12 WILLSON STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION 12` WILLSON STREET
w-
°{ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
!a( ` BUILDING DEPARTMENT
� 120 WASHINGTON STREET,3"°FLOOR
TEL. (978) 745-9595
F
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL FAX(978) 740-9846
MAYOR TrIOMAS ST.PIERRE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROPERTY/BUILDING COMMISSIONER
April 6, 2012
Dionisio Cabrera
12 Willson Street
Salem Ma. 01970
Re : City Ordinance Violation
Dear Owner,
This Department has received and confirmed a complaint regarding an illegal sign at your property.
The sign ,attached to fence, is not permitted and is violation of the City of Salem sign ordinance
section #4. You are directed to remove the sign immediately. Failure to comply will result in daily
City Municipal fines and further enforcement actions. If you have any questions,please contact me
directl
Thomas St.Pierre
Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer
cc. file, Jason Silva
y xoNDIT� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
�j BOARD OF APPEAL
^
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01 970
TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595
FAX: 978-740-9846
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2Q10 I'�f�I� 3 1 P 3: 10
MAYOR
CITY [a_ .._. . . .L . .. , ., . '.;
March 31, 2010
Decision
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Petition of DIONISIO and REINIER CABRERA, seeking Variances from minimum
side and rear yard setbacks, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit, to allow for
the conversion of the single-family house on the property located at 12 WILLSON
STREET, Salem, MA (Bl) to a two-family house, and to allow for the addition of an
emergency exit at the rear or the house.
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 17, 2010 pursuant to Mass
General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on March 17, 2010 with the
following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne,
Bonnie Belair, and Beth Debski.
Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.1.1 of the City of Salem Zoning
Ordinances.
Statements of fact:
1. Attorney Stephen Zalotas represented the owners and petitioners, Dionisio and
Reimer Cabrera.
2. In 1994, previous owner Cecile Berube obtained relief from the Board of Appeals
and a Waiver of Frontage and endorsement of an Approval Not Required plan
from the Planning Board in order to divide the property into two lots, 12 and 18
Willson Street. The Waiver of Frontage contained a condition that the property
be used for "a residential use."
3. In 1996, the house at 12 Boston Street was moved to 12 Willson Street.
4. In a decision dated September 23, 1997, the Board of Appeals denied the request
of then-owner Joseph Reither for an administrative ruling to overturn the Zoning
Officer's finding that the legal use of the property was a for a single-family house.
This finding was based on the language from the Waiver of Frontage requiring the
property to be used for "a residential use."
5. In 1997, Mr. Reither appealed the Board's decision denying his petition; the Court
asked the City of Salem to enter into mediation with him. While in mediation, the
parties agreed that Mr. Reither would apply to the Board of Appeals for a Special
Permit to allow the building to be used as a two-family house.
6. In a decision dated November 25, 1998, the Board of Appeals denied an
application of Joseph Reither for a Special Permit to allow the property to be used
for a two-family dwelling. Mr. Reither appealed the decision. In 2000, the
Massachusetts Appeals Court stated in its ruling that relief from the dimensional
requirements of the B-1 zone had never been sought, and so while Mr. Reither
was not entitled to use the property for a,two-family house, as he argued, neither
had the Board of Appeals expressly denied dimensional relief.
7. In the 2000 ruling, the court further noted that the use of the Planning Board's
language, a
residential use, provided some support that the intent was to restrict
the property to a single-family use. However, the court stated that this was "not
dispositive," and that if the Planning Board had intended to make such a
restriction, its language ought to have been clearer.
8. In an application dated September 23, 2009, the current owner and petitioner,
Reinier Cabrera requested the dimensional onal relief that had never previously been
sought for this property: relief from minimum rear and side yards and from
minimum lot area per dwelling unit, in order to convert the single-family house on
12 Willson Street to a two-family house and construct an emergency back stair.
The petition was withdrawn without prejudice.
9. In an application dated February 24, 2010, petitioner again requested relief from
minimum rear and side yards and from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, in
order to convert the single-family house on 12 Willson Street to a two-family
house and construct an emergency back stair.
10. At the March 17, 2010 hearing for this petition, the applicant submitted a letter in
support of the proposal from Mark and Heather Leclerc of 5 Horton St. and a
petition signed by 60 neighbors in support of the proposal. Additionally, Ward 3
Councillor Jean Pelletier submitted a supporting letter and spoke in favor of the
petition, citing the large size of the house and adequacy of parking.
11. At the hearing, At-Large Councillor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Avenue, spoke in
opposition to the petition, since he felt the house and property were too small for a
two-family use. The Board received a letter from At-Large Councillor Joan
Lovely, 14 Story Street, in opposition, since she felt the petitioners could not
show legal hardship, and since several neighbors who opposed the petition in the
past were still opposed. Neighbors Stavros MOntSOnlas, I 1 Willson Street, and
Alma Pelletier, 3 Horton Street, also spoke in opposition, citing concerns about
density and drainage.
12. At the hearing, Board members expressed concern that work had already begun,
without building permits or Board relief, to convert the upstairs into a second unit.
3
13. Some Board members also expressed the view that the petitioners could not claim
hardship if they knew the house was a single-family house when they purchased
it.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the
following findings:
1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would not involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the.appellant.
2. The applicant may not vary the terms of the Business Neighborhood
Zoning District to convert the single-family house at 12 Willson Street to a
two-family house; the petition is not consistent with the intent and purpose
of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing
including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of
Appeals concludes:
1. Variances from minimum side and rear yard setbacks, and minimum lot
area per dwelling unit, to allow for the conversion of the single-family
house to a two-family house and for the construction of an emergency
back stair, are not granted.
In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, two (2) in favor(Stein
and Dionne) and two (2) opposed (Debski and Belair), to grant petitioner's requests for
Variances. The petition is denied.
Robin Stein, Chair
Salem Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION IIAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit
"'ranted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has
been tiled with the Essex South Registry of Deeds.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
98-P-1256
JOSEPH REITHER
VS .
1
SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL.
JJ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1 .28
We agree with the trial judge that Joseph Reither' s
J
predecessor in title, Cecile Berube, never sought, nor was she
3 granted, a variance from the residential density requirements
established in the Salem zoning ordinance with respect to lot B,
the lot in question./ Her petition, with respect to this lot,
cyyJ.
'✓he petition detailed the specific variances sought with
regard to each of her two contiguous lots, each 5000 square feet
in area, with 50 feet of frontage, described as Lot A and Lot B.
As to lot A, the petition specifically requested a variance from
the Residential Density Regulations, set forth in the ordinance
as Table I . The petition stated " [that] the specific
dimensional variances requested by the petitioner include a five
thousand square foot minimum lot area, a 5000 square foot minimum
lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot width of 50 feet, and a
minimum width of side yard of six feet on the easterly boundary
of lot A in order to allow the existing garage to remain. " The
petition differed with regard lot B, and stated "With respect to
Lot B, the petitioner requests a variance from the minimum lot
area requirement to allow a 5, 000 square foot minimum lot area
and a maximum lot width of 50 feet . All other dimensional
requirements of table 2 of section 6 [setting forth the density
requirements applicable to small business and commercial
districts, in which lot B lay entirely] of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance would remain unvaried. " Under the ordinance, Table Il,
1
sought only a variance from the lot size and width requirements
of the small business and commercial (B-1) portion of the zoning
ordinance . The petition contained no request to vary the density
requirements governing residences, (R1, R2, R3 ) , as it did with
respect to her contiguous lot A.
Reither' s contention, that there is on the record no
restriction limiting the use of the lot B to a single family
residence, and therefor he is entitled to a permit for a two -
family house, is misplaced. The zoning by-law permits, with
respect to land zoned B-1, " [a] ll uses permitted in R-3 Districts
[which includes by reference uses permitted in R-1 and R-2
residential districts] , subject to all the provisions specified
for each use" . (Emphasis supplied) . Any residential use of lots
zoned "B-1" for residential purposes is thus made subject to the
residential density requirements applicable to such residential
use, in addition to whatever restrictions apply under the "B-1"
small business and commercial section of the ordinance . The
residential density requirements are thus part of the "formal
record" governing Reither' s use of the property.
There was evidence, both in the building department' s letter
Business and Industrial Density Regulations, the minimum lot area
is established at 6, 000 square feet and the minimum lot width is
60 feet .
2
denying his permit and in the decision of the Zoning Board of
Appeals upholding the denial, that, when granted, the Board
intended that the variance limit the use of lot B to a single
family dwelling. Reither correctly argues that he could not be
bound to this condition; there is no evidence that Reither was
aware of any such condition, and it was not translated into a
condition on the formal record. J & R Inv. . Inc. v. City Clerk
of New Bedford, 28 Mass . App. Ct . 1, 5 (1989) . The trial judge
correctly ignored the verbal "omitted condition" in his analysis.
A determination that this specific condition was not applicable
to Reither does not excuse his need to comply with the record
terms of the variance and the zoning ordinance . Gamer v. Zoning
Bd. of Appeals of Newton, 346 Mass . 648 (1964) and Belmont v.
Massachusetts Amusement Corp. , 333 Mass . 565 (1956) , cited by
Reither, are inapposite.
While not dispositive, we note as well that the endorsement,
required by the planning board setting forth Berube' s agreement
with -respect to use , of the lot, states ." [p] etitioner [Berube]
agrees to Lot B being used for a residential use only. " (Emphasis
supplied. ) Use of the singularity, where not otherwise needed,
provides some record support for the city' s argument that a
single family use only was intended; the language here might have
• been. better fashioned, and the condition attached to the variance
3
and not to the planning board approval . The judgment of the ?
i
Superior Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Jacobs,
Porada & Gelinas, JJ. ) ,
Clerk
Entered: June 30 , 2000
4
COPY
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
DOCKET NO.: 97-1944 B
JOSEPH REITHER, )
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM
IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
GARY BARRETT, NINA COHEN, )
RICHARD DIONNE, ALBERT HILL and )
JOSEPH YWUC, as they are Members of the)
Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, )
Defendants. )
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
In 1941, Cecile Berube and her husband purchased two separate lots at 18 Willson Street
in Salem, Massachusetts. (Plaintiffs Exhibit 1).1 Mrs. Berube and her husband built their home
on a portion of this property, now 18 Willson Street. The remaining portion of the lot, now 12
Willson Street, was vacant. (Plaintiffs Exhibit 1). By operation of law, these two lots merged
upon adoption of and amendments to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. The parcel at issue in
the within matter, 12 Willson Street, is situated in the B-I district in which two-family dwellings
are permitted. (Plaintiffs Exhibit 1). Specifically, the Salem Zoning Ordinance provides:
Sec. 5-2 Permitted Uses
(d)B-1 Districts
(1) All uses permitted in R-3 Districts subject to all the provisions specified for
each use.
1 References to Plaintiffs Exhibit#are to exhibits filed with Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
I
(c)R-3 Districts
(2) Multifamily dwellings
Notably, the R-3 District Residential Density Regulations requires a minimum lot area
of 25,000 square feet (3,500 per dwelling).Z
On April 7, 1994, Mrs. Berube petitioned the Board of Appeals for a variance from the
density regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow her to divide the premises into two
n r remain n on
five-thousand-square lots and to allow her existing house and structures too e parcel,
g
now 18 Willson. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1).3 Specifically, she requested:
With respect to Lot B [12 Willson Street], the petitioner requests a variance from
the minimum lot area requirement to allow for a 5,000 square foot minimum lot
area and maximum lot width of 50 feet. All other dimensional requirements of
[T]able 2 of Section 6 of the Salem Zoning Ordinancewould remain nv ri
ed.
(Plaintiff's Exhibit 1)(emphasis added). Table 2 of Section 6 is the business and industrial
density regulations for B-1 districts, not the residential density regulations.
The Board of Appeals voted unanimously (5-0) to grant the requested variances.
(Plaintiffs Exhibit 2). That,variance was recorded on July 14, 1994. (Essex South Registry of
Deeds, Bk 12,662, Pg 147). The conditions set forth in the variance were:
1. Petitioner shall comply with al city and state statutes, ordinances,
Codes and regulations.
2. Property to be divided in strict accordance with the plans and
Dimensions submitted.
3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department
Relative to smoke and fire safety.
4. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board o[r] Commission having
jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
2 Pertinent Sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance are attached as Appendix A.
3 In Plaintiffs Exhibit 1,Lot A= 18 Willson Street and Lot B= 12 Willson Street.
2
(Plaintiff's Exhibit 2).
On October 14, 1994, Mrs. Berube petitioned the Planning Board seeking a waiver from
frontage requirements for 12 Willson Street. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 3). The Planning Board
unanimously(7-0) approved this waiver subject to the following conditions:
1. A notation be put on the plan which indicates that Lot B [12 Willson Street] is
intended for residential use; and
2. Petitioner agrees to Lot B being used for residential use only.
(emphasis added)(Plaintiff s Exhibit 3).°
On or about September 16, 1996, Plaintiff purchased 12 Willson Street from Cecile and
Paul Berube for thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00). (See attached Defendant's Exhibit 1).
