69 WEATHERLY DRIVE - BUILDING JACKET Jnr pEcyctfp�o
un
UPC 10330 :g
No. 153L .b,T
HASTINGS. MN
Carl D, Gciodman
Attorney-at-Law
152 Lynnway-Suite IE,Lynn, MA 01902
781-593-2016— 781-639-8100
efax 978.336-0449
cart@attorneygoodman.com
www.attorneygoodman.com
rr
waft
Gargiulo/Rudnick,LLP Boston Cape Cod
Altorneys at Law - 66 Long Wharl 766 Falmouth Rd.,Unil A-6
Boston,MA 02110 Mashpe,,MA 02649
wwwgrglaw.corn www grglaw.com
t 617 742 3833 t 508 477 6400
f 617 523 7834 f 508 477 0455
Marielise Kelly'
mlk@grglaw.com
Boston
Also admitted in
NY and NH
May 28, 2008
BY FAX—978-744-9327
and CERTIFIED MAIL
ARTICLE NO.: 7006 3450 0000 1847 3662
Elizabeth Rennard, City Solicitor
City of Salem
City Hall
93 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
SETTLEMENT DEMAND PRIOR TO
COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION
Re: Application for Criminal Complaint—Robert and Pamela Stavis
Dear Ms. Rennard:
This office represents Mr. and Mrs. Robert Stavis in connection with their efforts
to secure permitting to allow them to retain use of a chairlift at their condominium at the
Weatherly Drive Condominiums located at 69 Weatherly Drive, Salem Massachusetts.
The City of Salem, through its building inspector, has filed an application for criminal
complaint against Mr. Stavis for failure to remove the chairlift pursuant to his order. As
you may be aware,the chairlift is used by Pamela Stavis due to the fact that she suffers
from a degenerative and disabling condition, Muscular Dystrophy, which severely
impairs her ability to ambulate. It is the Stavises contention that seeking a criminal
complaint and/or otherwise failing to issue permits for the chairlift constitutes unlawful
discrimination against a handicapped person in a violation of M.G.L.c. 151 B §I et seq. t
The Stavises are seeking to resolve this matter by agreement with the City in an effort to
obviate the need to file a formal MCAD complaint against the City of Salem and/or
otherwise engage in litigation.
' In framing the issues in this settlement demand in terms of unlawful handicap discrimination under
M.G.L.c. 15 113,the Stavises do not waive any other lcgal rights and remedies that may be available to them
under state or federal law.
pWAVIS,ROBE T1N11.61,ijaio'rown ltcul.in,ir.dcmnd)0021 doe
y {
J
May 28, 2008
Page 2 of 5
As you are aware, the City of Salem is subject to litigation for handicap
discrimination under M.G.L.c. 151 B. See M.G.L.c. 151 B § (defining "person" subject
to liability for handicap discrimination to include all political subdivisions of the
Commonwealth). Handicap discrimination is prohibited in virtually all public and
private housing settings, including condominiums, such as the one at issue. See e.g,
M.G.L.c. 151 B §1 (9) (defining regulated "housing" and "housing accommodations");
10(b) (defining regulated housing to include housing in multiple dwelling financed or
insured by federal government); §1 (10)c (defining regulated housing to include housing
contiguous to public streets); 151B §1 (11) (regulating"multiple dwellings"). In addition
to those specifically enumerated housing arrangements covered by M.G.L.c. 151B, there
is a"catch-all"provision in 151B §1 (13) which makes M.G.L.c. 151B applicable to "all
housing accommodations not specifically covered under subsections I0, 11 and 12 which
are directly or though an agent made generally available to the public for sale or lease or
rental . . " M.G.L. 151B §I (13.). The Weatherly Drive Condominiums are regulated by
those provisions of the statute which prohibit handicap discrimination.
Unlawful housing practices are enumerated in M.G.L.c. 151B §4A. In pertinent
part, under M.G.L.c. 151 B §6 it is unlawful " . . . .to withhold from any person or group
or persons such accommodations . . . .because such person is blind, or hearing impaired,
or has any other handicap or(b) to discriminate against any person . . . because such
person is blind, or hearing impaired, or has any other handicap, in the terms conditions or
privileges of such accommodations or the acquisitions thereof, or in the furnishing of
facilities and services in connection therewith . . ." M.G.L.c. 151B §6. For the purposes
of this subsection, discrimination on the basis of a handicap includes, but is not limited to
. . . a failure to design and construct such dwellings in a manner that (i) the public use
and common use portions of such dwellings are readily accessible and usable by
handicapped persons" 151 B 4 (6) (i). . Additionally, "all premises within such dwellings
must contain the following features of adaptive design: (a) an accessible route into and
through the dwelling . . . ." 151B sec. 6 (iii) (a).
The statute further provides that" . . . [Discrimination on the basis of a handicap
shall include, but not be limited to: (1) a refusal to permit or make, at the expense of
the handicapped person, reasonable modification of existing premises occupied or to
be occupied by such person if such modification is necessary to afford such person
the full enjoyment of such premises . . . . ..M.G.L.c. 151B §7A (1) (emphasis added).
The statute states that handicap discrimination shall include a"refusal to make
reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services which such
modifications may be necessary to afford a handicapped person equal opportunity
to use and enjoy a dwelling."M.G.L.c. 151B §7A (2) (emphasis added). M.G.L.c. 151
B "reasonable accommodation shall include, but not be limited to, making the housing
accessible to mobility-impaired . . .persons."M.G.L.c. 151 B §7A (3). This provision of
the statute references "installing a wheelchair lift" as a reasonable accommodation, but
states that the owner of the premises shall not be required to pay for the installation of a
wheelchair lift. M.G.L.c. 151B §7A(3). Accommodations are not "reasonable" in the
event "it would impose an undue hardship upon the owner or other person having the
right of occupancy . . " M.G.L.c. 151B §7A (3). The Stavises contend that the
Gargiulo/8adnick,LLP
Allorneys at Lw
l
f
May 28, 2008
Page 3 of 5
wheelchair lift constitutes a reasonable accommodation that is necessary for Mrs. Stavis
to have the full enjoyment of her residential premises. Moreover, it is essential to ensure
her ability to safely egress the building particularly in the event of an emergency.
Furthermore, there is no "undue hardship" imposed on any person as a result of the
existence and/or use of the wheelchair lift. The installation was, in fact, approved by the
Weatherly Drive Condominium authority prior to the Stavises purchase of the premises.
The statute provides it shall be an unlawful practice "For any person to coerce,
intimidate, threaten, or interfere with another person in the exercise or enjoyment of any
right granted or protected under this chapter . . . " M.G.L..c 15113 §4A. The Stavises
contend that the City of Salem's application for criminal complaint against Mr. Stavis
flowing from his failure to remove the wheelchair lift constitutes intimidating and
coercive conduct by the City which is prohibited by this provision of the anti-
discrimination statute.
As 1 believe the City of Salem is aware, the Stavises sought (and obtained)
permission from their Condominium Association prior to purchase of the condominium
unit. Further, they sought an obtained approval from the City of Salem Building
Inspector prior to purchasing the unit. As I understand the chronology, it was only after
the chairlift unit was installed, that the Building Inspector determined that there was a
technical violation of the State Building Code causing him to revoke his permission and
institute a petition for variance before the State Building Code Appeals Board. The
Board also granted the Stavises relief but that decision was later overturned by the
Massachusetts Appeals Court on a procedural issue of whether the Stavises pro se appeal
was timely commenced. The Stavises contend that they reasonably relied upon the
initial decision of the Building Inspector and that the City of Salem should be estopped to
deny the permission it initially granted.
The Stavises have been involved in protracted and vexatious litigation with two
owners or occupants in their condominium unit related to the issue of the chairlift. The
issue of whether M.G.L.c. 151 B requires that the chairlift be permitted by the Town has
never been adjudicated in any forum. The only issue ultimately adjudicated was whether
the Stavises appealed to the State Building Board of Appeals was timely commenced.
No court or administrative body has ever adjudicated the issue of whether Mrs. Stavis is
the victim of handicap discrimination in violation of M.G.L.c. 151B. Indeed, the State
Building Code of Appeals has no jurisdiction to address matters of handicap
discrimination under M.G.L.c. 151B. Accordingly, any MCAD complaint against the
City of Salem is not barred by principles of res judicata or issue preclusion.
Additionally, the Stavises contend that any MCAD complaint that they institute
against the'fown of Salem is timely commenced, There is an on-going and continuous
pattern of discrimination against the Stavises by the City of Salem in failing to issue a
permit to allow the wheelchair lift to remain on the premises.. Indeed, the City of Salem
has embarked on an additional discriminatory course in bringing an application for
criminal complaint against the Stavises for an alleged violation of the Massachusetts
State Ruilding Code.
Gargiulo/Rudnick,LLP
Attorneys at Law
1
May 28, 2008
Page 4 of>
Both the MCAD, as well as the Massachusetts Superior Court are empowered to
issue restraining orders to stop discriminatory conduct that violates M.G.Lc. 151 B: The
application for criminal complaint is scheduled to be heard in Salem District Court on
June 25, 2008. In the event this matter is not resolved by agreement prior to that date,
the Stavises will seek to restrain the City of Salem from pursuing any criminal complaint
against the Stavises and, in fact, will seek an affirmative injunction requiring the City of
Salem to permit the chairlift and allow its presence.
As you may be aware, both the MCAD and the Superior Court are empowered to
award damages, as well as attorneys fees to the Stavises as a result of the unlawful and
discriminatory conduct on the part of the City of Salem. Since 2002, the Stavises have
incurred, and continue to incur, substantial attorney fees and costs addressing these
issues. Preparing to defend against the application for criminal complaint has caused
further financial hardship and distress to the Stavises.
It is the Stavises contention that granting them relief is not only the legally correct
decision, but is also the morally correct decision. The City of Salem should not be an
instrument of any form of handicap discrimination. The Stavises have been and continue
to be good neighbors within the City of Salem and should not be compelled to leave their
home as a result of the discriminatory treatment by the City of Salem in denying Mrs.
Stavis reasonable accommodations as a handicapped person.
On behalf of the Stavises, I respectfully request the following relief:
1) Immediate withdrawal, with prejudice, by the City of Salem of all
applications for criminal complaints against the Stavises;
2) Issuance nun pro tune of all requisite permits for the chairlift
Should you require any additional information to facilitate your review of this
matter,please advise. Please note that time is of the essence with respect to resolving
this matter by agreement. I look forward to your prompt reply.
Very t y y F s,
M r)o) Ywr F /.
MLK/mlk
cc: Salem Commission on Disabilities
Attention: Jean Levesque, Salem City Hall
Thomas St. Pierre, Building Inspector
Robert and Pamela Stavis
Gargiulo i Rudnick,LLP
Attorneys at Law
15. Pamela Stavis has requested an accommodation from the City of Salem under M.G.L.c.
151 to permit the continued presence of the wheelchair lift and Pamela Stavis full
enjoyment of her residential premises.
16. The City of Salem, through its City Solicitor, has engaged in settlement discussions but
has failed and refuse to consummate any settlement agreement with the Stavises.
17. The City of Salem has (re)scheduled an application for criminal complaint in the Salem
District Court relating to removal of the chairlift on August 6, 2008.
Count I
(Handicap Discrimination v. City of Salem)
18. The Claimant Pamela Stavis repeats and re-alleges the averments of Paragraphs 1-17 as
if fully set forth herein.
19. Handicap discrimination is prohibited in virtually all public and private housing settings,
including condominiums, such as the one at issue. See e.g. M.G.L.c. 151B §1 (9)
(defining regulated "housing" and "housing accommodations"); 10(b) (defining regulated
housing to include housing in multiple dwelling financed or insured by federal
government); §1 (10) c (defining regulated housing to include housing contiguous to
public streets); 151B §1 (11) (regulating"multiple dwellings"). In addition to those
specifically enumerated housing arrangements covered by M.G.L.c. 15113, there is a
"catch-all"provision in 151B §1 (13) which makes M.G.L.c. 151B applicable to "all
housing accommodations not specifically covered under subsections 10, 11 and 12 which
are directly or though an agent made generally available to the public for sale or lease or
rental . . " M.G.L. 151B §1 (13.).
20. The Weatherly Drive Condominiums are regulated by those provisions of the statute
which prohibit handicap discrimination.
21. Unlawful housing practices are enumerated in M.G.L.c. 151B §4A. In pertinent part,
under M.G.L.c. 151B §6 it is unlawful " . . . .to withhold from any person or group or
persons such accommodations . . . .because such person is blind, or hearing impaired, or
has any other handicap or(b)to discriminate against any person . . . because such person
is blind, or hearing impaired, or has any other handicap, in the terms conditions or
privileges of such accommodations or the acquisitions thereof, or in the furnishing of
facilities and services in connection therewith . . ." M.G.L.c. 151B §6. For the purposes
of this subsection, discrimination on the basis of a handicap includes, but is not limited to
" . . . a failure to design and construct such dwellings in a manner that(i) the public use
and common use portions of such dwellings are readily accessible and usable by
handicapped persons" 151B 4 (6) (i). Additionally, "all premises within such dwellings
must contain the following features of adaptive design: (a) an accessible route into and
through the dwelling . . . ." 15113 sec. 6 (iii) (a).
3
22. .. . . . [Discrimination on the basis of a handicap shall include, but not be limited to: (1)a
refusal to permit or make, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable
modification of existine premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such
modification is necessary to afford such person the full enjoyment of such premises .
. . . "M.G.L.c. 151B §7A (1) (emphasis added).
