14 BUTLER STREET - BUILDING JACKET 14 BUTLER STREET
}
t►�'
N .
0
c�
JOHN H. RONAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET !
SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970-3470
TEL(978)7440393 FILED
FAX(978)7447493
IN THE SUPERIOR
March 20, 2007 FOR THE COUN17"'" rar- , =x
Civil Clerk's Office MAR 2 0 2007
Salem City Hall
Washington Street
Salem, MA 019701
CLERK
RE: Charles Pelletier, et al v. Joseph Reither, et al
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed please find a copy of a Complaint filed in Salem Superior Court today
appealing the decision of the Salem Board of Appeal to grant a variance of the
Zoning Ordinance to Joseph Reither for property located at 14 Butler Street,
Salem, Massachusetts.
The application for the variance was filed with your office in December of 2006
and the decision of the Boaard was filed on March 6, 2007 .
Please file the Complaint and kindly stamp it received.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Very truly yours,
John RQUbnan `
Enclosures: JHRfjbd i T"
7
3/21/07 - cc: City Solicitor; Chairman
Board of Appeals; Board of Appeals
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
C.A. NO. 617
CHARLES PELLETIER and )
KAREN FLAHERTY, )
Plaintiffs ) F�L D
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
FOR
V. THE COUNTY OF ESSEX
JOSEPH REITHER, JCR Development, LLC j MM 2 0 20p
and
SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL, members: )
Bonnie Belair, Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, )
Annie Harris, Steven Pinto, Robin Stein, )
Beth Debski, )
Defendants
COMPLAINT Taj
PARTIES:
1. The Plaintiff, Charles Pelletier, is aggrieved by a decision of the Salem
Board of Appeal dated March 1, 2007, filed with the City of Salem Clerk's office
on March 6, 2007 granting a variance of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to Joseph
Reither concerning the development of 14 Butler Street, Salem Massachusetts
(A certified copy of the decision is attached as "Exhibit 1"). The Plaintiff owns
property directly abutting the non-conforming lot at 12 Butler Street Salem,
Massachusetts.
2. The Plaintiff, Karen Flaherty, is also aggrieved by the same decision of the
Salem Board of Appeal she also owns property directly abutting the non-
conforming lot at 16 Butler Street Salem, Massachusetts.
3. The defendant, Joseph Reither, is a developer associated with the
business JCR Development, LLC; he resides at 295 Lynnfield Street, Lynn
Massachusetts.
4. The defendant, JCR Development, LLC, is a duly organized
Massachusetts corporation having as its stated purpose "To purchase, acquire,
lease, sell, renovate, construct, manage and develop residential and commercial
real estate". Its manager on file with the Secretary of the Commonwealth is
Charles G. Reither who is also listed on the state filings as the only person
"authorized to execute, acknowledge, deliver and record any recordable
instrument purporting to affect the interest in real property. It has a principal place
of business at 295 Lynnfield Street, Lynn Massachusetts.
5. The defendant, Bonnie Belair, is a member of the Salem Board of Appeal
that granted the variance to Mr. Reither. She resides at 113A Federal Street,
Salem Massachusetts.
6. The defendant, Nina Cohen, is a member of the Salem Board of Appeal
that granted the variance to Mr. Reither. She resides at 22 Chestnut Street,
Salem Massachusetts.
7. The defendant, Richard Dionne, is a member of the Salem Board of
Appeal that granted the variance to Mr. Reither. He resides at 23 Gardner Street,
Salem Massachusetts.
8. The defendant, Annie Harris, is a member of the Salem Board of Appeal
that granted the variance to Mr. Reither. She resides at 28 Chestnut Street,
Salem Massachusetts.
9. The defendant, Steven Pinto, is a member of the Salem Board of Appeal
that granted the variance to Mr. Reither. He resides at 55 Columbus Street,
Salem Massachusetts.
10. The defendant, Robin Stein, is a member of the Salem Board of Appeal
that granted the variance to Mr. Reither. She resides at 141 Fort Avenue, Salem
Massachusetts.