On or about July, 1997, Plaintiff sought a permit to renovate the house he had moved from
Boston Street to 12 Willson Street into a two family dwelling. Based on his knowledge regarding
the condition that the parcel be used solely for a single-family residence, Building Inspector Leo
Tremblay denied the application for the permit. (See attached Defendant's Exhibit 2, Affidavit of
Leo Tremblay)(see also Plaintiff s Exhibit 4). Furthermore, it is Inspector Tremblay's opinion
that Mrs. Berube's variance was for the 6,000 square foot minimum lot width of Table 2, not the
multifamily requirement of Table 1.3
Plaintiff sought an appeal with the Salem Board of Appeals requesting an administrative
ruling on Inspector Tremblay's refusal to grant the building permit. (See Plaintiffs Exhibit 5).
After hearing, the Board voted unanimously(4-0)to uphold the Inspector's denial of Plaintiffs
4 The plan of the property is filed in Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Plan Book 295,Plan 4.
5 Certainly,Mrs.Berube's requested variance specifically cites Table 2,with no mention of Table 1. Additionally,the
Plot Plan submitted with Plaintiff's Request for Administrative Ruling reveals side lot widths of 10.9'and 12.5'which
do conform with Table 2's 10'requirement(Business Density),but not Table I's 20 feet requirement(Residential
3
permit.
ARGUMENT
In his motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff must establish"by credible evidence from
his affidavits and other supporting materials that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that
he is entitled, as a matter of law, to a judgment." Community Nat'l Bank v. Dawes, 369 Mass.
5509 554 (1976).
Thus, the sole issues to be determined by this Honorable Court is the scope of the variance
granted by the Board of Appeal and the intent of the Planning Board in placing the condition
"residential use" in the frontage waiver of 12 Willson Street. "The question is not what the
members may [have] want[ed] to do but whether reasonable persons examining the formal
records could ascertain that a particular action had been taken." See J.R. Investment, Inc. v. City
Clerk of New Bedford et al. 28 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (1989).
It is clear from the record that the scope of the variance the Board of Appeal granted Mrs.
Berube in 1994 was for the purpose of allowing a 5,000 square foot lot with 50 feet frontage on
12 Willson Street. Moreover, the Planning Board's waiver specifically restricted the use of 12
Willson Street to residential. The record does not contain a variance from the multi-dwelling
residential use density requirements (Table 2). Thus, the reasonable interpretation of the record
indicates that 12 Willson Street is not to be used as a two-family dwelling but rather only a single-
family residence. Although the records are not disputed, the specific interpretation of the variance
and waiver granted for 12 Willson Street are in dispute.
Density). (See Plaintiffs Exhibit 5). Neither Mrs.Berube nor the Plaintiff sought a variance for the side yard
minimums
4
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiff's Motion
for Summary Judgment be denied.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Defendant Board of Appeals of City of Salem,
By its attorney,
John D. Keenan,
Assistant City Solicitor
BBO#561573
15 Church Street
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
978.744.8500
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,John D.Keenan,Assistant City Solicitor for the Defendants,City of Salem Board of Appeals,certify that a
true copy of Defendants'Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintifrs Motion for Summary Judgment was served
via first class mail,postage prepaid,to counsel of record for Plaintiff Kevin T.Daly,32 Church Street,Salem,
Massachusetts 01970.
John D.Keenan Date
5
EXHIBIT 1
Quitclaim Deed
12 Willson Street, Salem
Essex South Registry of Deeds
(Book 13,779 Page 479)
i• � I
ppr-
it
09/30/96 03144 Inst 701
/ SK 1377'3 RG 479
lQUITCLAIM DEED
Cecile A. eerube and Paul W. 8erube, both of Salem
, < Massachueetta 01970, for consideration
conaideretion of Thirty Pive Thousand ( 35000.00) D Essex County,
i� Jose h Paid and !n Pull
i 1 withp C. Reither, of 49 'Vf . 0Crq Dollars grant to
Quitclaim Covenants h ale„mseE
Massachueetta 01970 the land in Salem
bounded and described as P011owegox County,
NORTHERLY by Willson Street fifty (50) Peet)
`g WESTERLY
by Lot A ae shown on a plan referred to hereinafter one
fi lr hundred (100) Peet)
f: J
SOUTHERLY by land now or formerly of Ann A. pellitier fifty (50)
:. feet) and
EASTERLY bof y land now or formerly of M & L Realty Trust and land
. yr (100)peSt' Malionek and Maria S. Cordeiro one hundred
Being shown ea Lot 8 onPropere
31, 1993aP CrOPa A. Berube, scalelaLn in "Plan
l0f Land in Salem,
• Washington 3treepered by North Shore SuT.1e dated December
3 District Regist ' Salam, Masaachusetta 01970, f COrporation, 209
ry of Deeds in Plan Book 2 clad is 8aeex South
!j Containingapproximate
95, Plan 4,
accordinaidplly five thousand (5,000) square feet of land,
g to said Plea.
Being a Portion of the
iin deeds
Registry of Deeds in Book m3266,isesd
Page i29dand Hook 9657 recorded in said
Executed as a sealed instrument ' Page 365.
this 16th day of September, 1996.
' vr C/ lP TG
i�7.e A, 8erube
Berune
11 THE COMMONKHALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Essex, an
Then - September16, 1996
7 Paul W. erube Personally appeared the above named Ceicle
their Prase ube acknowled ed A. Be .>
act and deed before me,the foregoing instrume rube and .
to be
?C
W, �, Henry A, u as,
v") ' MY Co r.• otary Public
salon Expireai 05/29/03
r jS'
Y
�f r�
EXHIBIT 2
Affidavit of Leo Tremblay
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
DOCKET NO.: 97-1944 B
JOSEPH REITHER, )
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) AFFIDAVIT OF
LEO TREMBLAY
GARY BARRETT,NINA COHEN, )
RICHARD DIONNE, ALBERT HILL and )
JOSEPH YWUC, as they are Members of the)
Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, )
Defendants. )
I, Leo Tremblay, under oath, do hereby state and depose:
1. My name is Leo Tremblay. I have been the Building Inspector for the City of Salem since
November 1992.
2. Part of my responsibilities as Building Inspector is to review/approve applications for
building permits in Salem. I am the zoning enforcement officer for the city.
3. On or about July 1997 Plaintiff filed an application for a building Permit to
convert/renovate a house he had moved from Boston Street to 12 Willson Street into a
two-family dwelling.
4. After reviewing the records regarding 12 Willson Street, I determined this property was to
be used as a single-family residence.
5. Additionally, from my review of the record of Mrs. Berube's variance, it is clear that she
sought a variance from the density provisions of Table 2, not Table 1 of Article Six. It is
my opinion that the Board of Appeals granted Mrs. Berube a variance permitting single
family residential use on this 5,000 square foot lot(Table 2 requires 6,000 square feet),
but that it did not grant a variance from the multi-dwelling density regulations of Table 1.
Mr. Reither's plot plan itself reveals conformity with Table 2, not Table 1. If reviewed
under multi-family dwelling requirements of Table 1, Mr. Reither's house does not meet
the required side yard widths.
I
6. For these reasons, I denied the application to convert the premises into a two-family
dwelling.
SIGNED UNDER THE PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY, THIS
DAY OF MARCH 1998.
Leo Tremblay, Bldg. Inspector
2
APPENDIX A
SALEM ZONING ORDINANCE
�i 7 d^'F •[> . t p r . .t ..F ?d a s !id F r gdrvt.,yq -p'r`y- ; x �., y z t.t t y; .
��llp��at �t >;.: 9,r ((.��a . e �S i tii,i fi'�t ;Fy.. x ' r �s ,t sks ,• �'^ ,{T�t' �'' � ti'� �' x l z � r$ "x ��ys� a
[Lyrr ` . . . . f:r . .°. .\•„• ypt5, �'y'•v 1Y_�' i1{ � .�+ t - r;i>- k” }.[ sl;I�° `.Z
! �.�:i;<v Y F 1 t�^.v,r� y :. ey���-eih:C 1�5.�• 's yS"� - i���'ta�: �a t.@- N�,g.,�'{� yt �a r fw'.y�-Y t"�-'v < r ". f "*
t' S*'� S- �,, r } '1 'ri v' ZC Y^' t� r r r'i• x.l "X'�
� {l A "i- -`t�<"� k'- k. �- ^XS i�y� 4 "� " •,. '-� t r� '`,a? •fir :r ht- e;•hr i+,rf- 'S i�'
,�,//� .. � �j��4 'l�zy�'��' i�i��� r` r�"ti•;5'��.�' .�k'�C tLrt i �� �' 'a i w"r' i ,s+�it�j T:.'� �A�'�•'-��J �,�u.�] .U
�i�tCaa&� trtd%; v
O a igs 3 a #'1•c �'��• ;�<„ax�
�y� •� •' � {� t . � { �:a.t�'"�r..�" a 9� z"YR" �� 't + �i .�.k �� �• ,.r � �.°�-x°' �. � y sYa `,,t,�
_ } '�`5�ry .i. i �a `' ` 3! ° 'i! �,1. 3"�Fy' k o ,{����t _'1y�� f�j��.S 't `t -rt,�.•.>
t. �'�'`�s� xt��s�,.c-
[ .4ri r rri �ysy ��-�r�� } •s . v i? yS&re+>]'y.pct e C n t-[ F
.• �to,
..1j :1 i �( � ` •Y (�j�y:(• Y ��jjy��lc3� YAr 't i '�. h•� 1[ h, ti i '^ •[ yAI`
t a'Yy 4 ,M't � b ��.� '! ] ' IN,, 4-. � � � � l �. 41.14 `H h J'3 i
(• kt ; ` 1 x• -r>� [�$ .[ta -.s r F ,F•:• T e ' 1 'ti wc.�.. X �' ht 7 - J ,3t 13a ...ya i't9 Fr ,,r�f u 3t -'�y•�� ,TryT�•�^"• r
i.1. ri��±ri}:4�..Yia ^a t— :�/:• f v -�'t [ •r �i'Y;a ,i 3aT Sa'!t•(4. at ;.Fiixti is y t�..r r f rs_ , a: s'!.y 1..::•
{ R,i 9 a l.T { -{�r
ia•r: +• 4 •dT,.1C y 7 t x +�t v. zS". r:{X`f ;Jv.'iA.
+} z,y �Ed .fg} "{- l•,;}� r}�Y/ et .t ltL ..s%.'ice rFi`yfmr a,fi:'?�y=4in + l':4 t .:'r.,s'?•:ai^x'.k`.,:•'';i� .ir.:. 4?y-s* hf-f
{l a txa t i�
:
f�
t k� Sa :r` r5 s r y s• ttYi`11 r. a i , a t I, ? yciy'
t 1 .tbi. it--'� ( 'Y..1�/yj J'4".�'f�'Ft ,��„{��lS� f�°+ .i. k' f>ft� h(. 4. �{.F�' Ne,\�S as ,1 C„} -. x ♦ L'r x fr'lt
,r S...ta( {"k.��' /'� ••£ r+'C."1,.tN kil lttSQ$ [ 'trr l:A:•+rd C -
Ir :> l! { ".•) S- {i d r� ,1 r
7y� rrt ti r J- w tax it s r rh�x?si S yrs -,•, .Y
`'f� rPf_7� S tR s°F�. ?,Y4 el�r
C
lot
_ a {lsO Y S
a X, f S � t c 4, 5t t tr t, F t, 7 a►I t i;� r 5 ---�
top WN A
or
x
e f t
u
It
-P �t <1t7 Y t,m [ „1 k _� i
-
Know A
hi n
3 !
nm=s f
ye
te'dQ-0-01 T1 -
+ i f �. fi "b .rt p } ° rk� Y r �+ ' ( yYt ♦a' - rJ” ; HS *a q at v'. t �'
�.t ° ,u: a a
Q {' ff}�A e� 4 p t 'tell -qtr+♦ ! ttt<'.SCr n. r t tta i t r s r
ZZ_ifen. i•} i a aft :-
alj ° 'il• :t3"r�, trl5r`.�f}/r'rij£p1T i9g 1v J'S c,tt yr{r Sl 'ftapJk'n t?
�6�. ttd,�illkr
,.{:. Yt�t4' 3 tt1^' LEiS i ,°1Ska ua .., t {Ia. ".•+.YF7N >r •i t .: r.. r r -' moi.