23. The statute states that handicap discrimination shall include a"refusal to make
reasonable accommodations in rules,policies, practices or services which such
modifications may be necessary to afford a handicapped person equal opportunity
to use and enjoy a dwelling."M.G.L.c. 151B §7A (2) (emphasis added).
24. M.G.L.c. 151 B provides that"reasonable accommodation shall include, but not be
limited to, making the housing accessible to mobility-impaired . . .persons." M.G.L.c.
151B §7A (3). This provision of the statute references "installing a wheelchair lift" as a
reasonable accommodation, but states that the owner of the premises shall not be required
to pay for the installation of a wheelchair lift. M.G.L.c. 151B §7A (3).
25. Accommodations are not "reasonable" in the event"it would impose an undue hardship
upon the owner or other person having the right of occupancy . . .." M.G.L.c. 151 B §7A
(3).
26. Pamela Stavis' wheelchair lift constitutes a reasonable accommodation that is necessary
for Mrs. Stavis to have the full enjoyment of her residential premises. Moreover, it is
essential to ensure her ability to safely egress the building particularly in the event of an
emergency.
27. There is no "undue hardship" imposed on The City of Salem or any person as a result of
the existence and/or use of the wheelchair lift.
Count II -
(Threats and Coercion v. City of Salem)
28. The Plaintiff Pamela Stavis repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1-27 as if fully set forth
herein.
29. M.G.L.c. 151 B provides it shall be an unlawful practice "For any person to coerce,
intimidate, threaten, or interfere with another person in the exercise or enjoyment of any
right granted or protected under this chapter . . . " M.G.L..c 151 B §4A.
30. The City of Salem's application for criminal complaint against Mr. Stavis flowing from
his failure to remove the wheelchair lift constitutes intimidating and coercive conduct by
the City of Salem against Pamela Stavis which is prohibited by this provision of the anti-
discrimination statute.
4
31. The on-going and continuous pattern of discrimination against the Stavises by the City of
Salem in failing to issue a permit to allow the wheelchair lift to remain on the premises
and in bringing an application for criminal complaint against the Stavises for an alleged
violation of the Massachusetts State Building Code.
32. Pamela Stavis has suffered, and continues to suffer damages as a result of the on-going
pattern of discriminatory conduct by the City of Salem.
Count III
(Emotional Distress v. City of Salem)
33. The Plaintiff Pamela Stavis repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1-32 as if fully set forth
herein.
34. The City of Salem's application for criminal complaint against Mr. Stavis flowing from
his failure to remove the wheelchair lift constitutes intimidating and coercive conduct by
the City of Salem against Pamela Stavis which is prohibited by this provision of the anti-
discrimination statute.
35. The on=going and continuous pattern of discrimination against the Stavises by the City of
Salem in failing to issue a permit to allow the wheelchair lift to remain on the premises
and in bringing an application for criminal complaint against the Stavises for an alleged
violation of the Massachusetts State Building Code.
36. Pamela Stavis has suffered, and continues to suffer emotional distress as a result of the
on-going pattern of discriminatory conduct by the City of Salem.
Prayers for Relief
Pamela Stavis respectfully requests that the MCAD should issue a restraining orders to
stop discriminatory conduct that violates M.G.L.c. 151B including:
1) A restraining order preventing the City of Salem from pursuing its application
for criminal complaint flowing from the chairlift;
2) an affirmative injunction requiring the City of Salem to permit the chairlift and
allow its presence.
3) Award the difference between the purchase price of the condominium in
reliance on The City of Salem Building Inspector's representation that a
wheelchair lift is permissible and its reduced sale price in current market
conditions;
4) the costs and attendant expenses of re-locating in the event the wheelchair lift
is not allowed to remain at the premises;
5
5) severe emotional distress as a result of the acts and omissions of the City of
Salem;
6) attorneys fees and costs
7) All other damages available at law or in equity
Jury Trial Claim
Pamela Stavis claims her right to trial by jury, after exhaustion of administrative
remedies, to the fullest extent permitted by law.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Stavis
By her attorneys,
arra;rd
elly —
B.B559595
Ed R. Gargiulo
B.B.O. #185720
Gargiulo /Rudnick, LLP
766 Falmouth Road, Unite A-6
Mashpee, MA 02649
(508) 477-6400 (tel)
(508) 477-0455 (fax)
Dated: July 2008
VERIFICATION
I, Pamela Stavis,verify, under the pains and penalties of perjury, that the facts set forth in
this complaint are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this/L day of Julys 2008
0�t'?
Pamela Stavis
6
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Commission Against Discrimination
One Ashburton Place , Boston, MA 02108
Phone: (617) 994-6000 Fax: (617) 994-6024
7/29/2008
Sent by fax,regular mail and certified mail
Thomas J. St.Pierre,Director
City of Salem Inspectional Services
120 Washington St
3rd B
Salem,MA 01970
RE: Pamela Stavis vs.City of Salem, City of Salem,
Building Department,Thomas J. St.Pierre,Director
MCAD Docket Number: 08BPR02077
HUD Number: 01-08-0465-8
Dear Mr. St.Pierre:
The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination(MCAD)has received the above complaint of
discrimination which alleges that you have committed an act of discrimination against the complainant. A
copy of that complaint is enclosed.
State law requires the Commission to impartially review the allegations in tharcomplaint. The Commission
has assigned one of its staff, Marcia Shannon,to investigate the complaint. This MCAD investigator will
keep the parties informed of the course of the investigation.
State law requires that you submit a formal written answer to the complaint called a Position Statement
This Position Statement must be submitted within twenty-one(21)days of receipt of this notification The
Position Statement must be signed under the pains and penalties of periury A copy must also be
forwarded to the Complainant at the address listed on the enclosed complaint Failure to file a Position
Statement of other response within the prescribed time may result in sanctions being imposed in accordance
with 804 CMR 1.16.
In order to thoroughly investigate complaints of discrimination,the MCAD schedules an Investigative
Interview with necessary parties shortly after the complaint is filed
An Investigative Interview regarding the above complaint will be held at the
Commission's Offices, One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA, at 10 AM on Monday,
August 4, 2008. You are required to attend this Interview.
If you have any questions pe ainin to the Investigative Conference,please contact Marcia Shannon at(617)
994-6096.
t
all, A_ 0,
Shannon
Investigator
MCAD Docket Number 08BPR02077,Serve Respondent—With Investigative Conference
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
COMMISSION AGAINST DISTRIMINATION
Docket#:
PAMELA STAVIS 131'4Isis
�'��
Complainant �pq Recen. p `'
V. a FJICL 2008 N
Qlmmissior, w
THE CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS d� Discriminr fav
Defendant
\�0F6z8z�z9tiy
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR HANDICAP DISCRIMINATION
IN HOUSING IN VIOLATION OF M.G.L.C. 151B
Introduction
The Defendant City of Salem, has and continues to, engage in a pattern of handicap
discrimination against Pamela Stavis in violation of M.G.L.c. 151B relating to a wheelchair lift
that is used by Pamela Stavis due to the fact that she suffers from a degenerative and disabling
condition, Muscular Dystrophy, which severely impairs her ability to ambulate. The City of
Salem, through its building inspector and others, has:
• granted and then purported to revoke permission to install a wheelchair lift at the
Plaintiff s Condominium after the unit was installed;
• has refused to grant permits to allow a wheelchair lift to remain at the residence;
• has engaged in a pattern of harassment against Pamela Stavis including seeking an
application for criminal complaint against Robert Stavis as a result of the presence of
the wheelchair lift which application is to be heard on August 6, 2008 in Salem
District Court; and
• has failed to respond to the Stavises demands to cease and desist the conduct in
violation of M.G.L.c. 151B
Parties
1. The Plaintiff, Pamela Stavis, is a handicapped person who resides at at their
condominium at the Weatherly Drive Condominiums located at 69 Weatherly Drive,
Salem Massachusetts.
P WAW S,ROBERT MCAD\WK MCAD Complaint 080709.d.
2. The Defendant City of Salem is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
Facts
3. Pamela Stavis is a handicapped person within the meaning of M.G.L.c. 151B as she
suffers from Muscular Dystrophy, a degenerative condition, that severely inhibits her
ability to ambulate.
4.. The City of Salem is subject to litigation for handicap discrimination under M.G.L.c. 151
B. See M.G.L.c. 151B § (defining"person" subject to liability for handicap
discrimination to include all political subdivisions of the Commonwealth).
5. The Stavises sought (and obtained)permission from their Condominium Association
prior to purchase of the condominium unit to install a wheelchair lift at the Whetherly
Drive Condominium for the benefit of Pamela Stavis.
6. The Stavises sought(and obtained) approval from the City of Salem Building Inspector
prior to purchasing the condominium unit and/or the wheelchair unit.
7. At the Stavises own expense, and in reliance on the representations of the Condominium
Association and the City of Salem wheelchair lift was installed.
8. After the chairlift unit was installed, the Building Inspector determined that there was a
technical violation of the State Building Code causing him to revoke his permission.
9. The Stavises, acting pro se, petitioned for variance before the State Building Code
Appeals Board. The State Building Code Appeals Board granted the Stavises relief.
10. The Building Code Appeals Board decision was later overturned by the Massachusetts
Appeals Court on a procedural issue of whether the Stavises pro se appeal was timely
commenced.
11. The issue of handicap discrimination has never been addressed by the MCAD.
12. The appeal to the State Building Code Appeals Board did not address the issue of
handicap discrimination in violation of M.G.L.c. 151 B, nor does the Board have
jurisdiction to adjudicate issues of handicap discrimination.
13. The appeals from the State Building Code Appeals Board to the Essex Superior Court
and the Massachusetts Appeals Court also did not address the issue of handicap
discrimination under M.G.Lc. 151B, nor could they have addressed that issue.
14. The issue of whether M.G.L.c. 151B requires that the chairlift be permitted by the Town
has never been adjudicated in any forum.
2
APPLICATION FOR APPLICATION NO.(COURT USE ONLY) P/1GE Trial Court of Massachusetts
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT or District Court Department
I,,the undersigned complainant,request that a criminal complaint issue against the accused charging the Salem OtsillfCt Ccurt
offense(s)listed below. If the accused HAS NOT BEEN ARRESTED and the charges involve: g$Washington;Street
fXl ONLY MISDEMEANOR(S), I request a hearing ❑ WITHOUT NOTICE because of an imminent threat of Salem` MA..01970
❑ BODILY INJURY ❑ COMMISSION OF A CRIME ❑ FLIGHT ❑ WITH NOTICE to accused.
D ONE OR MORE FELONIES,I request a hearing ❑ WITHOUT NOTICE ❑ WITH NOTICE to accused. -
ARREST STATUS OF ACCUSED
❑WARRANT is requested because prosecutor represents that accused may not appear unless arrested. ❑ HAS HAS NOT been arrested
NAME(FIRST MI LAST)AND ADDRESS BIRT DATE S CIA ECURITY NUMBER
-1 -_ / -Yo- 17
PCF NO. MARITAL STATUS
.1 DRIVERS LICENSE NO STATE
Irl (G �HTy I
HAIR RACE COMPLEXION SCARS/MARKS/-rATTOOS BIRTH STATE OR COUNTRY DAV PHONE
EMPLOYER/SCHOOL MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME(FIRST MI LAST) FATHER'S NAME(FIRST MI LAST)
i+ >.�„' urz� t�';4E:'"w} ),. .�;� n`a'ti's` •• • � "«' - 3rrk;Nw
COMPLAINANT NAME(�ST MI LAST) ` COMPLAINANT TYPEPD
/c—,, , - l'JC/� ❑ POLICE ❑ CITIZEN XOTHER
ADDRESS f ' / r" PLACE OF OFFENSE
INCIDENT REPORT NO. OBTN
CITATION NO(S).
OFFENIE CODE !<' DESCRIPTION,' Ft ` �, �X`r fnFr OFFENSE DATE
1 VA[�TABLES({e.g. victirp name,controlled substance,type and value of property.other variable information;see Complaint Language Manual)
7c, iLeI �''1, 4u,,, >r .til . y /'.6;• ai-t✓' � t, , � ., �f."�•—
OFFENSE CODE DESCRIPTION OFFENSE DATE
2 VARIABLES
OFFENSE CODE DESCRIPTION OFFENSE DATE
3 VARIABLES
REMARKS COM INANT'S SI ATUR9E DATE FILED
COURT USE ONLY A HEARING UPON THIS COMPLAINT APPLICATION l DATE OF HEARINd TIME OfF HEARING COURT USE ONLY
rA
i WILL BE HELD AT THE ABOVE COURT ADDRESS ON - l) ' r1. AT '�.
DCDR's(0804) COMPLAINANT'S COPY'
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Service Notice
as 1 S Pau 8?-4 for the
Appellant/Petitioner I",,.. j" � Lr' s /L r(/I an appeal filed with the State
Building Code Appeals Board on 20 g
HEREBY SWEAR UNDER THE PAINS AND P ALTIES OF PERJURY THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY THE STATE BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND
STANDARDS AND SECTION 122.3.1 OF THE STATE BUILDING CODE, I SERVED OR CAUSED TO BE
SERVED, A COPY OF THIS APPEAL APPLICATION ON THE FOLLOWING PERSON(S) IN THE
FOLLOWING MANNER:
NAME AND ADDRESS OF METHOD OF DATE OF
PERSON OR AGENCY SERVED SERVICE SERVICE
2
3
,1
Signature:Appellant or Petitioner
On the ✓ Day of L 20 PERSONALLY APPEARED_,
BEFORE ME THE ABOVE NAMED 3, '
(Type or Print the Name of the Appellant)
FEB 2 6 2008 "
AND ACKNOWLEDGED AND SWORE THE ABOVE STATEMENTS TO BE TRUE.
