9 CAMBRIDGE STREET - BUILDING JACKET q
t 1�y..can„ v
CERTIFICATE ISSUED
N DATE 4/9/91
CITY OF SALEM
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970, BUILDING PERMIT
a4� _ CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
DATE 1/29 19 90 PERMIT NO. 29-90
APPLICANT Michael TC.I sho ADDRESS 9 C�1Tlbridm Ste owner
two.) ISTAEETI (CON+R'S OCENSEI
PERMIT TO RoloVat'OES' (_T STORY Dkellim NUMBER. OF
DWELLING UNITS
1+•r[ or Iwnov W[NTI �No. nrorosm uSU
AT (LOCATION) 9 Cambridge St. yard 3 ZONING R-2
,3 IR0.1 (STREET) -DISTRICT
BETWEEN 1 AND
_» ( (CROSS STREET) ICROSS STREETI
SUBDIVISION' S LO7 BLOCK SPIE
BUILDING IS TO BE FT. WIDE P.• FT. LONG BY FT. IN HE ICNT AND SKALL CONFORM IN CONSTRUCTION
TO TYPE .i USE GROUP BASEMENT WALLS OR FOUNDATION
{ 1 --]Ff hath,
REMARKS: R4nodel LJath, new shower, floor, walls, relocate sir*, new kitchm,cabinets, relocate I
..
stove, ramdel 5ad- entry timsn U01W wails, acia doine
i
AREA
CALLi FMPER= TO OCCUPY 745-9591min -p K.}3�K-E�K.k1 swig 1(
VOL
UME � rs„---- ------- $
C•:SIC-SQUtQE FELT)
fates
U�eheel & Ann Tcmh0E+srnvRYs..s..vmvS+veS(be(ve/I—mvmse�Ismr.+vmRr
OWNER TO BE POSTED.ON PREMISES
ADDRESS CambLidLTe .St• SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR CONDITIONS OF CERT)FECATE
A
D.Ii. �
f
DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL FOR CERTIFICATE
of OCCUPANCY and COMPLIANCE'
To be filled in by each division indicated hereon
upon completion of its final inspection. j
BUILDINGS Permit No. 28-90 t, j
Approved by DAVID HAMS I pate 4/9191`
Remarks
PLUMBING Permit No.
Approved by ' Date
Remarks ON FILE
ELECTRICAL Permit No. (�
Approved by Date
Remarks ON FILE j
OTHER FIRE Permit No.
I
i
Approved by Date
Remarks ON FILE
OTHER Permit No.
Approved by Date
1:71 I
Remarks
. I
i
• ff
1
r
BUILDING
PERMIT
JOB WEATHER CARD
DATE 1��19 On PERMIT NO.
APPLICANT '�Z^1 ' � ADDRESS O r G't
t ♦ 1X0.1 (STREET) ICONTR'S LICENSE(
PERMIT TO � (_) STORY r# rX4-1. NUMBER OF
DWELLING UNITS
(}YR p1 IWAOVEME MtI K0. IRR OP09EO 3 )
Fat IrJar". ZONING
AT (LOCATION) DISTRICT
IMO.( (STREET)
BETWEEN AND
ICNOSi STREET) (CROSS STREET)
LOT
SUBDIVISION LOT BLOCK SIZE
0
BUILDING IS TO BE FT, WIDE 8V FT. LONG BY � FT. IN HEIGHT AND SMALL CONFORM IN CONSTRUCTION
TO TYPE USE GROUP BASEMENT WALLS OR FOUNDATION
TYPE(
Rw-mlel bail ��ns?rknx •floor. w_ll . ITIPE)
. air* rff�a:dritd�n,
REMARKS:
. ',.F ,...:.. .. . .... ..a.e. ,� _.�. i.e.. ..o ..;: .. .eF .,.... ..0 ...,.....:.
AREA OR @@ (ji17. PERMIT �n.
VOLUME ESTIMATED COST p 'F FEE S
:OJBIC%SOUARE FEET) Y
OWNER
Mid-ml & Arm ',rx:r!*1� iNNM"`
BUILDING DEPT;
ADDRESS BY fC�
BULDNG
THIS PERMIT CONVEYS NO RIGHT TO OCCUPY ANY STREET. ALLEY OR SIDEWALK OR ANY PARTS YHE EOF.aE I TOHER TEMPORARILY <I
PERMANDENTLY. ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED UNDER THE BUILDING CODE, MUST BE AP-
OV FRE -BY__TME.JURISDICTION.STAGE T OR ALLEY GRADES AS WELL AS DEPTH ANn LOCATION OF PUBLIC SEWERS MAY BE OBTAINED
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT RELEASE THE APPLICANT FROM THE CONDITIONS
OF ANY APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION RESTRICTIONS.
MINIMUM OF THREE CALL gPpROV ED PLANS MUST BE RETAINED ON JOB AND THIS WHERE APPLIC 4BLE SEPARATE
INSPECTIONS REOUIREDFOR CARD KEPT POSTED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION HA$ BEEN PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR
ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK: ELECTRICAL. PLUMBING •ND
I. FO UNO•TIONS OR FOOTINGS. MADE. WHERE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 15 RE. MECHANICAL INSTALLATIONS.,
Z. PRIOR TO COVERING STRUCTURAL QUIRED,S VCM BUILDING SHA LL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL
MEMBERSIREADY TO LATH(.
3. FINAL INSPECTION BEFORE FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE,
OCCUPANCY.
POST THIS CARD SO IT IS VISIBLE FROM STREET
BUILDING INSPECTION APPROV S PL MBING INSPECTION APPROVALS ELECTRICAL INSPECTION APPR VALS
71
1
BOARD CF HEALTH GAS INSPECTION APPROVALS E DEPT. I S TI APPROVALS
OTHER CITY ENGINEER 2 -- 2
w�
WORK SMALL NOT PROCEED UNTIL THE PERMIT WILL BECOME NULL AND VOID IF CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS INDICATED ON THIS CARD
INSPEC'DR HAS APPROVED THE VARIOUS WORK IS NOT STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DATE THE CAN BE ARRANGED FOR BY TELEPHONE
STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION. OR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION.
PERMIT IS ISSUED AS NOTED ABOVE.
e �,coroit4
Salem Historical Commission
CITY HALL. SALEM, MASS. 01970
r
Jp�O/MR16��4
CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPLICABILITY
It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has
determined that the proposed construction [ ] ; reconstruction Exg;
demolition [ ] ; moving [ ]; alteration [ ]; painting [ ]; sign or
other appurtenant fixture [ ] work as described below in the . . .
McIntire Historic District.
(NAME OF HISTORIC DISTRICT)
Address of Property:f9—Cambridge� St:
Name of Record Owner: Michael 6 Ann Tomsho
DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROPOSED:
Repair of 3 wooden gutters and replacement of gutters around small section
of North side roof. No changes in material, color or design.
Non-applicable due to being an in-kind replacement.
does not involve an exterior architectural feature or involves a feature
covered by the exemptions or limitations set forth in the Historic District's
Act (Federal Laws, Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission.
Dated: 10/18/90 SALEMHISTORICAL COMMISSION
By C L;PtI 0
Chairman
Salem Historical Commission
CITY HALL. SALEM. MASS. 01970
'�J^�OIMM6(P�tY
CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPLICABILITY
It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has
determined that the proposed construction [ ] ; reconstruction [x] ;
demolition [ ] ; moving [ ] ; alteration [ ]; painting [ ] ; sign or
other appurtenant fixture [ ] work as described below in the . . .
McIntire Historic District.
(NAME OF HISTORIC DISTRICT)
Address of Property: 9 Cambridge St .
Name of Record Owner: David B . Coyle
DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROPOSED:
Replair/replace rotted shingles from rear and side of house facing
driveway. No change in color , material , design or outward appearance .
Any new shingles will be installed in same pattern to match rest of
house . Repainting of entire house in existing color .
does not involve an exterior architectural feature or involves a feature
covered by the exemptions or limitations set forth in the Historic District's
Act (MA_ Gen. Law, Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission. Please be sure
to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings prior to commencing.
Dated: .Tune 7 , 1993 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
By .C_4, 1 I- AG._
V ce ��r,
w,cuxclr4
Salem Historical Commission
CITY HALL, SALEM. MASS. 01970
^¢OINM6 fP�tY
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has
determined that the proposed construction [ ] ; reconstruction [ ];
demolition [ ] ; moving [ ] ; alteration [ ] ; painting � ] ; sign or
other appurtenant fixture [ ] work as described below in the . . .
McIntiAe Historic District.
(NAME OF HISTORIC DISTRICT)
Address of Property: 9 Camb2cdge S#.
Name of Record Owner: David B. Coyee
DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROPOSED:
Paint eo.Cosua as pen paint chip-6 supplied with appti.ca.ti.on dated 7/15/93.
Body - pinkish shade
Trim - o66 white shade
will be appropriate to the preservation of said Historic District, as per
the requirements set forth in the Historic District's Act (Mass. General Law
Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission. Please be sure to obtain the
appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings prior to commencing work.
Dated:August 2, 1993 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
By
Chairman
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(508) 745-9595 EXT. 311 FAX (508) 740-0404
CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPLICABILITY
It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed:
E Construction ❑ Moving
Reconstruction ❑ Alteration
❑ Demolition ❑ Painting
❑ Signage ❑ Other Work
as described below does not involve an exterior architectural feature or involves a feature covered by the
exemptions or limitations set forth in the Historic District's Act (M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historic
Districts Ordinance.