J r i � 9 F{.' ✓e t 5� f a - J 1,4 s t
trx3, L o- kl 'tD t r t[er< fr otY{,F+r rGl� YrSI @ �'�' tk �y,IK, 45 x.±., v4r t .F. a t
-} ti: s5 tit F �`►'- z IZ" +6r Yi�. f$,. 4tt!•..�a°.eF yfl�;t�., C ' e�i;fl°`.�[ ray r'✓+.Yi. °r^ rt d lr, et :r r., a s
�i:id kk �_ .tc�1 p. � .cr f¢ 4r:� i'4; t.'�,'{•+ 1ryNr t z• r Ar k> r>s � r rxr "5i 5 � r-.t S 7:=x i . i ° "yaa '«'
{ x3_���r 'i�AY`�s 4� f;F:.'y..�t+.F3>x t it �a,� .k ..;y ,� w l5't.�. - E Q ti adi S.h,7�,.5:�+ Cf ,E 3•r.i§b�'#- r;.{yL'�3 � a.�[ ' T !e dry �a ,.'u 1 v . .£„ee 7�, �” �. ..k,
Z$ 271�"£ y. .j-, •t �.t:e •S�'� .a _Fff. 8 "}
N,a,� z�fi� S Fr ;'�(yS`�,=.�x 1'��'�` Fl,a�r�.''^�' "'� i>a #j; cif'� v' TY .�;,?.�a��.:::::.�.uu^"a4;€{� 7tr °%t t fiR�[ i � r °-°�'r'� '��,� ...:•tf r o�t<3
i- ` ''A {t far k -TyJyd.F ° �c,�q'q`.•'�, sxSN(y2 vlt >'tn �a -f:` •S�s�,sL.vt .�,r2� r* _ r��a : t.'=1
..�'� .., iC�' r sk F' ,s � -ii { y s,- �' y{R�, t P',,,y•"r' �.+w>t;r :(,.to e Y : u ^r e5Y@3.S*tt L'•`A >: Z s� `r ,lvq:f
kd' ^.\ "1, Y: s3'' m Y - k' y'^YFty �4 �d.'�ta4^c t`i ♦ 1r4 }4 7 r w ' SY ;
Y'u'6� 'A"o` '•5 d" � { $ r f z � _ � v}' eek " vey,y+ H ,y_ 'nSJi i r
{' Y'+ ", ' � :+ii�s4� � � +1'. '�•, � ��,��.yY �i +.;�.g, i:�Arr�l., �T�2LTf+.�c 3+X`StS��Kdn���� { �i -
sA ' t p '.f � ^:a. c{} � �-� yr 1`{ rsr�AC 'Tfj.�y+'atf4����•><,<'�%f ,.c{ a'{.t�y�F��,+ s" t
>; a• c. �` �..s S.„r�, 4tin 5 a �� .. Y Ni . ✓ fk��- > s 3t'H}��k.•z `� rJtaaax�,a'ar,#,..,t 4�4iFh �'Ye%��Y�qJ 'S��qY r.��%
s':: � r ..X '�§• d3 d �T f�'.•; S{tY✓ < sy; y t�'3; r # xyL "a l4 �.i.3.Jfr s�'�`' .', � l'zd�.>'.r� �L'*{xS.d.f r trtS�q�� c.
r�y t"• � � f�'.. q. ,.. � ” �,, rr.r wZ �:. rai{ tR r R �' '2[pp�' -.. �e�✓�r� i � . ° r 3t ''§r't': r li" ..i"<ij
r �� ��, rF. � ,� s Rii a 'S' XF Ey� �ti..a' r '� '{' ca` r3, #tQ Y .c �"�-'<i t-a tY�r �a Mre• i
[A�i.4. . +72'{ 'ike....3„•3i .ta :.;�. ' 4r:t •. {"5 .�:# ��'. .s _ 4'.�f* �r+.. +.. T?i ��.'f ��! r�i�ua.L',#+ SY"' ""K('d . ;. �1'�i F-�yzj:p `ah - 7
USE REGULATIONS SALEM ZONING ORDINANCE Art.V, $ 6.2
ARTICLE V. USE REGULATIONS d. No products shall be publicly displayed
or offered for sale from the roadside.
+: Sec. 5.1. Generally.
(3) Nursery,elementary and secondary schools,
(a) Uses of land, buildings and structures shall public parks and playgrounds, and public
be regulated according to the schedule of uses set libraries.
out in this article for each type of district. "Per- (4) Churches and similar places of worship.
mitted uses" are those which shall be permitted
in the district at any time. "Special permit uses" (5) Parish houses, convents and monasteries.
are those which may be permitted in the district (6) Institutions of higher education.
at the discretion of the board of appeals upon its
determination that specific conditions are satis- (7) Public and private golf courses.
Pied. As explained in section 5-3(h)(3), "prohibited (8) Private garages and other accessory uses
uses"are those which shall be specifically prohib- and buildings, provided that such uses are
ited in the City of Salem at any time. clearly incidental to the principal use. All
(b) The interpretation of the language of this the buildings on the lot shall not occupy a
ordinance with respect to permitted and special greater percentage of the lot area than
permit uses shall be in accordance with the intent listed in Table I following Article VI herein.
stated in section 3.1 for each type of district. (b) R-2 Districts. The following are permitted
uses in the'two-family residential districts:
(c) The term "use of land" shall include the in-
terpretation which shall include the restriction 1) All uses permitted in R-C and R-1 Districts,
that the land cannot be used for the storage or except agricultural,horticultural and flori-
overnight parking of motor vehicles, including cultural operations.
l trucks, tractors, trailers except as exempted by (2) Two-family dwellings,detached or attached.
section 7-1, unless the "permitted use" for build-
ings in the district allows such parking for the (3) Rooming and boarding of not more than two
storage of commercial motor vehicles. (2) persons.
(4) Historic buildings open to the public.
Sec. 5.2. Permitted uses. (5) Museums.
(a) R-C and R-1 Districts. The following are per- (6) Private garages and other accessory uses
mitted uses in the residential-conservation and and buildings, provided that such uses are
one-family residential districts: clearly incidental to the principal use.
(1) Detached single-family dwellings. (7) Buildings and facilities for elderly housing
(2) Customary agricultural, horticultural and projects built under the jurisdiction of the
floricultural operations, provided that: Salem Housing Authority and financially
aided by either the U.S.Public Housing Ad-
a. All the buildings combined shall not ministration and/or the Commonwealth of
occupy a greater percentage of the lot Massachusetts Department of Commerce-
area than listed in Table I following Division of Public Housing.
Article VI herein.
b. No storage of manure or odor- or dust- Districts. The following are permitted
producing substance and no building useess inn the multifamily residential districts:
in which farm animals are kept shall (1) All uses permitted in R-2 Districts.
be permitted within one hundred (100)
f (2) Multifamily dwellings.
feet of any property line.
c. No greenhouse heating plant shall be (3) Private garages and other accessory uses
operated within fifty (50) feet of the and buildings, provided that such uses are
property line. clearly incidental to the principal use.
11
Art.V, 4 5-2 SALEM ZONING ORDINANCE USE REGULATIONS
(d) B-1 Districts. The following are permitted (e) B-2 Districts.-The. following.are permit- ted
uses in the neighborhood business districts: uses in the highway business districts:.Ij
(1) All uses permitted in R-3 Districts, subject (1) All uses permitted in B-1 Districts, subject
to all the provisions specified for each use. to all provisions specified for such uses, ex-
(2) Grocery, fruit, vegetable and meat stores, cept that all residential uses are prohib-
delicatessens. ited.
(3) Bakeries,provided that all baked goods are (2) Restaurants and other eating places in
sold at retail on the premises only, which alcoholic beverages may be served
on the premises.
(4) Drugstores. (3) Motels.
(5) Stores selling liquor, beer and wine for con-
sumption off the premises. (4) rAuto coons service stations subject tolthe ,
restrictions of section 7.2.
(6) Newsstands and variety stores.
(7) Dry goods and notions stores. (5) Off-street parking and loading facilities and
other accessory uses and buildings, pro-
(8) Book, stationery and gift stores. vided that such uses are clearly incidental
(9) Florist shops, but excluding greenhouses.
to the principal use.
(10) Hardware stores. (6) Supermarkets.
(7) Retail department stores located within a
(11) Banks and savings and loan institutions. shopping plaza.
(12) Barber shops and beauty parlors. (8) Other accessory uses located within a shop-
(13) Laundry, dry cleaning and pressing estab- ping plaza.
lishments,provided that not more than five
(5) persons are engaged in providing such (9) Research and development facilities.
services. (10) Publishing and printing establishments.
(14) Self-service laundries. (11) Warehousing and distribution.
(15) Tailor and custom dressmaking shops. (12) Laboratories, provided, however, that no
(16) Shoe repair shops. noxious odors are emitted.
(17) Radio, television and appliance repair (13) General office buildings and other similar
shops, provided that not more than three and related uses.
(3)persons are engaged in performing such
services. (0 B•4 Districts. The following are permitted
uses in the wholesale and automotive business
(18) Professional offices, medical and dental districts:
clinics.
(1) Automobile service stations, subject to the
(19) Restaurants and other eating places which restrictions of section 7-2.
do not serve alcoholic beverages consumed
on the premises and including drive-in res- (2) Automobile, trailer and boat sales and ser-
taurants and drive-in snack shops. vice.
(20) Municipal buildings. (3) Plumbing,carpentry and sheet metal shops.
(21) Off-street parking and loading facilities and (4) Printing establishments.
other accessory uses and buildings, pro- (5) Sale and storage of building supplies.
vided that such uses are clearly incidental
to the principal use. (6) Warehousing.
12
/I DENSITY REGULATIONS SALEM ZONING ORDINANCE Art.VI,3 6.4
ARTICLE VI. DENSITY REGULATIONS for gable,hip and gambrel roofs.Fences and
walls shall be measured from the finished
Sec. 6.1. Residential uses. grade vertically to the highest point.
(6) The limitations on height of buildings shall
(e) A dwelling hereafter erected in any district
shall be located on a lot having not less than the not apply in any district spires, towers,
minimum requirements set forth in Table I fol- chimneys, broadcasting and television an-
minimum ventilators, and other appurante•
lowing section 6.4, and no more than one (1) nances or ornamental features usually lo-
dwelling shall be built upon any such lot. No ex- cated above the roof, which features are in
isting lot shall be changed in size or shape so as to no way used for living purposes,nor to farm
result in a violation of the requirements set forth buildings, churches, municipal building or
in Table I. institutional buildings.
(b) In interpreting Table I, the following provi- (c) The provisions of Table I with respect to lot
sions shall apply: area, lot width, lot coverage, yards and height of
(1) The minimum front yard depth required buildings shall not apply to the islands within the
shall be measured from the right-of-way line municipal boundaries of Salem as listed in section
where a plan of the right-of-way is on file 3-3 hereof.
with the registry of deeds,or in the absence Sec. 6.2. Business and Industrial uses.
of such a plan, from a line thirty-five (35)
feet from and parallel with the centerline A building for business,commercial amusement
of the traveled way to the front building or amusement arcade, or industrial use hereafter
line. erected in a business or industrial district shall be
(2) The minimum side yard width required located on a lot having not less than the min-
shall be measured from the side lot line to imum requirements set forth in Table II following
the side building line, and the minimum section 6.4 herein. In interpreting Table 11, the
rear yard depth required shall be measured same provisions for interpreting Table I shall
1
from the rear lot line to the rear building apply.
.
line. Sec. 6.3. Central development district uses.
(3) On a corner lot, the minimum front yard
depth, rather than the minimum side yard A building erected hereafter for uses permitted
width,shall be applied to determine the set- in the B-5 District shall meet the requirements
back of any building from lot lines abutting set forth in Table III following section 6-4 herein.
any public way. In interpreting Table III, the same provisions for
interpreting Table I shall apply.
(4) The minimum lot width required shall be
measured at the rear of the required front Sec. 6.4. Business Park Development Dia-
yard depth and on a line parallel to the trict.
right-of-way line where a plan of the right- A building erected hereafter for uses permitted
of-way is on file with the registry of deeds in the Business Park Development District shall
or, in the absence of such a plan, from a meet the requirements set forth in Table IV. In
line twenty-five (25) feet from and parallel interpreting Table IV, the same provisions for in-
with the centerline of the traveled way. terpreting Table I shall apply.
(5) The building height shall be measured from
the average elevation of the proposed fin-
ished grade at the front line of the building
to the highest point of the roof for flat roofs,
to the deck line for mansard roofs, and to
�.. the mean height between eaves and ridge
23
Art.VI, 4 6-4 SALEM ZONING ORDINANCE DENSITY REGULATIONS
TABLE I
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY REGULATIONS
R-C R-1 R-2* R-3**
Minimum lot area (square feet) 80,000 15,000 15,000 25,000
Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet) 80,000 15,000 7,500 3,500
Minimum lot width (feet) 200 100 100 100
Maximum lot coverage by all buildings (percent) 20 30 35 35
Minimum depth of front yard (feet) 40 15 15 15
Minimum width of side yard (feet) 40 10 10 20
Minimum depth of rear yard (feet) 100 30 30 30
Maximum height of buildings (feet) 35 35 35 45**
Maximum height of buildings (stories) 242 242 21/2 342
Maximum height of fences/boundary walls (feet) 6 6 6 6
Minimum distance between buildings on lot (feet) 100 40 30 40
* These density regulations relative to height will apply to all housing projects even though fi-
nanced in whole or in part by the U.S. Public Housing Administration and/or Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Department of Community Affairs-Division of Public Housing. Specifically ex-
cluded will be housing for the elderly constructed by the Salem Housing Authority.
** Multifamily dwellings building in R-3 Districts on lots held under a single ownership and con-
sisting of a minimum of two hundred thousand (200,000) square feet may be built to a maximum
height of fifty (50) feet or four (4) stories in height.
