18 SUMMER STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION �" �t`.,
it� � �� ,,,,.... ...
y
'7
m
May 10, 2008
P.O. Box 5203
Beverly Farms, MA 01915
Thomas J. St. Pierre
Inspectional Services Director
Building Department
120 Washington Street, 3`d Floor
Salem, MA 01970
SUBJECT: CHIMNEY REPAIR AT 18 SUMMER STREET
Dear Mr. St. Pierre:
Attorney Joseph Correnti spoke to you recently regarding the multi-family property we own at 18 Summer
Street. He called me after that to remind me that I have not followed through on having the brickwork on the
East chimney properly repaired as requested by your department.
I am writing to apologize for the delay and to let you know the following has been done or is"in progress":
Per you recommendation, I had the chimney inspected by John M Wathne, PE of Structures North Consulting
Engineers. He gave me a report recommending that:
a. The loosely perched bricks at the top tapered section of the chimney be removed.
1 immediately had those loose bricks removed.
b. The tapered section of the chimney be removed and reconstructed using similar materials that at least
externally match the original.
I have now sent out Request for Quotations to 3 chimney repair firms(see enclosed sample)and will
select one and have the work completed as soon as possible.
If you would like any additional information, please call me at 978-927-0793.Thank you for your patience.
Sincerely,
Gary B n n
Managing Partner
Cc: Attorney Joseph C. Correnti
May 10, 2008
P.O. Box 5203
Beverly Farms, MA 01915
Billy Sweet Chimney Sweep
45 New Ocean Street
Swampscott, MA 01907
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR QUOTATION
Chimney Repair at 18 Summer Street, Salem MA
Dear Sirs:
The chimney on the East side of the property at 18 Summer Street, Salem requires repair work.
At the top of the chimney where it tapers inward,the "shiner" course of bricks has come loose. We have
removed some of the loose bricks as a safety precaution.
Based on a visual inspection by a consulting engineer in Salem, it has been recommended that the
tapered section of the chimney be removed and reconstructed using similar materials that at least
externally match the original.
Please provide us a quotation for this work and indicate when the work can be scheduled and
completed. For any additional information, please call me at 978-927-0793.
Sincerely,
Gary Benton
Managing Partner
RDD Realty
e
° CITY OF SALEM
PUBLIC PROPERTY
DEPARTMENT
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
120 WASHINCi'ON S'1'REE'I +$A1.EM,ML1.SSACHUSEI"IS 01970
Tu.:978-745-9595 ♦ Fnx:978-740-9846
UNSAFESTRUCTURE
PROPERTY LOCATION 18 Summer Street
May 22, 2007
Summer Street Salem Trust
Gary L. Benton, Trustee
18 Summer Street
Salem,MA 01970
Re: Unsafe chimney
Dear Mr. Benton;
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, Section 121, regarding unsafe structures. If
a structure or any part thereof is declared unsafe by a building official, the owner of
said structure has 24 hours from the receipt of this notice to begin to make this
structure safe. If the property owner fails to comply with the order of the building
official, and the danger to the public is imminent, the building official has the right
to take any means necessary to secure said unsafe structure to protect the public.
As this chimney structure is in imminent danger to passersby on the public way, it is
imperative that work to make this structure safe begin immediately. If not the City
will employ the needed workman to secure this same, and the resulting expense will
be incurred by you. Please also understand that this work will require a building
permit, and if staging is to be set on the sidewalk then a street permit will also be
required.
If you feel aggrieved by this order, your right to appeal is through the Bosrd of
Building Regulations and Standards. If you need further contact information for the
BBRS please call this office for assistance.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact the Building
Inspectors Office at (978) 745-9595, extension 5643.
Si rel ,
ph E. arbea , r.
L cal Inspector/ sistant Building Inspector
CC: file, Mayor's Office, Police Dept., Fire Prevention, Councilor Pelletier
(TO PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: Please Circle Type of Action Involved: — TORT — MOTOR VEHICLE TORT—
CONTRACT — EQUITABLE RELIEF — OTHER.)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
T
R ESSEX ss. SUPERIOR COURT
0
CIVIL ACTION
No. 84-16
John B. Kelley and Joan M. Kelley
o . (••----------------••----•---------•-•--...---------....-•----..................... .....................Plaintiff s)
a O
V.
a "
a w
o U
Richard MacIntosh, et als
. Defendant(s)
o a
r •�
v �*
0
Cl :Ec-
SUMMONS a
o To the above named Defendant: Richard Macintosh, One Salem Green, Salem, m- 70
r
� You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon .-,lOhn...F_-..Ii.erney-...ESg1.il�e�...-s��...-......._
d plaintiff's attorney, whose address is ..133-_Washington...$t..�--Sal"em, 1lA....01970
---_----------'�ala ansi�4 to the
0 complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons upon you, exclu-
s
8 sive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief de-
w
manded in the complaint. You are also required to file your answer to the complaint in the office of the Clerk
o
4 of this court at ....Sal
.......e....m
................................. either before service upon plaintiffs attorney or within a reasonable
time thereafter.
m 3
Unless otherwise provided by Rule 13 (a), your answer must state as a counterclaim any claim which you
v may have against the plaintiff which arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the
a plaintiffs claim or you will thereafter be barred from making such claim in any other action.
0
l �
F ; Thomas R. Morse, Jr.
Z A. WITNESS, squire, at Salem, the 5th
A 8 """418ay of January in the year of our Lord one thousand
A TRUE COP , nine hundred and eighty.four
a
A T T E S G
Richard S. Winer
w
e
Constable
E
zE
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.
SC 15 Form 1
� f �:3l�ztzaiu�7 �.oarl
-= Oit2 OkatPltt 61LPYt1
July 25, 1983 -
Ms. Josephine Fusco - -
City Clerk
City Hall
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Ms. Fusco: - -
At a regularly scheduled meeting of t.e Sale Planning Board held
on July: 21, 1983 it was voted to endorse "-,_--Drovat under sub-
division Control Law Not Required" on the following described plan: -
1. Applicant: F�ighteen Summer_Street Realty Trust
355 Essex Street
Salem, MA. 01970
2. Location and Description - Two parcels of land situated on'S
%c1-5-t et;Lot 2 containing 4 resid ne tial
units and a medical office, and Lot 1
containing a carriage house.
Land is to be divided into two lots
on which stands on building on each
of the two lots. Property is in a
B-3 District (see letter from City
Solicitor)..
Deed of property records in Essex South District Regis-r,!.
Sincerely,
waL
-2, R
Walter Power III
Chairman.
WP/sm
�\�.' •;''.-f��� �K ItTtitT'�2Tt�T, �III;C?J `i � ,
Q ifg nil
'83 JUL 21 P 1 ,tA{aawtly=etts 01979
CITY
SA.LEV i
NOTICE TO BE ATTACHED TO
FORM "A"APPLICATIONS
See Form "A" applications for
complete instructions for filing.
All insertions shall be typewritten
or printed nea`dy in ink.
Date: ___Jul•.- 21, 1983 _
Citv Clerk
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Sir:
I hand sou herewith two copies of Form A, an application submitted by me this day to the Plan-
ning Board of the City of Salem requesting a determination and an endorsement on a plan filed Edd
Said application that Planning Board approval under the SuBdMsion Control Rules and Regulations is
not required.
The land shown on the accompanying plan is located at ___Df 1_-__,Nr_Qx__E*x€e=
----- ------------------- -------------------------------- in Ward ------------3-------------------------------•
(insert street and street numbers here)
RICHVID L. cl'*,iL 1s E
Signature of Owner __ _--11
---____--
v
= -- --
A-�L=S, h=s attorney. .
Street Address -----------jX^e Church Street
City/I'own &State -----"-Valein
-------,----- ---------------------- ------
Telephone Number ....74_5_0500------_-_. —
�J
IM
:�•�(',art:.-„
Cat Anu
�:1c.r, e .eBss:+`EAS�S D19 i II
FORM A °83 JUL 21 P 1 :57
APPLICA'F.ION FOR ENDORSEMENT
OF PLAN BELIEVED NOT TO REQUIRECITy CI_[R ;'S OFFICE
APPROVAL SALP; '
In accordance with provisions of Section II-B, the
applicant must file, by delivery or registered mail, a
Notwe with the City Cleric stating the date of sub-
mission for stch determination. The notice shall be
attached to tiro copies of this Form A application.
The notice and both copies of the application must
be "date stamped" by the City Clerk and then one
cope of this Form A, with the Plan, filed with the
Manning Board by the applicant. All notices and
appl-ications shall be typewritten or neatly printed
in ink.
Salem, Mass., -_.---- jul-----...-----_"_-y_2 , 29_83
To the Planning Board:
The undersigned, belteofnb that the accompanying plan of his property in the City of Salem does not
constitute a subdivision ctdthin the meaning of the Subdivision Control Law because CSee Sect. II-A and
state specific reasons) __attached filan shows a division of lana into t;•ro lets on- -
n—a -._-------
-------------
wh-ich stands one building on each of tt-ro lots: Prorerty is located within _
...----------'---------'-------------'------------------------------------
----- -
—----
a rj-3 District (see aiaached letter of City Solicitor) recruiting minimwm lot
area of 3,000 square feet and mini--mum lot width of 30 feet.
— --
and Le:-z; itb submits said pian for a determination and endorsement that Planning Board approval
under the Subdivision Control Law is not required.
1. Name of Owner --------18_Sitmmer Street
355 ESa .,
Redress --------- -------s---sex-----Street------'---------lem-------- --------------------
2. Name of Engineer or Surveyor ____Essex Survey__service_r__Inc_ _ _ --_-_-_
--------------------------
Address
47 Federal Street, Salem
- - - - -- ---------------------------
---------------------------------------
3. Deed of property records in -------- -c,ssex South District
-
Registry
- - - -
Book 6938---------- -------- - Page --116 --- ---
Y. Location and Description of Property: _-Two narcels__of_land _situated_cn Scc-1er___
S..ree�, Lot 2 containing 4 residential units and a medical office and
--1------1--------------------------------- ------- Lot
------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
- containrng a carriage house. - - -
------- ------------------------------- -
--------------------------- ------------------------ --------.
----------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
5. All str;ets and abutting lot lines shall be shown on the P] to ether with the names of the Owners
of the abutting lou. R_ICHAP L. O L,
Signature of OFvner-Bi---- - - �- i ---_-._ �-
- ---
lfi _<GE P. ?,L;S, his attornev
Address
Telephone Number ------.---------745-05C,0...____
-- --- -- ----- - -------
, O
4{M
RICHARD W.STAFFORD CITY OF SALEM f�. 'r.� _ MARY P. HARRINGTON
CITY SOLICITOR. MASSACHUSETTS ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
93 WASHINGTON STREET 93 WASHINGTON STREET
SALEM,MA 01970 •83 JUL 21 P1 :57 SALEM, MA 01970
7414311 745-4311
CITY CL ='I':.' . OFFICE
SAL_., . :e„c
July 18, 1983
Sir. Richard T. McIntosh
Zoning Enforcement Officer
Cue Salem Green
Salam, `.assachusetts 01970 .
Lear sir. McIntosh,
You have requested an opinion regarding the zoning status of a portion
of the Westerly side of Summer Street. You have suggested, based upon your
research that the area in question is P.-3 in that no zoning ordinance has
been adopted changing the district from the original 1965 zoning map. I
am of the opinion that based upon the official zoning ordinance and zoning
rap that the area in question is a b-3 district.
-Section III. B. Zoning Map. - of the City of Salam Zoning Ordinance
states:
-Said districts are located and bounded as shown on the inapt entitled
-Zoning Sap, City of Salem-, adopted August 27, 1965, and as amended
September 2, 1969, August 1, 1972, December 3, 197A, September 15, 1976,
N'Dvember 9, 1976, and!aay 20, 1977, and on file in the office of the City
Clerk. The Zoning Map, with all explanatory matter thereon, is hereby
mdo a part of this Ordinance.
It, in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance and the General
Laws, Chapter 40A, amendments are approved by the City Council which
involve changes in district boundaries or other ratter portrayed on the
Zoning Map, such changes shall be made proinptly on the Zoning Map.
Regardless of the existence of purported copies of the Zoning Sap which
may be made or published From tine to tune, the Zoning Sap on file in
the office of the City Clerk shall be the final authority on the current
zoning status of land and water areas, buildings, and other structures
in the Cttv. "
aised upon the amended Zoning Sap, which is incorporated by reference in
the ordinance, and which is expressly granted superiority in the event of any
conflict with any other provision of the ordinance, I ccnclude that the land
in quantwn is presently zonc-d B-3 and that if a business use is c:.`{ mencQ
>tr. Richard T. Mclntosh Jul-y 18, 1983
at the premises prior to amending the official zoning wrap then such use would
constitute a nonconforming use.
Very truly yours, i
1
f r
RICRA.D IV. STU—MRD
City Solicitor
MVS/lrx!
