3-5 SPRING STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION
q 01Rof all tt s s P 3 :41
°jja � CITY CLERK' OFFICE
of
SALE`-',
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RICHARD E. SAVICKEY FOR A .SPECIAL PERMIT
TO CONVERT THE 'EXISTING BUILDING AT 3-5 SPRING STREET INTO
THREE CONDOMINIUM UNITS
A hearing on this petition was held on July 29,1981 with the following
Board Members. present: Mr. Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker, Feeherry,
and Associate Members Lusinski and Martineau. 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 Laws Chapter-40A.
The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to convert the existing
three-family dwelling at this property to a three-unit condominium.
This proposed condominium conversion is coverdd by the terms of the
City of Salem's condominium conversion ordinance. The Special Permit that has
been requested may therefore be granted only upon a finding by the Board of
Appeals that (1) the grant of the Special Permit will not adversely impact upon
the City's existing stock of rental units for low and moderate income families
and elderly people on fixed incomes, (2) that the grant of this Special Permit
is not contrary to the City's Master Plan; (3) that the grant of the Special
Permit will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood.
The Board of\Appeals, after considering the evidence at the hearing,
and after viewing the property makes the following findings.of fact:
1) No structural alterations of the property are proposed.
2) The proposed conversion of this property to condominiums in no
way conflicts with the Master Plan of the City of Salem.
3) The conversion of the property to condominiums will have negligible-
impact on the existing stock of rental units in the City of Salem for the elderly
and for families of low and moderate income.
4) The proposed conversion of the property to condominiums is supported
by the existing tenants.
On the basis of the above finding of fact-.andion the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concluded by a 4-1 vote (Mr. Lusinski
voted present) that the proposed condominium conversion is in harmony with
the condominium conversion ordinance of the City of Salem. Accordingly, the
Board voted in favor of granting the requested Special Permit with one condition:
existing parking at the site shall be maintained.
RF�_IVF
'81 AUG -6 P3 :41
DECISION - RICHARD E. SAVICKEY - PAGE TWO
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SALEM M SS
Because of the building being currently occupied, the Petitioner
will be required to allow six months to elapse before commencing any
work in furtherance of the condominium conversion.
'thony M. Fee ry, Se etary
ii: T.11E OF ..._ CITP CLU"K.
CL
CEC;:Ju �.�" 1� J .V_� l- .:� '...L V! ThE C'.dA $
OF RECORD OR IS RECUROLD AND NOTED Gil WE U.'NER'S CERTIFICATE OF 11TLE. .
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CL]
13 f �
.-
Paaarb of rApprtt! APR Lc IU ,z
CITY i t,n'S iifr""ICE
APRIL 5, 1977 SALEM. MASS.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF J. W. GF;TC16:L1. BY RICHARD SAVICKEY OF 7R DERRY S'I'RNP:T
CONC.YIi'j!.NG PROPERTY LOCATED AP'3 SPRING `SIREI T -(R-1 DISTRI< I)
A hearing on this petition was held April 5, 1977 with membcers John Gray, Jane.
Lundregan, Donald Eam-s and Associate Menilbers Douglas Hopper. and James Boulqer present..
Notices were sent to abutters and others in accordance with Mass. General Laws, Chanter
808.
It was Mr. Savickey's intent to perform extensive restoration work on the building at
- 3 Spring Street in an R-2 District.
Mr.-. Savickey represented himself before the Board. The structure in question has been
extensively damaged by fire and mu!;t be eith�sr torn down or restored. The Petitioner
wi.sYvas to restore the building and to keep the non-conforming use of the building as
a three family structure. The estimate of the damage done to the building was riot exact.
It was riot clear whether or not more than 50% of the building had been destroyed.
One abutter aared and questioned whether. or not. said building was, in fact, a non-
.pcconformirnq three fam.i.ly structure. Said abutter felt that it had been a two family
structure.
The Board voted unanimously to grant the Petitioner prem.ission to reconstruct said building
on the condition that the Petitioner present evidence to the Board that the building in
question was a non-conforming structure, to wit, a three family dwelling.
The Board found that it would be best to restore the building rather than to tear the
building down and leave an empty lot. The Board felt that the decision was in the best
interest of the surrounding neighborhood and was in conformance with the intent of the
Salem Zoning by-law.
GRANTED
Appeal. from this decision, if any, shall. be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Mass. Gen.
Law:;, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within .20 days after the date of. filinq of this
dcc.i:;ion in the office of the City-'Clerk.
1'u r_:ni,int.- Cr> Mnrw. Con-. Lawr;, or BOB, .loction 11 , the Varian; c or special pormit. yrantcd
herdl.n :;hulA not; take effect until it copy of Uu� .d,•cisiun, bcarinq the certification of the -
City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such an
appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the South Essex
- Rcgis,try of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and --
noted in the owner's certificate of title.
Copies of the decision herein have been filed with the Planning Board and the City Clerk.
SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL
By: Jane T. Lundregan
Sccretar.y .
e a em reen
December 13, 1976
Mr. John W. Gatchell
Hawthorne Hotel
18 Washington Square, West
Salem, M-seachusetts 01970
RE: 3 and 5 Spring Street
Dear Sir:
On December 8, 1976, in accordance with Section 124 of the Massachusetts
State Building Code, A Board of Survey was formed to inspect the building
at 3 innd-5"Spring Street
This survey, as you know, was conducted because of two fires (one on
November 4, 1976 and the most recent on December 4, 1976) wherein exten-
sive damage was caused. The floors were weakened and the east wall had to be
shored to prevent collapse.