District: McIntire
Address of Property: 9 Cambridge St
Name of Record Owner: David Coyle
Description of Work Proposed:
Repair/replacement of wooden gutter to replicate existing. No changes in color, material, design or outward
appearance. Non-applicable due to being in kind maintenance/replacement.
Dated: January 8. 1998 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMI SION
al
The homeowner has the option not to commence the work (unless it relates to resolving an outstanding
violation). All work commenced must be completed within one year from this date unless otherwise indicated.
THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of
Buildings (or any other necessary permits or approvals) prior to commencing work.
Plans must be tiled and approved by the Inspector before a permit will be granted.
No. gJa'�-3 City of Salem Ward 13 13
IS PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE o -
HISTORIC DISTRICT? Yesr/No_ w a
IF SIDING, HAS ELECTRICAL / Home Phone # 709- 7t/5--Z3j
PERMIT BEEN OBTAINED? Yes V No
APPLICATION Bus. Phone # j01: 7,
FOR
PERMIT TO ROOF, REROOF INSTALL SIDING
Salem,Mass.,
TO THE INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS:
The undersigned herebv a 1 s four a ]permit to build according to the following specifications:
t
Owner's name and address �_J�_6
Architect's name I/
Mechanic's name and address l Lel ZqL�C17/✓5
Location of building,No. Ceryl
What is the purpose of building? / P'2'y!C-tr— _
Material of building? — bV0Zy-1A Asbestos? /i/O
If a dwelling,for how many families?_
Will the building conform to the regajrements of th Is ?
Estima�ed cost ,ontrac ors No.
Signature of applicant tZI
E M A K IGNED UNDER THE
PENALTY OF PERJURY.
No. 2=/ Ward
APPLICATION FOR
PERMIT TO ROOF
REROOF OR INSTALL SIDING
Location 6 �'U V1, e r �—
PERMIT GRANTED
19
Approved
Vo ca 8 il�J ng /nspe or
/off P✓"VKI4r
� g� 3
j
s � � Q��ClIIL�G JflB�7ifi
Orly'• J u go ana'.�raaaoras
Michael S. Dukakis
Governor Vita . iQatow :J7aosl/' Aaam -I jv
Kentaro Tsuciumt , ..rcaaaatoriatrrs 02!06'
Chairman
16171 7'-'3:
Charles J. Dineuo
Administrator
MEMORANDUM
70: All Budding Dcpartmcnw:itatc Building Inspectors
FROM: Charles J. Dino. Administrator
DATE: October 31. 1988
SUBJECT. MGI. coo, ti54, Added Rv rSRd. S9 of the Ant of 1997
The above-mentioned Statute requires mat debris resulting from the demolition. rcnovallnn, rehabilitation
or other alteration at a hudding or structure bC disposed of in a properly hccnscu solid waste disposal
ucddv as defined by MGL c111. S150A anis that hmldine permits or licenses •rre to indicate the location
,If the lacthty at which the said dchns is to he disposed. THIS REOUIREMENT DOES NOT
APPLY TO NEW CONSTRUCTION.
In orucr to simnifv the process and of provide umfurmfty, we •rre attaclftng a copy at a form which you
can either reproduce and use as It Is since the completed form will be attached to the office copy of building
permits or It--s: or reproduce it on your letterhead.
In etre of municipal,commercial.Industrial.or multiunit housing construction. the contractor may not know
the dumpster subcontractor at the time of the budding permit application. In such curs, the attached copy
of an Affidavit can be used.
The complete law is contained in the Nnvemner issue of CODEWORD which will he matiLd ld you in the
nein two weeks. If you should have anv question. please let us know.
CJDlkm
In accordance with the provisions of MGL c 40, S 54, a condition of Building Permit
Number is that the debris resulting from this work shall be
disposed of in a properly licensed solid waste disposal facility as defined by MGL c 111, S
150A.
The debris will be disposed of in:
(LoP��-t�a� U{9r✓D�l l�
cation of Facility)
Si ature I ermit Ap li nt
1-7 1Z
Date
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT
EMPLOYER: LEON RACZKOWSKI D/B/A BUREAU FILE NUMBER STATUS OF EMPLOYER
NATIONAL INSTALLATIONS 356585A INDIVIDUAL
36 SUMMER STREET ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS
SALEM MA 01970 POLICY ISSUED SUBJECT TO
PENDING PREMIUM CHANGE
ENDORSEMENT (WC200401) .
COVERAGE UNDER THIS ASSIGNMENT
APPLIES TO MA. OPERATIONS
ONLY. FOR COVERAGE OUTSIDE
OF MA. , APPLY TO APPROPRIATE
POOL OR PLAN.
AGENT DAN HURLEY INS AGCY INC INSURANCE COMPANY:
OR 7 FEDERAL STREET
PRODUCER: DANVERS MA 0.1923 LIBERTY MUTUAL INS CO
PORTSMOUTH CIRCLE BUSINESS CTR
500 SPAULDING TURNPIKE
PORTSMOUTH NH 03801
TAX IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 04-297-355€3 (603) 431-7545
CLASSIFICATION OF OPERATION CLASSTOTA IMANTED RATE ESTIMATED
CODE REMUNERATION PREMIUM
CARPENTRY-DETACHED PRIVATE RESIDENCES 5645 1.000 17.71 $ 177
LOSS CONSTANT 0032 40
EXPENSE CONSTANT 0900 160
MINIMUM PREMIUM COVERAGE A-5645 500
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY 100/100/500 9845
STD PREM SUBJECT TO MASS DIA ASSESSMENT 340
MASS DEPT OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS
ASSESSMENT 2.6% OF STANDARD PREMIUM 9
TOTAL PREMIUMJ $ 509
AUDIT BASIS ANNUAL REQUIRED DEPOSIT PREMIUM $ 509
COMMENTS
COVERAGE EFFECTIVE 12. 01 AM ON
07/23/93 WITH ABOVE INSURANCE COMPANY.
DATE OF NOTICE 07/23/93 PREPARED BY JOANNE ROBERY
THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE PLAN OF MASSACHUSETTS
EMPLOYER COPY
p. .�
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
E @ DEFAIKIMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS
600 WASHINGTON STREET
fames� carnpoeii BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02111
o ss one WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE AFFIDAVIT
r
Jj&A /Ns -Le—yy ,
(I icanscci perminec)
with a principal place of business/residence at:
Go 45/w -A-� C7- 5""-vim/ O d19176
(City/StatelZip) f
do hereby certify, under the pains and penalties of perjury,that:
M/1"`am an employer providing the following workers' compensation coverage for my employees working on this
jab.
Insurance Company Policy Number
I am a sole proprietor and have no one working for me.
( j I am a sole proprietor, general contractor or homeowner (circle one)and have hired the contractors luted below
who have the following workers' compensation insurance policies:
Name of Contractor Insurance Company/Policy Number
Name of Contractor Insurance Company/Policy Number
Name of Contractor Insurance Company/Policy Number
j} I am a homeowner performing all the work myself.
NOTE: Please be aware that while homeowners who employ persons to do maintenance,construction or repair work on a
dwelling of not more tban three units in which the homeowner also resides or on the grounds appurtenant thereto are not generally
considered to be employers under the Workers' Compensation Act(GL C. 152,sett. 10)),application by a homeowner for a license
or permit may evidence the legal status of an employer under the Workers' Compensation ACL
1 understand that a copy of this statement will be forwarded to the Department of Industrial Accidents' Office of Insurance for coverage
venfication and tha failure to secure coverage as required under Section 25A of MGL 152 cast lead to the imposition of criminal penalties
consisting of a fine o up to $1500.00 and/or imprisonment of up to one year and civil penalties in the form of a Stop Work Order and a
Fine of$100. 0 a is against me. (� �y
Sig thi day of_ � ( 19
1
It A
Licen elPermirt Uceruor/Permitror
e�µ,coxo�l�
Salem Historical Commission
3a � CITY HALL, SALEM. MASS. 01970
�j tr
CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPLICABILITY
It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has
determined that the proposed construction [ ] ; reconstruction [x];
demolition [ ] ; moving [ ]; alteration [ ]; painting [ ]; sign or
other appurtenant fixture [ ] work as described below in the . . .
McIntire Historic District.
(NAME OF HISTORIC DISTRICT)
Address of Property: 9 Cambridge St .
Name of Record Owner: David B . Coyle
DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROPOSED:
Replair/replace rotted shingles from rear and side of houselifgcing
driveway . No change in color , material , design or outward appearance .
Anynnew shingles will be installed in same pattern to match rest of
house . Repainting of entire house in existing color .
does not involve an exterior architectural feature or involves a feature
covered by the exemptions or limitations set forth in the Historic District's
Act (MA- Gen. Law, Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission. Please be sure
to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings prior to commencing.
Dated: June 7 , 1993 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
By.
e y'Coxor},�
Salem Historical Commission
CITY HALL, SALEM. MASS. 0I970
1
CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPLICABILITY
It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has
determined that the proposed construction [ ] ; reconstruction V ] ;
demolition [ ] ; moving [ ]; alteration [ ] • painting [ ]; sign or
other appurtenant fixture [ ] work as described below in the . . .
McIntire Historic District.
(NAME OF HISTORIC DISTRICT)
Address of Property: 9 Cambridge Street
Name of Record Owner: David B. Coyle
DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROPOSED:
Replacement of shingles on front of house. No changes in color, material,
design or outward appearance.
r
Non-applicable due to being an in-kind replacement.
does not involve an exterior architectural feature or involves a feature
covered by the exemptions or limitations set forth in the Historic District's
Act (MA. Gen. Law. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission. Please be sure
to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings prior to commencing.
