Loading...
6 RIVER STREET - CAROL CARR LTR 08.31.21 Carol P. Carr 7 River Street Salem, MA 01970 carolcarr@gmail.com August 31, 2021 By First Class Mail & By Email Thomas St. Pierre, Salem Building Inspector and Zoning Enforcement Officer Salem Building Department 98 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: 6 River Street, Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. St. Pierre: I am writing to apprise you of the current situation at 6 River Street and to express my utter frustration over the apparent inability of you and your department to act on my October 1, 2020 complaint letter and/or to keep me apprised of what you have done, if anything, the latter in violation of Section 9.2.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance (entitled "Complaint"), which provides the following in its entirety: 9.2.1 Complaint. Whenever a violation of this Ordinance occurs or is alleged to have occurred, any person may file a written complaint. Such complaint, stating fully the causes and bases thereof, shall be filed with the Building Commissioner. He shall record promptly any such complaint,immediately investigate and take action thereon. The Building Commissioner shall also notify in writing the party requesting such enforcement of any action or refusal to act and the reasons therefor,within fourteen (14) days of receipt of such request. Emphasis added. I appreciate that(according to Salem's"Residential Rental Inspections" booklet) Salem has "over 9,700 rental units" and that in the age of Covid-19 adhering to the above fourteen day mandate for notifying me in writing"of any action or refusal to act, and the reasons therefor" is challenging, but surely waiting (as of today's date) over eleven months is unconscionable neglect on your part as Salem's Zoning Enforcement Officer. Clearly, I have been more than patient, but my patience has run out. To refresh your memory, I am enclosing/attaching a copy of my October 1, 2020 letter (depending on whether the original of this letter is mailed or emailed to you). 1 CEP 2 1 a:13 SEP Current Situation As of today, the only legal tenants I am aware of,namely Matt and (I believe) Casey, who have occupied the second floor unit(from memory) since 2018, moved out. They have been quoted as telling people that they were tenants at will on a month to month basis and that they were moving out because the landlord"doubled their monthly rent." In addition, one or two young males, who began occupying the first floor unit several months ago, also moved out today, which involved at least two trips of two full pickup trucks to transport their furniture and other belongings to their apparent new address at 31 Tremont Street, Peabody. Frankly, I don't know whether they were squatters or not. All I know is that they seemed to keep very strange hours, arriving usually after 1:00 AM on those occasions when they arrived at all, and acting very furtive on the infrequent occasions when they appeared to arrive during the day. They also seemed to know Matt and Casey upstairs. The bottom line is that 6 River Street is now completely empty. Accordingly, I trust you will now follow through on the required inspection by your Department, and any other Salem municipal department who has jurisdiction, of each unit as per the City of Salem's own published rules and regulations, which I also detailed for you in my October 1, 2020 complaint letter to you. Without limiting the above in any way, I ask in particular that you review the wooden steps leading to the side door of the Beverly jog which were installed within the last three years apparently without a Building Permit from your Department and without a required Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salem Historical Commission. Required Inspections By Your Department My understanding (based on Salem's own publications) is that in 2017 the Salem City Council beefed up the City Code of Ordinances to require inspections by your office for all rental units in the City at least once every three years,whether or not such rental unit had become vacant. My understanding also is that under the former Code, the owner of any rental unit in Salem (who did not live at the property) was required to have an inspection done of such unit by your department "any time there was a change in tenant,"that that involved at a minimum the complete repainting and cleaning of the unit, and that that former requirement remains unchanged by the 2017 amendment. Emphasis added. In this regard, my understanding also is the following: 2 a. Both units at 6 River Street have turned over multiple times in the last 20-plus years; b. That on most if not all of these occasions there has been no apparent intervening clean-up by the owner or inspections by your department whatsoever. I also assume that even under the old and present code it was and is the owner's duty and responsibility to report the vacancy to your office and arrange for the inspection. Again, I ask that you review wooden steps leading to the side door of the Beverly jog, which were installed within the last two to three years by the then first floor tenant without (as far as I am aware) a required Building Permit from your Department or a required Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salem Historical Commission. I assume these stairs do not even remotely comply with the rules and regulations