Retaining walls, boundary walls and/or fences may be built abutting the property line. The height of
the retaining walls, boundary walls and/or fences shall be measured on the inside face of the structure
on the owner's side. .
Refer to section 7.7 herein for visibility at intersections.
TABLE II
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL DENSITY REGULATIONS
B-1 B-2 B-4 1
Minimum lot area (square feet) 6,000 12,000 6,000 40,000
Minimum lot width (feet) 60 100 60 150
Maximum lot coverage by all buildings (percent) 40 25 80 45
Minimum depth of front yard (feet) 15 30 — 30
Minimum width of side yard (feet) 10 10 — 30
Minimum depth of rear yard (feet) 30 30 25 30
Maximum height of buildings (feet) 30 30 45 45
Maximum height of fences/boundary walls (feet) 10 10 10 15
24
CITY OF SALEM -ESS
yi �� r
� BUILDING DEPARTMENT o PN �s�p;L�;��
CITY HALL ANNEX o /o a
ONE SALEM GREEN .Y 11 J dui 11'9,
4 m SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 RET(
'� SfNflEol o! 99 N1 P, 83 34ER
1 U.S.POSTAGE
NO ,
MD/1 Joseph er
pC 43 =Ocean street
mpscott, Mass. 01907
i
if1.11,IILt.11,,,111,,,,,11,i,;,L I,LL ifI....,,li,ll, l
Titg of *U11Crn, MUSSUc4usetts
Public frepertil Mepartment
Nuilbing 13epartment
(Put *alem Green
588-745-9595 Ext. 388
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
July 11 , 1997
Joseph Reither
43 New Ocean Street
Swampscott, Mass . 01907
RE : 12 Willson Street
Dear Mr. Reither:
This department is refusing you a permit to renovate
the house at 12 Willson Street, that was moved from 12
Boston Street to a two family dwelling.
It is the feeling of this department that the Board
of Appeals ruling on the subdivision of 12 Willson Street
was for two legal single family dwellings .
If this office can be of any further assistance in
this matter, please do not hesitate to call .
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation
in this matter.
Sincere1 ,
Leo E . Tremblay
Zoning Enforcement 0 icer
LET: scm
CC,. Robert LeDoux
Kevin Daly
i
i-iSertificate No: 709-2003 Building Permit No.: 709-2003
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
City of Salem
Building Electrical Mechanical Permits
This is to Certify that the RESIDENCE located at
......... -- - .... --
Dwelling Type
0012 WILLSON STREET in the CITY OF SALEM
Address Tow n/City Name
IS HEREBY GRANTED A PERMANENT CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY
This permit is granted in conformity with the Statutes and ordinances relating thereto, and
expires unless sooner suspended or revoked.
Expiration Date
Issued On: Tue Sep 2, 2003 - -- - -
GeoTMS®2003 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions,Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
Certificate No: 709-2003 Building Permit No.: 709-2003
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
City of Salem
Building Electrical Mechanical Permits
This is to Certify that the RESIDENCE located at
.. .. . .............._......._.
Dwelling Type
0012 WILLSON STREET in the CITY OF SALEM
Address Town/City Name
IS HEREBY GRANTED A PERMANENT CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY
This permit is granted in conformity with the Statutes and ordinances relating thereto,and
expires unless sooner suspended or revoked.
Expiration Date
Issued On: Tue Sep 2, 2003
GeoTMS®2003 Des Landers Municipal Solutions,Inc. -- ---- — -- — ----- - — .......... --- ----------
0012 WILLSON STREET -709-2003
els#
9369'- COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS -
�M—ap T
Block CITY OF SALEM
Lot ��„�s;� 0242
Permit "- " .',.Building
Category: 434 Residential. additi BUILDING PERMIT
Permit 4 709-2003
Project# JS-2003-1802
Est Cost: $15,000.00
Lee-.--$95.00`_ J PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO:
LConst Class- , I Contractor: License:
Use Group homeowners
JL-=t ' e 4 -) { frl - (Owner'. NiKOLAOS HANI ZIS
IZonmg 1131TIAPP licant: NIKOLAOS HANTZIS,
Lnits Gained:;, AT; 0012 WILLSON STREET
Units Lost
ISSGED ON: 29-Apr-2003 A/V MENDED ON. EXPIRES ON: 24-Oct-2003
TO PERFORM THE FOLLOWING WORK:
709-2003 REMODEL TWO(2) BATHS AND GENERAL REPAIRS. SHE,ETROCK. FRD
POST THIS CARD SO IT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET
Electric Gas Plumbin¢ Buildin
Underground: Undergro !nderground: �f Excavation:
Service: Meter- - r �/ !> Footings
non
l,h �, 03 Rou,:hi.. Foundation: -... ...._..,..... ......
�F'inal:Q/'1// /(// lough Frame:
��irepiace/Chimney:
D.P.W. Fire e- H th
1 �y Insulation:
Meter: Oil: ,/ CX"
House Smoke: Fival: �.✓— �4�
y
AKIter. Alarm: !_ N _V
Sewer: Sprinklers:11'
THIS PERMIT MAY BE REVOKED BY THE CITY OF SALEM UPON VIOLATIO OF NY OF
ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS.
Signature X �•7�
Fee Type: Receipt No: pate Paid: Check No: Amount:
BUILDING RE'.C-2001-001958 24-Apr-03 0108 $95.00
I
GeoTMS9 2003 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions,Inc.
4
t
:#
10 1-
a � •
rsare •n
CITY OF SALEM
BUILDING PERMIT
l �./ ;,�.\.1 1..u..(( �.�!' �'" i • IG ....�.h�1.�I��I Yi '�iiJ.. alt .�.. {'° p Yt ! l .� i
t n Al
i
`�+ •x,,. 'dot' �,i,
co CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
fQo SALEM, MA 01 970
TEL. (978) 745-9595 EXT. 380
��Mu6
FAX (978) 740-9846
STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR.
MAYOR
August 30, 2002
Joseph Reither
43 New Ocean Street
Swampscott, Ma. 01907
RE: 12 Willson Street
Dear Mr.
Relther:
Please be advised, the weeds growing out of control at your property, violates City of
Salem Ordinance 12-56.
You are directed to correct the overgrowth problem within 10 days upon receipt of this
letter. Failure to comply will result in municipal code tickets being issued and a
complaint being filed in Salem District Court.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Thomas St. Pierre
Acting Building Commissioner
cc: Mayors Office
Tom Phillbin
Councillor Lovely
.COIID17'
gy �
a �
ece
CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF HEALTH
Salem, Massachusetts 01970-3928
JOANNE SCOTT, MPH, RS,CHO NINE NORTH STREET
HEALTH AGENT Tel:(978)741-1800
Fax:(978)740-9705
March 21, 2001
Joseph Reither
81 Maplewood
Gloucester, MA 01930
Dear Mr. Reither :
On February 13, 2001 an inspection was conducted at 12 Willson Street in Salem,
Massachusetts. The exterior sump pump located under the porch was found to be in
violation of Massachusetts State Sanitary Code 105 CMR 410.750 (K/L) and 410.351.
The sump pump is currently discharging water and pooling on the right side of the
property line and consequently flowing into the basement of 6 Willson Street.
The water discharge line must be altered or removed from the current location so the
water no longer pools on the surface.
This discharging violation must be corrected within seven(7) days receipt of this letter.
If you have any questions feel free to call me at 978-741-1800.
For the Board of Health : Reply to:
Poanne Scott Mark Tolman
Health Agent / Sanitarian
cc: Building Inspector, & Ward Councillor Joan B. Lovely
Delivered in Hand by Constable Mark Tolman on Thursday, March 2, 2001@ 10:00 A.M.43
New Ocean St Swampscott, MA 01907 (incorrect address)
Certified Mail # 7099 3400 0009 4093 2614 (3/22/01) (new a dress) &Regis'-
Class Mail .
JS/sjk mt Willson St.
r
T, n= SALEMI. MA
�Itti�
of tt1Pm, �"1rittSSttL�j1ISP#tB ERA:S OFFICE
PnttrD of upeal
Igg8 NOY 25 A 11: T
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH REITHER REQUESTING A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 WILLSON STREET R1\B1
A hearing on this petition was held November 18, 1998 with the
following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard
Dionne, Stephen Buczko, Ronald Harrison and Michael Ward. Notice of
the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in
accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit pursuant to Article IX,
Section 9-4 (b) which would allow the building to be used at a two
(2) family dwelling.
In accordance with Section 5-3 (j ) , the change of use requested is
not more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing six (6)
family use. In addition, the Special Permit may be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or
substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the
zoning ordinance, as required by Section 8-6.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to
this request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3(j ) , which provides
as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,
the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and
conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 9-4 , grant Special Permits
for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and
for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming
lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such
change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be
substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to
the neighborhood.
In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit
requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be
granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special
Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and
welfare of the City' s inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence
presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the
following findings of fact:
1 . Petitioner is the owner of the land and buildings at 12 Willson
Street. In April of 1997 petitioner sought an administrative
ruling form this Board to reverse the Building inspectors finding
that the legal use of the property was as a single family
dwelling.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH C REITHER REQUESTING A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 WILLSON STREET
page two
2. Petitioner made a timely appeal from the Board's April 1997
ruling. During the course of the ensuing lawsuit, the Court
asked the City of Salem to enter into mediation with petitioner.
While in mediation the parties agreed that, in an effort to
resolve the dispute, the petitioner would apply to this Board for
a special permit to allow the building to be used as a two family.
3. Petitioner who is represented by Attorney Kevin T. Daly of Salem
stated that the building is equipped as a two family, that the
surrounding homes include many that are two families and even
multiple family dwellings and that available off-street parking
would accommodate three vehicles.
4. In opposition, Steve Lerman, trustee of M & L Realty Trust at 250
Jefferson Avenue, stated that his property is adversely affected
by water flow from the 12 Willson Street property, which worsened
when the subject house was installed on the lot, and that he
believed the problem would be exacerbated by the hot-topping of
the driveway area thereon.
5. Also speaking in opposition were Erie Soper, who stated that the
permit allowing the building to be used as a two family would
increase density and congestion, worsen traffic conditions for
the surrounding homes, and would increase the likelihood that the
building would become absentee landlord owner. All these factors
would be detrimental to the neighborhood.
6. Robert Lemelin spoke in opposition, stating that traffic
conditions on Willson Street had worsened in recent years,
increasing the number of traffic accidents .
7 . Tony Lysiak, of 258 Jefferson Ave. and Ann and Rena Pelletier
of 3 Horton Street, also opposed the petition because it would
increase congestion in the neighborhood, worsen existing parking
problems, and exacerbate the water flow off the property.
8. Joan Lovely, Ward Councillor for Ward 3, opposed the granting
of petitioner petition, stating that the proposed driveways would
increase the neighbor's drainage problems and would detrimentally
affect density and congestion in the area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence
presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . The Special Permit requested cannot be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and
substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the
purpose of the ordinance.
m
C
N
o�
D �7
zz
C-)�
w m3
cn D
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH C. REITHER REQUESTING A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 WILLSON STREET
page three
2. The granting of the Special Permit requested will not be in
harmony with the neighborhood and will not promote the public health,
safety,convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants .
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 0 in favor, and S in
opposition to the motion to grant the relief requested. Having
failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the
motion to grant fails and the petition for a Special Permit is
denied.
SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED
November 18, 1998
Nina Cohen, Chairman
Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section
17 of MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the
date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special
Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days
have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal
has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in
the South Essex Registry or Deeds and indexed under the name of the
owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate
of Title.
C-)
Board of Appeal
CZ) �-
C
N U)
Cn Or
n Fn
D -,n
C7'
m
D
W
CJl
t
Ctu of ttlpm, ttssttcljusetts
'�Q� �nttrD of �u}tezil r 73 � Pr ,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF JOSEPH REITHER FOR AN
ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
12 WILLSON STREET (R-2\B1 )
A hearing on this petition was held September 17 , 1997 ,
with the following Board Members present; Nina Cohen,
Albert Hill , Joseph Ywuc and Richard Dionne. Notice of the
hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the
hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News
in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting an Administrative Ruling in
accordance with Massachusetts General Law 40A, Section 8 .
The undersigned disagrees with the determination of the
Zoning Enforcement Officer as to the legal use of the
dwelling located at 12 Willson Street .
More specifically, the petitioner request the Board of
Appeal to overturn the Zoning Officer ' s finding that the
legal use of the property as being a single family
dwelling.
The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the
evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following
finding of fact :
1 . Attorney Kevin Daly of 32 Church Street represented
the petitioner .
2 . Petitioner sought a ruling pursuant of MGL c . 40A,
Section 8 , overturning the Zoning Officer ' s finding
Of July 11 , 1997 , that the legal use of the property
at 12 Willson Street was as a single family dwelling.
3 . The Board heard testimony by City Coucillors John
Donahue and Kevin Harvey, stating that the previous
owner of the property applied for a waiver from
frontage requirements to the City' s Planning Board .