Dated: 7/15/93 SALEM HISTORI L COMMISSION
By —
U.�
Salen7 is�®ricad Cwommissi®n
ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(61 7)745-9595.EXT. 311
NOTICE OF DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF
NON-APPLICABILITY
RE: 9 Cambridge Street
�t
On Wednesday, October 17, 1990 , the Salem Historical
Commission unanimously denied an application for a Certificate of
Non-applicability from Michael and Ann Tomsho for their property
at 9 Cambridge Street regarding the replacement of the roof . The
application was denied due to the work constituting a change from
what is existing and therefore would necessitate review under an
application for Certificate of Appropriateness . I attest that
this is an accurate record of the vote taken, not amended or
modified in any way to this date .
October 19, 1990 Ll�
Jane Guy
Clerk Vof the Commission
cc : Building Inspector
City Clerk
JHisCom8/Denial
J ,
Chi of �ulrm, 9assuchlau is
Board of Au{rettl 4111
s ct
DECISION ON THE_PE-T-I-TION,.OF ANN AND MICHAEL TOMSHO FOR
VARIANCES ATj9 CAMBRIDGE ST. -'(.R-2)
A hearing on this petition was held January 16, 1991 with the following Board
Members present: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Joseph Correnti , Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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 , owners of the property, are requesting a Variance from zoning
requirements in order to allow a two family dwelling in this R-2 zone.
Before hearing the merits of the petition the Board first had to consider re-
hearing the petition as it was denied on November 7, 1990. After hearing the
merits, Mr. Luzinski made a motion, seconded by Mr. Febonio to hear the main
petition. By a vote of 5-0 the Board allowed the petitioner to proceed with
their petition to allow a two family.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding by this
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings or structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;
c. 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 the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The main character of the building has never changed as to kitchen and bath
facilities.
2. Property has been assessed as a two family since 1973.
3. Adequate legal parking can be provided on site as provided for under the
City of Salem Zoning Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANN AND MICHAEL TOMSHO FOR
A VARIANCE AT 9 CAMBRIDGE ST. , SALEM
page two
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Zoning 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 petitioners.
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 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 meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to
smoke and fire safety.
2. Petitioner meet any and all requirements of any other Board and/or
Commission if necessary.
VARIANCE GRANTED
January 16, 1991
ocA, 44
i' ichard A. Bencal , Chairman
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 Mass. General laws, Chapter 808,and shall be filed within 20 days
after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, section 11, the Variai:ce
cr=reCial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
r!ecision, 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
C _. fled, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex
- Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record pr,
is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL!
M
cv ;;
.� r
Salem Historical Commissi®n
ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(978)745-9595 EXT.311 FAX(978)740-0404
CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPLICABILITY
It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed:
❑ Construction ❑ Moving
Reconstruction ❑ Alteration
❑ Demolition ❑ Painting
❑ Signage ❑ Other Work
as described below does not involve an exterior architectural feature or involves a feature covered by the
exemptions or limitations set forth in the Historic District's Act(M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historic
Districts Ordinance.
District: McIntire
Address of Property: 9 Cambridge Street
Name of Record Owner: David Coyle
Description of Work Proposed:
Replacement of front steps in concrete. No changes in design or outward appearance.
Installation of 1-2" maximum ridge determined to be substantially at grade and therefore not within the
Commission's jurisdiction.
Dated: August 6, 1998 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
By:_&.0 r7c
The homeowner has the option not to commence the work (unless it relates to resolving an outstanding
violation). All work commenced must be completed within one year from this date unless otherwise indicated.
THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of
Buildings (or any other necessary permits or approvals) prior to commencing work.
t '' m
Yf
kt1amrve
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
KEVIN T.DALY Legal Department LEONARD F FEIVINO
City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor
508-745-0500 Salem,Massachusetts 01970 508-921-1990
- a
November 2 , 1990
Mr. David Harris
Building Inspector
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
in re: 9 Cambridge Street, Salem, MA
Dear Mr. Harris:
Pursuant. to your request, please be- advised- that a
permit may issue from your department regarding the
above-mentioned property if the property has been used as a
two family property since 1965.
The owners of 9 Cambridge Street have represented
to this office and will represent to you that they have not
abandoned the use of the property as a two family. They
will also present a written statement to you that the
property has maintained two kitchens, two bathrooms and
existing doors and walls in conformance with their use as a
two family. I have also attached hereto a copy of a recent
case regarding the issue of abandonment under Chapter 40A.
If you have any questions or need further
information, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
ic)50
Leonard F. Femino
LFF/sbh
Enclosures
664 123-Mass-App_Ct.:664 23 Mass. App. Ct. 664 665
5 _ Bankn v.Board of Appeals of Lakeville. Barden v. Board of Appeals of Lakeville.
i
GRANT, J. The plaintiff has appealed from a judgment of
r: the Superior Court which, in effect, sustained a 1984 decision
of the board of appeals of Lakeville by which the board refused
BAs(C-W']:BARTLE_TT=VS.-BOARD OF,APPEALS OF LAKEVILLE to order the town's building inspector to issue a building permit
& another.' --W-� to the plaintiff for use in connection with the renovation of
Plymouth Febrvary 12. 1987.—March 18, 19823 three dwelling units in a building located in the residence
[ . �
3 ¢--_ zoning district of the town. The-questions�foidecisian-are-the
+•cac+� me
{; GEEANEY,C.J.,GII.rNr,BC PEpRETfA,JJ. (proper-constriction-{ _of-
1)_ofthe_third-paragrap G..Le
_ :-40A,
k
} § 6
as s an eanng Irl=_St-1975;!:c-7:808,--§.3,--whichpravtdes
Zoning, Nonconforming use or structure, By-law, words, "Discontinued,' that "[a]=zonmg ordinance or by law•may define and.regulate•
1� "Abandoned." -
1 nonconfoiiiung u-ses,atind;structures-abandoned or.not used-for
l
The board of appeals of a town, in concluding that a nonconforming use a;penod''of two. years OifrtfoGe,—and={2} of §=V-(a) af the
of a certain building had been extinguished, property equated the lan. `L-akevt]le zontng_by-law as amende,d-in,1978_w_hich provideess
^( gunge"discontinued for a period of two years or longer,"appearing in itt=pertinent_partafor the eannuation=af=anyTnanconfoiming�
the relevant portion of the town's zoning by-law, as amended in 1978, use of,71157dilding or-_land provided:sucktusc-;his=no7t-b,6 `n
f with the language"not used for a period of two years or more,"as used '"" - - ""`""'�`
d(scontinued for a-pend of two years or longer.'
in the cognate provision of G. L. c. 40A, § 6, third par.,appearing in
St. 1975, c. 808, § 3. [666-670] The case was submitted to the Superior Court on a statement
of agreed facts which may be summarized as follows.dn+1959;0
;; A judge did not err in concluding that a nonconforming use of two dwelling .�;-.,e
units in a certain building had been extinguished through abandonment at tlleytimeofxthe adoption--of-7ihe first zonmg by=lawain
by the building's prior owner, where the dwelling units had been unoe- Lakeville;=therbuilding-itt-Lquestion�contained- three dwelling
i copied for more than ten years and where, on the agreed statement of �T-
1 facts the judge was entitled to infer that, despite the unitspalLof which wereoccupted�The-by-law-did not permit
l g p prior owner's t}ree.familysdwelling-unitsTiw�the residencezoning district'in
it declining health, she might have rented the two units during part of the
i' ten-year period had she wished to do so. [670-6711 .whichxthe.:property_wasiplaced vTkw property=wasrprotected
} The owner of a building was precluded from contending on appeal that he bycthe_noncgn1g__ning:use provisions-ofthe 1959 by-law„which
1' was entitled to reestablish a nonconforming use of the building after were the same as the present provisions already quoted except
z that use had been extinguished by the operation of the applicable zoning that they concluded with words such as "one year or longer"
by-law, where the owner did not place before this court any by-law rather than the present "two years or longer." In 1962 the
provision on which he sought to rely. (672] property was acquired by a couple by the name of Ryan, who
occupied one of the units and let the other two out to tenants.
CIVILL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department until Mr. Ryan died, some time in 1973. Mrs. Ryan continued
on October 2, 1984, to live in the unit formerly occupied by herself and Mr. Ryan
The case was heard by William H. Carey, J., on a statement until the time of her death in 1983. The unit in which she Iived
of agreed facts. has been unoccupied since her death. The other two units have
Daniel F. Murray for the plaintiff. been unoccupied "from and after approximately January 1,
Thomas A. Maddigan, Town Counsel, for the defendants. 1974."The statement of agreed facts also contains the follow-
ing: "Mrs. Ryan's health steadily declined for several years
until her death. Her ability to maintain and manage the house
'The building inspector of the town. was substantially impaired because of declining health. Be-
t
r;
Ff ,
666 23 Mass. App. Ct. 664 23 Mass. App. Ct. 664 667
BMIWe . Board of Appeals of Lakeville. Barden v. Board of Appeals of Lakeville.
cause of+erzdec]ininghealth-Mrs-Ryanmwassunablelto=rent different from the use to which it was put before the alteration."'
the premises onto-phys]cally-alter-or,el]minate the apartments" That language found its way into G. L. (1921) c. 40, §'29,
(emph s s pu plied)? without any change of substance. With the slight changes ef-
In 1984, the plaintiff, as the present owner of the property, fected by St. 1925, c. 116, § 3, the language was carried to
applied to the building inspector of the town for a building G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 40, § 29. The zoning enabling legislation
permit for use in connection with the renovation of all three was extensively rewritten by St. 1933,c. 269("An Act revising
dwelling units. The zonin by-law still forbids three-family the municipal zoning laws), § 1. The subject of nonconforming
dwellingunits u are l2rotected by the nonconforming uses resurfaced in a new G. L. c. 40, § 26,1 the second sentence
use provisions o the by-law, and the buil ing inspector denied of which provided that "[s]uch an ordinance or by-law may
the application. The plaintiff appealed to the board of appeals regulate non-use of non-conforming buildings and structures
under G. L. c. 40A, § 8, as appearing in St. 1975, c. 808, so as not to undulyprolongthe life of non-conforming uses."