of either your Department or the Salem Historical Commission for such stairs. Given that these stairs form part of the vital second means of egress to the building, this oversight is another potential critical failure by your Department. Salem Historical Commission Continuing Violations Please see my attached letter to Ms. Patricia Kelleher, Clerk of the Salem Historical Commission, also dated October 1, 2020, which is self-explanatory. On a positive note, some of the re-staining of the building, which was being done by the then first floor tenant, apparently in lieu of rent, was commenced within one year after the September 19, 2018 Certificate of Appropriateness was granted by the Salem Historical Commission. On the negative side, two years, eleven months, and nineteen days later, the re- staining of the building remains unfinished,perhaps not surprising since the then first floor tenant moved out of 6 River Street when he purchased a single-family home at 6 Eleanor Road in Salem on September 30, 2020, i.e. one year and eleven days after the September 19, 2018 Certificate of Appropriateness. I focus in on these two dates because my understanding also is that if exterior work visible from a public way is not completed within one year from the granting of a Certificate of Appropriateness, in this case September 19, 2018, a new application and a new Certificate of Appropriateness is required. My October 1, 2020 letter to Ms. Kelleher contained a detailed list of what had and had not been completed as of that date, compared to what had been applied for and approved by the Salem Historical Commission on September 19, 2019. 3 As I wrote in my October 1, 2020 letter to Ms. Kelleher, I certainly hope the plan isn't to simply apply the body or trim stains over rotted or damaged wood, as that would be completely unacceptable. Obviously, I want the re-staining of 6 River to be completed, but I also feel equally, if not more strongly, that it should be completed in a competent, professional, and quality way. And while my chief concern is arriving at proper and viable solutions,the owner should understand that Section J of the Procedures For Filing Applications(Rev. 10/12/04) of the Commission provides in relevant part that a person"commencing or completing work to the exterior of a building in an historic district without the necessary approval of the Commission"is subject to fines of up to $500.00 per day for each day the violation remains in effect pursuant to Chapter 40C of the Massachusetts General Laws, plus whatever separate fines may be assessed by you under your authority as Salem's Zoning Enforcement Officer. Finally,I respectfully submit that this inspectional problem has been exacerbated by the owner's custom of frequently using tenants (who may or may not have had the competence to make such repairs or maintenance)to make repairs themselves in lieu of rent, which may or may not have involved the pulling of building permits to the extent required. The re-staining experience involving the then first floor tenant, who also installed the current wooden stairs, would seem to be a cautionary lesson of the perils of such a system. Requested Relief Would you kindly do your LONG OVERDUE DUTY and take effective action NOW. Thank you. Sincerely, Carol P. Carr Enc. CC. Sally Stouten Hatch/Paul Martel—By First Class Mail & By Email Salem Zoning Board of Appeals—By Email Patricia Kelleher, Clerk of the Salem Historical Commission- By Email Salem Historical Commission Salem City Solicitor, Elizabeth M. Rennard -By Email Salem Mayor Kimberly Driscoll 4 Carol P. Carr 7 River Street Salem, MA 01970 October 1, 2020 By First Class Mail &By Email Thomas St. Pierre, Salem Building Inspector and Zoning Enforcement Officer Salem Building Department 98 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: 6 River Street, Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. St. Pierre: I am writing to apprise you of the following alleged sets of violations with respect to the property at 6 River Street, which consists of two condominium units with more or less identical floor plans, Unit 1 on the first floor and Unit 2 on the second floor, which have been mainly rented by the absentee owner(now living in Concord,New Hampshire) since late 1983 or early 1984. According to two deeds dated November 24, 2004 and recorded at Book 23967, Page 47 and Book 23967, Page 49 respectively at the Essex South Registry of Deeds, both units are believed to be currently owned by the Paul Martel Revocable Trust, Paul Martel Trustee, of 233 Hopkinton Road, Concord,New Hampshire. Salem Historical Commission Violations Please see my attached letter to Ms. Patricia Kelleher, Clerk of the Salem Historical Commission, of today's date, which is self-explanatory. On a positive note, some (certainly not all) of the re-staining of the building, which was being done by the first floor tenant in lieu of rent, was commenced within one year after the September 19, 2018 Certificate of Appropriateness was granted. On the negative side,two years and twelve days later, only some of the required work to the easterly end wall and the southerly front wall were completed, and there was virtually no prep work that preceded that re-staining. My attached letter to Ms. Kelleher contains a detailed list of what has and has not been completed compared to what was applied for and approved. I certainly hope the plan isn't to simply apply the body or trim stains over the rotted or damaged sections, as that would be completely unacceptable. 