TITV5 T ( ✓O�l r/ C, IF/ ✓D 4N . /�E'L _ 67Y
N // ° 33' /3 ",e-' 79. 06 /.2. /SE r�
34.97 Z/. 42
OO �
R. Ac/C �EEnVA/v Es rA r{ A
;1 94
5 �4o ,3/ IOG" W
107
c� Z0Zoo ' 73 94 f � `ry
JOf/N C2A/V�AL L / - 7 ti ✓.4NCT Nl. CA.5.5
A
1 ti N V 7
�tif!'2 Ql-
2C46rY T2v57-
5775
' _ s 13 47 "
I'
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss TRIAL COURT
SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION NO: 84-555
RICHARD L. POHL, TRUSTEE OF )
18 SU^IMER STREET REALTY TRUST )
and CARRIAGE HOUSE REALTY TRUST, )
Plaintiff }'
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN ,
VS. ) SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ' S ;
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
JAMES HACKER, SCOTT E. CHARNAS, }
DOUGLAS HOPPER, EDWARD LUZINSKI , }
JOSEPH PIEMONTE, RICHARD BENCAL, }
ARTHUR LABRECQUE, RICHARD
"4CINTOSH , CITY OF SALEM, JOHN ) jI
B. KELLEY and JOAN M. KELLEY, ) i
Defendants )
a FACTS
i
On July 29 , 1983, Plaintiff received a Permit for Interior
. Alterations to Provide for Professional. Office at 18 Summer
Street, Salem, Massachusetts , from Defendant McIntosh , the
Building Inspector for the City of Salem. On August 19 , 1983 ,
;
Defendants John B. Kelley and Joan M. Kelley ("Kelleys") , abutters
i
to 18 Summer Street, Salem, filed an Appeal with the Board .of i
I
Appeals for the City of Salem ('the "Board") seeking to have
L
Plaintiff' s permit revoked. On November 2, 1983, the Board I
i
held . its first hearing on the Kelleys ' Appeal and voted to con-
tinue. its hearing to November 30 , 1983. On November 30, 1983 ,
the Board voted to deny the Kelleys ' Appeal . On December 14 ,
i
^v
it I
�I -2-
jl
1983, the Board filed its written decision with the appropriate j
I City Clerk' s Office. On January 6, 1984 , the Kelleys filed a
Complaint in the Essex County Superior Court Department. By way, I
of their Complaint (Civil Action Number 84-16) , the Kelleys
allege that they had obtained a constructive grant of relief, of.
their Appeal pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40A, § 15. By way of their
prayers in their Complaint, the Kelleys seek enforcement of
their alleged constructive grant of relief. Plaintiff opposes
the relief sought by the Kelleys.
ISSUES PRESENTED
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO ENJOIN FURTHER
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS ARE PRESENT IN THIS
ACTION?
2 . WHETHER OT NOT ENJOINING FURTHER PROSECUTION OF CIVIL j
ACTION NUMBER 84-16 IS APPROPRIATE BY REASON THAT
MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 40A, SECTION 15 ,
AS AMENDED, IS UNDULY VAGUE IN DEROGATION OF THE DUE
PROCESS OF LAW REQUIREMENTS OF THE U.S . CONSTITUTION,
AMENDMENTS FIVE AND FOURTEEN AND THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, PART I, ARTICLE
TWELVE?
ARGUMENT
I
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO ENJOIN FURTHER
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS ARE PRESENT IN THIS
ACTION?
As courts of general jurisdiction, the Superior Courts
of this Commonwealth have the inherent power to grant injunctive
relief. Valley Stream Teachers Federal Credit Union v.
Commissioner of Banks , 376 Mass . 845 , 384 N.E.2d 200 (1978) .
I,
II -3-
The issuance or denial of a preliminary injunction requires an
! evaluation in combination of the moving party' s claim of injury
�I and its . change of success on the merits and if there is a sub- '
I
i' stantial risk of irreparable harm to the moving party, such
ij
must be balanced against any similar risk to the other party in
�I I
I light of the chance of each party to succeed on the merits.
Commonwealth v. County of Suffolk, Mass. — , 418 N.E. 2d.
1234 (1981) . I
i In the instant case, Plaintiff Richard Pohl has spent
�I considerable sums of money and time in rennovating his real
�! property pursuant to a Permit granted by the Building Inspector
i; for the City of Salem. This Permit has never been actually
i
revoked. . As Plaintiff states in his Verified Complaint, an over
,. i
turning of the issuance of this Permit would cause immediate,
substantial and irreparable harm to Plaintiff's vested property
rights .
As is shown and as is more fully treated in ISSUE 2 below; !'
the unconstitutional vagueness and infirmity of M.G.L. c. 40A, I
15 , upon which the Kelleys so heavily rely in their Civil
Action 84-16 , does appear to give Pohl a substantial chance of
i
success in a determination of the merits in these proceedings .
i
On balance, the Kelleys would not suffer substantial and
irreparable harm to their property rights to the degree that
i
I I
I
i
i I
-4-
Pohl now encounters. The Kelleys are abutters , not owners, of
the land in question. However, the Motion for Summary Judgment i
that the Kelleys seek in Civil Action 84-16 would, if granted, i
I
foreclose Pohl from any further review on the merits of the
Kelleys ' alleged constructive grant of relief against Pohl' s f
property rights.
!
It is well established that equity protects private pro-
perty rights. Kelley v. Board of Health of Peabody, 248 Mass.
165, 143 N.E. 39 (1924) . Furthermore, it is well settled that
equity extends appropriate injunctive protection to property
rights and interests of every description, whether the property
is real or personal. 42 Am Jur 2d, § 71. As an established
a maxim of equity jurisprudence, it cannot be doubted that equity ;
will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy. In support of,
i
and as a logical extension of this maxim, the Massachusetts
i
legislature has seen fit to confer upon the Superior Courts the
equitable jurisdiction, when necessary, to hear and determine i
I
cases pending in a county other than that in which the court
i
is sitting. M.G.L. c . 214 § 10 . By way of analogy, it would
be a lesser stretch of this Court' s equitable powers to enjoin
i
a pending civil proceeding within its own court than the statutes
i
allow for, in light of the necessities involved.
In sum, after balancing the interests and equities involved,
I
it
I;
l
I -5-
and considering the irreparable harm that would be occasioned i
i� upon Pohl, it is clear that the conditions required to enjoin
further prosecution of Civil Action 84-16 are present. •Therefore,
j it would be an appropriate exercise of this Court's equitable �.
i; powers to grant the relief sought by Plaintiff Richard L. Pohl.
2. WHETHER OR NOT ENJOINING FURTHER PROSECUTION OF CIVIL
ACTION .NUMBER 84-16 IS APPROPRIATE BY REASON THAT
MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 40A, SECTION 15,
AS AMENDED, IS UNDULY VAGUE IN DEROGATION OF THE DUE
PROCESS OF LAW REQUIREMENTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, j
jj AMENDMENTS FIVE AND FOURTEEN AND THE CONSTITUTION OF .
THE COW4ONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, PART I, ARTICLE
!: TWELVE?
In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution )
'I was adopted. It provides among other things that: "Nor shall
i
any state deprive any persons of life, liberty or property
without due process of law. " This is the "due process" clause
i
which -is similar to language which protects the individual
:
against the Federal Government in the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of
i
Massachusetts, Part I , in Article 12' s application also provides ;
i
for due process of law. And no subject shall be arrested,
imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities ,
or Privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled,
i
or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate , but by the
i
judgment of his peers , or the law of the land. " Mass. Const. ,
i
Pt. 1 , Art. 12 . This article embraces all that is compre-.
* it
ii
-6-
I
bended in the phrase "due process of law in U.S.C.A. Const.
I
Amend. 14 . Pugliese v. Commonwealth, 335 'lass. 471, 140 N.E.
2d 476 (1956)
i
The U.S. Supreme Court has not laid down precise
procedures in order to comply with due process in non-judicial
Proceedings. However, adequate notice of the proposal to take i
I
action and an opportunity to be heard are the absolute essentials
I
in any proceeding made subject to due process requirements . In j
Mullaney. Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company, 339 U.S. 306
(1950) , the Court said: "An elementary and fundamental require-
I
ment of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded I
finality is notice reasonably calculated under all the
circumstances to apprise interested parties of the pendency of
the action and to afford them an opportunity to present their
I
objections . The notice must be of such a nature as reasonably
to convey the required information, and it must afford a .
reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance. i
I
Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S . 385 (1914) , held that the fundamental
requisite of due process is the opportunity to be heard.
Although the Mullane and Grannis cases involved .notice require- i
ments to pending actions, statutory notice of a right to judicial
review of threatened deprivation of property rights should be
I
adequate to .apprise an individual of his rights :to judicial
review. Constitutional provisions for the security of person
i
i
i
-7-
i
I.
is
and property should be liberally construed. Boyd v. United
States , 6 S. Ct. 524 , 116 U.S. 616 , 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886) . If
men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at the meaning
i
of a statute, that statute is unconstitutionally vague.
Keyishiany. Board of Regents , 87 S. Ct. 675 , 385 U.S. 589 ,
17 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1967) .
In light of these standards of notice , M.G.L. c.40A,
§15 must be viewed as unconstitutionally vague . In pertinent
part, this statute provides : "Failure by the board to act
within said seventy-five days shall be deemed a grant of the
relief, application or petition sought subject to an applicable
judicial appeal as provided for in this chapter. " . Nowhere else
in chapter 40A is is there made mention of the appealability of
a . constructive grant of relief. M.G.L. c. 40A, §17, is the I.sole
and exclusive vehicle for judicial review of decisions of the
board of appeals . Section 17 does not, however, define a time
period within which a person aggrieved by a constructive grant
of relief, as is Pohl, can timely, if at all, appeal that
constructive gtant of relief.. In Capone v. Zoning Board of
Appeals of Fitchberg, 389 Mass . 617 , 451 N.E. 2d 1141 (1983) ,
the Supreme Judicial Court recognized the infirmity of M.G. L.
c. 40A, §15 . In a footnote to its decision in Capone, the
Court said, "Neither do we decide when a person aggrieved by a
constructive grant of a petition must appeal. " Capone, Id. ,
i
I
I
II I
I
i.
I'
i -8-
at 1145, ftnt. 8. In light of the fact that there is undue
vagueness in section 15; this section' s constitutionality is .
clearly questionable. There being an actual controversy arisen, :
a declaratory judgment making binding declarations of right,
duty, status and other legal relations is appropriate. M.G.L.
c.231A.
Consequently, it must be viewed that since there are
appropriate declarations of right,. duty, status and other legal
relations to be made in these proceedings, further prosecution
of Civil Action 84-16 would operate so as to change after or
remove the rights , duties, statuses and other legal relations
now present. Enjoining further prosecution of Civil Action .'
84-16 is, therefore, appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court
to rule affirmatively on both ISSUES ONE and TWO.
i
I
Respectfully submitted,
RICHARD L. POHL, TRUSTEE OF 18
SU1Q,1ER STREET REALTY TRUST AND
CARRIAGE HOUSE REALTY TRUST
By his attorney:
i
GEORGE P . VALLIS
DALY, VALLIS, DRUCAS & PECK
One Church Street
Salem, MA 01970
745-0500
~ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR.COURT
CIVIL ACTION
lYo:. 84-555
Richard L. Pohl , Trustee of 18 Summer Street
Realty Trust and The Carriage House Realty
Tru.S.t.................................................................................... Plaintiff(s)
s u
......C.i.ty..._of....S.alem...........................................-•-.-................ .........Defendaniog s.
,N
:CA r,
SUMMONS AND ORDER OF NOTICE c� .
To the above-named Defendant:
You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon George P. Vallis
plaintiffs attorney, whose address is One Church Street
an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons
upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you
for the relief demanded in the complaint. You are also required to file your answer to the complaint in the
office of the Clerk of this court at Salem either before service upon plaintiff's attorney
or within a reasonable.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
WE ALSO NOTIFY YOU that application has been made in said action, as appears in the complaint,
for a preliminary injunction and that a hearing upon such application will be held at the court house at.said
Peabody DC in thblo t i onsession without jury of our said court on Wednesday
the 21st day of March A. D. 1984 , at 9 :30 o'clock A. M.,
at which you may appear and show cause why such application should not be granted.
Mims R. Morse, Ll e.
Witness, Lsquire, at Salem, the
13th day of March in the year of our Lor
one thousand nine hundred and eigh our
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.
COPti40NWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss. TRIAL COURT
SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION NO: 84-555
RICHARD L. POHL, TRUSTEE )
OF 18 SUMMER STREET REALTY )
TRUST and THE CARRIAGE )
HOUSE REALTY TRUST, )
Plaintiff -
VS.
laintiff VS. ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT
JAMES HACKER, SCOTT CHARNAS , )
DOUGLAS HOPPER, EDWARD LUZINSKI )
JOSEPH PIEMONTE, RICHARD BENCAL, )
ARTHUR LABRECQUE and RICHARD )
MCINTOSH, CITY OF SALEM, JOHN )
B. KELLEY, and JOPSI 24. KELLEY, )
Defendants )
1) Plaintiff,- Richard L. Pohl , as he is a Trustee of the
e
18 Summer Street Realty Trust and the Carriage House
Realty Trust (hereinafter referred to as "Pohl" ) is a
present owner of the land and buildings at 18 Summer
Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts.