§ 3. The board attributed to the words "discontinued for a In that language is found the first legislative grant oT au ority
period of two years or longer" in the amended by the same to cities and towns outside Boston to extinguish nonconforming
meaning as the words "not used for a period of two years or uses. The quoted language persisted until the effective date of
more" in the present G. L. c. 40A, § 6, and sustained the the present G. L. c. 40A, § 6. See St. 1952, c. 438; G. L.
j c.action of the building inspector.2 That action prompted the 40; St. 1969, c. 572.
3 § 5, as appearing in St. 1954, c. 368, § 2; St. 1962,
c. 340;
plaintiffs appeal to the Superior Court under G. L. c. 40A,
§ 17, as amended through St. 1982, c. 533, § 1. As already �`' • It became the fashion for cities and towns, acting under the
noted,,:a_judge of that court sustained the board's decision. foregoing authorization, to adopt ordinances and by-laws di-
1. A careful review of the legislative history of the provi-
rected to the extin uishment of nonconforming uses which
sions of the third paragraph of the present G. L. c. 40A, § 6, spoke in terms of"discontinuin "such a use for a stat period.
leads to the conclusion that the board's construction of the In the first case involving such an ordinance to reach theSu-
amended by-law is correct. The first grant of legislative author- preme Judicial Court it was concluded, after a review of au-
thorities in other jurisdictions, that "discontinued' should be
nances and by-laws found in St. 1920, c. 601 onin Act to considered the equivalent of"abandoned." Pioneer Insulation
authorize cities and towns to limit buildings according to their & Modernizing Corp. v. Lynn, 331 Mass. 560, 565 (1954).
i
use or construction to specified districts"), § 7, which provided
that "[tlliis act shall not apply to . . . the existing use of any See Inspector of Buildings of Burlington v. Murphy, 320 Mass. 207,
209 (1946).
buil�din , but it shall apply to any alteration of a buildin to 4See LaMontagne v. Kenney, 288 Mass. 363, 368 (1934).
provide for its use for a ouroose, or in a manner, substantially 'See Planning Bd. of Reading v. Board of Appeals of Reading, 333
Mass. 657, 658-659 (1956).
!
'A copy of the board's decision was attached to the co Taint,as ®i • `Unless sooner accepted by a particular city or town, the provisions of
by G. L. c. 40A, § 17, and that copy has been reproduced in the grecord G. L. c. 40A, as appearing in St. 1975, c. 808, § 3, and as amended (in
respects not here material)by certain of the provisions of St. 1977,c. 829,
appendix. Copies of other documents similarly attached have not been
reproduced. The parties stipulated in writing that"[n]o exhibits attached to 3 took effect in every city and town except Boston(as to which see Emerson
College v. Boston, 393 Mass. 303, 306-309 [19841)on July I, 1978. See
[he complaint shall be evidence in the case."We think it clear from counsel's y Casasanta v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Milford, 377 Mass. 67, 72-73
response to the judge's opening inquiry as to the meaning of the stipulation (1979); Shalbey v. Board of Appeal of Norwood, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 521,
that there was no intention of blinding the court to the contents of the very 526-527 (1978).
decision which was to be scrutinized under § 17.
;i 668 23 Mass. App. Ct. 664 23 Mass. App. Ct. 664 669
tianlen v. Board of Appeals of L*lrntk. Bartlett v.Boats of Appeals of Lakeville.
j
The court said: "Hence it uniformly has been stated — and that may be desirous o�ighingznonconforming uses,_
i rightly we think—that the discontinuance of a nonconforming There are two,and only-two, criteria;they iWe distrneily,stated
use results from the concurrence of two factors, (I} the intent m the.dislunctive; but a city or o may employ,ettherTor
to abandon and (2) volunt Y� duct, whether affirma rve or both The`fust criterion-is-the famdtar"abandonment"on which
3h I the cases ha e-conc'�entry ed ever since theMectsion in the
negative, which carries the r p nation of abandonment. Thus ��
nonoccupancy of the premises and suspension or cessation of !� Pioneer Home Insulation`case iii-91954.rAs;the-decided cases'
business due to causes over which the owner has no control show-,•an_abandonment is something that can•happen momen-
do not of the,sp?yes constitute a discontinuance; and lapse of tanly, without the lapse of any stated period of,time.- See,
time is not the controlling factor, although it is evidential, - a , �. �� j s
g g e.g., Dawsonv-Board of Appeals of Bourne, 18 Mass. App.
especially in connection with facts showing an intent to discon- Ct. 962, 963 (1984) which is discussed in note 8 hereof.
tinue the use." Id The e-Vival'ence-osconttnued==and rThe other criterion m the,newz§6-is "not used for a period
�I ,abandoned has-been-perpetuated: See,e.g., Dobbs v. Board ,of two years or jqr . That language takenonface appears
�_
of Appeals of Northampton, 339 Mass. 684, 685, 68611959); to contemplate.a simple`eessation of, noncon€ormin use;for
I� Medford v. Marinucci Bros. & Co., 344 Mass. 50, 60 & n.i a period of,at least two years. If that is the meaning properly
(1962); Cape Resort Hotels, Inc. v. Alcoholic Licensing Bd. attributable to the phrase, then the Legislature has authorized
of Falmouth, 385 Mass. 205, 220-221 (1982),S.C., 388 Mass. the use of an objective standard which is easily understood by
1013(1983).'See also Cities Serv. Oil Co. v.Board ofAppeals the public and easily administered by building inspectors and
;{ of Bedford, 338 Mass. 719, 724 (1959). �l' * boards of appeal. If, on the other hand, we are to read into
We think this case presents a proper occasion to consider the phrase a requirement of voluntary or intentional action on
whether21he itigla e-of_thefthird-paragraaph-of the=pre tit the part of the owner of nonconforming premises amounting
G-L"c::40A;§'6,-.countenancessthe firrtlter.-:perpetuakion of to a traditional "abandonment," such as has been done in the
the:equivalence-o£::discontinu I°and `abandoned';in_zoning past with the word "discontinued,"'then the Legislature must
ordinances,andcbyelaws?°=ltwillAbe-remembered that §z6=now be taken to have indulged in a tautology: the statute would
provides that--[al-zoning-ordinance-or-by-law ma define and
p� Y have to be read as authorizing cities and towns to regulate
regulate nonconforming=uses and structures-abandoned or,not nonconforming uses which have been "abandoned or aban-
-of 4wo`years_ot more' By this language the doned for a period of two years or more." We reject any such
tised=fo periodod
Legislature has, for the first time, provided express criteria construction as unreasonable.We-think the Legislature7byits
which can be employed by cities and towns outside Boston choice,of the second cntaiibn W§i6;_mtEded to,authorize,
cotes and-towns to extinguish odierwtse protected-non (Ynform-
7We acknowledge that the Cape Resort Hotels case was decided well )g uses:rf particular premises are_not in4actused=for`the
after the effective date of the present G. L. c. 40A, § 6. A perusal of the s ` -
original papers in the appeal in that case (see Flynn v. Brassard, I Mass. Protected--.ptirpOSCS-for a:mlriitiluti'11=0f-tW_years:.,
App. Ct. 678, 681 [19741, S-C., 4 Mass, App Ct. 795 [19761)discloses
that the court was not asked to consider the question discussed in this part
of our opinion. "The usual lexical definitions of"discontinue"do not embrace any concept
a This question lurked in the record in Dawson v. Board of Appeals of of specific intent on the part of the person who discontinues something.
Bourne, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 962 (1984), but was not reached because the See,e.g.,Webster's New international Dictionary(2dunabridged ed, 1949),
by-law was framed in the disjunctive and the evidence required a finding which gives the following definitions: "To interrupt the continuance of; to
that the nonconforming use as a nursing home had been abandoned when - intermit, as a practice or habit; to put an end to;to cause to cease;to cease
the owners of the premises surrendered their license to operate the home. using; to give up."
i
!' 23 Mass. A Ct. 664 671
670 23 Mass. App. Ct. 664 pp.
Bartlett v.Board of Appeals of Lakeville. Barden v. Board of Appeals of Lakeville.
