The URL can be used to link to this page

103 SCHOOL STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION 103 SCHOOL STREET Sllll__ n //1!I/l�lllG No. 153L-2 HASTINGS. MN LOS ANGELES•CHICAGO•LOGAN.OH MCGREGOR,TX-LOCUST GROVE,GA U.S.A. E CITY OF SALEM ARCHIVE RESEARCH APPLICATION $30.00 FEE DATE: f/2 Z T ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: OWNER OF PROPERTY: REQUESTED BY: WA /f TELEPHONE : (5°s/ NOTE: THIS RESEARCH IS NOT A GUARANTEE ANY INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND. THE APPLICATION FEE IS NON-REFUNDABLE. C,l r DATE OF PERMIT � PERMIT No. OWNER LOCATION ;d` � 6/7/83 249 Giulio Tortora I 103 School Street- E STRUCTURE MATERIAL DIMENSIONS No.OF STORIES No.OF FAMILIES WARD COST, 1 ( I 6 STORAGE WAREHOUSE BUILDER'' #249. - Sign "Jimmy's Supermarket§- 20' x 4' Contractor-Eastern-Sign, Peabody 2/15/85 (Owner-Drew Romanvitz) X155 Erect sign (Romie's Harvest) 4/26/88 #241-88 Remodel existing building for storage warehouse, cost. $40,000. 'fee $245. BOARD OF APPEAL- 8/24/88- -Petition for an administrative Ruling regarding a building permit issued for 103 School St. , t The Board-voted- in favor of the Administrative`Ruling :and to order the Building Inspector to revoke the BuildingPermit #241-88. (appealed) Letter dated 1/1-3/89 from the City Solicitor - the Court issued a judgment in favor of Mr. Romanovitz - City has 30 days to appeal Motion for'Final Decree:. 2/6/89 - Order - Board's decision is annulled and the -Building Permit`is hereby reinstated without change (#241-88) Justice Richard 'Kelley, Superior Crt Must be appealed;-by March 8, 1989 OV 6'K J r 'Cow M4�* Ctu of "4itt Vn1j �Fassachus.efts 3 7 Public 13ropertu iDepnrtinent •. 9 Department (Onr iialrm (15rrrn 7.13.11213 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Maurice M. Martineau. Asst Inspector Inspector of Buildings Edgar J. Paquin. Asst Inspector Zoning Enforcement Officer John L. LeClerc, Plumbing/Gas Insp. May 22 , 1988 Councillor City Hail S^.le::, MA C1070 RE: 103 School Street Dear Councillor Hayes: . The building; located at 103 School Street was erected in 1951 as a nonconforming use ( i. _. �.e.r§et in r. reside-ntial zone) and it has remained a r:arLet until recently. The chanr*,e to another non- conforming use is permitted under Section 'VIII E of the Zonin- Ordinance which states that if no enlar anent or structural alterations ^.re rade and the structure is not e-:tended, ^ay, by general rule be chanced. .t „__, been th- practice that "General Rule" means that a use not covered by the Zonin^ By-laws be, if possible, placed in a cite^Ory by the Zonin17 Officer. This type of use is a new use of land over the last few years as are video stores, aerobic studios, CAT hospitals and s:any others, this nas caused the "General Rule" to be applied by this office, with the approval o` the Z I.A, many tires. Tf I can be of further service in this ratter please contact me. ;.�Sinceral;,, 4Iillia ., H. Munroe Zonin_ Enforcement Officer ?THP::bms r Citp of *aiem, 0aggacbugettg Pubtic jropertp Department �kffbing Department One *stem Green 745-9595 Cxt. 380 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer August 24, 1988 Mr. James Fleming, Chairman Board Of Appeal City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, Ma. 01970 RE: 103 School Street Dear Jim, Due to a personal matter I will be unable to attend the meeting of August 24, 1988 regarding 103 School Street. In a letter dated May 23, 1988 to Councillor Hayes, I advised her as to this offices position as to why a permit was issued for the property. This continues to be my position in this matter. I have enclosed a copy of the May 23, 1988 letter for your convenience. Sincerely, 1L1am H. Munroe Zoning Enforcement Officer WHM/JP c Citp of Oatem, 01noubuatto Office of the 3Citp Council Jun 27 7 46 a '28 'S QCitp fall I� �nnva ' CITY Or SwnRO'CoU CILL RS KEVIN R. HARVEY COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT GEORGE A.NOWAK 1988 JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R.HARVEY DONALD T.BATES CITY CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO FRANCESJ.GRACE LEONARD F.O'LEARY NEIL J.HARRINGTON JEAN-GUY J. MARTWEAU GEORGE P.McCABE SARAH M.HAYES June 23, 1988 MARK E.BLAIR Attorney H. Drew Romanovitz 25 Lyme Street Salam, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Pzmanovitz: On May 12, 1988, I informed the Building Inspector, after several constituent complaints, that I believed your intended use of the building at 103 School Street was a violation of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Industrial and storage uses are not allowed in a B-1 Zone. On May 23, 1988, the Building Inspector stated his belief that your new use was a change to a new non-noncorming use, and therefore, permitted by the Ordinance. I disagree with that interpretation and wrote the Building Inspection on June 1, 1988, informing him that even if I were convinced of his position and any new proposed non-corming use had to be as appropriate to the Zoning District as the prior non- conforming use. I don't believe that your proposed use is appropriate. I strongly suggest that you seek relief from the Board of Appeal. Secondly, I strongly suggest that you have caused your own problems. You should have informed me of your intended use so that I could have kept my constituents informed. I would further suggest that you convene a neighborhood meeting to explain your intended use of 103 School Street. It would best be accomplished on a Saturday morning, and notice to the neighborhood would be your responsibility. Please call me when you have made arrangements to meet with the residents of the neighborhood. Sincy yo S, M. HAYES COUNCILLOR 4,MM SIX SMH/deb p // COPY: Mr. william Munroe, Building Inspector{s� Mr. Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner Romanovitz & Manning Attorneys & Counsellors at Lav 25 Lynde Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 H. Drew Romanovitz Suite 2 Charles F. Manning 185 Main Street (617)745-5151 Gloucester, Mass. 01930 (617) 745-0261 June 17, 1988 (61.7) 281-0803 Sarah M. Hayes , Councillor City Hall Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Councillor Hayes : As you know, I own the building located at 103 School Street, Salem. Pursuant to same, I have been advised by Mr. William H. Munroe that you are expressing some concerns with re- spect to the activities taking place at said building , specifically, my construction of storage space. I will be happy to discuss your concerns at your earliest possible convenience. Kindly contact my office to schedule a meeting. Thank you for your cooperation in this mat r. Ve yo V Z HDR: amd cc: Mr. William H. Munroe Zoning Enforcement Officer _ �o�1r Citp of 6atem, Onoubuatto Office of the Citp councit a Otp JpaU "�7rylry8 CP WARD COUNCILLORS KEVIN R. HARVEY 1988 COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT GEORGE A.NOWAK 1988 DONALD T.BATES JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R.HARVEY CITY CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO FRANCES J.GRACE LEONARD F.O'LEARY NEIL J.HARRINGTON JEAN-GUY J.MARTINEAU GEORGE P.McCABE SARAH M.HAYES MARK E.BLAIR June 1, 1988 Mr. William Munroe Building Inspector One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Bill: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the alteration of a non-conforming use at 103 School Street. In response to your letter, I wish to point out that Section VIII E of the zoning ordinance, which you cite, specifically states that a non-conforming use may be changed to another non-conforming use if "the proposed use is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than the existing non-conforming use". It is the belief of myself and neighbors of the area that the new use is not equally or more appropriate, and that it is more incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As a result, I would respectfully request that steps be taken to remove this use. If such action is not taken, I would request that you inform me of the process whereby the Board of Appeal can review your administrative decision and render a judgement or decision, as appropriate. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Sarah M. Hayes Councillor b2 Ward Six M38,#P C0 ., Y Cit p of Oatem, 01a00ctjugetm-F'r Office of the Citp counci[ Citp J�dtl 9Bp� f(�h":�. WARD COUNCILLORS KEVIN R. HARVH,YITy pt- S �� P? 1988 COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT � . GEORGE A.NOWAK 1988 DONALD T.BATES JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R.HARVEY CITY CLERK - VINCENT J.FURFARO FRANCESJ.GRACE LEONARD F.O'LEARY NEIL J.HARRINGTON JEAN-GUY J.MARTINEAU GEORGE P.MCCABE May 12, 19$$ SARAH M.HAYES MARK E.BLAIR William Munroe Inspector of Buildings One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Bill: I am writing to you with regard to a property located at 103 School Street. Currently, a so-called low hazard storage use is taking place within the building, and as the Ward 6 City Councillor, I am very concerned about the existence of this type of use adjacent to a residential neighborhood. As you know, this property is located in a Neighborhood Business District (B- 1), which is intended to contain uses which meet daily shopping needs for the convenience of adjacent residential areas. Industrial and storage uses are not allowed. Such zoning requirements and restrictions exist to protect abutting residential neighborhoods. It is clear that this use violates the provisions of the zoning ordinance, and is not in the best interest of the surrounding area. Therefore, I would respectfully request that you take all action necessary to remove the use from the building in an expeditious manner. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, VW2�ak -2;� . ,�4 . Sarah M. Hayes City Councillor Ward 6 M37WP s A Public Vrupe7rig Bryartment '3J��a1MM6 W�4~ FL`iltllllllg X�epFlrtniPlEt (one inlem (fbreen 745-9595 Ext.380 Director of Public Property William H. Monroe April 25, 1988 H. Drew Romanovitz, Esq. 25 Lynde Street Salem,MA. 01970 RE: 103 School St. , Salem,MA. Dear M.r. Romanovitz, Your application for a building permit has been granted, however installation of the fence shown on the plans would be a Violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore please omit this from the drawings. The placement of dumpsters on sidewalks require a bond of $ 1 ,000.00 dollars and a permit. Please apply for one or remove dumpster. Sincerely, David J. Harris Assistant Building Inspector DJH/eaf C.C. Charles Ooutzos 29 Putnam Street Peabody,MA. 01960 I X°"°'` CtV of *alcnt, fflttssar4usP##s Vublic Propertg Pepttrttuent s 7p JpCYIMMt�Y',�v rtlll uilliuq ]L�epttrtnlent Air ,34ntein 04ren 7,13-0213 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Maurice M. Martineau, Asst Inspector Inspector of Buildings Edgar J. Paquin, Ass't Inspector Zoning Enforcement Officer John L. LeClerc, Plumbing/Gas Insp. April 14, 1988 H. Drew Romanovitz , Esq. 25 lynde Street Salem, MA. 01970 RE: C:7103—School=S't==SaIem;:MA Dear Mr. Romanovitz, Your application for a building permit was denied according to Section 114. 1 of the Mass State building code. Pursuant to our phone conversation, please submit a Certified Plot Plan showing parking. You may reapply at any time including all pertinent material. Enclosed is your building permit application and your check in the amount of $245.00 two hundred and forty five dollars. Sincerely, - lf - � David J. Harris Assistant Building Inspector DJH/eaf enc: is Ct� of Public Vropertg Pepnrttnent "� s 3uiflim; Pi apartment qr0/HML�: (iDnc �ttlrm (lpreen 7.15-LIZ 13 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Maurice M. Martineau, Ass't Inspector Inspector of Buildings Edgar J. Paquin, Ass't Inspector Zoning Enforcement Officer John L. LeClerc, Plumbing/Gas Insp. October 13, 1987 H. Drew Romanovitz 25 Lynde Street Salem,MA 01970 RE: 103 School`St"reet� Dear Sir, I have reviewed your plans in reference to 103 School Street. It is my finding that you will need a set of stamped architect plans for this construction. For any other questions pertaining to fire, please contact Norman LaPointe • at the Fire Prevention Bureau. Sincerely, David H. Harris Assistant Building Inspector DHH/eaf L �,Cox nrtChi of ��Ill`I1T, ��55c�1r11LIgEt�� 1u61ir1rnpertrlrpsrttnent 9 willing Brparintrnt Ar�IMML��' 111nr --ila1rm (M,rrru i 13-11213 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Maurice M. Martineau. Asst Inspector Inspector of Buildings Edgar J. Paquin. Asst Inspector Zoning Enforcement Officer John L. LeClerc, PlumbinwGas Insp. 2' 1089 Sorr' Councillor Cil H-.11 RE: 103 School Street, Dear Councillor H ves: ThP building* located at 1C3 School Street was erected in 1951 as a nonconforrin3 Line ( 1.:�. -=r'.<et in residr-ntial :one) and it has rern.ined r, r.arl:et until recently. The chrnTe to another non- conforr.in7 use is permitted under Section '/III E of the Zoning Ordinance which states that if no enlv.rr-erent or structural alteration^ ^rP r;ade and the structure is not er.tendec, _ y, b, !erier_1 rule he chap-ec. _-. .-..7, hPen thin nrn.ctice that "General Rule" rreans that n use not over, ;,, the Zonin - Sy-lawr be, _. oosrih1e, )laced in tecory by the '_onln " Officer. This of use is a ne.., use of land over the last feu vears as are video stores, aerobic studios, CA' hospitals and =nv others, this 11s cnusPc. thn "Genert:l Rule" to be ap?lied by this office, with the aoproval of the Z.-^..9, ran; tir.:es. rf I can be of further service in this ratter please contact me. Sincer%l , ':illi= H. Hunroe Zonin- Enforcement Officer` !9P::bras �atLQBT} DEPT January X31, . 1989 Mr. William Munroe ' , 1 EB• 3 .`� `r`8 Building Inspector RECEIYEO One Salem Green lily OF SALEM MASS. Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mr. Munroe: We are writing to you regarding the property at 103 School Street that is being converted from a neighborhood grocery store into a storage warehouse, We feel strongly that a warehouse at this site is not an appropriate use and would not be in the best interest of the neighborhood. Warehousing is specifically mentioned in the Zoning Ordinance .as a B-4 use. This type of.ifacility should not be permitted in a B-1 "Neighborhood Business" zone. We-feel that this situation is.-.a violation of the Zoning Ordinance and ask that you act to correct the matter and revoke the permit. We are also upset that a permit for a warehouse was issued without public notice or notification of:_any kind to residents of the neighborhood. Your office must surely have been aware that a change in use of this kind would be a subject of interest to residents of the area. We would also like to bring to your attention the fact that the property has been advertised for sale. We are very concerned that the building may be purchased for use as a warehouse without the buyer knowing that such a use is being questioned. You may contact us by calling Mr. Russell Thatcher at 745-4379 or by sending any correspondence to his attention at 12 Grove Street. Sincerely, «,RussellaFitc epi rove 'V: T1171beth O'Keelle, tr rirove-'(bt. eenZc-Iliner, l2rUove -u3-, J t Oxley, 100 Schoo' "t. t � Mary Oc,r e e-, ts Grove STA,( 2;11zpvbeth Levesque, on Richard Cowley, 100 Sc dl St, ic1� for Levesque, 6d Tre nt St. Mrs William Munroe_ January 31, 1989 Page 2 re e e ' er, I Tren avenpor , em n . Mary Ifelletier, 71 Tremont St. PaAa Davenport, 7 Tremdnt St / /,;? A��4�r 1 06 tis '+ John tinning, 4 Dever 19Ave, S � /'YI opt tl t 4 7 0 l Craig O3,Don ell, 17 Grove St. Corinne Corning, 4 Devereux Av 7 may. �®�g4- �{ J TIic�2' )onnell;T rove 5�; o emary anijft Tremo St. .(. Edward Ryanp 6-Tre ' nt St. v6..oNw,�o Cttp of batem, Anoubugettg Public Propertp Bepartment 3guilbing Bepartment One t3alem Oreen 745-9595 (ext. 380 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer January 17, 1989 H. Drew romanovitiz 25 Lynde Street Salem,MA 01970 RE: ;^'103 School Stree[-.