/NOT [2Y PUB IC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES £
/ ) JACQUELYN A. GRIMES
Notary
COMMON coo MASS OF MASSACHUSETTS 7
�
mycomm Expires
August t$,ZOta
Xu CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
9 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
'fQa SALEM, MAO 1970
TEL. (978) 745-9595 EXT. 380
FAX (978) 740-9846
STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR.
MAYOR
Robert & Pamela Stavis
69 Weatherly Drive Copy
Salem, Ma. 01970
Dear Owners:
This department has received complaints from two tenants in your building about the
chairlift that is mounted in the stairway. Jill, from American Properties, contacted me
several months ago and asked me if the installation of the stairlift would be allowed.
At that time, I checked the Mass State Building Code and found an exception in use
group R-3 that would allow installation of a chair lift.
I relayed this information to Jill who relayed it to you.
However, looking into the use group classification further, I have discovered that the
buildings in your development are use group R-2. The R-2 use group would not allow
the installation of the chair lift.
At this time, I must inform you that the chairlift is a code violation.
The lift needs to be removed as early as possible.
I apologize for the incontinence that I have caused you.
If further information is needed or you wish to discuss this matter, please contact me
directly.
Sincerely,
Thomas St. Pierre
Acting Building Commissioner
cc: Mayors Office
Tom Phillbin
John Keenan
Jill, American Properties
Herbert P Phillips, P.C.
Michael A. Gerstein LAW OFFICES OF
Stuart M. Holter i7
Russell S.Channen / t7 OI�7Pl"(�C CI1c�l1/1e/Z LLP
Lynne A. Saben f /N�ers"z f �
Lora M. McSherry
25 Kenoza Avenue ■ Haverhill, MA 01830
Of Counsel: Tel: (978) 374-1131 /(800)457-6912 ■ Fax: (978) 372-3086
Gerald M. Lewis www.pghclaw.com
Harold N. Mack
Jane M. Owens Triano
May 6, 2003
Thomas St. Pierre
Acting Building Commissioner
City of Salem
120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor.
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Irving Gordon, et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
State Building Code Appeals Board
C.A. No. 30808
Dear Mr. St. Pierre:
Enclosed herewith is a copy of Complaint to Vacate Decision of State Building Code
Appeals Board filed in Essex Superior Court, Salem.
Very truly yours,
Stuart M. Holter
SMH/dkb
Enclosure
cc: Pamela Stavis
All attorneys admitted in Massachusetts.
Holber and Saben admitted also in New Hampshire.
Holber admitted also in Maine.
Other office: 32 Saco Avenue, P.O. Box W, Old Orchard, ME 04064 Reply to Haverhill office only
INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER
of the North Shore and Cape Ann, Inc.
27 CONGRESS STREET, SurrE 107 • SALEM, MA 01970
(978) 741-0077 v/TTY • TOLL FREE: (888) 751-0077 v/TTY
FAx: (978) 741-1133 •CAPE ANN BRANCH: (978) 283-4000 EXT. 366 v/Trr
EMAIL: Information@ilcnsca.org • WEB ADDRESS: www.ilcnsca;brg
SERVING:
Beverly
Danvers December 20, 2002
Essex Mr. Thomas M. Riley, B.S.M.E, Cade Development Manager
Board of Building Regulations and Standards
Gloucester One Ashburton Place, Room 1301,
Hamilton
Boston; MA. 02108
Ipswich Dear Mr. Riley:
Lynn Pamela Stavis of 69 Weatherly Dr. in Salem, MA is a person with a disability and
is my consumer at the Independent Living Center of the North Shore and Cape
Lynnfield Ann, Inc. (ILCNSCA) in Salem. Pamela is requesting a hearing with the Board of
Manchester Building Regulations and Standards to allow her to request a variance to allow
By-The-Sea her to retain the use of her installed stair glide that provides her access up the
common stairway leading to her condominium.
Marblehead '
This past summer, prior to Pamela and he; husband purchasing'th'eir
Middleton condominium, Pamela requested and received permission from Mr. Thomas St.
Nahant Pierre, Acting Building Commissioner in Salem, MA to install a stair glide. Pamela
also got permission from the Board of.Trustees at her condominium
Peabody development. Then the stair glide was purchased and installed by Pamela.
Rockport In October she received a letter from Mr. St. Pierre notifying her that the stair
glide needed to be removed as it violated building codes. Pamela should not be
Rowley affected by this mistake made by Mr. St. Pierre and be displaced from her home.
Salem Pamela has the right to have access to her home and be grated a reasonable
accommodation allowing the stair glide to remain for her use. She cannot be
Saugus forced to move from her condominium.
Swampscott Under the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1985 [42 U.S.C. §§ 3535 & 3600-3620
Topsfield (Supp. 1997)] and the Massachusetts Housing Bill of Rights of 1959 [G.L. c. 151B
§4 (Supp. 1997)] Pamela is allowed civil rights protection as an individual with a
wenham disability prohibiting discrimination in the sale, rental or conditions of occupancy
.of a dwelling because of a person's disability. Also, accommodations must be
made to rules or policies if the accommodations are needed for a person with a'-
disability to use or enjoy the premises. A person with a disability may make
reasonable modifications to the premises at his/her own expense.
"OUR GREATEST NEED AS HUMAN BEINGS IS THE FREEDOM TO PURSUE OUR DREAMS"
Please consider this information and understands that Pamela will need to apply
for and obtain a variance on this issue. If you have any questions or need further
information, please contact me at (978) 741-0077 V/T or by email at
Smcduff@ilcnsca.org. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Shawn J. McDuff
Director of Access &Advocacy
Cc: Mary Margaret Moore, Executive Director, ILCNSCA; Pamela Stavis CSR; file.
Ya
uu*60
t/�gJt Josephs.Laitt
Mkt Romney
W o,�'oC��6'l� Commissioner
Governor 1,v7/ / Thomainnan 75
a
Kerry Healey �J'1�LO�1LPi//6�/y �/o�'�d`/l
Lieutenant Govema / C Jit Kentaro Tsutsumi
Vice Chairman
Edward A.Flynn
Secretary _ Thomas L Rogers
Administrator
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Date: March 24, 2003
Mrs. Pamela Starvis
Name of Appellant: 69 Weatherly Drive
Service Address: Salem, MA 01970 N
In reference to:
Docket Number: 03-024
Property Address: 69Weatherly Drive
Salem,MA 01970
Date of Hearing: February 25, 2003
We are pleased to enclose a copy of the decision relative to the above case wherein certain
variances from the State Building Code had been requested.
Sincerely:
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
i
Jeffrey Putnam, Clerk
cc: State Building Code Appeals Board
Building Official
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Docket Number: 03-024
Date: March 24,2003
All hearings are audio-recorded and the audio tape (which is on file at the office of the Board of
Building Regulations and Standards) serves as the official record of the hearing. Copies of the audio
tape are available from the Board for a fee of$5.00 per copy. Please make requests for copies in writing
and attach a check made payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the appropriate fee.
Requests may be addressed to:
Patricia A. Brennan, Program Manager
State Building Code Appeals Board
BBRS/Department of Public Safety
P. O. Box 871
Taunton,MA 02780
Summary of hearing_ f
All parties were duly sworn prior to offering testimony.
Attendees: Jonathan Starvis, Appellant's Representative
Siobhan Sweeney, Representative of the Condo Assoc.
Jill DeSantis, Representative of the Condo Assoc.
Thomas St. Pierre, Municipal Building Official—City of Salem
Background: In his letter, dated, October 2002, Mr. Thomas St. Pierre, Building Inspector for the
City of Salem, served a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Robert Stavis, in reference to the following Sections
of 780 CMR, Sixth Edition (the State Building Code), 1014.3 , for property located at 69
Weatherly Drive. A copy of said letter is made part of this decision.
The construction type of the subject building is 5A, and the use group contained within is Residential
(R-2)•
Relief Requested: The Appellant requested relief in the form of a variance to allow the installed
chairlift remain as is in the common egress stairway of a condominium (R-2 Use Group) for an occupant
of the building.
Appellants:
The appellants testified that they bought the condominium because the town's building department
verbally told the condominium association they could install the chairlift in the stairway.
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Docket Number: 03-024
Date: March 24, 2003
The appellants testified that the chairlift is removable.
A representative of the condominium association testified that they have no objection to the variance for
the chairlift as long as it does not jeopardizes the life-safety of the other tenants in the building. Those
who are complaining of the chairlift are from the two owners,who live on the floors above the location of
the chairlift. The representative of the condominium association testified that the stairway is 42 inches
wide.
Municipal Building Official:
The building official was present at the hearing, and testified in favor to the requested variance.
The building official was present at the hearing,and testified in favor of the requested variance.
The building official testified that he has no objection to the variance, and he made a mistake in allowing
the installation of the chairlift in the first place without the proper paperwork. He thought the building was
R-3 use group,which does not have common egress stairways,but the building is an R-2.
The building official testified that the chairlift reduces the width to 24 inches in its open position and
reduces the width to 29 inches it is closed position.
Decision: Following testimony, and based upon relevant information provided, Board members voted as
indicated below.
XXXX.......... Granted 11........... Denied [I.......... Interpretation
❑..........Granted with conditions(see below) ❑........ Dismissed
The vote was:
XXXX. ..............Unanimous 11 .... Majority
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Docket Number: 03-024
Date: March 24, 2003
Variance Granted for:
780 CMR 1014.3. Stairway width and restrictions.
Reasons for Variance:
1. The building official does not object to the variance.
2. The condominium association does not object to the variance.
3. It would be a hardship for the appellants to move out of a dwelling they thought was code
complying.
t
w�
The following.members voted in the above manner
Chairman—Sean MacDonald Alexander MacLeod Keith Hoyle
A complete administrative record is on file at the office of the Board of Building Regulations and
Standards.
A true copy attest, dated: f 0d 3
Jeffrey Putnam, Clerk
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the State Building Code Appeals Board may appeal to a court of
competent jurisdiction in accordance with Chapter 30A, Section 14 of the Massachusetts General Laws.
o CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT -
• 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
SALEM, MA 01 970
TEL. (978)745-9595 EXT. 380
e FAx (978) 740-9846
STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR.
MAYOR
Robert &Pamela Stavis
69 Weatherly Drive
Salem, Ma. 01970
Dear Owners:
This department has received cnmplaints from two tenants in your building about the
chairlift that is mounted in the stairway. Jill, from American Properties, contacted me
several months ago and asked me if the installation of the stairlift would be allowed.
At that time, I checked the Mass State Building Code and found an exception in use
group R-3 that would allow installation of a chair lift.
I relayed this information to Jill who relayed it to you.
L•,
However, looking into the use group classification further, I have discovered that the
buildings in your development are use group R-2. The R-2 use group would not allow fi
the installation of the chair lift.
At this time, I must inform you that the chairlift is a code violation.
The lift needs to be removed as early as possible.
I apologize for the inconvenience that I have caused you.
If further information is needed or you wish to discuss this matter, please contact me
directly.
Sincerely,
Thomas St. Pierre
Acting Building Commissioner
#�
cc: Mayors Office
Tom Phillbin
John Keenan
Jill, American Properties
m�
fy+ /
ESSEX NEUROLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, P.C.
David J. Crowley, M.D.
Sanford M. Levy, M.D.
Andrew H. Leader-Cramer, M.D.
Edgar W. Robertson, M.D.
Anna Litvak, M.D.
79 HIGHLAND AVENUE.SUITE I07 225 BOSTON STREET
SALEM,MA 01970 LYNN,MA 01904
(978)745-8807 (781)5956833
Fa(978)795-3555 Fa (781)593-5070
November 14, 2002
Re: Pamela Stavis
69 Weatherly Drive
Salem, MA 01970
DOB: 10/07144
To Whom It May Concern:
Mrs. Pamela Stavis has been under my care for neuromuscular disorder with significant
extremity weakness. She requires a chair lift to be able to go up and down stairs. She
is not able to manage stairs otherwise, without the risk of serious damage.
If you have any questions, please contact me at the above phone number or address.
Sincerely
U , J�'; �
Anna Litvak, M.D.
AL:ASNE:bmk
INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER
of the North Shore and Cape Ann, Inc.
27 CONGRESS STREET, SUITE 107 • SALEM, MA 01970
(978) 741-0077 v/nv •TOLL FREE: (888) 751-0077 v/TTr
Frac: (978) 741-1133 •CAPE ANN BRANCH! (978) 283-4000 EXT: 366 v(TTY
EMAIL: Information@ilcnsca.org WEB ADDRESS: wwwJ1cnSca;1org
SERVING:
Beverly
Danvers December 20, 2002
Essex Mr. Thomas M. Riley, B.S.M.E, Code Development Manager
Board of Building Regulations and Standards
Gloucester One Ashburton Place, Room 1301,
Hamilton
Boston; MA. 02108
Ipswich Dear Mr. Riley:
Lynn Pamela Stavis of 69 Weatherly Dr, in Salem, MA is a person With a disability and
is my consumer at the Independent Living Center of the North Shore and Cape
l ynnfield Ann, Inc. (ILCNSCA) in Salem. Pamela is requesting a hearing with the Board of
Manchester Building Regulations and Standards to allow her to request a variance to allow
By-The-Sea her to retain the use of her installed stair glide that provides her access up the
common stairway leading to her condominium.