The proper construction of the present G. L. c. 40A, § 6, ten years prior to the application for a building permit." He
assumes a very real significance once it is understood that a �jj ® noted the portion of the statement of agreed facts which dealt
l city or town cannot adopt a new or amended zoning ordinance with Mrs. Ryan's declining health and consequent inability to
or by-law which conflicts with pertinent enabling legislation let the premises out following the death of her husband which
jl of general application. Planning Bd. of Reading v. Board of has already been quoted (supra, at 665-666). That portion of
Appeals of Reading, 333 Mass. 657, 660 (1956), and cases the statement has to be read with some care. It recites that
ii cited. In addition, the 1978 annual town meeting in Lakeville Mrs. Ryan's health "steadily declined for several years until
was under a legislative imperative to modify its zoning by-law her death" in 1983 (emphasis supplied). The statement does
j in such fashion as to bring it into conformity with the provisions not disclose when the decline commenced, with the result that
of the new G. L. c. 40A not later than July 1, 1978.10 See the there could have been a considerable period of years following
second paragraph of St. 1975, c. 808, § 7, inserted by St. the agreed date of January 1, 1974, during which Mrs. Ryan
1977, c. 829, § 4. In the circumstances, the-town meeting could have let the other two dwelling units out if she had been
must be taken to have done more than simply enlarge from disposed to do so.
one year to two the period of time necessary for the extinguish- In reality, the plaintiff, who had the burdens of proof and
ment of a nonconforming use. The town meeting had a choice persuasion on the questions of intent and inability as they
of adopting either or both of the criteria set out in the new related to a possible abandonment (see Dion v. Board of Ap-
II § 6. We think the meeting, by not referring to the "abandon- peals of Waltham, 344 Mass. 547, 555-556 [1962]; Bridge-
ment" criterion, by leaving undisturbed the word "discon- �ll • water v. Chuckran, 351 Mass. 20, 24 [1966]; Framingham
tinned,"and by inserting immediately thereafter the words"for Clinic, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Framingham, 382
i' two years or longer," opted for the simple, objective criterion Mass. 283, 297 [1981]; Warren v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of
not used for two years or more." Amherst, 383 Mass. 1, 10 [1981]; Cape Resort Hotels, Inc.
We conclude that the board of appeals was correct in equating v. Alcoholic Licensing Bd. of Falmouth, 385 Mass. at 212;
the language of the by-law with that of the cognate provision Martin v. Board of Appeals of Yarmouth, 20 Mass. App. Ct.
of the statute. As=two:of theithree;dwelling-units=in_question 972, 972 [1985]: contrast Brotherhood of Alpha Upsilon, Inc.
had_notTbeen-us_ed_-formore-than,twoyearsTa building permitA v• Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Bridgewater, 15 Mass. App. Ct.
was properly-refuse ' 991, 992 [19831), did not give the judge much to work with.
2. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, was de- In the circumstances, we cannot fault him for attaching primary
cided by that court, and was briefed in this court on the tra- importance to the period of more than ten years during which
'i ditional question of abandonment." The trial judge, in his the disputed units had not been used and in concluding that
memorandum of decision, was obviously disturbed by the fact there had been an abandonment of the nonconforming use so
1 that two of the dwelling units had not been used for more than far as those units were concerned. What happened here is
nothing more than what was first envisaged in the Pioneer
�l1 Insulation case, 331 Mass. at 565, and later adumbrated in
0It was agreed at argument that the 1978 amendment of§ V(a) of the the Dobbs case, 339 Mass. at 686-687.
Lakeville zoning by-law was adopted at the 1978 annual town meeting, t
which necessarily preceded the July 1, 1978, effective date of the new = "In the Dobbs case, 339 Mass. at 686, the court calculated the four- ear
G. L. c. 40A (supra, note 6). See G. L. c. 39, § 9. y
period of nonuse under consideration there to extend to the date of the
"Counsel agreed at argument that they had discussed the possibility that hearing in the Superior Court. In this case, such a calculation would have
this case might go off on the ground discussed in part one of our opinion. yielded a period of nonuse of eleven years and more than eight months.
SIN 672 23 Mass. App. Ct. 664
j IIII -- Barlett v. Board of Appeals of Lakeville.
I
3. The plaintiff also argues that he cannot be deprived of a
building permit because § V(a)of the Lakeville by-law, unlike
some other nonconforming use by-laws which have been con- OF
sidered by the courts, does not expressly prohibit the reestab-
lishment of such a use once it has been extinguished. See,
!i! e.g., the Pioneer Insulation case, 331 Mass. at 561-562. The
essential predicate of the argument is that § V(a) is the only
I portion of the by-law bearing on the extinguishment of noncon-
forming uses. The predicate is shaky. Itis not at all uncommon
�} to find provisions in other parts of zoning by-laws which control
;I I, ones such as § V(a) by providing, often in the preface to a
table of uses, that no property in the town shall be used except
for a purpose expressly permitted by the by-law. Indeed, it
appears from the statement of agreed facts in this case that NOTE.
"three family dwelling units were and are not allowed by the The next Page is purposely
numbered 990. The intervening and [sic] amended . . . Lakeville [z]oning [b]y-law."
�upage numbers were intentionally omitted in order to make it pos-
,i We have not been given any part of the by-law other than § V, ) • sible to publish this material with Permanent page numbers, thus
!! and we cannot take judicial notice of what any other part may making official citations available upon publication ofthisrelimi-
r: provide. Warren v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Amherst, 383 nary print. p
i, Mass. at 8. Brotherhood of Alpha Upsilon, Inc. v. Zoning Bd.
.a
of Appeals of Bridgewater, 15 Mass. App. Ct. at 991. The
j whole=notion_of-reestablishing an-extingutshed-nonconfornung
use�is repugnant-to-the-conc-eptembodted�in=the—provisolof
§W(a):�If;-as,matterof fact;there is some-other_part_of,the
by=law=whicIII supports,the"pla-IR iff's position;there-hag-been
a failure-of proof_on�the-point.
l;
Judgment affirmed.
a x.-
October 18, 1990
CD C=2
D
-c rv> =
flW
-
Leonard F. Femino, Esq. i r-
Assistant City Solicitor, Salem
xn
1 School St. g �
Beverly, MA m
�n ca
cs
Dear Mr. Femino:
You have asked us to explain our use of the property at
9 Cambridge St. since we purchased it in 1984.
As you may know, the property was used as a 2-family
dwelling house for over 70 years prior to our purchase. It
remained a 2-family dwelling when we purchased it until the other
tenants moved out and we decided that we needed the additional
space for our older children who have since left.
Nonetheless although we did not rent the other unit, it was
never our intention to abandon the 2-family use. We conducted
the use of the premises in such a way that the 2-family character
of the building was never altered
The building has two separate heating systems and two separate
doorbells; the second kitchen remains intact and the doors in the
second unit remain on the same hinges. The separate means of
access and egress have not been changed. These examples and others
are indicative of our intent to keep the premises operative as a
2-family use.
We have continued to pay taxes on the property which has been
assessed as a 2-family dwelling. If it was our intent to discon-
tinue the 2-family use we would certainly have brought it to the
attention of the assessor's office.
Very truly yours,
Ann M. Tomsho
Michael E. Tomsho
LAW OFFICES OF
GEORGE P. VALLIS
ONE CHURCH STREET
SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970
15081 7450500
GEORGE P.VALLIS
n O
October 24, 1990 :4
< N
o� m
^m CD
G1 n
Leonard F . Femino, Esq. 3 c rn
Assistant City Solicitor , Salem n g
I School Street y cz
Salem, MA 01970 0
RE : 9 Cambridge Street
Salem - Tomsho
Dear Lenny :
Enclosed is a letter prepared by Mr . & Mrs . Tomsho regarding the
use of their premises at 9 Cambridge Street . As you know, Mr . & Mrs .
Tomsho have applied for a permit to Install two electric meters and I
trust their letter will be of assistance to Mr . Munroe In his final
determination .
I would appreciate your immediate attention to this matter as the
Tomshos are anxious to resolve this pr lem.
S rely ,
G VALLIS
GPV/kmm
Enclosure
Citu of ttlrm, ��tl�ssttch>zsetts
s ,Bnttnl of Appeal
DECISION_ON THE-PET-I-TION OF ANN TOMSHO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
ATJ9-CAMBRIDGE ST. (R_2)
A hearing on this petition was held August 22, 1990, continued to October 17, 1990
continued again to November 7, 1990. The following Board Members were present at
these hearings: Richard Bencal , Chairman; Joseph Correnti , Richard Febonio,
Edward Luzinski and Mary Jane Stirgwolt. 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, owner of the premises, is requesting a Special Permit to allow the
premises to be converted back to a two family in this R-2 district.
The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request
for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, 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 Section
VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of non-
conforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of
nonconforming lots, lands, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such
change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detri-
mental 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 . The petitioner and/or representative failed to appear for the scheduled
hearing.
2. The petitioner failed to provide adequate plans.
3. Petitioner failed to provided proof that the property in question has been
used as a two family since 1965.
4. Proposal was opposed by the Salem Historic Commission on the grounds the
dwelling was built as a single family.
5. Petitioner failed to provide the Board with the evidence of notice of hearing
having been sent to abutters and others of the hearing date as per agreement
on August 22, 1990 and again on October 17, 1990.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANN TOMSHO FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT
AT 9 CAMBRIDGE ST. , SALEM
page two
1 . The granting of the requested Special Permit will not promote the public
health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City' s inhabitants.
2. The relief 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.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 0-5, against the granting
of the requested Special Permit. Having failed to garner the four affirmative
votes necessary,the motion to grant fails and the petition is denied.
SPECIAL PERMIT DENIED
November 7, 1990
Richard A. Bencal , Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Apoeni from this decision, if any,shall be made pursuant to section 17 of
the tAass. Ceneral Laws, Chapter 808, and shall bo filed within 20 days
after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuon' :a ma:s. General Laws, Chanter 808, section 11, the variance
er <dedot P'rmit ^.:'ite'i herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, taring ine certification of the City Clerk that 20 days hive
elapsed an-1 no appe!" has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
filed, th.t it h-c been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or
Is recorded and noted en the owner's Certi"icate of Title,
gGARQ OF.MPPEAQ
DATE OF PERMIT PERMIT'A' .S i RW)ER n T LOCATION
RSTiu uISt RI' = ROPER 11/ 19/ 1925 763 Madeline Abbott ROPER Y 9 Cambridge Street R-2
STRUCTURE MATERIAL DIMENSIONS No.OF STORIES No.OF FAMILIES I WARD COST
dwelling 7 metal garage 9'X16' 3 $ 150.garage
I car garage garage
BUILDER
" 12/3/87 COPIED ALL INFO FROM ORIGINAL CARD"
6/28/77 11263 Install new kitchen cabinets, new floor replace decayed fascia and
soffit boards.
