Loading...
20 PERKINS STREET - BUILDING JACKET �. o fir �Ci rn ee F, 8y /Uuj S4-len WA K i8,c1 /Y l A) D I FO I ` �1 I r Z mA2e F 41Rrn{��r,�! j �S ���P�/y /✓/fes o�q%� � 1-2 -711210 e s � 0� v. s A } 49 SEND EAComplete items 1,2,and 3. Add your address in the "RETURN TO' space on 3 !7 reverse. m 1. The following service is requested(check one). 13 Show to whom and date delivered......... ...4j ❑ Show to whom,date,and address of delivery. . 4 ❑ RESTRICTED DELIVERY Show to whom and date delivered. —0 ❑ RESTRICTED DELIVERY x Show to whom,date,and address of delivery.$ m Z (CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES) Z30 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: m Atty. Henry C. Porter IT m 59 Federal Street Salem,—MA-01970 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: m REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. O v 7188800 x (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) III 0 1 have received the article described above. Z SIGNATURE 0 Addressee ❑ Authorized agent N m4. QDATE OF DELIVERY�j ISO MA'Ax (fv IT 5. ADDRESS(Complete only itrepuested) y, ro 73 _n IT 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: CLfRK'S INITIALS. D r 9 d 7GP0:1977-0-249-595 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE OFFICIAL BUSINESS SENDER INSTRUCTIONS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE Print your name,address,and ZIP CODE in the space below. USE TO AVOID PAYMENT Complete items 1,2,antl 3 on the reverse OF POSTAGE,$300 •Moisten gummed ends and attach to front of article if space U. permits.Otherwise affix to back of article. r_ •Entlorse article "Return Receipt Requested" adjacent to number. RETURN TO Robert E Gauthier Zoning (Name of Sender) Enforcement Officf One Salem Green (Street or P.O. Box) Salem, MA 01970 (City, State, and ZIP Code) P16 718$800 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) SENTTO Atty. Henry Porter STREET AND NO. 59 Federal Street P.O.,STATE AND ZIP CODE Salem, MA 01970 POSTAGE $ .15 CERTIFIED FEE 80 ¢ SPECIAL DELIVERY ¢ m RESTRICTED DELIVERY ¢ 0 Wm SHOW TO WHOM AND .45 ¢ r �+ DATE DELIVERED yW ti yg = SHOW TO DATE, ANESS OF DELIVERY ¢ o w SHOW TO WHOM AND DATE m DELIVERED WITH RESTRICTED ¢ i o DELIVERY SHOW TO WHOM,DATE AND ADDRESS OF DELIVERY WITH ¢ ,o RESTRICTED DELIVERY r TOTAL POSTAGE AND FEES $ 1.40 Q POSTMARK OR DATE g m E a STICK POSTAGE STAMPS TO ARTICLE TO COVER FIRST CLASS POSTAGE, CERTIFIED MAIL FEE,AND CHARGES FOR ANY SELECTED OPTIONAL SERVICES.(see front) 1. If you want this receipt postmarked,stick the gummed stub on the left portion of the address side of othe article,leaving the receipt attached,and present the article at a post office service window or hand it to your rural carrier.(no extra charge) 2. It you do not want this receipt postmarked,stick the gummed stub on the left portion of the address side of the article,date,detach and retain the receipt,and mail the article. 3. If you want a return receipt,write the certified-mail number and your name and address on a return receipt card,Form 3811,and attach it to the front of the article by means of the gummed ends if space permits.Otherwise,affix to back of article.Endorse front of article RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED adjacent to the number. 4. It you want delivery restricted to the addressee,or to an authorized agent of the addressee, endorse RESTRICTED DELIVERY on the front of the article. - 5. Enter tees for the services requested in the appropriate spaces on the front of this receipt.If return receipt is requested,check the applicable blocks in Item 1 of Form 3811. 6. Save this receipt and present it if you make inquiry. a cNo:1919 0--289-363 - \ ILI-HLI iXS Robert E. Gauthier One Salem Green 7d3-r�i3 January -13, 1981 Atty. Henry C. Porter 59. Federal Street Salem, ILk 01970 RE:- Decision 20 Perkins Street Dear Sir: Salem, '_a 01970 Your information from Mrs. Bedard of 26 Perkins Street, Salem is accurate. There is an enclosure at 20 Perkins Street, which is composed of 8" x 8" x 16" concrete block mortared together. ` The enclosure, per my conversation with Mr. Nadeau, is, to fence in his trash. Since the enclosure has no roof it is not, in my interpreta- tion, an "accessory structure" or "building" as defined in Section II-B, (1 & '4) . Therefore Section V.