2) Defendant, James Hacker, a member and the Chairman of
the Board of Appeals for the City of Salem, Essex
County, Massachusetts (hereinafter referred to as the
"Board" ) , is an individual who resides at 7 Ugo Road,
Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts ..
3) Defendant, Scott E. Charnas , .a member of the Board., is
an .individual who resides at 7 Juniper Road, Swanpscott ,
-2-
Essex County , Massachusetts.
4) Defendant, Douglas Hopper, a member of the Board, is an
individual who resides at 51 Dearborn Street, Salem,
Essex County, Massachusetts.
5) Defendant, Edward Luzinski , a member of the Board, is an
individual who resides at 25 Hardy Street, Salem, Essex
County, Massachusetts .
6) Defendant, Joseph Piemonte , a member of the Board, is an
individual who resides at 22 Crowdis Street, Salem, Essex
County, Massachusetts.
7) Defendant,.. Richard Bencal , an associate member of the
Board, is an individual who resides at 19 Goodell Street,
b
Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts .
8) Defendant, Arthur Labrecque , an associate member of the
,Board, is an individual who resides at 11 Hazel Street,
Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts .
9) The defendants , James Hacker, Scott E. Charnas, Douglas
Hopper, Edward Luzinski , Joseph Piemonte , Richard Bencal,
and Arthur Labrecque , constitute . the duly appointed
members and associate members of the Board of Appeals
for the City of Salem (said defendants shall hereinafter
be collectively referred to as the "Board") .
-3-
10) Defendant, Richard McIntosh, the Building Inspector
for the City of Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts,
is an individual who maintains his usual place of
business at the Town Offices , One Salem Green, Salem,
Essex County, Massachusetts.
11) Defendant, City of Salem, is a municipal corporation
established and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts.
12) Defendant, John B. Kelley, is an individual who resides
at 3 Cambridge Street, Salem, Essex County , Massachusetts.
13) Defendant, Joan M. Kelley, is an individual who resides
at 3 Cambridge Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts.
14) This is an action for a declaratory judgment brought
pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, c. 231A.
15) On or about July 29 , 1983, defendant, Richard McIntosh,
as he was the Building Inspector for the City of Salem,
granted to plaintiff a building permit numbered 359
(hereinafter referred to as the "Permit" ) to construct
interior alterations to provide for professional office
at 18 Summer Street, Salem, Massachusetts ( a copy of the
Permit is attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit "A" )
-4-
16) After the Permit was issued to plaintiff, defendants
John B. Kelley and Joan M. Kelley (hereinafter
collectively referred to as the "Kelleys") requested
defendant McIntosh to revoke the Permit, which request
was denied.
17) On or about August 19, 1983, the Kelleys did file a
Notice of Appeal to the Board pursuant to M.G.L. c.40A,
§§8 and 15.
18) On or about November 2 , 1983, the Board convened a
hearing on the Kelleys ' petition (hereinafter referred
to as the "Petition") .
19) At that November 2nd hearing, the Board voted to continue
its hearing on the Petition to November 30 , 1983 , in order
that the Board could obtain a second advisory opinion
from the City Solicitor for the City of Salem,
Massachusetts , relative to the allegations contained in
the Petition.
20) On or about November 30 , 1983 , at the 2nd hearing
relative to the Petition, the Board decided that the
Building Inspector acted properly and correctly in
issuing the Permit and denied the Petition.
21) On or about December 14 , 1983 , the Board did file with
the City Clerk' s Office for the City of Salem, its
-5-
decision to deny the Petition (attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhbit "B" is a certified
copy of that decision) .
22) Defendants Kelleys then brought a Complaint in the
Essex County Superior Court. This Complaint appears. I
as Civil Action No. 84-16.
23) In Civil Action No. 84-16 , defendants Kelleys allege
that a constructive grant of relief of their Petition
was effected 'pursuant to M.G.L. c.40A, §15.
24) The Kelleys ' Complaint was filed on January 6, 1984
(attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit
"C" is a certified copy of the relevant docket sheet
I' of that Complaint' s entry date in the Essex County
i
Superior Court) .
I
it 25) This date of entry of the Kelleys' Complaint (January
ii
6 , 1984) , is in excess of 20 days ,from the date that
j
'i the Board filed its decision. (December 14, 1983) with
i
the City Clerk' s Office for the City of Salem.
26) To the extent that the Kelleys ' Petition is adversely
affected by the written decision of the Board as to
jj
their petition, the Kelleys are persons "aggrieved" by
i
i! said decision.
ii
I)
-6-
27) M.G.L. c.40A, §17 allows judicial review for certain
persons aggrieved by a decision of the board of appeals .
28) M.G.L. c. 40A, 517 is the sole and exclusive vehicle for
judicial review of decisions of the board of appeals.
29) M. G.L. c.40A, §17 provides that in order to appeal a .
decision of the board of appeals to the superior court
department for the county in which the land concerned ,
is situated, persons aggrieved must bring their action
within 20 days after the board of appeals' decision has
been filed in the city clerk' s office.
30) In certain situations, M.G.L. c.40A, §15 provides for
lconstructive grants of relief.
l31) A constructive grant of relief can be obtained without
I� a decision of the board of appeals being given or filed.
I�
i 32) M.G.L. c. 40A, §15 also provides that the board of appeals '
I; notice of its decision to the petitioner . "shall specify
I
that appeals , if any, shall be made pursuant to section
IIseventeen and shall be filed within twenty days after
r
i
the date of filing of such notice in the office of city
iior town clerk" .
j
33) M. G.L. c.40A, §17 does not define a. time period within
which a person aggrieved by a constructive grant of a
i
i
.1
I
-7-
Petition can timely, if at all, appeal that constructive
grant of relief.
34) There is a patent ambiguity between sections 15 and 17
in that section 15 allows constructive grants of relief
although section 17 does not define a time period within
which a person aggrieved by a constructive grant of
�I relief can timely appeal that constructive grant of
I� relief.
35) As a direct result of the patent ambiguities between
sections 15 and 17 , there is uncertainty as to whether
the plaintiff is "aggrieved" by the Board' s actions
II within section 17 ' s meaning in light of the fact that
a the decision filed by the Board supports the Permit
I
granted to Plaintiff. j
,I ,
36) As a further direct result of the patent ambiguity
between sections 15 and 17 , there is additional uncertainty
created by the fact that, if the plaintiff is "aggrieved"
within section 17' s meaning, plaintiff has no way of
I
knowing when or by what method he can seek judicial review
to appeal. a constructive grant of relief against his real
i�
�j property.
I
(I
37) Plaintiff has spent substantial sums of money and time
'! in renovating his property in reliance upon a building
permit that. has never been actually revoked, and further-
i
i
I
i,
i,
more, the property in question is currently occupied
by tenants of the plaintiff.
38) Defendant, Kelleys , by way of their actions in Civil
Action No. 84-16, have made a Motion for Summary Judgment
which, if granted, would foreclose the plaintiff from
any further review on the merits of the Kelleys' alleged
constructive grant of relief.
39) Plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm and damage to
his property if he were to be foreclosed from a
determination of the merits on this action.
40) An actual controversy has arisen as to whether or not
the Kelleys have obtained an overturning of the Building
Inspector' s issuance of the Permit and whether or not
M.G.L. c. 40A, §15 is constitutionally valid.
41) M. G.L. c. 40 A, §15 , as presently enacted and literally
interpreted, would deprive plaintiff of his property
without due process of law in derogation of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
42) M.G.L. c. 40A, §15, as presently enacted and literally
interpreted, would deprive plaintiff os his property
without due process of law in derogation of the.
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Part
I , Article 12 .
-9-
43) M.G.L. c.40A, §15 is constitutionally in firm and void
for vagueness inasmuch as it cannot be fairly reconciled
with the strict appeal provisions of M.G.L. c. 40A, §17 .
44) Entry of declaratory judgment in this action would
terminate the uncertainties or controversies giving rise
to these proceedings.
45) WHEREFORE; the plaintiff demands that this Honorable
Court:
1 . Issue a preliminary injunction enjoining any further
prosecution of the Kelleys' action, No. 84-16,
Essex Superior Court, pending a determination of the
merits of this action.
2 . Issue a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants
John B. Kelley and Joan M. Kelley from -prosecuting
their appeal with their case, No. 84-16 Essex Superior
Court, pending a determination of the merits of this
action.
�j
I, 3. Issue a permanent injunction permanently enjoining
any further prosecution of the Kelleys' action.
4 . Issue a permanent injunction permanently enjoining
defendants John B. Kelley and Joan M. Kelley from
further prosecution of their appeal with their case,
jl
No. 84-16 , Essex Superior Court.
I�
I'
l
i
-10-
5. Make binding declarations of right, duty, status ,
and other legal relations as to the constitutionality
of M.G.L. c. 40A, §15.
6. Grant such other relief as the Court deems meet
IIand just.
Ii SIGNED AND SEALED UNDER THE PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY
THIS 12th day of March, 1984 .
RICHARD L. POHL, TRUSTEE of the
18 Summer Street Realty Trust
II and the Carriage . House Realty Trust
By his attorney:
i
ii
.I
GEORGE P. VALLIS , ESQ.
DALY, VALLIS , DRUCAS & PECK
One Church Street
it Salem, MA 01970
l 745-0500
i
i
'I
i
i'.
f
DEPT FILE COPY
BUILDING =°
CITY OF SALEM <
,r
" s SALEM1I, hiASSACHUSErri 019m, ' PE12fV11T�°
-✓ S - •;.ir - -f:41 .::Y\. _ ::9;!A LIaA TION
July 29 .. . . 83
GATE. 19t•� - t P T NO
L .
APOLICANT Kenneth Towey - ADDRESS Lssex Jc• a em •A
____,_________ _ IROI (a rR((TL_ _•.. � .-J .iit.:.tfo iA•f LI Cf f(1 :-I�.=
PERMIT TO Interior Alterations .._ NUMBER OF
1_I STORY DWELLING UNITS '
n TPf Or IUPRorCMERT) NO l (r oras[➢ va[l .. �G ii '•M;
18 Suer" Street ZONiNG
AT (LOCATION I DISTRICT
ao.l tStRC(T)
BETWEEN I - AND
' GOfi SM[CTI - - T ICROif fTRCCT)•-1 �
. .,. , : -•S LOT
SUBDIVISION LOT BLOCK' •' SIZE
f :. � t A /' r '� ?a (.�M`�-y-yNi��- - 4 ryy4./$Id Rare-•S?"ie
BUILDING IS TO BE FT. WIDE By -FT LONG By h FT, IN HEIGHT AND SNALL CONFORM IN COX57RVCTION'
- ...j/..[T ..rl: � Jnr I h .•" 1•'y.� .T�'1t. . ,• / �" ..
T O'T�PE , USE GROUP ' T BASEMENT WALLS'GRwFOUNCATIO" t T
Interior alterstions 'only within existing structure-to Provide~for`professional .i,
REMARKS.""
_ office ; ., } cr r: .
_ ��'•• t a S �Q PERMIT (. 20.00 •91
vOWME " ESTIMATED COST ,P'j A_ f FEE
l (CUSI&SOUMIC FECTI t
OWNER � Dr.Richard Pohl ILI
ADDRESS 18 SummerStreet :. .. ,...:.. --.Br DI c OEPT.
(Affidavit on reverm side of application to be completed by authorized agent of owner)
/
� 1
` t
"EXHIBIT A"
�'eaS� W,��` 3� sr�`ui . 's., ,.,� ,, .� '� f ..fig" tf�'µ;'�"'�'� �6K, ';?r'�,a,p ,g"yr.•:. t� . _ `�xb'-�h�
SUPERIOR COURT
EDWARD LUZINSKI,ET ALS , fi5 �THEY ARE, MEMBERS OF THE
JOHN B. KELLEY, ET AL vs. SALEM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , ET ALS
741-0862 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF - COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
�IS2i1cLF. T'errevLR� �ert T . Kalis % i� if 7 7olr_
Tierney, Kalis & Adamopoulos . � � _d/97o �z �• o �-
133 Washington Street Salem Mass 01970 M
1984 DATE NO. DOCKET ENTRIES ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS -
Jan 1 Complaint Joan M. Kelley:
2 Civil action cover sheet
_ _f� uzm-
/ /+ /. It
ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS
/ Joseph M. Piemonte :as they are
ou las Ho er:'' members of —
James B. Hacker : ✓ Salem
IZj Y rl ("A-1)71n axg Scott Charnas Zoning Board of
/ Richard A. Bencal : " Appeals
Richard Macintosh: (OVER)
1 CONTRACT IOR TORT)
— / --' •-y�C�4�/"� _ 2 MOTOR VEHICLE TORT
p
.___ __ /`.1�-�y._l�C�t� � •�]L�° �G su, O�¢i.G 3 OTHER TORTORTS-
Ccndi— 4 LAND TAKING
—' 5 OTHERS
.. � ��
FLUX
iii - -- - - � • : .