The consensus of opinion of the Board of Survey is that the building should
be razed as soon as possible.
Immediate action on your part is requested to alleviate this condition. Please
advise this department with a firm date stating when this order wiml be com-
plied with.
Sincerely yours,
John B. Powers
Inspector of Buildings
JBP'z
BUILDING DEPT
c 13 1 as Pais ( it of Salpm, 'Mttssadjusetts
ITtre Oepariment 3Ieabquarlers
RECEIVED
dames 7. PrrnIUTY OF SALEM,MASS.
Qhief
December 13 , 1976
Mr. John Powers
Inspector of Buildings
One Salem Green
Salem, Ma. 01970
Dear Mr. Powers :
On December 8 , 1976 , the property located at 3 Spring Street,
Salem, Ma. was inspected by me, under the provisions of Section 124
of the State Building Code , and my conclusions are as follows :
The building, a two-and-one-half story wood frame dwelling,
has undergone severe structural damage , primarily due to
fires of recent origin.
On November 4 , 1976 , a cellar fire at this location burnt
floor joists and boarding as well as other structural
members , causing a weakening of the building in this area.
On December 4 , 1976 , a fire and explosion of suspicious
origin destroyed the attic, roof and the stairways from
second floor to the attic. The explosion separated the
east wall (wall nearest Webb Street) from the floors.
This wall has been shored to prevent collapse and to
avoid any personal or property damage .
In my opinion this building presents a fire and safety hazard
and because of the extensive damage to the structure, rebuilding
would not be feasible. In conclusion, the building should be
razed with all expediency.
Very truly yours ,
James F. Brennan, Chief
Salem Fire Department
JFB:rq
cc - City Solicitor
File
Tel.: 744.6961
BUILDING DEPT
L . L ' ITALIEN
14B?H%JFARPENTER & BUILDER
GENERAL REPAIRS OF ALL KINDS
RECEIVED
CITY OF SALE1111ASS' SALEM,OMAS. 01970
December 11 , 1976
Mr. Jack Powers
Inspector of Buildings
City of Salem
Dear Sirs
In answer to your letter of December 8, 1976 in
regards to the property at 3 & j Spring St. Salem, after
viewing this property with members of the City Engineering
department, Fire department and also the Building depart-
ment, after the 2 fires that occurred in said building, one
on November 4th in basement which badly charred floor timbers
and finding not enough exits in said basement, then the
second fire that occurred on December 4th which burned the
first floor living room and kitchen also through hallways
leading to attic burning roof timbers beyond repair forcing
outside wall to bulge out where carrying timbers are not pro-
perly supported, I find that this property is beyond repairs
and in my opinion should be razed,
Very truly yours,
Au=urien/�/R
. L'Italien
LRL/all
BUILDING DEPT
RECEIVED
CITY OF SALEIA,MASS.
DecembeA 9, 1976
MA. John Wittiam GatcheU
6 E66ex Stun
Salem, MA 01970
DeaA S,ilc: '
,
VouA 6thuetuAe Kecentey damaged by VAe 1,6 06 great conaAn to .the
BoaAd o6 HeatA a6 a mattitude o6 .viotatione o6 A&ae2e Tan o6 .the , .
SanUaAy Code exiat,at•3-5 SpAing Staeet.
Ple"e .i.n6onm .the Sowed o6 Health by PetteA on youA .i.ntention6 to
Aepail)thi6 pwpvLty with a 6i4m daze when we may expect .the.
Aepaiu to 6taAt.
Po4.6ibEy thio 6twztu&e.cannot be economicaUy aepained and it may
be that you plan to Aaze .the 6t ata e. Ig thi6 16 youA intention,
p.Cwe 6o noti6y the BoaAd o6 Health, ;at6o 6tating a 6i m date when
action wiU be taken. a
Vehy .truly yowu6,
FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH Reply to:
John J. Toomey, D.P.M. Colin E. Camvwn, R.S.
Health Agent SewioA SanCtandan
CC: John S. Powon6, In6peetoA o6 Sidtding6, One Salem GAeen
k t i
f
BIiILDIN6 DEFT
G�c t39 i.� j" '7�
CITY OF -F
DecembeR 9, 1976
M. John WiUiam GatcheU
6 Essex S.tAzet
Satem, MA 01970
Dean. Siv-
Vowt s.tAuetAe necent2y damaged by bite is o6 gneat conceRn to the
Boatd o6 Hw th as a multitude o6 v.iotation.6 o6 A&ticZe Two o6 the
Sanitary Code exist at 3-5 Spring S.tneet.
Please in6oRm .the SoaR.d o6 Heatth by .tetteA on youA intentions .to
upa.i.: .this pnopeAty RU th a 6iRm date when we may expect tthe
upai u .to zta1t t.
Possi.bty this ztAuatuu cannot be eennamieaUy itepaited and it may
be that you plan to Raze .the s.tAactuke. 16 this .i.6 youA intention,
pteaee so not Sy the Somd o6 Heatth, atao stating a 6i/un date when
action YtCU be .taken.
VeRy tvAy youu,
FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH Reply to:
John J. Toomey, D.P.M. Cotin E. Cameron, R.S.
Heatth Agent SenioR. Sant ta4ian
/6
CC: John S. Powcu, Inapeeton o6 Buitdings, One Salem GReen