- Dear Mr. Romanovitz, On the advise of the City Solicitor permit 11 241-88 has been restored at the present time. Please be advised that the City of salem has thirty days to exercise it 's appeal rights and any work continued is at your own risk. Sin erely, David J. Harris Assistant Building Inspector DJH/eaf C.C. City Solicitor Board of Appeal Bill Toomey Ward Councillor KEVIN T. DALY .,`1'.Y^v � LEONARD F. FEMINO ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR �t� _;,�— "? ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR 93 WASHINGTON STREET 93 WASHINGTON STREET ,AND CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS AND ONE CHURCH STREET ONE SCHOOL STREET MICHAEL E. O'B RIEN SALEM, MA 01870 BEVERLY, MA 01915 745-4311 CITY SOLICITOR 745-4311 745-0500 93 WASHINGTON STREET 921-1990 AND ((�� PLEASE REPLY TO ONE CHURCH STREET 81 WASHINGTON STREET PLEASE REPLY 0 ONEPJCHOOL STREET SALEM, MA 01970 -< 745-4311 0;0 C" 744-3363CA y� PLEASE REPLY TO 81 WASHINGTON STREET mC7 Cn V* >a � January 13 , 1989 ti Cz William H. Munroe, Building Inspector City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: H. Drew Romanovitz v Salem Board of Appeal --.---....--.,._, Essex Superior Court #88-2701 Dear Mr. Munroe: Please be advised I went to Superior Court today on the plaintiff ' s motion for entry of judgment in the above matter. The Court (Kelly, J. ) held that the July 21, 1988 petition to the Board .of Appeal was not filed in a timely fashion. Accordingly, the Court issued judgment in Mr. Romanovitz ' s favor. In a brief conversation with Mr. Romanovitz after the hearing, he indicated that he wished to resume work on the project. I advised him that the City has 30 days to exercise it' s appeal rights and any work he does is at his peril. However, in view of the existing judgment in his favor, his permit should be restored at the present time. Lastly, I will have to discuss the matter with the Board within the next month to decide if the members wish to pursue an appeal. Very ruly�yours, Michael E. O'Brien MEO/jp cc : James M. Fleming, Chairman Board of Appeal Sarah M. Hayes H. Drew Romanovitz CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS THE LICENSING BOARD ONE SALEM GREEN ��9�'P�r1IIV6 W� Tel.745-9595 Ext.345 Chairman, David Shea CLERK John A.Boris JUDY DAVENPORT Samuel L. Papalardo Meeting: Monday August 22, 1988, 6 :00 P.M. Second Floor Conference Room, One Salem Green. AGENDA 1 . Acceptance of minutes from July 25 , 1988 meeting. 2 . Application for One Day License/Salem Lodge of Moose #218 Applicant Frank Luca 3 . Donald Burnham, discussion on transferring and relocating a Liquor License. 4 . Applicationforoutdoor seating. - New England Subs & Pizza Applicant, Mario Susi 239 Lafayette St. 5 . North Shore Auto Clinic. Request to increase the limit set at four automobiles . 6 . Robert J. LeClerc - Discussion on closing his business while relocating. Les Canadien ' s Congress St. 7 . Club Las Antillas/Rosa Rivera Discussion on One Day License for Club Las Antillas 8 . Application for six Automatic Amusements Applicant: Douglas Ausfin/Hobby Enterprises, Inc. 234 Bridge St. 9 . Application for Change of Manager: Palmer' s Cove Yacht Club New Manager: Clifford Pooler. 10 . Complaint on Audet' s Market - Tabled from July 25, 1988 11 . H. Drew Romanovitz - Discussion on the Status of License held by Mr. Romanovitz d/b/a Romie ' s Harvest. '' _ edmlytL COPY FOR YOUR ' INFORMATION KEVIN T. DALY tl LEONARD F. FEMINO ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR � ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR 93 WASHINGTON STREET mti c+� 93 WASHINGTON STREET AND CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS AND ONE CHURCH STREET MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN ONE SCHOOL STREET SALEM. MA 01970 CITY SOLICITOR BEVERLY. MA 01915 745-4311 93 WASHINGTON STREET 745-4311 745-0500 921-1990 AND -- — PLEASE REPLY TO ONE CHURCH STREET 81 WASHINGTON STREET PLEASE REPLY TO ONE SCHOOL STREET SALEM. MA 01970 745-4311 744-3363 PLEASE REPLY TO 91 WASHINGTON STREET -anuary 13 , 1989 Sarah M. Hayes 21 Fairmount Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re : H. Drew Romanovitz v Salem Board of Appeal Essex Superior Court #88-2701 Dear Sally: Enclosed please find copy of a letter I sent to the Board of Appeal in the above matter. I would suggest that you schedule a neighborhood meeting in the Council Chamber some evening the week of February 6 , 1989 to address the concerns of the neighbors. I 'm sure that the outcome of such a meeting would have a bearing on whether or not the Board chooses to appeal this matter. Vq> y truly your Michael E. O' Brien MEO/Jp Enclosure •SENDER:Complete items 1 and 2 when additional services are desired and complete items 3 and 4. Put your address In the"RETURN TO"space on the reverse side.Failure to do this`will prevent this card from being returned to you.The return receipt fee will rovida ou the name of the arson delivered to and the date of delive .For additional fees t e ollowing sarvlces are ova a e.Consult postmaster for fees and check ox es)for additional service(s)requested. 1. ❑Show to whom delivered,date,and addressee's address. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery. 3.Article Addressed to: 4.Article Number P 607 167 059 H. Drew Romanovitz Type of Service: 25 Lynde St. Salem,MA. 01970 Registered ® Insured Certified COD Express Mail / 3 Always obtain signature of addressee or agent and DATE DELIVERED. 6.Signatur —Addres 8.Addressee's Addrese(ONLYif x requested and fee pard) 6.Signa —Agent x 7.Date of Delivery -3/- PS Form 3811,Feb.1986 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT P UNITED STATES POSTAI SERVIC4. {OFFICIAL BUSINESSSENDER INSTRUCTIONSPrintyourname,address,and ZIPCointhespacebelow.•Complete items 1,2,3,and 4 onthe reverse. U.S"IL •Attach to front of article if space ° permits,otherwise affix to back of Bndor PENALTY FOR PRIVATE •Endorse article"Return Receipt USE, $300 Requested"adjacent to number. RETURN Print Sender's name,address,and ZIP Code in the space below. TO William H. Munroe/Bldg. Dept . City Hall Annex/ One Salem Green Salem,MA. 01970 Citp of *alem, Aboacbm5etto t r, Public Propertp Mepartment 9`��'IINEr �3uilbing Mepartment One 6alem Oreen 745-9595 (Ext. 380 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer August 30, 1988 H. Drew Romanovitz 24 Lynde Street Salem, MA. 01970 RE: 103 School Street Dear Mr. Romanovitz, Acting on the advise of City Solicitor= Michael E. O'Brien this office has posted a "Stop-Work" notice on property owned by you and - located at 103 School Street . As you are aware, at its meeting of August 24, 1988 the Board -of Appeal determined that the use of the property as a storage building is not a use permitted by right in a B- 1 Zone. Please be advised of your right to request relief, by Special Permit from the board of Appeal for this use. Sincerely, William H. Munroe Inspector of Buildings WHM/eaf. C.C. City Clerk Ward Councillor City Solicitor ,..tu.ur44o y (1�it of Salem assttel useits , F �Ruttra of � peal HAY 15 10 32 4H r90 DECISION' ON TRE PETITION OF WENDY K. THATCHER FOR AN ADMINft-T-RATIVE RULING FOR 103 SCHOOL ST. (B-1 ) H. DREW ROMANOVITZ (OWNER�41 11. „ , ,Mli.i.. J1 41'$r A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1989 with the following Board _-_- Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman; John Nutting and Associate Member Arthur LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Cays,C1i3pter:4OA. The petitioner is requesting the Board for an Administrative Ruling that: storage warehousing is not a permitted use in a B-1 district and to order the , - Inspector of Buildings to revoke the permit for a warehouse at 103 School_St: _ _- The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The intended use, "storage warehousing” is in fact covered by Section V 6(f) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and is not a permitted use in a B-1 district. 