15 ROPES STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION 15 ROPES STREET` -
}
J,t
MATTHEW J. KAVANAGH
ATTORNEY AT LAW
100 Ci IMGS CENTER, SUITE 31.4-3
BEVERLY,MASSACHUSETTS 01915
TEL(978) 921-0006
FAX(978) 921.-0026
June 15, 2011
Thomas St. Pierre
Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer
City of Salem Building Department
120 Washington Street, 3`d Floor
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Patrick Osgood, 15 Ropes Street, Salem, MA 01970
Dear Commissioner St. Pierre:
As you are aware this office represents the Petitioner, Patrick Osgood, in
connection with his appeal of your decision dated April 13, 2011 ordering him to
cease operating his painting business from the property, including the
storage/parking of vehicles in the left side yard and in front of the building. A
copy of your decision is attached for your convenient reference.
1. Parking of Vehicles in Front of Property.
The parking of motor vehicles associated with the businesses which have operated
at 15 Ropes Street appears to have been ongoing for over 50 years. Initially by
LaBrecque Flooring, then by Marblehead Steel Erection and Supply operated by
George K. Osgood, and then by Osgood Painting operated by Patrick Osgood. A
copy of George K. Osgood's letter to you dated April 23, 2011 is attached hereto
and incorporated herein. At the time Patrick Osgood purchased the property he
obtained a Mortgage Inspection Plan which indicated there was a minimum of 9
feet between the boundary line of 15 Ropes Street and Porter Street. A copy of
same is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Upon being advised by the
Commissioner that the property in question was part of the City Street Mr. Osgood
hired a surveyor who has preliminarily determined that Mortgage Inspection Plan
is inaccurate and there is insufficient space between the boundary between 15
Ropes Street and Porter Street to maintain the current parking configuration. As a
result, Mr. Osgood will eliminate the current perpendicular parking spaces and
confine the parking of his vehicles to parallel parking along Porter Street
consistent with permitted parking.
2. Special Permit For 15 Ropes Street Dated March 16, 1983.
As you have indicated a Special Permit was granted which permitted a one story
addition to the existing structure at the property and the addition was limited to
dead storage and parking. However, despite the issuance of the Special Permit, the
proposed addition was not constructed which may have lead to some confusion
over what is permitted at the site. The Board determined, in its findings of fact,
that the current structure was a pre-existing non-conforming structure. No
restrictions were placed upon the existing pre—existing, non-conforming structure
or its use. A copy of the Decision is attached hereto and incorporated herein. The
pre-existing, non-conforming structure and its use as an office on the 2"d Floor and
for storage on the first floor has remain unchanged since the 1950s. Therefore, the
current structure and its use are lawful.
3. Side Yard Parkine.
George Osgood, in his above-referenced letter, indicated he rented and used "Lot
2", which comprises the side yard, for storage of staging, cables, rigging and
trucks since the early1980s. A copy of the locus plan depicting.Lot 2, which is
recorded with Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 2361, Page 157, is
attached hereto and incorporated herein with a copy of the deed to Patrick Osgood
which references the Plan. After George Osgood purchased the property in 1985
he represents he petitioned this Board for a variance to store trucks and equipment
and that this variance was granted. I have been unable to locate a recorded copy
of the variance and have requested Attorney Serafini's office conduct a search for
its file. For this reason, I am requesting the hearing on this aspect of the matter be
continued until the next meeting of the Board.
Since
at ew J. Kavanagh
CC: Patrick Osgood
QTY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
120 WASHINGTON STREET,3m FLOOR
'ISL. (978) 745-9595
FAx(978)740-9846
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR THomAS ST.PIERRE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROPERTY/BUILDING CONMSSIONE R
April 13, 2011
Patrick Osgood
44 Fox Run Road
Topsfield Ma. 01983
R.E Zoning Violations- 15 Ropes Street
Dear Mr. Osgood,
This Department has received and investigated a complaint regarding the use of 15 Ropes Street
to run your business. The property is located in a R-3 multi-family zone which allows
residential multi-units and private garages as long as the garages are clearly incidental to the
primary use. City records classify the building as a three unit residential building containing four
units . The use of the property for residences is allowed.
Our records also indicate that a Special Permit was applied for and granted in 1983 which
allowed a one story addition approx. 15' x 20' to the existing garage. The decision for this
Appeal restricts the use of the garage for dead storage and for parking. No other uses were
granted.Currently the left side yard is being used as parking area for Osgood Painting vehicles
Additionally while researching this property, it appears that you have created perpendicular
parking spaces to the front of the building, on land that is not owned by you but is in fact part of
the City Street.
Unless you have some records to the contrary ,which you would like to produce, you are ordered
to cease operating the painting business from this property including the storage of vehicles in
the left side yard and to the front of the building, within 30 days.
If you feel you are aggrieved, you may appeal my interpretation of zoning to the Salem Zoning
Board of Appeals.
Sine
ely
Thomas St.Pierre
Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer
cc. file, Jason Silva, Salem Police, Traffic Division, Robin Stein-Asst. City Solicitor
April 23,2011
George Osgood
89 Naugus Avenue
Marblehead, MA 01945
Mr. Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer
Building Dept.
120 Washington St., 3`d floor
Salem, MA
Re: History of 15 Ropes Street, Salem, MA, Consisting of Lots 2 & 3 (7,000 sq. ft. +/-)
Dear Mr. St. Pierre:
Prior to my purchase of 15 Ropes St., in the early 80's I rented Lot 2 and the first floor
of the garage from the LaBrecque family. I stored staging,cables, rigging and trucks and
in the garage welding equipment. At the time the LaBrecque family was in the process of
deciding whether to continue the family hardwood flooring business.
The LaBrecque family used the 2-story garage for an office on the second floor. On the
first floor they stored hardwood flooring along with saws and planing machines. All the
preparatory work for the installation of hardwood floors was done in the garage from the
1950's through 1980's.
I purchased 15 Ropes St. in 1982 for my business,Marblehead Steel Erection and Supply.
At that time,John Serafmi, Sr. helped me apply and receive a variance to store trucks
and equipment with the restriction that I could not fabricate steel or weld at this site.
I then applied for a special permit to extend the garage 15X20 keeping the same height
which was approved but never built.
My son, Patrick Osgood, started renting space from me in 2001 and he purchased 15
Ropes St. in 2005 and I continue to store some staging and equipment.
Tenants for the 3-family and LaBrecque Flooring have been parking on Porter street since
the 1950's cars and also trucks. I parked my company trucks on Porter Street in the late
70's when I rented space, in fact, a tenant of mine and now Patrick's has been parking
perpendicularly there for the past 29 years because of the very limited parking on Ropes
St.
Sincerely,
o
George e. Osgood
Cc. file,J.Silva, Salem Police,Robin Stein, Asst. City Solicitor, J. Serafini, Esq.
F�
a�OW/V
I�
2 s-roRy k
GRRAG✓
LoT
)
LOTS 1 + 2 1 11 11
A= SF 1111111 q '
_ I"J
1' 2 '/z STOP.`/
0
DW 6 L,c,r/v6
illi 5'+
0—
R(0 PES 5TREE7-
REFERENCE:
DEED:REC.BK: PG. 155 -
PLAN: A6 2.S(,/ P 11G-4
TO: &,Ve CN9I5TENse-A1
1 CERTIFY THAT THE BUILDINGS)SHOWN HEREON THIS PLOT PLAN WAS NOT MADE FROM
ARE LOCATED ON THE GROUND AS SHOWN AND THAT THEY AN INSTRUMENT SURVEYAND IS FOR
CONFORM TO THE HORIZONTAL DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS THE PURPOSES OF THE BANK ONLY.
/7-V O F S 19(„t►')') UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE OFFSETS
OF THE ZONING BYLAWS OF THE C l
AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION OR ARE PROTECTED UNDER TO BE USED FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF
GENERAL LAWS CHAPTER 40A SECTION 7. FENCES, WALLS,HEDGES,ETC.
I ALSO CERTIFY THAT THE DWELLING SHOWN IS NOT MORTGAGE/NSPECTIONPLAN
LOCATED WITHIN A FLOOD HAZARD ZONE AS Ep`1H OF le^Ssy LOCATED AT
DELINEATED ON THE MAP OF COMMUNITY 0 255)1 O2 ,r� cy o
SALEM MA,EFFECTIVE 8• $ •t4 E S ° GAIL �N 15 ROPES STREET
BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY. L SALEM
SMITH ,�„ PREPARED FOR
No.35043 6 F&P,
os � FG/ShRE , E wrs ..5t#
�Sslona� LANo SJQ' SCALE 1"= ZO' f}VR l L -4.'2005
DATE EG. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR . ,A NORTH SHORE SURVEY CORP.
47 LINDEN STREET, SALEM,MA
#2461 M
�ecuias cPT' .. ��ppQQ ��yy
DECISION 43TR'E PITION OF GEORGE AND GEORGIA OSGOOD FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 15_EOPES STREET
- CITY CLEP CIS CIF {
s t"!