Marblehead
This past summer, prior to Pamela and hef husband purchasing their
Middleton condominium, Pamela requested and received permission from Mr. Thomas St.
Nahant Pierre, Acting Building Commissioner in Salem, MA to install a stair glide. Pamela
also got permission from the Board of-Trustees at her condominium
Peabody development. Then the stair glide was purchased and installed by Pamela.
Rockport In October she received a letter from Mr. St. Pierre notifying her that the stair
glide needed to be removed as it violated building codes. Pamela should not be
Rowley affected by this mistake made by Mr. St. Pierre and be displaced from her home.
Salem Pamela has the right to have access to her home and be grated a.reasonable
accommodation allowing the stair glide to remain for her use. She cannot be
Saugus forced to move from her condominium.
Swampscott Under the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1988 [42 U.S.C. §§ 3535 &3600-3620
Topsf+eid (Supp. 1997)] and the Massachusetts Housing Bill of Rights of 1989 [G.L. c. 1518
§4 (Supp. 1997)1 Pamela is allowed civil rights protection as an individual with a
Wenham disability prohibiticig discrimination in the sale, rental or conditions of occupancy
of a dwelling because of a person's disability. Also, accommodations must be
made to rules or policies if the accommodations are needed for a person with a,
disability to use or enjoy the premises. A person with a disability may make
reasonable modifications to the premises at his/her own expense.
"OUR GREATEST NEED AS HUMAN BEINGS IS THE FREEDOM TO PURSUE OUR DREAMS"
Please consider this information and understands that Pamela will need to apply
for and obtain a variance on this issue. If you have any questions or need further
information, please contact me at(978) 741-0077 V/T or by email at
Smcduff@ilcnsca.org. Thank you.
Sincerely,
LOid'9Q/N4 . a �
Shawn I McDuff
Director of Access &Advocacy
Cc: Mary Margaret Moore, Executive Director, ILCNSCA; Pamela Stavis CSR; file.
���c� -t�>o�rzv>zo�zcve2���o�/6GIra:L.Jrc�c�J.e�IJ-
{�➢j'�''Ut]�t, ��rr�r tir�z�aL� a��l'cc��cc%Jcr .c���
!' `; C/�lG ck'XF1lLf."+r//J�dIL c�l�L?CC, ..%LO/p/'✓lpL//r�J/onr
JAIIESWIrl� i.C/O:JCG9L, Ltctrl6GllC/dG��i)- JfJ(l-lI//U 1t30141S t:Ai)VFii.
JAMES P.JAJUGA c//LAG j(////fG�/.J�UG HEUTARU TSUI SUht
Saoetary - Vice Chairman
JOSEPH S.(ALLI � i L "rrf� 1110MSL ROGER:
commissioner ndminisbabr '
—ST'A'FF BU1LFIiVG CODE API'EA1,S 40ARU-SEItYiCE NOTICE
as for the
Appel lanUPelitioner in an appeal filed With the
State Building Code Appeals Board on,__ L I' ( 19,`)�1).�'1
HEREBY SWEAR UNDER THE PAINS AND PENACd ES OF PERJURY 'HIAF IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY THE STATE BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND
STANDARDS AND SECTION 122.1.1 OF THE STATE BUILDING CODE,I SERVED OR CAUSED TO
BE SERVED, A COPY OF THIS APPEAL APPLICATION ON THE FOLLOWING PERSON(S) IN THE
FOLLOWING MANNER:
NAME AND ADDRESS OF
PERSON/AGLNi.X,5LKa-U METHOD OI'S LEVIC'. DATE OF S tLt'JLU
7 .-
�:,E ;�-fiu�.rc jr1 �It�r
Signature:APPELLANT/PE71TI0 ER _ ----
zoo
On the J�y� Day of PERSONALLY PERSONALLY APPEARED 0
BEFORE ME THE ABOVE NAMED_. �Ame
(T}7+e yr Print the Nnnte of the AppOlmit)
AND ACKNOWLEDGED AND SWORE ThIE Al3UVF S'I'AIEMENI'S TO BE TRUE.
011-41 UMMN
LZ fL600'01`1 dII
,Tn,er
YNBNI 'Q*3�"10J FIY i xnYa
.43N0f YSSI13W °, d
jNOTBLtCMY ION 1i1110ES
2;7197 (Effective 2123197) 7'W CNIR- Sixth Edition ti8I
ESSEX NEUROLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, P.C.
David J. Crowley, M.D.
Sanford M. Levy, M.D.
Andrew H. Leader-Cramer, M.D.
Edgar W. Robertson, M.D.
Anna Litvak, M.D.
79 HIGHLAND AVENUE.SUITE 107 225 BOSTON STREET
SALEM,MA 01970 LYNN,MA 01904
(978)745-8807 (781)595-6833
Fan(978)745.355.5 Fu(781)593-5070
November 14, 2002
Re: Pamela Stavis
69 Weatherly Drive
Salem, MA 01970
DOB: 10/07/44
To Whom It May Concern:
Mrs. Pamela Stavis has been under my care for neuromuscular disorder with significant
extremity weakness. She requires a chair lift to be able to go up and down stairs. She
is not able to manage stairs otherwise, without the risk of serious damage.
If you have any questions, please contact me at the above phone number or address.
Sincerely
Q, )-� �
Anna Litvak, M.D.
AL:A.SNE:bmk
Josepn s. Lam
xqw
Mitt Romney
/71f�tadL Commissioner
e�7 fl
Governor �J / Thomas GatzUnis
Chairman
Kerry Healey ��,r�J2 �7i'S-!
Lieutenant Govenor Stanley Shuman
vice Chairman
Edward A.Flynn
Secretary - Thomas L.Rogers
Administrator
July 1,2003
Stuart M. Holber
Phillips,Gerstein,Holber&Channen,LLP
25 Kenoza Avenue
Haverhill,MA.01830
Docket Number: 03-024 REHEARING
Property Address: 69 Waverly Drive, Salem
Hearing Date: July 15, 2003
Hearing Time: 1.1:00 a.m.
The appeal for the subject property has been scheduled to be heard on the hearing date and time indicated above. The
hearing will take place at the State Building Code Appeals Board located at the National Guard Armory, 14 Minuteman
Lane, Wellesley 02121. A MAP IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE. If you have any questions,
regarding this appeal hearing,please do not call the armory,call the undersigned 617-727-5190,extension 561.
The State Building Code Appeals Board requires your presence or that of your representative at its hearing relative to the
above case.
Please bring with you a copy of the record, including any plans, sketches, drawings, etc,that will help to give the Appeals
Board grounds to adjudicate this appeal. The State Building Code Appeals Board hearings are held pursuant to 801 CMR
1.02 Informal Fair Hearing Rules.
NO POSTPONEMENTS OR REFUNDS WILL BE GRANTED. In order to reschedule an appeal case,you must
first withdraw the original case and rile a new application,a new application fee is required.
Very truly yours,
THE STATE BUILD/INNG CODE APPEALS BOARD
21 m-
1
Patricia A. Brennan
Program Manager
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
PAMELA STAVIS, }
Appellant } DOCKET NO. 03-024
V. )
ACTING BUILDING }
INSPECTOR, CITY OF }
SALEM, )
Appellee }
MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PETITION FOR REHEARING
Pursuant to G.L. Chapter 30A §14(1), Irving Gordon and Harold Mack, as persons
aggrieved by a final decision of the State Building Code Appeals Board dated March 24, 2003,
respectfully petition said Board for rehearing and that they be afforded the opportunity to present
evidence in connection with the above captioned matter. A Memorandum in support of this Motion
and Petition is attached.
IRVING GORDON
HAROLD MACK,
by their attorneys,
Phillips, Gerstein, Holber & Channen, LLP
r
Stuart M. Hoiber,Esq,
25 Kenoza Avenue
Haverhill, MA 01830
(978) 374-1131
BBO#237840
DATED: `ll(a1U 3
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
PAMELA STAVIS, )
Appellant ) DOCKET NO. 03-024
V. )
ACTING BUILDING )
INSPECTOR, CITY OF )
SALEM, )
Appellee )
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
INTERVENE AND PETITION FOR REHEARING
On October 30,2002,Thomas St.Pierre,the Acting Building Inspector forthe City of Salem,
served a letter upon the Appellant directing the removal of a chairlift that had been installed in July,
2002, which was in violation of the State Building Code.'
On January 12, 2003, the Appellant filed a State Building Code Appeals Board Appeal
Application form asserting that she was aggrieved by the Order of the Acting Building Inspector
dated December 10, 2002.'
On February 12, 2003, a Notice of Hearing issued setting February 25, 2003 as the date of
the Hearing. Notice was served only on the Appellant and Appellee.
'The statement in said letter that "the Department has received complaints from two
tenants in your building about the chairlift that is mounted in the stairway" is inaccurate. At no
time had the Petitioners herein ever filed or otherwise complained to the Building Commissioner
about the installation, having directed their concerns to the Trustees of the Condominium Trust.
'The Decision of the Appeals Board correctly confirmed that the Order appealed from
was "dated October, 2002", and not December 10, 2002.
On February 13,2003,without knowledge that a Hearing Date had been set,a letter was sent
to the Appeals Board by Attorney Stuart Holber advising inter alia that he represented the
Petitioners herein and asked to be notified of any Hearing Dates. No response to the letter was
received from the Appeals Board.'
On February 19,2003,counsel for the Petitioners,having on that day learned that a Hearing
was scheduled for February 25, 2003, sent a letter to the Appeals Board advising that "it is
impossible to appear on a one week's notice"and requested a postponement. Counsel also advised
that his clients "have important information to present to this Board regarding this Appeal". No
response was received from the Appeals Board'
DECISION OF APPEALS BOARD
In granting a variance from 780 CMR 1014.35,the Appeals Board gave as reasons therefor
that neither the Building Official nor the Condominium Association objects to the variance and that
"it would be a hardship for the Appellants to move out of a dwelling they thought was code
complying".'
'Said letter dated February 13, 2003 was acknowledged by the Appeals Board on the
record of the proceedings.
'Said letter dated February 19, 2003 was acknowledged by the Appeals Board on the
record of the proceedings.
' Section 1014.3.1 states "Restrictions: means of egress stairways shall not reduce in
width in the direction of egress travel. Projections into a required stairway width are prohibited,
except at and below handrail height. . . "
'While the Acting Building Inspector not only did not object to the variance, but
supported it (admittedly to undo his own mistake), the Condominium Association was opposed
to granting a variance if doing so would undermine the "life and safety of other tenants in the
Building".
2
ARGUMENT
The record as well as the Decision ofthe Appeals Board fails to adequately address the safety
concerns of the Petitioners and their families.
The only reference to safety mentioned in the Decision is the position of the Condominium
Association that identified its concerns as to the life and safety of other tenants in the building. The
testimony of the Property Manager of the Condominium Association,which is not even mentioned
in the Decision is that the width of the stairway was reduced to only 24" when the chair was in an
upright position and when the chair was horizontal arid ready for use, the stairway was reduced to
only 13 `/2'. Reducing a stairway from 42" (unencumbered) to 13 '/2", a reduction of 68% in the
width of the stairway from the second floor to ground level is dramatic.'
While the aforementioned reductionto either 24"or 13 `/z",depending upon whether the chair
is up or down, is a substantial reduction in the full use of the common access stairway to the third
floor Petitioners and to one of the Unit Owners on the second floor, that inconvenience cannot
compare to the potential threat to the health and perhaps very lives of those affected in the case of
an emergency, particularly in the case of a fire that precludes exiting through the front of the
complex.
Where the building is largely of wood construction and does not have a sprinkler system,the
chance of a fire quickly spreading throughout the building is far from remote.
'The record does not establish that the Acting Building Inspector testified that the
chairlift reduced the width of the stairway in the chairs closed and opened positions to 29" and
24",respectively, nor does the Decision explain how these figures were arrived at. In any event,
the referenced 29" and 24" widths are inaccurate and erroneous. (See also paragraphs 9 and 11 of
Gordon Affidavit attached hereto.)
3
Arguendo-even if the chair is not in use,the reduced width of the stairway would preclude
occupants from going down the stairway while firefighters were coming up with their equipment.
(See Paragraphs 6 and 13 of Gordon Affidavit.) This scenario does not even contemplate a stretcher
negotiating the stairway.
And worst of all,if the chairlift was in use during any such emergency as would be expected,
there would be total blockage of the stairway and no one could exit or gain egress. (See Paragraphs
I 1 and 14 of Gordon Affidavit.)
Clearly, where the Appeals Board recognizes that safety of other occupants of the complex
is critically relevant in this matter, compels granting the Petition for Rehearing and that the
Petitioners be permitted to offer evidence on this critical issue.'
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the Motion to Intervene and
Petition for Rehearing be granted.
'The Appeals Board failed to address the question of timeliness of the appeal. The record
establishes that the Order appealed from was served upon the Appellant in October,2002 and
that its appeal with the Appeals Board was filed on January 12, 2003. 780 CMR 122.1 provides
in part "in the event an appeal is taken directly to the State Building Code Appeals Board [Al . . .
shall be filed . _. with the State Building Code Appeals Board no later than forty-five (45) days
after service of notice thereof of the interpretation, order, requirement or direction". (See also
801 CMR 1.0 1, subparagraph (4)(a); 801 CMR 1.02, subparagrapbs 4, 6(c)). It is clear that the
appeal was filed well beyond forty-five (45) days after service of the Building Inspector's Order.