11. The defendant, Beth Debski, is a member of the Salem Board of Appeal
that granted the variance to Mr. Reither. She resides at 43 Calumet Street,
Salem Massachusetts.
JURISDICTION
12. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this court pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40A;s. 17.
FACTS
13. On or about December 22, 2006 a petition to vary the terms of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance as they related to 14 Butler Street Salem, Massachusetts was
filed with the Salem City Clerk and the Secretary of the Board of Appeal
14. The Petition was signed "John P. Keilty for Joseph Reither"; it identified
the Petitioner as "Joseph Reither, Mgr. JCR Development LLC" and listed the
owner of the subject property as Double M Realty Trust, Scott Masse, Trustee.
15. Joseph Reither and JCR Development LLC have both been named as
there is some ambiguity as to which one is the "original applicant or petitioner" as
those terms are used in M.G.L. c 40A, sec 17. For the purposes of this Complaint
both shall collectively be referred to as "Reither".
16. Reither does not own the subject property but rather has an agreement
with the present owner, Double M Realty Trust, Scott Masse, Trustee, to buy the
property if the variance.is allowed.
17. 14 Butler Street is a lot of land approximately 45 feet by 165 feet. It is only
45.5 feet wide at its widest and narrows to 44 feet and has a total of 7,260
square feet.
18. The City of Salem has a Zoning Ordinance "designed among other
purposes to lessen congestion...to provide adequate light and air; to prevent
overcrowding of land...to avoid undue concentrations of population...to conserve
the value of land. "(Salem Zoning Ordinance 1.1)
19. The lot of land at issue is located in an R-2 residential zone.
20. Pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, the minimum size for a
buildable lot in an R-2 Zone is 15,000 square feet.
21. Additionally, the Zoning ordinance requires that all residential lots in the
City, including those in an R-2 Zone, be at least 100 feet wide.
22. Reither petitioned the Board of Appeal to allow him to build on a lot that
did not conform to the Zoning Ordinance as it was too small (only 7,260 sq. ft.)
and too narrow (45.5 ft at its widest tapering down to 44 ft.) and that he did not
own.
23. Salem Zoning Ordinance provides that no variances can be granted
unless and until the petitioner files a written application that demonstrates: 1:)
Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land
involved and which are not generally affecting other lands in the same district; 2.)
literal enforcement would involve substantial hardship; and, 3.) Desirable relief
may be granted without ...nullifying or substantially derogating from the purpose
of the ordinance.
24. Reither's written petition (attached as "Exhibit 2") made absolutely no such
showing.
25. Furthermore, any "hardship" that Reither could have alleged would be one
that he himself chose to acquired as a result of an agreement to purchase this
known non-conforming lot and not such hardship as would justify the Board of
Appeal to grant him a variance.
26. The Salem Zoning Ordinance provides that "In interpreting and applying
the provisions of the ordinance, the requirements contained...are declared to be
the minimum requirements for the purposes set forth". (Zoning Ordinance 1.2
and 11.1)
27. Section 4.1 of the Ordinance states that "No building:..shall ...be erected,
constructed, moved or structurally altered unless in conformity with all the
regulations..."
28. Section 6.1(a) of the Ordinance states that "a dwelling hereafter erected in
any district shall be located on a lot having not less than the minimum
requirement set forth."
29. The failure to meet the dimensional requirements of area and width do not
satisfy the "hardship" criterion needed to vary the restrictions of the Zoning
Ordinance.
30. The inability to achieve maximum profit from a property is not a "hardship"
under the statute.
31. Further, Reither is not entitled to zoning relief from any hardship that he
has voluntarily and contractually acquired via a conditional purchase Agreement.
32. At the public hearing before the Board of Appeal, twenty-seven residents
presented a petition objecting to the granting of the variance.
33. The Plaintiffs and other neighbors spoke in opposition to the petition for
the variance.
34. The Salem City Counselor representing the ward where the property was
located stood up in opposition to the petition because of the small size of the lots
and the overall congestion of the housing in the area.