.A hearing on this Petition was held on March 16, 1983 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs, Rdpper and LaBrecque and
Feeherry. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested the right to construct a one-story addition of
approximately 15' x 20' to an existing.garage at the site. This will expand
the existing non-conforming structure at the property in question.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request .
for a Special Permit is: Section V B 10, 'which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in
this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance
with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F
and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and
reconstruction of non-conforming structures, and for changes,
enlargement, extension .or expansion of nonconforming
lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however,
that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion
shall not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted
upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will
promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The.Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter,
incorporates into this decision the findings of fact made in this Board's October 20,
1982 decision.
On the basis of these findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes: (i) that the proposed addition
will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing structure to the
neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed use of the property will promote the health,
safety, convenience, and welfare of the City's inhabitants, and (iii) that the
proposed use of the property is in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
Accordingly, the Board unanimously approves the granting of the requested
Special Permit to the Petitioners:
1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE AND GEORGIA OSGOOD '83 MAR 21 A9 32
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 15 ROPES STREET
PAGE 2 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
MARCH 16, 1983SALEM NA'S
1) 'Petitioners .may construct.a one-story concrete block addition,
of approximately 15' x 20; to the garage at the site. The
addition may be used for dead storage and for parking.
2) The proposed addition shall be not less than 15' from
the Florence Street property line and not less than 3' from
the southerly property line.
3) Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Building
Inspector in connection-.with the Petitioners' Building
Permit,application. .
4) . A Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be obtained for
the entire property prior to any use of the -proposed addition.
ony M. Feeherr
S retary
APFEA: rPCN THIS DECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO $ECHO?I 17 OF THE E!ASS..
GENERAL IANS, CIiAPTER 803, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF. TRIS-DECISION Ifi T9E OFFICE CFTHECITY CLERIC-
VU4SAI?i TO .,,ASS. G'EaER� I.A�IS, CSAPTE' 808, SECTMR I1. THE VA...,�C£
GRii;diu HEREIN. SW.0 1101 TARE EFFECT UNTIL A CC?T CF 4ZOEC40:';4.
. riCUWN OF THE LIiY CLE2d THAT ^O DAYS HAVE LL:.Pa_D -:J NC APPEAL H.-Vi F.--
OR
OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS KEi FILE, THAT 1T HAS BEEN DISiHSSED ^3.
RECORDED IN THE SOJ H ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INIDEXED UNCER THE Nr?SE CF I,;E •':'+;i;ER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
1 COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
o Sc ci/r .?CJ {e��� fo on inch.
Hw✓+-y to!_'onuir�Sur✓cy��
,n/ P:-on+s...-„ry,„�qde ✓mn. .l,/9/G Sw/E'm F-�rr//2/9lZ
n
o `
- -
11 Pill,
14,
Nu
�' Lo's' T✓�2 of Lo'r N�3 oZ
95"4 '
f' U WE, GEORGE K. OSGOOD and MARIE E. WALSH OSGOOD
of Marblehead, Massachusetts
for consideration paid of$425,000.00
grant to PATRICK M.OSGOOD �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11101111
2005051000711 804272 Pg,444
05/10/2005 11:25:00 DEED Vv 1/1
of 44 Fox Run Road, Topsfield, MA ---
with quitclaim covenants
[Description and encumbrances,if any]
The land in Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts, with the buildings thereon, being Lot No. 3 on
a plan recorded with Essex South District Deeds,Book 2361,Page 157,and bounded and described
as follows:
NORTHERLY on Ropes Street, fifty-three and 70/100 (53.70) feet;
EASTERLY on Lot No.2 on said plan,sixty-eight and 5110 (68.5) feet;
SOUTHERLY on land now or late of Brown, forty-seven and 44/100(47.44)feet; and
WESTERLY on Porter Street, sixty-two and 881100 (62.88) feet.
Also,Lot No.2 shown on the above mentioned Plan, bounded and described as follows:
ti NORTHERLY by Ropes Street, fifty (50)feet;
Id EASTERLY by Lot No. I on said plan, seventy-seven and 7/100 (77.7) feet;
u' SOUTHERLY by land now or late of Brown, fifty and 84/100 (50.84) feet;
y WESTERLY by Lot No.3 on said plan, sixty-eight and 5/10 (68.5) feet.
v
NBeing the same premises conveyed to the grantors by Deed dated October 5, 1999, recorded with
N Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 15987,Page 155.
N
W
a
0
a
u,
Witness our hands and seal this 10th day of May,2005.
tl
T SN
EL 7 GEORGE . OSGOO
7 bi a EL3 f ,/,
4J-V " a C W OsP ,/
.,ItJ ...............••............... ..... . .S:................
MARIE E. WALSH OSGOO
IJ) lil o i a
ca BE
ki ` U
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Essex, ss.
On this 10th day of May, 2005, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally
appeared George K. Osgood and Marie E. Walsh Osgood, proved to me through satisfactory
evidence of identification,which was (ed'of tQ n, ,to be the persons whose names
are signed on the preceding documerp(t,and acknowledged Orme that they signed it voluntarily for
its stated purpose.
HARRY C.CHRISTENSEN
Notary Public
HARRY C.CHRISTENSEN J C,.,a',ealN of Massadmsetls
f My Commission Pxpim
ATTORNEY AT LAWH lristense Dubh
MARBL.EHEAD, MA 01345 February s,2012
40 SOUTH STREET, SUITE 105 nun s ion expire: 02/09/12
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
DRAFT Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday,
June 15, 2011 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem,
Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Beth Debski
and Jamie Metsch. Those absent were:Jimmy Tsitsinos and Bonrh2;Belair(alternates).
Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional ervices, and Danielle
McKnight, Staff Planner.
Ms. Curran opens the meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Approval of minutes: The minutes of May 18!2 11 are reviewed. No changee -are.
proposed. Mr. Dionne moves to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Mstsch and
approved 4-0 (Mr. Metsch, Mr. Dionne, Ms. Curran an Harris in favor, none
opposed, Ms. Debski abstaining).
2,
Public hearing: Petition of PATRICK OSGOw@ appealing a decl5(en of the Building
Commissioner, in order to continue oper tion o a btasiness at 15 ROPES ST. (R-3).
Attorney Matthew KaVanaiJgfi r quests to co tinue the'petition to the July 20, 2011
hearing in order toallo more tir a to research some of the issues relating to the
appeal. Ms. Curran co fi ms he is requesting to,eontinue the matter with no evidence
taken. Mr. Dionne move o>approuethe regfre t, seconded by Ms. Harris and approved
s
5-0 (Mr. Dionne;MHarris, Mss Debski, N1 . Curran and Mr. Metsch in favor, none
opposedr. 1,
Public hearing: Petition of,JYLI MACDONALD requesting a Special Permit under Sec.
3.3.2.1 of tl ebem Zoning Ordinance to construct a third floor shed dormer, and a
Special Permit Under Sec.,' . .
locate' onstruct second and third story decks on the two-
family home locate'
at" 'ESSEX ST, Sa em, MA (R-2 zoning district).
Documents & Exhibitions:
➢ Application date-stamped 5/12/11 and accompanying materials
➢ Existing Conditions Plan dated 5/18/11
➢ Floor plans and elevation drawings dated 5/12/11
Juli MacDonald, architect and representative for owner Elizabeth Coughlin, presents the
petition. She presents the plans, saying the Special Permits are requested because of
the height of the building, and because the existing side yard is nonconforming. She
shows the floor plans and explains the dimensions for the decks on the survey are more
! 1
exact than those shown on the plans. She says they are adding the shed dormer to
provide full head height. She says the third floor deck with pergola requires a Special
Permit because it is on the third floor and extends that floor's existing nonconformity.
She shows drawings of the rear elevation with and without the decks. She notes it is
similar to the neighbors it faces.
Ms. Curran asks her to confirm she is not changing the two family use; Ms. MacDonald
says this is true. Ms. Curran asks if there are stairs to the third floor deck; Ms.
MacDonald says no,just access from the unit.
Ms. Harris asks for clarification of where rooms will be in the inte*nor, and Ms.
MacDonald explains the floor plans. Ms. Curran asks if the ch mney will be removed;
Ms. MacDonald says yes. Ms. Curran asks about the mat pals, Ms. MacDonald says
they will be using vinyl siding and probably a pressfe treated deck ;tough they are
pricing cedar with solid stain also.
Ms. Debski asks Mr. St. Pierre if they need a ariapc He), a"ys�lt appears a Special
Permit will take care of it—this is a nonconforming rFictLre with a conforming use.
Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment. No on n,the ublic is here to speak
about this;she closes the public comme #portion ;
Mr. Dionne says these are lovly plans. MX� etsch notthey are in keeping with the
-,
neighborhood, and hikes tna the pergola;, oes not extend all the way toward the
neighboring house, M Debski asks if the proposed Jacuzzi needs additional structural
support; Ms. MacDonald ys ye ,and Mr. St. Pierre says an engineer will need to stamp
their plans
Mr. Sty Pierre also comments tattlis is a well-prepared set of plans and the owner is
investing it the propertyii order tali a there herself. He says he met with the
applicant several times about the plans.