-LT-H of the Salem Zoning Ordinance is not applicable. Historically fences have not required issuance of a building permit so long as they did not exceed the requirements set forth in Section VI, the Department has not been concerned with regulat- ing them. It is my opinion the enclosure in .question is a fence, is constructed within the regulatory requirements as to height and is located entirely on Mr. Nadeau's property. Therefore, I cannot order it removed. Very truly yours, Robert E. Gauthier Insp, of Buildings & Zoning Enforcement REG:c Officer \.,. cc: Mrs. Bedard Mr. Nadeau City Clerk J. Fusco CERTIFIED: #7188800 File No. B-76.4 SUIL01NC- illi T RONAN & SEGAL ATTORNEYS AT LAW n FIFTY - NINE FEDERAL STREET OCT JAMES T.RONAN SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 J JACOB S.SEGAL ❑ �. I F GEORGE W.ATKINS. III (617) 744-0350 RF 4E I�I� D JOHN DENNIS HEALEY CITY OF Si,L1t-I,VASS- HENRY C.PORTER NEIL R.SCHAUER October 20, 1980 Mr. Robert E. Gauthier Zoning Enforcement Officer One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: 20 Perkins Street Salem, Massachusetts Dear Mr. Gauthier: Thank you for your timely response to my letter regarding the above matter. Your letter of September 29, 1980, made no mention of its being filed with the Salem City Clerk. I, therefore, assume that the time limit for any appeal by me from your decision, pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 13, has not begun to run and I am operating under that assumption. Since the limited period for my appeal has not begun, this should leave us ample time to still try and resolve this matter without necessitating the time and cost to my client of a formal appeal to the Board. Upon review of your decision ( contained in the September 29th letter) and a re-reading of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, I am even more convinced that my earlier interpretation was correct. With that in mind, I would now request that your office seek a formal opinion on this matter from the Salem City Solicitor's Office. Perhaps in that way, we can keep the cost both for the city and for my client at a minimum. Perhaps a brief clarification of my position in this matter might be helpful. Initially, I agree with your interpretation that the structure in question is not a "building" -- without a roof it does not fall within the definition contained in Section II. B. 4. However, the require- ments of Section 1X. A.(1) (regarding the obtaining of a permit) are specifically not limited to buildings. That section clearly refers to any "other structure" as well. And Section II. B. 37 which defines "structure", does not, in my opinion, permit your interpretation that the offending item here is either an "enclosure" or a "fence" (neither of which are defined in the Ordinance). Your letter further refers to "accessory structure" pertaining to Section VII. H. 3 of the Ordinance. I can find no reference in the Ordinance to an "accessory structure". There are onlythree categories envisioned by and defined in the Code: (1) a building; (2) an accessory Mr. Robert E. Gauthier October 20, 1980 Page Two building; and (3) a structure. The term "accessory" is used in Section VII. H. , merely defines the term building and does not relate to the term structure . In other words, a tool shed is either an "accessory building" because it has a roof; or it is a "structure" because it has no roof. In either event, the provisions of both Section VII. H. and Section 1X. A. 1 would apply thereto. In accordance with the above, would you kindly refer this matter to the City Solicitor's Office for their opinion. I remain available to either yourself or the Solicitor's Office for purposes of discussion and resolution of this matter. Respectfully, Henry C. Porter HCP/cmd CC: Mrs. Theresa Bedard 26 Perkins Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 File No. B-76.4 :3,iFp RONAN & SEGAL ATTORNEYS AT LAW I SEP FIFTY - NINE FEDERAL STREET E 27 r,� �1 J JAMES T.RONAN SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 JACOB S.SEGAL CITY � OF IV 0 GEORGE W.ATKIN5,111 (617) 744-0350 CIT-1 1y OF S f,l1. EH,1' J^SC. JOHN DENNIS HEALEY HENRY C.PORTER NEIL R.SCHAUER September 19, 1980 Building Inspector City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Theresa Bedard 26 Perkins Street Dear Sir: This letter is intended as and should be construed as a formal written complaint pursuant to Section 1X B of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Salem. This office has been retained by and represents the interests of Mrs. Theresa Bedard of 26 Perkins Street, Salem, Massachusetts. We have been advised by Mrs. Bedard that a six foot high, cinder block structure has been erected on property abutting hers. That property is located at 20 Perkins Street and is owned by Mr. Kenneth Nadeau. Upon information supplied by Mrs. Bedard, the structure is composed of cinder block cemented together. It is six feet high and has been constructed in a U-shape. The open of the U is constructed immediately up against a garage on the rear lot line of Mr. Nadeau's property. The said rear lot and the said garage are owned by a Mr. Leo Leclerc of 79 Congress Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Additionally, the side of the cinder block structure is located within twelve inches (1211) of Mrs. Bedard's property. It is the understanding of Mrs. Bedard that no building permit was ever applied for or obtained regarding the erection of this structure. It is the opinion of the undersigned, after review of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, that the erection of this structure was in violation of Section 1X A(1.) of said Ordinance which says that: "No . . . structure shall be erected . . . until a permit therefore has been issued by the Inspector of Buildings.1' It is further suggested that no such permit could have been issued regarding this structure due to the rather precise requirements of Section VII H(3) of said Ordinance: "No unattached accessory building or structure shall be located nearer than ten feet to any side lot line (side lots in this instance refer to a projected line starting from the front lot line and terminating at the rear lot line parallel ten feet from the side), or twenty feet from the rear lot line." Building Inspector September 19, 1980 Page Two It appears quite clear in the instant case that this offending structure is in violation of both the side and rear lot requirements cited above. Would you kindly investigate this situation and provide the undersigned with written notification of the results thereof pur- suant to the authority and responsibility contained in Section 1X B of said Zoning Ordinance of the City of Salem. Respectfully, � Henry C C-. .Porter HCP/cmd CC: Mr. Leo Leclerc 79 Congress Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Mrs. Theresa Bedard 26 Perkins Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 f�Situ of 3nlem, cfflassachusetl r Puurb of ': 1Fyeal Jp�OCO\E 1P� _ APRIL 22, 1981 .81 APR 29 A11 :25 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MR. AND MRS. KENNETH NADEAU REQUESTING CITY C,, ::,p A VARIANCE FOR 20 PERKINS STREET iy;c E A hearing on this Petition was held on April 22,1981 with the following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Piemonte, LaBrecque and Feeherry. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and a notice of the hearing was properly published twice in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The Petitioners have requested a variance for the property at 20 Perkins Street to construct a shed approximately 12 feet by 10 feet adjacent to the rear property line and 12 inches from the side property line. A variance is required because the property is in an R-3 district and the proposed construction violates rear and side yard restric- tions. The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed shed will improve the appearance of the Petitioner's yard. On the basis of the above finding of fact, and the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The property in question is unique because of its small size and peculiar config- uration. Both of these factors make it impossible to construct a shed in any other location. 