedimentation into wetlands and surface waters during construction or after completion of the project. 10. The Commission and its Administrator shall have the discretion to modify the erosion/siltation control methods and boundary during construction if necessary. 11. All work shall be performed in accordance with this Order of Conditions and approved site plans(s). No alteration of wetland resource areas or associated buffer zone,other than that approved in this Order,shall occur on this property without prior approval from the Commission. 12. If any changes are made in the above-described plan(s)which may or will alter an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act or any changes in activity subject to regulations under G.L.Ch. 131,Section 40,the applicant shall inquire from this Commission in writing,prior to their implementation in the field whether the change(s)is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. Any error in the plans or information submitted by the applicant shall be considered changes and the above procedures shall be followed. A copy of such request shall at the same time be sent to the Department of Environmental Protection. 13. In conjunction with the sale of this property or any portion thereof before a Certificate of Compliance has been issued,the applicant or current landowner shall submit to the Commission a signed statement by the buyer that he/she is aware of an outstanding Order of Conditions on the property and has received a copy of the Order of Conditions. 14. Conditions nurnber_as indicated shall continue in force beyond the Certificate of Compliance,in perpetuity, and shall be referred to in all future deeds to this property. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 15. Prior to commencement of any activity on this site,there shall be a PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING between the project supervision;the contractor responsible for the work or its administrator to and phone numbers of all responsible parties shall be registered with the Commission at the pre-construction meeting. 16. Prior to the pre-construction meeting and commencement of any activity on this site,sedimentation and erosion control barriers shall be installed as shown on the approval plan(s)and detail drawings. The Commssion and/or its Administrator shall inspect and approve such installation at the pre-construction meeting. 17. Prior to the commencement of any activity on this site,the applicant or current landowner shall submit to the Commission in writing a construction schedule/sequence of work to complete this project. 18. Prior to any work on site,the proposed limits of work shall be clearly marked with stakes or flags and shall be confirmed by the Commission or its Administrator. Such markers shall be checked and replaced as necessary and shall be maintained until all construction is complete. Workers shall be informed that no use of machinery, storage of machinery or materials,stockpiling of soil or construction activity is to occur beyond this line at anytime. 19. Prior to commencement of construction on site,the limits of wetland resource areas closest to construction activity shall be flagged with surveyor's tape and shall remain in place during construction. The limits of areas to be impacted and the limits of work in the replication area(s)shall be clearly flagged. 20. There shall be 25 hay bales and wooden staked stored under cover on the site to be used only for emergency erosion control. EROSION CONTROL 21. Appropriate erosion control devices shall be in place prior to the beginning of any phases of construction,and shall be maintained during construction in the wetland areas and buffer zones. The erosion control specification provided in the Notice of Intent and the erosion control provision in the Order will be the minimum standards for this project;additional measures may be required by the Commission. 22. All debris,fill and excavated material shall be stockpiled a location far enough away from the wetland resource areas to prevent sediment from entering wetland resource areas. 23. Erosion and sedimentation control devices shall be inspected after each storm event and repaired.or replaced as necessary. Any accumulated silt adjacent to the barriers shall be removed. 24. The areas of construction shall remain in a stable condition at the close of each construction day. 25. Any de-watering of trenches or other excavations required during construction shall be conducted so as to prevent siltation of wetland resource areas. All discharges from de-watering activities shall be filtered through haybale sediment traps,silt filter bags or other means approved by the Commission or its Administrator. 26. Within thirty days of completion of construction on any given portion of the covproject,aldisvegetative ear a the completed portion of the site shall be permanently stabilized with rapidly growing ,using sufficient top soil to assure long-term stabilization of disturbed areas. 27. If soils are to be disturbed for longer than two months,a temporary cover of rye or other grass should be established to prevent erosion and sedimentation. If the season is not appropriate ancholred go revert soils exposed surfaces shall be stabilized by other appropriate erosion control measures,firmly P from being washed by rain or flooding. DURING CONSTRUCTION 28. A copy of the Order of Conditions,construction plans,and copies of the documoennts and re4poo srk for cite in wand Condition#11,shall be on the site upon commencement and during any site adhere to. , 29. Erosion and sedimentation control devices shall be inspected after each storm event and repaired or replaced as necessary. Any accumulated silt adjacent to the barriers shall be removed. 30. Only clean fill,free of masonry,stumps,asphalt,and any other kind of waste material shall be used on the site. 31. All waste products,grubbed stumps,slash,construction materials,etc.shall be deposited at least 100 feet from wetland resource areas and 200 feet from rivers. 32. All filling or removal of waste material from the site shall be done in accordance with the regulations of the City of Salem Health Department. 33. Cement trucks shall not be washed out in any wetland resource or buffer zone area. Any deposit of cement or concrete products into a buffer zone or wetland resource area shall be removed by hand. 34. No fuel,oil,or other pollutants shall be stored in any resource area or the buffer zone thereto,unless specified in this Order of Conditions. 35. There shall be no pumping of water from wetland resource areas. 36. During construction,all drainage structures shall be inspected regularly and cleaned as necessary. 37. The project shall not cause an increase in run-off onto adjacent properties,either during construction or when completed. 