Mr. Dionne moves toapprgve the petition with eight (8) standard conditions, seconded
by Mr. Metsch and:appved 5-0 (Mr. Dionne, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Debski, Ms. Curran and
Ms. Harris in favor, none opposed).
Public hearing: Petition of JAY LEVY AND NEAL LEVY,TRUSTEES OF 66 DERBY STREET
REALTY TRUST, requesting Variances from lot area, lot area per dwelling unit,
frontage, lot width, front and rear yard setbacks, and off-street parking regulations,
and a Special Permit to allow the reconstruction, extension, alteration and changing of
an existing nonconforming two-family structure on a nonconforming lot to a single-
family house, in order to subdivide the property located at 66 DERBY ST, Salem, MA,
into two lots, construct an addition on one lot, and construct a new single-family
home on the other (R-2 zoning district).
2
r
Documents & Exhibitions:
➢ Application date-stamped 6/1/11 and accompanying materials
➢ Plans titled "Proposed Restoration & Rebuilding of 66-68 Derby Street, Salem,
MA for Bedrock Properties," dated 5/12/11, prepared by David Jaquith
Architects
➢ Site plan titled "Proposed subdivision, 66 Derby Street, Salem, Property of Jay
Levy, Neal Levy," dated 5/12/11, prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation
➢ Elevations, no date
➢ Letter from Salem Historical Commission dated 3/25/11
➢ Letter from Joan B. Lovely, Councillor At Large, dated 6f 15/11
➢ Petition signed by residents supporting the project lj .
➢ Photos and renderings, no date
Attorney Mark Glovsky presents the petition. Hei4 troduces David Jaq l h architect,
and the applicants,Jay and Neal Levy. Atty Glayskvresents the plans and photos of
the property. He gives a brief history of the hgoul�on 66 644,by St. He says that
originally,they had wished to demolish the historichourse and were expecting a delay in
demolition. However, the HistoricahCommission would'hot permit the demolition due
to the house's historical significance nd loi; n in the historic district. They proposed
to tear off the rear addition, restore it t alone-fa ily housen build a new two-
family on the lot for a total of three units,&intenfing i;lo-treatthem as condos. They
received a conceptual endorsement frome Historical,C¢mmission in March.
However, there was a question about havin'gtwo principal buildings on one lot, so they
revised the plans p dth uces density. H says the existing building has been
condemned. He says i a er to=make this economically feasible, they need to divide
the lot and place„a single famiiyon,eaeh`new.ib. He says a total of two buildings are
pro posed,JZ they havve z ized the open space between the buildings. He says
v . § a �:
they have tried to make the arch,it tur_e compatible with the neighborhood. They have
AWSnot:gone back to the Historical Commission, but they are just eliminating a unit.
David Jaquith; 1 RailroadPA' e., Rowley, architect for the project, explains the floor
41
plans. He explainst ie sitelas a sea captain's house once with six units. He says the
driveway will consist of pavers. Now, he says there is a "tooth missing” on the street,
"q
referring to the empty lot. He says the project will be for sale, not a rental.
Jay Levy, 145 Cabot St., Beverly, says they met with the historic Derby St. association
and were well received —many have signed the petition they submitted tonight. He
says they have had a good neighborhood response, and this is a benefit, getting rid of
blight, and putting in a project of an appropriate density.
Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment.
3
V
Angela Connery, 6 Connors Rd., says her mother grew up in the historic house. She is
very pleased it will be preserved, and also supports the new house being built.
Noreen Casey, 123 Bay View Ave., asked where the parking would be. Mr. Jaquith
shows the four required parking spaces on the plans.
Mr. Levy notes that they will probably do something to buffer between the two houses,
such as repair the wall. He also notes they are asking for relief from tandem parking.
Ms. McKnight reads a letter from Councillor At-Large Joan Love[yrl support of the
petition.
The public comment portion is closed.
Ms. Curran says she does not have a problem wit -the petition —they ape not increasing
density—they are staying with two units. She sa+s filling irl.the lot is in ke p'ing with the
neighborhood. She says tandem parking will thbe"a probl with single-family
w� i ,
houses. She says the project is nice, intelligently sited„arid a good addition to the
neighborhood.
Mr. Dionne agrees and says the plans ar, gopd ,
Ms. Harris notes this is a dense neighborho d` ' readyand'this is a moderate proposal.
She asks Mr. St. Pierr f'he has ny comments. He saysYhe project is well thought out,
and the petition i�reas nable
Ms. Harris moveito approV >witK61gh"t(8}standard conditions and one special
condition,that the'two houses rain single family houses. The motion is seconded by
Mr. Dionne and approve�1-0 (Mr : iogne, Mr. Metsch, Ms. Curran, Ms. Debski and Ms.
Harms m or, none oppps d)
Public hearing:Petition oft E SALEM MISSION LLC D/B/A LIFEBRIDGE requesting
variances from rryard,setback, height (feet), height (stories), minimum area per
dwelling unit, and-parking,to add two stories to the existing building at 56 MARGIN
ST, Salem, MA, creat'g twenty(20) units of residential housing (R-2 zoning district).
Documents & Exhibitions:
➢ Application date-stamped 5/25/11 and accompanying materials
➢ Plot plan dated 5/25/11
➢ Exterior Elevations dated 5/25/11
➢ Photos and elevations titled "Seeds of Hope III,” dated 6/15/11
➢ Letter from Jeffrey M. Cox, LICSW, BCD, dated 6/14/11
➢ Letter from Thomas Furey, Councillor At Large, 77 Linden St., dated 6/13/11
4
Attorney George Atkins presents the petition. He introduces Executive Director Mark
Cote and Chair Andrew Oliver of Lifebridge, as well as Dana Weeder of Winter St.
Architects. Atty Atkins says that contrary to what was reported in the newspaper, they
are proposing an expansion not of the shelter, but of permanent housing. He also
clarifies that there was a typo in the application, which says they are looking for 20
units. However, in the narrative, they explain they are looking for relief for 22 units;
Atty Atkins confirms the plan is for 22. He reviews the standards to be applied to the
petition and explains the use is exempt under MGL Ch. 40A Sec. 3, the Dover
Amendment. He says that "reasonable" dimensional regulations do apply, but he says
these can't impede, frustrate or cause harm to carrying out the He also says in the
Salem Zoning Ordinance recodification, there is a section stating that these exempt uses
141,
da,
must comply with all dimensional requirements. Howevehe;notes that local
ordinances cannot override state statute. He says he doesn't want to challenge the
Zoning Ordinance, but he does need to write a zoning op nion for this property, and so
he is asking for traditional variances. He says this review should conssi etAhe
reasonableness of the application.
Atty Atkins explains the five dimensional variances sought, including rear yard setback,
which is already nonconforming, butwill become more sa with the proposed rear
addition, consisting of an elevator and stairway. He also clesbrib7e the parking
R
requirements—33 spaces—and says it'ii evident that some of the requirements of
zoning frustrate the use. He notes the un sual lotshape and'ays the lot contains an
unusual set of buildings comp red to the dEstr' .c He' ests the Board to consider the
reasonableness of the p o ect when applying the regulations.
Atty Atkins says they hadnetwit the neighbovhood group. He addresses a letter the
Board received from Mr. Cox s He notes there,' e some residents who don't want
Lifebridge to be thereiat all, b to says thare trying to work with the neighborhood. He
says the' roject is not ye funded,-sey they don't yet have a contractor, and they need
s
one:before making certain •onstruction decisions. He refers to the letter's request for a
traffic engineer, and explains he dsn't think they need one, since cars are only used by
employeesT,h a are curre tly 17 employees, 8 of whom drive to work. He says there
are two parkmIs ongh Street and Endicott Street on the site. He says if the
m
project is con struciapthere may be one more employee, meaning one more car. He
says Lifebridge will lGlift employee parking—they will make arrangements for this. He
agrees there is a traffic issue, but changing traffic direction is an issue for the police and
Council. He addresses the criteria for residents, saying they get Federal, state and local
funds and must abide by discrimination laws. However, there are two areas in which
they can discriminate—convicted felons and level 3 sex offenders. He says they will not
take people from either category.
Atty Atkins explains that they have tied the project to a reduction in shelter beds. He
says several factors apply here, but they will try to reduce shelter beds by up to 10. He
5
says there are no plans for additional housing on the site or plans to buy another
building.
Mark Cote, 22 Troy St., Lowell, is Executive Director of Lightbridge. He says they have
four buildings at the corner of High and Endicott St. The housing units are in two anchor
buildings and are occupied by men and women who are sober and drug tested, who
meet with staff, have a curfew and pay 30% of their income in rent. He says they have
an 88% retention rate—they are no longer homeless and are living in the neighborhood.
He says they also have shelter beds, and they want to decrease these and increase the
housing. He says they have a good track record of moving people from shelter to
permanent housing, and people are successful because of the dn site supportive
services. He says the Board voted today, and they have decide Not to rent to level 3
sex offenders in Salem—this is a new policy.