House Realty Trust:
A TRUE COPY, Ar PsT
a
"Titg of idem, use cl�u tt
Pnurtb of c4yeal �83 DE! �n ht/
CITY C_ r i;F
DECISION ON AN APPEAL BY JOHN AND JOHN KELLEY
REGARDING 18 SUMMER STREET
A hearing on this p-tition was held November 30, 1983 with the following
Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper,
Luzinski and Associate Member Bencal. Notice of said 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 401
Petitioners is requesting an appeal of a building permit issued to Richard
Pohl, owner of 18 Summer St. (R-3)
After diligent deliberation and after consultation wi.th the City Solicitor, the
Board of Appeal decision is as follows:
The Building Inspector has acted properly and correctly issued Permit #359, aft(
consulting the map in the City Clerk's office.
Decision .to deny.
J4sBcker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLE.
L.
M1 \ t
' r
i.
' i a,., .•i GR la F,LUL,, J A',J iJift � v.. r•i.-G � EF J'GEfflt � .. ... . .,
;,. BOARD OF AFP.•'.l
Date March 12, 1984
r ' I.fcereb, c itify 'that 20 -days have expired
from the t!ata this instrument was received,
, v
c.nd :-iha i G P:F?;:AL 'hes Leen fii d in fids Exhibit. 'rB
H ::e Copy - cti J2
TY CLERK Salem, lkoss,
June 28, 2002
P.O. Box 53
Prides Crossing, MA 01965
Salem Building Department
Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
SUBJECT: 18 SUMMER STREET, SALEM
Dear Sirs:
As Lessor of the first floor commercial space at 18 Summer Street in Salem, Massachusetts,
we have learned that the tenant, Scott Leahy of Nutech Integrated Systems, has violated the
permitted use of the premises as specified in the terms of the commercial lease that he
executed in July, 2000.
The commercial (professional office) status of the first floor premises at 18 Summer Street was
confirmed in a letter from Richard McIntosh, then the Salem Zoning Enforcement Officer, in a
letter dated April 6, 1984 to Mr. & Mrs. Kelly (abutters to the property) in which he stated:
"The use of 18 Summer Street for a professional office is determined to be
a non-conforming use. The City Legal Department having determined that
the locus was a B-3 Zoned District at the time the office was occupied."
Specifically, we have learned that Mr. Leahy has resided on the premises, whereas the lease
specifies that the premises shall only be used "only for the purpose of conducting a service
business." In addition, Mr. Leahy has permitted a woman, whose first name we understand to
be "Julie", to reside there as well. We have also learned that the woman is pregnant and
anticipates the birth of her baby within the next two months.
When advised that his use of the premises violates the term of the lease, Mr. Leahy has
indicated that he and the woman intend to stay there until they find other accommodations. I
have advised Mr. Leahy in a letter of June 28, 2002 (copy attached) that his commercial lease
expires on July 31, 2002 and that, if he does not vacate the premises by that time, it will be
necessary to begin eviction proceedings.
I am writing this letter to the Salem Building Department to go on record as having advised Mr.
Leahy of his misuse of the leased premises and that his commercial lease, which expires on
July 31, 2002, will not be renewed.
Sincerely,
Gary . B nton
Manag
Summer Street Salem Trust
Cc: Salem Board of Health
Salem Building Department
Kevin Dalton, Attorney
June 28, 2002
P.O. Box 53
Prides Crossing, MA 01965
Scott Leahy
Nutech Integrated Systems
18 Summer Street
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Scott:
This letter is to advise you that the two-year commercial lease for the first floor commercial
space at 18 Summer Street in Salem, Massachusetts will expire on July 31, 2002. You are
expected to vacate the premises at that time.
If, for any reason, you fail to vacate the premises by July 31, 2002, we will be forced to begin
eviction proceedings.
Sincerely,
Gary L. nton
Manager
Summer Street Salem Trust
Cc: Salem Board of Health
Salem Building Department
Kevin Dalton, Attorney
CtU of $alem, fflassnr4us.offs
�� . �3��� ,,, �3uhiic �xn�Extg �EpttrtmEnt
E�]FiT�I:tPYC�
Richard T. McIntosh l`
One Salem Green
745-0213 April 6,1984
John & .loan Kelly
3 Cambridge Street Re: 18 Summer St.
Salem,Ma 01970
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kelly:
In answer to your letter of March 19,1984.
Please be advised that the use of 18 Summer for a
professional office, is determined to be a non conforming use.
The City Legal Department having determined that the locus
was a B-3 Zoned District, at the time the office was occupied.
"The current Zoning Map, 'indicates that the locus is now in
a R-3 Zoned District, which would prohibit professional office use.
The carriage house is occupied as a Single Family Dwelling and
I am informed is used for residential purposes only.
(/ truly yours,
ours
Richard T. McIntosh
RTM:mo' s Zoning Enforcement Officer
a
BVI `.
Marc P 1981
Building Inspector
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. McIntosh:
Upon the completion of Dr. Pohl remodeling the premises at
18 Summer Street, Salem, Massachusetts, he has commenced to use
same as professional offices. Patients are constantly being
observed entering and leaving the premises.
The use of these premises, being located in a R-3 District
for professional offices, is a violation of Section V of the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Salem. The use of these premises
as professional offices is a specifically prohibited use under said
Zoning Ordinance.
This letter is being sent to you under the provisions of
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 7, requesting,
in writing, that you enforce the Zoning Ordinance of the City
of Salem, and take appropriate action to see that Dr. Pohl ceases
and desists from using said premises for professional offices.
For your information, said statute further requires you to
notify us in writing, of any action or refusal to act, and the
reaons therefore, within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of
this letter.
We request your ,immediate att ntion to this.
ery truly our ,
John Kelley
Joan M. Kelley
3 Cambridge Street
S4lem, MA 001970
s g d �iJt e y
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
.1 coNwu
+Y A o Attu ofX �,
�a����` � , ; .;.� �it6lic �r1Y�SPr#g �B��x•�zllellt
4.9
i l 1
Richard T. McIntosh
One Salem Green
745-0213
June 22, 1983
Richard Stafford
City Solicitor
RE: Zoning status on westerly side
of 'Summer Street
Dear Richard: '. ,
May,II have a written legal opinion regarding the above referenced
properties. . The area outlined in red on the enclosed Zoning Map Section
was changed by amendment. (copy enclosed)
My, determination is that the westerly side of Summer Street, outlined
in`green, is zoned R-3 in that it was never changed from the original 1965
adopted City Zoning Map.
My question is, are there any legal requirements that would indicate
anything to contrary?
Unfortunately ,the amended Zoning Map was not adopted by the City Council.
` If• it had been, ` the area in question would probably be B-3, right?
' Thank you for any light you may be able to shed on this situation.
Very truly yours,
r - Richard T. McIntosh
t ' Zoning Enforcement Officer
RTM:bms
w
,,,, ,, Enclosure
-10
ti':
O
e+
RICHARD W.STAFFORDCITY OF SALEM EM
ccs+ 9 MARY P. HARRINGTON
CITYSOLICITOR MASSACHUSETTS ;�:� ., ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
P �
93 WASHINGTON STREET s 93 WASHINGTON STREET
�'�,�.OF
SALEM,MA 01970 - 54ZE.",g'+AS$. SALEM,MA 01970
7454311 745-4311
July 18, 1983
Mr. Richard T. McIntosh
Zoning Enforcement Officer
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Mr. McIntosh,
You have requested an opinion regarding the zoning status of a portion
of the Westerly side of-Slmmer Streeter You have suggested, based upon your
research that the area in question is k-3 in that no zoning ordinance has
been adopted changing the district from the original 1965 zoning map. I
am of the opinion that based upon the official zoning ordinance and zoning
map that the area in question is a B-3 district.
"Section III. B. Zoning Map." of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance
states:
"Said districts are located and bounded as shown on the mapt entitled
"Zoning Map, City of Salem", adopted August 27, 1965, and as amended
September 2, 1969, August 1, 1972, December 3, 1974, September 15, 1976,
November 9, 1976, andMay 20, 1977, and on file in the office of the City
Clerk. The Inning Map, with all explanatory matter thereon, is hereby
made a part of this Ordinance. -
If, in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance and the General
laws, Chapter 40A, amendments are approved by the City Council which
involve changes in district boundaries or other matter portrayed on the
Zoning Map, such changes shall be made promptly on the Zoning Map.
Regardless of the existence of purported copies of the Zoning Map which
may be made or published from time to time, the Zoning Map on file in
the office of the City Clerk shall be the final authority on the current
zoning status of land and water areas, buildings, -and other structures
in the.City."
Based upon the amended Zoning Map, which is incorporated by reference'.in
the ordinance, and which is expressly granted superiority in the event of any
conflict with any other provision of the ordinance, I conclude that the land
in question is presently zoned B-3 and that if a business use is commenced
(cont'd) . . .
Mr. Richard T. McIntosh July 18, 1983
at the premises prior to amending the official zoning map then such use would
constitute a nonconforming use.
Very truly yours,
RICHARD W. ST RD i
City Solicitor
RWS/lmc
Tierney, Kalis & Adamopoulos
Attorneys at Law Vega 17 2 (o fll'fl,
133 Washington Street, Salem, MassachuV7� (617) 741-0862
V T'Y;O'F 'S AL EM,14A n F. Tierney
Robert 1. Kalis
Anthony C. Adamopoulos
Bonnie Spaccarelli Hannon
November 16, 1983
Mr. Richard MacIntosh
Building Inspector, City of Salem
c/o One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Re: 18 Summer Street
Salem, MA
Dear Mr. MacIntosh:
As you know, a Petition was filed with the City of Salem Zoning Board of
Appeals on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. John Kelley on August 19, 1983. That Petition
demanded that the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem revoke and negate Permit
number 359 issued by you on or about July 29, 1983 and that such further and
additional action or relief be taken as is necessary to rectify the illegality
associated with the issuance of such permit and to establish conformity with the
zoning laws.
The Board has failed to act within seventy-five (75) days after the date
of said filing of the Petition, and this failure, pursuant to the provisions of
M.G.L.A. c. 4OA, §15 shall be deemed a grant of the relief or Petition sought.
As the relief sought by Mr. John Kelley and Mrs. Joan Kelley was the revocation
and negation of Permit number 359 and the cessation of building thereunder and
removal of any improvements made pursuant thereto, demand is hereby made upon
you that such action be taken by you forthwith.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Ver r y your ,
John F / Tierney ttorney for
John and Joan Kelley
JFT/smd
HAND DELIVERED NOVEMBER 17, 1983
cc: Mr. and Mrs. John Kelley
Robert Peck, Esq.
CO]DI
' ' �uhlit �ru�Pxt� �Pp�rfmPnt
�"'aw>s."a'' �1111.a1Yf� �Pl�'JIIrfLIPYCt
Richard T. McIntosh {
One Salem Green i
745-0213
December 21 , 1983
John F. Tierney, Esq.
133 Washington Street
Salem, Massachusetts
RE: 18 Summer Street
Salem, Massachusetts
Dear Mr. Tierney:
In response to your letter of November 16, 1983, please be
aware of the following:
It is not my position to interpret the Zoning Board of Appeals
reasons for acting or not acting on the petition you filed with them
on behalf of John and Joan Kelley.
I have had no direction from the Zoning Board of Appeal to revoke
and building permits. Therefore I will not be revoking any building
permits, specifically building permit #359•
/V.�ery truly yours,
Richard T. McIntosh
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
RTM:bms
cc: Board of Appeal
Robert Peck, Esq.
One Church St. , Salem
ST4T� 5T?E�T JO7f/V B. A' ✓0,4N M. /cEL L E•Y
3A/VK � T?UST N
J
Q N /0° eo,00"E N33 /3 E
a 4.67
57- 64
3
O �
ESTATE
� 64 l
.5 Od 3/ QO.,w
LOT LOT Z ti
zo 7.3 94 s { J,4NET M. LASS
�!/VDAL L � �.3'� �'�.�C h h
� hti
Y T?UST
4G. Zs -5775
5 /3' 47' /G "/Y /04.00 .,,
.S U�i1it�1�2 S T/2EE T
/ cerfi�y that Phis surrey ar�dP/ars
Were accoro'arrce `with
fhe Procedvrd/ TPchrrica/ Sfandards
dor fhe Practice of Lard 5'Urve�yyir�y /17
the Corn�-nor7WPa/fh of �lassaclaseils
/� /fU JN OF
0BERT
":`8' /01-,4/i/ OF LINO
Fo
/N
o?oPE"?T r of
,O -SU�ME2 5T. IMP4'L T Y T!2US7-
��G0N0IT4,0 .