38. The applicant is hereby notified that failure to comply with all requirements herein may result in the issuance of Commis including,but not limited to,civil administrative enforcement actions by the Conservation Comm penalties under M.G.L.Chapter 21A,section 16. POST CONSTRUCTION 39. All disturbed areas,slopes and proposed landscape areas shall be loamed and seeded or stabilized through the use of erosion control blankets or other approved means. All disturbed areas will be graded, seeded prior to November 1 of each year,if possible. Neo disturbed areas or stockpiled material will be left unprotected or without erosion controls during 40. Upon completion of construction,the applicant or current landowner shall submit the following to the Commission to request a Certificate of Compliance: (1) A letter requesting a Certificate including the following information: a. Name and address of current landowner; b. Name and address of the individual/trust or other entity to whom the Certificate is to be issued: c. Street address and lot number for the project;and d. DEP file number (2) A letter from a Registered Professional Engineering or Land Surveyor certifying compliance of the property with this Order of Conditions (3) An"As-Built'plan signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer showing post-construction conditions and: a. As-built elevations of all drainage ways constructed within 100 feet of any wetland resource area; b. As-built elevations and grades of all filled or altered wetland resource areas,buffer zones and replicated areas;and c. Distances to all structures within 100 feet of any wetland resource area. 41. When issued,the Certificate of Compliance must be recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds. 42. If the completed work differs from that in the original plans and conditions,the report must specify how the work differs;at which time the applicant shall fust request a modification to the Order. Only upon review and approval by the Commission,may the applicant request in writing a Certificate of Compliance as described above. 43. Erosion control devices shall remain in place and properly functioning until all exposed soils have been stabilized with final vegetative cover and the Commission and/or its Administrator has authorized their removal. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 44. The four space guest parking lot area as shown on the plan entitled"Site Development Permit Plan of Land Located in Salem,Mass."Prepared by Eastern Land Survey Associates,Inc.,Christopher R.Mello,PLS, Revised Feb. 10,2004 shall be replaced with crusted stone.The stone parking area shall be approximately 36 feet long x 17 feet wide and have a depth of 12 inches in size. X ( GENERAL IV0TES DETAIL L EROSION CONTROL SILT FENCE 1) THIS PLAN IS THE RESULT OF AN ON THE GROUND FIELD O 2"x2"x4'-6" WOODEN POSTS SURVEY AND PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PLANS. AT 8' O.C. (MAX) UTILITIE SHOWN ARE BASED UPON FIELD SURVEY AND PAUL LAMpSON MCONTROL FABR SEDIMENT 2) RECORDS PLANS AND ARE NOT NECESSARILY INDICA VE OF HAY BALES UNDERGROUND CONDITIONS FLOW DIRECTION -_ EXISTING GROUND 3) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING AND 32.$0' 20 kj \k D"` DETERMINING THE LOCATION, SIZE AND ELEVATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, 16 PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED 4 IN, WRITING OF ANY UTILITIES FOUND INTERFERING WITH THE "' N/F / LOT A Ph OPCSED CONSTRUCTION AND APPROPRIATE REMEDIAL ACTION gLAIS o J BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. DONALD CID / 16,570± SF. II I = II I / _ UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE I r I l 2 = III. = I II 4) T`VS PLAN IS BASED ON THE REFERENCED PLANS, DEEDS APD THE RESUL TS OF A FIELD SURVEY AS OF THIS DA TE. J NO CERTIFICATION /S INTENDED AS TO PROPERTY TITLE X3.24 ' ' ' / j O,R AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF UNWRITTEN OR UNRECORDED EASEMF_N Tc� a L GgTION OF POSSIBLE TION — OORDINATE R —' GONTRAGT RTO DETERS�E TN OF SALEM. �TE,.R. M IN CROSSING 79E CITY OF SARY WITH f - \ N pROPOsED I6 ROOF O ROOF RECHARGE ,AREA Jp�uELL I NG � I RECHARGE'A' AREA A 0 i�j] m FFF - ` � oo - D E_ONER PIMP IT P DETAIL: No Scale eF E G E N D v PROP. MATER PA KAG GRINDER _J-51 RIVERFRONT PLAN - BOUNDARY 0 SPH EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE PROPOSED I _ R _cFiARGE MIN. 1 INSPECTION PORT O Uh`H EXISTING DRAIN MANHOLE DWELLING ' AGFA ,B, TO FINISH GRADE � EXISTING CATCH BASIN DWELL 17I r e EXISTING HYDRANT 6 1 FFF 'a _ O EXISTING WATER GATE - - p DRIVEWAY _ 100 — EXISTING CONTOUR y I PRO OS — CF m 4 R 4" PVC TO DOWNSPOUTS 1D0.00 EXISTING SPOT GRADE pJATER SE (TYPICAL) UTILITY POLE x o i 28' V _ 1 RETAINING WALL rn � 1 T-� �xSTONE WALL ALL UTILITY SERVICE INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN / . ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE G) n -� rn UTILITY AGENCY HAVING AUTHORITY. —" CURE r O I _ - FENCE 1 r �L I _ 4 STORMTECH SC-310 CHAMBERS I __ � = IN AN 8' BY 16' STONE LINED 142 `�` ' -- .74'— — n EXCAVATION ` cA.vAnnN PROPOSED CONTOUR ,> FAr " Z �C SECTION L OUT, SD SILT o4l� PROPOSED SPOT GRADE IROPO r-t ¢ W GEOTEXTILE FABRIC o , -rs I - IO LINED EXCAVATION 1 -- — — -- - - UST II 4" LOAM AND SEED (MIN.) REALTY TR RIVER-SIDE iii MIN\ s• INLET STORMTECH SC-310 CHAMBERS� r ASSES70:4S MAP 36 PORTION OF PARCEL 87 00 16" F-77 I 100 FT. BUFFER ZONE BOUNDARY \ s" DEED REFERENCE.• BOOK 21260 PAGE 316 _+Ak o o I 2' Min. 1 1/2" TO 3" WASHED STONE PLAN REFERENCE: PLAN BOOK 368 PLAN 34 LOT B \ EST S.H.W.T. _ x 2 OWNER OF RECORD COUSINS REALTY TRUST - EST. S.H.W.T. AT T-3 = 4.5 BOTTOM STONE R.A. 'A' = 10.0 BOTTOM STN . R.A. 'B'= 8.5 y � K9 4X 2 I I SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PLAN OF LAND OCA TED IN —----- �a -- M . B . T. A --- - - -- - SALEM , MASS . PREPARED BY MEAN HIGH WATER LOCUS MAP --- -- _ _ EASTERN LAND SURVEY ASSOCIATES, INC. - - - - -- -- CHRISTOPHER R. MELL 0, PLS N O R T H R I V E R 104 LOWELL ST. PEABODY, MA 01960 ( TIDAL ) NBFkT 2 SE80s e a� ` � �` °fin (978) 531 -8121 ' II — /�-- ..+_a.�u.-.-.-o.-+-+-r•_ ..ER- ,'g 1:.,.s �,rJo 3R.Lo 4� "y+i' `O"COLNrt3`ACHRISTOFHER ® SCALE: 1 20 DECEMBER 1 , 2003 _L FLOOD 131 EV. FEB. I07 2004 EBB 'I I A I a , Y% \ ID 10 20 40 60 80 r I m F 1 0321 -- -- July 13, 2004 Town Clerk City of Salem 120 Washington Street M% JUL 15 A 0 58 Salem, MA 01970 Dear Sir/Madam: This letter constitutes a notice of appeal of the decision by Salem's Building inspector,Thomas St. Pierre,to deny our request to revoke the permit issued for new construction at 14-16 Pearl Street, Salem MA on March 16,2004. In early June, we, a number of residents/owners in the immediate vicinity of 14-16 Pearl Street, wrote to Mr. St. Pierre asking that the permit for this lot be revoked due to violation of the building codes for R-2 zoned properties. Mr. St. Pierre chose to deny our request and replied to this effect in a letter dated June 16, 2004 and delivered on June 17, 2004. Copies of our request for permit revocation and Mr. St. Pierre's response are attached for your reference. It is our opinion as abutters and neighbors that the proposed plans' still do not meet the definition of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for a two-family dwelling, and are in violation of these regulations. In accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40a, Sections 7 through 15,we are hereby petitioning Mr. St. Pierre's recent decision, and are requesting that the City of Salem MA Board of Appeals hold a hearing and vote whether the pemvt for 14-16 Pearl Street is truly in accordance or, as we believe, in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Regulations. For further clarification,the table below details the basis of our opinion. Zoning Ordinance Pearl Street Development Definition,p.4—Building, attached: The proposed"portions"are not separated by a "division wall"per definition, but by an open A building having one (1)portion completely space with a covered deck" (Definition implies separated from another portion by a division traditional party wall) wall without openings. " Definition,p.4—Building, detached: Proposed are two principal dwellings connected by a covered porch. This is at A building, usually an accessory building, variance