Ms. Curran asks him to go through each building�sexisting uses. Mr.Cat says there are
10 units of housing, dorm style, with a shared kitchen an
d:bath on High Stretjwhich
will remain. He says the thrift store at St. Mary's Will.mo�vethe building i1 urrently on
the market. He says between the two housing buil�din s;�there are 22 units and
community meals and support service$ provided. On the main floor, they will move the
kitchen and dining to the basement, add&-units, and reduce the shelter in the
basement. There will be a total of 22 new unit
Dana Weeder hands out,photos and renderin and explains the renovations to the
existing building: front of`theimain floor will have six units; rear of the main floor will be
Ilk
offices; they will take the roofs lower it 7 feet, and build two levels on top. He shows
the elevation of the prot siteith the existin buildings around it and shows how the
height will be similar. He say5.there„will-be&u s each on the second and third floors.
The first Haar-will have a confe'gennce room,'where the educational components of the
project will be. The low-level will contain the kitchen and fewer shelter beds.
L
Ms. Harris.notes it looks as though'the plans show an even larger reduction of beds than
proposed; Mr Cote says the a are bunk beds.
Ms. Debski asks if th_ , rii s have kitchens; Mr. Weeder says there will be cooking in the
upper units.
Mr. Metsch asks about the average stay in the 22 units they already operate. Mr. Cote
says people can stay forever—this is permanent housing. But in three years, they have
had an 88% retention rate. There have been two or three evictions of people who
didn't adhere to the program expectations. Mr. Dionne asks if this is a dry house; Mr.
Cote says yes, it is sober and drug testing is done on site. He says state police come
unannounced with drug sniffing dogs to search the property, and it has been amazingly
clean.
6
Atty Atkins says this plan resulted after the first plan to use the church was proposed,
and this was suggested by the chair of the Historical Commission. He says it developed
over time with the funders and neighborhood.
Ms. Curran asks what other review this will need; Atty Atkins says it would be exempt
from site plan review.
Ms. Curran opens up the issue for public comment.
Jeffrey Cox, 58 Endicott St., says he would like to speak instead ofh, ving his letter read.
He says over the last two years, people have gone from being negative to open to
Lifebridge. He says not everyone is excited about having t if e'shelter. He says the
current management runs a ver tight ship and he a t h
g y g p appreciates the talks with the
T'
neighborhood. However, he says the plan they saw w.as�a�ihoto of<the plan and
requests they continue the hearing so the neighborhood can review the plans further.
He suggests a Lifebridge neighborhood advisoryboard toladdress conc re ne'says this
is a large construction project—as large as Derby Lofts—and,,hey want ti to discuss
the information presented. He says the main issu slinthe neighborhood are parking
and traffic. Speed is a concern —the-,area is dangerous. t e doesn't want a study to be a
barrier to the project, but he's concerned about pedestriasafety. He also questions
what would happen if the shelter/housi�g Were under differentAanagement in the
future. He asks what the long term parkin neo, he,bujlding are. He says this was a
low traffic area when it was-a..church, and na more pe ib are there. He also asks
k wh"can` afford me ers. He says this is the only Board to
where people will par
review, so they should ake moretime.
Mr. St. Pierre says he wiWch ck whetherrsite plan review is required for projects exempt
under the- over Amendment
Tea Ste,Ri bx�oggin, 9 Wisteria St.,,a`sks where the shelter residents will be relocated to
during constr ction.
Mary Beth Bainbritlge, 7 Prescott St., says she appreciates the conversations Lifebridge
has had with the neighbors. She asks what the green components are to the
architecture, and how this fits into Salem's 10 year homelessness plan. She would also
like the hearing to be continued to allow more time for review.
Joe Hillshire, 7 Prescott St., questions the current plans for further expansion; he wants
in writing if they will be limiting the expansion. He also doesn't like the aesthetics of the
plan.
John Femino, 90 Margin St., says he asked for a tour, saw the floor plans, and says they
are pushing a lot downstairs. He's not trying to stop the project—he just wants more
time to review.
7
Ms. McKnight notes they have a letter from At-Large Councillor Thomas Furey strongly
supporting the project. Ms. Curran asks her to summarize the letter.
Mr. Weeder, a LEED accredited professional, addresses the question about green
building. He says the single most important thing they can do in terms of sustainability
is reuse a building, which they are doing. This will be an energy efficient building with
thermal bridging fiberglass windows, insulation and reduced infiltration. It will have a
white or light colored roof to reduce heat gain, a high-efficiency HVAC, and operable
windows. They will use recycled materials to the extent possible:-They are not sure if
they will go for LEED certification, but they will meet many oaf tthe standards. He says
the MA energy code applies here, and Salem requires the stretchtcode.
Atty Atkins says this is their first step—the approval-i lr uired forgovernment funding.
They don't yet have construction drawings, and tl�e timing of their fund will affect
this. He is willing to continue this to have further conversations with the neighborhood.
However, he says they can't solve the traffic is uend they Vvill not have the
drawings available. As to putting it in writing that they won't IAVexpand any further, he
says they can't predict the future, and�they are limited in the commitments they can
make. He doesn't know what will ha
ppe rr with the churcht .e Archdiocese decided to
sell it. They will try to answer, and will' me plc in a month:.
gin.
Ms. Debski suggests speakingto Councillo .Je Pelletia out the traffic issues, and
possibly setting up a meeting wit the police.
100
Janine Camarda, 143 Te sco ,,,Marblehead, says she grew up in the neighborhood,
and traffic was a problem the the_saeiterrs- of adding to that. She says people
speed, but.it'6th ngro do wklthe shelter. This is a 40-year-old problem. She asks
about the reduction n beds, and wants to know if that means fewer people will be
coming,im
r
Mr. Cote explai stthe planta reduce the shelter beds, and saying the floor plan hasn't
been configured,Yet�but they could potentially go from 34 to 24 beds. They will be used
as transitional beds'un,ti��'stable before providing permanent housing. Ms. Camarda asks
if there will be enouIr. shelter beds for Salem's needs; Mr. Cote says yes. Ms. Camarda
asks where the people come from using the beds; Mr. Cote says the majority are from
the North Shore, and more than 50% are from Salem.
Mr. Femino disagrees that the shelter does not bring in more traffic.
Ms. Harris asks for a further explanation of the Dover Amendment. Mr. St. Pierre
explains that the exemption allows religious or educational uses, though he doesn't
know if he agrees that site plan review is not needed. Ms. Curran says they will discuss
8
this with counsel before the next meeting. Mr. Cote notes that the educational
exemption applies here because they hold classes on site.
Mr. Femino says Atty Atkins has not been up front and there have been misconceptions
passed along the the neighbors. He says some have been bullied.
Mr. Cox thanks the applicant for being willing to continue; he looks forward to
continuing their conversations, and thinks it will be a success. Ms. Curran says she
thinks continuing would be a good idea for the neighborhood, and she would like to do
a second visit.
Ms. Harris says the applicant doesn't have to promise cert OinAlhinIgs, but an MOU might
be helpful to outline the specifics of the project.
Ms. Debski moves to continue the hearing to Jule , 2011, seconded by Ms. Harris and
approved 5-0 (Ms. Debski, Ms. Harris, Ms. Cur r'am,Mr. Dionne and Mr. Metsch,Jn favor,
none opposed).
Public hearing: the petition of LESLIE R. ABCUNAS, requesting a Home Occupation
Special Permit for a massage business the single-fam y hC e t 24 BELLEAU RD,
Salem, MA (R-1 zoning district). ~
Documents & Exhibitions:,
➢ Application date-stampe 5/26/11 an accompanying materials
➢ Addendum<to applicationdistributed at meeting
� ,
➢ Letter from CnthT . Hincman Bourgault9 Belleau Rd.
➢ Letter fro Anne Marie and Richard-5 . Pierre, 26 Belleau Rd., dated 6/15/11
➢ Let erfrom Councillor A Large Joanl& Lovely, dated 6/15/11
➢ Letter from Councillor At"Large T• homas H. Furey, dated 6/12/11
FLetter from Count tf0 At Lghomas H. Furey, dated 6/14/11
Ms. Abcunaspresents her pqtition, saying she would like to have a massage studio in
her parents hous, ,where4e grew up, and now lives again. She says there was
Ae
flooding damage •in t'e, asement, which they have renovated. She says her father is
also present. She speaks about her schooling at the Spa Tech Institute in Ipswich. She
says she is licensed and carries a $2 million insurance policy for liability. She says her
project is supported by her insurance company, which has an attorney to make sure
massage therapists are treated fairly in the state. He is not present tonight. She says
she tried to rent space for this, but she doesn't yet have the clientele to rent downtown
space, which is her ultimate goal. She doesn't want to work from home forever.
Currently she is traveling to her clients. She says she looked into working in a spa, but
she prefers a different approach to working with clients than the schedule of a spa
permits—she likes to take the time to learn clients' history, injuries, etc.