According to the City Councillors , the waiver as
granted upon the condition that the property would
become available for a single family dwelling only.
The councillors ' testimony was corroborated by a copy
of the hearing transcript submitted to the Board . .
4 . Testimony by an abutter, Wayne Malionek, 6 Willson St .
stated that years ago the sellers told him they would
request permission to allow a single family dwelling
on the lot . On the basis of this understanding, Mr .
r
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOSEPH REITHER FOR AI '- -11 %
ADMINISTRATIVE RULING AT 12 WILLSON STREET
page two
Malionek did not raise an objection when the property
owners petitioned this Board to sever their property
and create a buildable lot .
5 . A petition was submitted with 12 names in opposition
to the owner to convert property into a two family
dwelling.
Therefore , based on the above findings of fact and on the
evidence presented, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal voted
unanimously, 4-0 to oppose the petitioners request for an
Administrative ruling regarding the legal use of the
property .
rs ry S
Nina Cohen , Member
Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING
BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall b
e made pursuant
t
o Section 17 of the Massachusetts
General Laws
Chapterter40A, and shall be filed within20 days after the date
filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk•
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,
Section 11 , the Variance or Special Permit granted herein
shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing
the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has been filed , or that , if such
appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or
denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds
and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is
recorded and noted
on the owner ' s Certificate
of Title .
Board of Appeal
� � w
COPY TO SOLITOR AND BOARD 0
APPEAL Oct. 8, 1997
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss . TRIAL COURT
SUPERIOR COURT DEPT.
DOCKET NO. 97-1944-B12
f
f
JOSEPH REITHER, Ti CDC,
Plaintiff )
V.
NOTICE OF ACTt1W
CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL, ) r a
AND ITS MEMBERS, NINA COHEN, ) D
ALBERT HILL, JOSEPH YWUC AND )
RICHARD DIONNE; )
Defe4dants )
)
Pursuant to M.G.L.c. 40A,§17, the Plaintiff, Joseph Reither
hereby provides notice that an action has been commenced
appealing the decision of the City of Salem Board of Appeal
upholding the finding of the Zoning Enforcement Officer, by the
attached Complaint .
Joseph Reither
By His Attorney,
Dated: October 8, 1997
KEVIN T. DALY, ES
DALY & .DALY
32 Church Stree
Salem, MA 0197
(978) 745-0500
BBO #112970
I
(nal Gourt of Niassachusetts -
C17!L ,ACTION COVER SHEET SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
Essex
Division
FvrNrF(s)
DEFENDANT(S)
Joseph Reither City of Salem Board of Appeal,
et al.
ATTORNEYS)FIRM NAME. ADDRESS AND TEL.) ATTORNEY(S)(A krq n)
j Kevin T. Daly, 32 Church St. , Salem, MA
(978)745-0500 "
Board of Bar Overseers = (Required) 112970 n f
ORIGIN CODE AND TRACK DESIGNATION
i Place an 'X in one box only _
b 1. F01 Original Complaint 4. F04 District Ct. Appeal c231. s. 97 (X)
2. F02 Removal to Sup. Ct. c231, s. 104 (F) 5. F05 Reactivated after Rescnpt: Relief from
3. F03 Retransfer to Sup. Cf. c 231. s. 102C (X) judgmentlorder (Mass. R Civ. P. 60 (X)
J 6. E10 Summary process appeal (X)
TYPE OF ACTION AND TRACK DESIGNATION (See Reverse Side)
CODE NO. TYPE OF ACTION (specify) TRACK IS THIS A JURY CASE?
E-02 C.40, 817 Appeal ( X) [ Yes El No
1. PLEASE GIVE A CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE FACTS: (Required in ALL Types of Actions)
The Plaintiff hereby appeals from a decision of the City of Salem Board of Appeal
denying his request for permits to construct a two family dwelling at 12 Willson
Street, Salem, MA 01970.
2. IN A CONTRACT ACTION (CODE A) OR A TORT ACTION (CODE B) STATE, WITH PARTICULARITY,
MONEY DAMAGES WHICH WOULD WARRANT A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT RECOVERY
WOULD EXCEED $25,000:
3. PLEASE IDENTIFY, BY CASE NUMBER, NAME AND DIVISION, ANY RELATED ACTION PENDING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT.
S.CNAT,aE DF -.._ OF RECCR:� -'R^AwTIF� /
OFFICE USE ONLY , • NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
DISPOSITION RECEIVED
A. Judgment Entered B. No Judgment Entered BY:
0 1. Before jury trial or non-jury hearing 0 6. Transferred to District DATE
0 2. During jury trial or non-jury hearing Court under G.L. c.231, D64POSITION ENTERED
0 3. After jury verdict s.102C.
0 4. After court finding Disposition Date BY,
0 5. After post trial motion DATE
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss . TRIAL COURT
SUPERIOR COURT DEPT.
DOCKET N0. Wly4"
JOS:PH REITHER, )
Plai t:__ )
V. )
COMPLAINT FOR
"'Y C7 SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL, ) JUDICIAL REVIEW
AtiD ITS MEMBERS, NINA COHEN, )
A=L3--R H=LL, JOSEPH YWUC AND )
RI;,H-:ARD DONNE) )
i
Defendants )
)
i
This is a complaint for judicial review pursuant to
G. L . C. 40 A, Section 17 .
2 . The Plaintiff, Joseph Reither is the record owner of
certain, real estate located at 12 Willson Street, Salem,
Massachusetts .
3. The Defendant, City of Salem Board of Appeal
(hereinafter "Board") is the permit granting authority of the City
of Salem and duly empowered to hear appeals pursuant to G.L. c 40A,
Section 8 .
4 . The remaining named Defendants are individual members of
the Board and each is a resident of the City of Salem.
5 . On or about April 27, 1994, the Board granted a variance
to the owner of 18 Willson Street in Salem allowing a portion of 18
Willson Street, referred to as Lot B, to be' subdivided and sold as
a buildable lot. Lot B is.. located in an R-2/B-1 Zoning District.
The variance granted contained no restriction as to the number of
dwelling units to be allowed on Lot B. Lot' B became 12 Willson
Street .
a-cu_ Cc-:--be: 'o, 1794 , _:e -.'y of Salem
Bcard ^granted a waiver from frontage racuirements for Lot B . .his
waiver contained the restriction that Lot . B be for residential use
only. The waiver contained no restriction as, to the number of
dwel'_'_ng :nits to be allowed on Lot B.
7 . The pian which was submitted to the Board and Planning
Board was duly endorsed and recorded.
8 . On or about September 16, 1996, the Plaintiff purchased
Lot B, now known as 12 Willson Street, Salem, Massachusetts .
1
9 . The Plaintiff has requested from the City of Salem I
Zoning Enforcement Officer and Building Inspector necessary permits
for
a two familydwelling at 12 Willson Street .
i
1C . On or about July 11, 1997, the Zoning Enforcement
Officer denied the permit request of the Plaintiff .
On or about July 17, 1997, the Plaintiff filed with the
ij Board a request for an administrative ruling pursuant to G. L. c.
10A, Sect_= 8 . The Plaintiff disagreed with the determination of
is net
the Zo a ng Enforcement officer that a two family dwelling
; i
allowed a_ 1, "+7_ ' '-=on Street .
12 . A hea-ring on the P'laintiff' s petition was held on
Seote.rber i7, 1997 . The decision of the Board was filed wit^: the
o - Salem C'leric' s office on September 23, 1997 . The decision
denied ?'-^' •^•t =" S request to Overtirn the ruling OL t.^.e Zoning- - s not allowed at 12
i Enforcement officer that a two family dwelling i
Willson. Street . r
13. The decision upholding the ruling of the Zoning
Enforcement Officer exceeds the authority of the Board. i
i
14 . The decision upholding the ruling of the Zoning
Enforcement Officer is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.
i
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays as follows:
1 . That this Honorable Court reverse the decision of the
Board; j
2 . That this Honorable Court order the Zoning Enforcement
<_ : i
o'f' - - tc issue Plaintiff the necessary permits for a two _a==
-y
dwelling at 12 'Willson Street; and i
3. That this Honorable Court grant such other relief as I`
justice and equity may require.
Joseph Reither
By His Attorney,
I
r� �r ✓e l/ 'yl KLV_•Y _ • J� Y, ._.JtiV �
DALY & DALY
32 Church Street
Salem, MA 01970
BBO #112970
2
,
7 -
(situ of _Salem, _4a55arlru5ett9
9 Board of Appeal
2 55 rJ '9q
c:
.ss
DECISION C5: THE PETITION OF CHILE A.. 37-RUBE
=0R VARIANCES AT 13 WILLSON STREET IR-2,B-1 ;
A hearing on this petition was held April '7, 1994 with the following Board
Members present: Stephen Touchette, Acting Chairman; Stephen O'Grady, Gary
3arrett. .ssociate Members Nina Cohen and =.rthur Labrecque. Notice of the
hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were
properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A
?ecicloner. owner of the property, is requesting Variances from density and
setbacks,specifically, with respect the lot shown as Lot A on the plan
submitted, petitioner requests 5,000 sq. ft: Ttsire and area per dwelling
unit 50 foot frontage and side yard of Six—( 6) 'feet 'on easterly boundary
`Jf-'_ot A in order to allow ex-sting garage to remain. kith respect to the
lot shown as Lot B on the plan submitted petitioner is requesting 5,000
sq. ft. lot size and 50 foot frontage. Property is located in an R-2/B-1
district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this
Board that:
1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
P Y the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other lands, buildings and structures involved.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
� public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from
the,
intent of the district or theur ose of t
p p he Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented
at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings
of fact:
1 . -here was no opposition to the petition.
_. There was neighborhood support in the form of seven letters from
neighbors and abutters.
3 . ?etitioner and her late husband purchased the property as two ( 2 )
separate lots .
Lot B was never built on as the petitioner and her late husband had
intended this lot to be sold in case of any financial circumstances that
N,
r
M
could arise . Over the years these lots have merged.
DECISION CN THE PETITION CF CECILE A. BERUBE FOR
VARIANCES :T 1S WILLSON S77ZEET. SALEM
page two
Mr cD z 59 u
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the .evidence presentee
at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: ,,
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property
but not the district in general .
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant the
variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
2. Property to be divided in strict accordance with the plans and
dimensions submitted.
3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire
Department relative to smoke and fire safety.
4. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission
having jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
Variance Granted
April 27, 1994 / \
,Nina V. Cohen, Associate Member
Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY
CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20
days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City
Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the
Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a
copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20
days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has
been filed, that it has been dismissed .or denied is recorded in the South
Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record
or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
Board of Appeal
.r v
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
ROBERTA. LEDOUX Legal Department JOHN D. KEENAN
City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor
508-741-2111 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 508-745-7710
July 18, 1997
Mr. Leo Tremblay
Zoning Enforcement Officer
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachuseits 01970
RE: Wilson Street
Dear Mr. Tremblay:
You have asked for my opinion as to the legal status of 12 Wilson Street as a
single or two family dwelling.
Cecile A. Berube owned the property in question together with an abutting
property on Wilson Street. She and her late husband had purchased the property as
separate lots in 1941.
In 1994 Mrs. Berube petitioned the Board of Appeals so as to allow the
subdivision of the lots into two separate lots each of 5,000 square feet. The Board of
Appeals in its wisdom granted the requested variance and the Salem Planning Board
allowed a Form A (subdivision approval not required).
Under the case of Hogan v Hayes 19 Mass. App. Ct. 399 the endorsement of
the plan would be sufficient to void the statutory provision that the variance be
exercised within one year after it is granted.
The variance allowed the petitioner to maintain two separate lots, each
considered a buildable lot. The Board of Appeals at no time stated whether or not the
petitioner could maintain the lots as single family, two family or multi-family lots.
Mr. Leo Tremblay
Page Two
July 18,1997
It is my opinion that the petitioner must seek a further definition by the Board
of Appeals as to what may be maintained on the lot.
4Vveruly yours�jQ
ROBERT A. LEDOUX
City Solicitor
cc: Ms. Deborah Burkinshaw
City Clerk
RAL/leh
File 119470.64
i
n1f ✓aures C/eoiy
n1f Henry Corbin
.50.00' w
cor
B ~
5,000 S.F
12
0
0
m O PRDPDS£D O
FOUVa"N 00
Q Q 11.
~ U
O U y
0
C �
12..
No. 1? o
3
h C
50.00'
WILLSON STREET
NOTES —
VARIANCE GRANTED FOR LOT
SIZE AND FRONTAGE ON APRIL
27, 1994. FILED IN RAC 12667
PG. ;-17.
ZONING DISTRICT — Rl PLOT PLAN
/Nc r v,St� tvUNUs//UY , ttA, /N
ALL THF SFTRACK REQUAR
THE EMENTS EALEAI� MA
FOR 81 ZONING DISTRICT.
t
`te o � � SCALE 1" = 2p' 4UG. 26, 1996
DeJNISJ.
y\
jus "' LANDMARK
ENG/NEER/NG & SURI/EY/AUG; INC.581 CHESTNUT STREET I
_ LYNN, YA 97904
:yJ
j
;PPE'.! _.a^E !;0. . . .
rte— N (Min of �'.II£IIt, �c7��cTL�IIISPIfS
��•��� �aar� of �.�sgcal
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS:
`.e ucaersignea reores�nt 'fat s e xxx --.e owners certain carcei Of lana
18 'Willson �treef
nd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
reet: _ ina istric_
.2 and B-1RxScvci@xutxicsc�datxQc3ecYffixxca�� cXx. . . . . . . . . .