(situ oftt1�nl, izsc �te#
tom! < 3 »
ubl
lic VwFertu Pepnrtinent
.s� ;rtillnc e arttnent
Richard T. McIntosh
One Salem Green
745-0213 August 10,1983
Re: Zoning on the Westerly
. side of Summer Street
John & Joan Kelley
3 Cambridge Street
Salem,Ma 01970
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kelley:
I have asked for and have received an opinion from the City Legal
Department regarding the Zoning Status of the above referenced locus.
It is the opinion of the City Legal Department, that the Zoning is B-3.
Based on that, I have issued a Building Permit #359 to remodel a
former carriage shed to provide for a professional office use.
a
The holder of the Building Permit #359, Dr. Richard Pohl, has
satisfied the requirement of the City Zoning Oridinance, that relates
to a B-3 Zoned District.
Very truly yours,Richard T,. McIntosh
Zoning Enforcement Officer
RTM:mo's .
cc: City Solicitor
Dr.Richard Pohl
B. Violations
4
Whenever a violation of this Ordinance occurs , or is
�. alleged to have occurred, any person may file a written
complaint . Such complaint , stating fully- the causes and
basis thereof, shall be filed with the Inspector of
Buildings. He shall record promptly any such complaint ,
immediately investigate, and take action thereon . The In-
Spector of Buildings shall also notify in writing the party
requesting such enforcement of any action or refusal to act and
the reasons therefor, within fourteen days of receipt of such
request .
If the Inspector of Buildings shall find that any of the
provisions of this Ordinance are being violated, he shall
notify in writing the person responsible for such violation,
indicating the nature of the violation and ordering the
action necessary to correct it . He shall order discon-
j = . tinuance of illegal use of land, buildings or .structures,
removal of illegal buildings or structures or of additions,
? alterations, or structural changes thereto; discontinuance
r of any illegal work being done; or any other action authorized
by this Ordinance to insure compliance with or to prevent
violation of its provisions.
Violations of any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall
" ' constitute a misdemeanor. Any person who violates this
. Ordinance shall, upon conviction thereof , be fined not more
.than. one hundred dollars per violation , and in addition shall
' pay all costs and expenses involved in the case. Each day
„.' such violation continues shall be considered a separate '
offense. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the City
from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to pre-
3_;i vent or remedy any violation.
#u
i =
t:3i•
_A_a0.
ate,:
I;Y'
gni
T.z.
fqC.
89
4 `,.
WHO
C
l.' fi � l_�
August 8, 1983
Mr. Richard T. McIntosh
Zoning Enforcement Office
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Mr. McIntosh:
I am writing to you to register a formal complaint pursuant to Section IXB
of the Salem Zoning Ordinance at page .89 .
We are the principal abutters to property at 18 Simmer Street. This property
is residentially zoned . The official zoning MAP of the city of Salem (attached
herewith) and the official records of the City of Salem (attached herewith) con-
firm that zoning status.
In direct violation of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Richard Pohl at 18 Summer St.
is in the process of converting the former carriage shed or garage into a
professional office with a permit that has been given by you on July 29 , 1983
permit 1#359 .
This illegal act by Richard Pohl violates the zoning ordinance of the City of
Salem and our rights as the principal abutters thereto.
We th refore request immediate, complete and appropriate relief .
Since el
/jo�
& Mrs . John B. Kelley
n Kelly)
CC*A?vIlS510N EXPH,r,;j JP. 2.3, 1984
C .
t. r f�
i
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
TRIAL COURT DIVISION
Essex , ss . Superior Court Departmen
Civil No .
JOHN B. KELLEY and JOAN M. KELLEY, )
Plaintiffs )
V. )
i
EDWARD LUZINSKI , JOSEPH M. )
PIEMONTE, DOUGLAS HOPPER, )
JAMES B. HACKER, SCOTT CHARNAS , and )
RICHARD A. BENCAL , as they are )
members of the Salem Zoning Board )
of Appeals , RICHARD MACINTOSH , as ) COMPLAINT
he is the Building Inspector of )
the City of Salem, and RICHARD L. )
POHL and FRANCIS M. POHL , Trustees )
of 18 Summer Street Realty Trust , )
and RICHARD L. POHL and FRANCIS )
POHL, Trustees of Carriage House )
Realty Trust , )
Defendants )
----------------------------------- )
iCOUNT I
i
1 . The Plaintiffs , John B . Kelley and Joan M. Kelley , �
• i,
are citizens of the City of Salem, and reside at 3 Cambridge
l
Street , Salem, Massachusetts ; and they own the property located
at said address . Plaintiffs are parties aggrieved by the con-
duct of the Defendant Salem Zoning Board of Appeals and their
said property abuts that of the Defendant owners of 18 Summer
Street , Salem, Massachusetts .
2 . The Defendant , Edward Luzinski , resides at 25 Hardy
�I Street , Salem, Massachusetts and is a member of the Zoning Boar
of Appeals of the City of Salem; the Defendant Joseph M.
Piemonte resides at 22 Crowdis Street , Salem, Massachusetts , an
is a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Salem;
�I
the Defendant Douglas Hopper resides at 51 Dearborn Street ,
Salem, Massachusetts , and is a member of the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the City of Salem; Defendant James B. Hacker resides
at 7 Ugo Road , Salem, Massachusetts , and is a member of the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Salem; Defendant Scott
Charnas resides at 16 Loring Avenue , Salem, Massachusetts , and
is a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Salem;
Defendant Richard A. Bencal resides at 19 Goodell Street , Salem,
Massachusetts and is a member or associate member of the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the City of Salem; and said foregoing mem-
bers constitute the current Zoning Board of Appeals in the City
of Salem.
3 . The Defendant Richard T. MacIntosh is the Building
Inspector and Zoning Enforcement Officer of the City of Salem,
and maintains his usual place of business at the Town Offices ,
One Salem Green , Salem, Massachusetts .
4 . The Defendants Richard L. Pohl and Francis M. Pohl ,
Trustees of 18 Summer Street Realty Trust under Declaration of
Trust dated May 25 , 1982 and recorded with the Essex South
District Registry of Deeds in Book 6938 , Page 110 , reside on
Essex Street , Salem, Massachusetts .
5 . The Defendants Richard L. Pohl and Francis Pohl ,
Trustees of Carriage House Realty Trust under a Declaration of
Trust dated July 22 , 1983 , and recorded in the Essex South
District Registry of Deeds , maintain an office for said Trust a
355 Essex Street , Salem, Massachusetts .
2
6 . On or about July 29 , 1983 the Defendant Building
Inspector of the City of Salem granted to Dr . Richard Pohl , a
building permit numbered 359 , to construct interior alterations)
to provide for professional offices at 18 Summer Street , Salem,
Massachusetts ( a copy of said permit is attached hereto and
included herein as Addendum I ) . The handwritten parts thereof ,
other than the Building Inspector ' s signature , did not then
appear on said permit .
7 . The Plaintiffs have alleged that said permit is
issued in violation of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances in
effect at the time of its issuance . Plaintiffs alleged that th
zoning district wherein the construction of the professional
office( s) was (were) to occur was an R-3 zoning district or
"multi -family residential " district (Section V , Salem Zoning
Ordinance as amended) and that business or commercial uses are
not included among the permitted uses for a R-3 zoning district
in said City . On or about August 19 , 1983 , a petition was file
on behalf of the Plaintiffs with the Salem Zoning Board of
Appeals by delivery of such petition to the City Clerk , .
demanding enforcement of the applicable zoning ordinances ,
including , but not limited to , revocation and negation of
building permit numbered 359 and removal of any construction
made thereunder ( a copy of said petition to the Zoning Board of
Appeals is attached hereto as Addendum II and is included herein
by reference) .
8 . The Salem Zoning Board of Appeals failed to make a
3
i
decision within seventy-five ( 75) days after the date of filing
of said petition , and , pursuant to M.G.L.A. c. 40 415 , such
failure by the Board to act within said seventy-five (75) days
shall be deemed to be the grant of relief of petition sought ( a
certified statement of the City Clerk regarding the Board ' s
failure to file the decision within said time limit is attached
hereto as Addendum III and included herein by reference) .
9 . In the letter of November 16 , 1983 , delivered to the
Defendant Building Inspector at his place of business on
November 17 , 1983 Plaintiffs again demanded enforcement of the
zoning ordinance , particularly in light of the Board ' s failure
to act within the statutorily provided time and the resulting
grant of relief sought in their petition ( a copy of said letter
is attached hereto as Addendum IV and included herein by
reference) .
10 . To date , the Building Inspector has failed to
j enforce the zoning ordinance as petitioned for by Plaintiffs in
their original petitition to the Board of Appeals and pursuant
to their subsequent letter to the Building Inspector delivered
after the Board ' s failure to act on the appeal . ( See letter of
Building Inspector dated December 21 , 1983 refusing action , a
copy of which is attached hereto as Addendum V and included
herein by reference) .
11 . Subsequent to the Zoning Board of Appeals action , o�
more specifically-- its failure to act , it has come to the
Plaintiffs ' attention that the Building Permit No . 359 has ,
4
seemingly without application or hearing , been altered by the
Building Inspector by the addition of those words appearing in
handwritten form on the face thereof . (Addendum 1 , to be read
this time with the handwriting thereon) .
12 . No legal or valid subdivision of Defendant owners
property at 18 Summer Street , Salem, Massachusetts has ever
occurred . Notwithstanding any purported unilateral change by
the Building Inspector in the said Permit No. 359 , such Permit
would be , or remains , ineffective . The purported result of the
change would provide a dwelling unit within the structure in
question which would violate the Salem Zoning Ordinance prohi -
biting more than one dwelling per lot , said structure not being
a legal accessory structure as defined in the Salem Zoning
Ordinance .
13 . Even if it were found that the property in question
had been properly subdivided ; the Building Permit would be , or
remains , invalid . Such would purportedly allow a dwelling unit
to exist in contravention of the Salem Zoning Ordinance dimen-
sional requirements for a building or unit in a R-3 Zoning , wit
respect to the minimum lot area , minimum lot width , minimum
width side-yard , minimum depth , rear-yard . No variance or othe
allowance therefore has been granted in accordance with M.G.L.
Chapter 40A or the applicable Salem Zoning Ordinance provisions
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand relief as follows :
1 . That the relief requested in the Plaintiffs ' petitio
to the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals be deemed granted and the
5
i
Court order the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals and the Building
Inspector to comply forthwith by revoking and negating Building
Permit No. 359 ; by ordering the cessation of any building
thereunder ; and by ordering the removal of any improvements mad
pursuant thereto ; and order the Defendant Trustees to cease any
building thereunder and to remove any improvements made pursuan
to said Building Permit ; and
2 . By granting such other and further relief as this
Court deems necessary and equitable .
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Dated : January 1984 John B. and Joan M. Kelley , Plai t '
By Their Attorneys ,
John F . Tierney , Esquire
Robert I . Kalis , Esquire
Tierney , Kalis do Adamopoulos
133 Washington Street
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
741-0862
6
ADDENDUM IV
{.; �Aihlll�l!..',i� ill tilR'�'I, alh'I 11 Ai�ti.0 P l��'ll� � rl' , . nd, ,JliNi� ,_
�o ,:uw ti! .n .nilli l �nni .-.
Novnioluer In, 1983
Mr. Richard Macintosh
Building Inspector, City of Salem
c/o One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01910
Re: .18 Summer Street
Salem, MA
D=ear Mr. Macintosh:
As you know, a Petition was filed with the City of Salem Toning Board w
Appeals on behalf of Mr. and Mrs . John Kelley on August 19 . 1983. That Petition
demanded that the Board of Appeals of the City of Saler, rcv.)ke and negate Permit
number 359 issued by you on or about Juiy 29, 1983 and that such further- and
additional action or relief be taken a . 5 necessary to rer w y the illegalit.
associated with the issuance of such pernit and to establinh conformity with Wi
zoning laws.
The Board has failed to act within seventy-five ( 15). days after the date
of said filing of the Petition, and this failure, pursuant W the provisions of
M. G. L.A. c . 40A, §15 shall be deemed a grant of the relief or Petition sought.
As the relief sought by Mr. John Kelley and Mrs . Joan Kelley was the revocation
and negation of Permit number 359 and one cessation of b�_�ildinn thereunder and
removal of any improvements made pursuant thereto , demand is hrtreby wade upon
you that such action be taken by you forthwith .
Thank you for your cooperation in thin matter.
Very truly yours .
Jotnr F . Tierney , Piorney
Who dnd Joan Kell ,
JFT/smd
HAND DELIVERED 1100MBI R 11 , 1983
cc: Mr. and Mrs . John Kelley
Robert Peck, fsq .