9
Ms. Abcunas says the parking area in the driveway fits three cars, and a neighbor has
offered driveway space if needed. She says there will be no external changes and no
signs. She says not everyone can afford massage, but she keeps her pricing in line with
the area market. She has no plans to have a lot of people come to the house. She has
five friends here to support her. She says she does not advertise the business. She
refers to some who have opposed the petition and notes that she is offended by the use
of the word "parlor' —she does not want her services to be confused with anything but
professional massage. She says the police were called when a friend came over. She
now cannot have visitors without the police being called. When the police were called,
she says the basement was not finished. She says she has suffered defamation of
character. She refers to the petition she has submitted with,sighatu es in favor of the
project.
Ms. Curran asks if she has employees; Ms. Abcunassays,,n Ms. Carr n"asks if the
business takes up less than 25%of the house; M Abcunas says yes,t' ess than half
the basement. Ms. Curran asks about signage;Ms. Abcunas says she has "onnd
there is no advertising of her address—her dienta2re allfrpn word of mout15 Ms.
Debski asks how many clients she has. Ms. Abcun s�sd s she doesn't have any now—
she was practicing massage only. Shesays no one canprohibit free practice massages.
She estimates she would have 8 clients W ekly—this would b ab_ ut 8 hours per week.
However, it would vary—some weeks its ould iie-2, 5, etc.
Jane Camarda, 20 Bellleau,Rd. supports th p tition. SK�says she got a training
massage and was impressed by Ms. Abcunastraining. She says she's helped her with a
nted to give an a dorsement of Ms. Abcunas's character.
chronic problem. Stile*also wa
VP
Deborah Gregory 22 Belleand',`a154s" pports the petition and says she knows Ms.
Abcunas wdll.
HeleirBr n, 35 Belleau,Rt,�, also says she knows Ms. Abcunas well. She supports the
petition an ould look to her fordhelp with her mother's sciatica.
iq
Cynthia Bourgault,19 Belle u Rd., opposes the petition. She says they have not talked
about hours. She says the is a discrepancy in what Ms. Abcunas has said about the
amount of money she'---is insured for. She also says she has not been doing only practice
massage but has been traveling to clients. She says there are lots of elderly people and
kids in the neighborhood and the house is on a blind curve. She doesn't want a business
in the neighborhood. She says this is a quiet dead end. She also says Ms. Abcunas isn't
beyond making threats.
Ms. Curran asks about the business's hours of operation. Ms. Abcunas says it would
vary—it could be 7 days a week, but she wouldn't have anyone before 12 or after 8.
10
Ms. McKnight reads letters from Ms. Bourgault (opposed), Anne Marie and Richard St.
Pierre, 26 Belleau Rd. (opposed), and At-Large Councillor Joan Lovely (opposed). She
explains that she first received a letter in opposition from Councillor Thomas Furey, but
she then received a letter supporting the petition after the Councillor met with the
applicant about the project and toured her house.
Ms. Abcunas notes that there would be no overlapping appointments, so there would
never be more than one car parked, and no one would be waiting.
Ms. Curran asks Mr. St. Pierre that this is allowed by Special Perrnt,,in the R1 zone; he
says yes, it meets the definition of a home occupation. Ms. Curnreviews the criteria
Ate„
for home occupations and confirms that no goods are produced he asks if Ms. Abcunas
if she sells any products,to which she replies no.
Ms. Debski asks if there is resident sticker parking n the street; Ms. A, pas says yes.
Ward 7 Councillor Joseph O'Keefe speaks in opposition. says this is a dead end street
and people have to turn around. He says this changes h Rl zoning and n office in a
house shouldn't be allowed. He doesn't want to set a precedent. He says this would
alter the fabric of the neighborhood.
He says the house hassa,car blocking the sidewalk,
which is a violation, and there are unr glsteKed'ears on the property. He asks where
clients will park, since this is a resident sticker on y street. HAlso asks what Ms.
Abcunas's tagline "massage a d more' manse her business card? He says this
,. `m
belongs in a business drstrictle
Ms. Camarda says the majority-o .the neighborhood supports the applicant, and she
feels they are being bullied y oth(! ftefghboreealling officials and calling the police.
4' ` :._
Ms. Curran closes the pu (ic comment portion of the hearing.
Ms. Debski sas the applicant hasanswered their questions. Mr. St. Pierre refers to a
state requiremSgt for a diffelent permit for an operation of more than 8 hours, and asks
if Ms. Abcunas wou�ld.be requesting this; she says she will apply for that if she gets
approval for the IicenseMr. St. Pierre notes that this is a different license, and she still
needs a special permit'for a home occupation from the city.
Mr. Dionne says the dead end street is his only concern, but also notes that they would
be setting a precedent by allowing this in R1. Ms. Curran asks Mr. St. Pierre to confirm
that the special permit would run with the applicant and not the property; he says they
can limit this to just the applicant.
Ms. Debski says this would not be a big impact on the neighborhood — it would be one
car at a time with no overlap. Ms. Harris says there is not adequate parking. Ms. Debski
says the applicant could park on the street with her resident sticker—she has a right to
11
two per household. She says she is much more comfortable with this application after
hearing from the applicant and neighbors. She says there is not much opposition.
Ms. Curran says she is struggling to see the impact this would have, especially since this
would be limited to the applicant and would not be forever. Mr. St. Pierre says they
could limit the time the permit is good for. Ms. Harris asks if they could do it for a year,
or six months perhaps? She notes there is both support and opposition in the
neighborhood. Ms. Debski notes that they have done this before. Mr. Metsch says this
is in keeping with the idea of a Special Permit, and it's no different from a lawyer, etc.
with a home occupation. He notes this would just be one person ata time with no
overlap. He likes the idea of issuing the permit for a certain amount of time as a trial,
and suggests 2 years. He doesn't think parking is a problem''
sitlte the residents have
the option to park on the street, and one car in the driveway is naf, n issue.
W.
Ms. Harris does not like offices in people's houses doctors, lawyers, et —she feels
this is too intense for residences. Ms. Curran points out that in those cases,the,
intensity of use is greater than what is propose de: Mr= letsch asks wther this
sets a precedent for the Board issuing special permits, M5. Curran says they are just
evaluated case by case.
Mr. Metsch moves to approve the petition witWthe followingspecial conditions: the
business use is to operate 12 noon to 8 p., ., Monday through Saturday; the Special
Permit term expires in two years; no signage{s be poste ; there are to be no
�. nt,i
employees; and the apphcant.is to maintain all needed Icenses, permits and insurance.
Ms. Debski seconds`ih motion, nd the Board votes 3-2 (Ms. Debski, Mr. Metsch and
Ms. Curran in favor, l4arris,and Mr. Dionne gpposed); the petition is denied.
Mr. Diann moves„two adlour"n_t a meeting; seconded by Ms. Harris and approved 5-0.
TheFmeetin adjourns at9:25 P.m. fir.
m. v„
Respectfully su mitted,
DanielleMcKnigbt� tall Planner
For actions where thgsdecisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of
the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at:
http://salem.com/PaaesISalemMA ZoninaAppealsMin/
12
REPLY MESSAGE
FROM
TO G.O. PROPERTIES & DEVELOPMENT
100 Naugus Avenue
Marblehead,MA 01945
(617) 631-9088
SUBJECT; ? �r/ 0 �./ i-� DATE: 20,1 4zo
FOLD
,rC G
O
Gc
PLEASE REPLY TO r-00- SIGNED
REPLY
DATE: SIGNED
QTY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
tiyc 120 WASHINGTON STREET,31D FLOOR
.nr
TEL. (978) 745-9595
FAx(978) 740-9846
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR THOMAS STYIERRE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROPERTY/BUILDING COMMISSIONER
April 13, 2011
Patrick Osgood
44 Fox Run Road
Topsfield Ma. 01983
R.E Zoning Violations- 15 Ropes Street
Dear Mr. Osgood,
This Department has received and investigated a complaint regarding the use of 15 Ropes Street
to run your business. The property is located in a R-3 multi-family zone which allows
residential multi-units and private garages as long as the garages are clearly incidental to the
primary use. City records classify the building as a three unit residential building containing four
units . The use of the property for residences is allowed.
Our records also indicate that a Special Permit was applied for and granted in 1983 which
allowed a one story addition approx. 15' x 20' to the existing garage. The decision for this
Appeal restricts the use of the garage for dead storage and for parking. No other uses were
granted.Currently the left side yard is being used as parking area for Osgood Painting vehicles
Additionally while researching this property, it appears that you have created perpendicular
parking spaces to the front of the building,on land that is not owned by you but is in fact part of
the City Street.
Unless you have some records to the contrary ,which you would like to produce, you are ordered
to cease operating the painting business from this property including the storage of vehicles in
the left side yard and to the front of the building, within 30 days.
If you feel you are aggrieved, you may appeal my interpretation of zoning to the Salem Zoning
Board of Appeals.