�XXY.:CX�.u�SB136e4$Y.XXHZ$1®LD4�iG}Q1tK K eY(YAC
R3cansch�ec:isi•c�cxtsecxaorx�a�Qxx��c�C4c�{lc�ie�2�k �sax�:x�sx��a¢�ncsac�9cd�-tt�ax
ae:cvrca:sce<�cict��sacaa�woxk�:XCtBx� X�FtxZcSAYx�XDt�ra�tstze.
This is a direct appeal.
n
y
= U
r:�OcieRS t;CY47�tocA xxratkbcasaYri.°�eaxx8dacxxsneatsacxnc>:zbXitidsuaxs7$ s6k1�5ixcra
The Unaersigned hereoy petitions the Board of Aopeais to vary the terms of t
he Salem
Zonina ordinance ar►dMsx�u4sex6atdd�tnQxntdg�esoIIxpccalrxxXt�cyrsaeraxrxo^actxx�XQyO q
a�¢t7axecx�sxaap�txaaLgsax>S�ex�a naXx:�c �t}¢ka�axScDd�eM, as the enforcement of said
Zonino By-Laws ZMdUftU Ifrgx90*e would involve practical difficuity or unnecessary
hardshio to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantiaily aero-
gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for
the following reasons:
The undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Aopeals to grant a varianc
from the density regulations of the Salem Zonino Ordinance co allow the
petitioner to divide the premises into two lots containing five thousand
square feet each, and to allow the existing structures and buildings on
lot A to remain.
See attachment
Petitioner/
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Address - . . ... .':'L . -son _ et ,-5. .2
a_ T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.
, eieonone . . . . '. �9c ) - 4, 18
. . . . . . . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . . .
attcrne . 'zr
=eti t oner . . . . . .;conr. . . . . . . . .cas ,. . .: . . .
Address . : :-. ,• ashinaton .`,r et , ai-
Oa[e. . . pril 6 , 1994: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ieleonotse". pS0 81 741-0 862
. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
By. . ":i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
enrx .-.. ..ncas , , . _ .
-hree pies of the application must to f",ed with the �acretary c' t7e Boara e'
Aopeais with a check, for aavertisina in the amount p'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`our :,eeKs prior to the meeting of the Boar❑ of Aopeais . __';ecr, cavaoie to The
�vemng hews.
1
�a,I7t1 j �I
_. ., I L � I III .+ 7 ` �. I it •��
_;TY __. : :.SS.
"'he '_and was purchased by the petitioner and her deceased husband
�s two separate lots -.. 1941 . Thev never ^uiit on the lot _
rt_ of tne:r Drccer__:• because they 1-:en e: to be able to sell
__. _.he _-vent _nat --nanc_H1 - -- __T.stances made =:^.at
,es_raple . Subsequent adoption of and amenaments to the ZOnlna
Ordinance of the City of Salem have caused the two lots to become
merged -into one lot for zoning purposes . A portion of lot A is in
zoning district R-2 with the balance of lot A and all of lot B
being in zoning district B-1 .
The vast majority of the residences in the general neighborhood are
built on lots containing 5 , 000 square feet or even considerably
less . The petitioners proposed use of the premises would be very
consistent with the general character of the neighborhood.
With respect to lot A, the specific dimensional variances requested
by the petitioner include a five thousand square foot minimum lot
area, a 5 , 000 square foot minimum lot area per dwelling unit ,
minimum lot width of 50 feet , and a minimum width of side yard or
six feet on the easterly boundary of lot A in order to allow the
existing garage to remain.
With respect to lot B , the petitioner requests a variance from the
minimum lot area requirement to allow a000 square foot minimum
lot area and a maximum lot width of 50 feet . All other dimensional
requirements of table _ of section 6 of -^e Salem Zoninq Ordinance
would remain unvaried. -
The petitioner' s inabi'l 'ity to sell the unimproved portion of her
property repreSe.^.LS a '_ _nancial hardshi^, in llg}lt of the
. _ -•• - ---_.. - - - _ ---- ---- - - . illi _.._ �oard __ ails•+: _.._
- =ctPq rPl�cL .
ANNE A OT 66
REC.3 B"OR 103 ST PBT 360
HENRY E. 6 ✓EALOTNNETTE CORRIN
REC BK T 3Ng5jT PG. 54 I
GARAGE
GARAGE I
I
'r I N 79'sj1'_50' E
I 50.00'
N 19''51-50• E
50.00'
I
N N
i O C
rn m
D m
N
6.3
1
SHED
GARAGE
co
' N
c
AREA - 5,LOT A 000 +/_ S.F. o
= o LOT B
c I AREA - 5, 000 +/- S.F.
I O
� W
T O
V! T
O
I O
p 1
W
=
214
33 li
1
II i
50.00'
S 79'-51'-50' N
-s 79'-5' -50' X
STREET
117' Z'6
o
3 3
ti 1 Sm x
00
fty, 'k pOH QI t d r 6 x
_ Br 6Zy �+ ap09 �'Z
9Z
0S. O c OOS e 1 S.
Ivo��z
cr 00 o s 00 09
. . 0p00' : s pel
i6
0004 °9ti v
tin H1
s
imrk j3�1 °a ov O1 '3x
1 C4 ' 0069
6 O°
`a "U 9411
o N r.
Z
oosz o y n o 9£ C
6Zr a OSS
to Fip p Z o❑ 0999 OYr9
7 t
46 Ig c� X o c
'Osr� ar 9s �� t p p g w .fig
009 OD
r rro�
l
I'd 61 � cd
V ti 409 o os °' 3 3
•, ,,5.,0.11... LSFF 9Us0 i ° i ❑001
Oil 6A1
a
0po' nor a
cs�f z+
° Y L
ll/
.,
'.6
H �� 06 or n 9866
bh" ^ ° o� . " 001 L Z9 Li
'Ire c
99f yr p00f 0nOs 6 9Y LTJ
°.= x L9 9
9 6t
1
001 Np1ti0N
L�
13-381S 81S
a¢ fir' =,r.r,
i
Jkmadawe�
We'� Otj�p Ok4
September 11, 1996
Mr. Joseph C. Reither
43 New Ocean Street
Swampscott, MA 01907
Dear Mr. Reither:
At a regular meeting of the City Council held in the
Council Chamber on Monday, September 9, 1996 your request
to move a house from 12 Boston Street to 12 Willson Street
has been granted with the following stipulations :
1 . That the move should be made on the weekend.
2 . The move should be made before the month of
October.
3 . All City Agencies should be notified and all
necessary permits should be applied for and
approved.
Very truly yours,
DEBORAH E. BURKINSHAW
CITY CLERK
cc: Police Chief
Police Traffic - ,
Fire Chief
Bldg. Inspector
DPW Director
Electrician
Health Agent
Shade Tree Superintendent
Watch Commander
ILI�
79 3 7
�-
0
Gil 5�5 s Y/",�)
S-ee � C�rfIC2
59 Park Street TEL 508/922-1855
Beverly, Massachusetts 01915 FAX 508/922-0433
10;03 AM SALEM HEALTH +5007409705 Page f
To:
Fac
From:
_.. .._.... bp.-7........................................
Date:
,/!'G!/
.......................................
page(s) including this page.
....................._................ ................................
ZJ
l ev Si.yrfax
".
from the desk of_
Joanne Scott,MPH,RS,CHO
Ranh Atom
Salem 002H of WWI
9 North Street
Silent Ri 01910
(508)741.1800
fax(S08)740-9105
NUV 04 '96 10: 04 AM SALEM HEALTH +5087409705 Page 2
CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF HEALTH
Salem, Massachusetts 01970-3928
JOANNE SCOTT,MPH,RS,CHO NINE NORTH STREET
HEALTH AGENT T01'(508)741-1800
Fax;(508)740.9705
Mr. Leo Tremblay November 1, 1996
Building Inspector
1 Salem Green 2nd Fl.
Salem, Ma. 01970
Hear Mr, Tremblay,
The Massachusetts Department of F,nvironmenlal Protection notified the Salem Health
Department that they were overseeing asbestos removal work that was being conducted in a
building located on 12 Boston Street, Salem,Ma.. As you know, this building is slated to be
moved to another location on November 3, 1996, under a permit from your apartment. The
DEP ordered the building owner to safely remove the asbestos material before the move takes
place. This morning we received a call from the asbestos removal contractor saying that he lell
the.jobsitc because of differences with the owner and that the job was not completed, there was
still dangerous material in the basement of the dwelling.
Therefore until DRP has notified the city health or building department that the work has
been completed we are recommending, under General Laws Chapter 111, Sect 122 and 123
(Public Health Nuisance),that this permit be suspended.
For the Board of Health
Jeffrey W Vaughan Reply to:
Sanitarian Joanne Scott
Iiealth Agent
3-23-1996 6:22PM FROM ELECTRIC_DEPT— 508 745 4638 P. 1
E
�p : (gag of jittlem, assurbusetts
{
1- �r1e,c#ricttl �e�mxtlnElrt
Fl1IjA;ttamto
piety ;l¢ttririan 44 �iafa�zft� L
;3slem, Ipe_01970
,Alta 49mbe i17 745-6300
NOVEMBER 7, 1996
i
)-IR. JOSEPH C. REITHER
3 NEW OCEAN STREET
,IWAMPSCOTT, MASSACHUSETTS 01907
RE: HOUSE MOVE
FM: 12 BOSTON ST.
TO: 12 WILLSON ST. 1J
)EAR MR. REITHER:
PLEASE BE ADVISED, A MEETING WITH THE UTILITIES COM-
'.?ANIES TOOK PLACE ON NOVEMBER 3, 1996 AT 2 :00 P.M. AND 1
THE UTILITIES COMPANIES ALONG WITH THE CITY DEPARTMENTS
ii:"AN ACCOMMODATE YOU ON THE HOUSE MOVE ON NOVEMBER 17, 1996 . l
ALL FEES FOR THE SURVEY, AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FEES 1113
iY THIS DEPARTMENT SHALL BE PAID PRIOR TO THE MOVE.
ATTACHED, YOU WILL FIND A FORM REQUIRING SIGNATURES OF
:'',EPRESENTATIVES INVOLVED IN THE MOVE. THE SIGNATURES I
SHALL BE REQUIRED AND RETURNED TO ME PRIOR TO THE MOVE.
j YOUR COOPERATION IN THE ABOVE MATTER WILL BE GREATLY
F4PPRECIATED. l
Y TRUL�
� 1
PAUL M. TUT LT E
CITY ELECTRICIAN
C: MAYOR NEIL J. HARRINGTON
DEBORAH BURKINSHAW, CITY CLERK
LEO TREMBLAY, BUILDING INSPECTOR
RICHARD HOWELL, POLICE DEPARTMENT
FIRE PREVENTION
TIMOTHY FLYNN, D.P.W.
ROBERT PENDRICK, MASS. ELECTRIC CO
SCOTT MCCARTHY AND THOMAS DELBOSS, TIME WARNER
I', KENNETH SAMPSON, NYNEX
EDDY COURURIER, N.E. BUILDING MOVERS
JOHN J. DONAHUE, PRESIDENT OF CITY COUNCIL
`PMT/M
3-23-1996 6:23PM FROM ELECTRIC_DEPT— 588 745 4638 P. 2
F n
i
!$iIg tprnl isian 44 'Uvfaneflu ,fit.
ateas, oal 01470
Area Cabo 617 7-15-0300
FAX TELECOMMUNICATIOAE
DATE ; ---1�__2��____w____ TIME: _-___--..—___»____
THIc COMMUNICATION CONSISTING OF PAGES (INCLUDING)
THIc; COVER SHEET.
TO: �se_112}L ---------
----------—____- tL' -----------------
FROM: SALEM ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT - SALEM MA 01470
PLEASE ENSURE ITS TRANSMITTAL TO THE PERSON NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU
HAVE: ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS FAx COMMUNICATIONS, PLEASE
CON-'ACT:
1A^� J1�3Q�..-_____,_ - AT. SALEM ELECTRICAL DEPT. (506) 745-63Q0
THANK YOU
THE FAX TELEPHONE NUMBER FOR SALEM ELECTRICAL. IS (509) 145-4638_.
� = �/d'
_ 3-23-1996 6:23PM FROM ELECTRIC—DEPT_ 508 745 4638 P. 3
n
( Ctv of ttlezYc, rss�tc�iusE#ts
Mug 1"tormLum 44 Mufa"d g �St.