4
IRVING GORDON
HAROLD MACK,
by their attorneys,
Phillips, Gerstein,Holber & Channen, LLP
'Stuart er,Esq.
25 Kenoza Avenue
Haverhill, MA 01830
(978) 374-1131
BBO#237840
DATED:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1, Stuart M. Holber, hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Motion to Intervene and
Petition for Rehearing and Memorandum in Support of Motion by mailing a copy postage prepaid
to Thomas St. Pierre, Acting Building Commissioner, City of Salem, 120 Washington Street, 3rd
Floor, Salem, MA 01970 and Mrs. Pamela Stavis, 6699�Weatherly Drive, Salem, MA 01970
DATED:
Stuart M. Holber
L/�fGlu}
5
AFFIDAVIT OF IRVING GORDON
1,Irving Gordon, hereby state and depose as follows:
1. Since November, 1997, I and my wife have been owner/occupants of a unit of Weatherly
Drive Condominium Association with an address of 71 Weatherly Drive, Salem,
Massachusetts.
2. My Unit is one of two units located on the third floor of a six unit structure,two other units
being located on the second level and two on the ground level.
3. The two third floor and two second floor units are served by a common egress stairway that
exits on the ground level at the rear of the complex.
4. The rear exit is conveniently located adjacent to my above ground garage,where I also keep
my trash barrels and other such items.
5. Prior to on or about July, 2002, I regularly used the common egress stairway to go to and
from my garage.
6. Prior to on or about July,2002,the stairway leading from the third floor to the ground floor
rear exit was unencumbered with a width of 39",which was wide enough to accommodate
two individuals using the stairs at the same time.
7. On or about July, 2002, recent purchasers of a second floor unit at the complex with an
address of 69 Weatherly Drive,without my prior knowledge or without prior knowledge of
any other unit owners in the complex, had installed an automated chairlift in the common
egress stairway, running from the second level to the ground level leading to the rear exit.
8. The track upon which the chair traveled was installed on the stairway and in and of itself
reduced the width of the stairway to 27".
9. Taking into account the chair when in vertical(inactive)position,it reduced the width of the
stairway to 22" and when in horizontal (active) position, the width of the stairway was
reduced to 16 ''/z".
10. The findings of the Appeal Board that the chairlift reduced the width of the stairway to 29"
when the chair was inactive and to 24" when the chair was down was based upon inaccurate
and erroneous testimony of the Acting Building Inspector.
11. When the chairlift is being used by an average sized middle aged or older adult, no one can
utilize the stairway in either direction.
12. The complex, apart from its foundation and roof, is of wood construction.
I
13. In the event of any emergency that would preclude the use of the front exit from the
complex, such as in the case of a fire, the reduced width of the stairway as reflected in
Paragraphs 9 and 11,would present a substantial hazard to the ability of occupants of the two
third floor units and one of the second floor units to evacuate the building by the rear exit.
In fact, the reduced width would preclude occupants from going down the stairway at the
same time firefighters would be coming up the stairway.
14. If during any such emergency the chairlift was in use, no one could gain ingress or exit the
complex.
15. The Order of the Acting Building Inspector directing the Appellants to remove the stair lift
issued on October 30,2002. The Appellant's assertion in the January 12,2003 Appeal to the
Hoard that the Order appealed from was dated December 10,2002 is incorrect.
16. In conclusion,my right to the unencumbered use of the common egress stairway located in
the rear of the complex has been compromised and most importantly,the safety of my family
has been substantially jeopardized.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this day of L! U/ 2003.
Irving Gor
MAYYA KRAVC.;
Notary Public
My,comminion Expire%
6zremher 1.2�
2
ate � a�L`ca�. r GezeE x9el
Joseph S.L
Q2'e�,y AP Commission
MiIECZomney � �'O" r - ,,// yG1� y,C- p / !J
Governor .'fhoC ann a'
Kent'Heatay +� +�.c'i,
Lieutenant GoVema p - ���j ���jJ.y Kentaro Tsats
Vice chairm-�
Edward A.Flynn
Secretary Thomas t Rae
administrato
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Date: March 24,2043
Mrs. Pamela Starvis
Name of Appellant: 69 Weatherly Drive
Service Address: Salem, MA 01970
In reference to:
Docket Number: 03-024
Property Address: 69.Weatherly Drive
Salem,MA 01970
Date of Hearing: February 25, 2003
We are pleased to enclose a copy of the decision relative to the above case wherein certain
variances from the State Building Code had been requested.
Sincerely:
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
t
Jeffrey Putnam, Clerk
cc: State Building Code Appeals Board
Building Official
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Docket Number: 03-024
Date: March 24, 2003
All hearings are audio-recorded and the audio tape (which is on file at the office of the Board of
Building Regulations and Standards) serves as the official record of the hearing. Copies of the audio
tape are available from the Board for a fee of$5.00 per copy. Please make requests for copies in writing
and attach a check made payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the appropriate fee.
Requests may be addressed to:
Patricia A. Brennan,Program Manager
State Building Code Appeals Board
BBRS/Department of Public Safety
P. O. Box 871
Taunton, MA 02780
Summary of hearing:
All parties were duly sworn prior to offering testimony.
Attendees: Jonathan Starvis, Appellant's Representative
Siobhan Sweeney, Representative of the Condo Assoc.
Jill DeSantis, Representative of the Condo Assoc.
Thomas St. Pierre, Municipal Building Official—City of Salem
Background' In his letter, dated, October 2002, Mr. Thomas St. Pierre, Building Inspector for the
City of Salem, served a 1-etter.to Mr. and Mrs. Robert Stavis, in reference to the following Sections
of 780 CMR, Sixth Edition (the State Building Code), 1014.3 , for property located at 69
Weatherly Drive. A copy of said letter is made part of this decision.
The construction type of the subject building is 5A, and the use group contained within is Residential
(R-2).
Relief Requested: The Appellant requested relief in the form of a variance to allow the installed
chairlift remain as is in the common egress stairway of a condominium (R-2 Use Group) for an occupant
of the building.
Appellants:
The appellants testified that they bought the condominium because the town's building department
verbally told the condominium association they could install the chairlift in the stairway.
oA
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Docket Number: 03-024
Date: March 24, 2003
The appellants testified that the chairlift is removable.
A representative of the condominium association testified that they have no objection to the variance for
the chairlift as long as it does not jeopardizes the life-safety of the other tenants in the building. Those
who are complaining of the chairlift are from the two owners,who live on the floors above the location of
the chairlift. The representative of the condominium association testified that the stairway is 42 inches
wide.
Municipal Building Official.
The building official was present at the hearing,and testified in favor to the requested variance.
The building official was present at the hearing,and testified in favor of the requested variance.
The building official testified that he has no objection to the variance, and he made a mistake in allowing
the installation of the chairlift in the first place without the proper paperwork. He thought the building was
R-3 use group,which does not have common egress stairways,but the building is an R-2.
The building official testified that the chairlift reduces the width to 24 inches in its,open position and
reduces the width to 29 inches it is closed position.
Decision: Following testimony, and based upon relevant information provided,Board members voted as
indicated below.
XXXX.......... Granted ❑........... Denied ❑.......... Rendered Interpretation
❑..........Granted with conditions (see below) ❑........ Dismissed
The vote was:
XXXX. ..............Unanimous ❑.......... Majority
y
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Docket Number: 03-024
Date: March 24,2003
Variance Granted for:
780 CMR 1014.3. Stairway width and restrictions.
Reasons for Variance:
1. The building official does not object to the variance.
2. The condominium association does not object to the variance.
3. It would be a hardship for the appellants to move out of a dwelling they thought was code
complying.
The following.members voted in the above manner
LAWChairman–Sean MacDonald t.5 Alexander MacLeod Keith Hoyle
A complete administrative record is on file at the office of the Board of Building Regulations and
Standards.
A true copy attest, dated: 1C _
— a
Jeffrey Putnam,Clerk
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the State Building Code Appeals Board may appeal to a court of
competent jurisdiction in accordance with Chapter 30A,.Section 14 of the Massachusetts General Laws.
ve�coxwr� �� CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
_ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
SALEM, MA.01 970
_.
9e��MMe W� TEL. (978)745-9595 EXT. 380
FAX (978) 740-9846
STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR.
MAYOR
Robert &Pamela Stavis
69 Weatherly Drive
Salem, Ma. 01970
Dear Owners:
This department has received complaints from two tenants in your building about the
chairlift that is mounted in the stairway. Jill, from American Properties, contacted me
several months ago and asked me if the installation of the stairlift would be allowed.
At that time, I checked the Mass State Building Code and found an exception in use
group R-3 that would allow installation of a chair lift.
I relayed this information to Jill who relayed it to you.
However, looking into the use group classification further, I have discovered that the
buildings in your development are use group R-2. The R-2 use group would not allow
the installation of the chair lift.
At this time, I must inform you that the chairlift is a code violation.
The lift needs to be removed as early as possible.
I apologize for the inconvenience that I have caused you.
If further information is needed or you wish to discuss this matter,please contact me
directly.
Sincerely,
Thomas St. Pierre
Acting Building Commissioner
cc: Mayors Office
Tom Phillbin
John Keenan
Jill, American Properties
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Public Safety
1380 Bay Street - P.O. Box 871
Taunton, MA 02780-0871
Phillips, Gerstein,Holber& Channen, LLP
Attn: Stuart Holber
25 Kenos Avenue
Haverhill,MA 01830
V i. Jill III.,ilirfIII fill III oil III hill ifJIM Jill
. o
Herbert P. Phillips, P.C.
Michael A. Gerstein LAW OFFICES OF
Stuart M. Holber /'� /l ®,� Q
Russell S. Channen r �N (a 6I../�,s offs ®'d11 c bffi LLP I �7
Lynne A. Saban Y eDq @�OXt➢ t 67L(.7 9 6� d L 1 LLr
Lora M. McSherry
25 Kenoza Avenue M Haverhill, MA 01830
Of Counsel: Tel: (978) 374-1131 /(800) 457-6912 0 Fax: (978) 372-3086
Gerald M. Lewis vvwwpghclaw.eom
Harold N. Mack
Jane M. Owens Triano
March 11, 2003
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Public Safety
Board of Building Regulations & Standards
State Building Code -Board of Appeals
P. 0. Box 871
Taunton, MA 02780
Attn: Patricia Brennan, Program Manager
Re: Stavis and Building Inspector, City of Salem
Docket No. 03-024
Dear Ms. Brennan:
As advised in two (2) prior letters dated February 13 and 19, 2003, I represent two
immediate Abutters to the Appellant, Pamela Stavis. As I understand, a Hearing on Stavis'
Appeal was heard on February 25, 2003 by the Board of Appeals. Notwithstanding my
request that the hearing be postponed due to the fact that I was never notified of the hearing,
my request was not honored.
It is my further understanding that the Appeals Board indicated at the hearing that it
was disposed to granting the Appeal. If such be the case,my clients are"persons aggrieved"
as provided in 780 CMR, 122.6. The purpose of this letter is to request that I be timely
supplied with a copy of the formal decision when issued. Also, please advise as to the
procedure to obtain a record of the proceedings.
All attorneys admitted in Massachusetts.
Holber and Saban admitted also in New Hampshire.
Holber admitted also in Maine.
Other office: 32 Saco Avenue, P.O. Box W, Old Orchard, ME 04064 Reply to Haverhill office only
March 11, 2003
Page 2
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Stuart M. Holber
SMH:cma
G:1SMH\Personal\M=kCommpnwealth03O7O3,wpd
cc: Robert J. Galvin, Esquire
Harold Mack, Esquire
Irving Gordon
t
"f Herbert P. Phillips, P.C.
Michael A. Gerstein LAW OFFICES OF D
Stuart M. Holber /y7 �' ��� t �'pn//LJY/AIC M j LLP
Russell S. Channen r dSd pd-9�fi�89Qbfe & n
Lynne A. Saben
Lora M. Mcsherry 25 Kenoza Avenue ® Haverhill, MA 41830
Of Counsel: Tel: (978) 374-1 131 /(800) 457-6912 ® Fax: (978) 372-3086
Gerald M. Lewis
Harold N. Mack
Jane M.Owens Triano
February 19, 2003
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Public Safety
Board of Building Regulations & Standards
State Building Code - Board of Appeals
P. O. Box 871
Taunton, MA 02780
Attn: Patricia Brennan.
Re: Pamela Stavis, 69 Weatherly Drive, Salem, Massachusetts
Dear Ms. Brennan:
Thank you for taking my call regarding the Pamela Stavis matter. As you know from
my prior correspondence, I represent Harold Mack and Irving Cordon who are abutters to
the Stavis'. I expected that I would receive notice of any hearing that took place as the
decision by the State Building Code Appeals Board directly affects my clients. I know the
Condominium Association expected to be noticed on the hearing as well. I was taken by
surprised to learn that the only parties who were noticed were the Appellants and the
Building Inspector for the Town of Salem.
My clients feel that they have important information to present to the Board regarding
this appeal. It is impossible for me to appear on one-week's notice at the scheduled hearing
for February 25,2003. I respectfully request that the hearing be postponed until mid-March
so that I can free my schedule and be available to appear on behalf of my clients so that the
Board can hear their views regarding this chair lift. I also respectfully request that the Board
continue the matter from February 25, 2003 so that the Condominium Association can
attend, if it so chooses.
All attorneys admitted in Massachusetts.
Holber and Saben admitted also in New Hampshire.
Holber admitted also in Maine.