1 Obviously my husband and I want the re-staining of 6 River to be completed, but we also feel equally if not more strongly that it be completed in a competent,professional, and quality way. As I see it, the present situation basically boils down to the following: the September 19, 2018 Certificate ofAppropriateness expired on or about September 18, 2019 without the required completion of what the Salem Historical Commission had been promised, and what it had approved. Whether completion would now require a new application,new notices, and a new publication is an interesting legal question that I will leave to others. I also note that wooden steps leading to the side door of the Beverly jog were installed within the last two years without a Building Permit from your Department and that they were likewise installed without a Certificate ofAppropriateness from the Historical Commission. My understanding and belief is that such stairs do not even remotely comply with the rules and regulations for such stairs of either the Salem Historical Commission,your Department, or the Salem Building Code. And while my chief concern is arriving at proper and viable solutions,the owner should understand that Section J of the Procedures For Filing Applications (Rev. 10/12/04) of the Commission provides in relevant part that a person"commencing or completing work to the exterior of a building in an historic district without the necessary approval of the Commission"is subject to fines of up to $500.00 per day for each day the violation remains in effect pursuant to Chapter 40C of the Massachusetts General Laws, plus whatever separate fines may be assessed by you under your authority as Salem's Zoning Enforcement Officer. Chronic Lack of Exterior Building Maintenance By The Owner Before the filing of the application which resulted in the September 19, 2018 Certificate ofAppropriateness, I can't remember when Mr. Martel last stained the exterior of 6 River Street. Perhaps ten or fifteen years before that, if not more. You could get some idea of this by looking at the westerly end wall or at the northerly rear wall of the building where the prior staining has almost worn off completely. The building was built c. 1790 on an embankment overlooking the then broad expanse of the North River, so the basement door opens, when it works at all, at the grade of the back yard. If you were to inspect the building today,you would see that basement door originally had a medium-size window. In its place a piece of plywood has been crudely used to cover over the former window opening in the basement door. I regret to say that both conditions have persisted for as many years as I can remember. With respect to the first floor window in the westerly end wall of the building immediately adjacent to the door of the Beverly jog, note also from the attached photos how an article of clothing or fabric has been stuffed into the opening caused by a missing 2 pane of glass in one of the inside 12-over-12 window sashes, which has existed for approximately a year, if not longer. To put it mildly, such"repairs" are not characteristic of the architectural standards of Salem's world-famous McIntire Historic District. Coming around to the front of the building, note also the photographs of the rotted baseboard at the right(i.e. southeast) front of the building. Although the drainpipe has since been replaced, the downspout was removed for a period of time, during which all of the water draining off of the entire southerly slope of the roof exited the gutter through the sole drainpipe opening, which concentrated it at that right front of the building. Hopefully,the rot is confined to the baseboard, but what about the integrity of the sheathing and sill directly underneath? Since the building is located directly on the sidewalk, has the rotting spread to them? Perhaps the most glaring evidence of exterior maintenance neglect can be found by looking at the attached photo of the square attic window in the pediment of the easterly end wall of the building. One can easily see the scant remains of a single sash window originally consisting of six individual panes that once were there. Note how the vertical and horizontal mullions have completely rotted, how the remains of the window are missing each of their six individual panes of glass, and how in one case the horizontal mullion has completely disintegrated and has completely separated. In particular, note also that someone has put up a piece of plywood on the inside of the attic, recessed from the plane of the original exterior attic window. Obviously that pathetic "solution"has been completely ineffective in keeping the weather out of the building for the last several years. Simply replacing the attic window would have been so easy and inexpensive and such modest preventative maintenance would have easily prevented the owner from incurring potentially substantial repair costs. But apparently he chose to do nothing! I don't know exactly how many years this situation has been allowed to persist. Easily over three years, and if I had to estimate,perhaps as many as five to ten years, if not more. Whatever the exact length of time has been, it has been significant. After all, how long does it take a window to