4$zglem, Aass. 01470
e°�sea f9aDe 1617 745-9300
DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 1996
'C0: JOSEPH C. REITHER/OWNER
FROM: PAUL M. TUTTLE, CITY ELECTRICIANO);q�—
SUBJECT: SIGNATURES FOR HOUSE MOVE
i
FROM: 12 BOSTON STREET
TO: 12 WILLSON STREET
DATE OF MOVE: NOVEMBER 17, 1996
I
LEO TREMBLAY
BUILDING INSPECTOR DATE
I
.RICHARD HOWELL
POLICE DEPARTMENT DATE
FIRE PREVENTION DATE
i
TIMOTHY ]FLYNN
D.P.W. DATE
ROBERT PENDRICK
.MASS ELECTRIC CO. DATE
.. SCOTT MCCARTHY
TIME WARENER DATE
THOMAS DELBOSS
TIME WARNER DATE
KENNETH SAMPSON
NYNEX DATE
EDDY COURURIER
N.E. BUILDING MOVERS DATE
BUILDING DEPT.
DEC ID 912 All °96
RECEIVED
CITY OF SALEM,MASS.
n f ✓ornes Cleary
n1f Henry C°rbrn
50.00'
a
LOT B
0 5,000 S.F
11.5.
c
a�
O o 0
m p EYISPNG o
1VD SUN o
Q i9' 6 D
ti
U JC
O V O
10.9. o
g
c
a3
c
No• 12 3
e
�i
50.00'
WILLSON STREET
NOTES —
VARIANCE GRANTED FOR LOT
SIZE AND FRONTAGE ON APRIL ��H OF
27, 1994. FILED IN 8K12667
PG. 147. DENNISMCMyG
J.
ZONING DISTRICT — 81 50 0- V. PLOT PLAN
/N
SALEM, MA
THE EXISTING FOUNDAT/ON MEETS SCALE 1 20' AUG 26, 1996
ALL THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS RE14SED 12/17/96
FOR THE 81 ZONING DISTRICT. /AMWARK
ENG/NEER/NG & SURVEY/NG, INC.
DENNIS'L McMANUS, PLS
583 CHESTNUT STREET
LYNN, MA 01904
CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF HEALTH
Salem, Massachusetts 01970-3928
JOANNE SCOTT, MPH, RS,CHO NINE NORTH STREET
HEALTH AGENT Tel:(978)741-1800
Fax:(978)740-9705
February 28, 2001
Joseph Reither
43 New Ocean Street
Swampscott, MA 01902
Dear Mr. Reither
On February 13, 2001 an inspection was conducted at 12 Willson Street in Salem,
Massachusetts. The exterior sump pump located under the porch was found to be in
violation of Massachusetts State Sanitary Code 105 CMR 410.750 (K/L) and 410.351.
The sump pump is currently discharging water and pooling on the right side of the
property line and consequently flowing into the basement of 6 Willson Street.
The water discharge line must be altered or removed from the current location so the
water no longer pools on the surface.
This discharging violation must be corrected within seven(7) days receipt of this letter.
If you have any questions feel free to call me at 978-741-1800.
For the Board of Health : Reply to:
Joanne Scott Mark Tolman
Health Agent / Sanitarian
cc: Building Inspector, & Ward Councillor Joan B. Lovely
Delivered in Hand by Constable Mark Tolman on Thursday, March 1, 2001
JS/sjk mt Willson St.
a
f
n(InDawwo'?
Ctg of *tt1Em, Auslinc4usEtts
Public Propertg flepartment
Iluilaing Department
(ane Onlem 6rexn
588-745-9595 Ext. 300
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
July 11 , 1997
Joseph Reither
43 New Ocean Street
Swampscott , Mass . 01907
RE : 12 Willson Street
Dear Mr. Reither :
This department is refusing you a permit to renovate
the house at 12 Willson Street, that was moved from 12
Boston Street to a two family dwelling.
It is the feeling of this department that the Board
of Appeals ruling on the subdivision of 12 Willson Street
was for two legal single family dwellings .
If this office can be of any further assistance in
this matter , please do not hesitate to call .
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation
in this matter.
Sincerely,
;Oicer
Leo E . Tremblay
Zoning Enforcement
LET: scm
cc : Robert LeDoux
Kevin Daly
e,
Tity of '*tt1Pm, massac4us>etts
Ilublic trapertq Department
Nuilbing i9epartment
(One #n1em (6reen
508-743-9595 Ext. 380
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
June 24 , 1997
Robert LeDoux
city Solicitor
Salem, Mass . 01970
RE : 12-18 Willson Street
Dear Mr . LeDoux:
Please peruse the enclosed information and render an
opinion regarding the legal status of this property
located at 12 Willson Street , to its legal status as a
single or two family dwelling.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation
in this matter .
Sincerely,
Leo E . Tremblay
Zoning Enforce Officer
LET: scm
DALY & DALY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
32 CHURCH STREET
SALEM, MASSACHUSEM 0"
KEVIN T. DALY TELEPHONE 15081745-0500 OFCOUNSEL
MARGARET DALY CRATEAU FAX 15081 745.6606 RICHARD E. DALY
June 17, 1997
Mr. Leo Tremblay
City of Salem, Building Inspector
1 Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 12-18 Wilson Street
Dear Mr. Tremblay:
It is hereby requested that you obtain a legal opinion from the
City Solicitor as to the use of the structure located at 12 Wilson
Street. A check in the amount of $30. 00 is enclosed herewith as well
as copies of the variance issued by the Board of Appeal and the
application submitted by the petitioner at that time.
The present owner of 12 Wilson Street is Mr. Joseph Reither and
he wishes to use the structure at 12 Wilson. Street as a two-family
dwelling. In 1994, the prior owner of 12 Wilson Street, Mrs . Cecile
Berube petitioned the Board of Appeal for variances to allow her to
subdivide. A reading of the variance and petition of Mrs. Berube
shows the clear intent that 12 Wilson Street become a buildable lot.
Therefore, the only remaining issue is how many dwelling units
are permissible at 12 Wilson Street. In her petition, Mrs. Berube
did not request that use be limited to single family dwellings and
the decision of the Board of Anneal also contains no such limitation.
The property is located in a B-1 zoning district which allows for all
uses permissible in R-3 zoning districts. This would allow for the
use of a two-family dwelling.
Providing that all other dimensional requirements of the zoning
ordinance are met, a two-family dwelling is a permissible use.
Please forward this information to the City Solicitor.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
,7�:�
KEVIN T. DALY
KTD/km
Enclosure
cc: Robert Ledoux, Esquire
Joseph Reither
COPY TO SOLITOR AND BOARD 0
j APPEAL Oct. 8, 1997
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss. TRIAL COURT
SUPERIOR COURT DEPT.
DOCKET NO. 97-1944-B
JOSEPH REITHER, )
Plaintiff
V. )
CD
O
NOTICE OF ACTfOW
CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL, ) x
AND ITS MEMBERS, NINA COHEN, ) "(n
ALBERT HILL, JOSEPH YWUC AND )
RICHARD DIONNE; )
Defendants )
Pursuant to M.G.L.c. 40A, §17, the Plaintiff, Joseph Reither
hereby provides notice that an action has been commenced
appealing the decision of the City of Salem Board of Appeal
upholding the finding of the Zoning Enforcement Officer, by the
attached Complaint.
Joseph Reither
By His Attorney,
-�)AJ
Dated: October 8, 1997
KEVIN T. DALY, ES
DALY & 'DALY
32 Church Stree
Salem, ,MA 0197
(978) 745-OSLO
BBO *112970
^ Irial Court o1 Massachusetts -
CC: LACTION COVER SHEET SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT �;
Essex �� W I`.Mil
Division
awlNrsF(s) Joseph Reither -3-DEFENDAW($) City of Salem Board of Appeal,
I
et al.
ATTORNEY(S) FIRM NAME.ADDRESS AND TEL.) ATTORNEY(S)(A krg n)
Kevin T. Daly, 32 Church St. , Salem, PSA
(978) 745-0500
Board of Bar Overseers -- (Required) 112970
ORIGIN CODE AND TRACK DESIGNATION
Place an X in one box only
a 1. F01 Original Complaint 4. F04 District Ct. Appeal c231. s 97 (X) I
2. F02 Removal to Sup. Ct. c231, s. 104 (F) 5. F05 Reactivated after Rescript: Relief from
3. F03 Retransfer to Sup. Cl. c231. s. 102C (X) judgment/order (Mass. R Civ. P. 60 (X)
0
6. E10 Summary process appeal (X)
TYPE OF ACTION AND TRACK DESIGNATION (See Reverse Side)
CODE NO. TYPE OF ACTION (specify) TRACK IS THIS A JURY CASE?
E-02 C.40, ®17 Appeal ( X) ❑ Yes No
1. PLEASE GIVE A CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE FACTS: (Required in ALL Types of Actions)
The Plaintiff hereby appeals from a decision of the City of Salem Board of Appeal
denying his request for permits to construct a two family dwelling at 12 Willson
Street, Salem, PSA 01970.
2. IN A CONTRACT ACTION (CODE A) OR A TORT ACTION (CODE B) STATE, WITH PARTICULARITY,
MONEY DAMAGES WHICH WOULD WARRANT A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT RECOVERY
WOULD EXCEED $25,000:
3. PLEASE IDENTIFY, BY CASE NUMBER, NAME AND DIVISION, ANY RELATED ACTION PENDING
I
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT. D
/// ^�
SIU!.<T,REIf
DISPOSITION RECEIVED
A. Judgment Entered B. No Judgment Entered BY.
0 1. Before jury trial or non-jury hearing 0 6. Transferred to District DATE
0 2. During jury trial or non-jury hearing Court under G.L. c.231, DISPOSITION ENTERED
0 3. After jury verdict s.102C.
0 4. After court finding Disposition Date BY
C 5. After post trial motion I DATE
i
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss . TRIAL COURT
SUPERIOR COURT DEPT.
DOCKET N0. ,J,7 194"
I
Ii JOSEPH REITHER, )
V. )
I � ) COMPLAINT FOR
"'"Y OF SA` EM BOARD OF APPEAL, ) JUDICIAL REVIEW
ANC ITS MEMBERS, NINA COHEN, )
A BE3' HD's L, JOSEPH YPIUC AND )
RIZ ;,RD .,DONNE: )
Defendants )
)
I
1 . This is a complaint for judicial review pursuant to
G. L. c. 40 A, Section 17 .
2 . The Plaintiff, Joseph Reither is the record owner of
certain real estate located at 12 Willson Street, Salem,
Massachusetts .
3. The Defendant, City of Salem Board of Appeal
(hereinafter "Board") is the permit granting authority of the City
of Salem and duly empowered to hear appeals pursuant to G. L. c 4OA,
Section 8 .
i
4 . The remaining named Defendants are individual members of
the Board and each is a resident of the City of Salem.
5 . On or about April 27, 1994, the Board granted a variance
to the owner of 18 Willson Street in Salem allowing a portion of 18
Willson Street, referred to as Lot B, to be subdivided and sold as
a buildable lot. Lot B is- located in an R-2/B-1 Zoning District.
The variance granted contained no restriction as to the number of
dwelling units to be allowed on Lot B. Lot B became 12 Willson
Street.
encu- Cctober 'o, 1394 , t'e C-; --v of Sa'em ?Darn_-^.g
Bcard^granted ^a waiver from frontage requirements for Dot B. -h-s
waiver contained the restriction that Lot- B be for residential use
only. The waiver contained no restriction as. to the number of
dwell-^g units to be allowed on Lot B.
7 . The pian which was submitted to the Board and Planning
Board was duly endorsed and recorded.
8 . On or about September 16, 1996, the Plaintiff purchased
Lot B, now known as 12 Willson Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
1
I
i
9 . The Plaintiff has requested from the City of Salem
Zoning Enforcement Officer and Building Inspector necessary permits
for a two family dwelling at 12 Willson Street .
i
1C . On or about July 11, 1997, the Zoning Enforcement
Officer denied the permit request of the Plaintiff .
On or about July 17, 1997, the Plaintif' filed with the
j Bcard a request for an administrative ruling pursuant to G. L. C .
i30A, SeCt_cn 8 . The Plaintiff disagreed with the determination of
.he Zoning T..rcrcement Officer that a two family dwelling is not
ii
aOweq a_ 1_ Willson Street .
12 . A hearing on the P'laintiff' s petition was held on
� i Seotember 17, 1997 . The decision of the Board was filed with the
c_--y c " Salem Z1erk' s Office on September 23, 1997 . The decision
denied P' aintiff' s request to Overturn the ruling of the Zcning
Enforcement Officer that a two family dwelling is not allcwed at 12
Willson Street .
13 . The decision upholding the ruling of the Zoning
Enforcement Officer exceeds the authority of the Board.
i
14 . The decision upholding the ruling of the Zoning
Enforcement Officer is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.
i
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays as follows: i
1 . That this Honorable Court reverse the decision of the
Board;
i
2 . That this Honorable Court order the Zoning Enforcement
0=_icer to issue P'_a_ntiff the necessary permits for a two family
dwelling at 12 Willson Street; and
3. That this Honorable Court grant such other relief as
justice and equity may require.