Singerely
Thomas St.Pierre
Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer
cc. file, Jason Silva, Salem Police, Traffic Division, Robin Stein-Asst. City Solicitor
-
>'
q� A9 Pgttra of A}r wl
DECISION �3TH19% TITION OF GEORGE AND GEORGIA OSGOOD FOR
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 15_R%RES STREET
SW_
A hearing on this Petition was held on March 16, 1983 with the following Board
" 'Members present: James Hacker, :Chairman; Messrs. Hopper and LaBrecque and
Feeherry. Notices of the .hearing were sent to abutters and others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioners have requested the right to construct a one-story addition of
g .:approximately 15' x 20' to an existing garage at the site. This will expand
the existing non-conforming structure at the property in question.
;The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Sectiou.V B 10, which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in
this Ordinance, the Board of -Appeal may, in accordance
with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII •F
and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and
reconstruction of non-conforming structures, and for changes,
enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming
lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, ,
that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion
shall not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests,
guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted
upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will
promote the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
The Board, after considering the evidence at the hearing on this matter,
incorporates into this decision the findings of fact made in this Board's October 20,
1982 decision.
On the basis of these findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes: (i) that the proposed addition
will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing structure to the
neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed use of the property will promote the health,
safety, convenience, and welfare of the City's inhabitants, and (iii) that the
proposed use of the property is in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
Iccordingly, the Board unanimously approves the granting of the requested
Special Permit to the Petitioners:
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF GEORGE AND GEORGIA OSGOOD '83 MAR 21 A9 32
FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 15 ROPES STREET
PAGE 216, 19s3 CITY CLFRK'S OFFICE
MARCH
SALEM i9ia S.
1) Petitioners may construct a one-story concrete block addition,
of approximately 15' x 20, to the garage at the site. The
addition may be used for dead storage and for parking.
2) The proposed addition shall be not less than 15' from
the Florence Street property line and not less than 3' from
the southerly property line.
3) Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Building
Inspector in connection with the Petitioners' Building
Permit application.
4) A Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be obtained for
the entire property prior to any use of the proposed addition.
I-Alfbfony M. ,Feeherr
S retary
APF::'.-_ FP,0!.! THIS DECiS;CN, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE F.:ASS.
GENE?.&L Lk'sS, CI!I:PTER 803, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 GAYS AFTER THE GATE OF FILING
OT TNS -DECISION IN T!:r CFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
Pit.-tSAiii
TO ...ASS. GE!W':- LA'iS CHAPTE' 808, SPUM 111, THE '+:.,..J!CE C"
GE7GiiEt3 HEREIN. SY:LL illi TAi:E EFI CT C2;T11 A COW CF T9E DEC:c.:-.t. .... .. rd L-::-
Fii;ATl•;iN OF THE LIIY CLE";: ILIA': 20 DA-,'S HAVE ELAPSED A'-!J N: APPEAL HA.
GR "i HAI, IF SUCH AN APPEALHAS EE`_:! FILE. THAT IT HAS BEENOIS':aSSED "1 C=.,..:: !
RECORDED IN THE SOCTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER -1 HE ii:r'M-1 C: THE aEn
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OVINER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY CLERK
�p TitU of #n1em, Massac4usetts
; f�a Public Properttl Department
Nuilding Department
(IDne 6alem (6reen
508-745-9595 Ext. 380
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
November 8, 1993
George Osgood
84 Naugus Avenue
Marblehead, MA 01945
RE: 15 Ropes Street
Dear Mr. Osgood:
In response to a request from the City of Salem Health Department I
conducted an on site inspection of the rear porches at the above referenced
property. It is my finding that said porches are in violation of the
Massachusetts State Building Code Section 123.0, Unsafe Structure.
You are hereby ordered to bring these porches up to code and to
contact this office upon receipt of this notice to advise us of your
intent. Failure to comply will result in the appropriate legal action
being taken.
Sincerely,
Leo E. Tremblay
Inspector of Buildings
LET:bms
f cc: Julie Forsberg, Health Dept.
Councillor Gaudreault, Ward 5
Certified Mail #P 921 991 561
\15ropes\
r ' ARTICLE
• P 921 991 561
UNE" George Osgood NUMBER
84 Naugus Ave.
Marb]ehead, MA 01945
I
t FOLD AT PERFORATION t WALZ
INSERT IN STANDARD#10 WINDOW ENVELOPE. / f f A T I F ff D
M A I L f ATM,
���_k:w�
�{j
i
_._. I P.
APPLICATION ® ADULT NUMBER Trial Court of Massachusetts
FORCOMPLAINT ElJUVENILE •`4' "' " `� District Court Department
❑ ARREST HEARING ❑ SUMMONS ❑ WARRANT COURT DIVISION
The within named complainant requests that a complaint issue against the within Salem Qisttict Court
named defendant, charging said defendant with the offense(s) listed below. 55 West,inton Street
DATE OF APPLICATION DATE OF OFFENSE I PLACE OF OFFENSE Salem MA.01970
11/30/93 11/8/93 15 Ropes St., Salem
NAME OF COMPLAINANT
Inspector of Buildings NO. OFFENSE G.L. Ch. and Seo
��tysofNDS{a1�EOFCOMPLAINANT t Massachusetts St:aSa Building
One-Salem--Green--- — _ __. . -_ _. _ - Code Section 123.0
Salem, MA 01970
2. #
NAME,ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE OF DEFENDANT
George_Osggod,--- -,------------
84 Naugus Ave. 3.
Marblehead,._11A._01945_______
4.
COURT USE I A hearing upon this complaint application DATE OF HEARING TIME OF HEARING COURT USE
ONLY--* will be held at the above court address on Gf� AT U O ONLY
CASE PARTICULARS — BE SPECIFIC
NAME OF VICTIM DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY VALUE OR PROPERTY TYPE OF CONTROLLED
NO. Owner of property, Goods stolen,what Over or under SUBSTANCE OR WEAPON
person assaulted,etc. destroyed,etc. $250. Marijuana,gun,etc.
5
1
, as
2
3
4
OTHER REMARKS: "
Failure to notify Building Department as per request
TM x
SIGNATURE OF ZCOMPLAINA
DEFENDANT IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION —Complete data below if known.
DATE OF BIRTH PLACE OF BIRTH SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER SEX RACE I WEIGHT EYE5 HAIR
OCCUPATION EMPLOYERISCHOOL MOTHER'S NAME(MAIDEN) FATHER'S NAME
C
Q
3
r
D
Z
1
D
Z
C
C
C
DC-CR2(3/88)
11NDIT
��w*ticgga� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF
APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01 970
DONT TELEPHONE 978-745-9595
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL FAX 978740-9846
MAYOR
August 3, 2011
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Petition of PATRICK OSGOOD appealing a decision of the Building Commissioner, in
order to continue operation of a business at 15 ROPES ST (R-3).
A hearing on this petition was scheduled for May 18, 2011, on which date the petitioner
requested to continue to June 15, 2011 with no evidence taken. At the June 15, 2011
meeting, the petitioner again requested to continue to July 20, 2011 with no evidence
taken. On July 20, 2011, the petitioner requested to withdraw the petition. On July 20,
2011, the Board of Appeal voted 5-0 (Rebecca Curran, Jamie Metsch, Richard Dionne,
Beth Debski and Bonnie Belair) to allow the petitioner to withdraw this petition without
prejudice.
GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE JULY 20, 2011.
Keoecca Curran
Salem Zoning Zoning Board of Appeals
A COPY OF 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 of filing of
this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter.40A, Section 11, the Variance or Speci
effect until o al Permit granted herein shall not take
copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed
with the Essex South Registry of Deeds.
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
T BOARD OF APPEAL
l
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
-TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595
FAX: 978-740-9846
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL -.. J
MAYOR f... - -.
August 3, 2011
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Petition of PATRICK OSGOOD appealing a decision of the Building Commissioner, in
order to continue operation of a business at 15 ROPES ST (R-3).
A hearing on this petition was scheduled for May 18, 2011, on which date the petitioner
requested to continue to June 15, 2011 with no evidence taken. At the June 15, 2011
meeting, the petitioner again requested to continue to July 20, 2011 with no evidence
taken. On July 20, 2011, the petitioner requested to withdraw the petition. On July 20,
2011, the Board of Appeal voted 5-0 (Rebecca Curran, Jamie Metsch, Richard Dionne,
Beth Debski and Bonnie Belair) to allow the petitioner to withdraw this petition without
prejudice.
GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE JULY 20, 2011.
/z mx
Rebecca Curran
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
A COPY OF 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 of filing of
this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take
effect until a ropy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed
with the Essex South Registry of Deeds.
CITY OF SALEM
PUBLIC PROPERTY
DEPARTMENT
MAWR
120 AXS\srn.N<;n»Sna=.F'r 0 S,v.rni,MAss:,cn csern 01970
riga.:978-745-9595 ♦ 1'.vx:978-740-9846
VIOLATION NOTICE
PROPERTY LOCATION 15 Ropes Street
November 29, 2007
Patrick Osgood
Osgood Stone Works
250 Highland Avenue
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. Osgood;
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, Chapter 1, Section 103.1
Rear Porch Framing and Decking needs repair or replacement.