ADDENDUM III
I , Josephine Fusco, Clerk of the City of Salem, Massachusetts , hereby
attest that on August 19, 1983, Petitioners John Kelley and Joan Kelley, 3
Cambridge Street, Salem, Massachusetts, had filed with the Salem Board of Appeals
on their behalf an Application for Relief from said Board. I further state
that ninety (90) days have passed from said filing date to the date set forth
below and I have not received notice of any decision of said Board of Appeals
regarding that application.
November 19, 1983 `� Z
Date sep ne Fusco, Clerk
ity of Salem, Massachusetts
((���� lL jj ADDENDUP4 V S
public Vrapertu Department
Richard T. McIntosh
One Salem Green
745-0213
December 21 , 1983
John F. Tierney, Esq.
133 Washington Street
Salem, Massachusetts
RE: 18 Summer Street
Salem, Massachusetts
Dear Mr. Tierney:
In response to your letter of November 16, 1983, please be
aware of the following:
It is not my position to interpret the Zoning Board of Appeals
reasons for acting or not acting on the petition you filed with them
on behalf of John and Joan Kelley.
I have had no direction from the Zoning Board of Appeal to revoke _
and building permits. Therefore I will not be revoking any building
permits, specifically building permit #359•
Very truly yours,
Richard T. McIntosh
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
RTM:dms
CC,. Board of Appeal
Robert Peck, Esq.
One Church St. , Salem
q
Wfly
...............
M
MOM,
Sol
rNM ly oil
Mill,
ry
... .. 110
ADDENDU9 II �Itlg II cI1PTIi� L.nllCttx55cTC1 lISPIIS
�� �nttrD of ��eul
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: aggrieved by the decision of the Building Inspector regarding
The Undersitcned�represent that they/mac a certain parcel of land located
S
at NO. . A8s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Street; Zoning District- - - ---
. .R-3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --•-- - -- -- - ----
approved
The Application for Permit wasxk by the Inspector of Buildings for tbwoPgj� i*g
reasonsx known to him and believed by your petitioners to be in error.
fhQ
Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector o gs to
approve the application fee permit to build as filed orcement of said
Zoning By-Laws and Building Code woul ractical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship to the Undera e ief may be granted without substantially dero-
gating fr ent and purpose of the. Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for
The Undersigned hereby appeal the decision of the Building Inspector granting Building
Permit No. 359 -- Appeal attached hereto and made a part hereof as the grounds for appeal.
Richard L. Pohl
Richard L. Pohl and/or Frances Pohl
Frances Pohl George P. Vallis, as
as Trustees of 18 Trustees of Carriage
SinnerStreet Realty Trust House Realty Trust
wner. .. .... . .. . ..... ... ....... . . ... . . . . ..
Address. 355. Essex Street, Salem, MA
Telephone. . .. .. . . .. ..... ... ... ... ... ......
Petitioner.. John KellTX and Joan Kelley
Address, 3 Cambridge Street, Salem, MA
Date. Z�?.? 3. . . TelehoK Ata
. . ct�via counsel
By eft a o_
By: By. � s
Robert I. Kalis, Escniire
Three copies of the application must be filed 1�/Ah the Secretary of the Board of
Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amount of. .. . ... . . ... .. . ... . . .. . .. .. . .. .......
four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The
Evening News. Tierney, Kalis & Adamopoulos
133 washina_ton Street
Salem, Ma 01970 r
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Essex, ss. Salem, Massachusetts
IN RE: Appeal of John Kelley and Joan Kelley
from the decision of the Bulding Inspector,
Salem, Massachusetts, to wit: Richard T.
McIntosh, which decision involves the issuance
to Dr. Richard Pohl of a permit for Interior
Alterations to provide for professional offices
at 18 Summer Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Said
permit was issued on or about July 29 , 1983, for
such interior alterations on "Lot 1" shown on a
Plan entitled "Plan of Land in Salem, Mass. ,
Property of 18 Summer Street Realty Trust" Plan
Book 179 , Plan 76, recorded at the Essex South
District Registry of Deeds (a copy of which is
attached hereto and incorporated_by reference
as Appendix I) . Such "Lot 1" is a part of a
larger lot which was illegally subdivided as
discussed herein. Immediately prior to such
illegal subdivision, such larger lot was owned
by Richard L. Pohl and Frances M. Pohl as
Trustees of the 18 Summer Street Realty Trust
and recorded with the Essex South District
Registry of Deeds, Book 6938, Page 110. Such
smaller "Lot 1" was conveyed on July 22 , 1983 by
the aforementioned trustees to Richard L. Pohl,
Frances M. Pohl and George P. Vallis, as Trustees
of the Carriage House Realty Trust, and recorded
with the Essex Soth Registry of Deeds, Book 7168,
Page 569 . Initial Permit Number 359 .
Now appear John Kelley and Joan Kelley, who reside at 3
Cambridge Street, Salem, Massachusetts, and represent them-
selves as abutters and aggrieved parties and enter this
appeal from the decision of the Building Inspector of the
City of Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts, granting to Dr.
Richard Pohl , on or about July 29 , 1983, building permit
number 359 , to construct interior alterations to provide for
professional offices at 18 Summer Street, Salem,
Massachusetts. Said construction is to take place on a cer-
tain parcel of land designated as "Lot 1" shown on a plan
entitled "Plan of Land in Salem, Mass. , Property of 18
r
I
Summer St. Realty Trust, " Plan Book 179 , Plan 76, and
further and more particularly described in that deed of
Richard L. Pohl and Frances M. Pohl, Trustees of the 18
Summer Street Realty Trust to Richard L. Pohl, Frances Pohl,
i'
and George P. Vallis, Trustees of Carriage House Realty
Trust, and recorded with the Essex County Registry of Deeds,
Book 7168, Page 569 .
This appeal is entered and made pursuant to M.G.L.C.
40A, Sections 8, + 15.
Appellants, the undersigned, specify the following
grounds for this appeal:
PETITIONERS' GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
The grant of building permit number 359 , a copy of which
is attached hereto designated Appendix II and expressly made
a part of this appeal, is in violation of the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Salem, Massachusetts.
According to a letter dated August 10, 1983 and signed
by Richard T. McIntosh (a copy of which is attached hereto,
designated Appendix III, and expressly made a part of this
appeal) , the basis of the grant of such permit was the
building inspector' s apparent belief that the designation of
the parcel of land upon which such business offices are to be
constructed was Zoning District B-3. Such designation is
erroneous. The proper designation is Zoning District R-3 .
The Salem Zoning ordinance as approved August 27 , 1965
divided the City of Salem into zoning districts which are
located and bound as shown on the map entitled " Zoning Map,
City of Salem, " and on file with the office of the City
Clerk. A copy of the relevant portion of such map is
attached hereto and expressly made a part of this appeal
designated Appendix IV. (The parcel of land upon which the
construction of business offices is to occur has been
designated by a red arrow. ) Such map shows said parcel to be
within Zoning District R-3 .
The September 2, 1969 amendment to the Salem Zoning
Ordinance made no change in the Zoning designation.of said
parcel. Such amendment changed the zoning district of the
easterly portion of Summer Street but had no effect on the
westerly portion of such district, where such parcel lies.
The relevant portion of the 1969 amendment provides as
follows:
No. 9 - Wards 3 and 4 - Starting at a point at the
intersection of the centerline of Norman Street and
Crombie Street thence extending in a northerly direc-
tion a line along the centerline Crombie Street, thence
crossing Essex Street and continuing in a northerly
direction a line along the centerline of Crombie
Street, thence crossing Essex Street and continuing in
a northerly direction along the center of Sewall Street
to the centerline of Lynde Street, thence turning in a
westerly direction and extending along the centerline
of Lynde Street to the centerline of North Street,
thence turning and extending in a southerly direction
along the centerline of North Street, thence crossing
�.I
I
i;
Essex Street, thence continuing in a southerly direc-
tion along the centerline of Summer Street to a point of
intersection with the centerline of Norman Street,
thence turning and running in an easterly direction
along the centerline of Norman Stret back to the
starting point at the centerline of Crombie Street.
The R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) district so bounded
shall be changed to a B-3 (Central Business) district.
The small R-3 District, not bounded as described
hereinbefore, on the westerly side of Summer Street
shall be changed to an R-2 (Two Family Residential)
District.
Councillor Ingemi, on the recommendation of the
Planning Board, moved to delete the last sentence
starting with "The small R-3 District" .
The President declared No. 9 , as amended adopted
by a roll call vote of 10 yeas, 0 nays and 1 absent,
The parcel upon which the proposed business construction
is to take place is included in the "small R-3 District"
referred to in the above amendment. The Motion of Councillor
Ingemi in effect proposed that this district remain as a R-3
Zoning District, as originally designated on the August 27 ,
1965 map entitled " Zoning Map, City of Salem, " and on file
with the office of the City Clerk. Such motion was adopted
and incorporated in the September 2 , 1969 amendment to the
Salem Zoning Ordinance. Also none of the amendments to the
Ili {
Salem Zoning Ordinance which were approved September 2 , 1969
�I or thereafter affected the area in question. No official
l
zoning map was approved between the date of approval of the
aforementioned 1965 map and the date of issuance of the
building permit number 359 .
The construction of the professional offices in an R-3
Zoning District is a prohibited use. R-3 Zoning Districts
are "Multi family residential" districts. ( Section V Salem
Zoning Ordinance, as amended) . Since business or commercial
uses are not included among the permitted uses for an R-3
Zoning District, building permit number 359 which permits Dr.
Pohl to construct business offices, was issued erroneously.
Furthermore, and informatively, it should be noted that
the parcel of land known as "Lot 1" upon which the construc-
tion is to take place under Building Permit 359 is part of an
illegally subdivided larger parcel. Such larger parcel and
the illegal subdivisions known as "Lot 1" and "Lot 2" are
shown on a plan entitled "Plan of Land in Salem, Mass. ,
Property of 18 Summer Street Realty Trust" Plan Book 179 ,
Plan 76, recorded at the Essex South District Registry of
Deeds (a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by
reference as Appendix I) . The decision of the Planning Board
erroneously endorsing said plan was filed with the City
Clerk' s office on or about July 26, 1983 . Such endorsement
is illegal because said plan purports to created two lots
neither of which have 100 feet of frontage width or 25, 000
feet of area as required for an R-3 District under the Zoning
,I
I
it Ordinance of the City of Salem. Therefore such subdivision
iis illegal and the decision of the Planning Board endorsing
such plan is voidable. Building on such illegal lots is
impermissible.
WHEREFORE, your petitioners respectfully say that permit
number 359 as issued on or about July 29 , 1983 is in viola-
tion of law.
i.
WHEREFORE, your petitioners respectfully demand that the
Board of Appeals of the City of Salem revoke and negate per-
mit number 359 issued on or about July 29 , 1983 , and that such
Board take such further and additional action or relief as
necessary to rectify the illegality associated with the
issuance of such permit and to establish conformity with the
law.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
John F. Tierney, Esquire
Robert I. Kalis, Esquire
Tierney, Kalis & Adamopoulos
133 Washington Street
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
( 617 ) 741-0862
APPENDIX II DEPT FILE COPY
` ~O
0
• q/� r CITIYOESALEAI BUILDING ?° }; .
da 9 SALEM, MASSACHUSEiTS0J1970' I " PERMIT/ y tttJd' y ' I
r' ..lr (1`I ": OI ' ii 1, ,.:.•( 1 ,3;RA LIOA TI CIH I +
�rCOC,CC.
DATE July 29 B'83 a r Ho.