35. Despite the heavy opposition, the Board of Appeal granted Reither his
variance after making nine specific findings of fact, none of which addressed the
hardship issue.
36. Under these circumstances, the Board of Appeal did not have the
authority to grant Reither a variance.
37. The variance allowed by the Board of Appeal reduced the minimum width
requirement of the subject lot to 45.5 feet and the minimum overall dimension to
7,383 square feet.
38. However, the subject property can not even meet these reduced
dimensions because the width of the lot tapers down to 44 feet and the overall
size of the lot is 7,260 not 7,383.
39. Mr. Pelletier will be particularly and adversely affected if this variance is
upheld as he is a direct abutter to the subject lot and his existing building is right
on the property line.
40. Due to the narrow dimension of 14 Butler Street, his building will be only
approximately 11 feet away from the home proposed to be constructed on the
nonconforming lot.
41. Furthermore, within the 11 foot strip between the two buildings, there is to
be a driveway that would access four off-street parking spaces also proposed to
be placed directly along the side of Mr. Pelletier's building and property.
42. The Board of Appeal decision made no accommodation for the
requirement under 7-3(5)(b) of its Ordinance that requires "The surfaced area of
a parking lot and entrance shall be set back a minimum of two (2) feet from all lot
lines."
43. Mr. Pelletier's property will be affected by water run off from the new
structure, driveway and parking lot, increased noise, and auto pollution.
44. Mr. Pelletier's property because of its own unique configuration has no off-
street parking and is dependent on the availability of on-street parking. The
construction of the proposed driveway will diminish the number of on-street
parking spaces and create a hardship for Mr. Pelletier's property.
45. Because of the extreme closeness of the proposed structure, Mr.
Pelletier's property will be cast in shadows during a portion of the day and the
privacy of those living in his building severely curtailed.
46. Bedroom and bathroom windows will become uncomfortably close to
those in the new structure requiring shades to be drawn thus resulting in the
deprivation of natural light and air.
47. As the only access to the proposed parking lot would be a narrow 11 foot
wide driveway with Mr. Pelletier's existing building on one side and the proposed
building on the other, snow removal will be a major issue as there would be
insufficient room to plow and no place for a snow-blower to throw it.
48. Ms. Flaherty who abuts 14 Butler Street on the other side will also be
particularly and adversely affected if this variance is upheld.
49. Due to the narrow dimension of 14 Butler Street, Ms. Flaherty's lot (16
Butler Street), Mr. Pelletier's (12 Butler Street) and the neighbors' existing
developed lots, the proposed residence to be constructed would grossly
overcrowd the area.
50. Ms. Flaherty like many other property owners in the area depends on the
availability of off-street parking to accommodate her existing two-family home.
Allowing a development on the nonconforming lot next to her would significantly
reduce and overburden her parking situation.
51. Ms. Flaherty's drainage will be affected by water run off from the new
structure, driveway and parking lot.
52. Ms. Flaherty's property will be affected by increased noise, and pollution
53. Ms. Flaherty's property will be cast in shadows during a portion of the day
as the new structure would be only ten feet away from her property line.
54. Building a residential structure so close raises obvious privacy issues and
would require shades to be drawn at all hours of the day and night.
55. The already congested Butler Street neighborhood would become more
so and the immediate area overcrowded with cars.
56. The issuance of the variance and the building of the proposed structure
crammed between Mr. Pelletier's and Ms. Flaherty's buildings will negatively
impact the value of their properties and is contrary to the stated intent of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance.
57. The decision of the Board of Appeal exceeded its authority and negatively
impacted the Plaintiffs' properties.