with the provision of"no direct having no direct attachment to the principal attachment"and the usual principal/accessory building or. the lot. " relationshi . Definition,p.5 —Dwelling, 2-family: Proposed does not meet definitions of "detached"or"attached"buildings(se above.) A building — " Proposed plan is 2 separate buildings connected'b covered deck Permitted uses in R-2 District,p.11: Proposed does not meet definition of"building, attached" (see above). "Two family dwellings, detached or attached" Proposed does not meet definition of"building, detached"(see above). Proposed is 2 dwellings connected by a covered deck. Table 1, p. 24: Minimum distance between Proposed plan is two buildings on lot 12 feet buildin s on lot =30 eel apart. Site Development Permit Plan of Land Located in Salem,MA(14-16 Pearl St),dated December 1,2003, revised February 10,:2004.Permit issued by the City of Salem Building Department on March 16, 2004. We are concerned that allowing the construction of two single-family homes on a lot actually zoned for one two-family home will set a precedent for the City of Salem that can only lead to over congestion and poor neighborhood planning. We are concerned that in the future, the owners of these two homes will have the ability to receive permission to expand each dwelling into a true two-family home resulting in four dwellings rather than two. We feel that it is in everyone's best interest to enforce this zoning violation now,before the construction is allowed to proceed further and irreversible changes to the property are made. In closing, we believe the proposed development is not consistent with the intent or purpose of the Salem Zoning Ordinance including, specifically: ■ To lessen congestion in the streets, to preserve health; ■ To prevent overcrowding of land; • To encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the city; and • To prevent ... community blight. Respectfully submitted, Andy Goldman Tess Dimatteo I 1 Pearl Street Alyssa Jones 978-590-3094 20 Northey Street, Unit 1 978-740-2887 Paul Ward Gloria Ward Douglas Jones 12 Pearl Street(abutter) Diane Jones 978-744-4094 2 Arbella Street 978-741-7850 Brian Goodwin Gail Goodwin Mary Todd Glaser 7 Pearl Street Andrew Glaser 978-7414022 114 Bridge Street 978-745-8049 Kevin Little Rachel Little Debra Krchheimer 7 Cross Street Court(abutter) Mary DeLai 978-745-7546 14 Lemon Street 978-744-7274 Lance Kasparian 1 Arbella Street Thomas Kulak 978-745-6461 Dianne Kulak 8 Pearl Street Bob Chilton 978-741-2517 Carol Chilton 13 Saunders Street,Unit 1 Cc: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Thomas St. Pierre, Salem Building Inspector Michael Sosnowski, Salem City Councilor, Ward 2 The Honorable Stanley Usovicz, Mayor, City of Salem Athan Vontzalides, Attorney at Law Additional Support of this request: Paul Ward Gloria Ward Douglas Jones 12 Pearl Street(abutter) Diane Jones 978-7444094 2 Arbella Street 978-741-7850 Kevin Little Rachel Little Mary Todd Glaser 7 Cross Street Court(abutter) Andrew Glaser 978-745-7546 114 Bridge Street 978-745-8049 Lance Kasparian 1 Arbella Street Debra Kirchheimer 978-745-6461 Mary DeLai 14 Lemon Street Bob Chilton 978-744-7274 Carol Chilton 13 Saunders Street, Unit 1 Thomas Kulak Dianne Kulak Tess Dimatteo 8 Pearl Street Alyssa Jones 978-741-2517 20 Northey Street,Unit 1 978-740-2887 cc: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Salem Zoning Board of Appeals James Gilbert, Salem City Solicitor Michael Sosnowski, Salem City Councilor, Ward 2 The Honorable Stanley Usovicz, Mayor, City of Salem Denise McClure, Deputy Director Dept. of Planning&Development June 10, 2004 Thomas St. Pierre Building Inspector City of Salem 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. St. Pierre: Salem City Solicitor,James Gilbert,recently informed me that our appeal of the building permit issued for 14-16 Pearl Street will not be heard by Salem's Zoning Board of Appeals. We still feel that the permit issued is allowing for the construction of two single-family homes on a single lot zoned for one two-family home, a clear violation of Salem's Zoning Ordinance. Therefore,in accordance with Chapter 40a Section 7 of the General Laws of Massachusetts, we are asking that you, as the City's Zoning Enforcement Officer, enforce this"zoning violation", which is occurring as a result of the recently initiated construction process at 14-16 Pearl Street. We feel that it is in everyone's best interest to enforce this zoning violation now, before the construction is allowed to proceed further and irreversible changes to the property are made. As a source of reference,I suggest you check the Salem records for an incident that occurred in the late 1980s-early 1990s with another developer,John Suldenski (sic). A local attorney I spoke with, who handles property matters in Salem,remembers that Mr. Suldenski built two single family homes connected by a breezeway on an R2 lot and ultimately the City and the courts ordered the homes to come down. He did not recall the exact street or date, but did feel the Pearl Street development is very similar to that case. In addition,on the following page,I have included our previous correspondence with you that presents our reasons for determining that the building permit is in violation of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. As Chapter 40a Section 7 states, we understand you have 14 days after receipt of this request to enforce this zoning violation, or to notify us of your refusal to do so. We appreciate your consideration on the matter, and we look forward to your response: Andrew Goldman 11 Pearl Street Salem, MA 01970 978-590-3094 CITY OF SALEMp MASSACHUSETTS a y PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 380 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 June 16, 2004 Andrew Goldman 11 Pearl Street Salem, Ma. 01970 RE Building Permit for 14-16 Pearl Street Dear Mr. Goldman: I am in receipt of your request for Zoning Enforcement under Chapter 40A, Section 7 of the Massachusetts General Laws. Prior to issuing the building permit, I had conversations with the City Solicitor at that time, John Keenan. Based on those conversations, I issued the building permit for 14-16 Pearl Street. Regarding your reference to the Suldenski case on 37 Walter Street, the facts are not the same. Mr. Suldenski had an existing non-conforming 2 family and proposed an addition to the structure. He then proceeded to build a separate building, deviating from the plans submitted to this Department. He created a second principal structure on an already non-conforming lot. This would have created a third unit. Mr. Suldenski's proposed fix was to connect the two buildings with a lot. In summary, I feel that no zoning violation currently exists at 14-16 Pearl Street. Sincerely, Thomas St. Pierre Zoning Enforcement Officer cc: Nina Cohen, Chairman-Z.B.A. Mayor Stanley Usovicz James Gilben- City Solicitor Denise McClure �aT STREET OPENING PERMIT QCit p of �bafem, Alam5acbu6ett5 Mepartment of Public *erbtce5 120 Va5l)ingtou 6treet, 4tb Floor 978-745-9595 (Ext. 321 Date of Issuance: 6/24/04 P�2111/t # 450 Permission is hereby granted to: Peterson Enterprise 53 210 Broadway Lynn MA 01904 PH 781.598.8895 FAX 781.598.1804 i To break up the surface of the: STREET- Yes SIDEWALK., Yes AT: 14 Pearl St (easement between Pearl & Saunders Sts. Ward: 2 Utilities: water For the reason of: Install new 6" water main between Pearl and Saunders Streets. Work in accordance with Griffin Eng. Group, LLC plan dated 6/15/04. Additionally install two new 6" valves, one on each street of the existing mains to facilitate the new work and disinfection. You are subject to the provisions of the ordinances of the City of Salem, Chapter 26,Article IV and City of Salem Department of Public Services manual. CONDITIONS 1. Permit expires 6 months from date of issue. 