APPLICANT_ Kenneth Towey ADDRESS Es s' x 6r Yat.em -
1N0) U
.PERMIT TO Interior Alterations - .- NUMBER OF
(_) STORY DWELLING UNITS
ITVPE Or IMPROVEMENT)'_ NO._' (EROE0300113e) _ JC_ 1/ '�. "
AT (LOCATION) 18 Sumer Street 1-. -rc•y. �i O STR OCT—
ZONING
INo.I ISTREETI - r
BETWEEN AND
. ICROSS 3TACCT1 -]. - ICXO33 ]TAC[T) 'Ji,' yXr
.. . ,
LOT
SUBDIVISION LOT "' BLOCK .t" `-" - 512E ��
BUILDING IS TO BEFT. WIDE BY F7.'tONG 9Y i R`}'Y'FT. IN HEIONT AND SMALL CONFORM IN CONSTRUCTION
.pB3E��i(�n]
,! Rr4' x- M• 4'•VCS
TO TYPE USE GROUP t BASEMENT'WALL .ORtFOUNOATION
_
(TYPE).,,,rl -
r e_ yr'F" y k�
AEMARKS.. •Interior alterations only within ex sting structure-to providefor professional 3,. -
7 of f ice
A ARE
VOLUME' ESTIMATED COST. '��'� 53000 FEEMIT 24.00
✓' (CUBIC/SOUAR C'FC[T)
OWNERDr.}.tichard Pohl
18 Summer Street „ .::,; DI c DEPT. ;;k• i ,.
ADo0.E55"' - ..ABY -
(Affidavit on reverseside of application to be completed by authorized agent of owner)"
r,:
APPENDIX-? -
r ,
/S /WAP
J)Arf STREF> JONN �. I JOAN M KFCC E/'
T OANN � T?UJT
V `
.PCv• p/��l
1 1 Narow"F� - Z/.Ot JJ LI
Jl 9>
2
O�
N
Q ALICE EFENAN F5T4TE
n^
J 'PJ 4
01ori„
lore c,
TJOHN rRANDA(( I GLS4{S.F 'h 7394}s! h JANE) M CASS
U 2 ti�
\C d0 2
NCR 4EA./✓ >?UJT
U
v
ac zs SJJs
5U/li MER, 5T/2EET
yam,JvxYr�mr 5u�✓!/r✓+
��//a/ !dw naf irfyu/i<d
Q. dyy9dFr`prC�,trA/�/Y[A/��
/r<d/!y/ha/�n awvey dnY�
LI-7--/Y 91 war prPa'rdm arrovdancr wi/n
pre P.vrrdu s/!T�/u)Jlsda/dr
hr/hr P�?t d Eand Sv✓rqq/rxf/n
/n< lomxnnrdNi>d Nazvd>wrnJ
:�.,nil :�✓�0�-
PLAN OF LAN[
/J+fJXJKJ MAP 5,44 &M. "F
/OT lGL
II fit
,,, recnv- v.Jeeoa ox P?OPEKrY of
Y4�N BOaKll9 PlAN76 /B 3U.WME/L SL REALTY
Frown..«.a.. ..•n' � SEALf' / '�ZO JUN/
r.\•M. '
E55a5UKVEY5,CeV/CE
�Y,]....k rs�n 74 IST? /ra/.✓r//hu//h/ap/dn way
�prrj.N/ ✓Ka ddrKr.rdh /J fIOERA( .JT?EEr }A[/
Pui<aeMPryuisimed
d�`• Ahs Piq/Jlr/s sEOrrda
APPENDIX III
+ V,001 O1f4�,O
�, (1�it �� S�II�i>i, �zbs�tcllazsE# �
�lublit �rlro�ert� �lc�rartulellt
�a,�,, oo�' �lllilliu� 1�1c}�tlrtment
Richard T. McIntosh
One Salem Green
745-0213 August 10,1983
Re: Zoning on the Westerly
side of Summer Street
John & Joan Kelley
3 Cambridge Street
Salem,Ma 01970
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kelley:
I have asked for and have received an opinion from the City Legal
Department regarding the Zoning Status of the above referenced locus.
It is the opinion of the City Legal Department, that the Zoning is B-3.
Based on that, I have issued a Building Permit 1359 to remodel a
former carriage shed to provide for a professional office use.
r The holder of the Building Permit #359, Dr. Richard Pohl, has
satisfied the requirement of the City Zoning Oridinance, that relates
to a B-3 Zoned District.
Very truly yours,
1
Richard T. McIntosh
Zoning Enforcement Officer
RTM:mo's
cc: City Solicitor
Dr.Richard Pohl
t
r tu
= I cr
3
� 2 " yr,^— pyo F-p � �� -✓ -- -
A R Jp . /� I "' \ �,•
o e ry JT EOPo FF E C.
wGr
IN
A 3 Sr -
PPOS 0 ? GE. , OPt� `2 `�•. . w»�«r..»•
O GT hS.
CA
y W
"o, �:RrA,
p
PRE
10
9L20,
/ ~r eJ(` r t•�� �O , + TT `tip h / �R
NO��
fg30� i S 6,9 d
N '!' T O
a C Mu0
4t? yk ; }��- • ___
n it
�u9'YYr} 1'.3
P�
FF
y _t
Pf 3� F
Y J�
K
. 1 _
t I _ 111
.• / 11
i
AM
H,
µ{fes r 1
,11
t,A
v a
J5 f"I'A
r✓a�t,ft t �'t`�1 - � ly a a - .. 'ta. w L f 4 t} � h4r3P:
�f�"����F � �S�I L1 ryF$ � yr,r r�r T * sa,�3a�X' a . r'• - ' ` r t C xu
M w
� r �•r yr ami m r * c � v
rrF�Ft n 4 ,u i .n s..y p 5 1 Jfs;
�-t
f t r� i : Eft L Il AI p p ar. • �' - .� a Str�"�
ail+
u t r rl
EE i r st
f aFt '�'p r 7 ti t - Y t
ti
S 1
aar$�F ;
C4 �� J5 GJ t f 1 Yfrt;:I 0 '1F r�• zVol
4.
#w# b"r". ..
C";. r +t�"' 'h" -t y., f ✓ Fr` r. 9 f r �"F v r i c }`1 ✓ s & h.; ,� :: 3 c d� s.
A
G R 2 r{ r r k {} �. y x •, k rj.T
r�51 � 41'vz � r} L u� �Lt 9 t rt,Jx c -i+ n w -i.1r - d* f s,irts •" }lir 5 rw2, .,.r ""' i 4. K
�r,.r'.v�tktY•n ..r�4r:)��vx.'�vw.,°�.r.r5:. �._�."F�•�'�'31r` ^M a;.ti: fq i.Y 4'. .rf+t�"1 !.w J., ? r. .;S' s�A`a .q.-Y.Vr.GN�. '�Jf�, e a.�3,.� », a:`.Li�� ^. _� Af�.
( � w
1
` MASSACHUSETTS QUITCLAIM DEED INDIVIDUAL (LONG FORM) 882
RICHARD L. POHL and FRANCES M. POHL, Trustees of 18 SUMMER STREET REALTY TRUST,
under Declaration of Trust, dated May 25, 1982, recorded with Essex South District
Registry of Deeds, Book 6938, Page 110,
Of Salem, Essex County,Massachusetts
being xttmarried, foiAn-s"Meration paid,�dcuxfa>fic
grants to RICHARD L. POHL,, FRANCES POHL and GEORGE P. VALLIS, Trustees of CARRIAGE s
HOUSE REALTY TRUST, under Declaration of Trust dated July 22, 1983, to be recorded
herewith,
Of 355 Essex Street, Salem, MA with quittlabn rournants
t�g}ESM�ctflc
[Description and encumbrances, if any]
A certain parcel of land, with the buildings thereon, situated on Summer Street,
Salem, being shown as Lot 1 on a plan of land entitled, "Plan of Land in Salem,
Mass. , Property of 18 Summer Street Realty Trust" Scale: 1" = 20' , Dated June 1,
1983, Essex Survey Service, Inc. , Registered Land Surveyor, to be recorded herewith,
bounded and described as follows:
EASTERLY by Summer Street, forty-six and 25/100 (46.25) feet;
SOUTHERLY by land now or formerly of MCR Realty Trust and Crandall, eighty-
eight and 85/100 (88.85) feet;
EASTERLY by said land of Carndall, eleven and 84/100 (11.84) feet;
SOUTHERLY by land now or formerly of R. Alice Feenan Estate and State Street
Bank and Trust, on two (2) courses, thirty-seven and 28/100 (37.28)
feet and one and 53/100 (1.53) feet;
riWESTERLY by said land of State Street Bank and Trust and Kelley, on two (2)
rfo courses, thirty-four and 87/100 (34.87) feet and twenty-one and
43 42/100 (21.42) feet and
I
so) NORTHERLY by Lot 2, as shown on said plan, one hundred twenty-seven and
+' 12/100 (127.12) feet.
»
d Said parcel containing 6,154 square feet of land, more or less, as shown on said
plan.
m �
m Being a portion of the premises conveyed to the grantor by deed of Richard P.
Thompson, dated May 25, 1982, recorded with said Registry of Deeds, Book 6938,
Page 118.
W
a
W
P4
°a
P '
I
(*Individual—Joint Tenants—Tenants in Common—Tenants by the Entirety.)
....our................. bands and seats this .......22nd................. day of .............July............................. 19 83
........................................... ........................I............ ......................................................................................................
RICHARD L. POHL, Trustee
...................................... ......................................
FRANCES ff.' .............
..........--....................................... ...................................I....... .............................................................. ......................
'lilt (Innimallturaltil Of MmOttrIlruirtta
Essex, SS. July 22, 1983
Then personally appeared the above named Richard L. Pohl and Frances M. Pohl, Trustees
as aforesaid,
and admowledged the foregoing instrument to be their free act and deed,before me
----------
Notary Public_Jus; �LL6ePna�
My Commission Expires....... M.lAa�ryey
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
10/18/85
CHAPTER 183 SEC.6 AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 497 OF 1969
Every deed presented for record shall contain or have endorsed upon it the full name, residents and post office address of the grantee and
a recital of the amount of the full consideration thereof in dollars or the nature of the other consideration therefor, if not delivered for a
specific monetary sum. The full consideration shall mean the total price for the conveyance without deduction for any liens or encumbrances
assumed by the grantee or remaining thereon. All such endorsements and recitals shall be recorded as put of the deed.Failure to comply with
this section shall not affect the validity of my deed. No register of deeds shall accept a deed for recording unless it is in compliance with the
requirements of this section. I
MASSACHUSETTS
�¢ etutute Norm of
V! Quitrlaim Bub
(INDIVIDUAL)
RICHARD L, POHL and . .
FRANCES M, POHL, TRUSTEES
To
RICHARD L, POHL, FRANCES M,
POHL and GEORGE P, 'VALLIS,
TRUSTEES OF CARRIAGE HOUSE REALTY TRUST
y.r_U,4ED FOR RECORDSO' —{
FNTFRED \V ITN _ -
cz .. _ L• 19
SAIU-3 t; .s.
at......... .:.`.'....'�o',cl .1 i8.3......Minutes..............M.
..........................
3OK i::......:...-............... ............. Deeds
Bo ag
rd..:..
RE'Crirlr`R. 06" DEED 1 p
............................................................................................
Register
fl,
-FROM TF.E OFFICE OF
y a.
DALY, VALLIS, DRUCAS & PECK
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
One Church Street
Salem, MA 01970
HOBBS & WARREN. INC.
PUBLISHERS BTANRARO LEGAL FORMS ,J
BOSTON.MASS. L J
FORM 882 1586
. _ - _ •`- '- - - - - - REVISED CHAPTER 407.1968 - -
r
� � �����
��3
�'�.-�_
IIS., hill
av
_ �y
BUILDING DEPT
FEB 2q 3 no PM '8Z
RECEIVED 42
CITY OF SALEM,MASS. 7� O
ti � p
N \\j
N�
t
JR
; � y:. i
I v�i ,tib .� \� � � 1�\ m f� •��, 2 � � �`� '�1 x`�*�r,�[`"�'
C
H
.j
iM CITY COUNCIL .JULY �k 4fpe3a
AS AMEWDE D2 FOR FIBST PAJa A09
R.G.V. 9 AYES . 2 i �.
jIM CITY C0iJXGIL AU6=t9 g�GS
E DORTC® AS AMENDED FOR SECOND ANG xFlNA� � `'
r;
R-G.Ve
a O V S E
APPROVED aY MAYO
a ON AU627
27
DOPTAD
ON AUG 27 1965
e
4
z I t'. n. .H 0 s t •-�;a +� k ,r s x .F {'f "kxrffi'`a
IIID< q..� ^�.p�!b, ' �x.
N ��f4a TO TCi�7 � \•'a v-r as sr,3.n.� b � v`�A
h 2 .•: y 'T1 h. q"'r :F z i :L�y _ vx ra :`7�`ghs i :r y '�'"JRs'
rL
T,,Y� C � y"✓1^Yt " yyf "� >.l�y,,, �^« "Y
`�� a I t a s�` {"y �£� q f�.'� ta' ✓�y.c " k#5 :r+.*r'S��� �""u1`� `�'_< .�."s .'������ �"'�``".
F4,y
� h ✓ f � 'R !tom t,y rl' vS:F J 4 4 t, .�
t'rY 7'� '�x`•� raw+ � � `w,s x X x w "iw-��' ���' r t tik.v.�tr`, .r �a� va.'w.� s.'a'X''�
!
R.
. xs- I 5 c3 ^n ti 1 r x sti r
r tx" "' � � 51 ,Y` � '[ii'iv1�.-7. i.' 1♦ eu�'i xs, kM a.�;<
� ,]gym k ^{�" 5 cY'S �2 'h\ M sy r tx•'S\'� �y rr �I :i a r � '�:. 9 �,�„� � c'1+
. �'W=.uw,YrSJ�.c,e». a.� - a.ulauue.:,v<�fiia"..0 a.s^,:..'-...$�.....;k_✓.x:s+... h.:"'�.��a'!.sxJ...
FIELD COPY
e�
CITY Of SALEM BUILDING
9 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 019»0 PERMIT
GATE July 29 le �
83 p RMIT No. #359
APPLICANT Kenneth Towey ADDRESS S9 r.SSeX 'Jt• 'Jalem YI')I.V
(NO.) ISTREETI iCOnIF'S 1J rENSE1
PERMIT TO Interior Alterations NUMBER OF
( ) STORY__ —DWELLING UNITS_,_,_.__
(TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT) N0. (PROPOSED USE)
AT (LOCATION] 18 Summer Street ZONING
--------DISTRICT--
INS.)
