May 16, 2003 [Homeowner] James A. Sperber Office of Building Inspector 25 Green Street Ipswich, MA 01938 Dear Mr.

Sperber: Thank you for your letter dated May 7, 2003, which was received via first class mail on May 10, 2003. This letter will be addressed by paragraph and a copy of your letter for your reference will be included with this letter. Paragraph 1: The site visit that you refer to in the first paragraph was illegal. You trespassed on posted private property (which you have identified in your letter as 6 Mill Road, map 53C, parcel 023A) without invitation. You again entered said private property illegally on May 6, 2003. You again illegally entered said private property on May 7, 2003. You are hereby put on notice that you or anyone else may not enter said property without invitation. Paragraph 2: There is no non-authorized work being performed on said property. With respect to your comment about Jeff Turner, it is inappropriate and unprofessional, as it has nothing to do with the context of your letter. Paragraph 3 & 4: There is no commercial work or commercial business on said private property. Said private property is just that, private, not open to the public. There is no contract with the Town of Ipswich or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Paragraph 5: Building codes were instituted for public safety said private property is not open to the public. Owners of said private property take full responsibility for said private property. Neither the Town of Ipswich nor the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has any responsibility for said private property. Paragraph 6 & 7: Not applicable (see above). The following legal research proves the above assertion unequivocally: The laws of Massachusetts require ALL buildings and ALL remodeling or additions to be inspected by the county or Commonwealth building inspectors there are no exceptions. However, a building is defined as a public building open to the public - it does not mean that a private home is a building. Therefore, said private property including all structures thereon, and all other private homes are exempt from these inspections or permits. This agrees with common sense in that because it is private land one is free to do whatever one wants to ones private property as long as one does not cause harm to others. Here is an excerpt from a recent MASS Supreme Court decision that rules this very issue to be true: "The owner . . . being the party in control, of a place of assembly, theatre, special hall, public hall, factory, workshop, manufacturing establishment or building shall comply with the provisions of . . . the state building code relative thereto, and such person shall be liable to any person injured for all damages caused by a violation of any of said provisions." We have already concluded that the statute does not apply to a single-family house. See Eakin, (1998). In that case, we said that the Legislature could not have intended the word "building" in the statute, "which appears in a series with other, more specific words ('assembly, theatre, special hall, public hall, factory,

workshop, manufacturing establishment') to mean any and every structure." Id. See Santos (1996). We proceed from that point to determine whether the word "building" encompasses an owner-occupied family home. In considering the language of the statute, the doctrine of ejusdem generis is applicable: "Where general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words." 2A N.J. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction 47.17, at 273-274 (6th ed. rev. 2000). See Powers n.8 (1984). The doctrine is most appropriate when a series of several terms is listed that concludes with the disputed language. See Perlera n.8 (1999). Each of the words in the series preceding the disputed word describes a place of public or commercial use. The final word, "building," is a general word. Pursuant to the doctrine of ejusdem generis, we construe the general word "building" to refer to structures similar in nature to those described by the preceding specific words, i.e., places of public or commercial use, places of assembly or places of work. "'Building' [in the statute] must be read to refer to structures used for purposes like those of the other structures listed." Eakin, supra at 592. An owner-occupied family home is not a "building" within the terms of the statute. "The large number of owners of [these types of homes] in the Commonwealth should not be exposed to expanded civil liability deriving from the regulatory provisions of chapter 143 except by express and clear legislation evidencing that intention." Santos at 94. See Lindsey (1977). We do not attempt to define the class encompassed by the statute more precisely, see Santos, supra at 92, preferring to leave that either to the Legislature or to development on future factual records.*fn5 The broad definition of "building" found in G. L. c. 143,("In this chapter the following terms . . . shall have the following meanings") as "a combination of any materials, whether portable or fixed, having a roof, to form a structure for the shelter of persons, animals or property," does not alter our interpretation. Although this global definition may be appropriate for various sections of G.L. c.143, if it were applied to the instant section, it would render the remaining words in the listing superfluous. We do not read a statute so as to render any of its terms meaningless or superfluous. Bynes (1991), and cases cited. See also St. Germaine (1992) ("It is apparent . . . from the specific types of structures mentioned in 51 . . . and the definition contained in G. L. c. 143, 1 . . . for the general term 'building,' that 51 is not meant to apply to a single family home that is under construction"). See Santos at 93. There is nothing to indicate that the private home is public or commercial in the sense of the words of the statute. I am thanking you in advance for your expected cooperation with regard to the rights of said posted private property, the rights of my invited guests, the rights of my family, as well as my rights. I shall seek and enforce all of my rights to the fullest extent of the law. Sincerely, [Homeowner signature] Cc; Robert Hyde, Ipswich Town Counsel Jeff Turner, Ipswich Board of Selectmen Frank Ranganese, Town Manager Patrick J. Donovan Associates, Inc.