2. Any approvals given or granted by the Building Department were in error. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to allow the petition for an Administrative Ruling an to revoke Building Permit #241-88 and any others relative to this petition and property forthwith. RVchard encal , Vice Chairman 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 at the Mass.General Laws, Chapter 808,and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Purxuani to ida;e. ,eneral La.vs, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance or 1pecial PRarmit;ranted ha,-em shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearir.?the coruticatmn of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been fired, or that, If such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismiss'eC or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record a► Is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. BOARD OF APPEA11 Romanovitz & Manning Attorneys & Counsellors at Law 25 Lynde Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 H. Drew Romanovitz Suite 2 Charles F. Manning 185 Main Street (617) 745-5151 Gloucester, Mass. 01930 (617) 745-0261 September 21 , 1987 (617) 281-0803 Mr. William Monroe Building Inspector City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: 103 School Street Salem, Massachusetts Dear Mr. Monroe: I enclose a draft of the construction plans. relative to 103 School Street. Kindly contact me after you have reviewed same. Very truly yours � HDR: amd DREW ROMANOVITZ Enclosure HAND DELIVERED r _ t ; I i uki 1TZ 13 1 i 00- _ Zr I _ 3 C ! ---- -- ' ruo tp co Ir AT 1 1Z I OP 96 1 tg uf !i �v f • fl - ---- ----- ---- - -=- Uri y I I i I l 001 OW - qp ----- I I 0Z t f if p � t l !! r, V/ 11) fps r KEVIN T. DALY vy -i LEONARD .F. FEMINO ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR �� ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR 93 WASHINGTON STREET 4,.ry�m�� 93 WASHINGTON STREET AND CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS AND ONE CHURCH STREET ONE SCHOOL STREET MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN SALEM. MA 01970 BEVERLY. MA 01915 93 WASHINGTON CITYSOLICIT GTON oR STREET 745-4311 745-0500 921-1990 AND -- PLEASE REPLY TO ONE CHURCH STREET 81 WASHINGTON STREET PLEASE REPLY TO ONE SCHOOL STREET SALEM. MA 01970 745-4311 744-3363 PLEASE REPLY TO 81 WASHINGTON STREET - P b `""®O® November 7 , 1988 A' Civil Clerk Essex Superior Court 34 Federal Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re : H. Drew Romanovitz V City of Salem, et. als . C.A. No. 88-2701 Dear Sir : Enclosed please find Answer and Counterclaim of defendants in the above matter. Kindly file the same. Very.,truly yours, / M' dhael E. O' Brien s City Solicitor c 3 q.. m MEO/jp tn� cc: Paul J. Semenza, Esq. r m 4m da grq x a CD n� Zr a y f ,. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. TRIAL COURT DEPT. SUPERIOR COURT C.A. NO. 88-2701 A' H. DREW ROMANOVITZ , PLAINTIFF V. ANSWER �✓�eJ'��`v CITY OF SALEM, SARAH M. HAYES, WILLIAM MUNROE, JAMES FLEMING, RICHARD BENCAL, .�T.lam ZI \nT T U V�I IY N 111L4V, Y11Y! 1\ iL 111 I�0 1 , PETER STROUT, PETER DORE, ARTHUR LABRECQUE, DEFENDANTS Now come the above captioned defendants and answer the plaintiff ' s numbered Complaint as follows : 1. Admitted. 2 . Admitted. 3 . Admitted. 4 . Admitted. 5 . Admitted as to the allegations , but denied as to the defendant' s name which is John Nutting not John Matting. 6 . Admitted 7 . Admitted 8 . Admitted 9 . Admitted to the allegations , but denied as to the defendant' s name which is Arthur Labrecque not Arthur Levesque. 10 . Admitted to the allegations , but denied as to 'Lhe uefendant' s Name which is i':iillum Munroe not William Monroe. 11 . Admitted 12 . Admitted 13 . The defendants are without sufficient knowledge or informationto form a belief as to the allegations contained in paragraph thirteen ( 13 ) of plaintiff ' s Complaint. 14 . The defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations contained in paragraph fourteen ( 14 ) of plaintiff ' s Complaint. 15 . Admitted 16 . Admitted 17 . Admitted 18 . Admitted 19 . Admitted 20 . The defendants deny that the use of the plaintiff ' s property for mini-storage space is a permitted use in a B-1 zoning district and admit the remaining allegations contained in paragraph twenty (20 ) of plaintiff ' s Complaint. 21 . Admitted 22 . The defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations contained in paragraph twenty-two ( 22 ) of plaintiff ' s complaint. 23 . The defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as. to the allegations rrntw noA �.. �_ _ 2_.__ _.. parugrap.. twenty-three k23 ) of plain- tiff ' s Complaint. 24 . The defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations contained in paragraph twenty-four ( 24 ) of plain- tiff ' s Complaint. 25 . The defendants, and specifically the defendant mem- bers of the Salem Board of Appeals , are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations contained in paragraph twenty- five ( 25 ) of plaintiff ' s Complaint. 26 . Denied 27 . Denied . WHEREFORE, the defendants, and specifically the defen- dant members of the Salem Board of Appeals , demand that Count I of plaintiff ' s Complaint be dismissed or in the alternative that a finding be entered in favor of the defendants . COUNT II 28 . The defendants , and specifically the defendant, Sarah M. Hayes , real lege their/her _ns,,:.^rs to paragraphs one ( 1 ) through twenty-seven (27 ) of plaintiff 's Complaint as if fully set forth herein and incorporates them by reference . 29 . Denied 30 . Denied 31 . The defendant, Sarah M. Hayes , denies that she committed malicious acts or that the plaintiff has been irreparably harmed. The defendant, Sarah M. Hayes , is without suffi- cient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations contained in paragraph thirty-one ( 31 ) of plaintiff ' s Complaint. v WHEREFORE, the defendants , and specifically the defendant Sarah M. Hayes demand that Count II of plaintiff ' s Complaint be dismissed or in the alternative that a finding be made in favor of the defendants. COUNT III 32 . . The defendants, and specifically the defendants City of Salem and William Munroe, reallege their answers to para- graphs one ( 1 ) through thirty-one ( 31 ) of plaintiff ' s Complaint as if fully set forth herein and incorporate them by reference. 33 . Admitted 34 . Admitted 35 . Admitted 36 . The defendants , and specifically the defendants City of Salem and William Munroe, admit the permit was revoked and a Stop Work Order was placed on the plaintiff ' s building, but they are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the remaining alle- gations contained in paragraph thirty-six ( 36 ) of plain- tiff ' s Complaint. 37 . The defendants, and specifically the defendants City of Salem and William Munroe, are without sufficient know- ledge or information to form a belief as to the alle- gations contained in paragraph thirty-seven ( 37 ) of plaintiff ' s Complaint. WHEREFORE, the defendants, and specifically the defen- dants City of Salem and William Munroe, demand that Count III of plaintiff ' s Complaint be dismissed or in the alternative that a finding enter in favor of the defendants . COUNT IV 38 . The defendants, and specifically the defendant, James M. Fleming, reallege their/his answers to paragraphs one ( 1 ) through thirty-seven ( 37 ) of plaintiff ' s Complaint as if fUliy set fartn herein and incorporate, them by reference. 39 . Admitted 40 . Admitted 41 . Admitted 42 . Denied 43 . The defendants admit the Board of Appeals found in favor of the petitioner, but deny it was on the recommendation of James Fleming, as he has only one vote on said Board . 