2. Street surfaces shall be restored using infra-red heater method 3. Sidewalk areas shall be restored immediately as follows: a.) concrete-cement in complete blocks b.) bituminous-concrete shall be saw cut along edges of excavation c.) brick shall be restored to its original condition 4. Call DPW Garage @ 978 744 3302 to inspect prior to backfill (48 hrs. prior) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR CONDITIONS: Trench backfill, compaction and roadway pavement patch to be as outlined in DTE documentation and approved by Bill Merrill, Asst. Dir. of Public Services tel. No. 978.744.3302. Work date to be approved by Bill Merrill. NO WORK BEFORE 6/28/04. 4 Q CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 4 9 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 8 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 380 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 August 2, 2004 Mr. Andy Goldman copy I 1 Pearl Street Salem, Ma. 01970 RE: Appeal letter for 14-16 Pearl Street Dear Mr. Goldman: Your notice of appeal was received by this office on July 15. The notice of appeal is timely but it will be necessary for Board of Appeal application to be filled out and the associated fees paid to mark this appeal for a hearing date. I have enclosed the proper forms for your convience. If you have any further questions, please contact me directly. Sincer y. Thomas St. Pierre f Zoning Enforcement Officer cc: Kate Sullivan, Mayors Office Jim Gilbert, City Solicitor Beth Rennard, Asst. City Solicitor Attorney William Quinn WSW! AN 28x40 COLEY 7RE AVD SPFC. NUMBER: io�wm w.°since -fes �, LLULJI k ` tel 1 03=202 LH 'T' BUILDER: BOB ® ® ® _ HAMEL ❑❑ ® ® PLANS PREPARED FOR o, SPEC 00 --- LEFT END ELEVATION LEvnrioNs — FRONT ELEVATION — — NOTE: ANY DExARONS FRON W FLAN TO K ORDER CONTRACT ARE THE NLL RESPONSMUTY Of fhE BULDER, DATE: 7LY03 ® ® DRANK BY: — MM CHECXED BY: Awn® s wmAw u-ss n onto ® 6 RENSIDNS DATES LLU7/25 o�stet RIGHT END ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION SCALE: SHEET NO. HOBBS ENDEAVOUR CORPORATION JOB 34 Rockland Street SHEET NO. / OF Swampscott,Massachusetts 01907 CALCULATED BY DATE z 781.581.2454 978.744.4646 / CHECKED BY DATE c S n= e — __- SCALE 5 ] /6 P2crrJ jf. / Ja /em, /'7g fo 'f . ._ CL /-cq fiP f 27 = 4- ' _ C✓C.9/ 7T , a , ham. 3 e/eaY� e.ce, 9 S SS 0-:011i , . .i ..._ r N g"-O Gan C: gf- bw fcL] y;.ahi�-f 1/.iP3 „'•"S�" � FFiAM(OL �n a .. '�... gfla r++�9"7Y rC9 CL. dC/'✓r f- t�k.F _ Y 4J'✓i �Fo�263 . ` /- ' /.��'e. .��'oH/�'...!•o."9Scn ,/vif9ce f> f /9;`✓ t "�- . .. : CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT o' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVIOZ, JR. TELEPHONE:, 978-745-9595 EXT. 380 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 February 25, 2004 Andy Goldman 1 i Pearl Street Salem, Ma. 01970 RE: 14 Pearl Street Dear Mr. Goldman: In response to your inquiry regarding the lot at 14 Pearl Street, it is my intention to allow a building permit to be issued based on the plot plan submitted at the recent Conservation Commission meeting. The developer has agreed to move the building closer together and to add a covered porch roof. If further information is required please contact me directly. Sincerely, Thomas St. Pierre Acting Building Commissioner cc: John Keenan. City Solicitor Steve Lovely, Attorney for Developer o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS < ?� PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 9' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR G�I1N6 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 380 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 April 5, 2004 Paul Ward Andrew Goldman 12 Pearl Street 11 Pearl Street Apt. B Salem, Ma. 01970 Salem, Ma. 01970 RE: 14-16 Pearl Street Gentleman: I have received your letter dated March 30, 2004. In response, I am copying you the Stop Work Order that I issued to the contractor for the job at 14-16 Pearl Street. My Stop Work Order brings to a stop, all work on the site. However, please understand that the building department oversees construction of foundations, buildings and retaining walls that hold back more than six feet of material. We do not have anything to do with water service or water supplies. These issues are the jurisdiction of the City Engineer. Also, any change in contour or elevation of more than 2 feet requires a drainage alteration permit from the City Engineer. All questions regarding these matters will be addressed through the City Engineer's Office. The retaining wall refers to the wall adjacent to the side of the house at 12 Peal Street only. As outlined in my Stop Work Order, I have required that plans be submitted to my office for the retaining wall. I have also required the contractor to submit drawings to the Engineering Department for the other issues on the property. In regards to the retaining wall that was constructed on March 22, I agree that it was not finished until the 23`d I was present with the Representative of the Hobbs Endeavor Company the evening of the 22n1 when he stopped work for the evening. The representative was satisfied that the work completed to that point was adequate for that evening. He also clearly directed the completion of the wall the next morning. The Representative had prepared the letter on the 22"d anticipating being able to approve the wall as constructed. He with held the letter until the morning of the 23`d after he reviewed the finished wall. Please note that the retaining wall along 12 Pearl Street is temporary and will no longer be needed once the foundation for the 14-16 structures is complete. This new foundation is being designed to retain the soil between it and 12 Pearl Street and will be submitted to our office in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts State Building Code CMR etc. This Department anticipates receiving plans for this retaining wall next week. The contractor has also informed me that Engineering will be receiving their plans on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. The Planning Department is still going to set up a meeting with the neighbors before work commences again. I hope this answers some of your questions. Sincerely, "' ",�", v Thomas St. Pierre Acting Building Commissioner cc: Mayor Stanley Usocivz Bruce Thibodeau, City Engineer James Gilbert, City Solicitor Kevin Comarchio, Chairman, Salem Conservation Mike Sosnowski, Ward 2 Jeff Sweeney, Esq. Cousins Realty Trust I CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 1 � 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 1 STANLEY J. UBOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-747-9595 EXT. 380 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 I March 23, 2004 Cop�I Cousins Realty Trust 27 Intervale Road Salem, MA. 01970 RE: 14-16 Pearl Street Dear Mr. Hamel: j Please be advised, no further work is to proceed on 14-16 Pearl Street until the following conditions are met: 1. A retaining wall must be designed to hold back the abutters property. Plans for " the wall need to be submitted and approved and a building permit issued from this office "State Building Code 780 CMR, Section 1825.1" and "Section 1825.2'. 