Some roof shingles need replacement.
Damage to left side of Front Porch.
Rear Entry Door to ferst,Jloor apartment is not Fire Rated.
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 5643.
Sinc rely,
o eeh Barbeau, Jr.
Local Inspector/Assistant Building Inspector
CC: file, Mayor's Office, Fire Prevention, Health Dept., Councilor Veno
CITY OF SAL"I
NEIGIIBORIIOOD I.MPROVEDIENT TASK FORCE
REFERRAL FORM
Date:
Address: & P S
Cq,��Wnt: Phone H:
. ak 3 0 7
..c a•t(,�ttglle ,�
rCGIv✓iQ'4c f E ea`��d�
Complainant: i 6�e�cs Pe q�q
DAVID SHEA, CHAIRMAN KEVIN HARVEY
BUILDING INSPECTOR ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT
k
FIRE PREVENTION CITY SOLICITOR
HEALTH DEPARTMENT SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY
LICENSING POLICE DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR
TREASURERICOLLECTOR
PLEASE CHECK THE ABOVE REFERENCED COMPLAINT AND RESPOND TO DAVE
SHEA WITHIN ONE, WEEK. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE. ,r
ACTION:
Tttu of �$alw, gassar4n ffs
y ,:. ; _ �uhlit �rII�Ex#g �P�Jttr#men#
''sem�4�''t" �ixi(Din� �e�Zttx#runt#
RWxt rd .T: _Mclntosh
One Salem Green
745-II213
December 16, 1982
Mr. Jack Condon
City Electrician
Salem, Massachusetts
RE: 15 Ropes Street
Dear Mr. Condon:
According to the files in this office, the above referenced
property is a legal three family dwelling. It is permissable to
install a fourth meter to be used solely for smoke detectors, hall-
ways and cellar.
Very truly yours,
c�icr��l•�2��
Maurice M. Martineau
Assistant Building Inspector
MMM:bms
•
Page --+ of
SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT
9 North Street Date:
O �J
Salem. MA 01970
Name: Address: is Ea es Z
Specified Reg # Violation
Time 410. . . .
rte" Co��
2, yin- S Yf5 �CS V1'lGt.+"Et1 cL� CoV�Xi11 ��'BvYt �-
1 S G►-txin'+ � i a-✓>ci u-S;"' Dov
IrY>Gc�e �rt+r�ct-.
1so Ic J PSI nc�l c�► w i v.�ow u V+t o
` ►.vll�a-, v+-1ci.ILi ��lar- vu�l- we�t-1�. -
• cw,;w1�s . R �a� !o►.v I�e-� w� v�ws
at- o-�v, w► s vr-t
14
csi -6: u-s;; �=M v
,LL �c1 ►.� �,-1. c��s sem, �- -Fd
A . -_. Ali w1i �1 a ss•► tole �.�. +- ��
ZaYc� .
(J�.��
e i
3
''away aha
CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT
BOARD OF HEALTH
9 North Street
ROBERT E. BLENKHORN Salem,Massachusetts.01970
HEALTH AGENT
508-741-1800
October 25, 1993
Mr. George Osgood
84 Naugus Avenue
Marblehead, MA 01945
Dear Mr. Osgood:
In accordance with Chapter III, Sections 127A and 1278 of the Massachusetts General Laws, 105 CMR 400.00;
State Sanitary Code, Chapter I: General Administrative Procedures and 105 CMR 410.00: State Sanitary Code,
Chapter 11: Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation,an inspection was conducted of your property
located at 15 Ropes Street, Apt.2 occupied by Bill Lewis conducted Julie Forsberg, Sanitarian of the
Salem Health Department on August 25, 1993 at 12:00 p.m.
Notice: If this rental unit is occupied by a child or children under the age of 6 years, it is the property owner's
responsibility to ensure that this unit complies fully with 105 CMR 460.000: Regulations for Lead Poisoning
Prevention and Control. For further information or to request an inspection, contact the Salem Health
Department at 741-1800.
You are hereby ORDERED to make a good-faith effort to correct these violations in accordance with the
enclosed report.
Failure on your part to comply within the specified time will result in a complaint being sought against you in
Salem District Court.
Should you be aggrieved by this Order, you have the right to request a hearing before the Board of Health. A
request for said hearing must be received in writing in the office of the Board of Health within 7 days of receipt of
this Order. At said hearing,you will be given an opportunity to be heard and to present witness and documentary
evidence as to why this Order should be modified or withdrawn. You may be represented by an attorney. Please
also be informed that you have the right to inspect and obtain copies of all relevant inspection or investigation
reports,orders and other documentary information in the possession of this Board, and that any adverse party
has the right to be present at the hearing.
Please be advised that the conditions noted may enable the occupant(s)to use one or more of the statutory
remedies available to them as outlined in the enclosed inspection report form.
FOR THE BOARD OOFpF HEALTH
REPLY TO
Rert E. hom, C.H.O. Julie Forsberg
Health Agent Sanitarian
REBIb
cc: Tenant
Building and Fire Prevention
Certified Mail P 348 636 089
Page 1 of
SALEM HEALTH CEPAf TMENT
9 , 9 North Street
Salem,MA 01970
State Sanitary Code, Chapter II: 105 CMR 410.000
Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation
Occupant: �t 11 L eW i S Phone:
Address: Ropes �' II Apt. 12- Floor 2-
Owner:
Owner: Gf+� ��Soa70c1 Address: t� to ualts-S A-i,,— .
Inspection Date: 25 I�3 Time: 12:00
Conducted By: � �Id,�leIISt� ksl Accompanied By: —1e�- h�—�
Anticipated Reinspection Date: t+1o*f• Z�, h��✓
Specified Reg # Violation
Time 410. . . .
Ilo i cmc 1c LA v%A--
V i o br. cra s o•I-��
o�� o Ces-�-; {-i coc_E-e o-F �i�- tnE?SS •�j ov,
-{-i le W 1-I-vi -V-v-�i S d ae--k-t.,-'f2b•t-�' -Fvl— -F-I�iS
IA S C (l l IeS 0.�P 1�16LU 1 1 W0.I Ply'
a-11
.es C4_J'� VY-1 i S.S1 R
One or more of the above violations may endanger or materially impair
the health, safety and well-being or the occwpants(sl.
Code Enforcement Inspecto
Este es un documento legal importante. Puede quo afecte sus derech s.
�jwt ISI
Puede adquiriruna traduccion de esta forma.
r� i
�
4--i"'-' pv't_�levr�l evl
APPENDIX`H(14)
Legal Remedies for Tenants of
Residential Housing
The following is a brief summary of some of the legal remedies tenants may use in order to get housing code violations
corrected:
1. Rent Withholding(Massachusetts General Laws,Chapter 239,section 8A): If Code Violations Are Not Being Corrected you
may be entitled to hold back your rent payments.You can do this without being evicted if:
A. You can prove that your dwelling unit or common areas contain code violations which are serious enough to endanger
or materially impair your health or safety and that your landlord knew about the violations before you were behind in
your rent
B. You did not cause the violations and they can be repaired while you continue to live in the building.
C. You are prepared to pay any portion of the rent into court if a judge orders you to pay it (For this,it is best to put the
rent money aside in a safe place.).
2. Renoir and Deduct(Massachusetts General Laws,Chapter 111,section 127L):The law sometimes allows you to use your rent
money to make the repairs yourself.If your local code enforcement agency certifies that there are code violations which
endanger or materially impair your health, safety,or well-being,and your landlord has received written notice of the violations,
you may be able to use this remedy.If the owner fails to begin necessary repairs(or to enter into a written contract to have them
made)within five days after notice or to complete repairs within 14 days after notice,you can use up to four months'rent in any
year to make the repays.
3. ReLiatory Rent Increases or Evictions Prohibited(Massachusetts General Laws,Chapter 186,section 18,and Chapter 239,
section 2A):The owner may not increase your rent or evict you in retaliation for making a complaint to your local code
enforcement agency about code violations.If the owner raises your rent to tries to evict within six months after you have made
the complaint,he or she will have to show a good reason for the increase or eviction which is unrelated to your complaint.You
may be able to sue the landlord for damages of he or she tries this.
4. Rent Receivership(Massachusetts General Laws,Chapter 11,section 127 C-H):The occupants and/or the Board of Health may
petition the District or Superior Court to allow rent to be paid into court rather than to the owner.The court may then appoint a
"receiver" who may spend as much of the rent money as is needed to correct the violation.The receiver is not subject to a
spending limitation of four months'rent
5. Breach of Warranty of Habitability: You may be entitled to sue your landlord to have all or some of your rent returned if your
dwelling unit does not meet minimum standards of habitability.
6. Unfair and Decepfive Practices(Massachusetts General Laws,Chapter 93A): Renting an apartment with code violations is a
violation of the consumer protection act and regulations,for which you may sue an owner.