6/ 12/85 11394 Erect deck on 2nd. floor of rear of house (owner - Michael Tomsho)
1/29/90 #28-90 Remodel Bath, new shower, floor, walls, relocate sink, remodel kitchen,new
cabinets, remodel back entry, finish walls, D.H. Est. $2,000. fee $20.
Withdrawn prior to 11/29/89 hearing, a petition to allow property be converted back to
a two family dwelling. (ZBA)
i
CUP of *atem, f aggacbmg¢ttg
i9ublic Propertp Mepartment
ar�nnvew Nuilbing Mepartment
One sbatem oreen
745-9505 Ext. 380
William H. Munroe
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
July 20, 1990
Richard W. Stafford
Tinti, Quinn & Savoy
222 Essex Street
Salem, MA. 01970
Dear Mr. Stafford:
This is in response to the letter regarding 9 Cambridge Street, Salem, MA. ,
dated July 17, 1990.
The conversion of a single family residence to a two family residence in an
R-2 District would be perntitted, however, it must meet the requirements of the
residential density regulations of Table I of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance.
A two family residence that does not meet the requirements of Table I would
be allowed if it were in existance prior to the adoption of the City of Salem
Zoning Ordinance (August 27, 1965) .
In conclusion, if a two family residence on a substandard lot abandoned it's
use to a one family dwelling for more than two years, (Section VII, E.6) , it would
then need to seek relief from the Board of Appeal to convert it back to a two
family residence.
Sincerely,
David J. Harris
Assistant Building Inspector
DJH/Jmh
Citp of *a[em, Aaggarbugettg
j3ublic Propertp Department
�s
j6uilbing -8epartment
®ne t6alem Orren
745-9595 Cxt. 380
William H. Munroe
Director of Public Property
inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
July 20, 1990
Richard W. Stafford
Tinti, Quinn & Savoy
222 Essex Street
Salem, MA. 01970
Dear Mr. Stafford:
This is in response to the letter regarding 9 Cambridge Street, Salem, MA.,
dated July 17, 1990.
The conversion of a single family residence to a two family residence in an
R-2 District would be permitted, however, it must meet the requirements of the
residential density regulations of Table I of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance.
A two family residence that does not meet the requirements of Table I would
be allowed if it were in existance prior to the adoption of the City of Salem
Zoning Ordinance (August 27, 1965) .
In conclusion, if a two family residence on a substandard lot abandoned it's
use to a one family dwelling for more than two years, (Section VII, E.6) , it would
then need to seek relief from the Board of Appeal to convert it back to a two
family residence.
Sincerely,
David J. Harriss
Assistant Building Inspector
DJH/jmh
P 268 691 764
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED
NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
(See Reverse)
N
a MIN) . 51G-('W6
m Str a No
°�
aZIPC e�
N
Postage S2 —
c -
rectified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt showing
to whom and Date Delivered
N
Return Receipt showingwhom,
Date,and Address of Delivery
y
j TOTAL Postage and Fees S
0 Postmark or Date
n
E
0
a
N
a
STICK POSTAGE STAMPS TO ARTICLE TO COVER FIRST CLASS POSTAGE,
CERTIFIED MAIL FEE,AND CHARGES FOR ANY SELECTED OPTIONAL SERVICES.)see hoM)
1. If you want this receipt postmarked,stick the gummed stub to the night of the return address leaving
the receipt attached and present the article at a post office service window or hand it to your rural carrier.
(no extra charge)
2. It you do not want this receipt postmarked,stick the gummed stub to the right of the return address of
the article,date,detach and retain the receipt,and mail the article.
3. Ii you want a return receipt,write the certified mail number and your name and address on a return
receipt card,Form 3811,and attach it to the front of the article by means of the gummed ends it space per-
mits.Otherwise,affix to back of article.Endorse front of article RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
adjacent to the number.
4. If you want delivery restricted to the addressee,or to an authorized agent of the addressee,endorse
RESTRICTED DELIVERY on the front of the article.
5. Enter fees for the services requested in the appropriate spaces on the front of this receipt.If return
receipt is requested,check the applicable blocks in Item 1 of Form 3811.
6. Save this receipt and present it it you make inquiry, tius.G.P.o.19e9-23a55S
• SENDER: Complete items 1 and 2 when additional services are desired, and complete items
3 and 4.
Put your address in the"RETURN TO" Space on the averse side. Failure to do this will prevent this card
from being-returned to you.The return recei t fee will rovide nu the name of the erson delivered to and
the date of deliver . For additional ees t e of owing services are avai a le. ons t postmaster or ees
and eck box lest or additional servicelsl requested.
1. S 1f ow to whom delivered, date, and addressee's address. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery
(Extra charge) (Extra charge)
3. Article Addressed to: ::3,;, 4. Article Number
�jiChGrCf S�t��r�rd - •=
I1n L I U t°T '�t fi SGJo'1� Type of Service:
( `^ C ❑ Registered ❑ Insured
22 -2 ESSeK Jt' �lertified ElCOD
❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt
jGIP ( I� ' QIg7� for Merehandise
_ I� Alwa ,eo!tam signature of addressee
Ur; or agent and DATE DELIVERED.
5. Signatu ssee 8. Addressee's Address (ONLY if
X requested and fee paid)
6. Signature — Agent
X
7. Date Delivery
PS Form 3811, Apr. 1989 tU.S.G.P.O.1989-238-815 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE I II II
OFFICIAL BUSINESS '
SENDER INSTRUCTIONS
Print your name,address and ZIP Code
In the space below.
• Complete items 1,2.3,and 4 on the
U.S.MAIL
reverse. �G
• Attach to front of article if space
permits, otherwise affix to back of
article. PENALTY FOR PRIVATE
• Endorse article "Return Receipt USE, $300
Requested" adjacent to number.
RETURN Print Sender's name, address, and ZIP Code in the space below.
TO 6 ,
Iia r r 15- t� Idg��(✓ .
C oe &Ie� Greer) - v)cfI.
Clem Mrq - 01920
Citp of 6a[em, ;01aggaCbU!5ettg
°' �• Public Propertp Mepartment
, a
���pm„ewN Nuilbing Mepartment
One #*alem Oreen
745-9595 ext. 380
William H. Munroe
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
July 20, 1990
Richard W. Stafford
Tinti, Quinn & Savoy
222 Essex Street
Salem, MA. 01970
Dear Mr. Stafford:
This is in response to the letter regarding�9 Cambridge_Street, Salem, MA. ,
dated July 17, 1990.
The conversion of a single family residence to a two family residence in an
R-2 District would be permitted, however, it must meet the requirements of the
residential density regulations of Table I of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance.
A two family residence that does not meet the requirements of Table I would
be allowed if it were in existance prior to the adoption of the City of Salem
Zoning Ordinance (August 27, 1965) .
In conclusion, if a two family residence on a substandard lot abandoned it's
use to a one family dwelling for more than two years, (Section VII, E.6) , it would
then need to seek relief from the Board of Appeal to convert it back to a two
family residence.
i
Sincerely,
David J. Harris
Assistant Building Inspector
DJH/jmh
=A
LAW OFFICES OF
GEORGE P. VALLIS
ONE CHURCH STREET
SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970
15081745-0500
GEORGE P.VALLIS
August 7, 1990
C� c9 CO
4�
Mr . David J . Harris C� co Assistant Building Inspector o
Building Department
One Salem Green z-r^ c'
Salem, MA 01970 = C,
-v -o
RE : _9 Cambr I dge StreetlSa I emj .
Dear Mr . Harris :
Your letter of July 20, 1990 addressed to Attorney Richard W.
Stafford regarding property .owned by Mr . & Mrs. Michael E . Tomsho has
been delivered to my office by Mrs . Tomsho for my evaluation .
With all due respect , I must disagree with your conclusion that a
conversion of a one-family house Into a two-family house In an existing
R-2 Zone requires Board of Appeal approval .
The building in question was constructed several decades prior to
1965 and is a legal non-conforming building and the two-family use is a
permitted use.
I refer you to Section VI , Paragraph A which Indicates that Table I
shall affect dwellings hereafter erected , that is, buildings erected
after August 27 , 1965.
Mrs . Tomsho assures me that the lot on which the building stands
shall not be changed in size or shape and that no exterior changes are
contemplated on the building .
It would seem to me therefore that the Tomshos are entitled to all
necessary permits for work to be done in the Interior of the building
A copy of this letter and yours of July 20th have been forwarded to
Mr . Daly, City Solicitor , for his evaluation .
Very r I y urs ,
GEOG P . LISS
GPV/KMM
Enclosures
y M
I DEE NSI TY REGULATIONS SECT ICV dl
A. Residential uses
A dn•elling hereafter erected in any district shall be loc_tec:
on a lot having not less than the minimum requirements set,
forth in T BLE I , and no more than one clwell.ing shall be
built upon any such lot . No existing lot shall be. changed
in size or shape so as to result in a. violation of the
requirements set forth in TABLE I .
In interpreting TABLE I , the follo% ing provisions shall
apply:
1. The minimum front yard depth rep:,ired shall be measured
from the right-of-way line, where a plan of the right-
of-way is on file with the F.eOS7:ry of Deeds, or from
a line thirty-five (35) feet from and parallel vii. tii
the center line of the traveled :ay; in the absence of
of such a plan, to the front building line.