— _ DISTRICT(NO.) (STREET)
BETWEEN AND _
(CROSS STREET; (CROSS STREET)
LOT
SUBDIVISION LOT BLOCK_ SIZE
BUILDING IS TO BE FT, WIDE BY_ FT. LONG BV FT. IN HEIGHT AND SHALL CONFORM IN CONSTRUCTION
TO TYPE USE GROUP BASEMENT WALLS OR FOUNDATION
(TYPE)
REMARKS: Interior alterations Only within existing structure-to provide for professional
office
AREA OR r .5,000 PERMITa 20.00
(CUBIC/SQUARE EE ET) $
VOLUME ESTIMATED COST $ FEE
OWNER Dr.Richard Pohl
ADDRESS 18 Summer Street BIER DING DEPT.
BY
INSPECTION RECORD
DATE NOTE PROGRESS - CRITICISMS AND REMARKS INSPECTOR
I
pi
' . P,V-Il
\ I'
IV
\ _ 4
has .r, �•� •l•Ch 'S k. 56 l
�
�C __ 4_ - �4ti f- h �= �--^ �— "J_T:-^^ _ _.Gy!-fly` 4.g e�a'.�v y r� ""P.��t '•C .i � rm ;:yry Po�fR t T, q
i W Fti�, 6 m xC FO kyr 33
a1 PRE
o `F9
Cr'i
00 2 S� � FO �• '_� Q •v^'�p, �y7 Cys k J,�s �, �'Fk"` .�•� ,� ,�': '
J `°^� ti7gC ,r .,G��? .. Z�I 1� GF'�t ti � '��� - 0 a j• 'f< .-. " ' }� ", _``
-':j, C
r
aWSNtNGTON So
y :v
s is � ST r #? F�trt 2�� ���• �' a _
M-
IN
' FJ _ Al of ? ��P err / , r c� '4COMMON
At
zoo
f p 9 G \ 9' \ f C J , P0� �7 0 / FO
WA
� A 1 - k x�y, Q /�•
5 �
lad Y .r a � � �'� Qe '� 4. Jl• 3 q1 , ,\ �` 4.^r"4 - t kk ;�0 i::
' �p0 xDIT4.
O {
44i%a qt
o
to,M ooY' N�Y;4 p LrI
�j
RICHARD W.STAFFORD CITY OF SALEM 9'U MARY P. HARRINGTON
CITY SOLICITOR MASSACHUSETTS BiEM',VEIQ ASSISTANTCITY SOLICITOR
93 WASHINGTON STREET 6OTY OF SAL'E;t�.'MASS' 93 SALEM,INTON STREET
SALEM,MA 01970MA
745-4311 745-4311
July 18, 1983
Mr. Richard T. McIntosh
Zoning Enforcement Officer
One Salem Green
Salm, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Mr. McIntosh,
You have requested an opinion regarding the zoning status of a portion
of the Westerly side of Simmer Street. You have suggested, based upon your
research that the area in question is R-3 in that no zoning ordinance has
been adopted changing the district from the original 1965 zoning map. I
am of the opinion that based upon the official zoning ordinance and zoning
map that the area in question is a B-3 district.
"Section III. B. Zoning Map." of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance
states:
"Said districts are located and bounded as shown on the mapt entitled
"Zoning Map, City of Salem", adopted August 27, 1965, and as amended
September 2, 1969, August 1, 1972, December 3, 1974, September 15, 1976,
November 9, 1976, andMay 20, 1977, and on file in the office of the City
Clerk. The Zoning Map, with all explanatory matter thereon, is hereby
made a part of this Ordinance.
If, in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance and the General
laws, Chapter 40A, amenckents are approved by the City Council which
involve changes in district boundaries or other matter portrayed on the
Zoning Map, such changes shall be made promptly on the Zoning Map.
Regardless of the existence of purported copies of\the Zoning Map which
may be made or published from time to time, the Zoning-Map on file in
the office of the City Clerk shall be the final authority on the current
zoning status of land and water areas, buildings, and other structures
in the City."
1
Based upon the amended Zoning Map, which is incorporated by reference'-in
the ordinance, and which is expressly granted superiority in the event of any
conflict with any other provision of the ordinance, I conclude that the land
in question is presently zoned B-3 and that if a business use is commenced
(Cont'd) . . .
Mr. Richard T. McIntosh July 18, 1983
at the prEmises prior to amending the official zoning map then such use would
constitute a nonconforming use.
Very truly yours,
4 � -
RD W. ST RDSolicitor
RWS/lmc
{ {; RICHARD L. POHL, M.D.
�,titis �t .0
nuc 15 3
RECEI`dE0
CITY OF SdLEM,Voss.
Mr. Richard McIntosh
Building Inspector
One Salem Green
Salem, Mass. 01970
August 14, 1983
Dear Mr. McIntosh:
The City Council is expected to adopt a new
zoning map this week as the city's official one.
This new map will, in effect, change the zoning of •:'. „1` ,
the lot on which the former carriage house of
18 Summer Street stands from B3 to R3.
As you know, my original intent for the
building was for w residential use. Given the
above zoning change , may I use the building
residentially (specifically, for a single apart—
ment)?
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
-0",j �. '. .
Richard L. Pohl , M.D.
cc: Mr. George Vallis
335 ESSEX STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE(617)744-1550
r,
o,
u ra
v
En rl a f
U N N Cl
Ol N C
0 JM
G-rY OF SALEM, MASSAC ILIUSE' l-rS
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS:
The Undersigned represent that -rhe APA—are the Owners of a certain parcel of land located at
No......1.4.. C>i{-6::r,,:6_ft—........................................................................Street; Zoning District..............--------;
and said Parcel is affected by Article__.................. of the Salem Zoning By-Laws and Section. .................... of
the Building Code of the City of Salem.
Pans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Building Inspector in accordance with
Part 2, of the Building Code of the City of Salem. Briefly, the work is as follows:
C{.
.t/GG /JG���/�-t'�-c•
/� .1 G � � iJL�`Gl✓�Lf�/ �Lc, L✓,�7 <t-y �LGL'2�
�V&L-Lz, -.�z /tel ,/ L
The Application for Permit was/denied by the Building Inspector for the following reasons:
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning By-Laws
and the Salem Building Code and order the Building Inspector to approve the application fee permit to build
as filed, as the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or
unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially t? rogating from the
intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Laws and Building Code for the following reasons:
Ile U
-- N i G_•o�X 6Y� %Oo
nM p
Q " ... . fnm i-+ -ti
U1 s —o n
w•� '� A
to
O
C3
Q
G
rD C�
1 ll I
Date....V/;5.:../.�.�... . ............. Petitioner..�11.(aU_,4..... .._C!3�5..5 _._............ .....:.....
// By--------W_(. _�..LS•rt<)-... ...�.-4-5,..........._......................
Address...I-L..�.i{c.L<z e .. ..�>`{,./ :.`..�I..............
This application must be filed at the City Clerk's Office with a check, for advertising in the amount of
$...�. .. ............. four (4) weeks prior to the meeting of the Board.of Appeals. Check payable to The
Evening News.
t Instr%aeti6ns : This information sheet is not an inspection ane.:: _ , . Each
time a permanent file card is typed for a new building or a new card for an
old building , this information sheet can be prepared by the building inspect-
or as a work sheet from which the file card can be typed . The item, of
information on this sheet are identical to the items on the file card . If all
the information on this sheet cannot be entered on the file card , this sheet
should be filled out and not discarded.
' Street and Number sb 'n1Ynef"
Name of Premises
Other Licenses or Permits Required
Owner of Record ro,f Building Zak
Address :LID WashMA-on -} ►k1\,zr6\ehea MA QkR9Z
Use Group Classificatio L. 2. Purpose Used
Public or Private
Number of Stories Class of Construction Date Erected
Certified Capacity (By Story or Type )
Number of Rooms - Hospitals , Schools , Hotels ( By Story or Type )
_
o 4AL +G
3 f [3
Number of Dwelling Units Per Story
Emergency Lighting System .
Means of Detecting and Extinguishing Fire
Fire Alarm System
Number of Elevators
How Heated Gas-, %Ccl ho+ W r
Boiler or Other eating Apparatus
How Lighted How Ventilated
Place of Assembly : Yes No Purpose Used
In Which Story
Standard Booth Installed Location
Fixed Seating
Number of Aisles and Width of Each
Fire Resistance of Curtains or Draperies
Number of Sanitaries 5 Location
Number of Grade Floor Means of Egress Doorways 2
Number of Separate Stairways" Accessible Per Story
Number of Approved Independent Exitways Per Story
Remarks
Date Certificate Issued Date Certificate Expires ,1� f f %3 0
Date Orders issued Date Orders Complied
Inspector Date Q A*r, 7
-- -7k
FORM SBC,-
11
f INSPECTION REPORT DATE: +
ADDRESS: ♦� /� ,¢. ,/'������° ���?
,J OWNER: 14az�
USE GROUP
NUMBER OF STORIES:
NUMBER OF ROOMS (BY STORY) :
HOW HEATED: /Pzvy - /0
GAS : YES NO:
NUMBER OF SANITARIES:
NUMBER OF APPROVED EGRESS DOORWAYS:
REMARKS:
FEE RECEIVED: YES NO:
or
04000
� oo.e -' its s � f.���✓
r � Ji �
n
+.1
I 1 1 ' • ( Yt .j 11 .
' i 1 I •,1 • 11 1 1
• I
Date ` ( I �
Mr.
Town/City of Building Inspector
Massachusetts
Re:
Dear Sir:
In accordance with g Code,
111.43 and Section 120.3 of
the State Buildin , I, as the o er
inspection o£ the premises at. hereby r st an
and the issuance of a Use and Occupancy Certificate.
l
Entry to the premises may be obtained by contacting
R. W. Carlson Assoc. , .Inc, should you dete
inspection is necessary or desired. rmine that an
Will you kindly acknowledge that you have received this
Y signing and dating the attached copy, and returning
it to me in the ,enalosed envelope.
Yours very 'truly,
I ,
Owner
on �I
issuance of a Use and Occupancy�Certificate, hie letter. for the
QArs inspectiont
wilI be made by Ox= office within) jy;e
I e d�:{'s• I�
An inspection will not be made by our office.
ti
1 •
, 1
i
(n, ( . ,Building! g Inspector
�* l
Date . r
Mr, iI
i
Town/City of . Building Inspector
Massachusetts
I, Res �.
!' Dear Sir:
In accordance with Section 111,43 and section 120,3 of
the State Building Code, I, as the o er
inspection of the premises at hereby r st an
and the issuance of a Use
and Occupancy Certificate,
Entry to• the premises may be obtained b
R. W. Carlson Assoc. , Inc, should Y contacting Ili
inspection is necessar Y or deYou determine that an
sired.
Will you kindly acknowledge that
letter by signing and datin the You have received this II'
it to. me in the .enclosed envelopeattached copy, and returning
I
Yours very 'truly,
I
1
Owns
On 19
of aU
issuance I received this letter, for the �.1'
se and Occupancy Certificate. !iP
I I
" Q An inspection will be made b•, cv,= office With" I
ZI An inspection will not be made by our office.
ti
I I
Building Inspector Ii
t I�
of 5RICM, Anzarhusdis
m , ? Publir 11ropertg Pepartment
Puitbing PrVartrunt
�ui�n �6. �nfotrs
5 �3raaD.�trttt
Ili 745-11213
Dear Sir:
We are in receipt of your request of April 18,A975
for an inspection at' ' 18 Summer Street Salem, MA.
Upon payment of a fee of $ 25.00 , this office will make
the requested inspection.
— !✓. lam f ,
spector of Buildings °d
tv
-�,cacinr\
T�1
tFGUli�1`�����r
Salem Historicai Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(508) 745-9595 EXT. 311 FAX (508) 740-0404
CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPLICABILITY
It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed:
❑ Construction ❑ Moving -
❑ Reconstruction ❑ Alteration
❑ Demolition ❑ Painting
❑ Signage ❑ Other Work
as described below does not involve an exterior architectural feature or involves a feature covered by the
exemptions or limitations set forth in the Historic District's Act(M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historic
Districts Ordinance.
District: McIntire
Address of Property: r`Y8-Summer-St-- —'x
Name of Record Owner: Gary L Benton & David A Spence
Description of Work Proposed:
Replacement of clapboards on front of building to replicate existing. No changes in color, material, design or
outward appearance. Non-applicable due to being an in kind replacement.
Dated: 10/1/96 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
The homeowner has the option not to commence the w k(unless it relates t resol g an outstanding
violation). All work commenced must be completed wi • one year from t s date unless otherwise indicated.
THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of
Buildings (or any other necessary permits or approvals)prior to commencing work.