44 . Denied 45 . The defendants, and specifically the defendant, James M. Fleming, denies bias and prejudice on the part of the defendant, James Fleming. The defendants, and specific ially the defendant, James Fleming, are without suffi- cient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the remaining allegations contained in paragraph fourty- five ( 45 ) of plaintiff ' s Complaint. WHEREFORE, the defendants, and specifically James M. Fleming, demand that Count IV of plaintiff ' s Complaint be dis- missed or in the alternative that a finding enter in favor of the defendants . FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Complaint fails to state a claim; or cause of action against all the defendants upon which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Counts II , III and IV contain an ad dammum or monetary amount claimed against the defendants Sarah M. Hayes, City of Salem, William Munroe and James Fleming in contravention of Mass- achusetts General Laws Chapter 321 § 13B. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to the filing of this Complaint. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE There has been insufficient process and service of process in that plaintiff ' s remedy, if he has one, is under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A §17 which is exclusive . ALL DEFENDANTS CLAIM TRIAL BY JURY OF ALL ISSUES AND COUNTS TRIABLE BY A JURY City of Salem, Sarah M. Hayes , William Munroe, James Fleming, Richard Bencal , John Nutting, Edward Luzinski , Peter Strout, Peter Dore, Arthur Labrecque by thei attorney AM' Mio6hael E. O' Brien City Solicitor 81 Washington Street Salem, MA 01967 Telephone 744-3363 Dated : November 7 , 1988 COUNTERCLAIM By way of Counterclaim against the plaintiff , the defen- dants City of Salem, Sarah M. Hayes, William Munroe, James Fleming, Richard Bencal, John Nutting, Edward Luzinski , Peter Strout, Peter Dore and Arthur Labrecque say: 1 . The plaintiff , defendant in Counterclaim, maliciously and without bais in law brought this suit against the de- fendants with the intent and purpose of injuring the de- fendants for which legal process was not intended or de- signed. 2 . As a result thereof , the defendants, plaintiffs in Counterclaim., sustained damage. F" WHEREFORE, the defendants, plaintiffs in Counterclaim, demand judgment against the defendants in an amount commen- surate with their damage and costs. Certificate of Service I , Michael E. O' Brien, hereby certify that I mailed, pos- tage paid, a copy of the within Answer and Counterclaim to Paul J. Semenza, Esq. , 25 Lynde Street, Salem, MA 01970 a tgrnay., for H. Drew Romanovitz . , / :\ is ael E. O' Brien ~ Dated: November 7 , 1988 (TO PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY: P1,- f,, Cmh Typo l Aainn Inr.,h edr — TORT-- MOTOR VEHICLE TORT — CONTRACT— EQUITABLE RELIEF —OTHER.) COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION No. 88-2701 H. DREW ROMANOVITZ C .............................. .. ....... Plaintiff(s)n- .......... _ .... - 7 o -t u. C3 y� IM CITY OF SALEM, et al r x Defendants ._ ......................----.........---------.............._........._.._.._..--..................... ......., ;iri 0. 10 SUMMONS ti rn To the above named Defendant: William Monroe e... You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon ......Pa .........ul...............S......em... ....................................-........ , 3 plaintiffs attorney, whose address is?.5----l ynde.--S-t.r.e.at.....S lem,...MassaChuS.ett,san answer to the c v - m ° 0 complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons upon you, exclu- sive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief de- T a manded in the complaint. You are also required to file your answer to the complaint in the office of the Clerk e c of this court at ....S ..........._..--alem - ...... either before service upon plaintiffs attorney or within a reasonable ----......... n` 3 s time thereafter. Unless otherwise provided by Rule 13 (a), your answer must state as a counterclaim any claim which you may have against the plaintiff which arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the = plaintiff's claim or you will thereafter be barred from making such claim in any other action. 1 ,ROBERT I. STEADMAtl ITNESS, T4mir., Esquire, at Salem, the 19th Z GOA 'v 1 y of October , in the year of our Lord One thousand Nine hundred and eighty- eight. u ,� .Shet\ft I Clerk NOTES: 1. This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. When more than one defendant is involved,the names of all defendants should appear in the caption. If a separate summons is used for each defendant, each should be addressed to the particular defendant. Office 430 CO iii0'TNEALTH OF "IASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss . Trial Court Department Supe: for Court Civil Action No. H. Drew Romanovitz, Plaintiff * V . * City of Salem, * COMPLAINT Sarah M. Hayes, William Monroe* James Fleming, Richard Bencal , * John platting , Edward Luzinski, * Peter Strout, Peter Dore, Arthur Levesque, Defendants * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PARTIES ( 1) The Plaintiff, H. Drew P.omanovitz, is a natural person of legal age and resides at 57 Atlantic Road , G7.oucester , Essex County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. ( 2) The Defendant, Sarah M. Hayes, is a natural person and a City Councillor for Ward Six in Salem, Massachusetts . ( 3) The Defendant, James Fleming, is a member of the Board of Appeals for. the City of Salem and resides at 47 Bufum Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts. ( 4) The Defendant, Richard Bencal , is a member of the Board of Appeals for the City of Salem and resides at 19 Goodell Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts. ( 5) The Defendant, John Matting, is a member of the Board of Appeals for the City of Salem and resides at 68 Moffatt Road , Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts. (6) The Defendant, Edward Luzinski, is a member of the Board of Appeals for the City of Salem and resides at 25 Hardy Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts . 2 (7) The Defendant, Peter Strout , is a member of the. Board of. Appeals for the City of Salem and resides at 244 Lafayette Street, Salem, Essex County, "tas"achusetts . ( 8) The Defendant , Peter Dore, is a member of the Board of Appeals for the City of Salem and resider at 12 Bentley Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts . ( 9) The Defendant, Arthur Levesque, is a member of the Board of Appeals for the City of Salem and resides at 11 Hazel Street, Salem, 7sner, County , `^asnachur.etts . (10) The Defendant, William '."onroe, it a natural pe_ ^on of legal age and in the Building Inspector for the City of Salem and has a usual place of business at One Salem Green, Salem, Essex County, lassachugetts. ( 11) On information and belief , the Defendant, City of Saler,;, is a municipal corporation duly organized in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and with a principal place of business at Washington Street, Salem, ,.ar.ey County, Massachusetts . S FACT o ( 1.2) The Plaintiff is the owner of a commercial building located at 103 School Street , Salem, F5nex County , nassachusetts , and is zoned B-1 . ( 13) For the past several years, the building ' s sole use was that of a medium sized supermarket, which aixo qo ld liquor on the premises . ( 14) Zn nay 1927 the Plaintiff cloned his supermarket/liquor store and made plans to convert the building into mini.-storage space for rent . ( 15) On or about "arch 15, 1988, the Plaintiff conferred with the Building Inspector of Salem regarding the use of his building for storage spare. ( 16) On or about narch 15, 1988, the Plaintiff requested a building permit to construct the mini-storage units inside the building . ( 1.7) On or about April 25, 1988, the Building Inspector granted the Plaintiff a building permit an requested . 3 (18) on or about ,July 18, 1988, Hlard Six Councillor Sarah M. 