2. The minimum side yard width required shall be measured
from the side lot line to the side building line, and
the minimum rear yard depth required shall be measured
from the rear lot line to the rear building line.
3. On a corner lot , the minimum iroat yard depth rather
C than the minimum side yard wid n shall b- applied to
determine the setback of any building from lot linea
abutting any public way.
4 . The minimum lot width required shall be measured at the
rear of the required front yard depth and on a line
parallel to the right-of-way lire, where a plan of the
right-of-way is on file with the Registry of Deeds , or
from a line twenty-five (25) feet from and parallel with
the center line of the traveled w,ay, in the absence
of such a plan.
5. The building height shall be measured fron the average
elevation of the proposed finished grade at the front
line of the building to the highest point of the root:
for flat roofs, to the deck line for mansard roofs , and
to the mean height betv;een eaves and ridge for gable,
hip, anal gambrel roofs . Fences and walls shall be
measured from the finish grade vertically to the high-st
point .
6 ('i limitations on height of buildini;s shall not app!,;
in any cl.istrict to spires , to•..ecs , ceir•n_; s , b.roai :.slip_,
and i on anti:n naP, vCilt i IaLors , and U 'i.h•er ai):l>;� C.--
F ances or ornamental features uivally located abo .-e the
r roof , _h ich features are in no '.:ay used for living 1;,irp0s >_ ,
' nor to farm buildings , Churches , municipal bu:ildin'-s , or
institutional buildi.ns .
• „S
QLAty of 6alem, Aaz!5acbu!5ett5
public Propertp Mepartinent
3Buitbing Mcpartment
-Ant cdizr
m :�rrzn
745-9595 C::t. 1-80
William H. Munroe
l');-�c-or of Public Property
c j Suilciingc
Zoninq Enforcement Officer
July 20, 1990
Richard W. Stafford
Tinti, Quinn & Savoy
222 Essex Street
SF-..Iem, MA. 01970
Dear Mr. '0,rrifi,:rd:
This is in response to the letter regarding 9 -Zaoibridge Street, Salem, Mk- ,
dated July i7, 1990.
The conversion of a single family residence to a two family residence in an
R-2 Dis-rict would be permitted, however, it must meet the requirements of the
,:esideaitiai A-rlszity regulations of Tahle ? of the C-:',y of Salem Zoning On:'-4nanc---
A two fnmilv residence that do---, not meet the r—Tuirempnts of Tab]� T wools
ee
be allows-,i if it were in existence prior to the adoption of the City of Salem
Zoning Ordinance (August 27, 1965) .
In conclusion, if a two family residence on a substandard lot abandoned it's
use to a one family dwelling for more than two years, (Section VII, E.6) , it would
then need to seek relief from the Board of Appeal to convert it back to a two
family residence.
Sincerely,
David J. Harris
Assistant Building Inspector
DJH/jmh
rq' �DENSITY RLGULAiiONS SLLIION VI
TABLE I
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY REGULATIONS
R R- I ::::R-2 R-3
I
Minimum Lot Area (so. ft. ) 80,000 15,000 115,000 25,000
Minimum Lot Area per dwell in unit 80,000 15,000 17,500 3.500 i
Minimum Lot Width (ft.) 200 I 100 100 100
Maximum Lot Coverage by all buildings 20= 30% 35$ 35L
Minimum Depth of Front Yard (ft.) 40 15 15 I 15
Minimum Wie_h of Side Yard (ft.) 40 10 to 20
Minimum Depth of Rear Yard (ft.) 100 I 30 I 30 30
Maximum Height of Buildings (ft.) 35 35 I 35 `-"45
Maximum Height of Buildings (No.of Stories) ` - 21: 27 27 3} I
l
Maximum Height of Fences/BoundaryWa] ls(ft.) 6 6 6 1 6
Minimum Distance Between buildin s on lot 100 40 30 40
Density Regulations in R-1 Districts will not apply to Dormitories built
by the Salem Hospital or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts State College
at Salem.
These density regulations relative to height will apply to all housing pro-
jects even though financed in whole or in part by the U.S. Public Housing
Authority and/or Commonwealth of Massachusetts , Department of Community
Affairs, Division of Public Housing. Specifically excluded will be housi-:-
for the elderly constructed by the Salem Housing Authority.
Multi-Family dwellings building in R-3 Districts on lots held under a single
ownership and consisting of a minimum of two hundred thousand (200,000)
square feet may be built to a maximum height of 50 feet or four stories i ^
height (2/3/75)
B •. ai ..ir•; s.-,i l ; , boundary walls and/or fences nay be built abutting :h erty
Tic 'ei .'iL of the retaining walls, boundary wall, and/or fence; sh_ II be
o-• tce inside face of the structure on the owner' s side .
Refer to Section VII-G for "Visibility at Intersections."
40
n.,
NONCONFORMITY SECTIOn VIII
E . t;nncr r. 'o: r..inr Gse of Srructure
b: a Siructurc' , or iL StrU, l.tlre :,n,:
comb Lr..a Lion e}fiats that would not bi' ailoweJ in the UiSL:' ict
under the terms of this Ordinance or amendment , the use
may be continued so ion-, as it remains otherwise lawful ,
subject to the following provisions :
1 . No existing structure devoted to a use not permitted
t•:• this Ordinance in the district in e:ei,,h it is :(_,".atod
s^all be enlarged , extcnded , constructed , reconstructed ,
mored , or structurally altered .:xcept in chan;in ; th use
of the structure to a use permitted in th- district
in which it is located.
2. Anti nonconforming use may be extended throughout any
parts of a building, which were manifestly a:r't:.ge er
0est9ned for such use at the ti..^e of adoption or amend-
ment of this Ordinance , but no such use shall be e:.tended
to occupy any land outside such building .
3 . On any building devoted in whole or in part to any non-
conforming use , work may be done in any period of twelve
consecutive months on ordinary repairs , or on repair or
replacement of nonbearing walls , fixtures , wirir.r or
plumbing to an extent not exceeding ten percent of the
current replacement value of the building, provided the
cubic content of the building as it existed at the time
of passage or amendment of this Ordinance shall not be
increased.
4 . If no structural alterations are made , any nonconforming
use of a structure, or structure and premises, may be
changed to another nonconforming use provided that the
Board of Appeals , either by general rule or by making
findings in the specific case , shall find that the proposed
use is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the
district than the existing nonconforming use . In permitting
such change , the Board of Appeals may require appropriate
conditions and safeguards in accord with the provisions
of this Ordinance.
5. Any i• structure , or structure and land in combination, in
or on which a nonconforming use is superceded by a permitted
use , shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the
district in which such structure is located and the non-
conforming use may not thereafter be resumed .
t; . Anv nunconformin„ use of land or structure and ani•
n•)nconforming structure shall lose whatever rights
rnight otherwise exist to its continuation under this
section if said use or structure shall be abandoned or
not used for a period of two years or more.
ti 6
F SECTICN VIII
NgNCgNFqitMITY
Porn
Not'::I :._ .andwZ anythin; to th<< contrary uppEmir.,., in
th1 n_'C;l::a t' thu L'wIrd of !gppe.Lls .^.I:tv ; r;: nt Spcc: ir: 1
Permits as authorized by Section F-8- 10 and Section IF- D .
when the samE� may be granted Wthout substanLial
detriment to the public good and v:ithout Milliiyir.7
or ziub-.antia.11y derogAti.ng from the Vitunt aTIO FUjpi)S!
or this Ordinance.
�7
131UIL01fi0 0Er'PT
TINTI, QUINN & SAVOY p
222 ESSEX STREET JUL (8 N qD pH 'SO
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01070 VV V
RECEIVED pQ
WILLIAM J. TINTI
(508)'145-8005.744-2948.041-4241 CITY OF SAL414,
WILLIAM F. QUINN
FAX(508)745-3309
RICHARD E. SAVOY
PETER R. MERRY
RICHARD W. STAFFORD JEFFREY A. SCHREIBER
SCOTT M. GROVER OF COUNSEL
MARK W. BARRETT
MARC P. FREY
July 17 , 1990
Mr. William Monroe
City of Salem -
Zoning Enforcement Officer
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Re: 9 Cambridge Street , Salem
Dear Mr . Monroe:
I have been requested to advise Michael and Ann Tomsho
regarding what, if any, zoning relief they may require to complete
the restoration of their property to a two=family residence.
The facts as they have been presented to me are as follows :
1 . The Premises are located in a two-family, residential
(R-2) District.
2 . The lot is undersized but is legally non-conforming
since it predates the adoption of the zoning provision
which rendered it undersized.
3 . The structure located on the lot is non-conforming as to
certain of the dimensional requirements of the Ordinance,
but is legally non-conforming since it also predates the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance which rendered it
non-conforming.
It is my opinion, and I have so advised Mr. and Mrs . Tomsho,
that provided they file for and obtain a lawfully required building
permit , they do not require any zoning relief in order to use the
property as a two-family dwelling, since that is a use permitted as
of right in the R-2 District . Because the work performed will not
result in any enlargement, extension or addition to the existing
structure, no zoning relief is required relative to those legal
non-conformities .
Mr. William Monroe
July 17 , 1990
Page 2
Mr. and Mrs . Tomsho are eager to continue the work involved
in re-establishing their two-family and I would appreciate receiving
your opinion at your earliest convenience. If any of the facts
which I have recited are contrary to the information in your files ,
please let me know. Enclosed please find a check in the amount of
$30 .00 for payment of the same.