Joseph Reither
By His Attorney,
I
DALY & DALY
32 Church Street
Salem, MA 01970
BBOv#112970
2
(fit# of 0*a1an, tt sttrl u ett�
Public Prupertq Department
Nuilaing Department
(One dalem (green
588-745-9595 $xt. 3911
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer October 15 , 1997
Gary Barrett
Board of Appeals
Salem, Mass . 01970
RE : 12-18 Willson Street
Dear Mr. Barrett :
The previous granted Variance to lots A and B located
at 12-18 Willson Street would not allow the construction
of a two family dwelling simply for the reason that the
lots are located in an R2 , B1 zoned area , per contention
by the owners representative .
Two family dwellings and multifamily dwelling units
are allowed in the B1 district , but must meet density
requirement per Article Vl 6-4 , Table I of the City of
Salem Zoning Ordinance , which reads , Minimum lot area per
dwelling unit ( square feet ) R-2 7 , 500- R-3 3 , 500 . No
variances were requested from these requirements therefore
the lot only being 5 , 000 square feet does not meet the
density requirements to enable a two family dwelling at
this location per Article V, 5-2 (d) B-1 district . The
following are permitted uses in the neighborhood business
district . ( 1 ) All uses permitted in R-3 district, subject
to all provisions specified for each use .
This is my interpretation of the zoning requirements
and why I feel a two family dwelling unit is not allowed
on Lot B at 12-18 Willson Street .
If this office can be of any further assistance in
this matter, please do not hesitate to call .
Sincerely,
Leo E . Tremblay-,/-
Zoning Enforcement Officer
LET: scm
cc : Robert LeDoux
Members , _Board of Appeal
Legal Department
John Keenan,
Assistant Solicitor
15 Church Street
74"500
00
Memo
To: Leo Tremblay,Bldg. Insp.
From JDK
Dates 03/13/98
Rae Joseph Reither v. Salem Bd.Appeals(12 Willson Street)
Leo:
Welcome back. Hope you got a couple holes-in-one.
Kevin Daly has filed a motion for summary judgment in the above captioned matter. I think he has a
very strong argument that this new owner should not have to abide to any intended conditions of the
Boards that are not in the reciord. If it were.Mrs. Berube seeking the permit,we might have a chance to
argue she knew the condition e>asted. I have found no where in the written/recorded record of a
condition restricting this use to a single family. It does seem that is was discussed, but no such
condition epsts in the Board's decisions (both unanimous)to allow variance and waiver for 12 Willson
Street. I believe the neighbors have come much too late to complain. Finally, 12 Willson being in the
B-1 district,two-family dwellings are certainly permitted.
Please review the draft of the enclosed affidavit regarding this location and your decision to deny the
building permit. I am not sure of the precise facts but took the liberty to draft a rough version.
Do not hesitate to call with any questions.
Thanks much!
JDK
0 Page 1
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
DOCKET NO.: 97-1944 B
JOSEPH REITHER, )
Plaintiff, )
vs. )
AFFIDAVIT OF
LEO TREMBLAY
GARY BARRETT, NINA COHEN, )
RICHARD DIONNE, ALBERT HILL and )
JOSEPH YWUC, as they are Members of the)
Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, )
Defendants. ) DRN"
I, Leo Tremblay, under oath, do hereby state and depose:
1. My name is Leo Tremblay. I have been the Building Inspector for the City of Salem since=
2. Part of my responsibilities as Building Inspector is to review/approve applications for
building permits in Salem. I am the zoning enforcement officer for the city.
3. On or about July 1997, Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit to
convert/renovate a house he had moved from Boston Street to 12 Willson Street into a
two-family dwelling.
4. In my review of the records regarding this property land my personal recollection of the
agreeapplication
ment to use this property as a single-family residence �I denied the applicatio t ]
convertthe premises into a two-family dwelling.
5. I was present at the Board of Appeals hearing on the variance sought by Mrs. Berpbe
in April 1994�1994t
for a frontage waiver at 12 Willson before 1tJodlal
� in Octrecollection from both those hearings that the'property at
t12 Willson Street would be used'for a single-family residence.
SIGNED UNDER THE PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY, THIS
DAY OF MARCH 1998.
Leo Tremblay, Bldg. Inspector
1
3 o Ctu of O�ttlem, massar4usetts
t n' Public Propertg Elepurtment
$3uilbing Department
lone Belem (&reen
508-745.9595 Ext. 300
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
July 11 , 1997
Joseph Reither
43 New Ocean Street
Swampscott , Mass . 01907
RE : 12 Willson Street
Dear Mr. Reither:
This department is refusing you a permit to renovate
. the house at 12 Willson Street , that was moved from 12
Boston Street to a two family dwelling.
It is the feeling of this department that the Board
of Appeals ruling on the subdivision of 12 Willson Street
was for two legal single family dwellings .
If this officcannbe of any ot hesitatfurthere to assistance in
this matter , please
l .
,Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation
in this matter .
Sincerely ,
Leo E . Tremblay
Zoning Enforcement 0 icer
LET: scm
cc: Robert LeDoux
Kevin Daly
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
DOCKET NO.: 97-1944 B
JOSEPH REITHER, )
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
GARY BARRETT, NINA COHEN, )
RICHARD DIONNE, ALBERT HILL and ) ��
JOSEPH YWUC, as they are Members of the)
Board of Appeals of the City of Salem,
Defendants.
STATEMENT OF OF RELEVANT FACTS
The following facts are undisputed and the exhibits submitted herewith are stipulated to by
the parties.
In 1941, Cecile Berube and her husband purchased two separate lots at 18 Willson Street
in Salem, Massachusetts. (Plaintiffs Exhibit 1).1 Mrs. Berube and her hushand built their home
on a portion of this property, now 18 Willson Street. The remaining portion of the lot, now 12
Willson Street, was vacant. (Plaintiffs Exhibit 1). By operation of law, these two lots merged
upon adoption of and amendments to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. The parcel at issue in
the within matter, 12 Willson Street, is situated in the B-1 district in which two-family dwellings
are permitted. (Plaintiff s Exhibit 1).
On April 7, 1994, Mrs. Berube petitioned the Board of Appeals for a variance from the
density regulations of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow her to divide the premises into two
five-thousand-square lots and to allow her existing house and structures to remain on one parcel,
1 References to Plaintiff's Exhibit#are to exhibits filed with Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
1
now 18 Willson. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1).2 The Board of Appeals voted unanimously(5-0) to grant
the requested variances. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 2). That variance was recorded on July 14, 1994.
(Essex South Registry of Deeds, Bk 12,662, Pg 147). The only conditions set forth in the
variance were:
1. Petitioner shall comply with al city and state statutes, ordinances,
Codes and regulations.
2. Property to be divided in strict accordance with the plans and
Dimensions submitted.
3. Petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department
Relative to smoke and fire safety.
4. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board o[r] Commission having
jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
(Plaintiff s Exhibit 2).
On October 14, 1994, Mrs. Berube petitioned the Planning Board seeking a waiver from
frontage requirements for 12 Willson Street. (Plaintiffs Exhibit 3). The Planning Board
unanimously(7-0) approved this waiver subject to the following conditions:
1. A notation be put on the plan which indicates that Lot B [12 Willson Street] is
intended for residential use; and
2. Petitioner agrees to Lot B being used for residential use only.
(emphasis added)(Plaintiff's Exhibit 3).3
On or about September 16, 1996, Plaintiff purchased 12 Willson Street from Cecile and
Paul Berube for thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00). (See attached Defendant's Exhibit 1).
2 In Plaintiffs Exhibit I;Lot A= 18 Willson Street and Lot B= 12 Willson Street.
3 The plan of the property is filed in Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Plan Book 295,Plan 4.
2
On or about July, 1997, Plaintiff sought a permit to renovate the house he had moved from
Boston Street to 12 Willson Street into a two family dwelling. Based on his knowledge regarding
a condition that the parcel be used solely for a single-family residence, Building Inspector Leo
Tremblay denied the application for the permit. (See attached Defendant's Exhibit 2, Affidavit of
Leo Tremblay)(see also Plaintiff s Exhibit 4).
Plaintiff sought an appeal with the Salem Board of Appeals requesting an administrative
ruling on Inspector Tremblay's refusal to grant the building permit. (See Plaintiffs Exhibit 5).
After hearing, the Board voted unanimously(4-0) to uphold the Inspector's denial Plaintiff's
permit.
ARGUMENT
In his motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff must establish"by credible evidence from
his affidavits and other supporting materials that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that
he is entitled, as a matter of law, to a judgment." Community Nat'l Bank v Dawes, 369 Mass.
550, 554 (1976).
Thus, the sole issue to be determined by this Honorable Court is what the Planning Board
intended in placing the condition"residential use" in the frontage waiver of 12 Willson Street.
"The question is not what the members may [have] want[ed] to do but whether reasonable
persons examining the formal records could ascertain that a particular action had been taken."
See J.R. Investment, Inc. v. City Clerk of New Bedford et al., 28 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (1989).
With the facts undisputed and supported by the formal records submitted, Defendants leave the
ultimate interpretation of same to this Court's discretion.
3
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Defendant Board of Appeals of City of Salem,
By its attorney,
John D. Keenan,
Assistant City Solicitor
BBO#561573
15 Church Street
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
978.744.8500
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,John D.Keenan,Assistant City Solicitor for the Defendants,City of Salem Board of Appeals,certify that a
true copy of Defendants'Memorandum in Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment was served
via first class mail,postage prepaid,to counsel of record for Plaintiff Kevin T.Daly,32 Church Street,Salem,
Massachusetts 01970.
John D.Keenan Date
4
EXHIBIT 1
Quitclaim Deed
12 Willson Street, Salem
Essex South Registry of Deeds
(Book 13,779 Page 479)
F-10,1144
7�9'°PG 1
479
#r > QUITCLAIM DEED
' Cecile A.us eerube and Paul W. Berube, both of Salem, Essex
Massachusetts 01970,
consideration of for consideration County
!! j Jose h Thirty Five Thousand ($35,000.00) Doand llars in full
JOsep C. Reither, of Q3 Ne w 0Ce9 i
with Quitclaim Covenants n 5 "eefj Dollars to
j Massachusetts 01970, the land in Salem,
bonded and described as Pbllowasex County,
NORTHERLY by WAIson Street fifty (50) feet]
WESTERLY
by Lot A as shown on a plan referred to hereinafter one
fi hundred (100) feet)
SOUTHERLY by land now Or formerly Of Ann A. Pellitier fifty (40)
feed and
EASTERLY by land now or formerly of M G L Realty Trust(100)yfeet- Malionek slid Maria H. Cordeiro one
ah hundred
Being shown as Lot B on
property of Ceicle A. Beruba°'� entitle •plea of Land in Belem,
31, 19931,, prepared scale 1 equals 10
washington Street, by North Shore Surra dated December
3 District Re Salem, Massachusetts 02970fily Corporation, 209
Regi of Deeds in Plan Book 295, �Plane4 is Eeeex South
fj Containing approximately flue thousand (5,000) a
according to said Plea,
.r quare feet If land,
( Being a portion of the
Registry of Deeds in Book m3266,isesdeac pagel29dand Book 9657 recordedIn deeds ge n Said
365.
1
f \ Executed as a Sealed instrument this 16th day of September, 1996.
e A. Berube
THS COMMONWHALTH OF MASSA
Essex, as CHUSETTS
Then Personallythe September 16, 1956
Paul W. Berube endappeared above named Ceicle 4;
their free act and acknowledged the fore A. Beruba and .
deed before me, foregoing !¢Struma to be
a.c to a
v, ry A.
H8II U as r.,
'•r My Co aeioa E otary Public
I\
�� xpiree i 05/29/03
t`�\\
G
�S1
a`
I
S
Ctg of *tt1Em, Mttssar4uattts
Public Propertq Department
Nuilbing 19epartment
(One dalem (6rern
508.745.9595 Ext. 380
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
July 11 , 1997
Joseph Reither
43 New Ocean Street
Swampscott, Mass . 01907
RE : 12 Willson Street
Dear Mr . Reither:
This department is refusing you a permit to renovate
the house at 12 Willson Street, that was moved from 12
Boston Street to a two family dwelling.
It is the feeling of this department that the Board
of Appeals ruling on the subdivision of 12 Willson Street
was for two legal single family dwellings .
If this office can be of any further assistance in
this matter, please do not hesitate to call .
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation
in this matter.
Sincerely,
Leo E . Tremblay
Zoning Enforcement :O/icer
LET: scm
cc: Robert LeDoux
Kevin Daly
SECTIONSENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS I
■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete I e
item 4 I Restricted Delivery is desired. Agent
■ Print your name and address on the reverse _ ddressee
so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Printed Name) C. Date f Delivery
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, d .a
or on the front if space permits.
D. Is delivery address different from item 17 Yews
1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: 'rxo
Dv
�- 3. Service Type
p C `' LJ ❑Certified Mail ❑ Express;Mail
❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise
D Insured Mail D C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) D Yes
2. Article Number
(transfer from service taboo
PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-ea-1540
y.
UNITED STATES'F.(dSFA4SEAYICEiermgjtNOT�G
ail �-10
• Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box
City Of Salem
Building Department
120 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970