2. The conditions described above especially affect the property in question but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the property is .located. 3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question, but not the zoning district generally cause the following special hardship: unless the variance is granted, the Petitioners will be unable to store their personal property at the property. 4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously votes in favor of granting the request ed relief. The Board grants a variance to the Petitioners on the following terms and conditions: 1. Variances are granted from rear and side yard set back requirements to allow APPEAL ti�97, 7Gnn.4ttFuCtl-oa.o.f!,iPthe p.ir R ed, :SkO CTMN.17 OF THE :;ASS. _ - - GENERAL LA.S e I PTL d. A-':) SA .LL S2 i:L _.oS AiER 'IHE DATE OF FILING -OF THIS DEC!1]h iTtie=P.gtittariArs::!mugt obtain a building permit from the Building Inspector. PUBS.":NT TO CE'=.. '_ .... _. ,...... a" S="i!:"I :1, TFIE V -!A'iCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT _ GP ,Ec 1 3. IlTlle shed mayl be 4tsed'for the- srofag& of tidy'more7an one motorcycle. f''ATiON CF Trz v Y C U:,W LAYS A D A', r 0 d. 'r A'` .L H C-� 71' D, / OR THAT, IF F.N APPEAL .0 E T!iAT IT P_, 0_..1 D,S AT32D C �._ i!ED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX, OF ECUS AND I DULD U::DE2 THE NAME OF T O�hYt'R t'' i OF RECORD OR IS P,ECCRDQD XQ NOTED OA THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE, Anthony M. Feeh rry, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS@&SMNIFFFBPM WITH THE PLAN ING BOARD AND ITY CLERK. Unofficial Property Record Card Page 1 of 1 Unofficial Property Record Card -Salem, MA General Property Data Parcel ID 34-0209-0 Account Number0 Prior Parcel ID 12— Property Owner HOAG KEVIN M Property Location 20 PERKINS STREET HOAG CHRISTINE Property Use Apts.4-8 Mailing Address 84 NEW SALEM STREET Most Recent Sale Date 10/28/1999 Legal Reference 16016335 City WAKEFIELD Grantor Mailing State MA ZIP 01880 Sale Price 157,000 ParcelZoning R3 Land Area 0.109 acres Current Property Assessment Land Value 87,600 Building Value 268,500 Total Value 356,100 Building Description Building Style Muiti-Garden Foundation Type Brick/Stone Flooring Type Hardwood #of Living Units Frame Type Wood Basement Floor Concrete Year Built 1915 Roof Structure Flat Heating Type Forced H/W Building Grade Average Roof Cover Tar+G ravel Heating Fuel Oil Building Condition Poor Siding Asphalt Air Conditioning 0 Finished Area(SF)4596 Interior Walls Plaster #of Bsmt Garages Number Rooms 16 #of Bedrooms 8 #of Full Baths 4 #of 314 Baths #of 112 Baths #of Other Fixtures0 Legal Description Narrative Description of Property This property contains 0.109 acres of land mainly classified as Apts.4 with a(n)Multi-Garden style building,built about 1915,having Asphalt exterior and Tar+Gravel roof cover,with 4 unit(s),16 room(s),8 bedroom(s),4 bath(s),0 half bath(s). Property Images r Disclaimer:This information is believed to be correct but is subject to change and is not warranteed. Cite of 6atem, 41a9;gaCbUgettg Public Propertp -Mepartment �3uil0ing Mepartment One*alem Oreen (978) 7459595 exc. 380 Peter Strout Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer November 17, 1999 RE: 20 Perkins Street To Whom it May Concern: This letter is to inform you that the basement apartment located at 20 Perkins Street in an illegal apartment and must be vacated immediately. If you have any questions regarding this letter please do not hesitate to call. Sincerel Pe Strout Zoning Enforcement Officer CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR "WAS SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 380 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 CEASE AND DESIST VIOLATION NOTICE Y PROPERTY LOCATION 20 PERKINS STREET'S` December 16, 20051 v Kevin Hoag 84 New