2. Final plans and approvals for utilities and site work to be submitted and approved by the City of Salem Engineering Department. If you have any questions regarding the wall, please contact me directly. If you have any questions regarding the site or utility work, please contact the Engineering Department Sincerely, Thomas St. Pierre Acting Building Commissioner cc: Mayors Office Kate Sullivan Councillor Sosnowski Denise McClure, Planning Joe Nerden, Assistant City Engineer i CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS �A _A. PUBLIC,PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ' g SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 380 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 June 16, 2004 COPY Andrew Goldman 1I Pearl Street Salem, Ma. 01970 RE Building Permit for 14-16 Pearl Street Dear Mr. Goldman: I am in receipt of your request for Zoning Enforcement under Chapter 40A, Section 7 of the Massachusetts General Laws. Prior to issuing the building permit, I had conversations with the City Solicitor at that time, John Keenan. Based on those conversations, I issued the building permit for 14-16 Pearl Street. Regarding your reference to the Suldenski case on 37 Walter Street, the facts are not the same. Mr. Suldenski had an existing non-conforming 2 family and proposed an addition to the structure. He then proceeded to build a separate building, deviating from the plans submitted to this Department. He created a second principal structure on an already non-conforming lot. This would have created a third unit. Mr. Suldenski's proposed fix was to connect the two buildings with a lot. In summary, I feel that no zoning violation currently exists at 14-16 Pearl Street. Sincerely, Thomas St. Pierre Zoning Enforcement Officer cc: Nina Cohen, Chairman- Z.B.A. Mayor Stanley Usovicz James Gilbert- City Solicitor Denise McClure HOBBS ENDEAVOUR CORPORATION Consultants in the Engineering Sciences 34 Rockland Street,Swampscott,MA 01907 T /e Cp/�l/// 781.581.2454 22 March 2004 Cousin's Realty Trust `Go I4/16 Pearl St.Construction Site. Salem, MA 01970 `- Re: Retaining Wall at nos.14/16 Pearl St. Constructions Site Attn: Keith Nadeau, Principal Gentlemen: At your request,today, we examined the excavation you made for your project and which is adjacent to the home near door, believed to be no. 12 Pearl St. As we informed you,we considered that your excavation could compromise the structural foundation support for the adjacent home. We gave you structural directives to build a retaining wall, which is a combination gravity and rip-rap structure. This wall will retain the soil firmly in- place under the adjacent structure and protect it from damage. We inspected the exposed brick of the adjacent home's foundation and saw no sign of any settlement or damage so far. This letter certifies that the directives we gave you have been followed and the temporary support structure is satisfactorily installed. You must deal with your construction objectives subsequent and in consideration of today's action. If you have any questions or require clarification,please contact us. Very truly, HOBBS ENDEAVOUR CORPORATION �Rr�y,HCFc� U �i U bFr'AiCJ `-i > Frank D. DeFalco, P.E., P.L.S., Ph.D. Principal l v'f 0 4 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS < Q PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT i 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ���PIIN6 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 380 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 April 5, 2004 c®PY Paul Ward Andrew Goldman 12 Pearl Street 1 I Pearl Street Apt. B Salem, Ma. 01970 Salem, Ma. 01970 RE: 14-16 Pearl Street Gentleman: I have received your letter dated March 30, 2004. In response, I am copying you the Stop Work Order that I issued to the contractor for the job at 14-16 Pearl Street. My Stop Work Order brings to a stop, all work on the site. However, please understand that the building department oversees construction of foundations, buildings and retaining walls that hold back more than six feet of material. We do not have anything to do with water service or water supplies. These issues are the jurisdiction of the City Engineer. Also, any change in contour or elevation of more than 2 feet requires a drainage alteration permit from the City Engineer. All questions regarding these matters will be addressed through the City Engineer's Office. The retaining wall refers to the wall adjacent to the side of the house at 12 Peal Street only. As outlined in my Stop Work Order, I have required that plans be submitted to my office for the retaining wall. I have also required the contractor to submit drawings to the Engineering Department for the other issues on the property. In regards to the retaining wall that was constructed on March 22, I agree that it was not finished until the 23`d I was present with the Representative of the Hobbs Endeavor Company the evening of the 22nd when he stopped work for the evening. The representative was satisfied that the work completed to that point was adequate for that evening. He also clearly directed the completion of the wall the next morning. The Representative had prepared the letter on the 22nd anticipating being able to approve the wall as constructed. He with held the letter until the morning of the 23`d after he reviewed the finished wall. Please note that the retaining wall along 12 Pearl Street is temporary and will no longer be needed once the foundation for the 14-16 structures is complete. This new foundation is being designed to retain the soil between it and 12 Pearl Street and will be submitted to our office in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts State Building Code CMR etc. This Department anticipates receiving plans for this retaining wall next week. The contractor has also informed me that Engineering will be receiving their plans on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. The Planning Department is still going to set up a meeting with the neighbors before work commences again. I hope this answers some of your questions. Sincerely, Thomas St. Pierre Acting Building Commissioner cc: Mayor Stanley Usocivz Bruce Thibodeau, City Engineer James Gilbert, City Solicitor Kevin Comarchio, Chairman, Salem Conservation Mike Sosnowski, Ward 2 Jeff Sweeney, Esq. Cousins Realty Trust I CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS w w PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT i 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR _ SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 380 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 March 23, 2004 i Cousins Realty Trust 27 Intervale Road Salem, MA. 01970 I RE: 14-16 Pearl Street Dear Mr. Hamel: Please be advised, no further work is to proceed on 14-16 Pearl Street until the following conditions are met: 1. A retaining wall must be designed to hold back the abutters property. Plans for the wall need to be submitted and approved and a building permit issued from this office "State Building Code 780 CMR, Section 1825.1" and "Section 1825.2". 