rot out due to lack of neglect? Thus, to a greater or lesser extent, the easterly end of the attic has been open to all sorts of New England weather all twelve months of those years, including during New England winters. I hope your inspection(s) will include determining what damage has been caused due to such exposure, including to the sheathing under the clapboards and/or to the interior framing, ceilings, and walls of the two floors below the easterly end of the attic. Note also from two of the attached photos the leaning metal (stove or vent?)pipe projecting approximately five or six feet up from the northeast corner of the rear 3 northerly roof slope, one close-up (showing its very rusted appearance), and the other showing its approximate five-foot height above the level of the roof slope. You can see from the wider-angle photograph that it is leaning precariously toward the ridge pole of the building near the separate white vent stack. This metal pipe (from memory) was installed in the last five to ten years. Did the owner get a building permit for its installation? What is it being used for? Is there a fire danger here? Alternatively, is there a danger that it will blow down and injure a tenant, a neighbor or anyone else on the ground? A visual examination of the exterior of the building should easily disclose any other neglected maintenance, including rot to window sills. Chronic Lack of Required Inspections My understanding is that in 2017 the Salem City Council beefed up the City Code of Ordinances to require inspections by your office for all rental units in the City at least once every three years, whether or not such rental unit had become vacant. My understanding also is that under the former Code, which was in effect for years if not decades prior to 2017,the property owner of any rental unit in Salem was required to have an inspection done of such unit by your department "any time there was a change in tenant,"that that involved at a minimum the complete repainting and cleaning of the unit, and that that former requirement remains unchanged by the 2017 amendment. In this regard, my understanding also is the following: a. Both units at 6 River Street have turned over multiple times in the last 20-plus years; b. That on most if not all of these occasions there has been no intervening clean-up by the owner, or inspections by your department. This is in no way intended as a criticism of you or your subordinates, as I realize that you have jurisdiction over all of Salem's rental units. And while I certainly have no idea what the exact or even approximate number of Salem's rental units is, I do know that Salem's total population is approximately 40,000 people, and thus, that number of rental units must certainly be large. I also assume that even under the old code it was the owner's duty and responsibility to report the vacancy to your office and arrange for the inspection. Furthermore, since the current tenants of both units have been there (from memory) only since 2018, I suspect that the automatic inspection every three years pursuant to the 2017 amendment to the Code, whether or not the rental unit has become vacant in the meantime, has not yet kicked in. 4 Finally, I respectfully submit that this inspectional problem has been exacerbated by the owner's custom of(not infrequently) using tenants to make repairs themselves in lieu of rent,which may or may not have involved the pulling of building permits to the extent required. Whether they had the competence at the time to make such repairs or maintenance is, of course, another question. Wh "Business As Usual" At 6 River Is Unacceptable Initially I heard"through the grapevine"that the owner was about to sell the building, and that the tenants would have to vacate their respective units by either September 30 or October 31. (The first floor tenants are already scheduled to vacate by this weekend due to their closing on a single-family home on Eleanor Road at the end of this month.) I was also informed about the same time that the owner had retained a real estate broker whose office is located in Tewksbury to market the property. One might think that using a broker in Tewksbury to market a property in Salem is hardly the most usual,practical, efficient, or knowledgeable thing to do, but of course,that is the owner's prerogative.) Almost immediately thereafter I was further informed that there had been a change of plans and that the property would not be sold after all. No sooner had that news sunk in, I was informed that the second floor tenants had proposed friends of theirs to move into the first floor apartment immediately or very soon after the first floor tenants had vacated it this weekend, i.e. apparently being unaware of the required intervening painting and/or required clean-up, or the subsequent required inspection by your department. Again, obviously the owner has a right to decide whether or not to sell, and just as obviously,the owner has a right to retain the real estate broker of his choosing in the event he decides to sell. That is none of my business. But what is my business is that in deciding among his various options, he does not mistakenly assume that"business as usual" (based on the last 20-plus years) will be allowed to continue is one of them. The current owners of properties (and their predecessors in title) on our small, historic, and otherwise