WHERFORE: The Plaintiffs respectfully request that this honorable court review
this matter pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40A, sec. 17 and annul the decision of the
Salem Board of Appeal
Respectfully submitted,
Charles Pelletier, and
Karen Flaherty, by their attorney,
John H. Ronan,`E§goe
59 Feder I Street;
Salem, M0 974
(978 744-0350
BBO #547124
Dated: March 20, 2007
coNotTA� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR -
a l i SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970
�N TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595
FAX: 978-740-9846 ^'
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL - r-
MAYOR -- 1=' --
L7
March 1, 2007 CD
l r,
F3 T
Decision
w y
Petition of Joseph Reither requesting VariancesCn
for the property at 14 Butler Street
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
A public hearing on the above petition was opened on January 17, 2007 and continued to
February 21, 2007 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The
following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Steven
Pinto, Elizabeth Debski, Bonnie Belair and Annie Harris.
The petitioner, Joseph Reither, sought Variances from lot size and width to allow a single
family residence to be built on an existing nonconforming lot located at 14 Butler Street,
Salem, in the Two-Family Residential (R-2) zoning district.
The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following
findings of fact:
1. The petitioner was represented by Attorney John Keilty of Peabody.
2. Petitioner's property is in the Two-Family Residential (R-2) district and is a
non-conforming lot in a residential neighborhood.
3. The petitioner initially filed an application to allow an historic structure to be
relocated to the site. Petitioner later amended his request to seek a variance to
allow a new residential structure to be built on the site,
4. The width of the lot would be 45.5"feet instead of the required 100 feet.
5. The lot size would be 7,383 sq.ft. instead of the required 15,000 sq.ft.
6. The petitioner would provide four (4) off-street parking spaces on the site.
7. A requirement of owner-occupancy would remain attached to the residence.
8. Twenty seven residents signed a petition in opposition to the the petitioner's
request. An abutter, Charles Pelletier, argued that the neighborhood was
congested with insufficient off-street parking, and that the additional residence
would add to the general congestion in the neighborhood. Mrs. Pelletier and
three other neighbors also said they opposed the proposed new construction.
9. Ward Four Councilor Leonard O'Leary opposed the petition on the grounds
that because of the small size of the lots, housing in the area is very tight.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public
hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes
as follows:
1. The petitioner's request to for Variances does not constitute substantial
detriment to the public good as residential uses are permitted in the R-2
district and the neighborhood makeup of the area is residential.
2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent
or purpose of the zoning ordinance as single-family residential dwellings are a
permitted use in the R-2 district.
3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial
hardship to the petitioner as the site would remain unbuildable in this zoning
district.
4. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate
conditions and safeguards as noted below.
In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor
(Cohen, Dionne, Debski, Pinto, Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for a
Variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and
regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and
approved by the Building Commissioner.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety
shall be strictly adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
6. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office
and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street.
7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having
jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
8. The structure shall be owner occupied.
9. The parking area shall be paved with a stone-like permeable type of paving.
10. There shall be at least four (4) off-street parking spaces on the site.
11. No blasting shall be permitted on the site.
12. The developer shall notify the neighbors prior to beginning construction on the
site.
Nina Cohen
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH 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
granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate 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 and 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.
A TUE COPY ATT
f7
-T
ST
CLERK
SALEM, MASS.
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS:
The Undersigned represent that he is are the owner(s)of a certain parcel of land located at:
14 Butler Street Street; Zoning District R-2 ;
and said parcel is affected by Section(s) VI-6.1 (4) and Table I of the Massachusetts State Building
Code.
Plans describing the work proposed have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in accordance with
Section IX A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following reason(s):
This is a direct appeal.
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeal to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance ambo or
the-13m4ding Gode and order the Inspector of Buildings to approve the application fee permit to build as filed, as
the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws and Auffdiag-cede would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially derogating from the intent and
purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and-Buildiagigode for the following reasons:
See Attached
Owner Double M Realty Trust, Scott Masse, Trustee Petitioner Joseph Reither. War. JCR Development LLC
Address 5 Essex Green Drive, Peabody, MA Address 295 Lynnfield Street. Lynn, MA
c/o John R. Keilty, Esquire
Telephone (978) 532-8400 Telepho 978 531-7900
y l ,,
(Sign e)
Date December 22, 2006
This original application must be filed with the City Clerk.A certified copy of this petition will be returned to petitioner at
the time of filing with the City Clerk, to then be filed with the Secretary of the Board of Appeal, four weeks prior to the
meeting of the Board of Appeal,along with a check for advertising in the amount of$ make check payable to
the"Salem Evening News".