'Hayes oppossed the use of Plaintiff ' s building as mini-storage space and requested a hearing before the Board of Appeals to revoke the building permit issued to the Plaintiff. (19) During the hearing of August 24, 1988, the Board of Appeals orally stated that the use as "mini-storage" of the building at 103 School Street was not a permitted use in a B-1 zone. ( 20) The use of the Plaintiff ' s property for mini-storage space is a use permitted in a B-1 zone although such a business was not specifically listed and said position is being and was supported by Mr . William Monroe, the Building Inspector for the City of Salem. ( 21) The Plaintiff was instructed to stop all construction on said building and the Salem building inspector has placed a "Stop Work" notice on the Plaintiff ' s building . ( 22) On or about August 24, 1988, the Plaintiff had completed approximately 9091 of the constructing and reconstructing of the building . ( 23) The Plaintiff has invested and/or lost over $500, 000 in the building since the issuance of the building permit by the City of Salem 's building inspector . (24) The Board of Appeals has failed to issue its final decision and/or to file that decision with the City Clerk ' s office. COUNT I ( 25) The Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff ' s intended use of the building is less intrusive and of a lesser degree of character and use to the surrounding neighborhood than the previous use, leaving no logical reason for the Board of Appeals to revoke the building permit previously issued by the Building Inspector . ( 26) The Board of Appeals further failed to state its reasoning behind its decision. ( 27) The Board of Appeals exceeded its authority vested in it by the City of Salem. 4 WHEREFORE, under Count T , the Plaintiff reque.=.tc this Honorable Court to annul the decision of the Board of Appeals and allow the Plaintiff to use the building as mini-storage space for rent to the Public and further order the Building Inspector to reinstate the previously issued building permit without change. ^.OUNT II ( 28) The Plaintiff reall.eges paragraphs 1-27 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein and incorporates them by reference. ( 29) The Defendant Sarah N. Hayes ' opposition to the Plaintiff ' s use of the building as mini-storage units for rent was made in bad faith and made maliciously with the intent to cause harm to the Plaintiff . ( 30) The Petition filed by the Defendant Sa;ah n. Hayes contains false information and is inaccurate and drafted to mislead the Board of ?appeals . ( 3'_) As a result of the Defendant farah 1. Hayes ' malicious acts , the Plaintiff war irreparably harmed : Has lost his monies paid to his contractor ; hap lost his money and materialq invested in the building intended for mini-storage use; has completely gutted the building ; has at a substantial loss sold equipment and furnishings and the store ' s contents; has been forced to leave the building vacant while continuing to pay its debts ; and has been forced to expend monies for 'legal fees and sorts . n bringing this action ; and , as a result of the revocation of the building permit, substantial damage to the building has resulted . WHEREFORE, under. Count T_' , the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant Sarah M. Hayes in the amount of $500, 000 . 00 plus costs , interent and attorney ' s fees . COUNT TIT ( 32) The Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-33 of this, Complaint as if fully set forth herein and incorporates them by reference. ( 33) The Defendant, William Monroe, is the Inspector of Buildings for the City of Salem and has vested powers to issue building permits in accordance with Salem ' s Zoning 5 Ordinance . (34) On or about April 25, 1988, Mr . Monroe issued a building permit to the Plaintiff with the knowledge that the Plaintiff intended to construct mini-storage units for the purpose of renting said units to the public. ( 35) Unon reliance on Mr . Monroe ' s issuance of the building permit and oral and written representations that a mini-storage business was a permitted use, the Plaintiff began construction of the mini-storage units. (36) The Plaintiff nearly completed all of the construction necessary to do business as a mini.-storage company .:lien the permit issued by Mr . Monroe was revoked and a Ston '^ror:< Order was placed on the Plaintiff ' s building . ( 37) As a result of the Plaintiff 's reliance on the Defendant William 'Monroe in his capacity of Inspector of 3uildings for the City of Salem, the Plaintiff has expended substant;.ai funds in constructing the storage units, has taken the building off the market to be sold , and has uffe:ed consequential damages in that because the Plaintiff is unabi.e to complete the construction of the storage units, the materials have been damaged by normal exposure which would not occur if the units had been completed . a=.iE4:'FOSS, under count III the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants City of Salem and William Monroe jointly and severally in the amount of $750, 000. 00 plus interest, costs and attorneys fees . COUNT IV ( 3i;) The Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-37 of this comniai.nt a:�, if fully set forth herein and incorporates them by refe::ence. ( 39) The Defendant James Fleming is the chairman of the Board of Appeals of Salem, Massachusetts. ( 40) The Defendant James Fleming is also the brother of Frard 6 City Councillor Sarah tt. Hayes . ! 42 ) On or about August 24, 1988 the Defendant James Fleming n_esided over a Board of Appeals hearing in which his te: , Sarah i'.. Mayes, was the petitioner . .. 6 4?} ', . though a clear conflict of interest existed for ov ncf 7n ont .panes Fleming to nr:eside over the hearing , he a : & , . _ Fumed and neglected to remove or Withdraw himself from ,. 4 hea_ ing . ( 43) ". tib the recommendation of James Fleming , the Board of An- nci found in favor of the petitioner and revoked the Plaint : ff ' 7 building nermit . ! 44; The Board of Anneals decision was prejudicial and W a�-& : n - _ thi - Plaintiff . ; 45; 1- a result of the Was and prejudice of the Qefenannt , ameq Fleming , the Plaintiff was irreparably h<'._.-:& : `•,n'1 lost his monies paid to his contractor ; has lost mon . .. - on:d mater : ais invested in the building intended faz min ' - ro: age use; has completely gutted the building ; has at a - uK- 'znt :a; loss sold equipment and furnishings and the to_c ' , contents ; has been forced to leave the building nn ant wn ' e continuing to nay its debts ; and has been forced to . xnc^. ' ;sonic^ for legal fees and costs in bringing this un tion as a . _suit of the revocation of the building ne . n ; - wh-tantia damage to the huilding has resulted . un0er Count ?V, the " aintiff demand; judgement ; D. n" ': no defendant games Fleming in the amount of n^i P" ^^ nlu2 interest , cost- and attorneys fees . A . Drew nomanovitz 3y his attorneys, PAUn T . SMENZA ----' ?5 lynde Street Salem, "asg.achusetts Tei . ( 506) 745-5151 Romie's HARVE6 FRESH MEATS•DELI WINE J r � I - I I I ( 9E _ _ _r'41.A_n71..v _ 1 ��s HAgv m.w,�' ��I��1111111111151111\\\1U\\\\\�\\\\\�\\\\1�\��. �1 Y i I � I. of ajrm 4R. agSMt4Uj5r** � e �;' ✓,f Pours of �tppral DECISION ON THE PETITION FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE-RULING OF SARAH M. HAYES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 SCHOOL STREET' (Bil') A hearing on this petition was held on August 24, 1988 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman, Messrs. Nutting, Luzinski, Labracyue, and Dore. Notice of the hearing was sent to the owner at the property, abutters, and others, and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A. The petitioner, Sarah M. Hayes, the duly elected Councillor from Ward Six, stated that the Building Inspector granted the owner of the property a building permit to convert an existing neighborhood grocery store to a new use "storage warehousing". The petitioner asked for an administrative ruling from the Board of Appeals that such use, that is "storage warehousing" is not apermitted use in a B-1 District. The owner of the property, Drew Raoanovitz, was present and argued that "storage warehousing" was a permitted B-1 use, and submitted a written brief in support of that position. Several abutters and neighbors also appeard at the hearing and spokeagainst allowing the property to be utilized for "storage warehousing". They also submitted a written brief. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, makes the following finding of fact: 1. The intended use, "storage warehousing" is in fact covered by the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Section V, 6 (f) , and that therefore, by implication is not a permitted use in a B-1 District, as those uses are enumerated in Section V,4. On the basis of the above finding of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeals voted unanimously, DECISION ON THE PETITION FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING OF SARAH M. HAYES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 SCHOOL STREET (B-1) SALEM 5-0 to allow the petition for an administrative ruling and to order the Building Inspector to revoke Building Permit 241-88 forthwith. ALLOWED James M. Fleming, Esq. Chairman, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPE41- FRO':: THIS DECISIJ:.N. I, ',%Y. SH4LL BE MADE PJRSUANT TO SECTION 17 GF THE 14P' CEN-R=,', LAV:S. CII'?TES SCE. AN' SHnU BE NLEI WrHIN :0 DAYS AFTER THE CT.TE 0.- OF OF THIS DEC;SION III TFC C1FI"E OF THE CITY CLERK. PUR.iFNT T^ VISS CE%'R SJC. r"N 11. THE VARIAN' N.:: -'i EC UNTIL A C^_P; OF THE OEC ["- R7, "Ra -. ., C'"_ H4.: EIA:..EJ f;l ,PPCA" H' ,. i5 :F SI!LH AN Urr'. H . C_;>; !.-E THA: IT RLE!: C THE `;>CTH E°S - Pi FELORJ OR IS REUJRDED AND Nw:_.. GN TH: OWNER'S CERiIFICAIE Gr TITLE, BOARD OF x,a.nyb of Salem, 'fflttssadjusetts ,` m �att1 a �f ��rpettl Har 15 10 32 Nl '90 DECISION ONJHE_P-E-T-ITION_OF-WENDY K. THATCHER FOR AN ADMINf$-T-RATIVE RULING FOR 103 SCHOOL ST. ,(B-1 ) H. DREW ROMANOVITZ (OWNER,)F, , _ A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1989 with the following Board --- Members present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Richard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman; John Nutting and Associate Member Arthur LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Cays-.Ch"3pber 4OA. The petitioner is requesting the Board for an Administrative Ruling that: " storage warehousing is not a permitted use in a B-1 district and to order the Inspector of Buildings to revoke the permit for a warehouse at 103 School St;._ . The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The intended use, "storage warehousing" is in fact covered by Section V 6(f) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and is not a permitted use in a B-1 district. 2. Any approvals given or granted by the Building Department were in error. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 4-0, to allow the petition for an Administrative Ruling an to revoke Building Permit #241-88 and any others relative to this petition and property forthwith. , R' chard -Bencal , Vice Chairman 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 17e! the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808,and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pureuam to MP;,;. ,eneral La.vs, Chncter 308, Section 11, the Variance or tpeclal Permit ranie,i herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, becrin.;;the corut.cz6cn of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeat has been tied, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or Is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of Title. ;r:�+ BOARD OF APPFJLLI STALEY McDERMET ASSOCIATES PRESERVATION&RESTORATION ARCHITECTURE 175 ESSEX STREET MALL SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (617) 745-4%9 DATE: September 6, 1991 ✓0: City of Salem - David Harris, Assistant Building Inspector FROM: Staley McDermet Associates - Staley McDermet COPIES: 99-101 Congress Street Realty Trust- George E. Maguire File n cn PROJECT: Alterations - School Street Market 103 School Street r, CD SUBJECT: Periodic Progress Report - Period Ending September 5, 1991 -' L.7 y ' i> J 1. The HVAC main trunk and the branches have been installed. V cn � 2. The furnace, air-handler, and condenser are on the site, but have not yet been ., installed. 3. The west wall of the furnace room (shown on the drawings to remain) has been removed. 4. Electrical rough-in is complete. 5. The existing stair to the basement in the east storage room has been reversed. x x E N D * * t SM/sb STALEY WDERMET ASSOCIATES PRESERVATION&RESTORATION ARCHITECTURE 175 ESSEX STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (508)74514969 DATE: September 20, 1991 TO: City of Salem - David Harris, Assistant Building Inspector FROM: Staley McDermet Associates - Staley McDermet COPIES: 99-101 Congress Street Realty Trust- George E. Maguire C./)File C') r^� p "I c PROJECT: Alterations - School Street Market o w F 103 School Street ^m Inn �- .. o Q y �on � SUBJECT: Periodic Progress Report - Period Ending September 20, 1991 FC3 —o t * L= 1. The south bathroom floor, which had been framed on a raised platform identical to the north bathroom, was lowered to the main floor level as shown originally on the drawings. 2. The condenser has been installed on a concrete pad, -3. A new north wall for the furnace room (shown on the drawings as existing to remain) has been installed about 18" north of the offset, about two to two and one-half feet north of its former location. Constructed of one layer 5/8" gyp. bd. each side of 2x4 studs @ 16" o.c. (1 hr. rated) *4. The two walls creating storage rooms next to the furnace room have been eliminated and replaced with one wall located about four feet west of the offset. A door has been roughed-in at the north end of this wall. Constructed of one layer 5/8" gyp. bd. each side of 2x4 studs @ 16" o.c. (1 hr. rated) 5. All ductwork appears to be complete in the furnace room. *Separate returns have been installed, one each to the furnace and air-handler, as opposed to the single return with controlling dampers shown on the drawings. Supply ductwork is still combined. 6. Furnace flue has not been installed. 7. Electrical rough-in nearly complete. 8. The fire alarm control panel is roughed-in. 9. Conduits have been installed along the west wall of the basement. 10. No plumbing work has begun. 11. A 275 gallon +/- oil tank has been installed in the southwest corner of the basement. Fill and vent pipes are in, but not the piping to the furnace. 12. The rear exit door has been reversed to swing out. * Denotes change from filed plans. SM/sb STALEY McDERMET ASSOCIATES PRESERVATION &RESTORATION ARCHITECTURE 175 ESSEX STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (617)745-4969 DATE: September 17, 1991 TO: W ity of Salem - David Harris, Assistant Building Inspector FROM: Staley McDermet Associates - Staley McDermet COPIES: 99-101 Congress Street Realty Trust- George E. Maguire File PROJECT: Alterations - School Street Market 103 School Street r., SUBJECT: Periodic Progress Report - Period Ending September 17, 1991 a t_= CD_9r W �Y 1. Rough framing is complete for the counter, the toilet rooms, and thq'-Eais6 platform (with the exception of some plywood flooring). M< FV r7l W o 0 *2. The south bathroom has been framed on a raised platform identical ngthe :north m bathroom, although it was shown on the drawings to be at the main fL0or IRel. This was brought to the attention of the Owner, and that floor may be lowered to the main floor level. *3. The north wall of the furnace room (shown on the drawings to remain) has been removed to accommodate the air-handler and ductwork. Plans presently call for that wall to be installed two to two and one-half feet north of its former location, 4. The furnace and air-handler have been installed, the furnace on a sheet of galva- nized sheet metal to cover the wood floor, 5. The HVAC main supply trunk has been insulated and the installation of the branches appears to have been completed. 