2. Final plans and approvals for utilities and site work to be submitted and approved by the City of Salem Engineering Department. If you have any questions regarding the wall, please contact me directly. If you have any questions regarding the site or utility work, please contact the Engineering Department Sincerely, Thomas St. Pierre Acting Building Commissioner cc: Mayors Office Kate Sullivan Councillor Sosnowski Denise McClure, Planning Joe Nerden, Assistant City Engineer s CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 _ STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 380 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 March 23, 2004 Cousins Realty Trust 27 Intervale Road Salem, MA. 01970 RE: 14-16 Pearl Street Dear Mr. Hamel: Please be advised, no further work is to proceed on 14-16 Pearl Street until the following conditions are met: 1. A retaining wall must be designed to hold back the abutters property. Plans for the wall need to be submitted and approved and a building permit issued from this office "State Building Code 780 CMR, Section 1825.1" and "Section 1825.2". 2. Final plans and approvals for utilities and site work to be submitted and approved by the City of Salem Engineering Department. If you have any questions regarding the wall, please contact me directly. If you have any questions regarding the site or utility work, please contact the Engineering Department Sincerely, Thomas St. Pierre Acting Building Commissioner cc: Mayors Office Kate Sullivan Councillor Sosnowski Denise McClure, Planning Joe Nerden, Assistant City Engineer June 10, 2004 �"fpb ti Thomas St. Pierre %=r Building Inspector i City of Salem 120 Washington yj z Salem, MA 0197preet t' r {fff/ Dear Mr. St. Pierre: o Salem City Solicitor, James Gilbert, recently informed me that our appeal of the building permit issued for 14-16 Pearl Street will not be heard by Salem's Zoning Board of Appeals. We still feel that the permit issued is allowing for the construction of two single-family homes on a single lot zoned for one two-family home, a clear violation of Salem's Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, in accordance with Chapter 40a Section 7 of the General Laws of Massachusetts, we are asking that you, as the City's Zoning Enforcement Officer, enforce this "zoning violation", which is occurring as a result of the recently initiated construction process at 14-16 Pearl Street. We feel that it is in everyone's best interest to enforce this zoning violation now,before the construction is allowed to proceed further and irreversible changes to the property are made. As a source of reference, I suggest you check the Salem records for an incident that occurred in the late 1980s-early 1990s with another developer, John Suldenski (sic). A local attorney I spoke with, who handles property matters in Salem, remembers that Mr. Suldenski built two single family homes connected by a breezeway on an R2 lot and ultimately the City and the courts ordered the homes to come down. He did not recall the exact street or date,but did feel the Pearl Street development is very similar to that case. In addition, on the following page, I have included our previous correspondence with you that presents our reasons for determining that the building permit is in violation of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. As Chapter 40a Section 7 states, we understand you have 14 days after receipt of this request to enforce this zoning violation, or to notify us of your refusal to do so. We appreciate your consideration on tbje matter, and we look forward to your response. j,", Z I Andrew Goldman 11 Pearl Street Salem,MA 01970 978-590-3094 y Additional Support of this request: Paul Ward Gloria Ward Douglas Jones 12 Pearl Street(abutter) Diane Jones 978-744-4094 2 Arbella Street 978-741-7850 Kevin Little Rachel Little Mary Todd Glaser 7 Cross Street Court(abutter) Andrew Glaser 978-745-7546 114 Bridge Street 978-745-8049 Lance Kasparian 1 Arbella Street Debra Kirchheimer 978-745-6461 Mary DeLai 14 Lemon Street Bob Chilton 978-744-7274 Carol Chilton 13 Saunders Street, Unit 1 Thomas Kulak Dianne Kulak Tess Dimatteo 8 Pearl Street Alyssa Jones 978-741-2517 20 Northey Street, Unit 1 978-740-2887 cc: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Salem Zoning Board of Appeals James Gilbert, Salem City Solicitor Michael Sosnowski, Salem City Councilor,Ward 2 The Honorable Stanley Usovicz,Mayor, City of Salem Denise McClure, Deputy Director Dept. of Planning&Development The table below details the bases of our opinion. Zoning Ordinance Pearl Street Development Definition, p.4—Building, attached: The proposed"portions"are not separated by a "division wall"per definition,but by an open "A building having one (1)portion completely space with a covered deck" (Definition implies separated from another portion by a division traditional party wall) wall without openings." Definition, p.4—Building, detached: Proposed are two principal dwellings connected by a covered porch. This is at "A building, usually an accessory building, variance with the provision of"no direct having no direct attachment to the principal attachment"and the usual principal/accessory building on the lot." relationship. Definition,p.5 —Dwelling, 2-family: Proposed does not meet definitions of "detached"or"attached"buildings (se above.) "A building ..." Proposed plan is 2 separate buildings connected by covered deck Permitted uses in R-2 District,p.11: Proposed does not meet definition of"building, attached" (see above). Two-family dwellings, detached or attached." Proposed does not meet definition of"building, detached" (see above). Proposed is 2 dwellings connected by a covered deck. Table 1,p. 24: Minimum distance between Proposed plan is two buildings on lot 12 feet buildings on lot= 30feet apart. In closing, we believe the proposed development is not consistent with the intent or purpose of the Salem Zoning Ordinance including, specifically: • To lessen congestion in the streets, to preserve health; • To prevent overcrowding of land; • To encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the city; and • To prevent ... community blight. HOBBS ENDEAVOUR CORPORATION Consultants in the Engineering Sciences 34 Rockland Street,Swampscott,MA 01907 781.581.2454 22 March 2004 Cousin's Realty Trust C/o 14/16 Pearl St. Construction Site Salem, MA 01970 Re: Retaining Wall at nos.14/16 Pearl St. Constructions Site Attn: Keith Nadeau, Principal Gentlemen: At your request,today, we examined the excavation you made for your project and which is adjacent to the home near door, believed to be no. 12 Pearl St. As we informed you, we considered that your excavation could compromise the structural foundation support for the adjacent home. We gave you structural directives to build a retaining wall, which is a combination gravity and rip-rap structure. This wall will retain the soil firmly in- place under the adjacent structure and protect it from damage. We inspected the exposed brick of the adjacent home's foundation and saw no sign of any settlement or damage so far. This letter certifies that the directives we gave you have been followed and the temporary support structure is satisfactorily installed. You must deal with your construction objectives subsequent and in consideration of today's action. If you have any questions or require clarification,please contact us. Very truly, HOBBS ENDEAVOUR CORPORATION pgp A/kflq Frank D. DeFalco, P.E., P.L.S., Ph.D. Principal x 1 iia °lZ2�3 CITY OF SALEM MAP 3G PDT JO6 ROUTING SLIP 16 " IBJ CHECKED DEPARTMENTS REQUIRE SIGNATURES BEFORE BUILDING PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED. LOCATION: PSL / DATE: APPLICANT: &.41l/7 17447`7`7 06 Y ASSESSORS OFFICE @ 93 WASHINGTON ST. Cly(/ FRANK KULIK DATE: ❑ CITY CLERK(if involving a new street) WASHINGTON ST. DE DEBBIEBURKINSHAW DATE: PUBLIC SERVICES(Engineering Dept.) @120 WASHINGTON ST,4n'FL. Qk pp p'li 1 BRUCE THIBODE;atAIU a ^' /1 DATE: O I 1 [] WATER DEPT. @120 WASHINGTON ST,4 FL. E1 bfiN 1�DAR� DATE: 3 /O - ox, CI CROSS CONNECT SUP'R B@$':I3ESEHENE .