pristine street have simply worked too long and too hard, and have invested too much,to permit anyone to flaunt ordinances and regulations designed to protect our health, our safety, and the enjoyment of our properties, as well as our investments in them. Which is why we are turning to you as Salem's Code Enforcement Officer to protect our interests and our neighborhood. Relief I Am Requesting I am specifically requesting the following at a minimum: 5 a. That the owner be immediately and officially informed that once the first floor tenants vacate their unit on or about Saturday, October 3, 2020, he is prohibited from reletting it until (i.) any and all required inspections by your department have been performed, (ii.) any and all required repairs and maintenance have been satisfactorily completed, as determined by your department, (iii.) any and all required Certificates of Fitness have been obtained, and(iv.) any and all other Landlord duties, including the Register of Tenants, have been fully complied with; b. That the same be applied to the second floor unit, subject to the minimum possible disruption being caused to the second floor tenants, whom I believe to be innocently "caught in the middle" in terms of the owner's chronic violations of his Landlord duties pursuant to the City Code over many years; c. Alternatively, if any such necessary repairs or maintenance can't be discovered or cured without causing the second floor tenants unreasonable disruption or inconvenience, that the owner be required to reimburse them for the cost of moving and finding a new comparable apartment, and for any difference in monthly rent between such new comparable apartment and their present one for the balance of their present term; d. A lien be immediately recorded at the Essex South Registry to warn any potential buyer what is in the offing, as well as to thwart any attempt by the owner to otherwise escape his Landlord duties. Conclusion If you have any questions, or desire more information,please do not hesitate to contact me. Please forward this letter to any other City enforcement body which may also have jurisdiction. Thank you. Sincerely, Carol P. Carr Enc. CC. Patricia Kelleher, Clerk of the Salem Historical Commission- By First Class Mail & By Email Lawrence Spang, Chairman, Salem Historical Commission- By First Class Mail &By Email Salem City Solicitor, Elizabeth M. Rennard - By First Class Mail& By Email 6 Mr. Thomas J. Lambert, Jr. —By Hand Delivery Upstairs Tenants (Matt and Kelsey)—By Hand Delivery Mr. and Mrs. Paul Martel—By First Class Mail &By Email 7 Carol P. Carr 7 River Street Salem, MA 01970 October 1, 2020 By First Class Mail & By Email Patricia Kelleher, Clerk of the Commission Salem Historical Commission 98 Washington Street, Salem, MA 01970 Re: 6 River Street, Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms. Kelleher: I am writing to apprise you of the following alleged violations with respect to the property at 6 River Street, which consists of two condominium units with more or less identical floor plans, Unit 1 on the first floor and Unit 2 on the second floor, which have been mainly rented by the absentee owner(now living in Concord,New Hampshire) since late 1983 or early 1984. According to two deeds dated November 24, 2004 and recorded at Book 23967, Page 47 and Book 23967, Page 49 respectively at the Essex South Registry of Deeds, both units are currently owned by the Paul Martel Revocable Trust, Paul Martel Trustee, of 233 Hopkinton Road, Concord,New Hampshire. You will see from the approved Minutes of the September 19, 2018 meeting of the Commission that on that date Tom Lambert Jr. representing Paul Martel presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors, which(according to the approved Minutes)was specifically to paint"Wedgewood Blue for body with off-white for trim or a single color Wedgewood Blue for Body and trim. Door color to match existing cranberry color." Mr. Hart"made a motion to approve paint color in Maximum solid stain in Wedgewood and trim in either Smoke or Pebble with door color to match existing," and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Lambert,who was and is a licensed electrician, and was and is the first floor tenant (but who is vacating Unit 1 this Saturday, being about to purchase a single-family home on Eleanor Road in Salem), informed us at the time that he would be doing all the work in lieu of rent, which we took to mean not only the re-staining itself,but also all of the prep work. It is now two years and twelve days later, and as set forth in detail below,the restaining is far from being completed. 