Thank you for your kind cooperation, as always .
VerV Ox1 YYours
Richard W. Stafford
RWS/bs
Enclosure
WM/TXTBAMBI
�. CUP of harem, Alaggacbm;ettg
Public Propertp Department
Nuitbing Department
One fiakm Orem
745-9595 Cxt. 380
William H. Munroe
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
November 9, 1989
Mr—Michael Tamsho
�9__Carr ridge Street
Salem, MA. 01970
Dear Mr. Tamsho:
Your application for a building permit has been denied for the following
reasons:
1) . Check is unsigned.
2) . Fire Department approval is necessary.
You may re-apply for a permit once these issues have been resolved.
Enclosed is your permit application and check for $20.00.
Please contact me if you need any further assistance.
�Sincgf$ly,�(�/�I.li'��
David J. Harris
Assistant Building Inspector
DJH/jmh
Cftp of 6aiem, ftlaggacbuottg
Public Propertp Department
��NIN6 �3uilbing 3Mtpartment
(One Oalem Green
745-9595 ext. 380
William H. Munroe
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
September 18, 1990
George P. Vallis, Esq.
One Church Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 9 Cambridge St. (R-2)
Dear Mr. Vallis:
As per your request I have forwarded the information
submitted with regards to 9 Cambridge Street to the City
Legal Department for an opinion as to the legal status of
the property.
Upon receipt of this opinion I will be please to provide
you with a copy.
Sincerely,
�
William H. Munroe
Inspector of Buildings
WHM:bms
cc: Leonard Femino, Esq.
Assistant City Solicitor
FIA91t4c. DEPT'
LAW OFFICES OF
GEORGE P. VALLIS
ONE CHURCH STREET !�
SALyEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 SEP 12 / 26 PH 190
— RECENED
150W 745-0500 CITY OF SALEA,NASS,'
GEORGE P.VALLIS
September 13 , 1990
Mr . William H . Munroe
Inspector of Buildings
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE : 9 Cambridge Street , Salem
Owners : Michael and Anne Tomsho
Dear Mr . Munroe :
This office represents Mr . & Mrs. Michael Tomsho, owners of
property at 9 Cambridge Street , Salem.
As you may be aware, they are desirous of using their property
which contains 3 , 560 square feet of land as a two-family dwelling .
They wish to Install two gas and electric meters on the
building but have been notified by your office by letter dated July
20, 1990 that their house Is not a legal two family dwelling and
that they are required to seek relief from the Board of Appeal . A
copy of your office' s letter signed by David Harris accompanies this
letter .
As you know the property is located in a R-2 District . Of
Interest but not necessarily pertinent Is the fact that the property
was used for many decades prior to the time of ownership by Mr . &
Mrs . Tomsho as a two-family and multl -family use.
The Issue quite simply is whether a dwelling house located In
a two-family district containing 3 , 560 square feet of land and used
during the past 4-5 years as a single family residence can now be
used as a two-family residence.
Your letter of July 20, 1990 makes reference in the last
paragraph that " if a two-famlly residence or substandard lot
abandoned Its use to a single-family dwelling for more than two
years" relief from the Board of Appeal is needed to convert it back
to two-family use and you .clte Section Vlll E . 6 of the Zoning
Ordinance .
Mr . William H. Munroe
Inspector of Buildings
September 13 , 1990
Page 2
That section refers to abandonment of a non-conforming use of
land or structure.
I submit to you that the two-family use is not a
non-conforming and that neither the land nor the structure have been
abandoned during the last two years.
A letter written by the previous City Solicitor , Michael
O 'Brien which , I am given to believe that you are relying on In your
determination of two-family uses, refers to Chapter 40A, Section 6.
That Section begins as follows, "Except as hereinafter provided , a
Zoning Ordinance or by-law shall not apply to structures or uses
lawfully In existence. . . " . I submit to you that a careful reading
of the exceptions stated in the remainder of Section 6 do not apply
to this property.
Section VI of the Salem Zoning Ordinance relating to Density
Regulations to which you also referred In your letter of July 20th
begins by stating that "A dwelling hereinafter erected In any
district . . . " must conform to the density requirements. (underlines
Supplied)
Mr . & Mrs . Tomsho have no intention to add, change or alter ,
In any way, the exterior of the building and i therefore believe
that they are entitled to any and all electrical and plumbing
permits which they seek .
If you refuse to Issue the requested building permits within
fourteen ( 14) days , I shall seek relief from the Board of Appeal in
accordance with Chapter 40A, Section 8 .
Very/ I ours,
i
GE VALLIS
GPV/kmm /
Enclosure
Citp of alem, Aasgacb gettg
ary t+q
Public Property Mepartment
�6uilbing department
nz aaizm .�rr.�
745-9495 L':I„ 390
W iiiiarn h. Munroe
r .--.or of Pubiie Property
nr _7. .: ._: Sr,ildingr
Zcnia_ Enforcement Office-
July 20, 1990
Richard W. Stafford
Tinti, Quinn & Savoy
222 Essex Street
Sr..lem, MA. 0197•^,
Dear Mr. St�i`f.,d:
This is in response to the letter regarding 9 ,ambridge Street, Salem, MA. ,
dated July i7, 1990.
The conversion of a single family residence to a two family residence in an
R-2 Dis -rict would be permitted, however, it must meet the requiremnts of the
resid4e3tial a?:city regulations of Table 1 of the C_t_y of Sale-m Zoning
A tac Fa i i v residence that doe, not meet the r-Tu:rezments of Tab?P T woul(C
be allowca if it were in existance prior to the adoption of the City of Salem
Zoning Ordinance (August 27, 1965) .
In conclusion, if a two family residence on a substandard�yylot abandoned it's
use to a one family dwelling for more than two years, (SectiorPVIIJLE.6) , it would
then need to seek relief fran the Hoard of Appeal to convert it back to a two
family residence.
Sincerely,
David J. Harris
Assistant Building Inspector
DJHjjmh
,NONCONFORMITY SECTION 4' 1 11
E, ;;nncr, ._a:•-. nc Us r- of Structure
Sf .. oC a stt'ucture , c a stru, rr,.• ..n:i U: Se�
co^binaLicn exists that c%-ould noz b,� allowel in t ::nc� u strict.
under the terms of this Ordinance or arr,endment , the se
may be continued so ion, as it remains otherwise lawful ,
subject to the following provisions :
1 . he existing structure denoted to a use not permitt. <1
b- this Ordinance in the district in r:ci,.h it is : ccatcd
shall be enlar;ed , extended , constructed , reconstructed ,
moved , or structurally altered except in chan„inz th-� us(-
of
seof the structure to a use permitted in tl:n district
in which it is located.
2 . Anv nonconforming use may be extended throughout any
r_rts of a building, which were manifestly arrt.:.gec: or
ao., idned for such use at the time of adoption or a^end-
ment 'of this Ordinance , but no such use shall be e:,ter,dad
to occupy any land outside such building .
3 . On any building devoted in whole or in part to any non-
conforming use , work may be done in any period of twelve
consecutive months on ordinary repairs, or on repair or
,eplacement of nonbearing malls , fixtures, wirin, or
Plumbing to an extent not exceedinti ten percent of the
current replacement value of the building, provided the
cubic content of the building as it existed at the time
of passage or amendment of this Ordinance shall not be
increased.
4 . If no structural alterations are made, any nonconforming
use of a structure, or structure and premises , may be
changed to another nonconforming use provided that the
Board of Appeals , either by general rule or by making
findings in the specific case , shall find that the proposed
use is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the
district than the existing nonconforming; use . In permitting
such change , the Board of Appeals may require appropriate
conditions and safeguards in accord with the provisions
of this Ordinance .
S . Any structure , or structure and land in combination , in
or on which a nonconforming use is superceded by a permitted
use , shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the
district in which such structure is located and the non-
c�n.formino use may not thereafter be resumed.
6 . nu.n.conforming ti>e of land or structure and ar,t•
n';nconforming structure shall lose whatever rinnts
might otherwise exist to its continuation under this
s'?cTion if said use or structure shall be abandoned or
not used for a period of two years or more .
Li fi
mmmmmmw
4 NONCON7 ORMtTY SECTICN loll
ir
Not .:i _._' . �..d,a anpthiI, t., t contrar: a;>neacin;, i :t
this O�ciin.ar. thc Cwird of t,i,,ic to �:Lv 'r;; nt
Pe-mits as authorized by action V-8- 10 and Suct 'ion IS - G .
when the same s,ay be granted without suh:,tar. Lia1
cletrime:it to the public good and without null. iiyin-
or t.L.)at?.ntlially devog.tting fro.^.t thr, lttL<;itt anT .'' pucpriSe
or this Ordinance.
rl�
'OOM
Salem Historical Commission
CITY HALL. SALEM. MASS. ot990
�J�OINM6��Y
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has
determined that the proposed construction [ ] ; reconstruction [ ];
demolition [ ] ; moving [ ] ; alteration [ ] ; painting � ]; sign or
other appurtenant fixture [ ] work as described below in the . . .
Mcln,Lilce Historic District.
(NAME OF HISTORIC DISTRICT)
Address of Property: 9 Cambtidge St.
Name of Record Owner: David B. Coyle
DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROPOSED:
Paint co.Eou as pen paint chips suppZi.ed with appt,ication dated 7/15/93.
Body - piIikish shade
TA m - o6 ' white shade
will be appropriate to the preservation of said Historic District, as per
the requirements set forth in the Historic District's Act (Mass. General Law
Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission. Please be sure to obtain the
appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings prior to commencing work.
Dated:Augutst 2, 1993 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
By
Chairman