�i!}t` •;H �� ,r'/l -Le �� 'VS @120 WASHINGTON ST,30.0 FL. �1 Lx- DATE: 3 lD PLANNING @120 WASHINGTON ST.,30.p FL.. DENISE McLUREC % DATE: I CONSERVATION COMMI (Planning Dept.) @120 WASHINGTON ST.,3RD F - DON CEFALO � � DATE: d ELECTRICAL / @ 48 LAFAYETTE STREET,2NID .RE R( JOHN GIARDI DATE: ❑ FIRE PREVENTI @29 FORT AVE(WILLOW AREA) CAPT.HUDSON o D DATE: L� HEALTH @120 WASHINGTON ST. FL. JOANNE SCOTT �X f DATE: �- 16-b ❑ BUILDING DEPT @ 120 WASHINGTON ST.,3RD FL. TOM ST. PIERRE DATE: ***SUBMIT WITH PERMIT APPLICATION WHEN COMPLETED*** u�7 / �rq I it COmfnORW1:6/� of 111M a�achwatb s �' JtPa.�nua1� a j9adustriaf�teieaaft James J.Camooes a►ea ��/auac�uwlG 02111 CarmssaxiC Workers' Compensation Insurance AMujayit . . wither principal place of business at: . . forrntar✓sIq do ht:reby"ctnify under the pains and penalties of perjury, thaC (al am an employer providing workers' compensation coverage for my employees working on this job. cif E� /�vSu2r,9N1� DA/ Insurance Company Policy Number I am a sole proprietor and have no one working for me in any capacity O 1 am a sole proprietor, general contractor or homeowner (circle one) and have hired the contractors listed below who-have the following workers' compensation polieks: Contractor Insurance Company/Policy Number Contractor Insurance Company/Policy Number Contractor insurance Company/Policy Number O I am a homeowner performing all the work myself. I unoon ano WE a tory or this w,VnM wo of fon armd o, Ent OR:ce of 1mo8aauo:d of du DIA 1« co.erart V"Waden araC raw battle ere aterrt co. att a,rewr<o unotr Sacdon ISA of MGL 1 S 2 can kid a the ►nvonuon of tnrwa:o,naoes eorsadnt of a tot of so oat I.SooAO WWor one r<an'r:rarnonmmt v user v ci+i ooWLio in tit larm of a STOP WORK ORDER and a int or S 1Co.00 a aaf ara+nt mt. Signed this 0 — day of iccnstti"Fennitett builctng Deparcrrenc uctnsing 5oarc Seiectmens Office ;c<Ith GeQarnen+ CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT e 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 7a� SALEM, MA 01970 TEL. (978)745-9595 EXT. 380 FAx (978) 740-9846 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. MAYOR DISPOSAL OF DEBRIS AFFIDAVIT In accordance with the provisions of MGL c 40, S34,I acknowledge that as a condition of Building Permit# , 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 ILII, S 150A. The debris will be disposed of at: - 7i}t Erv1 ( 1�gaFFe Location of Facility Signature of Permit Applicant Date FULLY complete the following information: (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) 170'rE2r (--VfnFL Name of Permit Applicant Firm Name, if any 27 fiUt&fV&C (26gO 5i9( rev► 0 1 -7 70 Address, City& State The above statute requires that debris from the demolition,renovation, rehab or other alteration of building or structure be disposed in a properly-licensed solid-waste disposal facility as defined by MGL cHI,S 150A, and the building permits or licenses are to indicate the location of the facility. I �K LI' - Y 4 T -PL9l�It IAUSTIBE {- N '�PPROVED BY T44E s� ,IAISPEL:IL�A �' IARp P T BEWG GRANTED T \ CITY OF SALEM No. \ —�� J \ 3:y Date 3 �� 1 Is Property Located In ✓ Location of the Historic District? Y68 No Building Is Property Located in the conservation Area? Yes No— BUILDING No_BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR: Permit to: (Circle whichever apply) Roof, Reroof, Install Siding, ons eck, Shed, Fool, a t� Repair/Replace, Other: 1 PLEASE FILL OUT LEGIBLY&COMPLETELY TO AVOID DELAYS IN PROCESSING '12' TO THE INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS: The undersigned hereby applies for a permit to build according to the following specifications: Owner's Name �A�'/ti5 awe777 Address & Phone ;77 iMfirl" 06}4 Architect's Name 2!��/4i)/Ake /N�F) Address & Phone PZ610e& MC . j 7 Mechanics Name EL /OA/77efit Tint Al /&K, Address & Phone '77 ii/fIi'f /?P- J )zits 36S What Is the purpose of building? / ,WiFalA ll Material of building? (NOD D If a dwelling,for how many families? W01 building onn to law? sbestos? /l//O Estlmated W �() city License x N A Sts Home Improve nt Lie. ► r , Signature of Applicant U I SIGNED UNDER THE PENOVY OF PERJURY I u� DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE �' h } ,tl (oAJSTACr t>UF1EK PWEZ11AIr' U/fTl4 1 jjj 'V1,511, ., fl g41vm, MAIL PERMIT TO: 2-7 f01406166 ;006} -S-9 Ir ,t+�MJF ir�ya ,,r , A �u�� � ��� h���_ �r� �`' CITY OF SALEM 4 '�n p9 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANLEY J.USOVICZ,JR. - MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET•SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 JOSEPH P.WALSH,JR. TEL 978-745-9595•FAX:978-740-0404 DIRECTOR March 22, 2004 Thomas St. Pierre Acting Building Commissioner City of Salem 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: "Stop Work" Order Issued for 14-16 Pearl Street Dear Mr. St. Pierre: A"Stop Work" order has been issued by your Department,the Engineering Department,and the Conservation Commission for the site located at 14-16 Pearl Street. In addition,the Department of Planning and Community Development has been working with the neighborhood to provide them with an opportunity to meet with the developer of this site and address the neighbors concerns pertaining to this project. With that,the Department of Planning and Community Development is requiring that the"Stop Work"order for this site not be lifted until the neighborhood is able to meet with the developer and have their concerns addressed. Following a meeting with the neighbors and the developer,I would like to review any plans submitted to your Department to ensure that the neighbors concerns have been addressed as agreed upon at the meeting. Once I have reviewed the plans,I will provide your Department,the Engineering Department,and the Conservation Commission a letter which states the neighbors concerns and how they have been addressed by the developer. Again,no work shall take place at 14-16 Pearl Street until the neighbors have met with the developer and a letter from the Department of Planning and Community Development supporting the plans is issued to your Department. Please feel free to contact me at Extension 309 if you have any questions or need further information. Sincerely, fto Denise S. McClure Deputy Director Cc: Mayor Stanley J. Usovicz,Jr. Bruce i hibodeau, City Engineer Paul Ward, 12 Pearl Street Leslie Byrne, 16 Saunders Street Andy Goldman, 11 Pearl Street Lance Kasparian, 1 Arbella Street v6�,o r CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS 5� ?� DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES 'a 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 4TH FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 BRUCE D. THIBODEAU, P.E. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES/CITY ENGINEER STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TEL 978-745-9595 EXT. 321 MAYOR FAX: 978-745-0349 VIA FACSIMILE May 10, 2004 Cousin's Realty Trust 27 Intervale Road Salem, MA 01970 (Bob Hamel & Keith Nadeau proprietors) Re: 14 & 16 Pearl Street Development—Water& Sewer Drawings Dear Mr. Hamel &Nadeau: This department is in receipt of drawings from Griffin Engineering Group, dated 11/25/03 and revised 4/28/04, concerning the above referenced property. After review of these drawings we have the following comments: 1.) The proposed water pipe is located to close to the foundation of the proposed structure. We recommend that the location of the water pipe be moved to one foot off the property line on lot 5. 