Other office: 32 Saco Avenue, P.O. Box W,Old Orchard, ME 04064 Reply to Haverhill office only
February 19, 2003
Page 2
Finally, irrespective of whether the Board continues the matter or not, I would
appreciate it if you provided to the Board my prior correspondence and this letter. It is
important that the Board know that the abutters feel that this appeal is untimely and that
procedurally it should be dismissed.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and please let me know if the Board has
agreed to continue the hearing.
Very truly yours,
Stuart M. Holber
SMH:ema
G:\SMI-I\Pemonal\MackCommonwealth021403.wpd
cc: Robert J- Galvin, Esquire
Harold Mack, Esquire
Mr. Irving Gordon
Pamela Stavis
Herbert R Phillips, P.C. LAW OFFICES OF
Michael A. Gerstein
Stuart M.Cotner ,. s i6e f !/®e)er p L j LLP
Russell S.Channen ���-lb' �97�1p 141A1L
Lynne A. Saben 9
Lora M. McSherry 25 Kenoza Avenue N Haverhill, MA 01830
Of CounsO Tel: (978) 374-1131 1(800) 4576912 ® Fax: (978) 372-3086
Gerald M.Lewis '
Harold N. Mack
Jane M.Owens Triano
February 13, 2003
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Public Safety
Board of Building Regulations & Standards
State Building Code - Board of Appeals
P. O. Box 871
Taunton, MA 02780
Attn: .Patricia Brennan
Re: Pamela Stavis, 69 Weatherly Drive, Salem, Massachusetts
Dear Ms. Brennan:
Please be advised that I represent Harold Mack and Irving Gordon, of 63-73
Weatherly Drive, Salem, Massachusetts, who are immediate abutters to the Appellant,
Pamela Stavis. I am in receipt of a State Building Code Appeals Board Appeal Application
Form dated January 12, 2003, in which the Appellant, Pamela Stavis, seeks to appeal the
decision of the Building Inspector for the Town of Salem,requiring her to remove her chair
lift. With this letter I enclose a copy of the Order appealed from. As you can see, the Order
is undated but the facsimile transmission notation at the top of the page indicates that it was
sent on October 30,2002 and received by my client on November 1, 2002. The appellant's
assertion that the order appealed from is dated December 10, 2002 is incorrect. It is my
understanding that appeals from Orders of the Building Inspector must be made within 45
days. Therefore, this appeal had to be filed no later than December 16, 2002, and is
therefore untimely.
The second purpose of this letter is to notify you that I represent the abutters. Please
be kind enough to put me on the service list so that I am informed of any hearing dates and
any further documentation filed by the Appellant.
All attorneys admitted in Massachusetts.
Holber and Saben admitted also in New Hampshire.
HOlber admitted also in Maine.
Other office: 32 Saco Avenue, P.O.Box W, Old Orchard, ME 04064 Reply to Haverhill Office only
February 13, 2003
Page 2
I thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
Stuart M. Holber
SMH:amc
G:\SMMPersonal\MackCommonwcalth021103.wpd
cc: Robert J. Galvin, Esquire
Harold Mack, Esquire
Mr. Irving Gordon
,
::............................................................................................................................................................................... ------ .
FEB-07-2003 FRI 10.09 AN AMERICAN PROPERTIES FAX h0. P. 02
�E8•' rys-'03 05:96 PM SALEM BUILDING DEA 197674698466
T✓orC, "�'Ia?!r!t>te�?E�ddJd2Gr{1e'r O e/� r12'G;e'Etdt1���J�
:�j�•.r+t�r�''1.�,,,,a,��rsrllK�.���x�rial�Cro,r�rcRrat'� l�apn/�r�
ee�kY4�drerCaw J�iteb, ,tw.��/
�arteswrr t +}xtkwa txrxvrut
oa+�na aatar,'t�.,y�a//�arr/ac�r6rcJec�Gyc f1�Pflpl�ldIrf seeMn,x,
MMA6►,INUOA R�ROJM6 t�t�! ��l�K+� 1rGt}TMATBU434Nt
gttHsy VkgGi.eimum
doa�r}}auut w�rsry �5%�$�>✓r'�/' ano3tAst+tau�n
enaa,a arnw,�t,wa>
STATE UVILit(NG CODE APPEALS BOARD-SE VICE N(JTI �
as G:l a i_� �.._for the
In An appeal filedwith the
Stats Building Cada Appeals l3oaxd ILL* �1~i92v
HEREBY SWEAR UNDER TUR PAINS AND FL'NAL E3 Of It2lUURY THAI' IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PROCEDURES ADOPTEU BY THE STATE BOARD OF BUILDINO REGULATIONS AND
STANDARDS AND SECTION 121,3.1 OF Tlib STATE DUILOINO CODD,I SURYBD OR CAUSED TO
RE SERYED, A COPY OF TRIS APPBAL APPLICATION ON TI19 FOLLOWING PERSON(S)IN"IM
FOLLOWING MANNER:
N,U4L AtrD AbDi U OF
s}oR'IlnfSp A+�.U31Vj , PA1119LOLYU
DA 5�.JLTI it
' /r��.auc17 rU
r ,
dor a-AhReu.ANT�CR r.'.�rrw��-�
On tha_��,,,�, ay of ,PERSONALLY APPEAREll �+Q U fl Tj
BEFORE ME THE ABOVE
NAMED_� -�—�--
(Yfiv or Prim%he FIwc of the Apps lent)
AOD ACKNOWj,MM AND SWORK'n IS A110VU STATLMUNIS 10 UQ TRUE,
tpl s�nyyraaM}I!
14
eNNot'fW02Ari 3 tv
J rawuw
75Tman: 4y colviiiiisclIN wo,o s
1 ,
FEB^t36—tt .u., .'M 9AL9M BUILDING
y�DEP
�r19//?®7481,44/44666
P. 06
Ji+ Q�Y+i b+
;5PO L/
T`=
OWN
sra. ler/1,111�,�.
aonanatnw A. /0�,)&* ttntwte�
a'ST�F t a nra.y
FeeFoedvat_- STATE i IUDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Cbock No,: _ APPEAL APPLICATION FORM
ssocaaarlaln.�t�R�
DAM���
Otete van Only)
Tow uttt<ardgnid ttontby sppeds to tba std Stutduds l}om the 6016101%
aCthc:
8tdtdtng Amlot tont dse Citrtihwn of. �d�..
Hoard 61"Appt*6 hom the C kyft'own of
Ather mwwpd Ar ym"entiaad;
Stu.A8e�r/Dmctd aaiaod,
Dated-� G�"�haWn4 been&Wend by woh(cheek at eppmpdats)
Intupt9t#don a tiler o NON"! a phmcdon e
Mury to Act o pt _
�j mei s(qntra ha ld lam An ,meq Supporting doeumontadon must be
aomittad with"apptiealleit.to nt"may present written material at the having, Elawavar,the
Beard rmerves the rijht to continue the proceeding Winch material watrants aetontive review.
Stets SeiaAy dalirod nGaF
"' "%
,. ¢
AFIrF3,LANT: .
dADRISBS
FOR
SBRvtCEt
Teiephona Mo:
ADDRESS OF St1MT FRApRRTY:
A"EU ANrS CO GN TO SVV=r?R.OW Y:—���2ji?t/ fzts '
416ttAY ltllOVArlEL to 111..19MAYM (MAK-MBAgtPROM
2/7147 (Mctivs MIMt7) 780 Chat•Sixth By OOR h?n
h.
•
e
'1�. 1 �1r0 ��'�v) {Iit���1��' e•3ti r�l-rFi- rt}4Rf ��l r-�i IF:k_.e;�
is
ih �.WeLed p�4R i ..c,n .!'.: < yltl n._:`u.1a i� r^W. .- ..L'i,l'i w�,uFw7�.'�r5�7i,•
� o1M
S
1�
_ Minutes of the W.D.C.T.
Board of Trustees Meeting
April 24, 2002
A Board of Trustees Meeting of the Weatherly Drive Condominium Trust was held on
Wednesday, April 24, 2002 at 6:30 P.M. in the Clubhouse. Tim Davern called the
meeting to order.
Board Members Present: Robert Beatty, Tim Davern, August Miller, Michael Stelman
and Betty Tassel, Present from Management: Jill DeSantis, Senior Property Manager.
Joan Rabone of the Grounds and Flower Committee attended the Meeting to discuss her
report, which was submitted to the Board prior to the meeting. She advised that the hoses
are out and the mulch is being distributed and we are currently ahead of schedule.
Michael Stelman stated that he is opposed to stretching the hoses across the walkway It
is dangerous and unsightly. He questioned if the irrigation system can be adjusted toll
cover those areas. He further added that the common area beds that are not attached to
the lawn areas around the buildings are bereft of flowers and it looks lousy on America
Way. There is a lack of color.
Joan Rabone's response to this was that if Michael Barbuzzi were put in charge of water,
he would only connect them when he is watering. The hoses will not be left out across
the walks all day. She further advised that they (the irrigation company) couldn't raise
the irrigation system to reach the beds close to the building without getting water in the
units. Joan also advised that her report indicated that her goal was to fill in the remaining
common beds with perennials and bushes. She advised this was a long-range plan and
she is in the final stages of completing this plan.
Jill advised that she would check with Comak(the irrigation company) to see what they
recommend. Perhaps putting a sleeve under the walkway will be less expensive than
adding another spigot. We can also check with the mason when doing the stairs if they
can add a pipe through the stairs that we can utilize to get water across.
Robert Beatty questioned if Barbuzzi Landscaping will reseed the bare areas. The
response was yes,he always does.
Tim Davern advised that the area behind his unit is usually very muddy. Joan and Jill
had discussed this matter prior to the meeting and thought we may he able to limit
watering in many areas where problems like this exist.
Augie expressed concern that the island around the mail houses still has not been
addressed. Jill advised that she has not been successful in pining down Scott Shaull on
this matter,but in speaking with the crew at Pro Con, she was advised that they plan to
Minutes of the April 24,2442 Board of Trustees' Meeting
MOTION: Michael moved to accept the proposal for carpet replacen-tent from Osgood at
a cost of$2,500 per building,
SECOND: Robert.
VOTE: Unanimous
STAIR GLIDER/DISCUSSION; Jill supplied the Board with some paperwork given by
a potential buyer requesting the Board's permission to install a stair glider in the rear
i hallhay of a six plex building, in the event his wife needed this at some point in the
i, future.
The Board requested that Jill check with the Building Inspector and report back on any
findings.
SIX FLEX DOOR DAMAGF,: The Board discussed damage to a six-plex unit door,
which occurred as a result of a medical emergency. Although the door is considered
common area, a Board member did not feel the Association should be responsible for the
cost of repair.
Tim Davern will check with the Association's attorney and report back.
M0 ON: Michael made a motion to adjourn at 9:10 P.M.
SECOND: Robert.
VOTE: All were in favor.
» T_y
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS x'o
ESSEX, ss. TRIAL COI am
SUPERIOR ' T @�P-V,,
C.A. NO. y
IRVING GORDON and HAROLD MACK,
Plaintiffs } 3 'R
V. )
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD, } '' " -A
Defendant } � I
COMPLAIN x 3 O VACATE DECISION OF
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
This action is brought pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30A §14 and 780
CMR 122.6.
1. Irving Gordon,Plaintiff herein,is a resident of 71 Weatherly Drive, Salem,
Massachusetts.
2. Harold Mack, Plaintiff herein, is a resident of 73 Weatherly Drive, Salem,
Massachusetts,
3. Plaintiffs herein are owners/occupants of two condominiums units on the third
and top level of a six unit structure.
4. Pamela Stavis is a resident at 69 Weatherly Drive, Salem, Massachusetts, and is
an occupant of one of two condominium units on the second level of said six unit
structure.
5. The third floor and second floor units are served by a common egress stairway
that exits on the ground level at the rear of the complex.
6. On or about July, 2002, Stavis caused to be installed an automated chairlift on the
common egress stairway running from the second level to ground level leading to
the rear exit.
7. On October 30, 2002, the Acting Building Inspector of the City of Salem
informed Stavis that the installation of the automated chairlift was a violation of
the State Building Code directing that it be removed.
8. On January 12, 2003, Stavis filed an appeal with the State Building Code Appeals
Board seeking relief from the determination of the Acting Building Inspector.
9. Said January 12, 2003 Appeal was untimely in that it was not filed within 45 days
of the October 30, 2002 order of the Acting Building Inspector as required by law.
10. On February 12,2003,the Appeals Board issued a Notice of Hearing setting
February 25, 2003 as the date of hearing. Said Notice was timely served only on
Stavis and the Acting Building Inspector. No Notice of Hearing was served by the
Appeals Board on the PIaintiffs.
11. Plaintiffs' Counsel,having learned on February 19, 2003 of the scheduled hearing,
due to the short notice, sought a postponement of the hearing, which was denied.
12. The hearing went forward on February 25, 2003. Plaintiffs did not appear due to
unavailability of Counsel.
13. On March 24, 2003,the Appeals Board issued a decision reversing the Decision
of the Acting Building Inspector and granting a variance from Stavis' compliance
with the State Building Code.
14. The Decision of the Appeals Board interferes with the full and fair use of the
common egress stairway as well as undermines the safety and health of the
Plaintiffs.
15. Plaintiffs are persons aggrieved by the Decision of the Appeals Board.
16. The Decision of the Appeals Board is based upon an error of law.
17. The Decision of the Appeals Board was made upon unlawful procedure.
18. The Decision of the Appeals Board is not supported by substantial evidence on the
record considered as a whole.
19. The Decision of the Appeals Board is arbitrary or capricious or otherwise not in
accordance with law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court vacate the Appeals
Board's Decision,reinstate the Order of the Acting Building Inspector dated October 30, 2002,
and grant Plaintiffs their costs and such other relief it deems meet and just.