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST
CITY CLERK
The Petitioner desires to move an Historic structure at number 2 Prospect Avenue
to the Lot at 14 Butler Street. (See letter attached)
The pre-existing non-confirming Lot at number 14 Butler Street requires relief
in the form of a variance from Lot width requirement of 100 feet to allow for
45 foot lot width, and area of 7,383 square feet; rather than 15, 000 square feet
as required.
The area of 7,383 meets and exceeds statutory minimum requirements of 5000
square feet for "grandfathered lots" so-called.
Salem Historical Commission
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(978)745-9595 EXT. 311 FAX (978) 740-0404
September 7, 2006
Joseph C. Reither
295 Lynnfield Street
Lynn, MA 01904
Dear Mr. Reither:
Thank you for exploring alternatives to demolition of the c 1870 structure located at 2
Prospect Avenue in Salem. As voted upon at its regular meeting on September 6, 2006, in lieu of
waiving the Demolition Delay Ordinance, the Salem Historical Commission supports the
preservation of 2 Prospect Avenue through its relocation to the lot at 14 Butler Street.
Sincerely,
THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Hannah Diozzi �
Chair
MAP 16 LOT 137
n/f PETER & BEATRICE POLEMENAKO
115 BOSTON STREET
44.00' s
7383 S.F. MAP 16 LOT 138
GAYLE LENTO
113 BOSTON STREET
ASSES':`R'S MAP 15
LOT 2G;
0
0
L6
0
0
MAP 15 LOT 203 0
n/F KAREN FLAHERTY !2 MAP 15 LOT 205
16 BUTLER STREET r CHARLES PELLETIER
PROPOSED 12 BUTLER STREET
I PARKING
I-
10'T-- — — 4 11'
( PROPOSED II
DWELLING I wo>-
I 0
V)
MIo�
#14 I CLO .
10' —24.0'- - '- 11.4'
OF ss N
DENNIS q�y 45.50
�. BUTLER STREET
a Mc MANUS
#35040 -
l�
ZONING DISTRICT - R2
REQUIRED S, PROVIDED PLOT PLAN IN SALEM, MA
LOT AREA 15,000 S.F. . . 7,383 S.F.
LOT VADTH 100' ass' FOR JOSEPH REITHER
LOT
COVERAGE 35% 12.3% DATE' 6 07 06
SCALE.' I" = JO" JOB NO. 06131
FRONT YARD 15' 15•
SIDE YARD 10' 10' LANDMARK
ENG/NEER/NG & SURI/EY1NG, INC.
REAR YARD 30' 112• 58J CHESTNUT STREET
LYNN, MA 01904
(781) 592-7016
ONDIZ{� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR
f SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595
�. FAX: 978-740-9846
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR ti C)
o C7
March 1, 2007
I. uo cr.
Decision
Petition of Joseph Reither requesting Variances _0 713
for the property at 14 Butler Street
LAI v
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals cn
A public hearing on the above petition was opened on January 17, 2007 and continued to
February 21, 2007 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The
following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Steven
Pinto, Elizabeth Debski, Bonnie Belair and Annie Harris.
The petitioner, Joseph Reither, sought Variances from lot size and width to allow a single
family residence to be built on an existing nonconforming lot located at 14 Butler Street,
Salem, in the Two-Family Residential (R-2) zoning district.
The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following
findings of fact:
1. The petitioner was represented by Attorney John Keilty of Peabody.
2. Petitioner's property is in the Two-Family Residential (R-2) district and is a
non-conforming lot in a residential neighborhood.