6. Work is proceeding on the return ductwork. 7. Electrical rough-in is 95% complete. 8. The installation of the fire alarm system was proceeding. 9. The knox-box has been installed. 10. Na plumbing work has begun. * Denotes change from filed plans. * * * * * * E N D SM/sb I ��,nwutl'I4 h} ' KEVIN T. DALY ^ _-� LEONARD F. FEMINO ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR SAO 4 ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR 93 WASHINGTON STREET � '+mt - 93 WASHINGTON STREET AND CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS AND CITE CHURCH STREET ONE SCHOOL STREET MICHAEL E. O'B RIEN SALEM, MA 01970 BEVERLY, MA 01915 745-4311 CITY GTON OR 745.4311 745-0500 93 WASHINGTON STREET 921-1990 _ AND PLEASE REPLY TO ONE CHURCH STREET 81 WASHINGTON STREET PLEASE REPLY TO ONE SCHOOL STREET SALEM. 1970 745-4-4 3111 744-3363 J, PLEASE REPLY TO SI WASHINGTON STREET February 13 , 1989 James M. Fleming, Chairman n T Salem Board of Appeal 4 cm a One Salem Green c Salem, MassaZ;itusetts 01970 CD ,�� L !n n CJ ;T fn Z Re : Romanovitz m� W In v 3".o N G Board of Appeal, et al Essex County Superior Court #88-2701 N GO Dear Mr. Fleming: Please be advised that on January 13 , 1989 I participated in a hearing on plantiff ' IS motion for entry of final decree in the above matter. After hearing, the court (Kelly, J. ) verbally announced a finding in favor of the plaintiff . I recently received a Memorandum and Judgment and I am enclosing a copy for your records. As the entry of Judgment is dated February 6 , 1989 , any appeal must be entered by March 8 , 1989 . I have reviewed Judge Kelly' s memorandum and I find the same to be based upon sound legal principles. Accordingly, I would not recommend an appeal as the same may be considered frivilous . Lastly, it is my understanding that various individuals have requested a new administrative decision from the Building Inspector. Depending upon his response, the matter may again be before your body in the near future. er truly you ichael E. 0 City Solicitor MEO/jp Enclosure cc: Building Inspector Councillor Sarah Hayes COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss u .. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION No. 88-2701 COPY FOR YOUR ' 3 ll�dFORAiA�'lOf� _ . .. H. DREW:.ROMANOVITZ; `Vs. CITY it SALEM AND.-SALEM BOARD OF APPEALS, SARAH M. HAYES, ET AL,1 ,Defendants MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR ENTRY OF FINAL DECREE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND .PERMANENT INJUNCTION. . Background: The plaintiff owns a commercial building at 103 School Street in Salem, Massachusetts, which was used as; a supermarket and zoned as nonconforming. On April 23, , 1988, '-tthe "plaintiff, was granted a change of nonconforming use permitting him to .use the building as storage units. On May 12, 1988 the Defendant, Sarah M. Hayes, wrote to the city Building Inspector who had granted the plaintiff's permit. In that letter Ms. Hayes argued .that the use of- the' School Street building as storage violated. the. zoning. ordinance and she William Monroe, James Fleming, Richard Bencal, John Matting, Edward Luzinski, PeterStrout, Peter Dore., Arthur Levesque. 2 requested the inspector to "take all action necessary to remove the use from the building. . . . " On May 23 , 1988 , the Building Inspector replied to Ms. Bayes ' letter. He countered that the use was not in violation of the zoning ordinance and argued his reasons for that conclusion. On June 1, 1988 , Ms. Hayes acknowledged the Inspector's letter, provided an apt rebuttal and requested the Inspector inform her of the Board of Appeal review process if he refused to remove the permit. The Building Inspector did not reply. On July 21, 1988 , the defendant Hayes filed a petition for administrative ruling with the Salem Board of Appeals. On August 24 , 1988 the Board held a hearing, allowed the petition and overruled the Building Inspector's decision. On October 13,1988, the plaintiff brought this action appealing the Board's action. He now moves for an entry of final decree annulling the Board' s reversal of the Inspector' s decision on the grounds that defendant Hayes ' petition to, the Board was time barred thus destroying the Board' s jurisdiction over the appeal. In the alternative, the plaintiff asks this Court to issue Temporary Restraining Orders. Discussion• General Laws Chapter 40A, sec. 8 allows persons "aggrieved by an order or decision of the inspector of buildings. . . " to appeal to that decision. G.L. c. 40A, sec. 8. Massachusetts Feather Co. v. Aldermen of Chelsea, 331 Mass. 522 (1954) . Such an appeal must be "taken within thirty days from the date of the order or decision 3 which is being appealed. " G. L. C. 40A, sec. 15, Vokes v. Avery y W Lowell --- `._Inc- , 18 Mass. App. Ct. 471, 479 (1984) , rev. den. 393 Mass. 1103 (1985) . The Appeals Court held that "the date on which a zoning enforcement officer responds in writing to a sec. 7 request for enforcement creates the appealable decision contemplated by sec. 8 and becomes the date for measuring the thirty day appeal period set forth in sec. 15. " Id, The plaintiff argues that on May 23, when the Salem Building Inspector responded to defendant Hayes ' letter of May 12 , the thirty day time limit for Hayes ' appeal to the Salem Board of Appeals began to run. The defendants counter that when Hayes wrote again on June 1, and the Inspector gave no second response so that under G.L. C. 40A, sec. 13 ,2 the defendants ' appeal time began to run on July 1. I disagree. The defendants' conclusions completely ignore the first round of letters exchanged between defendant Hayes and the Building Inspector. They offer no argument of any kind for why this first round of letters should be ignored. I can find no reason why the May letters should not have legal force and every reason why they should. If one can escape mandatory time limits by merely ignoring those events legally determined to trigger the limits, then the statute of limitations is meaningless. To the contrary, 2 G.L. c. 40A, sec. 13 applies failed to respond where the authority has to a request. It allows be considered a denial that such failure will from if no answer is given in thirty-five days the date of request. Thus, a party in that situation would have an additional thirty days to appeal after the constrictive denial was deemed to issue. G.L. c. 40A, sec. 13 . 4 compliance with statutory time restraints are essential to jurisdiction. Greeley v. Framingham, 350 Mass. 5512 , 552 (1966) . The plaintiff ' s second motion was offered only in the alternative and therefore need not be addressed. ORDER For the foregoing reasons it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff' s motion for Entry of Final Decree on the Salem Board of Appeal ' s decision for lack of Jurisdiction is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the Board's decision is annulled and the building permit numbered 241-88 is hereby reinstated without change. Date;_ 31 S *char S. Kellece of the S perior Court COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Department Of The Trial Court Essex, ss. Superior Court No. 88-2701 H Drew Romanovitz vs. City Of Salem And Salem Board Of Appeals, et al JUDGMENT This cause came on for hearing before the Court, Kelley, J. presiding, and the issues having been duly heard and findings hating been duly rendered, It is Ordered and Adjudged; the plaintiff' s motion for Entry of Final Decree. on the Salem Board of Appealts decision for lack of Jurisdiction is Granted. It is further Ordered that the BoardIs decision is annulled and the building permit numbered 241-88 is hereby reinstated with- out change. The Clerk-Magistrate of the Court is directed to mail an attested copy of this judgment within thirty days from the date hereof, to the City Clerk, Building Inspector, and Board of Appeals respectively of the City Of Salem. � V Dated at Salem, Massachusetts, this bth day of February, 1989. —As s an er