Respectfully submitted,
IRVING GORDON and HAROLD MACK
By their attorney,
Stuart M. Holber,Esq.
Phillips, Gerstein, Holber& Channen,LLP
25 Kenoza Avenue
Haverhill, MA 01830
978-374-1131
BBO 4237840
DATED-. rll'l o
r
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS A�
PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT Cop
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
H1N6 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 380
MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846
February 9, 2005
Robert and Pamela Stavis
69 Weatherly Drive -
Salem, Ma. 01970
RE: Chairlift
State Building Code Appeals Board
Case No. 30808
Dear Owners:
This letter is to inform you that Superior Court Judge,Howard Whitehead, has vacated
the appeal that was issued on August 18, 2003 regarding the chairlift installation in your
building.
I have no choice but to again issue an order to remove the chairlift within 30 days upon
receipt of this letter.
If you have any questions regarding this matter,please contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Thomas St. Pierre
Building Commissioner
cc: Stuart M. Holber
Phillips, Gerstein, Holber and Channen LLP
Assistant City Solicitor, Beth Rennard
enclosures (3)
r
Herbert P Phillips, P.C.
Michael A Gerstein LAW OFFICES OF
��AHolber
(PW Gerstein,Holier&Clwwn,LLP
S.Channon
Lore M. McSheny
Mark A. Hoffman 25 Kenora Avenue■ Ha erhiA, MA 01830
Tel: (978) 374-1131/(800)457-6912 0 Fax: (978) 372-3086
Of Cour": wwwpghdammm
Harold N. Mack
sane M. Owens Thano
December 30,2004
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner
City of Salem
120-Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Irving Gordon,et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
State Building Code Appeals Board
C.A.No. 30808
Dear Commissioner St. Pierre:
The undersigned represents the Plaintiffs in the above matter pertaining to the installation of an
automated chairlift in a common area stairway located at 63-73 Weatherly Drive, Salem.
Having correctly determined the installation to be in violation of the State Building Code,on October
30,2002 you issued an Order directing the removal of said chairlift. (A copy of said Order is enclosed.)
On August 18, 2003, the State Building Code Appeals Board granted a variance from your October
30, 2002 Order,thus permitting the chairlift to remain in place.
On October 27, 2004, a Judgment was entered in the Superior Court of Essex County which ordered
that the Decision of the Appeals Board granting the variance be vacated. (A copy of the Judgment is
enclosed.)
No timely appeal having been filed from the Judgment of the Superior Court, your Order of October
30, 2002 requiring the removal of the chairlift remains in full force and effect.
Please confirm to the undersigned your intent to promptly undertake all appropriate steps to obtain
compliance with your Order.
Very truly yours,
Stuart M. Holber
SMH/dkb
Enclosure
cc: Annapurna Balakrishna
pH�raerold Mack, Esq.
O!pra orne�s aVmn&?1n Massachusetts. -
Holber and Saban admitted also in New Hampshire.
Holber admitted also in Maine.
Other office: 32 Saco Amnue, P.O. Box W, Old Orchard, ME 04064 Reply to Haverhill office only
r Commonwealth of Massachusetts
County of Essex
The Superior Court
CIVIL DOCKET# ESCV2003-00808
Irving Gordon,
Harold Mack
Vs
Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Building Code Appeals Board
l�DC;iMENT
This action came on before the Court, Howard,whitehead.Justice, presiding,
and upon consideration thereof,
It Is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
That the decision of the Building Code Appeals Board be Vacated and that
the appeal to the Board be and hereby is DISMISSED.
Dated at Salem. Massachusetts this 27th day of October, 2004.
Thomas H. Driscoll Jr.,
r Clerk of the Courts
�r Assistant Cleric
Copies mailed 90/27/2004
cw�uarr_l.ya nocll� )u+p errnnM
' PUSLICPROPERTY DHPAR URNT
120 WASHINGTON OTRE11% $RD FLOOR
SALSMr MA 01070
TSL.(976)745-SS95 EXT.'390 �yc7 3U A70,\
FAX (976)740-SOAG /
s-rAMLLY J.U00VIC2. in.
MAYOR
Robmt&Pamela%via
69 Weadsedy Drive
Salem,ML 01970
Dear owmn:
lois dcpmmoew has mccived comphwus from two tenants in your building about she
chai dilt abet is mouated in the staff sway. Jim*m Anm6m Aopades.ccaNat w me
aav"mosift sgp Rod asked me if abs i setallafm of the stairbit would be aRowed-
At that titin„I dwk ed she Maes Stale Suitding+Cods and found an Meptioa is We
geoap It-3 tiled would allow insgJlssion of a dhabr li&.
I ndayed this iafotuudm to Jill who relayed it to you.
HbvAnw,hotting into,the use group classification fWdw.I have discovesbd the rho
build In yom4m dopment am use g, R-2. The R-2 use group would not allow
the itutzllation of the dudr ll&.
At this thous,Imatet hifom you dist dho dtWM is acode violation.
3be lift needs to be reotoved as early me possible.
I apologize for the hwmvcoimm that I have caused you.
If And r infonnati(m is needed at you wish to discuss this matterplease contact me
directly.
Sk mdy.
1Lotnas SLi��ce�����
Aging Smiting Commisaionar
ee:MAYM office
• 'Tom'P91iIlbin '
John Bxoaa
rill,Amokan Pwperdca `
i
d
/
Herbert P Phillips, PC.
Michael A.Gerstein LAW OFFICES OF
Stuart M. Holber
Russell S.Chanrren Thos 6iefs"7 � &rUm LLP
Lynne A. Saban f f r
Lora M.McSheny
Mark A. Hoffman 25 Kenota Avenue i Haverhill, MA 01830
OfCoTel: (978) 374-1131/(800) 457.6912 r Fax: (978) 372.3086
Harooldld NN. Mack w.t: wwpghciaw.com
Ha .
Jane M. Owens Irriano
December 30, 2004
VIA CERTIFIER MAIL
Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner
City of Salem
120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Irving Gordon,et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
State Building Code Appeals Board
C.A.No. 30808
Dear Commissioner St. Pierre:
The undersigned represents the Plaintiffs in the above matter pertaining to the installation of an
automated chairlift in a common area stairway located at 63-73 Weatherly Drive, Salem.
Having correctly determined the installation to be in violation of the State Building Code,on October
30,2002 you issued an Order directing the removal of said chairlift. (A copy of said Order is enclosed.)
On August 18, 2003, the State Building Code Appeals Board granted a variance from your October
30, 2002 Order, thus permitting the chairlift to remain in place.
On October 27, 2004, a Judgment was entered in the Superior Court of Essex County which ordered
that the Decision of the Appeals Board granting the variance be vacated. (A copy of the Judgment is
enclosed.)
No timely appeal having been filed from the Judgment of the Superior Court, your Order of October
30, 2002 requiring the removal of the chairlift remains in full force and effect.
Please confirm to the undersigned your intent to promptly undertake all appropriate steps to obtain
compliance with your Order.
Very truly yours,
Stuart M. Holber
SMHldkb
Enclosure
cc: Annapurna Balakrishna
Harold Mack, Esq.
G.. a°t1Som'ey`'��svaVmI Win Massachusetts.
Holber and Saban admitted also in New Hampshire.
Holber admitted also in Maine.
Other office: 32 Saco Avenue, P.O. Box W, Old Orchard, ME 04064 Reply to Haverhill office only
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
County of Essex
The Superior Court
CIVIL DOCKET# ESCV2003-00808
Irving Gordon,
Harold Mack
vs
Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Building Code Appeals Board
JI DGMENT
This action came on before the Court, Howard,Whitehead,Justice, presiding,
and upon consideration thereof,
It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
That the decision of the Building Code Appeals Board be Vacated and that
the appeal to the Board be and hereby is DISMISSED.
Dated at Salem. Massachusetts this 27th day of October, 2004.
Thomas H. Driscoll Jr.,
. Clerk of the Courts
B .,
i Assistant Clerk
Copies mailed 10/2712004
wajvoo•^ I.MPO i94)� }uJgp DrtM00j
v. PU@LIC PROPERTYORPARTMENT
r�
120 WARHtNGTON GTRE6T; SRO FLOOR
SALEM,MA O 1974
TEL. (978)743-9598 EXT. 360 G c7
FAX (978) 740-9846 ! ' `
STAMLEY J,USOVICZ, JR.
MAYOR
Robert&Pamela Stavis
69 Weatherly Dh ve
Saleno,Ma.01970
Dear Owners:
Thit department has received complaints from two tenants in your building about the
chaidift that is mounted in the stairway. Jill,from American Properties.contacted me
several months ago and aslmd we if the installation of the stairlift would be allowed-
At
llowedAt that tuna,I chocked the Mass State Building Code and found an exception in use
group R-3 that would allow installation of a chair W
I relayed this information to Tttl who relayed it to you.
However„looking into the use group'Classification further,I have discovered that the
buildings in ypmu development are use group R-Z TLe R-2 use group would not allow
the installation of the chair lift.
At this tiro%,I must inform'you that the chaidifl is a code violation.
The lift muds to be removed as early as possible.
I apologize for the inconvenience that I have canned you.
If further information is needed or you wish to discuss this matter,please contact me
directly.
Sincerely,
Thomas Pierre
Acting Building Commissioner
oc:Mayors Office
:Tom.'Pfhillbin
Jolm Keenan
All,American Properties
s
i
a
t
l� .1
Herbert P Phillips, P.C.
Michael A. Gerstein LAW OFFICES OF
Stuart M. Holber ,-,/-_
Russell S. Channen ' r rnS fiefs z Aoffia"&��ic7/1Im LLP
Lynne A. Saben "��""""77�� f f i
Lora M. McSherry
Mark A. Hoffman 25 Kenoza Avenue ■ Haverhill, MA 01830
Tel: (978) 374-1131 /(800)457.6912 0 Fax: (978) 372-3086
Of Counsel: www.pghclaw.com
Harold N. Mack
Jane M. Oweris Triano
December 30, 2004
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner
City of Salem
120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Irving Gordon, et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
State Building Code Appeals Board
C.A. No. 30808
Dear Commissioner St. Pierre:
The undersigned represents the Plaintiffs in the above matter pertaining to the installation of an
automated chairlift in a common area stairway located at 63-73 Weatherly Drive, Salem.
Having correctly determined the installation to be in violation of the State Building Code,on October
30,2002 you issued an Order directing the removal of said chairlift. (A copy of said Order is enclosed.)
On August 18, 2003, the State Building Code Appeals Board granted a variance from your October
30, 2002 Order, thus permitting the chairlift to remain in place.
On October 27, 2004, a Judgment was entered in the Superior Court of Essex County which ordered
that the Decision of the Appeals Board granting the variance be vacated. (A copy of the Judgment is
enclosed.)
No timely appeal having been filed from the Judgment of the Superior Court. your Order of October
30, 2002 requiring the removal of the chairlift remains in full force and effect.
Please confirm to the undersigned your intent to promptly undertake all appropriate steps to obtain
compliance with your Order.
Very truly yours,
Stuart M. Holber
SMH/dkb
Enclosure
cc: Annapurna Balakrishna
Harold Mack, Esq.
O'An�joineys`aV,uiffe8dn Massachusetts.
Holber and Saben admitted also in New Hampshire.
Holber admitted also in Maine.
Other office: 32 Saco Avenue, P.O. Box W, Old Orchard, ME 04064 Reply to Haverhill office only
n
PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
•�• 124 WAaHINGTON STREET; 9RO FLOOR
SALEM, MA 41970
TEL.(978)745-9595 EXT. 880 f7 3G p�j
0. 1 FAX (978) 740-9846 j \
STaiMLEY-J.USOViCZ, JR.
MAYOR
Robert do Pamela Stavis
69 Wcathedy Drive
Salem,Ma_01970
Dear Owners:
This department bas received complaints from two tenants in your building about the
chairiift that is mounted in the stairway. All,from American ftoperties,contacted me
several months ago and asked me if the installation of the stairlift would be allowed.
At that time,,I checked the Mass State Building Code and found an exception in use
group R-3 that would allow installation of a chair lift.
I relayed this information to All who relayed it to you.
e .
However,looking inter the use group classification further,I have discovered that the
buildings in ywar development are use group R-2. The R-2 use group would not allow
the installation of the chair lift.
At this time,I must inform you that the chairlift is a code violation.
The lift needs to be removed as early as possible.
I apologize for the inconvenience that I have caused you.
If further information is needed or you wish to discuss this matter•,please contact me
directly.
.Sincerely, r
Thomas S
Acting Building Commissioner
oc:Mayors Office
'Tom.phillbin
John Keenan
All,American Properties
)
i.
r
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
County of Essex
The Superior Court
CIVIL DOCKET# ESCV2003-00808
Irving Gordon,
Harold Mack
vs
Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Building Code Appeals Board
JUDGMENT
This action came on before the Court, Howard,Whitehead, Justice, presiding,
and upon consideration thereof,
It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
That the decision of the Building Code Appeals Board be Vacated and that
the appeal to the Board be and hereby is DISMISSED.
Dated at SaleM. Massachusetts this 27th day of October, 2004.