3. The petitioner initially filed an application to allow an historic structure to be
relocated to the site. Petitioner later amended his request to seek a variance to
allow a new residential structure to be built on the site,
4. The width of the lot would be 45.5 feet instead of the required 100 feet.
5. The lot size would be 7,383 sq.ft. instead of the required 15,000 sq.ft.
6. The petitioner would provide four(4) off-street parking spaces on the site.
7. A requirement of owner-occupancy would remain attached to the residence.
8. Twenty seven residents signed a petition in opposition to the the petitioner's
request. An abutter, Charles Pelletier, argued that the neighborhood was
congested with insufficient off-street parking, and that the additional residence
would add to the general congestion in the neighborhood. Mrs. Pelletier and
three other neighbors also said they opposed the proposed new construction.
9. Ward Four Councilor Leonard O'Leary opposed the petition on the grounds
that because of the small size of the lots, housing in the area is very tight.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public
hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes
as follows:
1. The petitioner's request to for Variances does not constitute substantial
detriment to the public good as residential uses are permitted in the R-2
district and the neighborhood makeup of the area is residential.
2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent
or purpose of the zoning ordinance as single-family residential dwellings are a
permitted use in the R-2 district.
3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial
hardship to the petitioner as the site would remain unbuildable in this zoning
district.
4. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate
conditions and safeguards as noted below.
In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor
(Cohen, Dionne, Debski, Pinto, Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for a
Variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and
regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and
approved by the Building Commissioner.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety
shall be strictly adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
6. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office
and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street.
7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having
jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
8. The structure shall be owner occupied.
9. The parking area shall be paved with a stone-like permeable type of paving.
10. There shall be at least four(4) off-street parking spaces on the site.
11. No blasting shall be permitted on the site.
12. The developer shall notify the neighbors prior to beginning construction on the
site.
Nina Cohen
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH 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
granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate 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 and 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.
,.,,R,,,� COPY FOR YOUR
KEVIN T. DALY INFORMATIO&
r OIJARD F. FEMINO
ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR �AOJ ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
93 WASHINGTON STREET "'m'' . 93 WASHINGTON STREET
AND CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS AND
ONE CHURCH STREET MICHAEL E. O'B RIEN ONE SCHObL STREET
SALEM, MA 01970 CITY SOLICITOR BEVERLY, MA 01915
745-4311 745-4311
745-0500 93 WASHINGTON STREET 921.1990
AND
PLEASE REPLY TOONE CHURCH STREET 81 WASHINGTON STREET PLEASE REPLY TO ONE SCHOOL STREET
SALEM. MA 01.970
745.4311
744-3363
PLEASE REPLY TO 81 WASHINGTON STREET
' January 13, 1988
Steve Dibble
Salem Planning Department
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem; Massachusetts 01970
Re : 14 Butler Street, Salem ..
Dear Steve :
Please be 'advised that almost a' year and a half has elapsed
since a bid was received from Mr; Lento regarding purchase of the
above real estate. Since. that time, I ,have had numerous corres-
pondence with Mr. Len'to .and he has either been unwilling or un-
able to take title to the real estate.
Accordingly, I recommend that the property be, re-advertised
for sale.
Z_
/V_" ' my y
ours,,
Michael E. O'Brien
City Solicitor
MEO/jp
Enclosures
CQ: William Munroe, Building Inspector
Carl Lento SS V,
`RtJ?„r ,a0 A110
' !ly
t,'CCNCYp,�
-yJAFC1MMa W��Y
CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT
BOARD OF HEALTH
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
ROBERT E. BLENKHORN 9 NORTH STREET
HEALTH AGENT
teen 741-1600 May 10, 1985
William Monroe
Inspector of Public Property
One Salem Green
Salem, PHA 01970
Dear Mr. Monroe:
Due to—complain s ,received by thissdepartment an inspection was made of
X14 Butler-St_r`iee? on May 9, 1985. The following was noted:
1. An abandoned vehicle was present on the property along
with an accumulation of overgrowth.
This vacant lot is owned by the City of Salem and we hope that appropiate
action will be taken. If you have any questions please contact this
office.
Very truly yours,
FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH
ROBERT-E. BLENKHORN, C.H.O.
Health Agent
C-)
cc: Fire Prevention
E" cry