1 Specifically, while the body color on the easterly side wall and the front southerly wall appear to be completed, and the front door has been re-stained or repainted,the following have NOT been completed: 1. None of the entire westerly end wall of the main block of the house has even been commenced (except for an approximate one foot brush stroke on one clapboard), much less completed; 2. None of the entire southerly front wall of the Beverly jog (facing River Street) and its westerly side wall have been commenced, much less completed; 3. None of the entire rear northerly wall, including body color and trim, has been commenced, much less completed; 4. None of the windows or window trim to the nine windows on the front fayade have been commenced, much less completed; 5. Only the first floor window frame on the easterly end wall has been completed;the second floor window and its window frame on the easterly end wall has not been commenced,much less completed; 6. Similarly the window trim and frame of the attic window on the easterly end wall has not been commenced,much less completed; and with respect to the attic window,there is nothing viable remaining there to re-stain; 7. None of the windows or window trim to the five windows on the westerly end wall of the main block of the house have been commenced, much less completed; 8. Neither the window nor window trim to the single second floor window above the door to the Beverly jog have been commenced, much less completed; 9. With the exception of the easterly end wall, none of the corner boards all around the building have been commenced, much less completed; 10. With the exception of the easterly end wall, none of the baseboards have been commenced, much less completed; 11. The roof rake boards on the westerly end wall have not been commenced,much less completed; 12. The rotted front right baseboard has not been replaced; and 2 13. As far as I am aware, little if any prep work, substantial or otherwise, was done. I am attaching recent photos to document the foregoing. No. 6 River is one of only two absentee-owned buildings remaining on River Street. (The other is owned by a couple who formerly lived on the street, who have always been active and involved landlords and neighbors,whom we believe will be returning to the street once their children have completed their education.) My husband and I purchased our house at 7 River Street,which is directly across the street from 6 River Street, on May 16, 1973. At that time River Street looked completely different from what it looks like today. Most buildings were apartments that were owned by absentee landlords and were in such dilapidated condition they looked like they were about to implode. Over the last 47-plus years my husband and I have had a very active role in the extraordinary transformation of River Street. Slowly but surely each new generation of owners have made tremendous preservation strides in terms of rehabilitating and upgrading their homes, reducing density,planting trees (which we selected,paid for, and planted ourselves), installing brick sidewalks along the entire length of both sides of River Street(which was likewise accomplished by the then owners themselves with bricks donated by the City), the creation of the first sidewalk compass rose in the City, the creation of the so-called corner garden and retaining wall—the list goes on and on. Sadly, Mr. Martel has not been part of this neighborhood activity over most if not all of the last 47-plus years. By way of further background, 6 River Street had been restored by a developer named Robert C. Bramble, Trustee of the Allyn Realty Trust and sold to Mr. Martel and his first wife, Patricia S. Martel, on December 28, 1983 as a so-called tax act development—See Essex South District Registry of Deeds at Book 7305, Page 44. In the attached photographs note the short set of wooden steps leading to the side door to the Beverly jog. They were installed within the last two years. My understanding is that they were installed without a Building Permit from the Building Department, and without a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historical Commission, since I don't recall ever receiving notice of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historical Commission for the construction of such stairs. There are other alleged and chronic violations involving this property but since they mainly involve the Building Inspector, I will take those up with him. 3 Section J of the Procedures For Filing Applications (Rev. 10/12/04)provides in relevant part that"Work commenced must be completed in one year from the Certificate date unless otherwise indicated [which it does not]." Emphasis added. I also understand that"A person commencing or completing work to the exterior of a building in an historic district without the necessary approval of the Commission is subject to fines of up to $500.00 per date of violation." Especially when taken into account with the complaints I am simultaneously filing with the Building Inspector,which I will be copying you on, I ask that the Historical Commission promptly enforce its rules and regulations so that 6 River Street may be improved on a par with all of the other residences on our street. As you are well aware, my husband and I have recently applied for and obtained a Certificate ofNon-Applicability with respect to repainting and re-clapboarding our rear kitchen wing. We recognize our duty to comply with the rules and regulations of the McIntire Historic District, as well as other applicable City rules and regulations, and we simply want the owner of 6 River Street to do the same. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, Carol P. Carr Enc. CC. Thomas St. Pierre, Salem Building Inspector and Building Code/Zoning Enforcement Officer- By First Class Mail & By Email Lawrence Spang, Chairman, Salem Historical Commission-By First Class Mail &By Email Salem City Solicitor, Elizabeth M. Rennard - By First Class Mail& By Email Mr. Thomas J. Lambert, Jr. —By Hand Delivery Upstairs Tenants (Matt and Kelsey)—By Hand Delivery Mr. and Mrs. Paul Martel—By First Class Mail & By Email 4