�\ Thomas H. Driscoll Jr.,
Clerk of the Courts
1
Assistant Clerk
i�
Copies mailed 10/27/2004
rvajvm,.n i.wprl >a4i1> p.J9. erennanj
o
b O Blppt
I
' 98
1
I
ARMORY
�D
as L
r
`l
N
CA R
S \`\
yt 'Mir 10
S `1
V \\
° 1993 DeLorme Mapping) ( ------ -
LEGEND Scale 1:10,937(at center)
Population Center o Interstate Highway Mag 16.00
1000 Feet.,
State Route RailroadWed Jun 11 11:38:34 1997
r '
Interstate, Turnpike .. River - 200 Meters
d
__...... County Boundary Open Water
Street, Road Directions to the National Guard Armory in Wellesley, Ma.
— Hwy Ramps Traveling toward the West on Route 9, Minuteman Lane is 1800' feet
_ Major Street/Road from Route 128 (95) on the right. Traveling East. make a "U" turn at the
State Route lights 800' feet before Route 128. Minuteman Lane is 1200' toward the west
on the right. The conference room is inside the door on the right as you
enter the property. (See map)
a
Joseph S. Lalli
Mitt Romney pd /�L�, O2' D-
O /D Commissioner
c/r/ IJ.GA O 1�/O
Governor �Jj/ /y y y Thomas Gatzunis
Chairman
Kerry Healey q/y
Lieutenant Govenor �'� �f9�J h'� �`/� Stanley Shuman
Vice Chairman
Edward A.Flynn
Secretary Thomas L.Rogers
Administrator
July 1, 2003
Thomas St.,Pierre, Acting Building Commissioner
City of Salem Building Department
120 Washington Street—3"Floor
Salem, MA. 01970
Docket Number: 03-024 REHEARING
Property Address: 69 Waverly Drive, Salem
Hearing Date: July 15,2003
Hearing Time: 11:00 a.m.
The appeal for the subject property has been scheduled to be heard on the hearing date and time indicated above. The
hearing will take place at the State Building Code Appeals Board located at the National Guard Armory, 14 Minuteman
Lane, Wellesley 02121. A MAP IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE. If you have any questions,
regarding this appeal hearing,please do not call the armory,call the undersigned 617-727-5190,extension 561.
The State Building Code Appeals Board requires your presence or that of your representative at its hearing relative to the
above case.
Please bring with you a copy of the record, including any plans, sketches, drawings,etc,that will help to give the Appeals
Board grounds to adjudicate this appeal. The State Building Code Appeals Board hearings are held pursuant to 801 CMR
1.02 Informal Fair Hearing Rules.
NO POSTPONEMENTS OR REFUNDS WILL BE GRANTED. In order to reschedule an appeal case,you must
first withdraw the original case and file a new application,a new application fee is required.
Very truly yours,
THEE STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
�u-.t-u,c-t.� �• 0�
Patricia A. Brennan
Program Manager
CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS
gem PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
SALEM, MA 01970
TEL. (978)745-9595 EXT. 380
FAX (978) 740-9846
STANLEY J. LISOVICZ, JR.
MAYOR
Robert &Pamela Stavis
69 Weatherly Drive
Salem, Ma. 01970
Dear Owners:
This department has received complaints from two tenants in your building about the
chairlift that is mounted in the stairway. Jill, from American Properties, contacted me
several months ago and asked me if the installation of the stairlift would be allowed.
At that time, I checked the Mass State Building Code and found an exception in use
group R-3 that would allow installation of a chair lift.
I relayed this information to Jill who relayed it to you.
However, looking into the use group classification further, I have discovered that the
buildings in your development are use group R-2. The R-2 use group would not allow
the installation of the chair lift.
At this time, I must inform you that the chairlift is a code violation.
The lift needs to be removed as early as possible.
I apologize for the inconvenience that I have caused you.
If further information is needed or you wish to discuss this matter, please contact me
directly.
Sincerely,
Thomas St. Pierre
Acting Building Commissioner
cc: Mayors Office
Tom Phillbin
John Keenan
Jill, American Properties
c CITY OF SALEM,,MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
9t
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
aa44 SALEM, MA 01970
TEL. (978) 745.9595 EXT. 380
FAX (978) 740.9848
STANLEY J. USOYICZ, JR. PETER STROUT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
MAYOR
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: I i.. L FROM O i i1k�C�F
o z -
COMPANY: � DATE C)(0 03D
FAX NUMBER H 0-9 g V-6 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES
PHONE NUMBER
RE: j"Ili IS
SUBJECT: }FA M; i t 5T 5NCE-r' - S � (?-tib u-1 _ D N-)
VAP's No D p' �
z-( ZtNo 3czs
COMMENTS:
OOT-30-02 02 :53 PMSRLEM BUILDING DEP
197874098466, P.01
CITY OF SALEMs MASSAGHUSIETTS
PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
120 WASHINGTON STREET,3RD FLOOR
1. � SALEM, MA 01970
TEL. (978)745-9598 FXT. 380
FAX (978) 740-9846
STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR,
MAYOR
Robert &Pamela Stavis copy
69 Weatherly Drive
Salem,Ma,01970
Dear Owners:
This department has received complaints from two tenants in your building about the
chairlift that is mounted in the stairway. Jill,from American Properties,contacted me
several months ago and asked me if the installation of the stairtift would be allowed.
At that time,I checked the Mass State Building Code and found an exception in use
group R-3 that would allow installation of a chair lift.
I relayed this information to Jill who relayed it to you.
However,looking Into the use group classification further,I have discovered that the
buildings in your development are use group R-2. The R-2 use group would not allow
the installation of the chair lift,
At this time,I must inform you that the chairlift is a code violation.
The lift needs to be removed as early as possible.
I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.
If further information is needed or you wish to discuss this matter,please contact me
directly.
Sincerely,,
Thomas St. Pierre
Acting Building Commissioner
cc:Mayor&Office
Tom Phillbin
John Keenan
Jill, American Properties
r
I
X CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
A. 54 PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
a'
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
'y SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 380
MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846
February 9, 2005
Robert and Pamela Stavis
69 Weatherly Drive
Salem, Ma. 01970
RE: Chairlift
State Building Code Appeals Board
Case No. 30808
Dear Owners:
This letter is to inform you that Superior Court Judge,Howard Whitehead, has vacated
the appeal that was issued on August 18, 2003 regarding the chairlift installation in your
building.
I have no choice but to again issue an order to remove the chairlift within 30 days upon
receipt of this letter.
If you have any questions regarding this matter,please contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Thomas St. Pierre
Building Commissioner
cc: Stuart M. Holber
Phillips, Gerstein, Holber and Channen LLP
Assistant City Solicitor, Beth Rennard
enclosures (3)
r
Herbert P. PA®Bp, P.C.
Michael A Gerstein LAW OFRCES OF
Russet M. HOW
Russell S.Charmen (PW Gerstein,Hold&C1wwn, LLP
snn
Lynne A.Saban
lora M. McSheny
Mark A.Hoffman 25 Kenoze Avenue■ Haverhiu, MA 01830
Tel: (978) 374.1131/(SM)457.6912 0 Fax: (978) 372-3086
Of Counsel: wwwpghdaw.com
Harold N. Mack
lane M. Owens Thaw
December 30, 2004
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner
City of Salem
120 Washington-Street, 3rd Floor.
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Irving Gordon,et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
State Building Code Appeals Board
C.A.No. 30808
Dear Commissioner St. Pierre:
The undersigned represents the Plaintiffs in the above matter pertaining to the installation of an
automated chairlift in a common area stairway located at 63-73 Weatherly Drive, Salem.
Having correctly determined the installation to be in violation of the State Building Code,on October
30,2002 you issued an Order directing the removal of said chairlift. (A copy of said Order is enclosed.)
On August 18, 2003, the State Building Code Appeals Board granted a variance from your October
30, 2002 Order,thus permitting the chairlift to remain in place.
On October 27, 2004, a Judgment was entered in the Superior Court of Essex County which ordered
that the Decision of the Appeals Board granting the variance be vacated. (A copy of the Judgment is
enclosed.)
No timely appeal having been filed from the Judgment of the Superior Court, your Order of October
30, 2002 requiring the removal of the chairlift remains in full force and effect.
Please confirm to the undersigned your intent to promptly undertake all appropriate steps to obtain
compliance with your Order.
Very truly yours,
Stuart M. Holber
SMH/dkb
Enclosure
cc: Annapurna Balakrishna
Harold Mack, Esq.
G'�AAA"attRorAP9XaVie{Wn Massachusetts.
Holber and Saban admitted also in New Hampshire.
Holber admitted also in Maine.
Other office: 32 Saco Avenue, P.O. Box W, Old Orchard, ME 04064 Reply to Haverhill office only
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
County of Essex
The Superior Court
CIVIL DOCKET# ESCV2003-04848
Irving Gordon,
Harold Mack
vs
Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Building Code Appeals Board
JUDOMENT
This action came on before the Court, Howard,Whitehead. Justice, presiding,
and upon consideration thereof,
It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
That the decision of the Building Code Appeals Board be Vacated and that
the appeal to the Board be and hereby is DISMISSED.
Dated at Seim, Massachusetts this 27th day of October, 2004.
Thomas H. Driscoll Jr„
. Clerk of the Courts
B ! � --
1; Assistant Clerk
Imo,J
Copies mailed 14C27t2004
ew)uap_L.� 106111 ) . 0'u "!
1
' PUBLIC P.ROPERTYG6PARTMENT
' 130 WAaNINCYON vmaer.3RD FLOOR
SALEM»MA 01070
TEL.(976)745-9595 UT.390 �y t7 7j0 dp6
FAX (079) 7409846 /
SIAM-cy J.tftgvIC2. nt
MAYOR
Robatt#Pamela Stavis
0 Wodwdy Drive
Salem,Mi 01970
Ills department has Ioceived cmaplaim from two fano in yaw being abort the
cbudift that is mounted in ft staimmy. AM*=Anx6canPxOpertieA.coqtmcftdme
several mmdo ov and ached me if the instsllettao of the staidiR would be allowed.
At ihst tnne.I dwJmd Sae Maser State Building Code and found an exception in use
VOW R-3 ilei would allow kwwUatkm of a dudr rift.
I relayed itis infaroution to Jill wba relayed it to you.
Hbwcvsr.looking inw. dw use stoup classification futdwr,I Lave discovetbd that the
huil6osa ht yoacskvelopment are uta gtonp x 2 The R 2 nae group would not allow
tiw initslla ion of the du dr H&
At this time,I must infanni you that the doidift is a code violation.
The rift needs to be mmoved as amft as possible.
I apologize for Coe incenvenim m that I have caused you.
If JUrt er information is needed or you wish to discuss this matter.please Contact we
dkwdy.
"SincelrlY» � ,
fA •
Thomas
Acting Building Commissioner
oC:Msyop Office
• 'Tom'P@riUbin
Doha Keenan
Jill,Amadcan Properties »
IL
T4 (?a>`f•#r Mdg Q( M"016e�
01 P44&4 54�
'a
0#.c A4644a. Mat R000s, 1301
$aa�, M,y.,,d,4,,szM 02108-1615
Plos�t (617) 727-3200
Deval L.Patrick r f" (617) 727-5732 _ Kevin M.Burke
Governor M (617) 727-0011 Secretary
L /'
Timothy P.Murray - - Thomas G.Gatzunis,P.E.
Lieutenant Governor 4VW4l,0,ay4.J91V1 �.•f Commissioner
_�April 18, 2008
Ms. Pamela Stavis
69 Weatherly Drive
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Ms. Stavis,
The Building Code Appeals Board ("Board") is in receipt of your appeal application dated February
22, 2008. Your appeal was generated by the February 12, 2008 letter from Thomas St. Pierre, Director of
Inspectional Services for the City of Salem. Therein, Mr St. Pierre directs you to remove the chairlift
from the common stairway within 30 days of receipt of the notice. That order was made in accordance
with Gordon v. State Building Code Appeals Board, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 12 (2007). In that case,the
Appeals Court affirmed the Superior Court decision reversing the Board's decision granting you relief.
The courts have determined that your appeal was not timely, and as such, the Board was without
jurisdiction to grant you relief from the original order of the Salem building commissioner ordering you to
remove the chairlift. You may not now appeal Mr. St. Pierre's February 12, 2008 order as it is not a new
order; it is merely seeking to enforce the previous one.
For these reason, the Board must decline to accept this appeal.
ery truly yours,
M43 9 NtJ
Gary Moccia
Chairman
cc: Thomas St. Pierre
05/06/2008 11:29 15084770455 GARGILLO/RUDNICK PAGE 01
s
Gargiulo/Rudnick,LLP Beaton Cape cod_
Attorneis at Lew 66 Long Wharf 766 Falmouth Rd„thin A-6
Bo,tnn,MA 02110 Meshppo,MA 02649
WwW,grglaW,C.Onn www,grAlaw,Coirn
t 617 742 3833 t 506 477 6400
f 617 523 7834 f 508 477 04¢5
Rdwmd R.6ergtoto
ergHOgrglaw,com
Cape
May 6, 2008
VIA VACSIMILE 978-740-9846
AND kEGULAR MAIL
Thomas 1. St.Pierre=Inspectional Services Director
City oaf Salem
Public Properties Department
120 Washington Street, 31d Floor
Salem MA 01970
RE: Robert and Pamela Stavis,69 Weatherly Drive, Salem
l
Dear Mr. St. Pierre:
As we discussed, I represent Robert and Pamela Stavis in connection with the
above-captioned matter. Thank you for taking the time to speak with me relative to
same,
If you have any questions,please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Edward R Gargiulo
ERG/mw
cc: Mr, and Mrs. Robert E, Stavis
MSfAYMR09aA WWLvm R,,Picrce re reprcnenmion 0805a4,dec