Salem Street Wakefield, MA 01880 Dear Mr. Hoag; The above listed property has been found to be in violation of the following State Codes and/or City Ordinances: 780 CMR, State Building Code, Sections 118.1118.2 118.3, regarding illegal work, notice of violation, and prosecution of said violation. These sections cover the illegality of these basement units, the written notification thereof, which according to our records was made by the previous Building Commissioner on 11/17/1999, and the prosecution of your failure to address this previous Cease and Desist Order. Such violation carries a penalty of$1000 per day with each day constituting a separate violation. It is Ordered that you Cease and Desist the illegal use of this basement space as rental units, as these are not habitable spaces, nor are they allowed due to the zoning regulations that require no more than four units for this property. It is further Ordered that you not only vacate these illegal basement units, but then they must be completely dismantled, with such work requiring proper permitting prior to the commencement of any work. Said violations must begin to be corrected, repaired, and/or brought into compliance within 2 days of your receipt of this notice. Failure to do so may result in further actions being brought against you, up to and including the filing of complaints at District Court. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact the Building Inspectors Office at(978) 745-9595, extension 386. Sincerely, Joseph E. Barbeau, Jr. Assistant Building Inspector CC: file, Mayor's Office,Health Dept., Fire Prevention, Electrical Dept., Councilor Corchado Iii# of ala a, M Robert E. Gauthier .. - =.One Salem Green 7455-11213 September 29, 1980 Atty. Henry C. Porter 59 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: 20 Perkins Street Salem, Mik Dear Sir: Your information from Mrs. Bedard of 26 Perkins Street, Salem is accurate. There is an enclosure at 20 Perkins Street, which is composed of 8"x8"x16" concrete block mortared together. The enclosure, per my conversation with Mr. Nadeau, is to fence in his trash, -Since the enclosure has no roof it is not, in my interpretation, an "accessory structure" or "building" as defined in Section II-B, (1 & 4) . Therefore Section VII-H of the Salem Zoning Ordinance is not applicable. Historically fences have not required issuance of a building permit so long as they did not exceed the requirements set forth in Section=VI=-the-Department has not-been concerned with regulating them. It is my opinion the enclosure in question is a fence, is constructed within the regulatory requirements as to height and is located entirely on Mr. Nadeau's property. Therefore I cannot order it removed. Very truly yours, Robert E. Gauthier Insp. of Buildings & Zoning Enforcement REG:c Officer cc: Mrs. Bedard Mri, Nadeau May JO4 06 t 1 z O'/a 978-140-4635 P. 1 an eL U5 O9:OSa COMM"WERLTH 'rANK.INC. 781-224-95OR p,2 CITY OF .SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS J ! s BnARO 0= HEALTH 12.WAS Irvr VON STAE[ 4TH FtooR SA .MA 01970 TEL 976 741-teO0 FAI 978T4$Aad3 v Sr J. US 1111' Jn_ JCAiLVF SCOT .t4PH,R5,CIiO MAY'JR u'l HEALTH AGENT CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS CER7IFlCATE L34J DATE ISSUED Ili WG5 - PnJ FF)''Lcr clad aT 2]Pe sSun t UNIT H 1R bad: Ctiwler..AOC rt Hoag"=:.QFl A IKmi l H083&n4aghain Ba^Y Address: 84 New Salve Skeet ONfTolsn: Wakefield,IM 4de: 018W24 4v,PhmIA: 617- A.g?60 Annsger2unof s06 MR41 R.apnyR4umng I.hual0aaak0Veatldress 135bgenaparoveCaM's'n Of Fim ssbr.4 ...H Wjj0p]:kiags;cleye165y1re5dmYryC�e.Gryapfer ll'MNmwn$lan6uds df F(kiess for Human HaM1ialicn'. TFerefine.Hls Certifiwle i5 isslstl bythe Cede Ec4icemerll Dirsioeul Ne Safern$Hardm'e mend tl1e nnir may now he reeled ander ormpied. Maximum Num0er of=cupaltiq musf compty with 105 CMR410.0W Certificate valtl fa ors yrar komdak oFtssuantP oruNll flre owmm ienalt re[a1ea,whi3xsrcv o Ie/ei. ThmC estate OF FKVe i1-1U Dotyif Olere isaueid Grate cl Occupanry. FOR T4i'F SOAROCF HEALTH JOANNE RS. S HEALTH AGENT COOT fNFOPCEMENT INSPECTOR CV M CV �O C�1 N CV