2.) The easement width does not appear to be consistent along the entire length of the water pipe. Please provide a twenty-foot wide easement, 10 feet on each side of the centerline of the water pipe, for the entire length of the pipeline on existing private property. 3.) There should be no bends in the water pipe from Pearl Street to Saunders Street. 4.) Please provide 2-foot contours on the plan for the entire site and easement. 5.) As discussed in our letter on March 23, 2004, it appears that the elevations on the site will be altered by more than two feet. Therefore, you are required to apply for a Drainage Alteration Permit from this Department. 6.) Please provide a meets and bounds description and a plan suitable for filing with the Registry of Deeds for the proposed water line easement. We understand that you as the proponent will assume all cost to prepare and file the legal documents. Should you have any question or require additional information, do not hesitate to contact the Assistant City Engineer, Joseph Nerden, or me at this Office. Very ytruly yyo�/urs!�lv ^ Bruce D. Thibodeau, P.E. City Engineer& Director of Public Services, CC: Kate Sullivan, Mayor's Chief of Staff Councilor Sosnowski, Ward 2 Joe Nerden, Asst. City Engineer William Merrill, Asst.Dir.DPS Tom St Pierre,Bldg Inspector- Denise McClure,Deputy CftTPlanner \\\ Robert H. Griffin, P.E. A:\Bruce\2004 Correspondence\I LI6 Pearl St.Water Line Plan review.doc HOBBS ENDEAVOUR CORPORATION Consultants in the Engineering Sciences 34 Rockland Street,Swampscott,MA 01907 781.581.2454 23 July 2004 Cousin's Realty Trust C/o 14/16 Pearl St. Construction Site Salem, MA 01970 Re: Retaining Wall at nos.14/16 Pearl St. Constructions Site Attn: Keith Nadeau, Principal Gentlemen: Again, at your request, today, we examined the excavation you made for your project, and also the temporary retaining wall, which we directed you to build, and which is adjacent to the home next door, believed to be no. 12 Pearl St. The wall has retained the soil firmly in-place under the adjacent structure and protected it from damage. We also inspected the exposed brick of the adjacent home's foundation and saw no sign of any settlement or damage. This letter certifies that the directives we gave you have been followed and the temporary support structure has performed satisfactorily. Further, we confirm that the foundation design which we furnished you is safe and meets the requirements of the Massachusetts State Building Code, whether or not the footprint of the building is moved Westward, 3.0' or so. If you have any questions or require clarification, please contact us. Very truly, HOBBS ENDEAVOUR CORPORATION Y 3 lr •'B Frank D. DeFalco,P.E., P.L.S., Ph.D. fGdNl:D. e ,e J` AcFFlLCO Principal �� v t e.xie� 8 d p' r wwvv Commonwealth of Massachusetts Board of Building Regulations and Standards Manufactured Buildings Program THIRD PARTY INSPECTIONAGENCY CERTUICA77ON BULK LABELS i5echon to be completed by Third Party Inspection Agency-Please print or type-UNITS MAY NOT BE SHIPPED UNTIL THIS CERTIFICATION IS COMPLETED and COMPONENTS ARE LABELED SECT 1-MANUFACTURER INFORMATION (Bbrs\forms2\mfgthirdpartycert-April 2004) claret Name �Uwt 9ALA16 i MC# 17J Ad 1 . Telep oe Fax 3 1. E A"ess . d' Mvfi` SECT) 2 BUILDING INFORMATION BBRS\DPS I.D. # StFeet a�i1e:'&r Number city ZIP bIG� o Use C404 Construction Type In si ' . d is form below, I hereby certify that the units identified on this form have been inspected and are cons cte'd in accordance with the following codes, as applicable. Mass liusetts State Building Code(780 �/ Massachusetts State Electrical Code(527 CMR 12) Massaisetts State Plumbing and Fuel ®/ Massachusetts Architectural Access Gas C�icei(247 CMR) Board Regulations (521 CMR) E� Mfg. 't Inspector's Name (Print Name) Third Party Inspector (Print Name) F 1? F 11,ac iruS Mfg Aa*d ' pector's Signature Third Party Inspector's Signature SE X13- BUILDER/DEALEWCERTIFIED INSTALLER INFORMATION Buildeaier Addr+s, C ' dTnsfaller IQ0 Licens d�Gorastruction Supervisor License Number: SE �4-' LABEL WORMA17ON(Indicate number of boxes and number of labels required) Nu of Units 2 tLabel Numbers Issued: A ,n ,hire' Serial >Ju NA Vumu ier's Model Desi truer ; �1�uDf� i The original form shat]be mailed to the BBRS/Departmem of Public Safety 167 Lyman Street/P.O.Box 1063 Westborough,MA 01581 S Kimberly.spencerOdps state.ma us Commonwealth of Massachusetts Board of Building Regulations and Standards Manufactured Buildings Program THIRD PARTY INSPECTION AGENCY CERTIFICATION BULK LABELS ,"on to be completed by Third Party Inspection Agency-Please print or type-UNITS MAY NOT BE SHIPPPSD UNTIL THIS CERTIFICATION IS COMPLETED and COMPONENTS ARE LABELED SECT 1-MANUFACTURER INFORMATION (sbrs\forms2\mfgthirdpartycert-April,2004) lv�cex Name ¢ MC# Ad ,970 Teiep o;;e I'b da3 Fax Ih 1 EPgldress . c�S t� w12 4,j fLP Co l SECT .2'r BUILDING INFORMATION Street ai#te de Number. (a 1 City State A IZip 6lqq �i Lan.G Construction Type In si this form below, I hereby certify that the units identified on this form have been inspected and are cons c# dirt accordance with the following codes, as applicable. 77setts State Building Code(780 er- Massachusetts State Electrical Code(527 CMR 12) Massa ttiiseits State Plumbing and Fuel Massachusetts Architectural Access �. Gas Cgde(247 CMR) Board Regulations (521 CMR) ,&g. t In spector's Name (Print Name) Third Party Inspector (Print Name) } 67e /tem la P n e n nnc 6-„s N fg ai f ector's Signature Third Party Inspector's Signature S 3- BUILDER/DEALER/CERTIFIED INSTALLER INFORMATION Build M"ealer Addr+.".!,s , M� X191 Cert- d:.Installer ( j ✓ 1�G f►1'cd Li d�*truction Supervisor License Number: S SE 4-' LABEL INFORMATION(Indicate number of bores and number of labels required) \u df 1.Ir its Label Numbers Issued: Kqp&D qg I M p, ,'.1mru t6ier' Serio umb+ 'rlanu ier's Model Desi tion The original form shall be mailed to the BURS/Department of Public Safety 167 Lyman Street/P.O.Box 1063 Westborough,MA M581 ( Kimberly.spencerOdps state.ma us APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO LOCATION PERMIT GRA ED D y 2� A fiOV f D INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS L K zi 4, T -PL* 1161M1 T"BEf�L�$14fID` ' OVED BY 744E I. IAISPECI�A '11ipR TD .J?EEF SANG GRANTED \\11 \\ CITY OF SALEMNo. —vL, v" \ •,� `� Date 3 �� Is Property Located in ✓ Location of the Historic District? Yes_No_ Building �--�6 wxt $r . Is Property Located In ft Conservation Area? YesZo_ BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR: Permit to: (Circle whichever apply) Roof, Reroof, Install Siding, ons eck, Shed, Pool, a®� Repair/Replace, Other: Le PLEASE FILL OUT LEGIBLY &COMPLETELY TO AVOID DELAYS IN PROCIEfSIIIIING t 2' TO THE INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS: The undersigned hereby applies for a permit to build according to the following specifications: Owner's Name 6k15/A6 ai9�► / ,�✓5T Address & Phone ;717I�112515210?4 0,*b (ft -7911r-- Architect's ySArchitect's Name koWf bullablAle Address & Phone W00100 I I�IIE . j7D7 )X39 $8�3 Mechanics Name 441V& 4aaje&rAA< fff/G. A Address & Phone 77 1AA66/1fff ZD What is the purpose of building? WECd//✓/, '' Material of building? (m90 D ti a dwelling,for how many families? zji WM bullding orm to law? '96S Asbestos? A/O �. . �l is EstlmatedcA 06 city Licensee N A sta_ # bh Hoa Iapsovaant lily:• Y (3 l Signature of Applicant SIGNED UNDER THE PEN44?Y ilIVV�II, OF PERJURY DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE �ouST�l� DvFb5x Dwalw a Wlri4 ff�iAcc I'�i� ug ip I nWgnill�h�� „I. "i f� MAIL PERMIT TO 2-711JT�K�IA�E ;00AD -59(ed ;7 i