The information presented above Is only a summary of the law.Before you decide to withhold your rent or take any other
legal action,it is advisable that you consult an attorney.If you cannot afford to consult an attorney,you should contact the
nearest legal services office,which is:
Neighborhood Legal Services
37 Friend St.
Lynn,MA 01902
(617)599-7730
N e Page 2 of
SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT
9 North Street Date:
Salem. MA 01970
Name: Law IS Address: IS RopBS 5.4-. 2
Specified Reg # Violation
Time 410. . . ..
1?zti'1.,
� 35 11 1S-- 'i►•,�. 1 u.w,bi �a s �--�o -t-►-ac /�
'1 r ba..-i->-,mow, 1 t.�h•,�i Pl�es�
wa.s►-•�� vr,t,ls+ loe �-r,�g avc:_� ( wb
a�-t- a+✓I� -�-i w,2s
14 �o Cea I. ',s �1-et.,sival work-er- -
�;
vrl;.Ls be ►oL�� .
1
c!i i cu l 1 4a et-, • 1 acs _
c� 35l 6L,owe* Gail
CA
S �.i �t �iK•f-L.ure cavP�--- , s ►-v�i ss i
s+• be l��
lass VY,LA.S+ be IIPL� ,U. +-r,C,=
►4DG1 s 51 Irri- 4n)c+ure cnv s rn;ss'\ a
7 50 1 �S+o►-�.n w i I�ovJ i 6 b�l��-, ' I act
b►.v��-, lames vY-t�t..� � v..J
co+-r,w, �s . Cart-lug+ art
Ne ai-. 745--t
- 1
s� MTMMTI
UW� . . - - - o► _
-- - WIN PP--NpW-
MR. - - _ ► - �
APPLICATION ❑ ADULT NUMBER Trial Court of Massachusetts
FOR COMPLAINT ❑ JUVENILE District Court Department r
G ARREST _ HEARING — SUMMONS ._ 'WARRANT COURT DIVISION
The within named complainant requests that a complaint issue against the within Salem District Court
named defendant, charging said defendant with the otfensels) listed below.
DATE OF APPLICATION DATE OF OF ENSE PLACE OF OFFENSE 65 Washington Street
Salem, MA. 01970
1 NAME OF OMPLAINANT
NO. OFFENSE G.L. Ch. and Sec
. —
ADDRESS ND ZIP CODE OF COMPLAINANT 6 0d-e Scc,'r!O/l /2,j, d 0'7
WILL
i
2.
NAME.ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE OF DEFENDANT
V Q01Z5c� �S 6{00 3.
4.
�Y Ng.u�e�s due .
COURT USE A hearing upon this complaint application I DATE OF HEARING TIME OF HEARING COURT USE
ONLY--+ will be held at the above court address on - AT *—ONLY
CASE PARTICULARS — BE SPECIFIC
NAME OF VICTIM DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY VALUE OR PROPERTY TYPE OF CONTROLLED
NO. Owner of properly, Goods stolen,what Over or under SUBSTANCE OR WEAPON
Terson assaulted,elc. destroyed,etc. $250. Marijuana,gun.etc.
i t
2
(
3
1
OTHER REMARKS:
x
SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT
DEFENDANT IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION — Complete data below if known.
DATEOF BIRTH PLACE OF BIRTH SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER SEX RACE HEIGHT I WEIGHT EYES HAIR
OCCUPATION EMPLOYERISCHOOL MOTHER'S NAME(MAIDEN) FATHER'S NAME
I
COURT USE ONLY
DATE DISPOSITION AUTHORIZED BY
NO PROCESS TO ISSUE
At request of complainant
:- Complainant failed to prosecute
Insufficient evidence having been presented
PROCESS TO ISSUE TYPE OF PROCESS
Sufficient evidence presented = Warrant
Defendant failed to appear 7 Summons returnable
I
Continued to
COMMENTS
DC-CR2(3188)
. ADMINISTRATION AND E1JFPRCEMEIT�
SECTION 123.0 UNSAFE STRUCTURES
f 123.1 Inspection: The building official immediately upon being informed by report
or otherwise that a building or other structure or anything attached thereto or
connected therewith is dangerous to life or limb or that any building in that city or
town is unused, uninhabited or abandoned, and open to the weather, shall inspect
the same; and he shall forthwith in writing notify the owner to remove it or make
it safe if it appears to him to be dangerous, or to make it secure if it is,unused,
uninhabited or abandoned and open to the weather. If it appears that such
structure would be especially unsafe in case of fire, it shall be deemed dangerous
within the meaning hereof, and the building official may affix in a conspicuous place
upon its exterior walls a notice of its dangerous condition, which shall not be
removed or defaced without authority from him.
123.2 Removal or making structure safe: Any person so notified shall be
allowed until twelve o'clock noon of the day following the service of the notice in
which to begin to remove such building or structure or make it safe, or to make it
secure, and he shall employ sufficient labor speedily to make it safe or remove it or
to make it secure; but if the public safety so requires and if the mayor or selectmen
so order, the building official may immediately enter upon the premises with the
necessary workmen and assistants and cause such unsafe structure to be made safe
' or demolished without delay and a proper fence put up for the protection of
passersby, or to be made secure.
SECTION 124.0 EMERGENCY MEASURES
124.1 Failure to remove or make structure safe, survey board, survey report:
If an owner of such unsafe structure refuses or neglects to comply with the
requirements of such notice within the specified time limit, and such structure is not
made safe or taken down as ordered therein, a careful survey of the premises shall
be made by a board consisting; in a city, of a city engineer, the head of the fire
department, as such term is defined in Section 1 of Chapter 148 of the
Massachusetts General Laws Annotated, as amended, and one disinterested person
to be appointed by the building official; and, in a town, of a surveyor, the head of
the fire department and one disinterested person to be appointed by the building
official. In the absence of any of the above officers or individuals, the mayor or
selectmen shall designate one or more officers or other suitable persons in place of
the officers so named as members of said board. A written report of such survey
shall be made, and a copy thereof served on such owner.
124.2 Removal of dangerous or abandoned structures: If such survey report
as outlined in Section 124.1 declares such structure to be dangerous or to be unused,
uninhabited or abandoned, and open to the weather, and if the owner continues
such refusal or neglect, the building official shall cause it to be made safe or taken
780 CMR - Fifth Edition 1-25
APPLICATION ® ADULT NUMBER _ Trial Court of Massachusetts �
FOR COMPLAINT [I JUVENILE District Court Department `111
❑ ARREST A HEARING ❑ SUMMONS ❑ WARRANT COURT DIVISION
The within named complainant requests that a complaint issue against the within C-xem Distnc" Gaurt
named defendant, charging said defendant with the offense(s) listed below. 65 Wasnin,7ion Street
DATE OF APPLICATION DATE OF OFFENSE PLACE OF OFFENSE $.ai€a-Ti, R9A. i:S97O
11/30/93 11/8/93 15 Ropes St., Salem
NAME OF COMPLAINANT
Inspector of Buildings NO. OFFENSE G.L.Ch. and Seo
`$qty Bof ZIP OF COMPLAINANT t Maspachusetts Stake Building
One Salem- Green Code Section 123.0_
Salem, MA 01970
2
NAME,ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE OF DEFENDANT
George Osgood
84 Naugus Ave. 3.
Marblehead, PIA 01945
4.
COURT USE I A hearing upon this complaint application DATEOF HEARING TIMEOFHEARING COURT USE
ONLY will be held at the above court address on �rf " ��/ AT (J O f—ONLY
CASE PARTICULARS — BE SPECIFIC
NAME OF VICTIM DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY VALUE OR PROPERTY TYPE OF CONTROLLED
NO. Owner of property. Goods stolen,what Over or under SUBSTANCE OR WEAPON
person assaulted,etc. destroyed,etc. 8250. Marijuana,gun,etc.
t
1
2
3
a
OTHER REMARKS:
Failure to notify Building Department as per request
*(MAIDEN) FATHER'S
E OF COMPLAINA
DEFENDANT IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION if known.
DATE OF BIRTH PLACE OF BIRTH SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER WEIGHT YES HAIR
OCCUPATION EMPLOYERISCHOOL MOTHER'S NAMS NAME
r
OC CR2(31881
•ENDER: I also wish to receive the
Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
• complete items 3,and as a b, following services(for an extra fee):
• Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this card
to you. 1. ❑ Addressee's Address
• Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not permit.
• Write'Return Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery
• The Return Receipt Fee will provide you the signature of the person delivered to and the
date of delivery. Consult postmaster for fee.
3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number
Gyorge , 7Cro
G P 921 991 561'
'04 Uzi.-'f'U£ Ave. 4b.Service Type
Nnrl)1 •F :Z , iJA 01945
0 CERTIFIED
7.Date of egW15 1993
5 ig lure— A ess resseedssAddress
o -. it requested and tee paid.)
6.Signature—(Agent)
PS Form 3811,November 1990 TIC RETURN RECEIPT
United States Postal Service ESS
�� I ---- '
Official Business P..
^., 9 3� ✓ U. MAIL
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE
USE,$300
INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS
ONE SALEM GREEN
SALEM MA 01970-3724